Talk:Gustave Whitehead/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

The 60 Bladed Helecopter

The article currently states that Whitehead’s 60 bladed helicopter lifted itself off the ground. The source for that statement is an article written by Stella Randolf. Any objections if I change the sentence to “Whitehead's own 1911 studies of the vertical flight problem resulted in a 60-bladed helicopter which allegedly lifted itself off the ground while unmanned.”? 68.74.163.157 (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The "Burridge-Whitehead" machine is reported to have lifted itself a bit, yes. As for "Whitehead's 1911 studies of the vertical flight problem..." I'd be more inclined to state it as "The 60-propeller Burridge-Whitehead vertical flight machine of 1911 reportedly lifted itself into the air briefly, without an operator aboard." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Carrol, the issue is Randolf. She’s a notorious Whitehead activist. If we are going to state, as a fact, that Whitehead’s helicopter got off the ground we need a better source than Randolf’s word. In the July 23rd 1911 issue of the “Bridgeport Sunday Herald” the claim that the helicopter flew is clearly attributed to Whitehead himself. Over at [[1]] they state (in a caption) that Whitehead’s helicopter’s “engine was not powerful enough to drive the rotors at the speed required for lift off”. I don’t know why they say that, but I don’t think it’s the first time I’ve seen the helicopter described as a failure. What I am proposing is that we say that the helicopter may have flown unless we can find a more reliable source than Randolf, because, as it stands, the helicopter seems like an issue upon which the Pro-Wright and Pro-Whitehead camps do not agree.. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

How about this; we change the source for the claim to the Bridgeport Sunday Herald, and we say something like “Whitehead's own 1911 studies of the vertical flight problem resulted in a 60-bladed helicopter which, Whitehead claimed, was able to lift itself off the ground while unmanned.” 68.74.163.157 (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly very much aware of who Stella Randolph ("Randolph" not "Randolf") was and what her sympathies were. Since we have numerous statements by Whitehead of this-and-that flight he claimed to have made, I see no problem is saying that Whitehead made an unsupported claim that his 60 propeller (not "60 blades," each propeller had two blades so there were 120 blades on 60 propellers) once lifted off the ground briefly without an operator aboard. There is no documentation, nor can I find that he ever claimed that he ever flew in free-flight with it. The indirect paraphrase of Whitehead in the July 23, 1911, article is "The machine has not yet made flight but it has shown its ability to lift weight its inventor claims, greater than that necessary to make a successful flyer." Why not make use of some part of that sentence ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Whitehead was building the helicopter for Burridge who had a deadline for a meet, he was not allowed to continue the helicopter, which needed more engine power. Then, Burridge had Charles Witteman finish it, and the irony is that he used a Whitehead engine. Wittemann, who I met, had nothing but the highest compliments about Whitehead, memorialized in several letters, statements, and interviews. His term for Whitehead was "a genius". In addition, Burridge was or had recently been president of the Aeronautical Society (of NY) and sued Whitehead, trying to take the contents of his shop. The whole thing could have been a setup, it is suspicious. A lot was going on competitively in those days. The Aeronautical Society had set up a shop for their members to use at Morris Park, and likely needed tools and such, what a way to get them. Whitehead was a target always because he'd flown first and the Wrights got their info from him to help make their plane fly in a practical sense (by 1905). I do not think there are any geniuses herein. AviationHist1 (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Whitehead Recognition by State of CT

This is no small event. I improved the wording that was confusing and minimizing this event to :

In June 2013, the Governor of Connecticut, Dannel P. Malloy, signed into law a measure recognizing Whitehead as "first in powered flight" for flights made on August 14, 1901 in Fairfield, CT.[1][2][3]

That is what the law is about, with words from it. AviationHist1 (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the Governor of Connecticut might consider seeking an endorsement from the Flat Earth Society. A question... AviationHist1, what is your relationship to the "History by Contract" web site ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company and the opinion of its Director Nick Engler

"Skeptical opinion on Whitehead is also expressed at an educational website edited by Wright Brothers researcher Nick Engler. An article dismisses Whitehead's work and influence, stating: "While Whitehead believers insist that he was first to fly, no one claims that his work had any effect on early aviation or the development of aeronautic science. Even if someone someday produces a photo of No. 21 in flight on August 14, 1901, it will be nothing more than a footnote, a curious anomaly in the history of aviation."

I think this entire paragraph should be removed from GW's Legacy section. It's too much of a commercial for the Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company and the opinion of its Director Nick Engler.Tomticker5 (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Nick Engler is an expert on the topic. His opinion counts. His analysis is accurate as far as Whitehead's lack of having an effect on aviation. It was the Wright brothers' airplane that electrified France in 1908, stimulating Europeans and the whole world into action. Binksternet (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you censoring Whitehead historians and content? For example, here's what's been allowed in the article from Jane's. Where is the editor's name? Isn't he an aviation expert too?

"In 2013 Jane's All The World's Aircraft published its editor's opinion that Whitehead made the first manned, powered, controlled flight. This statement reignited the debate over who flew first."

"Whitehead supporters emphasize that he is now cited as the first person to make a powered, controlled airplane flight by an editorial in Jane's All the World's Aircraft, the influential annual publication about the global aircraft industry."

Obviously there are several editors here who are intent on censoring the content that's included that supports GW to make sure the article slants in favor of and protects the Wright brothers.Tomticker5 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not object to using Jane's editor's name, Paul Jackson, in the Legacy section text about Jane's endorsement of GW as first to fly. DonFB (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this article is filled with the opinions of the sources we're quoting. That's how Wikipedia articles handle controversy--by citing sources, who frequently have their own opinions on debated topics. We don't exclude sources simply because they have opinions. If we did, the Encyclopedia would not exist. DonFB (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I encourage the use of Paul Jackson's name as the one who made this endorsement of GW as First To Fly. I believe people ought to know just who is responsible, not a publication but a person. Paul Jackson, with all due respect, is not an historian, aviation or otherwise. He describes JATWA as "... the premiere aviation technical reference for the entire world, and has been for the last hundred years. We cover in it all aricraft that are either in production or anticipating production anywhere in the world..." - a technical reference, sure, I can agree with that assessment. Tomticker5, when you state things such as "Obviously there are several editors here who are intent on censoring the content that's included that supports GW to make sure the article slants in favor of and protects the Wright brothers." - please, name names, say who it is you are tossing this accusation at, don't hide beyond broad nonspecific provocative argumentative statements that assume bad faith on the part of "several editors." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I, too, agree that Paul Jackson should be named, so I have done so. Binksternet (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there a third-party opinion on Jane's All the World's Aircraft standing. (I think Flight International/flightglobal might disagree as to who the premiere is but..) it would save having to attribute their reputation to themselves.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wright brothers bias

DonFB is the #1 contributor to the Wright brothers article and #2 here.

Carroll F. Gray controls the website; www.thewrightbrothers.org created in 1998. His talk page states; "I am here only as myself "Carroll F. Gray" - I have no alternate accounts. I am editing only on behalf of myself, I am not here representing any other company, organization, group, product, or person. My central area of interest is aviation history, and I am currently helping to edit the Gustave Whitehead Wiki article. I have had several articles published, one of which was on Gustave Whitehead. When I began to edit the Whitehead Wiki article, I posted my Whitehead article and told the other then-active editors (DonFB and Roger491127) of the article's URL, so they could read it and make their own assessment about my position with respect to Whitehead." However, Carroll F. Gray fails to disclose his longstanding relationship with the wrightbrothers.org website and possibly other Wright brothers related organizations.

Binksternet is also a leading contributor to the Wright brothers article. Do the three previously mentioned editors have anything to gain from protecting the Wright brothers first in flight legacy? They have shown an inability, in my opinion, to maintain a neutral perspective with regard to Whitehead's article. They have a clear bias towards any and all Aviation Historians who have shown evidence to support Gustave Whitehead's aviation work. Grays comment to the sitting Governor of Connecticut notwithstanding, is an example of an inability to remain neutral. Are their opinions theirs or do they represent other organizations?Tomticker5 (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess you ran out of steam when you got to me. I have edited the Wright brothers page 9 times in total in the space of about 1.5 years... Of all the contributors to the page by edit count, I rank 40th, lagging behind three IP editors and some bots.

