Talk:Gustave Whitehead/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

General Considerations

I think the GW Wiki article should not address the First-To-Fly issue in depth, but should make it clear that one of the objectives which O'Dwyer had (and which S. Randolph did not share) was to have GW declared and known to be the First-To-Fly. For one thing, that title is a slippery one, totally dependent on what definition is used to define that status.

"History By Contract" is O'Dwyer's voice speaking, even though Randolph shares co-author status, and the book was written to "prove" that GW's rightful position as First-To-Fly had been denied him and then had been suppressed by those supportive of the Wrights and the Smithsonian Institution. In my view, this matter, if it is to be done properly as a Wiki article, it would be its own article. The issues are complex and the material is lengthy, even if summarized.

As it stands, the GW article, to me, seems cluttered. Certainly, for example, the Beach/Whitehead relationship could generate an involved and lengthy article. But the GW article should remain centered on GW, as opposed, say, to what amount to conspiracy theories premised on assumptions and having with very little substance (such as O'Dwyer's attributions of articles to Howell and Beach). O'Dwyer's gymnastics while trying to resurrect the "Andrew Cellie" of the 18 August 1901 Herald article deserve exposition, also, but not within the context of the GW article.

Perhaps an article on "History By Contract" would be the most useful approach for readers.

As an overall perspective, I believe the clear and certain details of GW's life, plus those of his engines and machines, especially the No. 21 such as are available, should be the central focus of the GW Wiki article.

There is an awful lot of speculation and unfounded, unsourced material floating around about GW and his activites. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's somewhat cluttered or bloated and could use trimming. And, as I mentioned, the article may be in violation of the Undue Weight rule. So, the minority opinion text can be reduced, but that point of view should not be eliminated from the article. A History by Contract article does exist, written primarily by an editor we both know. It needs work. DonFB (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd forgotten, intentionally or inadvertantly, that the HBC article existed. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

GW Article updates

I revised the Beach section, as per discussion with DonFB, deleted the consequent redundant language in the Legacy section, and removed the assumptions in the Photos and 1903 sections that Beach wrote the Scientific American articles referred to. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Mrs. Whitehead and skeptics section

The cited source, the Delear article, does not specify the date of the 1940 Bridgeport Sunday Post story from which it takes these quotes.

An early source of ammunition for both sides of the debate was a 1940 interview of Whitehead's wife Louise.[17] The Bridgeport Sunday Post reported that Mrs. Whitehead said her husband's first words upon returning home from Fairfield on August 14, 1901, were an excited, "Mama, we went up!" Mrs. Whitehead said her husband was always busy with motors and flying machines when he was not working in coal yards or factories. The interview quoted her as saying, "I hated to see him put so much time and money into that work." Mrs. Whitehead said her husband's aviation efforts took their toll on the family budget and she had to work to help meet expenses. She said she never saw any of her husband's reported flights. [17]

Shouldn't we not include this until we can specify the date of that article ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Its sourced to the Delear article which is sufficient if the Delear article is RS. Now it would be nice if one could provide chapter and verse as to the newspaper article that is being quoted but it's not necessary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Revisionist Histories

I hate stories like this. They attempt to rewrite American history of powered flight. Gustav Whitehead had many affidavits and newspaper articles and magazine articles, but there are no photographs of him flying around. The Wright Brothers had cameras. Because no images exist of him flying over Connecticut and Long Island Sound, he loses any right to be the father of powered flight.

I examined his designs and this thing could not fly. Revisionists had to make several improvements to Gustav's design to make a replica fly, just like Prof Langley's plane. Some planes before 1903 could hop, skip, jump and wobble like a chicken, but no real flight. GW went broke building a Helicopter that could never fly. GW was one of many who built aircraft only to partially succeed or fail totally. Another footnote in Aviation History.

