![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
There's a passing mention of a possible link with Lilienthal in Germany and several of the newspapers from 1902 and 1903 mention a linkup with W D Custead. There seems to be little about Custead about but Lilenthal is a major figure and if there is a reliable source for a link it shouldn't be in the Legacy as such but in the proper chronological part. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 19:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines of various types between 1897 to 1915. Controversy has surrounded press reports, eyewitness accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew his powered airplanes several times in 1901 and 1902, which would have predated the first flight made by the Wright Brothers in 1903.
In 1901, a newspaper article written by an uncredited eyewitness, stated that Whitehead had made a powered controlled flight in Connecticut in August that year. In the months afterward, information from the article was widely reported being reprinted in dozens of newspapers throughout the U.S. and in Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a book about industrial progress that classified aviation as a commercial industry in 1904.
Whitehead later worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines for aircraft. He fell out of public notice by 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927. In the late 1930s, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had indeed made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier.
In the years that followed, spirited debate arose among scholars, researchers, aviation enthusiasts and Orville Wright on the question of whether Whitehead preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. Research in the 1960s and 70s and pro-Whitehead books in 1966 and 1978 led mainstream historians to renew examination of the claims. The Smithsonian Institution, has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew, while Whitehead supporters emphasize that the Smithsonian made an agreement with heirs of the Wright brothers in 1948 to recognize Wilbur and Orville as first to make a controlled, powered flight.
No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered flight is known to exist. A modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown near-replicas of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine, using modern propellers and engines.
There continues to be a sharp difference of findings among aviation historians as to what Whitehead in fact accomplished. Some historians insist that he was the first man to fly in a powered flying machine in 1901, while others believe none of his machines ever flew. In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine which has stirred up debate over who flew first. The state of Connecticut, has since passed legislation stating Whitehead flew in 1901. Tomticker5 ( talk) 15:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines of various types between 1897 to 1915. Controversy has surrounded press reports, eyewitness accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901 and 1902, which would have predated the first flights made by the Wright Brothers in 1903.
In 1901, a newspaper article written by an unidentified eyewitness, stated that Whitehead had made a powered flight in Connecticut in August that year. In the months afterward, information from the article was widely reported being reprinted in dozens of newspapers throughout the U.S. and in Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a book about industrial progress that classified aviation as a commercial industry in 1904.
Whitehead later worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines. He fell out of public notice by 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927. In the late 1930s, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had indeed made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier.
Research in the 1960s and 70s, and books written supporting his claim of successful flight in 1966 and 1978, led mainstream historians to renew the examination of the claims. Decades of spirited debate arose among scholars, researchers and aviation enthusiasts over the question of whether Whitehead preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. The Smithsonian Institution has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew, while Whitehead supporters emphasize that the Smithsonian made an agreement with heirs of the Wright brothers in 1948 to recognize Wilbur and Orville as first to make a controlled, powered flight.
No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered flight is known to exist. A modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown near-replicas of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine, using modern propellers and engines.
There continues to be a sharp difference of findings among aviation historians as to what Whitehead in fact accomplished. Some historians insist that he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine in 1901, while others believe none of his machines ever flew. In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine which has stirred up debate over who flew first. The state of Connecticut, has since passed legislation stating Whitehead flew in 1901." Tomticker5 ( talk) 16:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Revision
"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines of various types between 1897 and 1915. Controversy has surrounded press reports, eyewitness accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901 and 1902, which predate the flights by the Wright Brothers in 1903.
In 1901, a newspaper article, written as an eyewitness account, stated that Whitehead had made a powered flight in Connecticut in August that year. In the months that followed, information from the article was widely reprinted and copied and appeared in several dozen newspapers throughout the U.S. and in Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a book about industrial progress in 1904. Whitehead later worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines. He fell out of public notice by 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927.
In 1937, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had indeed made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier. Decades of spirited debate arose among scholars, researchers and aviation enthusiasts over the question of whether Whitehead had preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. Research in the 1960s and 70s, and books written supporting his claim of successful flight in 1966 and 1978, led mainstream historians to renew the examination of the claims.
No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered flight is known to exist. A modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown near-replicas of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine, using modern propellers and engines.
The Smithsonian Institution has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew, while Whitehead supporters emphasize that the Smithsonian made an agreement with heirs of the Wright brothers in 1948 in order to display the Wright Flyer plane. There continues to be a sharp difference of findings among aviation historians as to what Whitehead accomplished. Some historians insist that he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine in 1901, while others believe none of his machines ever flew.
In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, a regarded annual aviation publication, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine which has reignited debate over who flew first. This has led the Connecticut General Assembly to adopt new legislation stating that Whitehead flew in 1901." Tomticker5 ( talk) 17:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Revision
"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines of various types between 1897 and 1915. Controversy has surrounded press reports, eyewitness accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901 and 1902, which predate the flights by the Wright Brothers in 1903.
In 1901, a newspaper article, written as an eyewitness account, stated that Whitehead had made a powered flight in Connecticut in August that year. In the months that followed, information from the article was widely reprinted and copied and appeared in several dozen newspapers throughout the U.S. and in Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a book about industrial progress in 1904. Whitehead later worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines. He fell out of public notice by 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927.
In 1937, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had indeed made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier. Spirited debate arose among scholars, researchers and aviation enthusiasts over the question of whether Whitehead had preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. Research in the 1960s and 70s, and books written supporting his claim of successful flight in 1966 and 1978, led mainstream historians to renew the examination of the claims.
No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered flight is known to exist. A modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown near-replicas of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine, using modern propellers and engines.
The Smithsonian Institution has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew, while Whitehead supporters emphasize that the Smithsonian made an agreement with heirs of the Wright brothers in 1948 in order to display the Wright Flyer plane. There continues to be a sharp difference of findings among aviation historians as to what Whitehead accomplished. Some historians insist that he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine in 1901, while others believe none of his machines ever flew.
In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, a regarded annual aviation industry publication, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine, which has reignited debate over who flew first. The Connecticut General Assembly has recently passed legislation, stating their annual Powered Flight Day will now be in honor of the first powered flight by Gustave Whitehead, rather than the Wright Brothers." Tomticker5 ( talk) 18:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
“Eyewitness accounts” in the first paragraph, and “statements from eyewitnesses” in the third paragraph should be changed to “alleged eyewitness accounts” and “statements from alleged eyewitnesses” or something similar.
To say that Whitehead built flying machines in the first paragraph might give the reader the impression that whitehead built machines that flew under their own power, when that is a significant point of contention.
Is there a reliable source that says that “he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines”?
“near-replicas” seems to be suggesting that their contraptions were significantly similar to whiteheads, when some might argue that modern engines make them significantly different from whiteheads.
Calling Jane’s “a regarded annual aviation industry publication” seems intensely bias. Many would argue that their recent endorsement of Whitehead has denigrated them to being a “trashy gossip rag” or a “purveyor of sensationalist bullshit”. Why not just say that “In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine, which has reignited debate over who flew first.”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 20:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The word of Octave Chanute seems like a good source. If he thought Whitehead built lightweight engines, then I see no reason to doubt that Whitehead had a reputation for being able to build lightweight engines. However, the claim that Whitehead was “well known” seems very difficult to substantiate.
I don’t see what’s wrong with "machines meant to fly". I understand the use of the expression “flying machine” in the context of early aviation, but the reader may not. I also don’t see the value of using a period expression when "machines meant to fly" could communicate the concept with less bias.