Anyway, why would an interest in the Wright brothers make someone unsuitable for editing the Whitehead page? I should think anyone interested in the Wright brothers would be perfect for working on pages of other early aviators. Your basis for ire is faulty. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Tomtinker5... the second line on the front page of my wrightbrothers.org site reads "Copyright © 1998 - 2006 Carroll Gray All Rights To This Web Domain And Web Site And Contents Thereof Are Reserved" - did you fail to see that ? All of my early aviation web sites (I have several) are clearly identified as mine, with my name in some prominent spot. As for "controlling" the site, I put it up ! It's my site ! What an odd view you have of all this. My comment about the Connecticut Governor perhaps seeking the endorsement of the Flat Earth Society is a gentle joke... I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more gentle humor from others in all this, to replace their bitter accusatory tone that pops up now and then. You seem to be saying I am fronting for some organization... which one do you have in mind ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, Tomtinker5, in case you've missed it, I have a Gustave Whitehead site, as well. Another editor of this article has an adamantly pro-GW web site, but I'll leave it to her to make that disclosure. Should she be editing here, given that she has that site ? Yes, absolutely. What we are required to do here is to produce a neutral article. I know that I can manage that, can you ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Tom, it would be better--far better--if you focused on the content of the article rather than impugning the various editors because of their interests or editing elsewhere on Wikipedia. That kind of behavior surely violates some policy or other on this site.

What information, if any, do you believe has been excluded from the GW article that should be included? DonFB (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A good point, we are edging into the deep dark dangerous waters of doubting other editors' intentions and linking non-de-plumes with offsite activities. Time to paddle back to the sun-kissed shore and resume the beach-combing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Does the warning about linking non-de-plumes with offsite activities apply to just my comments or to this too? "Perhaps the Governor of Connecticut might consider seeking an endorsement from the Flat Earth Society. A question... AviationHist1, what is your relationship to the "History by Contract" web site ? Carroll F. GrayTomticker5 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to answer Carroll's question, Tom. It was out of order. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies where appropriate. Clarification, my question was directed at AviationHist1, not Tomtinker5. Yes, let's get back to discussing the content of the article, please, thank you, DonFB. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A past pattern of edits to arbitrarily remove any content that suggested that Gustave Whitehead flew. These edits were done to make the articles more balanced and neutral?

• 15:20, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . Gustave Whitehead ‎ (replaced "airplane" (which inplies it could fly) with "machine" which is a neutral descriptor)
• 04:52, 4 October 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-57)‎ . . Whitehead No. 21 ‎ (removed phrase about Whitehead "flight" being two years before the Wright brothers - that phrasing asserts GW made The First Flight, which is very strongly refuted and is a fringe view)
• 20:52, 22 September 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-2,753)‎ . . Gustave Whitehead ‎ (→‎Wright brothers: deleted the irrelevant text about the Wright machine - this is not an article about problems with Wright machines, this is about GW)
• 06:20, 9 September 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-173)‎ . . Gustave Whitehead ‎ (→‎Connecticut 1901: deleted speculative comments that Richard Howell might have drawn drawing which appeared in 18 Aug 1901 Sunday Herald"" article)
• 20:45, 6 September 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . Gustave Whitehead ‎ (→‎Controversy: removed speculative attribution of No. 21 "flight" drawing to Richard Howell - added language identifying such an attribution as speculation (by O'Dwyer, etc.))
• 00:05, 3 September 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-99)‎ . . Timeline of aviation – 20th century ‎ (→‎August: deleted sentence which advocates (is not neutral) that Whitehead made a flight two years prior to Wrights)
• 15:06, 1 September 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-105)‎ . . Gustave Whitehead ‎ (→‎Photos: deleted speculative comment about G.W.'s poverty preventing supposed future powered flights)

Comment on edit diffs

My comments on edit diffs shown by TomTicker5, above:

15:20, 2 December 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . Gustave Whitehead ‎ (replaced "airplane" (which inplies it could fly) with "machine" which is a neutral descriptor) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustave_Whitehead&diff=400187538&oldid=400187163

I'm neutral about the edit. I could support both sides of the argument: "machine" is the term frequently used to describe these early craft; "airplane" is a term everyone can immediately understand; it could imply that the craft flew, but that interpretation really rests with the reader, and I don't think its use necessarily implies that the craft flew.

04:52, 4 October 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-57)‎ . . Whitehead No. 21 ‎ (removed phrase about Whitehead "flight" being two years before the Wright brothers - that phrasing asserts GW made The First Flight, which is very strongly refuted and is a fringe view) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whitehead_No._21&diff=388643392&oldid=388643090

I agree with your opinion about this edit. The removed text said that the Wright flights occurred after GW's claimed flights--not objectionable to me.

20:52, 22 September 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-2,753)‎ . . Gustave Whitehead ‎ (→‎Wright brothers: deleted the irrelevant text about the Wright machine - this is not an article about problems with Wright machines, this is about GW) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustave_Whitehead&diff=386441021&oldid=386375569

I agree with this edit. The removed text talked about modern research into the Wright Flyer, and followed that with sentences of editorialized and unreferenced text about how "stable" the #21 aircraft was "in stark contrast" (unreferenced phrase--the editor's pov) to the Flyer. The text was clearly POV-pushing about how #21 was better than the Flyer--definitely not the subject of this article.

06:20, 9 September 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-173)‎ . . Gustave Whitehead ‎ (→‎Connecticut 1901: deleted speculative comments that Richard Howell might have drawn drawing which appeared in 18 Aug 1901 Sunday Herald"" article) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustave_Whitehead&diff=383806723&oldid=383797757

I agree with the edit to the text in the article body. Without reference, the text said Howell wrote the article and "may have" made the drawing. At the very least, the text needed referencing for the statement/claim that Howell was attributed as the writer. I would not have objected to the picture caption remaining unchanged ("possibly by Dick Howell")..

20:45, 6 September 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . Gustave Whitehead ‎ (→‎Controversy: removed speculative attribution of No. 21 "flight" drawing to Richard Howell - added language identifying such an attribution as speculation (by O'Dwyer, etc.)) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustave_Whitehead&diff=383361872&oldid=383359503

I support the edit. The original text said Howell was "believed by many" to have made the drawing. The only source in the article which talks about that belief is O'Dwyer--or a source quoting or paraphrasing O'Dwyer. The word "many" is by no means supported by any referencing in the article.

00:05, 3 September 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-99)‎ . . Timeline of aviation – 20th century ‎ (→‎August: deleted sentence which advocates (is not neutral) that Whitehead made a flight two years prior to Wrights) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_aviation_%E2%80%93_20th_century&diff=382608708&oldid=382522945

I disagree with the edit. The text mentioned the timeline of the Wright flights to put Whitehead's reported flight in chronological context, which is very important and relates strongly to the reason for Whitehead's notability--that he is reported/claimed to have flown before the Wrights. However, the sentence immediately preceding should have been changed or removed: "a sketch of the plane in the air was made by a reporter for the Bridgeport Herald, Dick Howell, who was present." That text still exists, and I will remove it, because the information is certainly not confirmed, as the text strongly implies.

On further consideration, I support the edit. The Timeline article includes many entries about efforts to make flights of various kinds, and the entries do not reference themselves to the date of the Wright flights. The Whitehead entry can stand by itself without a comparison to the Wrights; readers can simply scroll along until they read about the Wrights. DonFB (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

15:06, 1 September 2010 (diff | hist) . . (-105)‎ . . Gustave Whitehead ‎ (→‎Photos: deleted speculative comment about G.W.'s poverty preventing supposed future powered flights) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustave_Whitehead&diff=382329360&oldid=382274369

The statement does seem speculative ("apparently could not"). The text would have benefited from a reference. On the other hand, from what I know, the statement might be accurate. But I don't fault an editor for removing the statement, given its uncertain nature.