Supercool Dude (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

1910 Hartford Courant article

Inserting the Hartford Courant July 13, 1910 newspaper article about Whitehead's crash into a bridge wrecking his monoplane adds Connecticut history content. The Hartford Courant is a reliable source. The insertion of this newspaper article into Whitehead's page Later career doesn't document that he flew a certain plane on a certain day at all, merely that he crashed one. It does, however, counter the argument that he fell out of publicity after 1903. Whitehead crashed and the Hartford Courant felt that he or the event was newsworthy enough to cover.Tomticker5 (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is trivial news, that Whitehead tried to fly but failed to lift off and crashed the aircraft during the ground run, ruining it and bruising himself. The account is reproduced here, maybe faithfully, maybe not, and it has Whitehead never leaving the ground. By 1910 with many people successfully flying, anybody trying and failing to fly was not very important in terms of news value. Only the local paper would care at all. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As I stated, the The Hartford Courant July 13, 1910 article is not proof of anything, except that they covered Whitehead, a local aeronaut, who crashed. However, there are some discrepancies between the article on file at the newspaper and what you have linked to. Your online version is reworded to add length and two sentences are added at the end.

From your link here; JULY 12, 1910: THIS AVIATORS ESCAPE NARROW: Gustave Whitehead, a local man had a narrow escape from serious injury today when he lost control of a monoplane in which he was attempting an ascent and the machine crashed into the side of a bridge, hurling him out and rendering him unconscious. He was removed to his home and on examination it was found he was suffering from bruises and the shaking up. The machine was ruined. Whitehead had started his machine on a narrow stretch of the Lordship Park road and had attained a high speed, but could not leave the ground. When nearing one of the several bridges on the road he lost control of the craft and it struck the bridge, throwing him out and crumpling up against the structure.

From The Hartford Courant [1];

Bridgeport Aeronaut Has Mishap

Bridgeport July 13 - Gustave

Whitehead, a local aeronaut, narrow-

ly escaped serious injury today when

he lost control of a monoplane in

which he was attempting an ascent.

The machine crashed into a side of

a bridge, rendering him unconscious.

He was badly bruised and shaken up.

The machine was wrecked.

The newspaper article should be included in the section Later career on Whitehead's page. While it might be considered trivial news by some, it does support the effort to expand Connecticut history content on Wikipedia. The Hartford Courant may be considered a local newspaper by some, but it has covered Connecticut since 1764 and is a reliable source.Tomticker5 (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we know what aircraft he was trying to fly? Do we know who made its motor? Does the story tell us useful things about Whitehead's work, or his frame of mind, or anything other than that he continued to fail when those around him were succeeding? The newspaper article is shy on encyclopedic detail. Encyclopedias do not print every newsworthy thing... much of the latter is local and short-lived. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This Hartford Courant article is brief. But, it does document that a local Aeronaut from Bridgeport, Connecticut crashed a monoplane into a bridge in July 1910. And, it does add doubt to the assumption made in the introduction; "After 1903 publicity faded for his aeronautical efforts, which lasted from about 1897 to 1911. He lapsed into obscurity until his name was brought back to public attention by a 1935 magazine article and a 1937 book". Perhaps this statement should be tagged , since it now appears that Whitehead received news coverage in 1910 from a newspaper based 55 miles away from the crash. Actually, the entire introduction should be rewritten in my opinion to have a more neutral point of view and a reduction in controversy content which seems to be well covered in its own section here and by several other aviation related pages.Tomticker5 (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"Neutral" does not mean evenly balanced between fringe viewpoints and mainstream viewpoints. When Wikipedia delivers a neutral article about a controversial topic, the mainstream viewpoint is given greater emphasis. That's why the controversy stuff is prominent, and why it will remain so. Whitehead is given very little credence by aviation historians who are the mainstream. In general, they say he did not fly any of his own aircraft designs, nor did any of his designs fly for other people.

One bit of local news coverage from Hartford does not mean that the larger statement is untrue: "publicity faded for his aeronautical efforts". Faded can include a change from national coverage to only local coverage. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I went through this same debate with other mother hens over the hamburger and the subsequent battle over who invented it and where. Eventually, an article had to be created on the History of the hamburger, which led to the creation of yet another article on the History of the hamburger in the United States, just to see that the Connecticut (local) history content related to its development was included on wikipedia. I can see a page on the history of aviation in Connecticut in the future, just to get the Connecticut (local) history related to aircraft development on wikipedia. However, this is an article on Gustave Whitehead and should include his US Patent and the Hartford Courant article about his crash in 1910. It's adding content to Connecticut (local) history on wikipedia, not a brief in a court action over who flew first.Tomticker5 (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is a "mother hen"? Note WP:NPA.