While the qualifier "modern engines and modern propellers" does express the idea that the machines are not perfect replicas of Whitehead’s contraption, it is the expression “near-replica” which seems inappropriate. If I strapped a cotton gin onto a Saturn V rocket no reasonable person would argue that a “near-replica” of a cotton gin was capable of space flight. The engines and propellers make all the difference in the world. “Machine which might superficially resemble Whitehead no. 21 to the untrained eye but is actually powered by a much lighter and more powerful engine and more efficient propellers” seems like a much more accurate expression, but it isn’t very eloquent, and will probably attract objections. Perhaps a Whitehead supporter could propose a compromise which is truthful yet less objectionable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 00:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Some thoughts, mostly for mutal enlightenment, not really debating contentious points....
Carroll said: "I think that we need to alert our readers that Jane's is not an historical publication but a commercial industry publication..." I heartily agree. That's part of the reason I was very pleased at the qualifier that replaced "authoritative" for the first mention of Jane's. If used, a qualifier should also make clear that Jane's is highly-regarded/respected/world-class/what-have-you.
Regarding "eyewitnesses": First of all, we must keep in mind that there are (at least) two sets of witnesses: those from 14 Aug 1901, and those from other unspecified dates, as stated in the affidavits. We should be careful, where appropriate, to identify which group we're referring to when writing about "witnesses" in the article. To cut to the chase: I would not object to using "alleged" or "supposed" to describe witnesses from either group. Neither am I certain that's the correct thing to do. Those words do cast doubt on the veracity of the witnesses. In other words, our article is taking the position that these people may not be telling the truth, or may be making inaccurate statements--all of which could be true, but I don't know that our article has really suppported that idea with any references; our article just seems to assume--a priori--that anyone described as a "witness" is unreliable. That assumption would appear to conflict with the idea of neutrality.
The Agreement: As Carroll has pointed out, the phrasing we're using (which I've contributed to) is not technically correct. I see no impediment to revising the text so it says (something like): "....Whitehead supporters emphasize that an agreement between the U.S. and the estate of Orville Wright requires the Smithsonian to recognize the 1903 Wright Flyer, and no other aircraft, as first to make a manned, powered, controlled flight."
Thoughts? DonFB ( talk) 00:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines meant to power them between 1897 and 1915. Controversy surrounds the published accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901 and 1902, which predate the first flights by the Wright Brothers.
In 1901, a newspaper article stated that Whitehead made a powered flight in Connecticut in August of that year. In the months that followed, details from this article were widely reprinted in newspapers across the U.S. and Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a 1904 book about industrial progress. Whitehead worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines. He fell out of public notice around 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927.
In 1937, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier. Debate arose among scholars, researchers and aviation enthusiasts over the question of whether Whitehead had preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. Research in the 1960s and 70s, and books written supporting his claim of successful flight in 1966 and 1978, led mainstream historians to renew the examination of the claims.
No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered controlled flight is known to exist. However, a modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown replicas of Whitehead's flying machines.
The Smithsonian Institution has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew, while Whitehead supporters emphasize the sole reason is a 1948 contract that exists between the Estate of Orville Wright and the U.S. signed by the Secretary of the Smithsonian that permits the Smithsonian to display the Wright Flyer as long as they do not give credit to anyone else for being first in flight.
There is a sharp difference of opinion among aviation historians as to what exactly Whitehead accomplished during his aviation career. Some historians believe that he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine, while others believe none of his machines ever flew and he contributed nothing to aviation.
In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, an annual aviation industry publication, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine. This statement has reignited the debate over who flew first. Recently, the Connecticut General Assembly has moved to honor the first powered flight made by Gustave Whitehead in 1901 for their annual Powered Flight Day rather than the Wright Brothers flight in 1903." Tomticker5 ( talk) 01:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments on Tomticker's #4 revision, above:
"...he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines meant to power them between 1897 and 1915." Problem here is that "engines meant to power them" seems to refer to both gliders and flying machines. I would favor "aircraft engines" (or if we want to be a little more detail-oriented, it could say, "aircraft and other types of engines."
"Controversy surrounds published accounts" - drop "the" before published.
"...and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901and 1902, which predate the first flights by the Wright Brothers." Tom, don't you think it should say, "claims that he made several powered flights..."? (but not bolded in the article)
"Whitehead worked for sponsors" --> "Later, Whitehead worked...", or "Whitehead also worked..."
How about:
"...Jane's All the World's Aircraft, the best-known annual aviation industry publication...."
"...honor the first powered flight made by Gustave Whitehead in 1901..." I still need to know if this is a direct quote from the "legislation" or an editorial interpretation. DonFB ( talk) 02:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Reliable source for "best-known"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 02:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines between 1897 and 1915. Controversy surrounds the published eyewitness accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901 and 1902, which predate the first flights by the Wright Brothers.
In 1901, a newspaper article stated that Whitehead made a powered flight in Connecticut in August of that year. In the months that followed, details from this article were widely reprinted in newspapers across the U.S. and Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a 1904 book about industrial progress. Whitehead worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a known designer and builder of lightweight engines. He fell out of public notice around 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927.
In 1937, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier. Debate arose among scholars, researchers and aviation enthusiasts over the question of whether Whitehead had preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. Research in the 1960s and 70s, and books written supporting his claim of successful flight in 1966 and 1978, led mainstream historians to renew the examination of the claims.
No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered controlled flight is known to exist. However, a modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown replicas of Whitehead's flying machines.
The Smithsonian Institution has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew while Whitehead supporters point to a 1948 agreement between the U.S.A. (signed by the Smithsonian's Secretary) and the Estate of Orville Wright (signed by the two executors) that requires the Smithsonian to recognize the 1903 Wright Flyer and no other aircraft as first to make a manned, powered, controlled flight.
There is a sharp difference of opinion among aviation historians as to what exactly Whitehead accomplished during his aviation career. Some historians believe that he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine, while others believe none of his machines ever flew and he contributed nothing to aviation.
In 2013, the Editor of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, an annual aviation industry publication, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine. This statement has reignited the debate over who flew first. Recently, the Connecticut General Assembly has moved to honor the first powered flight made by Gustave Whitehead in 1901 for their annual Powered Flight Day rather than the Wright Brothers flight in 1903."
WP:MOS condones the use of “plain English” in its second paragraph. “Flying Machine” is an archaic expression which has the potential to mislead. “Machines meant to fly” or “machines intended to fly” are much more descriptive, accurate, and in line with the manual of style.
How about “modern interpretations of Whitehead's No. 21 machine, powered by modern engines turning modern propellers”? The manufacturers of such craft are, after all, interpreting Whitehead No.21 from pictures and written descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 02:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
In making these comments, I'm looking at the actual article, rather than recent versions of the Suggested Introduction.
The first time "witness" or "eyewitness" appears is in the Introduction, in the description of the Herald article. Competing ideas have included "written as an eyewitness account" and "written by a claimed eyewitness" (complete phrase may not be exact, but 'claimed eyewitness' is the relevant part). I support "written as an eyewitness account..."
Next, we find "witness" a bit later in the Intro. It says: "...included statements from witnesses who said they had seen..." We could revise that to say: "...statements from people who said they had witnessed...", or "....from people who said they had seen...." I can live with either one.
I'm not sure why we're struggling so much with the Smithsonian agreement text. I think we've resolved the issue of describing the parties correctly (U.S. govt and estate of Orville Wright). As I said elsewhere, I really don't think we should clutter it up with the titles/names/IDs of the signers. I'll confess I like my most recent version, which is in the "Suggested Intro - part one and a half" section. What do editors want to emphasize in this text? The requirement imposed on Smithsonian? The prohibition imposed on Smithsonian? The threatened loss of Flyer for non-compliance? This one really shouldn't be that difficult.
Jane's -- I like Carroll's latest idea on this, in which he suggests: "The Editor of Jane's All The World's Aircraft believes that Whitehead made the first manned, powered, controlled flight." I'm willing to leave it at that, though I think we should at least give a quick description/qualification of Jane's in the body of the article.
