Talk:Gustave Whitehead/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Archive for Talk:Gustave Whitehead prior to 2008.

Not only is the spelling bad but the Wright's were part German too! How does that fit with the supposed discrimination. Especially at a time when German culture was well-respected in the US and German widely taught in schools, etc. Rmhermen 19:24, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Pardon my spelling, but feel free to correct it yourself. The Wright brothers were born on a small farm near Millville, Indiana. The issue about who flew first didn't became an issue until at least 1908 and the discussion went on well into WW1. // Liftarn

This page is factually wrong already in the first sentence. He flew 800m at 15m height in august 1901.

The Wright brothers were upper class, their father a bishop, they knew how to handle lawyers kind of thinking, to keep everything secret, file patents, write contracts, they knew how to talk to other people in high places. Whitehead was a poor immigrant and had to work for his living. After he had become known as motor builder he delivered motors to Curtiss, for example. He also had to work with investors with their own ideas he was forced to try to get to work.

• The Wright Brothers were not "upper class"; they were thoroughly middle class. I remind you they earned their living fixing, building and selling bicycles, hardly an upper class profession. Simply because their father was a bishop in an obscure church did not make them wealthy or privileged; they were neither. Wilbur was probably a genius and could talk effectively to people, like lawyers. But the Wrights' muddled and largely inflexible efforts of 1906-07 showed they were out of their depth in dealing with national governments and big business as they tried to secure a contract for their invention. They wasted those years, allowing several European aviators and Curtiss to nearly catch up, when they could have publicly demonstrated their invention much sooner and thus avoided most of the controversy which dogged them in later years and festers even today in discussions such as this. DonFB 4.227.254.199 16:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

From another wikipedia talk page:

I see the scope of claim has changed from what inventors and scientists classically has seen as necessary for claiming to have invented something.

Earlier the demands were simple: Build a working machine and demonstrate it with enough witnesses present or other ways to reliably prove that the machine worked.

The demands in this case, for a flying machine, heavier than air, propelled by its own motor, are pretty clear by definition.

We have proof that the Wright brothers visited Whitehead in his workshop at least twice, and he thought they were going to finance his aeroplanes. Other inventors were very angry at the Wright brothers for claiming the honor for what others had done before them.

• I would like to know more about claims the Wrights visited Whitehead. Did this take place when they were looking for an engine builder? If so, that would almost certainly have occurred in early 1903 when the Wrights wanted a powerplant, having already successfully devised three-axis control and flown with highly efficient wings of their own design. They would have nothing to learn about flight control or lifting surfaces from Whitehead at that point. DonFB 4.228.111.44 21:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• The statement about "other inventors" seems like quite an exaggeration. Which other inventors? The neurotic Spratt, who suggested a method of testing lift and drag in a wind tunnel, was miffed because the Wrights didn't cut him in on their contracts. Zahm was upset because they didn't hire him as an expert witness at the outset of the patent wars; after that he led a lifelong campaign against the Brothers. Herring was a charlatan and tried to scam both the Wright Brothers and Glenn Curtiss; he had earlier been fired by Samuel Langley and fallen out with Octave Chanute. Chanute and the Brothers had a terrible disagreement over the Wrights' decision to sue patent infringers; the argument was fed by years of tension caused by Chanute's suggestions to the French and others that the Wrights were his "students," which they were not. The Smithsonian Institution clung proudly to the notion that Secretary Langley's full-size Aerodrome was the first powered machine capable of manned flight, unscientific dogma that it finally relinquished in 1943. DonFB 4.228.111.44 21:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the papers on both sides, Whitehead contra Wright, and you will see how the people who write articles against Whitehead are usually showing their own lack of knowledge, lack of logic, lack of studying the pro-Whitehead papers. Anybody with a scientific and technical education can see how a pro-Wright lobby has been able to uphold the idea that Wrights were first, using strange arguments, ignoring evidence, history by contract, etc..

Whitehead is supported by the strongest evidence for demonstrating the first motorized aeroplane which didn't crash and wasn't totally uncontrollable, and his plane didn't need a catapult and strong headwind to get up in the air.

He did three or four flights 14 august 1901, one of them was 800m at 15m height. His plane was safe, it landed on any free flat surface, or on water.

He had flown motorized before, but one flight ended in a crash and there are fewer witnesses to that flight. Note that he was an experienced glider pilot, and there is a photograph of him in the air in a 3-decked glider. Maybe that is why he didn't put a rudder on his aeroplane shaped and constructed like a boat. He had no need for it at that stage, he had the plane under control without it. His plane was also inherently more stable than Wright brothers design.

Whitehead's plane flew slower, more like a parachute than later aeroplanes. That made it suitable for private use, going to work by aeroplane for example. He could land on very short landing strips, as the plane worked a little like a parachute.

If this controversy was not in the way, if nobody had seen a plane like Whitehead's before, I bet you could produce his model 21 today, with a few obvious enhancements, as a safe and slow commuter transport.

It could be used to go from the suburb to the work in the center of the city. A short landing strip for whiteheads, motorized parachutes, autogiros and helikopters is all that's needed. A 50-100m long strip, or an empty street, is enough for a whitehead.

I just made his design into a type of aeroplane, that is okay, I think. His plane had a different design than later planes which needed high speed to be controllable. That also explains why it was much more stable in the air than for example the Wrights design.

Whitehead built aeroplanes like boats, with the sails turned to horisontal position. (That makes it even more mysterious why he didn't add a rudder. But okay, birds do not have rudders and birds were still the ideals for many aeroplane inventors.)

He had no thickness in his wings. He didn't rely on the theory about shaped wings where the air flows faster on the top side generating lift. He moved air downwards instead, like a sailing ship uses the sails to move air to the side, which lifts the airplane, if only the motor is strong enough.

One of his critics said it was suspect that Whiteheads motors went towards less good weight to power ratio as he developed them. I would say it was natural. At first he needed to get a plane to fly at all, and the motor weight was very important. Later he knew how to build planes that could fly he could afford a lower ratio to get more power in total instead.

He could also use safer and more reasonable fuels than than acetylene and peroxide which was used in 1901.

A plane that works aerodynamically can carry the pilot, the motor and the mechanical construction of the plane, and maybe some load too, then the motor weight is less important.

Remember that Whitehead had built and flown an aeroplane with two persons on board a few years earlier, which ended in a crash because they did not manage to fly over a 3 story building. So his aeroplanes could carry some load.

Whitehead also put a motor on a 3 decked glider, so he experimented with aerodynamically shaped planes too, but the number 21 was something between an aeroplane and a motorized parachute. Roger4911 12:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

From The Bridgeport Herald, August 18, 1901

Flying

The success that has attended the experiments of the young Brazilian M. Santos-Dumont in scientific ballooning in France has been responsible for a marked impetus in this country in the fascinating and daring sport of flying. The probability is, however, that the final solution of successfully navigating the air by two American inventors combining their brains and energies toward perfecting a flying machine that will do what scores of men have been working to accomplish for many years.

Gustave Whitehead of Bridgeport and W. D. Custead of Waco, Texas have co-operated and are now working on a flying machine which is expected to revolutionize the world of aeronautics. Accompanying this article are pictures of both the Custead and Whitehead flying machines. Mr. Whitehead is employed at the Wilmot & Hobbs works as night watchman, and during during about half the time that is allotted to most men to sleep he is working on his flying machine. Some weeks ago Mr. Whitehead took his machine out beyond Fairfield in a large field and tried it.

There was no doubt of it being able to fly at that time the inventor did feel like raising himself for a trial.

Tuesday night, however of the last week, Mr. Whitehead, Andrew Cellie, and James Dickie, his two partners in the flying machine and a representative of the Herald left the little shed on Pine street where the machine is housed and took it to a suitable spot beyond Fairfield where its inventor had planned to take his first flight.

The start was made shortly after midnight in order to not attract attention. The wings or propellers were folded tightly to the sides of the body of the air ship. The two engines were carefully tried before starting out and now the acetylene generator was gone over a last time by Mr. Whitehead to see that it was in perfect order. There was only room for two in the machine, Whitehead and Cellie occupying the seats while James Dickie and the Herald representative followed on bicycles.

The machine rolls along the ground on small wooden wheels, only a foot in diameter, and, owing to their being so small, the obstructions in the road made it rock from on side to the other in an alarming fashion at times when the speed was fast. After reaching the Protestant Orphan asylum at the corner of Fairfield avenue and Ellsworth street there is a clear stretch of macadam road the the flying automobile was sent spinning along the road at the rate of twenty miles an hour. For short distances from then on the speed was close to thirty miles but as the road was not straight or level for any distance this rate of speed could not be maintained. There seems no doubt that the machine, even with its present common board wheels of only a foot in diameter, can reel off forty miles an hour and not exert the engine to its fullest capacity.

The location selected to fly the machine was back of Fairfield along the highway where there is a large field and few trees to avoid in flying the air ship.

It was about 2 o’clock Wednesday morning when the great white wings of the air ship were spread out ready to leap through the air. Mr. Whitehead was excited and enthusiastic and his two partners were almost as bad. The light was not very strong and everything looked like a ghost. Whitehead spoke in whispers, although the reason for it was not apparent. But probably the very time selected for trying the machine was responsible for that. The Herald representative assisted when the opportunity afforded, but a stranger about a flying machine is sadly out of place and absolutely in the way when it comes to the hour to fly the ship. Ropes were attached to the ship so that she would not get away from her handlers. In the body of the machine were two bags of sand, each weighing about 110 pounds, for ballast. Mr. Whitehead started the engine that propels the machine along the ground on the four wooden wheels, while his two assistants clung to the safety ropes. The newspaper man kept well clear of the machine, partly to better watch the operations and partly not to get tangled up in the ropes and wings of the giant white bat. Slowly the machine started at first to run over the ground, but inside of a hundred yards the men who had hold of the ropes and inventor Whitehead were running as fast as their legs would travel. Then Whitehead pulled open the throttle that starts the air propellers or wings and shut off the ground propelling engine. Almost instantly the bow of the machine lifted and she raised at an angle of about six degrees. The great white wings were working beautifully. She looked for all the world like a great white goose raising from the feeding ground in the early morning dawn. The two men with the ropes were tumbling over the hummocks in the field for it was not clear enough yet to avoid such obstructions readily, and Whitehead waved his hands enthusiastically and excitedly as he watched his invention rise in the air. He had set the dial so that the power would shut off automatically when it had made one revolution in order that the machine would not keep flying and smash against the trees at the other end of the field. When the power was shut the air ship settled as lightly on the ground as a bird and not a stitch was broken or a rod bent.

The air ship was now taken back to the starting point. And now the real test was to be made. Whitehead had determined to fly in the machine himself. She had behaved so nicely that he felt that there would no longer be any trouble about his flying in the place of the 220 pounds of sand that was used for the ballast on the first trip.