Your description of the process you went through to get Connecticut into the hamburger history sounds exactly like a POV fork with you being the POV warrior. Not good! However, the story also rings false since Connecticut is clearly mentioned in all three linked articles, including the main hamburger one. The U.S. hamburger history article should have been worked into the global hamburger history article; instead you left the global article messed up. All three of those articles are not very good! At any rate, your hamburger story fails to convince me your influence here on the Gustave Whitehead article will be beneficial to the encyclopedia. You seem to want to find an appropriate place for every fact you discover. We don't need every fact! The wiki is willing to let the more trivial bits fall through the cracks. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you are promoting Connecticut, but Wikipedia articles should be written neutrally. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to put the 1910 Hartford Courant story back in. It covered his wreck and injuries. It would also help readers to understand he was still flying (crashing) in 1910 and he received regional publicity. And, it might offer an explanation as to what happened to him after 1910. With his machine wrecked and dealing with untold internal injuries, perhaps it was this 1910 crash that ended his career in aviation.Tomticker5 (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The 1910 article can be mentioned but not to prove the things you wish to prove. The article does not tell the reader:

• What happened to him after 1910.
• That he suffered untold injuries.
• That he had only one machine to crash.
• That he ended his career because of the 1910 crash. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper coverage of 1901 flight

The article states that only two newspapers reprinted the local Bridgeport newspaper story of Whitehead's August 1901 flight. When, in fact, at least nine other newspapers from across the country reprinted it. There was also a story from July 1901 which was reprinted prior to his flight, which contained quotes as to why he wanted to keep his location of the test flight hidden. I've added the content in the 1901 Connecticut section with LOC website as the source.Tomticker5 (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes

This series of edits introduced new text and took away text that had been carefully hammered into shape by involved editors. Here is a list of changes:

• Inserted the 1905 filed patent into the lead section, with more detail than its simple mention in the article body. This gives the patent more importance for posterity than it had for Whitehead! It also breaks the practice for good lead sections described at WP:LEAD in which the lead section is reserved for a summary of article text, not for original arguments.
• Changed "After 1903 publicity faded for his aeronautical efforts... He lapsed into obscurity..."
  • ...to "He died in 1927, and subsequently his aeronautical achievements lapsed into obscurity..."
    • This has the effect of changing Whitehead's fading fame from post-1903 to post-1927. I see no compelling continuing fame for Whitehead following the Wright Brothers flight, and certainly nothing during the 'teens and '20s.
• Added a July 1901 newspaper article and a quote about Whitehead worried that spectators would see him fail and take photographs. The way that this news report is brought into our article is clunky; I think the section should continue to first tell the reader that they are about to learn of Whitehead's most famous claim. Then the July report can be introduced, followed by the August report and details.
• Added bit about nine more reprinted accounts in 1901. This is fine.
• Added November 1901 report. This is fine.
• Added 1904 book report and quote. The quote is too much (WP:UNDUE) and should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The introduction should include his patent for an Aeroplane and the article should elaborate on his patented design.

His work before Aug 1901 was not just covered by local press as the article would have you believe. At least two newspapers outside of Bridgeport covered his work even weeks before his Aug 1901 flight. The mention of this early on in the Connecticut 1901 section, especially the July article with quotes, also helps the reader to understand why he flew when he did and where he did. There was no mention that he was afraid people would take photographs.

The content from Cochrane's 1904 book (reprinted in 1911) casts doubt that his publicity for his aeronautical efforts ever faded at all after 1903 as the article states. Cochrane would not have included Whitehead in the chapter; The Conquest of the Air subsection The Soarers or Gliders, with Otto Lilienthal, Percy Pilcher, Octave Chanute, Augustus Moore Herring and the Wright Brothers, if he wasn't a successful aeronaut.