If you use any more edit examples, please right click on the "prev" link and "copy shortcut", and then paste it into the Talk page, so editors can quickly find the stuff you're talking about. Otherwise, it's incredibly tedious to find the edits so they can be examined. Also, time zone differences result in different timestamps, which makes things more confusing, so use the link functionality and do a Preview to make sure the links show what they should. DonFB (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the above edits are all ones I made I suppose it's not necessary to say I support them, but I will anyway. I support the edits. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Not alive in the period

There's way too much influence being permitted from those who protect and benefit from the Wright brothers legacy editing here, in my opinion. While users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity. In the case of this article, their influence has controlled the very content to not even allow the statement that GW flew in an "airplane" in 1901 and even so far as to remove an image of one of the eyewitnesses to that flight. The news of GW's flight in 1901 was published in newspapers around the world. And, the state of Connecticut, after an almost three decade wait, has officially recognized Gustave Whitehead, not the Wright brothers, as "first in powered flight". There are editors who are trying to diminish that very act.

As Aviation Historian John Brown puts it;

"You cite the Wrights' 1903 claim as the threshold of evidence for first flight. I do not wish to question their claim. But let's look at how it's supported: Only two (of five) Kitty Hawk witnesses made written statements, both in 1935 and neither under oath. John Daniels stated the plane was launched from up on the slope of a sand dune and flew toward the ocean below head height. The witness, Etheridge, wrote he saw the same thing as Daniels, i.e., he made no actual statement of his own. So what we have is a hillside launch accelerated by tugging it off a rail and flying it down to MSL in ground effect for 40 yards. (I'm not making this up.) That's what the famous photo shows.

With Whitehead, we have 17 witnesses (14 under oath) who testified at different times in different places, yet still corroborated each other. We have other witnesses - one an aeronautical expert from Scientific American - who say they saw a photo of Whitehead in his 1901 airplane in successful, powered flight. (And now we have - in all likelihood - the photo they were referring to - unfortunately very blurred. (For me, the witnesses are enough. I had no cause to doubt what the journalists said they saw when they viewed that photo up close.)

My point is: - if you accept the standard of evidence for the Wrights' 1903 flight, then you must also accept Whitehead's 1901 flight; and - if you reject the evidence for Whitehead's 1901 flight, then you must also reject the Wrights' 1903 flight.

So, it's either both or none. The only way you can accept one but reject the other is by applying differing standards of evidence to each claim."Tomticker5 (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully, Wikipedia has more comprehensive rules in place for verifying information, and for using reliable sources. We don't rely on a comparison of witnesses in one case to witnesses in another. Binksternet (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Brown makes the case articulately and persuasively. But he's not the sole arbiter of the Whitehead issue, and of course, neither are you. There remains no consensus among historians about what GW did, and this article should reflect that reality. As for your own comments, like this: "There's way too much influence being permitted from those who protect and benefit from the Wright brothers legacy editing here, in my opinion" -- you're still applying an inappropriate personal focus on editors, some of whom you apparently imagine receive a "benefit" (in addition to your troubling thoughts about whether some editors should be "permitted" to have influence, or even be allowed to remain anonymous), rather than focusing exclusively on the subject matter, which is where your attention should be located, according to site policy. DonFB (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I must point out that once again John Brown is mixing apples and oranges. The "slope of a sand dune" reference is to the one attempt on 14 Dec 1903, not the four done on 17 Dec 1903, so it bears no relevance to the point he is trying to make. He is also in serious error on other matters in the statement Tomtinker5 quotes, but I don't think this is the place for that discussion. We are - as I have pointed out and as has been pointed out to me, and often - here to edit a neutral Wiki article about GW. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I am not "one of those who protect and benefit from the Wright brothers legacy."

As for the removal of the word "airplane" - it might be too technical a point, but there were no "airplanes" in 1901 so no one could have flown in one. There were "airships" and "flying machines," "aerial craft" and "aerial contrivances." The word "aeroplane" did not come into use until after 1907-08. The word "airplane" came into use during WWI. I understand many people aren't concerned about anachronisms, but I am. Further, to use the word "airplane" in it's current meaning and apply it to a 1901 anything, is to give it a slant of being able to fly, in addition to being an anachronism... and if we say in this article that, in a popular meaning, something could "fly" with a person aboard in 1901, to many people we are effectively saying it happened. So, by using terms appropriate to the period we're working on, we can stay neutral. Nothing sinister here about not wanting to use the word "airplane." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The terminology is an problematic one to steer a path through. On the one hand, as you say, modern authors will refer to aeroplane, or glider and the reader will know what they mean. On the other, some of the contemporary material quoted or referred to uses "airship" which to a modern reader means something like the Goodyear Blimp or a Barrage balloon (depending on your cultural background) but at the time could be anything that was meant to fly. That said the English language is a wonderful flexible thing and we should be able to come up with a phrasing that describes the situation even if it is a bit of a circumlocution. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The way to use affidavits in the article

We have discussed affidavits several times on this talk page, with the result that affidavits themselves must be treated as WP:Primary sources. Wikipedia prefers WP:Secondary sources, and places important limits on the use of primary sources.

• In October 2010, at Talk:Gustave_Whitehead/Archive_7#Original_research, DonFB said that affidavits are primary sources. Carroll F. Gray agreed.
• The same month, at Talk:Gustave_Whitehead/Archive_7#EVIDENCE_-.3E_Witnesses, I said the affidavits should be interpreted only by secondary sources, but that some affidavit text may be briefly quoted.
• In December 2010, the subject came up again at Talk:Gustave_Whitehead/Archive_8#The_Affidavits_.28again.29.
• In May 2011, the subject came up yet again at Talk:Gustave_Whitehead/Archive_9#Affidavits.

One of the problems of bringing up an individual affidavit to prove a point is that the affidavits as a group do not support each other. They supply conflicting information; some are extremely positive and some are extremely negative. Tom D. Crouch says of the affidavits that they are a confused and contradictory mess and "cannot be accepted as evidence for the flight." Rather than supply an affidavit as evidence, what we must do instead is tell the reader that a certain reliable source has interpreted a certain affidavit in a certain manner.

I think we must once again pare down the use of affidavits in the article. We have let the material creep back in without mediation from secondary observers. As well, we should refrain from calling the affiants "witnesses" when the things they supposedly saw have been seriously questioned. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your general points are reasonable. None of us, as editors, should apply any interpretation to any quoted material from the affidavits. I don't believe that the text, currently, makes any interpretation.

I regard the affidavits as analogous to photographs. The article includes brief text from a few of them, without comment, to show some of the actual historical evidence which has been used to support the claims, just as photographs can be used to convey historical information. I recognize, of course, that one or more editors may want to include affidavit text in order to "prove a point". But the intent of an editor does not automatically disqualify source material--even if primary--if we correctly follow policy in the presentation of such material. (I am reminded of the multiple attempts to exclude the Engler text because certain editors don't like his opinion, disregarding the fact that, as a source, the material is eminently legitimate.)

At present, the article devotes a goodly amount of space to the Dickie affidavit, which is the single "witness" statement that refutes the flight claims. The most important statement from the Dickie affidavit is presented as a very close paraphrase, with no comment, and there is also some mediating commentary by a magazine and O'Dwyer. As long as we keep the amount of other affidavit text brief and uncommented by editors, I think we do readers a service so they can see some of what was said and ponder their own conclusions. Of course, we are also free to include comments from sources like Crouch and Howard, who dismiss the affidavits. Obviously, if some readers want more details and are so inclined, they can follow the links and read all the affidavits in all their lengthy and varying detail. But I hope you'll agree that drilling into the links need not be readers' only choice if they're simply curious to see a little of the original material so they can learn something about its content and tone--not unlike looking at a vintage photograph to learn something about architecture, fashion or aeronautical design. DonFB (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think caution is called for with the affidavits. I support the use of secondary sources when the contents of affidavits are offered, although I also take DonFB's point that bits or "original material" can be useful to our readers. The problem is, however, that they are primary sources, and apologies for stating my own observation, but they also are not uniformly reliable as presenting what was actually said by the people making the statements. I just corrected a sentence on the (excessive) HBC wiki page that Charles Wittemann had once examined GW's acetylene engine and pronounced it airworthy - he said no such thing in his signed statement - no reference at all to GW's acetylene engine. The affidavits have become skewed over the years by misleading paraphrases and statements such as the one I corrected. It had zero basis in C. Wittemann's statement. The tendency of some editors to mis-characterize what is written or sworn to, and to add comments which skew matters - and sometimes in wholly unsupported directions - is my biggest concern with the affidavits. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, then that should strengthen your support for using a few direct quotations from the affidavits. The situation you describe above is a mis-characterization or mis-paraphrasing of someone's statement. The choice I'm describing is direct quotation, not paraphrasing with its potential to be misleading. Nor do I mean that we should exclude characterization of the statements by reliable sources. We should include that commentary as well (paraphrased, quoted, or both).