The engines were carefully tested again and every joint and rod in the structure was carefully gone over and critically inspected. The bags of sand were taken out of the machine.

By this time the light was good. Faint traces of the rising sun began to suggest themselves in the east. An early morning milkman stopped in the road to see what was going on. His horse nearly ran away when the big white wings flapped to see if they were all right.

The nervous tension was growing at every clock tick and no one showed it more than Whitehead who still whispered at times but as the light grew stronger began to speak in his normal tone of voice. He stationed his two assistants behind the machine with instructions to hold on to the ropes and

Not let the machine get away. Then he took up his position in the great bird.

He opened the throttle of the ground propeller and shot along the green at a rapid rate.

"I’m going to start the wings!" he yelled. "Hold her now." The two assistants held on the best they could but the ship shot up in the air almost like a kite.

It was an exciting moment.

"We can’t hold her!" shrieked one of the rope men.

"Let go then!" shouted Whitehead back. They let go and as they did so the machine darted up through the air like a bird released from a cage. Whitehead was greatly excited and his hands flew from one part of the machine to another. The newspaper man and the two assistants stood still for a moment watching the air ship in amazement. Then they rushed down the sloping grade after the air ship. She was flying now about fifty feet above the ground and made a noise very much like the "chug, chug, chug," of an elevator going down the shaft.

Whitehead had grown calmer now and seemed to be enjoying the exhilaration of the novelty. He was headed straight for a clump of chestnut sprouts that grew on a high knoll. He was now about forty feet in the air and would have been high enough to escape the sprouts had they not been on a high ridge. He saw the danger ahead and when within two hundred yards of the sprouts made several attempts to manipulate the machinery so he could steer around, but the ship kept steadily on her course, head on for the trees. To strike them meant wrecking the air ship and very likely death or broken bones for the daring aeronaut.

Here it was that Whitehead showed how to utilize a common sense principle which he had noticed the birds make use of thousands of times when he had been studying them in their flight for points to make his air ship a success. He simply shifted his weight more to one side than the other. This

careened the ship to one side. She turned her nose away from the clump of sprouts when within fifty yards of them and took her course around them as prettily as a yacht on the sea avoids a bar. The ability to control the air ship in this manner appeared to give Whitehead confidence, for he was seen to take time to look at the landscape about him. He looked back and waved his hand exclaiming, "I’ve got it at last."

He had now soared through the air for fully half a mile and as the field ended a short distance ahead the aeronaut shut off the power and prepared to light. He appeared to be a little fearful that the machine would dip ahead or tip back when the power was shut off but there was no sign of any such move on the part of the big bird. She settled down from a height of about fifty feet in two minutes after the propellers stopped. And she lighted on the ground on her four wooden wheels so lightly that Whitehead was not jarred

in the least.

How the inventors face beamed with joy! His partners threw their arms around his neck and patted him on the back and asked him to describe his feelings while he was flying.

"I told you it would be a success," was all he could say for some time. He was like a man who is exhausted after passing through a severe ordeal. And this had been a severe ordeal to him. For months, yes years he had been looking forward to this time, when he would fly like a bird through the air by means that he had studied with his own brain. He was exhausted and he sat down on the green grass beside the fence and looked away where the sun’s first rays of light were shooting above the gray shrouding fog that nestled on the bosom of Long Island Sound.

Gods, what a picture for a painter of "Hopes Recalled at Dawn." And there he sat in silence thinking. His two faithful partners and the Herald reporter respected his mood and let him speak the first words.

"It’s a funny sensation to fly."

For half an hour the man who had demonstrated that he has a machine that can navigate the air talked of his ten minutes experience in the air ship. He was enthusiastic, spoke almost like a child who has seen for the first time something new and is panting out of breath in an effort to tell it to his mother.

Thus did Whitehead describe his sensations from the moment the air ship left the ground until she landed again:

"I never felt such a strange sensation as when the machine first left the ground and started on her flight. I heard nothing but the rumbling of the engine and the flapping of the big wings. I don’t think I saw anything during the first two minutes of the flight, for I was so excited with the sensations I experienced. When the ship had reached a height of about forty or fifty feet I began to wonder how much higher it would go. But just about that time I observed that she was sailing along easily and not raising any higher. I felt easier, for I still had a felling of doubt about what was waiting for me further on I began now to feel that I was safe and all that it would be necessary for me to do to keep from falling was to keep my head and not make any mistakes with the machinery. I never felt such a spirit of freedom as I did during the ten minutes that I was soaring up above my fellow beings in a thing that my own brain had evolved. It was a sweet experience. It made me feel that I was far ahead of my brothers for I could fly like a bird, and they must still walk.

"And while my brain was whirling with these new sensations of delight I saw ahead a clump of trees that the machine was pointed straight for. I knew that I must in some way steer around those trees or raise above them. I was a hundred yards distant from them and I knew that I could not clear them by raising higher, and also that I had no means of steering around them by using the machinery. Then like a flash a plan to escape the trees came to mind. I had watched the birds when turned out of a straight course to avoid something ahead. They changed their bodies from a horizontal plane to one slightly diagonal to the horizontal. To turn to the left the bird would lower its left wing or side of its body. The machine ought to obey the same principle and when within about fifty yards of the clump of trees I shifted my weight to the left side of the machine. It swung over a little and began to turn from the straight course. And we sailed around the trees as easy as it was to sail straight ahead.

"This gave me more confidence and I tried steering the machine to the right by shifting my weight to the right past the center of equilibrium. The machine responded to the slightest shifting of weight. It was most sensitive.

" I had soared through the air now for half a mile and not far ahead the long field ended with a piece of woods. When within a hundred yards of the woods I shut off the power and then began to feel a little nervous about how the machine would act in settling to the ground, for so many flying machines have shown a tendency to fall either on the front or hind end and such a fall means broken bones for the operator. My machine began to settle evenly and I alighted on the ground with scarcely a jar. And not a thing was broken.

"That was the happiest moment of my life for I had demonstrated that the machine I have worked on for so many years would do what I claimed for it, It was a grand sensation to be flying through the air. There is nothing like it."

But while Mr. Whitehead has demonstrated that his machine will fly he does not pretend that it can be made a commercial success. On the other hand inventor Custead claims that his airship can be made a commercial success for it differs from Whiteheads in that it rises from the ground vertically while Whiteheads machine must have a running start like a goose before leaving the ground for the flight. Custead claims to have the most feasible form of airship but he lacks a generator that is sufficiently light and do the work required to propel the airship. Whiteheads however has the generator and by the combination of Custead’s airship and Whiteheads generator it is believed by the inventors that will be able to perfect a machine that will come nearer to the point of success than any other machine thus far made.

This new generator of Whiteheads promises great things if the claims of the inventor are fulfilled. The power is developed by a series of rapid gas explosions from calcium carbide. At the present time the spark explosions are not very rapid but Whitehead claims that he can produce 150 explosions to the minute if required. The gas thus generated is forced into a chamber where it comes into contact with a chemical preparation the ingredients of which are known only to Whitehead. The contact of the gas with the chemicals produces an enormous and even piston pressure. It is said that dynamite is nothing compared with this new power. Whitehead has had the chemists inspect his chemical preparation and they marvel at it’s power. The chemists call the chemical preparation a "queer mixture" but not one of them denies that Whitehead has discovered something valuable.

The only demonstration of the new generator’s commercial value has been in its use in the flying machine. There is no doubt that Whitehead used this generator to propel the flying machine along the ground on its wheels and also for the power for the engine that makes the propellers go when flying through the air.

The one great drawback is procuring motive power to run an airship has been the great weight required in a generator and engine. Mr. Whitehead claims that his motor will decrease by seventy five per cent the weight of any motor at present in use. The complete motive power including generator and engine will weigh about five pounds to the horse power. For a ten horse power generator twenty pounds of carbide are required to run twenty hours.

Thus far the longest time a flying machine has been able to fly has been thirty minutes.

Whitehead’s flying machine is sixteen feet long and its general appearance is that of a huge bat. From each side of the body there are wings made of bamboo poles and covered with muslin. These wings are thirty six feet from tip to tip. There is also a tail in the stern of the machine which is intended to regulate the accent and decent of the ship. There are two engines, one of ten horse power to run the machine on the wheels along the ground and the other, of twenty horse power, used to work the propellers in flying. The ten horse power engine weighs twenty-two pounds and the twenty horse engine weighs thirty five pounds.

Mr. Whitehead and Mr. Custead have formed a company for the purpose of building an air ship. Mr. Custead is backed by a company of Southern gentleman with unlimited capital and they firmly believe in the commercial success of Custead’s invention when a proper power can be found to run the machine.

Mr. Custead’s airship is in Waco, Texas where its inventor originally lived. He is now in New York. The work on the new generator which Whitehead is to supply is progressing rapidly. Whitehead has applied for patents to fully protect it and expects no difficulty in receiving them as his generator is unlike any that have been patented.

It is probable that the generators will be manufactured in Bridgeport where every facility is at hand for the manufacture of such articles.

About the "difficult-to-believe claims"

I see somebody has copied the article from the Bridgeport Herald to the discussion page. That is good, because I want to ask what the person who wrote this in the article is referring to:

" In addition, the original Bridgeport Herald article is filled with many difficult-to-believe claims about the event, and contradicts a number of other eyewitness reports."

Where are the many difficult-to-believe claims he is talking about?

It is obvious that the reporter is not familiar with the terminology of aeroplanes, he calls the propellers "wings", but that is an easy mistake to spot. Whiteheads propellers were actually like small triangular sails, which might have contributed to that mistake.

That the report is contradicted by other witnesses in some ways is explained by the fact that Whitehead flew 4 times that day and different witnesses saw different flights. This is shown and explained in the articles about Whitehead which are available on the web.

So I suggest that the sentence quoted above be removed, unless somebody can point to the "many difficult-to-believe claims" in the newspaper article above.

By the way, look at the arguments put forward by anti-Whitehead articles on the web. One argument against Whiteheads flights which is repeated in more than one site is that his wife never witnessed that she had seen him fly. That is a totally ridiculous argument, because wives were seldom at the workplaces of their husbands in that era. Is Hillary's claim to have climbed Everest in 1953 also false, because his wife never witnessed that she saw him do it? Were the wives of the Wright brothers present when they managed to get their construction up in the air? In those days, and even today, it was very common that the wife stayed at home and took care of the home and the children while their men were out doing other things.

I fixed the formatting of the above article too, it had several very long sentences that did not wrap correctly because of leading spaces. (Roger J.)

From: http://www.gustavewhitehead.org/affidavits_-_1936/affidavit:_anton_t._pruckne.html

Affidavit: Anton T. Pruckner - January 4, 1936

"It was at this shop that he was visite don several occasions by the Wright Brothers, Orville and Wilbur, during the period between 1900 and 1903. I believe the time of their visits was actually prior to 1902 because I left Bridgeport from two years, going sometime in 1902."

