Talk:Gustave Whitehead

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gustave Whitehead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625074941/http://www.weisskopf.de/zeittafel.htm to http://www.weisskopf.de/zeittafel.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324181648/http://www.machine-history.com/Gustave%20Whitehead%20Flying%20Machine to http://www.machine-history.com/Gustave%20Whitehead%20Flying%20Machine

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gustave Whitehead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718190150/http://gustavewhitehead.org/affidavits_-_1934/affidavit:_anton_t._pruckne.html to http://gustavewhitehead.org/affidavits_-_1934/affidavit:_anton_t._pruckne.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726140013/http://www.gustavewhitehead.org/affidavits_-_1936/affidavit:_joe_ratzenberger.html to http://www.gustavewhitehead.org/affidavits_-_1936/affidavit:_joe_ratzenberger.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002151050/http://www.gustavewhitehead.org/affidavits_-_1936/affidavit:_thomas_schweiber.html to http://www.gustavewhitehead.org/affidavits_-_1936/affidavit:_thomas_schweiber.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718185855/http://gustavewhitehead.org/affidavits_-_1934/affidavit:_junius_harworth_.html to http://www.gustavewhitehead.org/affidavits_-_1934/affidavit:_junius_harworth_.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Article quality

Dilidor, did you intend to restore Darvarich said he was stoking the aircraft's boiler aboard the craft and was badly scalded in the accident, requiring several weeks in a hospital. to the article? --John (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

No; indeed, I never even edited that section. If I restored it, it was by accident in attempting to undo some other edits. I have no opinions whatsoever on that statement, simply because I have not yet read the subsection it's in. My apologies if I have inadvertently affected something that I've not even read. —Dilidor (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you restored it. Please be more careful. --John (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Missing Details

Important details should be added to the article. One important detail that needs to be written about (in the article) is, even if there was 'powered flight' as such by Whitehead, then was it 'controlled' powered flight? KorgBoy (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The article introduction explains that mainstream historians dismiss the Whitehead claims of flight; they don't believe he flew. In the subsection '1901' under the heading 'Claims of powered flight', the article describes Whitehead's alleged method of control, as reported by the Bridgeport Herald newspaper. In the subsection '1902', the article describes the method of control that Whitehead claimed he used. DonFB (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

As discussed elsewhere (e.g Talk:Whitehead No. 21 and at WP:FTN [1], Wikipedia seems to be giving undue credibility to claims regarding Whitehead's supposed feats in aviation, despite such claims being dismissed by pretty well every academic/aviation historian source which considers them worth mentioning. This article needs considerable work to comply with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The controversy is discussed in sufficient RS to establish some notability. Some RS has offered guarded support for Whitehead. One cannot dismiss say Jane's All the World's Aircraft because of one notorious editorial; quite the reverse, the case it makes should be refuted using other RS. Nothing in this article is biased towards accepting the minority claim. The OP has already been having this out elsewhere, as linked to above, and their complaints have not made headway there. One can add their Flying car attempt to that list. The OP even linked to my own web page on Whitehead vs. the Smithsonian in an attempt to discredit me and my arguments. So having failed at least three times, the OP tries the same old complaints yet again here. This obsession is becoming WP:DISRUPTIVE. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

If you consider my attempts to ensure that supporters of fringe aviation pseudohistory don't use Wikipedia to promote Whitehead's fantasy claims to be 'disruptive', good. That is my intention. Wikipedia's coverage of Whitehead is contrary to core Wikipedia principles. It deserves to be disrupted. I fully intend to continue this 'disruption' until the coverage does what it is supposed to - report fairly and accurately the overwhelming consensus amongst reputable aviation sources that Whitehead never made any sustained flights in any powered aircraft ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

This has grown past cleanup of fringe content. This is POV pushing. You are WP:CHERRYPICKING sources which do not 110% comply with your idea of "overwhelming consensus". The overwhelming consensus is that there is no proof that Whitehead flew his No.21 aircraft. Whitehead's supporters may not have provided sufficient evidence that it flew, but it's also true that no one has been able to definitively prove that it did not fly. Sure, some have speculated that the aircraft could not have achieved flight due to various reasons, but even those are based on photos or drawings which may or may not have accurately depicted the aircraft in its final configuration for the alleged 1901 flight. Your failure or refusal to recognize these factors leads me to believe that you are unable to contribute neutrally to this topic. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

that no one has been able to definitively prove that it did not fly? Do you even have a clue just how utterly ridiculous that statement is? Wikipedia contributors are under absolutely no obligation to 'prove' anything. Instead, we are obliged, per multiple core Wikipedia policies, to reflect the mainstream academic consensus in articles. Such consensus being that Whitehead didn't fly. End of story. If you want to argue with core policy and permit articles to be based on contributors' own vacuous speculation, this isn't the place top do it. And if you want to accuse me of being 'unable to contribute neutrally to this topic' this isn't the place to do so either. Feel free to take it to ANI (or ARBCOM for that matter - we may well end up there if this blatant fringe POV pushing continues), but expect your own behaviour to come under scrutiny too. I've only just stated looking into this topic, but seems that this policy-violating Whitehead-boosterism has been going on for years. People may well ask why, and how it was permitted to go on for so long? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@ZLEA: I wouldn't feed the POV troll any more than necessary, if I were you. It always comes back with more of the same, usually with empty threats which may be veiled to a greater or lesser extent. You just received a typical blast, likely I will receive one for posting this. Unsurprisingly, it has proved toothless on several recent occasions. I'd leave it there if I were you and just focus on its article edits. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)