Replica -- My idea: drop the word "near". Just call it a "replica" Or call it a "repoduction" (I forget the distinction; someone can advise). Here's the text I'd be happy to support: "...replicas of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine, using modern propellers and engines." Simple. Accurate.
"Flying machine/meant to fly" -- Oy vey. "Flying machine" is the "anachronistic" term, not "aircraft". Again, though, I agree with Carroll that "flying machine" is the term that was commonly used during that period, and is still the term used when describing that era--except in this case, it seems. I disagree, however. I think we can use the term, because one sentence later, maybe two, our article makes it very clear that there's lots of controversy over whether Whitehead's powered flying machines actually flew. If any readers think, "Oh, it's a 'flying machine', it flew," they will be disabused of that idea in the very next sentence, or at most, the one after it. I think we can take that risk. If the reader doesn't almost immediately understand that there's deep disagreement whether these flying machines flew...well, maybe we can put some kind of an email link in a footnote they can click, and we can answer them and say, "Pay attention! In the second sentence, the article says there's great disagreement whether he made any powered flight!"
I think that covers some of the most important burning issues in the Introduction. (Covers, doesn't solve, so let's discuss.)
Anything else? DonFB ( talk) 03:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
As of this writing, the resolution establishing "Powered Flight Day" to honor GW in Connecticut has passed both houses of the Conn. legislature and is awaiting the Gov.'s signature. Carroll F. Gray ( talk) 06:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
DonFB,
“TIGHAR Guide to Aviation Historic Preservation Terminology” defines a replica as “an object constructed to represent, to a greater or lesser degree of accuracy, an object which existed at some previous time” and it defines a reproduction as “A copy of an existing object”. The words reproduction and replica in this sense are both HIGHLY IRRELEVANT because they are written in a guide to industry jargon and not in plain English. In plain English the words replica and reproduction both mean “a copy of”. It is, in fact, impossible to reproduce Whitehead No. 21 because the structure of its engine is not known.
“Modern interpretations of Whitehead's No. 21 machine, powered by modern engines turning modern propellers” is plain English. Every word in that sentence is comprehensible to a modern English speaker. It may not be eloquent and it may not roll of the tongue, but it is plain English. Your attempt to suggest that plain English means using sentences that are easy to say is flatly “ridiculous”.
The devil is in the details dude. Whitehead No.21 with a modern engine and propellers is like a Sopwith Camel with a jet engine; it simply isn’t the same thing. 7th graders should not read this article and come away thinking that “Someone built Whitehead's plane and it really works!” because that would be wrong. So we should not mislead anyone with words like “replica” or “reproduction” or any other word that means “copy” because no one has copied Whitehead No. 21, they have merely made things that superficially resemble it. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 06:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I am not explaining the “pro-Wright” position adequately. To the “Pro-Wright” camp these machines built by enthusiasts are not, in any way, reproductions. They are not even “good faith attempts” to build something like Whitehead No. 21. They are “bad faith attempts” to deceive people into believing that the real Whitehead No. 21 could have flown. Their modern machines with modern engines would be vastly more powerful than anything whitehead ever could have come up with. If these enthusiasts were seriously trying to replicate and not deceive then they would have built their machines with archaic acetylene engines made with archaic metallurgy. Nearly any one of the early flying machines could have flown if equipped with a modern engine.
In other words the power of Whitehead’s engine is so central to the debate that a different engine makes any attempted “reproduction” utterly valueless as an argument for Whitehead’s success. Calling it a reproduction or a replica makes it seem like it’s similar to Whitehead No. 21 when, in fact, it is utterly different in every way that matters to the controversy discussed in this article.
So how about this: “By equipping them with modern engines and propellers, interpretations of Whitehead’s No. 21 machine have been flown by enthusiasts since the 1980s.” That way we explain that the machines are altered significantly from the real Whitehead No. 21 in advance. It also seems pretty clear in that sentence that “interpretations” means something that a Whitehead enthusiast built. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 20:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Good to see that we’re in agreement about the Pro-Wright stance on the validity of Whitehead No. 21 “reproductions”.
I was not attempting to propose that we call the modern machines “fraudulent” or “deliberate attempts to deceive” in the introduction. I think that any neutral compromise between the Wright and Whitehead camps cannot suggest to the reader that the “reproductions” are significantly similar to Whitehead’s machine in any meaningful way in the introduction as it pre-disposes them to view Whitehead as a man whose technology has already been proven, when that is actually the very heart of the debate. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 23:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I've inserted the newly revised introduction. However, it's become abundantly clear to me, over these last few years, that even if it were possible for the leading mainstream aviation historians to go back in time to that August morning in Connecticut in 1901 and see GW for themselves. They would not be able to agree on exactly how to describe whatever GW did, failed to do or what to even call his machine. Tomticker5 ( talk) 12:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me why the photo of "Junius Harworth" is in the article. There is very little said about him in the text, and it seems odd, therefore, to have his photo posted. I would remove it on my own, but I thought I'd see if someone can state a good reason for it to stay. Carroll F. Gray ( talk) 06:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Just read this. Junius Harworth witnessed GW's flight on August 14, 1901. He gave a sworn statement to John B. Crane in 1936. I'll re-insert image and caption it correctly. Tomticker5 ( talk) 10:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
It's also very telling that you removed this image without any regard to reading the content in the article about him. Are you sure you don't have ulterior motives? Tomticker5 ( talk) 11:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I made the changes because the existing text seemed to imply that the U.S. government forced the Smithsonian into the agreement. If a source says that's actually true, we can restore the previous text. I think this new wording more fairly indicates that the Smithsonian acted willingly without pressure from the full weight of the Federal government (although I wouldn't doubt there was pressure from the Wright estate). DonFB ( talk) 05:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Whitehead described as a "U.S. citizen" on U.S. Patent No. 881,837, issued MAR. 10, 1908.
Application filed December 20, 1905. Serial No. 292,614.
"To all whom it may concern: Be it known that I, Gustave Whitehead, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of Bridgeport, in the county of Fairfield and State of Connecticut, have invented a new and Improved Aeroplane, of which the following is a full, clear, and exact description. The invention relates to aerial navigation, and its object is to provide a new and improved aeroplane arranged to readily maintain its equilibrium when in flight in the air, to prevent upsetting, shooting downward head foremost, and to sustain considerable weight." [1] Tomticker5 ( talk) 09:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, GW's U.S. Patent was issued by a U.S. Government Agency (Commerce) after years of scrutiny. Wright's patent was rejected at first, wasn't it? Didn't POTUS JFK once say; "Ich bin ein Berliner"? That didn't make him a German did it? Tomticker5 ( talk) 20:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I have zero interest in arguing with anyone about GW's citizenship. However, I find these factoids highly interesting, and they deserve to be in the article, which, after all, is a biography. Conflicting documentation or statements about the man's citizenship are completely appropriate for inclusion in his biographical article. I would put the text in myself this very minute, but I don't know all the sources, or if they are all "reliable" and publically available. So I ask that the sources be provided (here on the Talk page would be a good place). The sources need not be online: anything published in a book, magazine, newspaper, monograph or what-have-you would be fine; or perhaps shown in a museum or other public collection. If the documentation is privately held...well, that won't work.