Affidavit: Cecil A. Steeves - October 10, 1936

"Mr. Whitehead then moved his shop to Cherry Street where he continued to do his experimenting, this location being opposite the old Wilmot and Hobbs factory, now occupied by the American Tube and Stamping Company. It was here that the Wright Brothers visited Mr. Whitehead during the early 1900's coming from Ohio and under the guise of offering to help finance his inventions, actually received inside information that aided them materially in completing their own plane. I was at the shop with him when they arrived and waited outside while they talked inside. After they had gone away Mr. Whitehead turned to me and said, "Now since I have given them the secrets of my invention they will probably never do anything in the way of financing me", this proving to have been a true prophesy."

I suggest that the sentence in the article: "Many years later, a witness claimed the Wright brothers visited Whitehead to discuss the purchase of one of his engines and exchanged ideas and discoveries regarding flight, although no documentary evidence attributed to the Wrights corroborates this visit." be changed, the part about "no documentary evidence" should be removed. Actually, I'll do it myself, with the support of the documentation referred to above. The person who wrote that sentence has obviously not even read the material referred to in the links below this article. There are two independent witnesses to visits by the Wright brothers. (Roger J.)

External links

I replaced a dead link with the link you can find by searching on the site of the replaced link. Obviously they have removed their article on Whitehead now but they supply a link to the museum instead. I also moved all external links under the heading external links. I see no reason why one of them should be called a reference and not the others, and they are all external links anyway. (Roger J.)

Wing warping

Quoting from: http://www.gustavewhitehead.org/the_machines.html

"Rudder was a combination of horizontal and vertical fin-like affair, the principle the same as in the up-to-date airplanes. For steering there was a rope from one of the foremost wing tip ribs to the opposite, running over a pulley. In front of the operator was a lever connected to pulley: the same pulley also controlled the tail rudder at the same time. "

So there is a reference to machinery for wing warping, from his brother John Whitehead who described the construction of the plane (21 or 22).

So I remove the "citation needed" remark. (Roger J.)

Dead weight

Removed sentence: "The dead weight of the wheel engine, however, would have hindered flight performance." There is no reference for this. Considering that Whitehead's motors were open frame motors, where the cylinders and the cam shaft were mounted in a lightweight frame, and the gas creation apparatus was common to both the ground wheels motor and the propeller motor (Whitehead switched the gas source from the ground wheels to the propellers at lift-off) there is no reason why the extra weight of the ground motor would have have had any significant detrimental effect.

The whole plane, including the weight of Whitehead was over 300 kg, and the ground motor cylinders and camshaft was obviously a very small part of the total weight of the aeroplane. (Roger J.

More information

I just found out that there is a wikipedia article about his nr 21 plane: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_21_(plane)

I think the information and pictures in that article can be used in this article about the inventor, especially the drawing made by the sports journalist Howell who was present at one of the flights in August 1901.

I also found interesting technical info at http://airsports.fai.org/jul98/jul98let.html copied below, some of these facts can be used in this article:

"Gustave Weisskopf From : William J. O'Dwyer

It was enjoyable to find the long coverage you gave to the Gustave Whitehead (Weisskopf) history and research projects. I wrote to you earlier but found no reply. May I offer the following suggested changes in the text? I know I often need help when it comes to German language and terminologies.

In the second paragraph : the propellers were what we call "ground- adjustable pitch propellers." This means you can adjust them to any pitch while on the ground without the engine running, as opposed to "fixed pitch" of "adjustable pitch" (the latter which is done while in flight.

Your third paragraph: Change it to read, ---- Then how reliable are these reports?...

Paragraph 6: We had not collected "all the documentation" / We have collected extensive documentation, and continue adding to those files every year.

Paragraph 7: "...beginning with towings while on a trailer, in tethered tow tests without a pilot, and then powered tows with a pilot, via cable attached to the auto. Then free powered flight tests, starting with short hops, then longer distances as pilot confidence grew, to finally the longer 300 to 500 meter flights.

Paragraph 11: recognizes, not recognises.

Paragraph 12: "hydrogen peroxide" is all news to me!!!!!! Not fact! Someone mis-understands that item. Let me explain and perhaps you can rewrite it based on these facts.

Gustave Whitehead arrived in Bridgeport in early-1900. At time he arrived the newspapers were advertising the sale of stock in the Liquid Air Corporation. Liquid Air was invented in Paris in the 1890's. It was a French firm known as "Air Liquid." In late-1890's they began manufacturing "Liquid Air" in USA. They opened a large firm to produce it, in late-1899 and early-1900, in New Haven, Connecticut. "Liquid Air" (at that time in history) was every day room air compressed to twelve thousand pounds per square inch (12,000psi). Over in Europe they learned where when liquid air was mixed with any form of carbon it created an explosive chemistry. It was used to blast tunnels in the Alps. It could be transported without fear of exploding, as opposed to other gases, or explosives. It could be mixed with carbons at the site thereby ending the dangers in transporting such items as nitro-glycerine, unstable gun powder, etc.

In their advertisement to sell their Stock to readers, they listed all of the benefits. Among them they stated it would be most useful if used by aeronauts hoping to build a light weight motor for their airships. A full page and a half feature article was written describing the manufacture and its many proposed and experienced uses. This all appeared in March through July 1900, at time Whitehead was building his calcium carbide (acetylene) engine and generator.

Because calcium carbide is a form of carbon, when liquid air is added the first element to escape from the frozen state of being liquefied room air is oxygen.

It is the oxygen, when mixed with carbon, that the explosive power is obtained.

It was available to purchase in Bridgeport, in 1900, by Whitehead, in small cylinders.

It is the likely chemistry that was described as "a queer mixture" used by Whitehead in his "secret" fuel of 1901. It was also called a "queer mixture" in both the July 1901 report about the manufacture and explanation of Liquid Air, as well as in the eye witness report that appeared in the Aug. 18, 1901 Bridgeport Sunday Herald, written by the sports editor, Richard Howell. Howell wrote both reports! It was Howell who was claimed to be present when GW flew the first half mile flight on Aug. 14, 1901.

Added to acetylene, an oxyacetylene fuel (gas) results. Effective, yet very dangerous. And mixed and combusted where Whitehead stood in the airframe. He knew it was not the answer to a "practical engine." He found it useful in his pursuit to design an eventual practical engine.

It clearly was not "hydrogen peroxide." You have been not informed correctly. It would draw much criticism from scholars and engineers alike.

Par.11 (of Who was Gustav Weisskopf?) Correct spelling is "realize," (not realise)

All of Whitehead's tools and equipment was not "sold off." He hid his engines in the neighbor's cellar, along with most of his tools. With his money he bought another large parcel of land and built his final home on Alvin Street (Alvin [Ablin] was his middle name: Gustav Albin (Alvin) Weisskopf. The loss of his home to the sheriff did not cause his health to decline. That is myth. He continued work at Alvin Street home. He stored his aircraft from earlier years in Knapp's barn on Knapp's highway.

Lt. Colonel Robert Delbuono, of our 9315th USAF Reserve Squadron recalled play-ing in that barn, in the 1930's when he was a teenager, and that airframes and wings built by Whitehead were there. Whitehead did not end his work until 1912.

Lee S. Burridge, of the Aero Club of America, wanted Whitehead to build an engine to power Burridge's ridiculous design for a helicopter. He advanced some money for that engine to be built. When Whitehead told him his helicopter would never fly and Burgess became very angry. He went to Charles Wittemann, at Staten Island, NY, who was selling Whitehead engines. He had Wittemann install an engine so he could test his helicopter. Wittemann installed a Whitehead engine. The heli-copter never did or could fly! That was 1910.

Whitehead's own 1911 studies of helicopter problem resulted in a 60-bladed helicopter. That helicopter appears in our 1978 book, History by Contract.

Whitehead died of a massive heart attack, on Oct 10, 1927, after attempting to lift an engine out of an automobile he was repairing. He stumbled up to his front porch and into his home, collapsing dead in the house.

His burial was at Lakeview Cemetery, on Boston Avenue, next to the General Elec-tric Manufacturing firm. The family could not afford a headstone. The cemetery organization installed a bronze marker "pin" (on exhibit at the GW Museum) "Nr. 42, row 27. They did not install a stone. None of the bronze pins have any-one's name. When I found this was the only way he was remembered I sought a stone to be donated to his grave and engraved by the stone maker. The Honey-spot gravestone monument firm donated that monument I designed. I authored the inscription. When it was dedicated (Aug 15, 1964) a huge gathering of people attended that ceremony. Every branch of the armed services was rep-resented: Air Force, Air Force Reserve, U.S. Army, US Navy, US Coast Guard, Connecticut National Air Guard, plus the Boy Scouts of America.

Also present were members of the Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association. Also Lt. Governor of our State, US Congressman Donald Irwin, air pioneer Clarence chamberlain (who flew the Atlantic after Lindbergh) Charles Wittemann, who bought, sold and flew with GW engines, Anton Pruckner (Gus-tave Whitehead's toolmaker/ machinist assistant in 1900-01, and 1903-05. GW's three daughters were also there: Rose Whitehead Rennison, Lillian Whitehead Baker, and Nellie Whitehead Kustere

Please correct all spellings of Stella Randolph. You have listed her as Rundolf and as Rudolph. Her true name is Randolph.

The 1978 book, History by Contract, only contained what we had learned up to mid-1978. A host of added valuable information was found in the years following that book, enough to create a second volume.

Photos showing Gustave Whitehead in successful powered flight did exist and were exhibited in the hardware store window of Lyon and Grumman Hardware store, on Main Street, Bridgeport, Conneciticut in October 1903, as was reported in the Bridgeport Daily Standard newspaper. A photo showing GW in successful motor driven flight, was on exhibit in the 1906 First Annual Exhibit of the Aero Club of America. It was held in the 69th Regiment Armory in New York City. This fact was reported by the aeronautical editor for the Scientific American magazine.

Responsable" is correctly spelled as responsible.

Paragraph 6, in "To Ceasar what is of Caesar" // Suggest change in last two sentences. Proposed: For what possible reason would the heirs to Orville Wright's Estate, or Orville's Last Will, have so many conditional clauses if the Wrights knew they were the first to fly with power? First is first. A contract does not make someone "first."

Why would they have a penalty clause in the contract if someone else was discovered to be first. Further, the quoted portion of the Century Magazine article that is represented as a statement made by both Wilbur and Orville Wright, and which must accompany the Wright's 1903 Kitty Hawk "Flyer" biplane at Smithsonian, was not coauthored by Wilbur and Orville. That entire article was coauthored by Orville and his sister, Katherine. Wilbur was in France when that September 1908 article was written by Katherine Wright and Orville Wright. Not one word requested by Wilbur to be included in that article was ever entered by Orville or Katherine. To continue to misrepresent that quote came from an article coauthored by Orville and Wilbur it outright false. The only joint statement ever issued by the Wrights, signed by the Wrights, was sent to the Aero Club of America. In it the Wrights only acknowledge one successful flight for Dec., 1 7, 1903. It was the fourth flight. They noted it was for a distance of 872 feet. The other three flights were more hops, not flights at all, and they both recognized this when they wrote to the president of the Aero Club of America.