The added content, especially from the 1904 book, 1905-1908 patent and the The Hartford Courant article covering his 1910 crash, helps the reader to understand that Whitehead was considered a successful aeronaut before he died in 1927. Tomticker5 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the following text was misleading: "He died in 1927, and subsequently his aeronautical achievements lapsed into obscurity..." I restored the original sense of the earlier text. If there is continuing publicity about his aeronautical work after 1910, the article would need to specify it.

The long quotation from the Cochrane book should at least be reduced. It is now the longest block quote in the article. Here is a proposal for shortening it:

Cochrane wrote that Whitehead made low flights in a triplane glider launched by an assistant towing it with a rope, and then endeavored to convert the glider to a powered aircraft:

After experimenting with the apparatus and learning that it would carry more than his weight, Mr. Whitehead attached a light motor of twelvehorse power to the lower aeroplane. The propeller driven by the motor was placed in front of the aeroplane, so as to pull instead of pushing. Experiments with this machine were sufficiently satisfactory that another is being built.

I also agree with Binksternet's observation: "...tell the reader that they are about to learn of Whitehead's most famous claim. Then the July report can be introduced..." I put text about the Minneapolis newspaper story immediately after the initial description of the 1901 reported flight. DonFB (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom, you overstate the Cochrane text. Whitehead is presented as a soarer and a glider man. His main claim is not mentioned: being first in motorized human flight. Cochrane briefly describes a selected and modestly sized experiment of Whitehead's (not the big motorized stuff), then he dumps Whitehead and the other glider guys into the ashcan of history by saying, "All the soarers, gliders, and aeroplanists have been outdone by the Wright Brothers... first successful flight..." Yes, Cochrane mentions Whitehead, but don't extrapolate this mention into a conclusion that Whitehead was considered a successful aeronaut in 1904. He was "outdone". You have written a paragraph that attempts to transfer glory to Whitehead from the more famous people in Cochrane's book but Cochrane does not support this interpretation. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The title of the chapter is; The Conquest of the Air. The subsection is; The Soarers or Gliders. Whitehead is placed in that subsection by Cochrane along with; Otto Lilienthal, Percy Pilcher, Octave Chanute, Augustus Moore Herring and the Wright Brothers. I'm not trying to twist a thing. I believe this book helps the reader to understand where Whitehead fit in among his peers, at least in 1904. After all, this is an article about Gustave Whitehead, not the history of aviation or the Wright Brothers building the firat practical airplane. I'm not trying to elevate Whitehead, just want to see the facts about his life are presented in a fair and balanced way on wikipedia.Tomticker5 (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The Cochrane content by DonFB has been reverted by Binksternet who has added that Cochrane referred to him as a glider man. I can't find that statement in Cochrane's book. The 1904 content helps the reader to understand that Whitehead did not fall out of the public eye in 1903, as stated. In 1904 he was considered by Cochrane, to be among the short list of soarers and gliders, namely; Otto Lilienthal, Percy Pilcher, Octave Chanute, Augustus Moore Herring and the Wright Brothers. Stating this in the 1904 section does not elevate Whitehead at the expense of the Wright Brothers accomplishments.Tomticker5 (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Basking in reflected glory