I further point out, if it's not already obvious, that these conflicting documents, apparently provided by GW himself, say something about the man's veracity. Readers can draw their own conclusions. I haven't settled on exactly how I'd phrase it, and I'm sure other editors will have ideas about that. But hopefully something neutral, like: "Whitehead, who was born in [I think Bavaria is technically correct, rather than "Germany"], provided conflicting documentation over the years about his citizenship. In a 1905 patent application, he said...etc, etc; on a 1918 Draft registration card, he listed himself...etc, etc; in another legal document he stated he was a citizen of Brazil." That seems to cover it. I suppose, conceivably (or not), that he may have actually changed his citizenship two or three times, although the "natural born U.S." comment certainly seems, uh, open to question, shall we say. The text could go in the "Early life and career" section, or possibly the "Later career" section. DonFB ( talk) 04:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
In 1936 Crane researched GW flight claims and after further research and taking sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses in Bridgeport, reverses himself and states GW was first in flight. Then, in January 1937, he urged the U.S. Congress to hold hearings and investigate the matter over who should be given credit for being first in flight. Not quite sure how to insert this content into the introduction, but I believe it should be there to lead the 3rd paragraph on rediscovery. Wouldn't dare mention Harvard or his name in the intro, but maybe just say; "In 1937, a professor urged the U.S. Congress to investigate who was first in flight, a magazine article and a book all asserted that Whitehead had made powered flights in 1901-1902." Tomticker5 ( talk) 10:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. Crane reversed himself after doing research and speaking to witnesses and he even urged Congress in Jan 1937 to investigate the Wright Brothers claim of being first in flight and do the same thing that he did - give credit to GW for being America's first Aviator. The timeline appears to be shrinking from GW's last flight (a crash), his death and his period of "rediscovery". In time, I believe we'll see that there really wasn't a need for rediscovery if credit hadn't been taken away from him in the 1920s when the Wright Brothers began to solicit the U.S. Gov't to build a national monument/park to them. Adding the Crane content in the introduction also helps to establish the fact that some aviation historians have reversed themselves on GW, albeit, 75 years ago. Tomticker5 ( talk) 11:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
DonFB added the following statement recently to the introduction which apparently isn't completely accurate as explained in the body of the article. "The book and article triggered debate in the 1930s and '40s among scholars, researchers, aviation enthusiasts and Orville Wright over the question of whether Whitehead had preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight."
The article states that Crane reversed himself and urged Congress to investigate the matter and credit GW as America's first Aviator. Crane has a part in triggering this, it wasn't just the magazine and book, but I can see why you'd keep this out of the introduction.
DonFB has also made sure that Orville Wright and the Wright brothers names appear extensively in the introduction and then cautions me that editor's like to put their "favorite things" there. The Wright name appears 7 times in GW's introduction alone! Any chance I could trim that down to say twice? In the beginning to explain that GW flew on August 14, 1901 and the Wright Brothers flew in 1903. I think it's important to keep their name in the last sentence of the introduction too; "Recently, the Connecticut General Assembly has voted to honor Gustave Whitehead, rather than the Wright Brothers, on the state's annual Powered Flight Day". Tomticker5 ( talk) 19:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Carroll, I disagree. Whitehead’s primary significance is that he’s a pretender to the title of “first in flight”. Were it not for his followers fevered attempts at historical revisionism he would be much less significant, and possibly unworthy of a Wikipedia page. We cannot attempt to reduce the Whitehead article to simple biographical information and ignore the controversy. Whitehead’s jealous attack on the success of the Wright brother is a central issue here, and I don’t think we can minimize it.
That said, does anyone object if I remove the words “inevitable bias” from the last paragraph of the legacy section? “Inevitable bias” is an obvious value judgment. How about “Critics of the Wright proponents attack the Smithsonian’s neutrality by pointing to the Institution's ongoing contract with the heirs of Orville Wright”? 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 23:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I read in one of the newspaper articles on GW around 1904-1906, that he credits himself and a few others with successful flight up to that point in time. However, he admits that no one had designed and built the first "practical airplane" yet. Tomticker5 ( talk) 00:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
In the fourth paragraph in the “Legacy” section it states that “This was a reversal of Dvorak's original opinion about Whitehead's competence. When he worked with Whitehead, Dvorak reportedly believed that Whitehead "was more advanced with the development of aircraft than other persons who were engaged in the work."”. In following the reference for that statement I find that it links to a website where a Whitehead supporter presents his opinion as fact and cites no reliable source to back up the claim that Dvorak reversed his position. "Was more advanced with the development of aircraft than other persons who were engaged in the work." Sounds like a quote from Dvorak, when it is actually just a quote from a Whitehead supporter. At the very least we cannot state (as a fact) that “This was a reversal of Dvorak's original opinion” because that’s just a claim, and not one that we have a reliable source to substantiate. Hypothetically we could say “this is alleged to be a reversal of Dvorak’s original opinion” or something similar, but I think the two sentences should be removed as they appear to violate WP:RS. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 02:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Well that’s interesting. The claim that Dvorak reversed his position traces back to a letter about a newspaper article which “cannot” be photocopied. “David Palmquist” is mentioned in “Bridgeport's Socialist New Deal, 1915-36” so he appears to be a real person. If no one objects I’m going to go ahead and change the reference so it links to http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/history/dvorak-praises-gw-oct-29-1904-john-j-dvorak-in-bridgeport-daily-standard-p-1/. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 23:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet has it right... J. J. Dvorak (then was living in Chicago and at the time was a self-described "businessman") went to Bridgeport to have an engine built, and over the 6 months and a considerable amount of money spent, came to the realization that GW was "in capable" (sic) of doing the job, that GW was a "dreamer..." etc. etc. The original newspaper has disintegrated - it was bound and the paper had gone yellow and "friable" and so two photostats were made, one for O'Dwyer and one for the collection, but somehow both photostats ended up with O'Dwyer and it isn't clear that he ever returned the one to the collection, although D. Palmquist asked for its return. Carroll F. Gray ( talk) 05:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
DonFB,
I swear it’s like you didn’t read a word that I wrote. I was not suggesting that “Brown is forging Bridgeport Library letters and creating fictional personages to sign non-existent letters and putting it all online under his own name”. I was saying that I accept the source that you provided as a reliable source to support the claim that Dvorak reversed his position. When I wrote that “David Palmquist” is mentioned in “Bridgeport's Socialist New Deal, 1915-36” I was clearly indicating that he WAS a real person whose existence was corroborated by another source. You need to READ WHAT I WROTE before flying off the handle and assuming bad faith, especially when I was actually agreeing with you. Do try to avoid having a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 05:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
DonFB,
“Bridgeport's Socialist New Deal, 1915-36” mentions Palmquist in the beginning of the book, and acknowledges him as a “former archivist at the Bridgeport public library” thus corroborating that he is a real person. Palmquist also wrote “A Pictoral History of Bridgeport” in 1981. Palmquist is described as a “local historian” in the March 15th 1983 edition of The Day (New London). “The Titanic International Society” indicates that that Palmquist is the great nephew of Oscar Palmquist, a Titanic survivor who died under mysterious circumstances in 1925.
So yes, I did research Palmquist, and am satisfied that he did exist.
I cannot, however, account for your perception that my quotes are scary, nor for your perception that I am insinuating anything when I use the word “appears”. You appear to be reading a lot of your own personal feelings onto my words which seems highly indicative of a failure to assume good faith. Checking out sources to insure their reliability is an important part of responsible Wikipedia editing, and I don’t appreciate your criticizing me for doing so.
With regards to your accusation that I have a pretty strong bias; I’m allowed to. It’s just the article that’s not allowed to be bias.
That said, I’m glad I brought up Dvorak. Binksternet’s rewrite of the paragraph makes it seem a lot less “Dvorak turned on Whitehead” and a lot more “Whitehead failed Dvorak”. At least the article is improving despite our disagreements. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 10:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I haven’t bad-mouthed anyone. Jane’s bad-mouthed the Wrights.