My view is that rather than merely telling readers that the affidavits exist, the article should also show some actual direct quotations from the statements, of the type which independent researchers have relied upon for years and mainstream historians have debunked for years. We then include some of the usual sources (Crouch, Howard, Gibbs-Smith, Randolph, O'Dwyer) criticizing and praising the affidavits generally, according to their wont.

The situation I think we should avoid is telling readers that the affidavits exist while arbitrarily withholding direct quotations. That would be like telling readers about the sketch of Number 21 in flight, while deliberately withholding the actual image from the article because we've decided it's a sham that might wrongly suggest the machine really flew. We don't get to make that call. The affidavits, the sketch, the static photos and the Herald report are all legitimate historical artifacts which are crucial to the Whitehead narrative, and they all have their proper place in the article. Yes, we should be careful not to give undue weight to the affidavits, but that doesn't mean we must suppress quotations from them.

Our purpose in showing some illustrative quotations from the affidavits is no different than our purpose in showing the sketch, the photos and the quotes from the Herald newspaper story. I emphasize that use of excerpted quotations is not to be done as an effort to "prove" something. Their use is only to show readers a few of the statements in the research record which have driven much of the Whitehead saga. I reiterate: they are, in my view, historical artifacts like pictures, and as such, a few of them, edited for brevity, deserve to be directly presented in the article. DonFB (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should tell the reader about the various bits of affidavit material that have been tossed around by "the usual sources", along with what those sources have said about the affidavits. To Carroll's point, we should be careful to avoid those sources which misquote an affidavit, unless the misquote is being challenged by another source. The affidavit itself would settle the matter, which is when citing a primary source is most appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

External Links

I see a problem with the current list of external links for the GW article. They are heavily lop-sided in sentiment and opinion. To have neutrality, shouldn't that be corrected ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Its an subject with a lot of room for opinion, and strong opinion. So long as various opinions are represented, and there's content not already covered in the article or the sources I don't see a problem. There's only a few links at the moment, so there's no great impetus to trim. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Caption of flying witches criticized by Orville Wright & Tom Crouch - Smithsonian

Dwyer covers the witches in his book. The 1901 Bridgeport newspaper article was criticized by Aviation Historians, mainly associated with the Smithsonian, and Orville Wright, because it had a caption with "witches flying around on broom sticks". However, the image of a witch flying on a broomstick was regarded, at the time, as depicting "the original aviator.

"The Original Aviator" by Clare Briggs Chicago Tribune 1909

Tomticker5 (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too impressed by criticism based on the witches--even less am I impressed by your laughable effort to legitimize Whitehead by an appeal to the witches. You can do better than that. DonFB (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who has heard Tom Crouch of Smithsonian use Orville Wright's playbook for discrediting Whitehead would know that the Aug. 18th Sunday Herald article with the eye-witness journalist report of the Aug. 14, 1901 flight has been called "fiction" based on the witches flying on broomsticks decoration at the top of the article, which is entitled "Flying". Tomticker is very correct in pointing out that the witch on a broomstick was an early aviation symbol at the turn of the last century. Aero Club of PA even adopted it as their logo. It is highly pertinent to the veracity of the Whitehead eye-witness report and should go into this article, I agree with Tomticker. 68.7.107.109 (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If Tomticker5 wants to publish a book, article or paper about Whitehead, this connection can be made there. However, Wikipedia has hard-and-fast rules against original research. Trying to connect 1900 attitudes about witches with Whitehead and the Bridgeport newspaper report is not going to work here unless the link is overtly stated in the source. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you give this a little more thought, considering that it was printed in 1909, it could be a joke about the 18 Aug 1901 Sunday Herald article and that certain "first aviator"... Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand it would be fascinating to hear how someone could use that image to defend the seriousness of the 18 Aug 1901 SH article... that would make some interesting reading... Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Plus, if you compare the 1909 broomstick's angle of incidence with the 1901 broomsticks' angle of incidence, you can see how the 1909 witch is in danger of stalling, but at least she's trying to fly on a night with a Full Moon... Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This speaks to the double standard used by "mainstream historians" (Smithsonian & Wright brother) who criticized Whitehead after his death. The image of a flying witch was inserted with other images of planes in a 1909 article and included this statement; "Tho the Wrights stayed away, their "type" was represented, too." Referring to their bi-plane.Tomticker5 (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not a pro-Wright, an anti-Wright, a pro-Blériot, an anti-Blériot, a pro-Weisskopf, or an anti-Whitehead article... so, what is the point of this ? It could be I'm dense, but I don't follow your thinking... if you could explain it in a few sentences, I'll make an effort to understand what you're saying. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Aero Club of PA adopted its logo of a witch on a broomstick in 1910. They say the idea for the logo; "likely came directly from a letter written by Ben Franklin in 1783 to an English friend after seeing the rapid progress of aviation, which said, "...the idea of witches riding thro' the air upon a broomstick, would have appeared...impossible and ridiculous." So much for your inferring that it could be a joke about the 18 Aug 1901 Sunday Herald article and that certain "first aviator".[2]Tomticker5 (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The magic word is "inference". Opinion on the significance of the witches needs to be attributed to an opinion and or a reliable source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no need for me to write a book for this content to be added here. The connection between the flying witch and GW has been made by O. Wright and T. Crouch who have stated the appearance of flying witches atop the Bridgeport, CT newspaper report about GW's successful 14 August 1901 powered controlled flight was an indication to them as "mainstream aviation historians", that the story was clearly fiction and shouldn't be taken seriously. It appears that the flying witch has in fact been used as a symbol by early American Aviation Clubs (see Pennsylvania Aero club) and also appears in several articles about early air races/exhibitions, etc. from that period. How Wright and Crouch conveniently overlooked this fact and proceeded to criticize the published reports of GW's first successful powered controlled flight for using flying witches imagery as a caption is very telling.Tomticker5 (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

So, Tomticker5, why do you believe the witches were used as background for "Flying" om the 18 August 1901 Bridgeport Herald article ? You state that OW and TC saw them as an indication "that the story was clearly fiction and shouldn't be taken seriously" - what do you see them as indicating ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Witches were used as a "caption" not a "background" for the Bridgeport newspaper article breaking the news of GW's successful flight on August 14 1901. The Witch also appears (Briggs) in a story in Current Literature in 1909 about the Gordon Bennett Cup air race in Reims, France that year.[3] The image of flying witches has a history of representing early flight it seems. FYI, in August 1909 Reims hosted the first international aviation meet, the Grande Semaine d'Aviation de la Champagne. Major aviation personages such as Glenn Curtiss, Louis Blériot and Louis Paulhan participated.Tomticker5 (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes (you overlooked Farman[4]), but is there a source that says Witches are not used perjoratively or as a joke. And does that source extend its opinion to the Bridgeport Herald. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It has become a forgotten truth that flying witches were used when reporting the earliest powered controlled flights.Tomticker5 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The cheap answer is for me to just name drop Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth but moving on from there hopefully if that is the case then someone should have written on the subject, and we need that cite.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have listed three sources dating before 1910 that contain images of flying witches associated with published reports of successful airplane flights made by early aviators. Not to mention the first medallion/coin of the PA Aero Club, circa 1910, which has a flying witch on one side. I haven't spent decades looking for other published sources, but I'm certain they must exist. Notwithstanding, the earliest flying witch imagery was published in 1901 in the Bridgeport "Sunday Herald" reporting a powered airplane flight. How could a "mainstream/modern aviation historian", in the mid 20th century, overlook the other published sources containing flying witches that date from that period? Did they just innocently overlook them? The cheap answer is, yeah.Tomticker5 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how many different ways are required to tell you that this image your synthesis and original research are not appropriate to the article. Leave it be! You will not be able to bring your personal observations and analysis to bear inside the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No need to take a patronizing tone. I completely understand the image of flying witches is already embedded in the article from the 1901 newspaper article. And, that published sources from modern mainstream aviation historians claim that means the story was fantasy. What's lacking is a reliable published source that connects the images of flying witches to the reporting of early successful airplane flights. I'm sure that it's out there, just like the 1895 & 1904 books by Cochrane. I just have to find them.Tomticker5 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Bridgeport Herald was called Sunday Herald