Whitehead is presented in Cochrane's 1904 book as "one of the latest of the enthusiasts in the soaring field", a man who was experimenting with gliders close to the ground, very carefully, with a rope held by an assistant keeping him earthbound. He is presented as experiencing very modest success with a light motor attached to his triplane glider. Following this, Cochrane dismisses all the glider and soaring men by saying that "all the soarers, gliders, and aeroplanists have been outdone by the Wright Brothers" who first flew on December 17, 1903. Cochrane says that the Flyer "grew out of a soaring device" but "was really an aeroplane". Cochrane does not ever say that Whitehead was in the same league as Lilienthal, Pilcher, Chanute or Herring, and especially the Wright Brothers. We can only guess why Cochrane included Whitehead, we cannot assume Cochrane considered Whitehead a flying Olympian because of the reflected glory of Lilienthal etc. That would be reading into the text more than was written into it. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Fact is, Cochrane did write a book in 1904 which included Whitehead. We don't need to guess what Cochrane was thinking, we have his work. And, he dedicated an entire chapter to The Conquest Of The Air. In its first subsection; The Soarers or Gliders, he included information and illustrations on only six men (Wright Brothers as one); Otto Lilienthal, Percy Pilcher, Octave Chanute, Augustus Moore Herring, Gustave Whitehead and the Wright Brothers. Up to last week, the readers of this article would have understood that Gustave Whitehead fell out of publicity after 1903 and then into complete obscurity until a magazine covered him in 1935. This week, after I added content from Cochrane's book (reprinted in 1911), readers can see that he was included in a list of soarers and gliders in 1904. The only thing left for you, is to discredit Cochrane himslef which you might be trying to do.Tomticker5 (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is an interesting discussion. I think it's valid to point out that GW had acquired rather notable status to be included/mentioned in the 1904 book with a select few pioneers who remain famous to this day. Obviously, GW did not ultimately achieve or maintain such status himself. I don't think it matters that Cochrane does not explicitly say GW was in "the same league" as the others; the fact is, he put GW in the book with those other few. So I agree that we need not guess why he included GW. Having said this, I'll offer a new proposal: retain the text which names the other pioneers, and eliminate the block quote. So it would look something like this:

Whitehead attended the St. Louis World's Fair in 1904, displaying an aeronautical motor. He was also included in the 1904 work; Modern Industrial Progress, by Charles Cochrane. His work is listed alongside; Otto Lilienthal, Percy Pilcher, Octave Chanute, Augustus Moore Herring and the Wright Brothers. Cochrane described Whitehead as an "enthusiast" in the field of soaring who was experimenting with a light motor attached to a triplane glider.

My earlier suggestion on shortening the block quote was just that: a suggestion. I did not mean to imply that any quotation need be included. DonFB (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom, I see your various additions to the article. Some have value and staying power, some do not. The references you added, except for the patent, are good additions to the article. Some of your interpretations of the references are not such good additions. Regarding Cochrane's book, the huge quote was too much, and this edit went over the line in attempting to shine reflected light on Whitehead by associating him directly with better-known air pioneers. Rather than synthesize a position not explicitly taken by Cochrane—that Whitehead is somehow the equal of these other people—I replaced your version with a short Cochrane quote and a summary of what Cochrane said about Whitehead. That's what is the most encyclopedic direction for us to take.

Don, the names of the other pioneers must not be in the paragraph or we are creating a synthesis: A + B = C becomes Whitehead plus other pioneers equals all the pioneers are peers. Cochrane does not say they are peers, so we cannot try to put that conclusion in the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Cochrane's book reflects the knowledge and assessment of the pioneers at that time. He may well have considered GW to be "in the same league" with the others. Including the fact that he mentioned GW with the others is not synthesis; it is merely reporting what Cochrane said and gives readers a better idea of how GW was perceived in his own lifetime during his most active period in aeronautics. Elsewhere in the article there is plenty of text that tells readers what later historians concluded about GW. But I see no need to try to obscure what GW's contemporaries thought or said about him. In any case, my proposal is an attempt reach a compromise between you and Tom on the content of the subsection. DonFB (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Cochrane does not explicitly say that Whitehead is in the same league as, or a peer of, or somehow equal to Lilienthal etc. If as you suggest we tell the reader "what Cochrane said" then we will tell the reader of Whitehead's triplane glider experiment to which he bolted a light motor and a traction propeller. We would tell the reader that he stayed close to the ground with an assistant holding onto a rope, and that he did not successfully fly. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That's right, he does not say it explicitly, but his inclusion of GW with other very famous pioneers is not something we must run away from, for reasons I stated above. Yes, we could tell readers all those other things Cochrane said, but in the interest of good editing and brevity, we need not. I thought your phrasing was a good way to keep it brief and informative: "an 'enthusiast' in the field of soaring who was experimenting with a light motor attached to a triplane glider." DonFB (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Who was Charles Henry Cochrane

I hope that Cochrane's work is not cast aside as merely BIRG. Some might believe after his The wonders of modern mechanism from 1895, that he fell out of publicity and lapsed into obscurity until his name was brought back to public attention on Wikipedia in 2012 just to take credit for being the first to classify aerial navigation as an industry. In Cochrane's; Modern industrial progress (1904 reprinted 1911), at the finish of the chapter; The Conquest Of The Air, he writes;