If you don’t like my opinion then that’s tough crap. It is only my edits TO ARTICLES which Wikipedia says should be neutral. Now stop violating WP:FORUM. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 11:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
There's a passing mention of a possible link with Lilienthal in Germany and several of the newspapers from 1902 and 1903 mention a linkup with W D Custead. There seems to be little about Custead about but Lilenthal is a major figure and if there is a reliable source for a link it shouldn't be in the Legacy as such but in the proper chronological part. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 19:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines of various types between 1897 to 1915. Controversy has surrounded press reports, eyewitness accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew his powered airplanes several times in 1901 and 1902, which would have predated the first flight made by the Wright Brothers in 1903.
In 1901, a newspaper article written by an uncredited eyewitness, stated that Whitehead had made a powered controlled flight in Connecticut in August that year. In the months afterward, information from the article was widely reported being reprinted in dozens of newspapers throughout the U.S. and in Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a book about industrial progress that classified aviation as a commercial industry in 1904.
Whitehead later worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines for aircraft. He fell out of public notice by 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927. In the late 1930s, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had indeed made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier.
In the years that followed, spirited debate arose among scholars, researchers, aviation enthusiasts and Orville Wright on the question of whether Whitehead preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. Research in the 1960s and 70s and pro-Whitehead books in 1966 and 1978 led mainstream historians to renew examination of the claims. The Smithsonian Institution, has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew, while Whitehead supporters emphasize that the Smithsonian made an agreement with heirs of the Wright brothers in 1948 to recognize Wilbur and Orville as first to make a controlled, powered flight.
No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered flight is known to exist. A modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown near-replicas of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine, using modern propellers and engines.
There continues to be a sharp difference of findings among aviation historians as to what Whitehead in fact accomplished. Some historians insist that he was the first man to fly in a powered flying machine in 1901, while others believe none of his machines ever flew. In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine which has stirred up debate over who flew first. The state of Connecticut, has since passed legislation stating Whitehead flew in 1901. Tomticker5 ( talk) 15:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines of various types between 1897 to 1915. Controversy has surrounded press reports, eyewitness accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901 and 1902, which would have predated the first flights made by the Wright Brothers in 1903.
In 1901, a newspaper article written by an unidentified eyewitness, stated that Whitehead had made a powered flight in Connecticut in August that year. In the months afterward, information from the article was widely reported being reprinted in dozens of newspapers throughout the U.S. and in Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a book about industrial progress that classified aviation as a commercial industry in 1904.
Whitehead later worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines. He fell out of public notice by 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927. In the late 1930s, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had indeed made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier.
Research in the 1960s and 70s, and books written supporting his claim of successful flight in 1966 and 1978, led mainstream historians to renew the examination of the claims. Decades of spirited debate arose among scholars, researchers and aviation enthusiasts over the question of whether Whitehead preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. The Smithsonian Institution has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew, while Whitehead supporters emphasize that the Smithsonian made an agreement with heirs of the Wright brothers in 1948 to recognize Wilbur and Orville as first to make a controlled, powered flight.
No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered flight is known to exist. A modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown near-replicas of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine, using modern propellers and engines.
There continues to be a sharp difference of findings among aviation historians as to what Whitehead in fact accomplished. Some historians insist that he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine in 1901, while others believe none of his machines ever flew. In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine which has stirred up debate over who flew first. The state of Connecticut, has since passed legislation stating Whitehead flew in 1901." Tomticker5 ( talk) 16:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Revision
"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines of various types between 1897 and 1915. Controversy has surrounded press reports, eyewitness accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901 and 1902, which predate the flights by the Wright Brothers in 1903.
In 1901, a newspaper article, written as an eyewitness account, stated that Whitehead had made a powered flight in Connecticut in August that year. In the months that followed, information from the article was widely reprinted and copied and appeared in several dozen newspapers throughout the U.S. and in Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a book about industrial progress in 1904. Whitehead later worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines. He fell out of public notice by 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927.
In 1937, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had indeed made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier. Decades of spirited debate arose among scholars, researchers and aviation enthusiasts over the question of whether Whitehead had preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. Research in the 1960s and 70s, and books written supporting his claim of successful flight in 1966 and 1978, led mainstream historians to renew the examination of the claims.
No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered flight is known to exist. A modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown near-replicas of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine, using modern propellers and engines.
The Smithsonian Institution has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew, while Whitehead supporters emphasize that the Smithsonian made an agreement with heirs of the Wright brothers in 1948 in order to display the Wright Flyer plane. There continues to be a sharp difference of findings among aviation historians as to what Whitehead accomplished. Some historians insist that he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine in 1901, while others believe none of his machines ever flew.
In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, a regarded annual aviation publication, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine which has reignited debate over who flew first. This has led the Connecticut General Assembly to adopt new legislation stating that Whitehead flew in 1901." Tomticker5 ( talk) 17:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Revision
"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines of various types between 1897 and 1915. Controversy has surrounded press reports, eyewitness accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901 and 1902, which predate the flights by the Wright Brothers in 1903.
In 1901, a newspaper article, written as an eyewitness account, stated that Whitehead had made a powered flight in Connecticut in August that year. In the months that followed, information from the article was widely reprinted and copied and appeared in several dozen newspapers throughout the U.S. and in Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a book about industrial progress in 1904. Whitehead later worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines. He fell out of public notice by 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927.
In 1937, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had indeed made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier. Spirited debate arose among scholars, researchers and aviation enthusiasts over the question of whether Whitehead had preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. Research in the 1960s and 70s, and books written supporting his claim of successful flight in 1966 and 1978, led mainstream historians to renew the examination of the claims.
No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered flight is known to exist. A modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown near-replicas of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine, using modern propellers and engines.
The Smithsonian Institution has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew, while Whitehead supporters emphasize that the Smithsonian made an agreement with heirs of the Wright brothers in 1948 in order to display the Wright Flyer plane. There continues to be a sharp difference of findings among aviation historians as to what Whitehead accomplished. Some historians insist that he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine in 1901, while others believe none of his machines ever flew.
In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, a regarded annual aviation industry publication, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine, which has reignited debate over who flew first. The Connecticut General Assembly has recently passed legislation, stating their annual Powered Flight Day will now be in honor of the first powered flight by Gustave Whitehead, rather than the Wright Brothers." Tomticker5 ( talk) 18:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
“Eyewitness accounts” in the first paragraph, and “statements from eyewitnesses” in the third paragraph should be changed to “alleged eyewitness accounts” and “statements from alleged eyewitnesses” or something similar.
To say that Whitehead built flying machines in the first paragraph might give the reader the impression that whitehead built machines that flew under their own power, when that is a significant point of contention.
Is there a reliable source that says that “he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines”?
“near-replicas” seems to be suggesting that their contraptions were significantly similar to whiteheads, when some might argue that modern engines make them significantly different from whiteheads.
Calling Jane’s “a regarded annual aviation industry publication” seems intensely bias. Many would argue that their recent endorsement of Whitehead has denigrated them to being a “trashy gossip rag” or a “purveyor of sensationalist bullshit”. Why not just say that “In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine, which has reignited debate over who flew first.”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 20:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The word of Octave Chanute seems like a good source. If he thought Whitehead built lightweight engines, then I see no reason to doubt that Whitehead had a reputation for being able to build lightweight engines. However, the claim that Whitehead was “well known” seems very difficult to substantiate.
I don’t see what’s wrong with "machines meant to fly". I understand the use of the expression “flying machine” in the context of early aviation, but the reader may not. I also don’t see the value of using a period expression when "machines meant to fly" could communicate the concept with less bias.