Dear DonFB, your edits are appreciated for the most part, thanks for catching typos. I do want to point out that the Bridgeport Herald is not the name of the newspaper, it is the Bridgeport Sunday Herald (printed on the newspaper itself: http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/history/news-reports-1901-2-flights/1901-08-18-bridgeport-herald-p-5/ to view it. The newspaper was only printed on Sundays, it never was a daily paper and that was its name. So I would like to have you (or I can do it) revert the name of the paper to its proper one. This is pertinent when one realizes that critics of Whitehead (Orville Wright and T. Crouch) claimed incorrectly and still do, in the case of Crouch, that the newspaper should have published the story immediately (August 14 or 15th) vs. the 18th. They couldn't, it was the Sunday Herald and that is its name. AviationHist1 (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the front page of the 18 Aug 1901 edition - its masthead reads "BRIDGEPORT HERALD"- the title on the inside pages is "Sunday Herald" but the newspaper's name - its masthead - was "BRIDGEPORT HERALD" Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Here's a link: http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Gustav_Whitehead/Gustav_Whitehead_images/Bridgeport-Herald-August-18-1901-Page-1.jpg. The paper is sometimes referred to as the "Bridgeport Sunday Herald" in the various media stories about it. But that actual front page of the 18 Aug 1901 edition looks rather unequivocal. I would not object if our GW article were edited to explain that different names were printed on the front page and inside pages of the newspaper. DonFB (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have the letterhead of the newspaper, called "The Sunday Herald" which I could show you if I was able to insert it here, but I can't figure that out. Suggestions? AviationHist1 (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is the list of newspapers on microfilm at Bridgeport Library http://bportlibrary.org/hc/newspapers-on-microfilm/. Note the name, Bridgeport Sunday Herald. It is a misnomer to refer to it as the Herald AND especially as Orville Wright absurdly claimed that they should have published the next day and this is still parroted by people who either don't realize or wish to mislead, that not only was it a Sunday only newspaper, but it was called the Bridgeport Sunday Herald, officially. We do not need to give a ludicrous explanation of such a detail. Just call it what it was, officially. AviationHist1 (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If we were to do as you suggest ("Just call it what it was, officially."), then we would have to refer to it as the "BRIDGEPORT HERALD" for Sunday, August 18, 1901, or some such. What a library references it as is immaterial. The masthead **is** the official name of a newspaper, any newspaper. DonFB posted a link, above, so you can see page one for the issue of August 18, 1901, for yourself... Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The official name of the paper as proven by multiple sources is The Sunday Herald. I also have this on their letterhead. Since it is at issue whether it was a daily it needs to go by its correct name and then explain that it was called The Herald for brevity and explaining the controversy over whether it was a daily or Sunday newspaper. I not only disagree with anyone who wishes to call it something else but point this out as an excellent example of how people who are trying to promote the Wrights will stop at no manipulation of the facts on this Whitehead page. A complaint will be filed with Wikipedia if the name of the newspaper is not allowed to be its official one, because it is the facts that count, not your opinions.AviationHist1 (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

My dear AviationHist1, there is no "manipulation" involved. Simply look at the front page of the newspaper using the link DonFB provided. The official, true, real, factual, verifiable name is the "BRIDGEPORT HERALD" - look and see. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that "it is at issue whether it was a daily" in the text of this article. This article quite clearly, upfront and repeatedly tells readers that the newspaper was a weekly. The issue historically, involving Orville, et al, is also clearly explained in this article. I believe the current text is fair in its description of variations in the way the newspaper displayed its name and was referred to by sources. If you wish to use Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution process regarding the issue, I welcome your doing so. DonFB (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

... also, "History by Contract" p. 334/335 displays a front page of the BRIDGEPORT HERALD, so the masthead can be seen there, as well. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It is the Bridgeport Herald, casually known on Sunday as the Sunday Herald. It was never officially known as the Sunday Herald or the Bridgeport Sunday Herald, despite the owner printing "Sunday Herald" on some pages. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Is "Largest Circulation In The State" part of the masthead too?Tomticker5 (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with AviationHist1: use a source's most proper name, especially if its misuse can bias important information in the article. Several mastheads use shortened names for their papers so the masthead alone is not an indicator of a newspaper's true name. That would certainly appear to be the case here. HarryZilber (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

So in your learned opinion, what is the "true name" of the newspaper? The front page banner in 50 point type? The inside page headers? AviationHist1's privately owned page of stationery? The Library reference hyperlink? Your personal opinion about what "would certainly appear to be the case"? We certainly have a lot to choose from, I'm sure you'll agree. Shall we write the article text based on what you think "would certainly appear to be the case?" Is that your newly revised standard for "reliable" sourcing? I, for one, vote against your facile and rather shallow thinking on the matter. I further point out, if you haven't noticed, that the Wikip article on GW clearly states, repeatedly, that the newspaper was a weekly. This article also clearly and fairly explains that the newspaper displayed its own name in more than one way, and that the newspaper's name has been referenced by a library in yet another way. Readers of this article are very well-served by having those details. Petty bickering over the issue proves nothing and will not resolve why Orville made the comments he did. Our job is to report what he said, and what people subsequently said about what he said. I think the article is doing a very good job at those tasks. Or, maybe you have further insightful ideas whether that would "certainly appear to be the case here." DonFB (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

DonFB: your boosterism for the use of Bridgeport Herald and thus avoid the Sunday Herald or Bridgeport Sunday Herald is duly noted. But why push so hard to avoid the use of "Sunday"? Perhaps because it detracts from the Wright brothers narrative of coverage on Whitehead. Where you say that the "article also clearly and fairly explains that the newspaper displayed its own name in more than one way" I have to take exception since the only notation of that which I can find is hidden in a citation note (presently #15). Why not put that out front right in the article's prose? As an alternate to this brouhaha I recommend that we refer to the newspaper as either the Bridgeport Sunday Herald or as "Bridgeport's Sunday Herald" and stop bickering over it. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The only relevant issue regarding what you overstate as the "Wright brothers narrative" is why Orville did not know (or, as some might claim, pretended not to know) that the newspaper was a weekly. Or, whether he thought the paper should have somehow printed a special edition the next day. No third-party research I'm aware of answers those questions, so neither can we. That leaves us with the permutations of the newspaper's name. It would certainly be convenient (for you) to adopt your solution and be done with it. For my part, I think the rather obvious and safe thing to do is use, as a first choice, the text of the newspaper's own front page banner emblazoned on that very edition of 8/18/1901 as the paper's name in the text of the GW article. Common sense (a fundamental Wikipedia principle, I'd like to remind you) tells me that if some readers take the trouble to look at images of the front page and page 5 of that edition, they will readily understand why the GW article uses the front page name; such readers would undoubtedly wonder (with no answer provided in the GW article) why an alternate and less obvious name was used, if it were. I would not object to one (but not repeated) mention of alternate names in the GW article text, either in addition to, or instead of a footnote. DonFB (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to manufacture a conspiratorial reason why people here are insisting on Bridgeport Herald as the official name. The only point worth discussing is "what is the paper's actual name". As best as I can determine it was the Bridgeport Herald. That is the only name we should use in the article text, after giving the reader an explanatory footnote about alternate names. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Mastheads can be deceiving. By way of example Canada's largest circulation newspaper, a daily, was officially The Toronto Star as of 1971 (with similar names prior to that); however for several years in the 1980s and 1990s the newspaper carried a masthead reading simply as The Star.