And here, with regret, the writer leaves the subject of aerial navigation, confident that, even though he be the first to have classed it as an industry, he will not be the last to look upon it as a commercial factor, and fully believing that ere many years have passed flying by machinery will secure as definite a foothold among human institutions as have the steam-yacht and the automobile.Tomticker5 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no danger of Cochrane not being in the article. Cochrane is a good source. It is the presentation of Cochrane that is disputed. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm relieved that you will allow the content about Whitehead in Cochrane's 1904 book into the article. It does have a link to the full preview of the book and there's some really nice pictures in it too. There's even one of Whitehead and his Aeroplane. I think people who read this new content, if they can find it down within the Flight claims subsection 1904, will find that Whitehead never faded from public light in 1903, as was previously stated. But, at least from 1904 until after 1911, he was considered by at least Cochrane as someone who soared or glided and listed him among the other men who did too.Tomticker5 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

US Patent 881837 issued 1908

I couldn't find any reference to this US Patent and it contains numerous claims and 2 images of Whithead's aeroplane pre 1905.Tomticker5 (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Patents are WP:PRIMARY sources, not the preferred secondary sources. Claims made in patent applications are not verified claims. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Whitehead's 1905 patent is mentioned in the 1982 book; High frontier: a history of aeronautics in Pennsylvania, by William F. Trimble. Trimble, cited here as being a mainstream aviation scholar, mentions that Whitehead's design in the 1905 patent is similar to the work of Otto Lilienthal. Whitehead's 1905 US Patent, with two diagrams, should be included in this article to add content that he was designing aeroplanes in Connecticut in the early 1900s.Tomticker5 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Then we don't need the patent itself, what we want is the citation to the Trimble book, and that Trimble compares it to Lilienthal is preferable to an editor her making the connection. The Patent can be linked from the External links (which is "Further Reading" on the web) for those who want to dip their toes in patent legalese. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I inserted one sentence of content about 1905 US Patent being similar to those flown by Otto Lilienthal after reference to a glider flight in 1903 and cited Trimble and March 1908 Official Gazette.Tomticker5 (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I moved it further down to where it was more relevant. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you moved it down where it has now become lost among the content of ridicule and controversy. This is Whitehead's US Patent and it has two well defined illustrations. In my opinion, it should have more prominence in his article. After all, this article is about Gustave Whitehead.Tomticker5 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's under "Aerial machines" which seems reasonable. If the patent design had been used by others, or there is a reliable source that says the patent influenced others, then more text could be expended on the patent - but of itself the patent says little more than that Whitehead wrote up his design and got it patented. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Put more simply, Whitehead wrote up his design and three years later he received a US Specification of Letters Patent. The US Patent and its two drawings should be placed more prominently in his article.Tomticker5 (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Using the Wright Brothers article as a guide, Whitehead's US Patent should also be in the introduction paragraph. Both patents are from the same time period.Tomticker5 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No. There is a world of difference between a hotly and prominently protected patent (Wright Brothers) and Whitehead's unused patent. False parity should not be constructed to prop up the Whitehead patent and claim anything at all regarding it. Whitehead's patent went nowhere, gained him nothing. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Whitehead's 1908 patent is cited in Murray US3936012 patent Hang Glider 1976.Tomticker5 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Also cited in Murray's patent are 4 other US patents, a foreign patent and copies of American Aircraft Modeler and Popular Science. It is not enough that Whitehead's patent is cited, it needs an RS to give meaning to Whitehead's contribution to Murray's work. (Murray's work is in turn cited by 9 other US patents, but patent). GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just focused on the Whitehead patent and its placement in this article. It does cast doubt on the decades later findings of mainstream aviation authorities who state; "he left no paper trail of his work". His US Patent is a credible paper trail and until a week ago, was not even mentioned on this page.Tomticker5 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

1904 Cochrane content

I've reworded the 1904 Cochrane content to include these statements from the book;