While the qualifier "modern engines and modern propellers" does express the idea that the machines are not perfect replicas of Whitehead’s contraption, it is the expression “near-replica” which seems inappropriate. If I strapped a cotton gin onto a Saturn V rocket no reasonable person would argue that a “near-replica” of a cotton gin was capable of space flight. The engines and propellers make all the difference in the world. “Machine which might superficially resemble Whitehead no. 21 to the untrained eye but is actually powered by a much lighter and more powerful engine and more efficient propellers” seems like a much more accurate expression, but it isn’t very eloquent, and will probably attract objections. Perhaps a Whitehead supporter could propose a compromise which is truthful yet less objectionable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 00:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Some thoughts, mostly for mutal enlightenment, not really debating contentious points....
Carroll said: "I think that we need to alert our readers that Jane's is not an historical publication but a commercial industry publication..." I heartily agree. That's part of the reason I was very pleased at the qualifier that replaced "authoritative" for the first mention of Jane's. If used, a qualifier should also make clear that Jane's is highly-regarded/respected/world-class/what-have-you.
Regarding "eyewitnesses": First of all, we must keep in mind that there are (at least) two sets of witnesses: those from 14 Aug 1901, and those from other unspecified dates, as stated in the affidavits. We should be careful, where appropriate, to identify which group we're referring to when writing about "witnesses" in the article. To cut to the chase: I would not object to using "alleged" or "supposed" to describe witnesses from either group. Neither am I certain that's the correct thing to do. Those words do cast doubt on the veracity of the witnesses. In other words, our article is taking the position that these people may not be telling the truth, or may be making inaccurate statements--all of which could be true, but I don't know that our article has really suppported that idea with any references; our article just seems to assume--a priori--that anyone described as a "witness" is unreliable. That assumption would appear to conflict with the idea of neutrality.
The Agreement: As Carroll has pointed out, the phrasing we're using (which I've contributed to) is not technically correct. I see no impediment to revising the text so it says (something like): "....Whitehead supporters emphasize that an agreement between the U.S. and the estate of Orville Wright requires the Smithsonian to recognize the 1903 Wright Flyer, and no other aircraft, as first to make a manned, powered, controlled flight."
Thoughts? DonFB ( talk) 00:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines meant to power them between 1897 and 1915. Controversy surrounds the published accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901 and 1902, which predate the first flights by the Wright Brothers.
In 1901, a newspaper article stated that Whitehead made a powered flight in Connecticut in August of that year. In the months that followed, details from this article were widely reprinted in newspapers across the U.S. and Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a 1904 book about industrial progress. Whitehead worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines. He fell out of public notice around 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927.
In 1937, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier. Debate arose among scholars, researchers and aviation enthusiasts over the question of whether Whitehead had preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. Research in the 1960s and 70s, and books written supporting his claim of successful flight in 1966 and 1978, led mainstream historians to renew the examination of the claims.
No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered controlled flight is known to exist. However, a modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown replicas of Whitehead's flying machines.
The Smithsonian Institution has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew, while Whitehead supporters emphasize the sole reason is a 1948 contract that exists between the Estate of Orville Wright and the U.S. signed by the Secretary of the Smithsonian that permits the Smithsonian to display the Wright Flyer as long as they do not give credit to anyone else for being first in flight.
There is a sharp difference of opinion among aviation historians as to what exactly Whitehead accomplished during his aviation career. Some historians believe that he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine, while others believe none of his machines ever flew and he contributed nothing to aviation.
In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, an annual aviation industry publication, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine. This statement has reignited the debate over who flew first. Recently, the Connecticut General Assembly has moved to honor the first powered flight made by Gustave Whitehead in 1901 for their annual Powered Flight Day rather than the Wright Brothers flight in 1903." Tomticker5 ( talk) 01:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments on Tomticker's #4 revision, above:
"...he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines meant to power them between 1897 and 1915." Problem here is that "engines meant to power them" seems to refer to both gliders and flying machines. I would favor "aircraft engines" (or if we want to be a little more detail-oriented, it could say, "aircraft and other types of engines."
"Controversy surrounds published accounts" - drop "the" before published.
"...and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901and 1902, which predate the first flights by the Wright Brothers." Tom, don't you think it should say, "claims that he made several powered flights..."? (but not bolded in the article)
"Whitehead worked for sponsors" --> "Later, Whitehead worked...", or "Whitehead also worked..."
How about:
"...Jane's All the World's Aircraft, the best-known annual aviation industry publication...."
"...honor the first powered flight made by Gustave Whitehead in 1901..." I still need to know if this is a direct quote from the "legislation" or an editorial interpretation. DonFB ( talk) 02:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Reliable source for "best-known"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 02:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines between 1897 and 1915. Controversy surrounds the published eyewitness accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901 and 1902, which predate the first flights by the Wright Brothers.
In 1901, a newspaper article stated that Whitehead made a powered flight in Connecticut in August of that year. In the months that followed, details from this article were widely reprinted in newspapers across the U.S. and Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a 1904 book about industrial progress. Whitehead worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a known designer and builder of lightweight engines. He fell out of public notice around 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927.
In 1937, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier. Debate arose among scholars, researchers and aviation enthusiasts over the question of whether Whitehead had preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. Research in the 1960s and 70s, and books written supporting his claim of successful flight in 1966 and 1978, led mainstream historians to renew the examination of the claims.
No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered controlled flight is known to exist. However, a modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown replicas of Whitehead's flying machines.
The Smithsonian Institution has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew while Whitehead supporters point to a 1948 agreement between the U.S.A. (signed by the Smithsonian's Secretary) and the Estate of Orville Wright (signed by the two executors) that requires the Smithsonian to recognize the 1903 Wright Flyer and no other aircraft as first to make a manned, powered, controlled flight.
There is a sharp difference of opinion among aviation historians as to what exactly Whitehead accomplished during his aviation career. Some historians believe that he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine, while others believe none of his machines ever flew and he contributed nothing to aviation.
In 2013, the Editor of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, an annual aviation industry publication, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine. This statement has reignited the debate over who flew first. Recently, the Connecticut General Assembly has moved to honor the first powered flight made by Gustave Whitehead in 1901 for their annual Powered Flight Day rather than the Wright Brothers flight in 1903."
WP:MOS condones the use of “plain English” in its second paragraph. “Flying Machine” is an archaic expression which has the potential to mislead. “Machines meant to fly” or “machines intended to fly” are much more descriptive, accurate, and in line with the manual of style.
How about “modern interpretations of Whitehead's No. 21 machine, powered by modern engines turning modern propellers”? The manufacturers of such craft are, after all, interpreting Whitehead No.21 from pictures and written descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 02:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
In making these comments, I'm looking at the actual article, rather than recent versions of the Suggested Introduction.
The first time "witness" or "eyewitness" appears is in the Introduction, in the description of the Herald article. Competing ideas have included "written as an eyewitness account" and "written by a claimed eyewitness" (complete phrase may not be exact, but 'claimed eyewitness' is the relevant part). I support "written as an eyewitness account..."
Next, we find "witness" a bit later in the Intro. It says: "...included statements from witnesses who said they had seen..." We could revise that to say: "...statements from people who said they had witnessed...", or "....from people who said they had seen...." I can live with either one.
I'm not sure why we're struggling so much with the Smithsonian agreement text. I think we've resolved the issue of describing the parties correctly (U.S. govt and estate of Orville Wright). As I said elsewhere, I really don't think we should clutter it up with the titles/names/IDs of the signers. I'll confess I like my most recent version, which is in the "Suggested Intro - part one and a half" section. What do editors want to emphasize in this text? The requirement imposed on Smithsonian? The prohibition imposed on Smithsonian? The threatened loss of Flyer for non-compliance? This one really shouldn't be that difficult.
Jane's -- I like Carroll's latest idea on this, in which he suggests: "The Editor of Jane's All The World's Aircraft believes that Whitehead made the first manned, powered, controlled flight." I'm willing to leave it at that, though I think we should at least give a quick description/qualification of Jane's in the body of the article.