As of 18 August 1901, the Bridgeport newspaper was officially the "Sunday Herald", shown on this CONSUL report. While page one sported "Bridgeport Herald", page 5 where the article was printed had a "Sunday Herald" name plate, the newspaper's official name. The easiest solution here would be to refer to the newspaper as "Bridgeport's Sunday Herald". HarryZilber (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

As of today, I see no indication that the CONSUL page you linked shows that the 8/18/1901 newspaper "was officially the 'Sunday Herald'". The webpage shows Sunday Herald publication years of 1890-1894, and then publication years beginning in 1934 and 1949. If, as you would have anyone believe, the linked page displays that newspaper name for 18 Aug 1901 (or even for that year), or points to a webpage with such information, I'm all ears. For the record, the CONSUL page you linked contains data corresponding to this Library of Congress page. Of course, it is possible to search the CONSUL site for "Bridgeport Herald," sans "Sunday". Had you bothered, you'd see this page with a somewhat familiar name associated with "Bridgeport Herald": Richard Howell. So what does all this mean? It means your research remains inconclusive, and in uncharitable eyes, sloppy, or worse--deliberately deceptive. My eyes (corrected with non-presciption reading glasses) continue to show the name "Bridgeport Herald" boldly running across the top of the front page of the 8/18/1901 edition of the newspaper identified by that name in the Whitehead article. So the easiest solution, to coin a phrase, would be to call the newspaper what it called itself on its front page. None of this will make a whit of difference regarding the controversy over what Orville Wright wrote, but I can't in good conscience agree to calling a publication by a name different from that shown on its front page, especially when there's clearly no credible documentation to justify such an obvious discrepancy. I've previously acknowledged that the inside pages of the newspaper are headed "Sunday Herald," and I've previously agreed with adding that information (without subtracting anything) to the body of the GW article. DonFB (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear DonFB: perhaps both of us were caffeine deprived on our earlier posts as we were apparently both off the mark. On further checking a Library of Congress page associated with the one you just supplied, it became apparent that the Bridgeport Sunday Herald was being published in multiple editions, as shown in the Notes section on About Bridgeport herald. (Bridgeport, Conn.) 19??-193?. Look at the corresponding page for About Sunday herald. (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1890-1??? and if you match the data you'll see the connections. As both the City of Bridgeport and Connecticut grew in population in the 20th century, the Sunday Herald apparently seized the day and expanded with more editions as listed: "State ed., Home ed., New Haven ed., Hartford ed., Norwalk-Stamford ed.".

Apparently at least some of the new editions were started in 1901, but I've been unable to pinpoint an exact day in that year. I'm surmising that all of their out of town editions were still printed in Bridgeport as that would have been the most feasible type of operation: publish from one printing plant and then distribute by truck or train. Whereas the original newspaper was identified with its true name, the Sunday Herald, that wouldn't work when the papers were being sold in other cities if those communities had papers with a similar name, so likely the papers were being sold mastheaded as the Bridgeport Herald or the Bridgeport Sunday Herald (b.t.w., the Bridgeport Herald appears to have been a daily publication for a few years in later decades).

That would probably account for the variety of names we're seeing in different sources: the local ("Home") edition likely used Sunday Herald, while papers sold in other cities likely used the Bridgeport Herald or Bridgeport Sunday Herald mastheads. The Whitehead flight story of August 1901 probably appeared in all editions (yet to confirm that), so the masthead you're seeing on Page 1 may depend on which edition you are viewing (from which city or community). If it was the original Bridgeport "Home" edition it would probably sport the Sunday Herald nameplate, and if it was from another city it would likely be either Bridgeport Herald or Bridgeport Sunday Herald. As mentioned on an earlier post that referred to The Toronto Star which used a The Star nameplate, a newspaper's masthead was not necessarily an accurate display of the newspaper's true name. That's the way it appears to me at this time, now being freshly caffeinated this morning.

Regardless of the above clear-as-mud history of Connecticut newspapers, more to the point is what Wikipedia should use in an article that describes a controversial event laden with disputes, and which at one point describes a criticism of the very Sunday Herald article we're spilling ink over –being the story's publication several days after the (disputed) flight took place. To make it perfectly transparent to our lay readership I support what Tom Crouch (the Tom Crouch, whom I don't necessarily agree with on Whitehead matters) did in his recent posting on the matter, shown on Around the Mall, March 18, 2013, where he unambiguously uses Bridgeport Sunday Herald (twice), with no usage of "Bridgeport Herald". Well done Tom! –I agree with you at least on your correct usage of the newspaper's name to show both where the paper was published and what day of the week it was published on. B.T.W. this bruhaha reminds me of the Wright brothers researcher and the Whitehead researcher who walked into a bar together....... (you know that story –you may have contributed to it as well!). Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

All that conjecture about various editions and where they may have been printed is not going to help your argument. Whatever editions were involved, this particular one was named the Bridgeport Herald, as shown on its front page, the paper printed on Sunday, with the name Sunday Herald found inside on other pages. Crouch's concatenation is for convenience, and disambiguation, not pure accuracy. In this manner he follows in the footsteps of Stella Randolph, who called the paper Bridgeport Sunday Herald in her 1937 book. We do not have to take this route; we are free to name the paper according to its own masthead. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You're implying that the edition of the page 1 image is from the same edition (city) as the image of the page 5 image without having proven that point. The Library of Congress establishes there were multiple editions from the same publisher (which is not "conjecture") as shown on the previous links. In effect you're ignoring the very point that has just been made because you apparently prefer not to agree with it.

You also refer to the freedom to name the paper according to the image you prefer which doesn't concur with Wikipedia's general requirements to be as accurate as possible. Where there are disputes of facts, those disputes should be noted transparently to our readers (and not buried in footnotes) in accordance with our NPOV policy. Avoiding the use of "Sunday" in the newspaper's name is essentially being the opposite of transparent, which is what Tom Crouch avoided doing himself. There's no harm in our text noting to its readers in open prose that the newspaper article was published in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald, or in "Bridgeport's Sunday Herald", which is far more accurate that Bridgeport Herald alone. So far as I can determine, Sunday Herald was likely the masthead on Pg. 1 of the edition that was actually published for the City of Bridgeport on that day, which would make "Bridgeport's Sunday Herald" the best all round choice. Cordially: HarryZilber (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with HarryZilber comments above. I believe he should make the necessary edits to the article, which should clarify it and make it easier to understand.Tomticker5 (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus here. Three editors have made good arguments for Bridgeport Herald, while three other editors have suggested "Bridgeport's Sunday Herald" and Bridgeport Sunday Herald, with no particular evidence showing one or the other to be primary. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Harry, the only specific (and comprehensible) piece of information you've brought forward is that Crouch used a variant of the newspaper's name. Otherwise, all you've done, repeatedly, is posit what you theorize was the "official" name while providing no evidence. The godfathers of Whitehead research themselves, O'Dwyer and Randolph, were inconsistent. In "History By Contract" their usage included both "Bridgeport Herald" and "Sunday Herald". I do find it interesting (well, perverse, actually) that you steadfastly refuse even to include "Bridgeport Herald" as one of the various names in your comments. It's as though you cannot see, or have never seen, the front-page banner of the paper. I repeat (for the third time) my willingness to have the article amended by a brief explanatory phrase or sentence in "open prose" (not confined to a footnote--although others may differ about that), explaining that the newspaper's front page banner shows the name "Bridgeport Herald", while the inside pages are headed with "Sunday Herald", and that aviation historians and researchers and library weblinks have referred to the paper variously as the "Bridgeport Herald" and the "Bridgeport Sunday Herald". Here's something else for the record. The actual "masthead," such as it is, appears on page 4, upper left. In the small print under the heading Circulation, there appears the text, "The combined circulation of the Bridgeport and Waterbury HERALDS is over 40,000..." (Their capital letters). I don't regard that text as proof of anything, but it does offer some more evidence that "Sunday" was not an integral part of the newspaper's "official" name. DonFB (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Horvath/Harworth photo