The Whitehead monument atop the obelisk structure is outside the north gate that enters the ancient walled city of Leutershausen. Those entries are known as Gate Towers. Only the north gate is turreted. The other is a square tower.

The airframes built and tested in both the USA and in Germany are not "replicas." They are "reproductions" of the airframe alone. A replica would have had to be built by GW in his shop. "Reproductions " are created later, and by later plans. Only original plans can be used to create a replica. We are not building replica airframes or replica engines. They are all reproductions.

Herb Kelly should be spelled Herb Kelley.

Metric scale plans were sought, at request of Hermann Betscher, in 1991. I met and worked with our Mass Properties engineer (in old days they were known as Weights & Balance engineers). His name is Arling " Pud" Schmidt. He worked for many years for Boeing Vertol, in Philadelphia offices, in Pennsylvania. He later worked as Mass Properties engineer for MdDonnell-Douglas. He then returned as a contract engineer for Boeing Vertol, from which he retired this past year. Other engineers also drew plans. Out of all the plans drawn we have come upon a composite that includes the best and most reliable detail for building the reproduction airframe.

I trust you will accept all of this as constructive criticisms. They are all well intentioned to assist you in your own knowledge about this most interesting history.

Best warmest regards, as ever.... William J. O'Dwyer Major, USAF Reserve(Retired) email: wjodwyer@aol.com Phone and FAX (203) 259-7002 Address: 208 Reef Road Fairfield, CT USA 06430" (Roger J.)

Circular cement runway?

I want to ask other contributors about this, which I have heard of in two places now.

At http://gustavewhitehead.org/photo_gallery/a_map_of_whiteheads_life_in.html there is a map of Bridgeport with locations associated with Whitehead marked. In the upper left corner are 3 points mentioned, and site C has the text "Circular cement runway" and we can see point C on the map.

And a quote from http://www.historynet.com/historical_discoveries/3032816.html

"His U.S. aviation "firsts" numbered more than 20. They included, to name but a few, aluminum in engines and propellers, wheels for takeoff and landing, ground-adjustable propeller pitch, individual control of propellers (to aid in directional control), folding wings for towing on roads (resulting in what was possibly the world's first roadable airplane), silk for wing covering, and concrete for a runway."

Was the circular cement runway used by Whitehead? What can a "circular cement runway" be used for anyway?

It would, of course, be a very good test track for an airplane anchored to a central pole. If you first attach a long piece of timber to the central pole, so it can rotate freely, then attach ropes between the timber log and the airplane placed on the circular cement runway so it can be tested safely. It would be the next best thing to a fullscale windtunnel. If an airplane works well flying around a center pole above a circular cement runway it should fly well straight ahead too, if the construction is symmetrical. Ropes can hinder the airplane from flipping over backwards or forwards without hindering normal flight above the concrete runway which works as starting and landing runway.

Does anybody have any information about this circular cement runway on the map, dimensions?, purpose?, and did Whitehead use it? Roger491127 (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I found more info about this:

http://gustavewhitehead.org/affidavits_-_1936/affidavit:_cecil_a._steeves.html

...I was greatly interested in what Mr. Whitehead was doing, spending a great deal of my time there, both after school hours and during vacations, and he explained much to me about flying machines. Many and many a time I have watched him test a plane while it traveled around and around, in a circle, these tests taking place in his yard, with the plane tied by a rope to a stake which had been driven into the ground, the yard being so small that the plane would have had to have been dismantled in order to have tested it elsewhere. ...

So Whitehead had the same idea and used it at least in a limited space.

Did Whitehead later build a bigger circular runway out of cement and use the same idea at a larger scale? ....

Continuing to comb through the affidavits for info about the circular cement runway I found this:

http://gustavewhitehead.org/affidavits_-_1936/affidavit:_john_lesko_-_jan.html

...He started at one time to build a runway of concrete in the vicinity of the present St. Stephen's School. My family used to have a restaurant and an old horse and wagon. Many a time we used the horse to pull the "bird" as Mr. Whitehead called his machine, to give it a start. He never finished the runway because he could not get permission from the owner of the land to use it...

That probably solves this enigma. He started building a bigger circular runway but had to abandon it because of the owner of the land. That is my guess but it sounds reasonable.

That was a very good invention even if he was not able complete and use it at a bigger scale than in his own yard. Roger491127 (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Chanute used the circular tethered-to-a-pole testing system too, probably earlier than Whitehead. Chanute told the Wright brothers about this method, but there are no indications that they used it. Roger491127 (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Official recognition

I don't think anyone will ever be able to "prove" Whitehead flew, or how far and how high, unless some spectacular new and irrefutable piece of evidence is found. I personally think there is a good chance he "hopped," which is a significant change in my attitude from when I first heard about him. The day may come when historians, aeronautical organizations, even the Smithsonian may declare, yes, he flew with (or without) some degree of control. When, and if, that day comes, editors of this Encyclopedia will change this and other Whitehead-related articles to reflect the new "official" history, and I will acknowlege it. This Encyclopedia, however, is not in the business of "declaring" "official" history. The Encylopedia does not make those kind of judgements or draw conclusions. It simply reports, with careful and appropriate attribution and sourcing, what outside experts, researchers, witnesses, etc. say about a topic. Wikipedia is not in the business of "proving" theories or history. DonFB (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything I wrote was taken from reliable sources. For example that the plane always landed softly and unharmed. Even his worst enemy, Stanley Y. Beach, said that "his planes 21 and 22 always made a "pancake landing" instead of a nosedive." To know that he must have seen Whitehead land more than once. He also said that the plane was inherently stable in the air. So stable that Whitehead could take time studying the countryside around him, and turn back, wave his hand and shout to his helpers.

You deleted that very well sourced and important information, without even asking me about it first.

You say that nobody can ever prove that Whitehead ever flew. That proves that you have not studied the available documentation, because it seems highly unlikely that all these people who say that saw him fly would all be lying, independently of each other, and many of them also signed affidavits about it.

Quote: "Note also that no problems were reported with landing his plane. He just aimed it at a suitable landing place, on ground or on the water, and turned off the motor. The plane landed itself softly. This also proves that his planes 21 and 22 were stable in the air."

You deleted this why? Because you lack the technical education which makes it obvious that if a plane lands softly by itself it must be stable in the air. Or because you have not read all the witnesses who said it was stable in the air.

Considering your poor judgement, lack of education or dishonest attitude, which I have already mentioned two examples of I think it is just fair that I revert all your latest changes.

If you have a certain point to discuss then do so here, so I can explain what reliable sources I have for that point.

Considering all work you have put into the Wright brothers articles I have the right to see you as a pro-Wright (anti-Whitehead) person who has come to this article about Whitehead to sabotage it, and your actions so far support that view. See you in court. (I will ask for help from wikipedia admins and administrators if you continue to sabotage this page.) Roger491127 (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Many of my changes simply improve the writing and flow of that section of the article, such as removing the repetition of "turn around and wave" and "looked back and waved" and "I've got it at last". The blockquote of the newspaper excerpt, which I am restoring, makes it easy to see and more readable.

As you know, there is much controversy about Whitehead among authors and researchers, and no general agreement exists among them whether he actually made any flights. The article thus must be very careful and use clear sourcing, citations or attribution when making statements like: "always landed softly"; "landed itself"; "three more flights"; "the plane was so stable"; "gracefully made a turn"; "this also proves"; "moving his body sideways worked so well"; "the second flight"; "it worked well"; "making a big circle"

Each of these quoted parts of the article does not necessarily need its own citation. Careful writing can give a citation or attribution to more than one phrase at a time. My edits do this, and in some cases I also request specific citations.

Wikipedia strongly encourages "inline citations," (footnotes), which you have not provided. It is unfair and unhelpful to both readers and editors to ask them, as you have, to wade through a collection of links below the article to find the source for particular information. When adding text, you should provide footnotes where appropriate. The Help pages show how to do that. Without a clear supporting citation, a statement like "This also proves that his planes 21 and 22 were stable in the air" reads simply like an article editor's point of view (POV), not to mention that aviation historians do not agree if he flew at all.

Familiarity with subject matter is helpful for Wikipedia editors, but the content of Wikipedia depends on the qualifications, knowlege and expertise of "outside" authorities, not the Wikipedia editors themselves. It's unfortunate you feel as you do and incorrectly interpret the edits as "anti-Whitehead" .The terminology you use to describe the edits is quite inappropriate. DonFB (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Familiarity with subject matter is helpful for Wikipedia editors, but the content of Wikipedia depends on the qualifications, knowlege and expertise of "outside" authorities, not the Wikipedia editors themselves."

To edit technical articles you need a very good technical education, or consult a person with that kind of education. You must be able to judge what is possible, reasonable, unlikely, or highly probable, considering ALL the available documentation. You also need general education and the ability to judge the quality of reasoning from different sources, especially when there is a controversy. I have the necessary education and I can see in your comments and answers that you do not have it, and that you have not consulted somebody who has it. I care more about the best possible content and readability, (and the overall beauty of an article). You concentrate on formalities and cannot judge what information is important to include. You prefer citing wikipedia rules and putting tags in articles.

I will take a look at the "citation needed" tags and fix them, but it will take some time because I have read through all documentation again and find the support for it.

I appreciate this expression of good faith. Take your time. DonFB (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You said: "I don't think anyone will ever be able to "prove" Whitehead flew, or how far and how high", but you should have added that nobody will ever be able to "prove" the Wright brothers flew either. We only have historic records which we must judge and compare, using scientific and technical knowledge and good reasoning.

I take a few examples from our discussions earlier:

I think I have asked you before if you think it is a good argument to say that "the most important witness is probably Whitehead's wife, and she never saw any of her husband's flights". What is your reply to that? Do you think that is a good argument?Roger491127 (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not the strongest argument, but I haven't used it...

Yes you have. You have studied the documentation about both the Wrights and Whitehead, which includes that argument, in more than one anti-Whitehead article.You have weighed in that piece of info into you current position, and you do not realize how stupid (or more precisely, outright intentionally misleading) that argument is, in a world where wives stay at home and take care of the home and the children, while their men invent airplanes, climb Everest, fight fires, etc..

Or this:

"ended in an unintended nose-dive into the sand"

I do not see that phrase anywhere in the Wright Flyer article. Did you "accidentally" add it?

I summed up the available documentation in an easy-to-read sentence. The Wright brothers said that every flight that day ended in a bumpy and unintended "landing". (I dont have time to look up where I read it, and it is unnecessary because the evidence shows that that is a highly probable fact.) The last flight ended in a nose-dive and a damaged plane, that is obvious from several sources. (It was damaged when landing three days earlier too) So what is wrong with summing up the situation in the way I did?