Replica -- My idea: drop the word "near". Just call it a "replica" Or call it a "repoduction" (I forget the distinction; someone can advise). Here's the text I'd be happy to support: "...replicas of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine, using modern propellers and engines." Simple. Accurate.
"Flying machine/meant to fly" -- Oy vey. "Flying machine" is the "anachronistic" term, not "aircraft". Again, though, I agree with Carroll that "flying machine" is the term that was commonly used during that period, and is still the term used when describing that era--except in this case, it seems. I disagree, however. I think we can use the term, because one sentence later, maybe two, our article makes it very clear that there's lots of controversy over whether Whitehead's powered flying machines actually flew. If any readers think, "Oh, it's a 'flying machine', it flew," they will be disabused of that idea in the very next sentence, or at most, the one after it. I think we can take that risk. If the reader doesn't almost immediately understand that there's deep disagreement whether these flying machines flew...well, maybe we can put some kind of an email link in a footnote they can click, and we can answer them and say, "Pay attention! In the second sentence, the article says there's great disagreement whether he made any powered flight!"
I think that covers some of the most important burning issues in the Introduction. (Covers, doesn't solve, so let's discuss.)
Anything else? DonFB ( talk) 03:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
As of this writing, the resolution establishing "Powered Flight Day" to honor GW in Connecticut has passed both houses of the Conn. legislature and is awaiting the Gov.'s signature. Carroll F. Gray ( talk) 06:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
DonFB,
“TIGHAR Guide to Aviation Historic Preservation Terminology” defines a replica as “an object constructed to represent, to a greater or lesser degree of accuracy, an object which existed at some previous time” and it defines a reproduction as “A copy of an existing object”. The words reproduction and replica in this sense are both HIGHLY IRRELEVANT because they are written in a guide to industry jargon and not in plain English. In plain English the words replica and reproduction both mean “a copy of”. It is, in fact, impossible to reproduce Whitehead No. 21 because the structure of its engine is not known.
“Modern interpretations of Whitehead's No. 21 machine, powered by modern engines turning modern propellers” is plain English. Every word in that sentence is comprehensible to a modern English speaker. It may not be eloquent and it may not roll of the tongue, but it is plain English. Your attempt to suggest that plain English means using sentences that are easy to say is flatly “ridiculous”.
The devil is in the details dude. Whitehead No.21 with a modern engine and propellers is like a Sopwith Camel with a jet engine; it simply isn’t the same thing. 7th graders should not read this article and come away thinking that “Someone built Whitehead's plane and it really works!” because that would be wrong. So we should not mislead anyone with words like “replica” or “reproduction” or any other word that means “copy” because no one has copied Whitehead No. 21, they have merely made things that superficially resemble it. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 06:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I am not explaining the “pro-Wright” position adequately. To the “Pro-Wright” camp these machines built by enthusiasts are not, in any way, reproductions. They are not even “good faith attempts” to build something like Whitehead No. 21. They are “bad faith attempts” to deceive people into believing that the real Whitehead No. 21 could have flown. Their modern machines with modern engines would be vastly more powerful than anything whitehead ever could have come up with. If these enthusiasts were seriously trying to replicate and not deceive then they would have built their machines with archaic acetylene engines made with archaic metallurgy. Nearly any one of the early flying machines could have flown if equipped with a modern engine.
In other words the power of Whitehead’s engine is so central to the debate that a different engine makes any attempted “reproduction” utterly valueless as an argument for Whitehead’s success. Calling it a reproduction or a replica makes it seem like it’s similar to Whitehead No. 21 when, in fact, it is utterly different in every way that matters to the controversy discussed in this article.
So how about this: “By equipping them with modern engines and propellers, interpretations of Whitehead’s No. 21 machine have been flown by enthusiasts since the 1980s.” That way we explain that the machines are altered significantly from the real Whitehead No. 21 in advance. It also seems pretty clear in that sentence that “interpretations” means something that a Whitehead enthusiast built. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 20:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Good to see that we’re in agreement about the Pro-Wright stance on the validity of Whitehead No. 21 “reproductions”.
I was not attempting to propose that we call the modern machines “fraudulent” or “deliberate attempts to deceive” in the introduction. I think that any neutral compromise between the Wright and Whitehead camps cannot suggest to the reader that the “reproductions” are significantly similar to Whitehead’s machine in any meaningful way in the introduction as it pre-disposes them to view Whitehead as a man whose technology has already been proven, when that is actually the very heart of the debate. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 23:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I've inserted the newly revised introduction. However, it's become abundantly clear to me, over these last few years, that even if it were possible for the leading mainstream aviation historians to go back in time to that August morning in Connecticut in 1901 and see GW for themselves. They would not be able to agree on exactly how to describe whatever GW did, failed to do or what to even call his machine. Tomticker5 ( talk) 12:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me why the photo of "Junius Harworth" is in the article. There is very little said about him in the text, and it seems odd, therefore, to have his photo posted. I would remove it on my own, but I thought I'd see if someone can state a good reason for it to stay. Carroll F. Gray ( talk) 06:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Just read this. Junius Harworth witnessed GW's flight on August 14, 1901. He gave a sworn statement to John B. Crane in 1936. I'll re-insert image and caption it correctly. Tomticker5 ( talk) 10:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
It's also very telling that you removed this image without any regard to reading the content in the article about him. Are you sure you don't have ulterior motives? Tomticker5 ( talk) 11:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I made the changes because the existing text seemed to imply that the U.S. government forced the Smithsonian into the agreement. If a source says that's actually true, we can restore the previous text. I think this new wording more fairly indicates that the Smithsonian acted willingly without pressure from the full weight of the Federal government (although I wouldn't doubt there was pressure from the Wright estate). DonFB ( talk) 05:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Whitehead described as a "U.S. citizen" on U.S. Patent No. 881,837, issued MAR. 10, 1908.
Application filed December 20, 1905. Serial No. 292,614.
"To all whom it may concern: Be it known that I, Gustave Whitehead, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of Bridgeport, in the county of Fairfield and State of Connecticut, have invented a new and Improved Aeroplane, of which the following is a full, clear, and exact description. The invention relates to aerial navigation, and its object is to provide a new and improved aeroplane arranged to readily maintain its equilibrium when in flight in the air, to prevent upsetting, shooting downward head foremost, and to sustain considerable weight." [1] Tomticker5 ( talk) 09:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, GW's U.S. Patent was issued by a U.S. Government Agency (Commerce) after years of scrutiny. Wright's patent was rejected at first, wasn't it? Didn't POTUS JFK once say; "Ich bin ein Berliner"? That didn't make him a German did it? Tomticker5 ( talk) 20:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I have zero interest in arguing with anyone about GW's citizenship. However, I find these factoids highly interesting, and they deserve to be in the article, which, after all, is a biography. Conflicting documentation or statements about the man's citizenship are completely appropriate for inclusion in his biographical article. I would put the text in myself this very minute, but I don't know all the sources, or if they are all "reliable" and publically available. So I ask that the sources be provided (here on the Talk page would be a good place). The sources need not be online: anything published in a book, magazine, newspaper, monograph or what-have-you would be fine; or perhaps shown in a museum or other public collection. If the documentation is privately held...well, that won't work.