What reason is there for having a photo of JH in this article ? I removed it once since I saw no compelling need to have it included. He is barely mentioned in the body of the article. If his photo is included, why not Mrs. Whitehead's ? Why not Anton Pruckner's ? Why not Stella Randolph's ? Why not Maj. O'Dwyer's ? Why not Stanley Beach's ? etc etc... so... why is JH's photo in this article ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably can wait to replace JH's picture with one showing Whitehead in flight on 14 August 1901. For lack of that picture here, it speaks to the 1901 flight that JH eyewitnessed.Tomticker5 (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Tomticker5, that might take a long time. I'll remove the picture unless there is a good reason to have it. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide me with a good reason to remove this image?Tomticker5 (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The photo assumes an importance simply by being in the article, yet the reference in the text to JH is very slight. His appearance is irrelevant to the article. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

An image of an eyewitness to Whitehead's successful powered flight on 14 August 1901 adds contextual significance.Tomticker5 (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, your point assumes there *was* a "successful powered flight on 14 August 1901... you're adding "contextual significance" to an opinion. This strikes me as yet another reason to remove the photo. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple references to that flight, and Harworth's affidavit certifies himself as a serious witness. The references to that flight are real and not 'opinions' even if you prefer not to believe them. HarryZilber (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

An eyewitness newspaper account to the flight which was not impeached until five or six decades had passed, holds up very well in my opinion, that the flight took place. Add the 1904 book and articles, etc. and you have made a good case.Tomticker5 (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Harryzilber, the interpretations of the 18 Aug 1901 Bridgeport Herald article are opinions, and most - if not almost all - references stem from that article. The references are real enough, but if that's the standard, then Anton Pruckner and/or James Dickie's photos have more reason to be included in the article on GW. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carroll F. Gray, if my memory serves me I believe you've self-published some material that posits the idea of the Bridgeport article being fictional humour –although there are no obvious indications of such. The flying witch would not be such an indicator any more than the flowers surrounding the first an early 1904 article of the Wrights' Huffman Prairie flights indicated that story was fictional. The jury would be out on your assertions unless there are published reliable sources definitively establishing the article was a hoax. Are there such published sources? HarryZilber (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If only for the record, I point out the lack of "the flowers" that H.Zilber apparently conjures in his lively imagination in these--the first articles about the Wright flights. (Where have all the flowers gone...?) DonFB (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out DonFB -I've revised the timing of my earlier statement. Perhaps I'll also add a link to Amos Root's apiculture journal article on the Wright brothers' flight. By the way I noticed that the "highly inaccurate" Virginian-Pilot article about the Wrights ("[t]he resulting news article was certainly interesting, but bore not even a vague resemblance to the truth") that you've linked to actually carries no author's name attribution. Besides being flat-out wrong, the article could thus also be humour, don't you know ;-) Best: HarryZilber (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Harryzilber, I'm not able to offer original research or to self-reference my own work (my various published articles and web sites) here in keeping with Wiki policy. So, I am leaving that to others to find and make use of, or to ignore, as they wish. I can make the observation that there is no way, for example, to A) prove beyond reasonable doubt the 18 Aug 1901 Bridgeport Herald was truthful reporting, or B) to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was humor or a hoax. We all can make our own considered judgement of that article, however. On Wiki we're left with referencing sources that express this or that point of view about that article. On our off-time, away from Wiki, we can pursue our own opinions and our own interpretations of evidence, as much and as often as we want to. Besides, in my work outside of Wiki I don't look for "published reliable sources" to support my articles, I state what my own view of a given subject is. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the acknowledgement. HarryZilber (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Harryzilber (or anyone else), if you'd care to know my considered opinion of the 18 Aug 1901 Bridgeport Herald "Flying" article, send an e-mail to my gmail address - I'm happy to share my thoughts and opinions - and I'm not difficult to locate. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The Virginia Pilot and the Bridgeport Herald... let's extend that analogy a bit and say, as a hypothetical, that in researching the V.P.'s story we found a famous humorist, one who specialized in humorous feature articles that used the names of actual people and made things up totally, offering hints to readers of the faked story, associated through a friendship with the editor of the V.P. What would, what could and what should we make of that ? Harryzilber, anyone, any thoughts come to mind ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

In 1937, the Bridgeport Sunday Herald stood behind its article as authentic "proof" that Whitehead flew, and opened its files up to the Library of Congress. No hoax was found. In fact, Dr. John B. Crane issued a complete reversal of his earlier position, supporting the flights of Gustave Whitehead, once he heard the testimonies of witnesses and saw the extent of the proof. Your personal opinions are impacting your wild editing herein, Mr. Carroll, and it is not appreciated. It is that sort of behavior that gives Wikipedia the very bad name it deserves, if it allows this to go on. This Talk page is a great example, which I have a record of, that will be used to discredit Wikipedia with regards to being a source of reliable information. This is especially due to Mr. Carroll's desperate and inappropriate editing. Stick to your own website for your hoax conspiracy theories. The only hoax is the one you are trying to promote, it would appear. AviationHist1 (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

AviationHist1, your defense of Whitehead's reputation and legacy is notable, but at the end of the day we all need to have a commitment towards WP's core values if this encyclopedia is to work. That would include pointing out others' factual errors and biases in a cordial manner, and accepting that not everything we hold sacred is necessarily true. While I don't agree with some of Mr. Gray's assertions I believe he can contribute to the article provided he backs them up with solid incontestable references to reliable sources, just as Whitehead proponents must do with their assertions of primacy of flight. There have been ample displays of poor manners on this page (of which I'm probably guilty as well), but we can still accomplish our goals if we stick to WP's policies and also assume good faith. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

AviationHist1, please cite one or two or three examples of my "wild editing" - and also, please, enlighten me... what is the "hoax" that you say I am "trying to promote." If you're going to say such things, please have the courtesy to be specific. I'd like to understand your perspective, even though I am very likely to not agree with it. Also, thank you, HarryZilber, for your comments. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Witness section

Decades later, Dickie denied seeing a flight. He said in a 1937 affidavit, taken during Stella Randolph's research, that he was not present at the reported flight on 14 August 1901, and that he thought the newspaper story was "imaginary". Gibbs-Smith says in 1960 that "He said he did not know Andrew Cellie, the other associate of Whitehead who was supposed to be there, and that none of Whitehead's aircraft ever flew, to the best of his knowledge". If Dickie wasn't present to witness any flights, how could he say that none of Whitehead's airplanes ever flew? Did he witness a crash or crashes of all of his attempted flights? How could Dickie say none of his aircraft ever flew if he wasn't there to witness all of them? This entire section sounds "imaginary" to me or that Dickie changed his story.Tomticker5 (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

He said what he said. O'Dwyer (a "reliable" source) challenged his statement, as reported by this article. What are you trying to do? Add your own personal opinion, conclusion, or deduction to the article? Articles here are based on reliable sources, not the musings of the editors. DonFB (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to stand aside in the discussion involving me, I don't see that I can add much to that aspect of things. However, I do want to address Tomticker5's point about Dickie. Let's consider what Dickie's statement said, directly... "The airplane shown in pictures no. 32 and 42 in which my picture appears never flew, to the best of my knowledge and belief." and "I do not remember or recall ever hearing of a flight with this particular plane or any other that Whitehead ever built." That's not the same as if Dickie said none of Whitehead's machines ever flew. So, you see, Tomticker5, there is no contradiction in what Dickie's statement says. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Carroll Gray's opinion in the Legacy section