Just because you cannot find that exact phrase in the Wright Flyer article doesn't make my sentence wrong in anyway, That is what happened and I described it in a short sentence. Do you think wikipedia may only contain literally copied phrases from other sources?

I found a more detailed description of the nose-dive crash, which also included that the wing bending controls did not work and a scratched wing tip, from a source that I judged as reliable, in a discussion among retired old pilots, so I included it. It was not necessary technically to add it, because the brothers themselves have written about those problems. What was published in 1905. "The bucking and veering that had hampered Flyers I & II were gone. The minor crashes the Wrights had experienced disappeared...." but it gave a more detailed description of the landing, which I think we should share with the readers.

Wikipedia becomes too dry and boring without such details. And a lot of people around the world do not understand such uncommon english words as bucking and veering, without a more practical description. Try to use reasonably simple english wherever possible, and explain uncommon words when necessary. Remember that english is now the international language. And the english-speaking Wikipedia is the international Wikipedia. Roger491127 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Y Beach

A few excerpts from Beach's reports in Scientific American in 1906 and 1908 contradict Orville's version of Beach's beliefs about Whitehead.

Beach's reports referred to powered flights in 1901 by Whitehead in the issues of January 27, November 24 and December 15, 1906, and January 25, 1908. Included were these phrases: "Whitehead in 1901 and Wright brothers in 1903 have already flown for short distances with motor-powered aeroplanes," "Whitehead's former bat-like machine with which he made a number of flights in 1901," "A single blurred photograph of a large bird-like machine constructed by Whitehead in 1901 was the only photo of a motor-driven aeroplane in flight."

The last quote is from a long article by Beach on the first annual exhibit held by the newly formed Aero Club of America at the 69th Regiment Armory in New York City. The report appeared in Scientific American, January 27, 1906. Roger491127 (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did Beach, an enthusiastic supporter of Whitehead who liberally credited Whitehead's powered flight successes of 1901, later become a Wright devotee? O'Dwyer offered some intriguing answers, all reflected by his research files, which state that in 1910 Whitehead refused to work any longer on Beach's flat-winged biplane. Angered, Beach broke with Whitehead and sent a mechanic to Whitehead's shop in Fairfield to disassemble the plane and take it to Beach's barn in Stratford. In later years (in O'Dwyer's words), "Beach became a politician, rarely missing an opportunity to mingle with the Wright tide that had turned against Whitehead, notably after Whitehead's death in 1927.

"The significance of the foregoing can be appreciated by the fact that Beach's 1939 statement denouncing Whitehead (almost totally at odds with his earlier writings) was quoted by Orville Wright (as shown earlier). Far more important, however, was the Smithsonian's use of the Beach statement as a standard and oft-quoted source for answering queries about aviation's beginnings-because it said that Gustave Whitehead did not fly." Roger491127 (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tag

In the Towed flight section

The reference is incorporated in the text itself, so this tag is not motivated. Roger491127 (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple witnesses, citation needed tags

Removed the citation needed tags, because Pruckner's affidavit, plus the witnesses who described how Captain Brown viewed the event, noted it in his logbook, together justify the expression multiple witnesses. That the logbook and the photo has not been found yet does not make these witnesses useless. These witnesses exist, it is only the photo and the logbook which are missing. Note that Pruckner, Whitehead himself, and the witnesses who told the researchers about captain Brown means that at least 3 people support the 1902 flight.

"About 15 years ago, a friend rummaging through the attic of a house in East Lyme, Conn., told Kosch he came across the captain's leather-bound journal containing a picture of Whitehead in flight with a description of the spectacle.

Later, when he learned of the journal's value, the friend attempted to retrieve it, Kosch says, but the owners had moved to California. Kosch eventually made contact with them, but they later told him they could not find the journal, he says, and the search for it met a dead end. " Captain Browns full name: Beckwith Brown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference: http://www.grangier.fr/news/journal-2003-04-222.txt (scoll down to 50% of the page)

(What a coincidence, those logbooks had been stored in an attic for decades, but when the owner of the house realized how extremely valuable those items were the items disappeared and the owner of the house could afford to move to California, and could not even remember where he had sent the things in the attic.) Kosch suspected that they sold the items to the Smithsonian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Towed flight

The text does not include a source that allows a reader to verify it. For example, a footnote could point to an article on a reputable website or online publication that gives the information contained in the text; the source does not have to be the EAA directly. Of course, the text could give the exact date of an EAA publication which contains the information. But it does not. Wording like "some time around 1990" is simply too sloppy and non-specific. Whoever added this text obviously did not know the specfic date of the report or the event itself. In any case, an EAA publication from that many years ago is not online. I would tag text like this in an article about any subject; the text does not meet the Wikipedia standard of verifiability. The text raises other questions: "In the mid-'80s..." If the EAA is the source for reporting the event, it would know the specific date. "EAA member Bill Schulz, then of Cornwall, Connecticut, spoke with Robertson..." What is the source? Was the conversation reported by the EAA or another source; or is this personal knowledge by the person who added the text? "Robertson reported that....." What is the source? Is it EAA? Is it Bill Schulz? Is it Bill Schulz as reported by EAA? Is it the contributor to this article? I don't claim the text is false; I think it is probably true. But neither my opinion nor someone else's represents Verifiability. As written, the text falls well short of the standard of Verifiability. For that reason, it deserves an "unreferenced" tag. My effort to find a source has not succeeded. If a good source is found, the text will not need a tag. DonFB (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is about an event in modern times, easily verifiable. Search google using this search expression " "Cliff Robertson" "Gustave Whitehead" " and you get 56 references to this event. The involved people are still alive and can be asked by telephone about it. The reference included in the text itself can be checked at a public library. I added one more reference and I could have added 10-20 more references from the google results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

While I was making all references into standard footnotes you made some changes and suggestions, so there was an edit conflict. Considering that I had worked a lot more than you I restored and saved my changes. Nice, huh? Proper footnotes. Now I will look at your changes and decide what to do about them.

Let's discuss your changes one by one: Roger491127 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. DonFB (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you restored all my earlier badly formatted changes of footnotes too. So let's do it again, I restore and save the new properly formatted footnotes, THEN you can do your changes again. Some patience please. Roger491127 (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now my version with fixed footnotes is the current page. I guess that solved one of your complaints. I don't mind several of your changes.

So do your changes and we'll discuss those I don't agree with.Roger491127 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Our edits

When you're done fixing all your footnotes, I plan to restore my edits---they're not especially controversial. They remove a chunk of duplicate material, perform some much-needed copyedits, and remove some pretty obvious POV text. DonFB (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Have read your last message above. Will restore my edits while preserving footnote fixes.DonFB (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Roger491127 (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed my refeences into footnotes in a few other articles while you worked on this.

After reading the article three times I must say I'm pretty satisfied, no complaints about your changes today, this article is in a rather good shape now, thanks for nice cooperation Roger491127 (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is far better referenced now than previously, and is mostly free of overt POV, speculation and unreferenced conclusions. There are still a number of places where editing is much-needed to make it obvious what material is being directly quoted, and to help readers follow along. The Beach quote about pulling an airplane is probably not about the Number 21, but about GW's later triplane. The Photo section in the article contains two different pieces of text about Beach's comment on the blurred photo. The long passage after the North Carolina legislature quote needs some kind of introductory explanation. The "Quality of Anti-Whitehead" arguments section sounds partisan; I'll be re-examining that in an effort to make the writing more neutral. These are a few of the areas I can think of that I plan to work on. I also plan to add some explanatory material about Randolph and O'Dwyer, and about rejection of the Whitehead claims by Orville and by Wright brothers biographers. DonFB (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We could move the Controversy section down and merge it with the The "Quality of Anti-Whitehead" arguments section, calling the section The controversy or something like that, so we get rid of the partisan-sounding section title. It is obvious to me that there really was a tendency to ignore or repress facts about Whitehead, for a long time, 100 years, in different forms, so that must be described somehow. The resistance and outright lies from the other side is easy to see. It is unavoidable that such a section must be rather long, maybe broken up into two parts to make it easier handle and read. Some of it could be located in the section about the researchers, Randolph, O'Dwyer and Kosch. I have a very good photo of Whitehead I will try to insert it into the lower part of the page where the ratio text to pictures is getting too high, readers hesitate in front of very long text parts and a picture here and there makes the whole article more beautiful. Roger491127 (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The section names Pittsburgh and Connecticut could include the time period, like this: Connecticut 1899 - 1927, so the reader understands the chronology now when we have described the most important section before the earlier period, which is a correct decision as I see it, but the chronology becomes unclear. The title line Experiments in flight is unnecessary and can be stricken. It is pretty obvious from the text that most of his life was about experiments in flight. Roger491127 (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Organization suggestions

I am adding material on Randolph and O'Dwyer. I also propose the "Airplanes" section immediately follow the "Experiments in Flight" section, followed by the "Later Life" section, followed by "Controversy". The article thus tells his life story, then goes into the lengthy Controversy text. To summarize: Intro, Early Life/Work; Experiments in Flight, Whitehead's Airplanes (could be renamed "Aircraft" and include the Glider text and photo); Later Career, Controversy; Photos; Modern Repros. The Controversy section is big, and should be. It can include (as you suggest) "Pro" and "Anti" subsections. The "Photos" section could also be included as a subsection within "Controversy". DonFB (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In the Photos section, I want a footnote for the paragraph about the Beach report which begins, "Another missing photo" and ends, "successful flight". The footnote would allow readers to see this text (which I paraphrased) online. The ref to the date and pages of Scientific American is Ok, but I believe there is an online webpage that people can read. DonFB (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)......Disregard; footnote added. DonFB (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded a picture showing Whitehead in his working clothes. His face and the motor he is holding are clearly visible. Details of the front of the plane are also visible, note the propellers for example. You can move this picture wherever you want, and, if you like, make it smaller. Note that the original is 1044 pixels wide. I inserted it at half the size, 522 pixels wide. If you like you can make it smaller but please divide the number of pixels with 2 to make the quality as good as possible so the number 522 should be replaced by 261 in that case. Gustaveworking.jpg As long as we remember it's name we can use it even if somebody removes it, therefor I mention the name of the picture here on the talk page.

Personally I think 522 px width is good, a big picture gives a relief from reading while studying the picture and it can also be restored to 1044 px width by clicking on it. Roger491127 (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The event witnessed by Harworth: "'"No. 21" was flown by Weisskopf in the summer of 1901 from Howard Avenue East to Wordin Avenue, along the edge of property belonging to the Bridgeport Gas Company. Upon landing' recalled Harworth, the machine was turned around and another hop was made back to Howard Avenue." [6] (according to the Harworth affidavit) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This happened during the summer 1901 before the flights August 14. I have studied old and modern maps to try to calculate the distance flown in both directions and I find that (assuming he flew along Pine Street) this distance is 200 m.