I further point out, if it's not already obvious, that these conflicting documents, apparently provided by GW himself, say something about the man's veracity. Readers can draw their own conclusions. I haven't settled on exactly how I'd phrase it, and I'm sure other editors will have ideas about that. But hopefully something neutral, like: "Whitehead, who was born in [I think Bavaria is technically correct, rather than "Germany"], provided conflicting documentation over the years about his citizenship. In a 1905 patent application, he said...etc, etc; on a 1918 Draft registration card, he listed himself...etc, etc; in another legal document he stated he was a citizen of Brazil." That seems to cover it. I suppose, conceivably (or not), that he may have actually changed his citizenship two or three times, although the "natural born U.S." comment certainly seems, uh, open to question, shall we say. The text could go in the "Early life and career" section, or possibly the "Later career" section. DonFB ( talk) 04:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
In 1936 Crane researched GW flight claims and after further research and taking sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses in Bridgeport, reverses himself and states GW was first in flight. Then, in January 1937, he urged the U.S. Congress to hold hearings and investigate the matter over who should be given credit for being first in flight. Not quite sure how to insert this content into the introduction, but I believe it should be there to lead the 3rd paragraph on rediscovery. Wouldn't dare mention Harvard or his name in the intro, but maybe just say; "In 1937, a professor urged the U.S. Congress to investigate who was first in flight, a magazine article and a book all asserted that Whitehead had made powered flights in 1901-1902." Tomticker5 ( talk) 10:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. Crane reversed himself after doing research and speaking to witnesses and he even urged Congress in Jan 1937 to investigate the Wright Brothers claim of being first in flight and do the same thing that he did - give credit to GW for being America's first Aviator. The timeline appears to be shrinking from GW's last flight (a crash), his death and his period of "rediscovery". In time, I believe we'll see that there really wasn't a need for rediscovery if credit hadn't been taken away from him in the 1920s when the Wright Brothers began to solicit the U.S. Gov't to build a national monument/park to them. Adding the Crane content in the introduction also helps to establish the fact that some aviation historians have reversed themselves on GW, albeit, 75 years ago. Tomticker5 ( talk) 11:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
DonFB added the following statement recently to the introduction which apparently isn't completely accurate as explained in the body of the article. "The book and article triggered debate in the 1930s and '40s among scholars, researchers, aviation enthusiasts and Orville Wright over the question of whether Whitehead had preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight."
The article states that Crane reversed himself and urged Congress to investigate the matter and credit GW as America's first Aviator. Crane has a part in triggering this, it wasn't just the magazine and book, but I can see why you'd keep this out of the introduction.
DonFB has also made sure that Orville Wright and the Wright brothers names appear extensively in the introduction and then cautions me that editor's like to put their "favorite things" there. The Wright name appears 7 times in GW's introduction alone! Any chance I could trim that down to say twice? In the beginning to explain that GW flew on August 14, 1901 and the Wright Brothers flew in 1903. I think it's important to keep their name in the last sentence of the introduction too; "Recently, the Connecticut General Assembly has voted to honor Gustave Whitehead, rather than the Wright Brothers, on the state's annual Powered Flight Day". Tomticker5 ( talk) 19:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Carroll, I disagree. Whitehead’s primary significance is that he’s a pretender to the title of “first in flight”. Were it not for his followers fevered attempts at historical revisionism he would be much less significant, and possibly unworthy of a Wikipedia page. We cannot attempt to reduce the Whitehead article to simple biographical information and ignore the controversy. Whitehead’s jealous attack on the success of the Wright brother is a central issue here, and I don’t think we can minimize it.
That said, does anyone object if I remove the words “inevitable bias” from the last paragraph of the legacy section? “Inevitable bias” is an obvious value judgment. How about “Critics of the Wright proponents attack the Smithsonian’s neutrality by pointing to the Institution's ongoing contract with the heirs of Orville Wright”? 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 23:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I read in one of the newspaper articles on GW around 1904-1906, that he credits himself and a few others with successful flight up to that point in time. However, he admits that no one had designed and built the first "practical airplane" yet. Tomticker5 ( talk) 00:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
In the fourth paragraph in the “Legacy” section it states that “This was a reversal of Dvorak's original opinion about Whitehead's competence. When he worked with Whitehead, Dvorak reportedly believed that Whitehead "was more advanced with the development of aircraft than other persons who were engaged in the work."”. In following the reference for that statement I find that it links to a website where a Whitehead supporter presents his opinion as fact and cites no reliable source to back up the claim that Dvorak reversed his position. "Was more advanced with the development of aircraft than other persons who were engaged in the work." Sounds like a quote from Dvorak, when it is actually just a quote from a Whitehead supporter. At the very least we cannot state (as a fact) that “This was a reversal of Dvorak's original opinion” because that’s just a claim, and not one that we have a reliable source to substantiate. Hypothetically we could say “this is alleged to be a reversal of Dvorak’s original opinion” or something similar, but I think the two sentences should be removed as they appear to violate WP:RS. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 02:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Well that’s interesting. The claim that Dvorak reversed his position traces back to a letter about a newspaper article which “cannot” be photocopied. “David Palmquist” is mentioned in “Bridgeport's Socialist New Deal, 1915-36” so he appears to be a real person. If no one objects I’m going to go ahead and change the reference so it links to http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/history/dvorak-praises-gw-oct-29-1904-john-j-dvorak-in-bridgeport-daily-standard-p-1/. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 23:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet has it right... J. J. Dvorak (then was living in Chicago and at the time was a self-described "businessman") went to Bridgeport to have an engine built, and over the 6 months and a considerable amount of money spent, came to the realization that GW was "in capable" (sic) of doing the job, that GW was a "dreamer..." etc. etc. The original newspaper has disintegrated - it was bound and the paper had gone yellow and "friable" and so two photostats were made, one for O'Dwyer and one for the collection, but somehow both photostats ended up with O'Dwyer and it isn't clear that he ever returned the one to the collection, although D. Palmquist asked for its return. Carroll F. Gray ( talk) 05:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
DonFB,
I swear it’s like you didn’t read a word that I wrote. I was not suggesting that “Brown is forging Bridgeport Library letters and creating fictional personages to sign non-existent letters and putting it all online under his own name”. I was saying that I accept the source that you provided as a reliable source to support the claim that Dvorak reversed his position. When I wrote that “David Palmquist” is mentioned in “Bridgeport's Socialist New Deal, 1915-36” I was clearly indicating that he WAS a real person whose existence was corroborated by another source. You need to READ WHAT I WROTE before flying off the handle and assuming bad faith, especially when I was actually agreeing with you. Do try to avoid having a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 05:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
DonFB,
“Bridgeport's Socialist New Deal, 1915-36” mentions Palmquist in the beginning of the book, and acknowledges him as a “former archivist at the Bridgeport public library” thus corroborating that he is a real person. Palmquist also wrote “A Pictoral History of Bridgeport” in 1981. Palmquist is described as a “local historian” in the March 15th 1983 edition of The Day (New London). “The Titanic International Society” indicates that that Palmquist is the great nephew of Oscar Palmquist, a Titanic survivor who died under mysterious circumstances in 1925.
So yes, I did research Palmquist, and am satisfied that he did exist.
I cannot, however, account for your perception that my quotes are scary, nor for your perception that I am insinuating anything when I use the word “appears”. You appear to be reading a lot of your own personal feelings onto my words which seems highly indicative of a failure to assume good faith. Checking out sources to insure their reliability is an important part of responsible Wikipedia editing, and I don’t appreciate your criticizing me for doing so.
With regards to your accusation that I have a pretty strong bias; I’m allowed to. It’s just the article that’s not allowed to be bias.
That said, I’m glad I brought up Dvorak. Binksternet’s rewrite of the paragraph makes it seem a lot less “Dvorak turned on Whitehead” and a lot more “Whitehead failed Dvorak”. At least the article is improving despite our disagreements. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 10:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I haven’t bad-mouthed anyone. Jane’s bad-mouthed the Wrights.
If you don’t like my opinion then that’s tough crap. It is only my edits TO ARTICLES which Wikipedia says should be neutral. Now stop violating WP:FORUM. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 11:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)