On 9 July 2013 DonFB added this quote from a website: "Aviation researcher Carroll Gray casts doubt on the magazine's conclusion: "If Jane's were an historical journal this might be of great importance, but it is the leading aviation industry publication, not involved with matters of history and certainly not an arbitrator of historical fact."" Isn't this just HIS opinion and not a consensus about Jane's? How can you add this quote from his website without identifying who he is? Is he an "aviation researcher" or is he a "Wright brothers researcher"? Isn't this just an attempt to add external links to undermine the credibility of Jane's and GW as first aviator?Tomticker5 (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Tomticker5, I've said this before, more than a few times, but I don't mind saying it again. I am neither pro-Whitehead not anti-Whitehead, I am also neither pro-nor-anti Wright. I am not a partisan. I do believe - yes, it's a belief - that Wilbur Wright made the first heavier-than-air, powered, controlled human flight, on the 4th attempt of 17 December 1903 at Kill Devil Hill, North Carolina. I think of myself as an aviation historian, but I'm not offended by being called an aviation researcher. I am not, however, a "Wright brothers researcher" - whatever that is. John Brown calls himself a "Whitehead Advocate" - that's fine with me, and he's welcome to be quoted or referenced here in this article, as far as I am concerned. I know it's difficult for people who feel strongly pro-Whitehead to understand how much fluff and how many misconceptions float around GW's memory, and perhaps many will never see the fluff and the misconceptions. When an event, any event, becomes a matter of faith rather than of fact, it's probably a sign that facts are far and few between. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Since I added Carroll's quotation, I'd like to point out that I see no identification of John Brown in this article, except that he is a "researcher". I'm ok with that. Brown is one of the most strongly partisan of current researchers, or haven't you noticed? I'm ok with that too. If readers navigate to Brown's website, they can find, if they look long enough, a page about Whitehead researchers that includes a paragraph about Brown, by Brown. If readers navigate to Carroll's site, they can see the huge amount of research and information his site provides about many aviation pioneers, not just one. It will be abundantly clear that he is also an aviation "researcher," to say the least. You are correct: the quote is Carroll's opinion, just like Brown's conclusion about Whitehead is his opinion. Get it? Various researchers and historians have differing opinions on the subject. Our job as editors is to report and summarize those opinions, giving appropriate weight to each. That's how Wikipedia works. DonFB (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

On July 9, 2013 Carroll F. Gray writes; "I see a problem with the current list of external links for the GW article. They are heavily lop-sided in sentiment and opinion. To have neutrality, shouldn't that be corrected?" The same day DonFB inserted a quote and a link to Gray's website. That's not how Wikipedia works. This text is not about Whitehead, it's about Jane's recent editorial. This article is about Whitehead and cannot be a WP:POVFORK for Gray's opinion about Jane's or Whitehead. And, it can't be used as a WP:COATRACK to cover a topic other than Whitehead - the Wright brothers.Tomticker5 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. So, apparently the only sourced opinions you would allow in the Legacy section (or anywhere else in the article, I'd presume) are the ones favorable to Whitehead. So, Brown, Jackson, O'Dwyer, Randolph, Crane, Kosch--they're all ok to be cited. But the Smithsonian, Crouch, Jakab, Engler, Gray, Trimble, Gibbs-Smith--they all must be excluded, according to you, is that correct? Let me know if I'm correctly understanding your approach to this article. DonFB (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Gustave Whitehead. His notability comes from making a powered airplane flight in 1901 that was reported, at the time, in over 100+ newspapers around the world.Tomticker5 (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed about Whitehead. However, I disagree with your view that he is notable now for flying. He is notable today for the controversy over whether he flew, not for an actual flight. Although such controversy did not exist in press reports at the time, it has certainly existed for many decades since then, especially from the time Randolph wrote about him. That controversy remains very much with us today. Wikipedia must report on the controversy and not avoid or hide it. Thus, this article uses a variety sources which support and contradict the idea that Whitehead flew. Majority opinion, as shown in decades of books and journals about aviation, does not give him credit. A core principle of Wikipedia is that its articles should present majority opinion as such and give lesser weight to minority opinions.

Perhaps the majority-minority positions will reverse if other institutions and aviation history writers and scholars join Jane's in supporting Whitehead. That hasn't happened so far, and Wikipedia certainly cannot try to lead the way toward such a shift. Attempting to do so would, as you know, be in complete violation of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. Wikipedia should, of course, report an important event like Jane's endorsement of Whitehead. That announcement, however, has not met with universal support in the aviation history community, and Wikipedia should not give the impression that it has. In short, the controversy remains far from settled, and this article must present that reality.

All of my argumentation flows from that kind of journalistic approach, whereas all of yours, if I may be so bold to offer a presumption, flows from the idea of establishing "the truth," as you believe it to be. If you check Wikipedia policy, you'll see that my "journalistic" approach conforms to it, but yours, I'm sorry to tell you, does not. DonFB (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Article states Whitehead died in relative obscurity may not be completely accurate

Whitehead was considered to be a "well known local resident" of the city of Bridgeport, Connecticut in one of his obituaries. Are we certain the weight given to the "mainstream aviation historians/experts" that this article seems to favor (majority) actually did any research on Whitehead in Bridgeport, CT? How could someone who is considered, at his death, to be a well known resident of an industrial city like Bridgeport be portrayed by others as dying in relative obscurity?Tomticker5 (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

He died in obscurity because Gibbs-Smith said so—a very reliable source. If you have a local paper saying he was well known locally at his death it does not erase the lack of national and global fame. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Tomticker5, cite a source. As it stands, the statement that GW died in relative obscurity is completely neutral and fair. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A Bridgeport, Connecticut newspaper.Tomticker5 (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Tomticker5, It seems as though I should have been more specific, please cite a 1927 obituary that demonstrates GW did not pass away in "relative obscurity." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Article reporting Whitehead's death appeared in the Connecticut Post, formerly the morning Bridgeport Telegram and evening Bridgeport Post before consolidating into a single morning publication. The Bridgeport Telegram ran from at least 1908 to 1929 and again from 1938 to 1990.Tomticker5 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The keyword is "relative". Meaning relative to the earlier wide-scale reporting he received? As opposed to the casual use of the word in a phrase like "relatively small". GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Tom, how about posting a relevant quotation from the newspaper obituary. From the available evidence, it seems his death did not make headlines around the nation (or world), as did, for example, the death of Wilbur Wright. But the article might include a snippet from a local obit that indicates he was, in his hometown at least, relatively well-known. Maybe along the lines of: "...died in relative obscurity, although he was locally remembered as <newspaper obit quote goes here>." DonFB (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Blue Hill Meteorological Observatory

Was Gustave Whitehead's work at Harvard University conducted at the Blue Hill Meteorological Observatory? Twillisjr (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the wiki article on Blue Hill, Harvard was not associated with Blue Hill until 1912, long after GW built kites at Blue Hill, if he did build kites at Blue Hill, which it seems he did. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Whitehead built his own home in Fairfield, CT

Property tax records show that Whitehead's wife bought 4 building lots in Fairfield, CT in 1914. Gustave then built his own house at 184 Alvin Street where he and his family resided [5].Tomticker5 (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Gustav Whitehead the inventor of the lightweight Diesel Engine?!

The is a problem that should be addressed by the Wikipedia page of Whitehead. This German inventor claimed his No. 22 plane, that allegedly flew on Jan. 17, 1902, was powered by a 40 HP, 120 pounds, kerosene engine with ignition by compression (a lightweight reliable diesel engine, an impossibility for 1902, even for 1922!!). "It is run by a 40 horse-power kerosene motor of my own design, especially constructed for strength, power and lightness, weighing but 120 pounds complete. It will run for a week at a time if required, without running hot, stopping, or in any possible manner troubling the operator. No electrical apparatus is required for ignition purposes. Ignition is accomplished by its own heat and compression; it runs about 800 revolutions per minute, has five cylinders and no fly-wheel is used. It requires a space 10 inches wide, 4 feet long and 10 inches high." (source, "The Whitehead Flying Machine", American Inventor Magazine, 1 April 1902" http://wright-brothers.wikidot.com/#Gustav-Whitehead ). All known diesel engines existent in 1902 were heavy stationary machines. The first powered diesel ship appeared in 1903 and the first diesel road vehicle, a tractor, in 1922 (see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine). A 1902 ignition by compression engine, working with kerosene and having similar characteristics like those of Whitehead's engine should be given as an example, otherwise what the German inventor claimed he had built remains just an anachronistic motor, something that, in reality, appeared decades latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.80 (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)