This quote from the same source, http://www.deepsky.com/~firstflight/Pages/article8.html is also very interesting:

It was also around that time that Cecil A Steeves, a 16-year-old schoolboy, came upon Weisskopf testing his aircraft on the Gilman Estate. Three men with ropes began pulling the machine which, within 200 ft (61 m), became airborne, rising high enough to clear telephone and trolley lines before sailing across the road to land undamaged in an old circus lot. Major O'Dwyer, having been shown the site by Mr. Steeves, took measurements which disclosed the distance traveled by the aircraft to be nearly 1,OOO ft (305 m).

This quote shows how stable the plane was, as it unmanned landed undamaged after a 305 m flight, in the summer 1901. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

From http://www.earlyaviators.com/ewhitehe.htm "He also survived four shipwrecks, the last of which put him ashore in 1894 on the Gulf Coast near the Florida Panhandle. Young Weisskopf headed northward, taking work when he could get it and reached Boston in 1897. He got a job with the Boston Aeronautical Society. He built a biplane with flapping midwings, it failed to fly. Next stop was New York City, he met Louise Tuba, they were married in Buffalo, and for a short time Whitehead found employment in a buggy factory at Tonawanda. He left there shortly after the birth of his eldest daughter, Rose, for Johnstown, Pennsylvania. From there, they moved to Pittsburgh to join friends. In the summer of 1900, the Whitehead’s moved into 241 Pine Street in Bridgeport, Connecticut." (1898 -1900 in Pittsburgh) Roger491127 (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, I've seen that before; it's good stuff. Why dontcha' put it in Early Life/Work? Edit it as necessary for writing, punctuation, and to blend it smoothly with existing text, etc. Make a footnote for it, of course DonFB (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So you are back. I noticed that you changed my participation in another article, in a way I have nothing against. I have been waiting for you to reorganize this article according to your ideas above, and I planned to suggest changes after your organization.

I think we are both fairly satisfied with the actual content now. So now the task is to organize the material in the best possible way. If you like we can do it the other way around, I reorganize the content, taking into consideration your ideas above, and then you can suggest changes. (?) Roger491127 (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing

I have renamed some section titles and made all titles into the same form, so the content box looks more consistent, all titles same level. Changed the partisan-sounding title to Controversy and the earlier Controversy section into Research. Made no changes to actual content. I hope you accept these changes. There are still a few repetitions of content, but I don't think it matters much. Roger491127 (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I added few words about his helikopter project and a few more details about his life after 1911, to fill the gap between 1911 and 1927 with at least a few words about what he did during those years. Roger491127 (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The first picture in the article is part of the info box about Whitehead. That info box became bigger all by itself, I did not change it. But that created a big empty space between the contents box and the next picture. I made the second picture a little bigger to fill part of that empty space. Roger491127 (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Trevor MacInnis changed the organization of the page very much, moving and resizing pictures, without discussing it on this discussion page first. The result looks really bad so I revert to the version I used hours to organize. Roger491127 (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith, and presume that because you are new to editing here you are not completely familiar with the etiquette of Wikipedia.

1. My edit was not vandalism. To quote Wikipedia:Vandalism; "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." My edit was a slight reorganization of some pictures, avoiding the clustering that many articles in their initial stages have. I also removed the forced sizing of thumbnailed images, as suggested by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
2. Because you are new, I will not take the accusation of Vandalism as a personal attack.
3. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, which states that "If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so." Heck, every time anyone edits a page, there is the note "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."
4. Edits do not require to be discussed on the talk page first, if they are not contentious and there is not a dispute in progress on the page. If this page is involved in a dispute then perhaps it should be protected from further editing, or a tag from Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes be placed at the top of the article.

- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you move pictures away from the text associated with the pictures you are destroying the connection between the text and picture. This page has been carefully organized to be as readable and beautiful as possible, with only two pictures bigger than normal, for very good reasons. The actual text content has been discussed for a long time, lately by me and DonFB. The layout is also a result of our discussions here on the discussion page. If you suddenly change the whole layout of the article, destroying the connection between pictures and text by seemingly randomly moving pictures around it cannot be seen as anything but vandalism. You can quote a single rule, or recommendation, but there are exceptions to the rules, when one or two pictures are bigger they are that for a very good reason. Roger491127 (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, your change created an even bigger white space to the right of the contents table. So your reason for your change is flawed. This article is clearly being attacked by a few aviation people now. It should be protected. Note that the number of pictures and their sizes in other articles are bigger, which often makes the article more easy to read and there is a good balance between text and pictures. Roger491127 (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I just asked for full protection of this page. Here is a copy of my request:

Gustave Whitehead

The article Gustave Whitehead is now being attacked/vandalized. Please study the discussion page for it and see how a long time cooperation between earlier editors has resulted in an article editors agree about. Note that the article is very controversial to a lot of people because of the 100 year long controversy between supporters for Wright brothers and Smithsonian and supporters for Whitehead. By attacking the main article about Whitehead many references to this article are denigrated. The first attacker moved pictures around randomly, breaking the connections between a picture and the text about it. The second attacker moved a picture and gave the reason that there was a big white space, but his change made the white space bigger, so his reasoning is faulty. I ask for full protection of the page. Roger491127 (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the article is frozen, fully protected for a time period of 6 months. That means nobody can make it better, but it is in a fairly good shape now and it is much more important that nobody can destroy it. Roger491127 (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

First, as Trevor MacInnis pointed out to you before, the type of edits we made are not Wikipedia:Vandalism. Nor are people making attacks on the article. I always reduce oversized images when I find them, with the exception of some maps that are hard to see. So please refrain from that type of comment. As to other articles having bigger pictures then please point them out and I will reduce those as well. Oversized images can cause problems for people who have a need for a larger font size, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. Even if you don't have a larger font size articles are difficult to read with large and distracting pictures. Now as to the whitespace problem. I check each article using both Firefox and IE using five different computers combined with 15, 17 and 19 inch monitors using various screen resolutions. Here are four screenshots, Image:Cropped IE CBW.JPG, Image:Cropped Firefox CBW.JPG, Image:Cropped Firefox Roger.JPG and Image:Cropped IE Roger.JPG. I cropped the images only to remove the browser bars and the Wikipedia logo. In the first two (my version) you can see that the page looks similar in both IE and Firefox. In the second two (your version) you can see that Firefox renders the page correctly and not much differently from my version. However, look at the IE version that is now the current page, not very "readable and beautiful" at all. As to the page protection, you have to be joking. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried your version in IE and it has a big empty white space. My version doesn't look like your pictures at all. If you are serious about discussing the problem with different browsers it's okay with me, but then we must find a solution acceptable to all of us. Note that the drawing by Howell is maybe the most important picture in the history of aviation pioneers. Its main rival is the photo showing Wright Flyer I a second after it has lifted from the rails and a few seconds before it fell into the sand.

Considering its importance and the high ratio of text to pictures in this article it is motivated to insert it at 660px width. Many editors have accepted this big picture without protests for a long time. The second big picture is the only good picture of Whitehead in his working clothes and you can see his face clearly, and the motor he is holding and the front of his airplane. This case is also motivated by the mass of text and so few pictures in the article. But I can accept that this second big picture is made smaller Roger491127 (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I restored your version and looked at it in both IE and Opera, there is still a big white space to the right of the contents table. Roger491127 (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is and there will always be some whitespace below the opening section and between the table of contents and the infobox/picture no matter what browser you use. That's something that can't be removed. Take a look at Montreal or Inukshuk to see what I mean. Also what size monitor, OS and screen resolution are you using? Let me know and I can try that out as well. The amount of text should not be a consideration with regards to the image size. Large images overwhelm the text making it hard to read. It's easy to click on the image and look at a larger version. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Browsers

I have just installed Firefox, and the whitespace is not so big, acceptable. 87.249.177.39 (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing the font to a more readable made the white space bigger in firefox too.

In all 3 browsers there is now a big empty space to the right of the contents table. Is there no way to move the first picture into that empty space? Roger491127 (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No there isn't, it's always there. Look at my last comment in the section above. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but how can we protect the page from people like Trevor MacInnis who moved all pictures randomly around in the article? I still think it should be a protected page, considering all the anti-Whitehead people who are now becoming aware of the importance of the page. The Whitehead story conflicts with their lifelong conviction and patriotism. Roger491127 (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article Montreal I notice that the info-box about Montreal is very long, but the contents box is even longer. So if we could make the infobox about Whitehead longer, or the contents box shorter, the empty space could be minimized. Roger491127 (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Trevor MacInnis

(Also posted to Rodgers user page)

Alright now this is just too much. If you want the page protected, I can protect it, because I am an administrator. But I am not going to do that, because the only problem here seems to be "you vs. the world". I am not an anti-Whitehead person, I am not a pro-Whitehead person. I don't really care at all about any controversy about him in the world outside Wikipedia. I am only editing articles throughout Wikipedia. This article is 1 of more than 2.1 million, and is relatively unimportant.

To reply to the accusations made on my talk page, I am not "Patronizing" you. I merely used a standard template (Template:uw-agf1) that is used in discussions with people that may not be familiar with Wikipedia conventions. You say "it is impossible to assume good faith in this case", I don't see how. I merely tried to keep over sized pictures from being crowded at the top of the article. "I see from your contributions list that you are passionately interested in flight and airplanes. This makes it likely that you intentionally change articles which do not fit your strong beliefs." Editors constantly edit articles in their field of interest. I suspect you may have a passionate interest in Whiteys article, but so far I am not labeling you a vandal.

This article does not seem to be controversial to anyone but you. There may be a controversy outside of Wikipedia, but that is not important. What is important is for everyone to keep their edits neutral.

As an active editor for over three years, and administrator for the last two, this is the first time I have been accused of anything improper, excepting by blatant vandals I have had a hand in stopping. Please try to refrain from further destructive comments. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand how you can have become an administrator with the qualifications you have shown here. You can't even spell my first name correctly, in spite of it being a very common American name, even though I live in Sweden and I have never even visited an english-speaking country. Look at any newspaper, there are pictures and text and more pictures and more text, the texts refer to the pictures close by. If you worked on a newspaper and moved all the pictures around so that no picture was located close to the text which belongs to the picture anymore, wouldn't you be fired immediately? And wouldn't the owner of the newspaper have a good reason to call you a vandal?

And your sentence "There may be a controversy outside of Wikipedia, but that is not important." ? Don't you understand that controversies in the real world are strongly reflected in Wikipedia? Roger491127 (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

To quote Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You had no replies to my questions, no rational arguments, no defence for your actions, so you resorted to quoting a well known rule instead. Are you even trying to be an intelligent and open person, or do you just quote rules and think that you can get away with anything. I can imagine you being kicked out into the street by the owner of the newspaper and you turn around and recite the NPOV rule. He asks you: Is that your defence for moving the pictures around at random in this issue of the newspaper?

Do you understand that conflicts in the real world cause conflicts in wikipedia too, or not? Roger491127 (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that conflicts in the real world can cause conflicts in Wikipedia too. I also understand that you should not allow the outside world to influence your editing, or you are not truly being neutral. Again, I was not moving pictures at random, I was spreading them out so they would not be crowded at the top.

if you need specific replies to your accusations, then here we go:

1. "Trevor MacInnis changed the organization of the page very much, moving and resizing pictures, without discussing it on this discussion page first. The result looks really bad so I revert to the version I used hours to organize."

   Changing the location and sizes of a few pictures is not a major edit. I, and thousands of other editors, do it all the time as we see fit. The beauty of a wiki is that anyone can edit. I don't need to discuss anything beforehand for such a minor edit. "The result looked really bad" in your eyes, not mine, and your reversion of the edit, calling it vandalism was not in good faith.

2. "This page has been carefully organized to be as readable and beautiful as possible"

   That's your opinion. Again, this is a wiki, anyone can edit. As I (and you) hope that Wikipedia will be around for many years to come, many people are going to make many edits to this and every page. This page, may look very different five years from now, you can stifle progress.

3. "If you suddenly change the whole layout of the article, destroying the connection between pictures and text by seemingly randomly moving pictures around it cannot be seen as anything but vandalism."

   Again, this is not in good faith, it was a minor edit, and not the last one I will be making.

4. "This article is clearly being attacked by a few aviation people now. It should be protected."

   Your problem was with one edit and, other than you and Dan, I have been the only one to edit the article in a long time. My edit would not be seriously considered an attack by any experienced editor, and your attempt at getting the page protected [1] was discarded out of hand [2].

5. "Note that the article is very controversial to a lot of people because of the 100 year long controversy between supporters for Wright brothers and Smithsonian and supporters for Whitehead."

   The subject may be controversial, but the article is not. If you want anyone who would consider editing the article to discuss their edit first you should add the template Template:Controversial to the top of the article. Not that this means people would discuss their edits, not get your permission to edit, since you do not own the article.

6. "By attacking the main article about Whitehead many references to this article are denigrated. The first attacker moved pictures around randomly, breaking the connections between a picture and the text about it. The second attacker moved a picture and gave the reason that there was a big white space, but his change made the white space bigger, so his reasoning is faulty"

   These edits moved or resized pictures. How does this amount to denigrating the references?

7. "I suggest that the article is frozen, fully protected for a time period of 6 months. That means nobody can make it better, but it is in a fairly good shape now and it is much more important that nobody can destroy it."

   I don't believe the article is anywhere near being in good shape; the formating is poor for an encyclopedia article. But that's neither here nor there. My problem is with the phrase "destroy it." My and CBW's edits did not "destroy" the article, we merely changed it. Again, as I've stated before, If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.

8. "Note that the drawing by Howell is maybe the most important picture in the history of aviation pioneers."

   That is your point of view, and demonstrates your bias in this matter. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and try to fully understand it.

9. "Many editors have accepted this big picture without protests for a long time."

   Just because nobody has protested does not mean it is accepted. As I have said, this article is just one of over 2 million articles, and perhaps few editors if any have even viewed it. If you wish to you can bring more attention to this article in a few different ways, but I suspect the results would not meet your approval.

10. "...all the anti-Whitehead people who are now becoming aware of the importance of the page...The Whitehead story conflicts with their lifelong conviction and patriotism."

    I am not anti-Whitehead, and don't find this article to be important. I don't understand where you are getting the idea about "lifelong convictions and patriotism". Your actions have prompted me to become involved though. And I will continue to monitor this article, and make edits as I see fit.

11. "I can't understand how you can have become an administrator with the qualifications you have shown here. You can't even spell my first name correctly"

    My misspelling was a typing mistake, and I apologize if it caused offense. Attacking my qualifications is totally out of line.

Is there anything I've missed? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion continues on my talk page, it is chaotic enough here already. Roger491127 (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing

Testing with an earlier version, not saved, I found a way to fill that empty space with a picture. I will test it on the article and if not successful I will revert to the current (your, CambridgeBayWeather) version. Roger491127 (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It looked good in both Firefox and Opera but not in IE, so I reverted to CambridgeBayWeather version. It looks like wikipedia is programmed to fit the nonstandard way Internet Explorer is working. Roger491127 (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks DonFB for fixing the repeated content we discussed earlier. Your comment about it here as well as my reply got lost when Trevor MacInnis saved his long text to this page. Roger491127 (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Trevor MacInnis, I saw you added "not confirmed" to the info box. Are you saying all those witnesses were liars? Isn't that your own view? What do you base that on? Is it really according to wikipedia rules to tell people what to think about an event? Isn't it better to give the reader the available information and allow the reader to decide for himself what to think about it? "Not confirmed" by whom? What is your citation or reference for that view? Roger491127 (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Biography section?

The use of a Biography section is not a good idea, because that forces us to also move the Later career section under this Biography part, and put the subsections into chronological order, which means that his most important event, August 14 1901 will be moved way down in the article, and we must also change the wording which some sections start with, for example the section about Pittsburgh can no longer begin with "Another witness..." That formulation is there because we chose to not put sections about his life in chronological order. Instead we began with the most important period of his life.

So the choices we have now are: 1 revert the changes by Innis, or 2 put all biographical sections under a Biography section, in chronological order. And then we should add a new section before the biography section, describing the most important event in the beginning of the article, partly duplicating or moving what is also mentioned in the Biography section, so the reader gets to know the most important stuff in the beginning of the article. What do the other editors think is the best alternative?

Picture sizes

When pictures, or maps, are so small that it becomes very difficult to see details they can be made bigger, example http://www.ivao.aero/db/ss/airport.asp?Id=SPDO. The old black and white photos in this article are so small, and of less than good quality, that it is very difficult for the reader to see any details. I suggest a minimum size for these pictures, for example 300px wide. Or adjust the size individually for each picture so it becomes easier to see.

The length of the talk page

To avoid having to load the now very long talk page every time we access it, having to scroll down to the end sections which are active, could we archive most of it, so it is still available but not active all the time? I suggest a cutting point after the "not confirmed" issue which has been resolved. I just found directions for archiving so I'll try to follow that procedure. Roger491127 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The sparring continues - expression

The expression "The sparring continues" is practically impossible to understand by an international public. Is this just a training match, and not a serious article? Is it a boxing match at all? Suggesting that this is a boxing match denigrates a serious article about an aviation pioneer. Violence and serious discussions are very different things. Are we ruled by violence or reason? That's how a person who is not american will react to this section title. If I find up a good replacement I'll change it myself, otherwise somebody else can do it. Roger491127 (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Reproductions

There is an awful lack of pictures and page after page of text in the lower half of the page. Couldn't we use photos of a modern reproduction or two, at the end of the whole article, like an unexpected gift to the reader who has followed the article until the end. And it is correct to do this too, because the reproductions are part of this controversy between a well known old fact which may have to be revised. A new section, called Modern Reproduktions. O'dwyer himself has criticized the use of the word replica, in the talk archive1, and explained why it should be called reproductions. There is especially a photo from the same angle as howells drawing. Roger491127 (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Whitespace issues again

Having the Whitehead with engine picture on the right below the infobox was causing a large amount of whitespce in the bio section. Move it left and it's gone. There was also a large amount in the "Whitehead's Airplanes" section. Here's the link to how it looked with the whitespace. It's obviously an IE problem. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Beach qoute replaced by Steeves quote

Reason, the Beach quote is probably about a completely different airplane, a tri-decker Whitehead experimented with around 1903-4. The Steeves quote is about the summer 1901 and gives us valuable technical facts about Number 21. It was stable in the air, it climbed fast at low speed, and could land all by itself, unmanned, without any damage. When it crossed the street, a street with telephone and trolley lines above it, the men who held the ropes must have had to let go of the ropes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The link to Curtiss

I wish you would put a citation needed tag on important unreferenced sentences, instead of just deleting them. Sooner or later I'll find the reference for it. It is probably even available among earlier stricken material or in the archived talk page.

I found it, referenced, earlier in the article. Content repeated because somebody took up the issue of Whitehead's importance in aviation history, which is a very different issue than the issue of who invented and successfully demonstrated the first airworthy airplane.

One could suspect that after realizing that his reputation for being the inventor of the first airworthy airplane is on its way to becoming indestructable, someone tried to focus on another issue, like how much influence his work had on the development of an aviation industry. Other people have tried to include entrepreneurship as a qualification for an inventor, to detract from Whitehead's work and reputation as an inventor. He did not have the lawyer-like qualifications and resources of Wright brothers had which they used to make sure they would become known as the inventors of the airplane, qualifications like having contacts, playing a dirty game to win the place in the history books, which they won, and held for a long time, with the help of institutions like the Smithsonian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The width of the Contents box

The width of the Contents box is a serious browser problem. Smaller displays or bigger fonts will make the Content box big enough to overlay the first text of the article. The solution is simple, make the content box thinner.

With only a few cuts of very long entries the problems stopped in the standard mode of Opera. But I need a bigger font, set as a minimum in my browser, the contents box is still too wide.

My suggestion. we make a flat (no levels) contents box and change sections names to become shorter. Roger491127 (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The width of the Info box

The infobox too, became a lot bigger lately, that contributes to the browser problem. Shouldn't the info box adjust its size according to the width, or remain at a reasonable size. Right now it covers two thirds of the browser width in my browser, which normally can handle millions of sites without problems with these settings. Mediawiki bug report, or changed settings/contents?Roger491127 (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Stricken editorial comment

Articles in encyclopedias are, should be, written by highly qualified experts. They have the right to draw correct scientific or technical conclusions, based on their knowledge and the available facts, to help the reader understand the significance of a certain event, for example. Do you think that every word in an encyclopedia must be a verified quote? Then you must delete a lot more material. Or study the way encyclopedias are written.

Opinions, duplication, suppression

If there is a verifiable source that says the towed glider flight "shows how stable the plane was"--or words to that effect--that statement could be included in the article. An editor's judgement about the issue does not belong in the article. Traditional encyclopedias are indeed written by experts.

Thanks, so I was right about that.

Wikipedia has an entirely different methodology, as should be quite clear by now. As recently stated in this discussion, "anyone can edit" and need not be an "expert," but must write from a Neutral point of view. The main criteria for contributing are common sense and willingness to respect the basic standards under which this Encyclopedia operates.

How can we insure that the editors are highly qualified experts in the field they are writing about? I have an idea, we could have a discussion page corresponding to the article. There the editors could discuss changes, discuss the issues in the article, and, in the best case, come to an agreement. In text discussions it becomes clearer who is qualified and who is not. By the way, what are your qualifications in general engineering and science? Roger491127 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge that "expertise" is not required to contribute to this encyclopedia, which is written not by experts, but by anyone. Your repeated comments about the need for expertise completely miss the most basic concept underlying this encyclopedia. Articles here consist of verifiable information, backed by sources, not the "expert knowledge" or point of view of the editors. A traditional encyclopedia is written by people with "expert" knowledge. The distinction between Wikipedia and a traditional encyclopedia should not be hard to understand. The predecessor of Wikipedia was written by experts. It was called "Nupedia". It was replaced by Wikipedia, whose editors and contributors need not be "experts." DonFB (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Roger, there is an online encyclopedia, http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page , that was started by one of the founders of Wikipeda. It follows the whole "experts only" rules, and you may find it interesting. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Trying to suppress the result of the Manly's inspection is just as wrong as a previous attempt to suppress the 2nd part of Mrs. Whitehead's comments. If the subject of Manly's inspection is introduced, one should be prepared to see the results--verifiably referenced--in the article.

Why not include much more from this source, or less? Do you realize that somebody has quoted a source, and cut away a lot of material, leaving us with a very short quote, divided by commas, maybe in a very partial way? What education and loyalties did Manly have? What is the relevance of what Manly said about it?Roger491127 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Deliberately duplicating text because an editor thinks it's important is a sadly mistaken way to write an article. Any article should read as if it were written by persons who are aware of all the contents, rather than appearing to be thrown together by many people who do not bother to read what has already been written.

I removed the Wright "influence" section because it is irrelevant to the biography of Whitehead. The Wright-Smithsonian issue and its possible impact on Whitehead's reputation is dealt with earlier in the article.

The Influence section was inserted together with a statement which said that no matter if he flew he had no connections at all to the rest of the world so Whitehead would be irrelevant no matter if he flew or not.

Other people have added statements, which indicate that Whitehead clearly had an influence on the development or aviation industry. I suggest that we strike the proven faulty statement (that he had no influence on the history of aviation no matter what).Roger491127 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made a citation request. I do not challenge the quotations; I just want them properly cited. DonFB (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A influence section, in an article about an inventor

As an engineer of that era who actually inspected a Whitehead aircraft in an official capacity, Manly's assessment--regardless of your personal disagreement and speculation about his "loyalty" and what he "knew"--is a fact of history and highly relevant to this article, which deals extensively with questions and controversy regarding Whitehead's work.

Most of the article is about "this article, which deals extensively with questions and controversy regarding Whitehead's work." But then somebody added a section about his influence upon the development of aviation as a whole, or american aviation industry, and he also inserted a first item into this section, which basically reduced Whitehead to a curiosity, something that happened in total isolation from the rest of the history of aviation.

Of course others added items to this section which proved that the first statement was wrong. He was in contact with most other early aviators and he had some influence on the aviation history. Then we should remove the first item which was introduced in such a sneaky way, obviously to denigrate Whitehead. But it misses it's goal. It does not deal with Whitehead as an inventor, it introduces a new issue which has nothing to do with inventing, building, demonstrating, in front of enough witnesses, so it can be seen as sufficiently verified to make it highly probable that he invented, built, and demonstrated his invention in front of enough witnesses. Anyhow, that trick to denigrate Whitehead backfired and led to a section about his influence. Roger491127 (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Technical facts

(I suggest a new section, about what we know, and can safely conclude, about Whitehead's aircraft. Obviously written by experts and reviewed and discussed by technology experts. Who is an expert or not is decided by the discussions on the discussion page.)

A photo is usually a good evidence, but we should not forget the value of newspaper articles and loads of affidavits, especially when the affidavits are from many separate people, written independently of each other, and a story which does not conflict with our knowledge of science and technology. Roger491127 (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to suppress such factual and well-sourced information based on personal opinions conflicts with Wikipedia's fundamental principles of good-faith and neutral editing. DonFB (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A more careful reading of the HistoryNet article and the Crouch book indicate Manly did not inspect the airplane himself, but rather it was done by another Smithsonian employee—although Manly apparently reported the findings to Langley. I changed the text to replace Manly with "assistant." DonFB (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two facts presented, one, that Langley, the head of the Smithsonian found Whitehead's plane so interesting so he sent somebody to examine her, without openly taking contact with Whitehead? Two, what the assistant said to his employer about it's airwortyness. The first fact is very revealing and interesting, especially in the section about the influence of Whitehead. The second fact is irrelevant, because the part about what Manly said is not necessary to support the first fact, and his qualifications and loyalties were hardly enough to motivate a quote from him. Manly's words to his employer are even more irrelevant now, after we have learned that Manly had not even seen the plane himself. Maybe the assistant saw the planewith vits wings folded to it's sides, ready for the road. As we do not know such things about this quote, we should not consider it for inclusion.

If we included ALL sourced material, no matter how irrelevant, just because it is sourced, we would create a gigantic mosaic of unrelated quotes. That something is well sourced is not a valid reason to include it. Roger491127 (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Browser problems

Somebody made the contents box wider,this is unreadable on small displays, or with larger fonts, which a lot of older people use, I will try to make it thinner again, so I can continue using my preferred settings in Opera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It worked, so please don't add longer items to the contents box, it overlays and mixes with the article text at higher text sizes or smaller displays. Roger491127 (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried it now in Internet Explorer, set to View - Text size - Larger. It works, but only because I made the content box thinner. That shows the problems with the wikipedia style sheets. They should set a maximum of 33% of article width to both the infobox and the contents list. Not allowing overlaying is another good idea. That would solve the immediate problems. But why do we need the Wikipedia column to the left, occupying a fourth of the available browser space. Imagine if we could have that hidden by default, every article would be screenwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia system for quality

Wikipedia cannot, and doesn't even want to hire academic experts to write the articles. Instead we have discussions on the discussion page, all editors are welcome to participate in the discussions. May the best arguments win.

This is a change in the whole society, not only in wikipedia, that issues are no longer decided by some kind of authority, God, the pope, the president, the professor, etc.. Instead issues are decided through discussions, and agreements are based on the discussions. If you do not participate in the discussions we must assume that your arguments are too weak. Roger491127 (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but I wish you'd just come out and say it.

If you can't understand my words and sentences you have a problem with reading and comprehending, because few people write as openly vand clearly as I write.Roger491127 (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this may be a response to me re-adding some content that opposes your "Whitehead was a God" stance.

Have I ever said "Whitehead was a God"? No, you are putting words in my mouth which I have never said, and then you criticize those words which you yourself have written. That trick is not allowed in fair debates, and it is called "making a strawman".

As for your "change in the whole society" bit, thankfully most of us don't live in a world where issues are decided by one person. Democracy is a good thing.

To me democracy is based on communication, discussions, trying to come to an agreement, what I have described here. How can you read my words as anti-democratic? Roger491127 (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you are intent having oversight into every edit,

What is wrong with wanting to participate in every edit in an article, it looks like want to keep an eye on this article yourself, by the way.

I'll add a few tags to the page to warn people. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 09:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem understanding what your writing, I have a problem understanding how it relates to the history and biography of Gustave Whitehead. What I meant about the "God" bit was that you are obviously pro-Whitehead, since you weed out any material, sourced or not, that opposes the view that he was the first to fly.

I weed out totally irrelevant stuff, and I discuss the cases on the discussion page.

You do not reply to my questions and you do not participate in the discussions. How will you be able to participate in the editing of an article in wikipedia, or in a democratic society, if you do not learn how to put forward a view and argue for it in a decent manner? Roger491127 (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've spent far too much time bogged down in this little article. I'm going to leave it alone to (probably) sink or (hopefully) swim, and move on the the thousands of other tasks that require my attention in Wikipedia. I wish you good luck, and as parting word, suggest you step back, perhaps look around Wikipedia at other articles, try editing and browsing outside of Whitehead and early aviation, and perhaps you'll see how great articles (please follow that link) get written, and how collaboration really works. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 09:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If it were up to me, I'd take the article back to this version, and work from there. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 10:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"As for the "May the best arguments win." Everything doesn't need to be an argument. "

Doesn't it? Practically all ideas can be used as an argument, and when people take the time to get involved in an issue, an article, the democratic system, they usually have some kind of agenda. We hope that most people writing in articles have the agenda to present, as neutrally as possible, what is very important, highly probable, and sufficiently verified and relevant, organized in an easy-to-read layout.

Something which fails any of these criterias should be stricken. For example a "fact" which is well sourced, verified, highly possible, but totally irrelevant should not be allowed in the article.

Some sentences are mainly glue to connect the preceeding material with the coming, or they can add some human quality to the article. For example that W and Darvarich travelled together, or rather fled, from Pittsburgh on bicycles, for a distance of some 600km (400miles) tells us that they were dirtpoor, anybody who could afford a bus or train ticket would have travelled such a distance by such transportation. It also gives the reader the possibility to imagine two grown men, both expert mechanics, using bicycles means meeting a lot of people. Finding somewhere to sleep each night. Two lines of text can mean a lot to the reader, if we choose two very good lines, which gives the reader an insight of these two good friends travelling at their own speed, free as birds, looking for a suitable place to settle down in. They had no money, but they were carrying an invisible knowledge, they were both expert mechanics, engineers, or what you would call it And they were the first two people in the world who had flown an airplane. Roger491127 (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"I've spent far too much time bogged down in this little article. I'm going to leave it alone to"

You said you would get involved in this article, but you never got yourself involved in the discussions about the page, you said you could change anything without discussing it on the discussion page, and now you disappear. Maybe you do not know enough to be involved, or you cannot express yourself in writing, maybe you cannot think clearly, maybe you lack technical education, maybe you are not interested in the issue, or you are patriotic about your american myths so you disquality yourself on grounds of being partial, who knows.Roger491127 (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Authoritarianism or discussions?

You leave the article with two ugly tags after contributing to the stress level for a while, reciting well known rules and telling us you are an administrator, wow. Roger491127 (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

About the inner feelings of Whitehead and Wilbur

I question the inclusion of this block of text: "In his first letter to American Inventor, Whitehead said because "the future of the air machine lies in an apparatus made without the gas bag, I have taken up the aeroplane and will stick to it until I have succeeded completely or expire in the attempt of so doing." His words bore an eerie resemblance to those in another letter, written in 1900, to aeronautical expert Octave Chanute: "For some years I have been afflicted with the belief that flight is possible to man. My disease has increased in severity and I feel that it will soon cost me an increased amount of money if not my life."[10] The author of that letter was Wilbur Wright."

This section is macabre to a lot of people, talking about thinking about death, etc.. The quotes can be interpreted in several different ways. And the inner life of W is not the issue of this article. This article is about what Whitehead achieved, not about The psychology of Whitehead. The similarity with something Wilbur wrote is a coincidence, a strong and important coincidence in the mind of the one who put these quotes together, which may not mean anything, or there can be a hidden agenda behind it. I don't think Whitehead would have liked being paired up with Wilbur because of a similarity in their expressions of their inner feelings.

It was inserted in a sneaky way, inserted at the end of another section, and without a word about it on the discussion page. Therefor, I delete it. Roger491127 (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)