• Cochrane calls Whitehead "one of the latest of the enthusiasts in the soaring field".
• Cochrane states Whitehead "has devised several soaring apparatuses" (past tense).
• Cochrane describes that there is a "four-sided rudder that assists the steering". (detail)
• Cochrane noted Whitehead added a "light motor of twelvehorse power was attached to the lower aeroplane". (detail)
• Cochrane notes; "the propeller, driven by this motor, was placed in front of the aeroplane, so as to pull instead of push." (detail)Tomticker5 (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Cochrane doesn't say the Wright Brothers were the first to fly an airplane. He said they were the first to fly in an aerostat that was not supported by a gas-bag or balloon. Taken out of context, without Cochrane's terms that clarify his statement, misleads the reader of this subsection. These were new terms being used by Cochrane in describing Whitehead's work. He uses the terms; aeroplane and plane for Whitehead and aerostat for Wright Brothers. Cochrane also never said that Whitehead never flew. I don't think this section is the appropriate place to make the argument over who flew the first airplane.Tomticker5 (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Aviation terms used in the 1900s are not the same as ones used today. Aeroplane meant both "wing" and "winged aircraft". Plane, too, meant both "wing" and "winged aircraft". Cochrane's 1904 use of the term "aerostat" is what we would call a fixed-wing aircraft. Cochrane is clear that the Wright Brothers were the first in practical powered flight. We should not saddle the reader with outdated words that mean something else today. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Excessive amount of Whitehead never flew at all content on page

There seems to be an excessive amount of Whitehead-never-flew-at-all content on his page from historians and sources apparently unfamiliar with Cochrane's 1904 book that includes Whitehead. For example, this is the introduction as it looks today for the Augustus Moore Herring page who claims to have flown a compressed-air powered aircraft in 1898, five years before the Wright Brothers made their own powered flight.

Augustus Moore Herring (August 3, 1867 — July 17, 1926) was an American aviation pioneer, who flew a compressed-air powered aircraft in 1898, five years before the Wright Brothers made their own powered flight. It has been claimed that he was the first aviator of a motorized heavier-than-air aircraft.

Does there need to be such an excessive amount of controversial claim content in Whitehead's introduction? Since we've found a credible source from 1904 (Cochrane) who listed Whitehead with a short list of other successful soarers and gliders at the time, which contradicts he fell out of publicity in 1903 and that he never flew at all, according to modern aviation historians. Can't we just stand down the argument over who flew first that seems to be waging on Whitehead's page alone and not elsewhere (Herring for example)? Much of the content on Whitehead's page is from modern historians making a case (albeit decades later) that his claims are not credible and that he faded out of publicity in 1903 and into obscurity until some random magazine article was written about him in 1935. At the very least, the Cochrane content from 1904 should be added to the introduction to help dispell the myth that he wasn't considered among the short list of successful "soarers and gliders" in 1904, and dispell the myth that he didn't soar (fly) at all.Tomticker5 (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, which text do you find "excessive"? Also, can you suggest what (brief) text you would like to add to the Introduction? We can further discuss. DonFB (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A comparison between one Wikipedia article and another cannot be an argument that the first one should be emulated by the second one. There will always be the counterargument that the first article is faulty. In the specific case you present here, an IP editor made exactly one change to the article, asserting as fact that Herring flew. Of course there is a serious dispute about the case. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The introduction leaves an impression that his claim is for a single flight (a single event) from August 1901 that relies mostly on one long "local" newspaper account. When, in fact, there is ample evidence that shows several newspapers from all over the US and Europe covered his work on his Aeroplanes before the Aug 1901 flight and covered his other successful flights for several years with different machines.

And, where does Cochrane fit in the introduction? His work has already forced the deletion of the statement Whitehead fell out of publicity after 1903. Is Cochrane considered a non-academic that supports that Whitehead soared and glided (flew). Or, is he considered a mainstream aviation scholar with the same findings? Cochrane after all takes credit for classifying "Aerial Navigation" as an industry in 1895-1904.

Cochrane lists the "soarers and gliders" chronologically, with the Wright Brothers last in the subsection after he states that all the soarers and gliders were outdone by the Wright Brothers in 1903. The "soarers and gliders" are listed in chronological order. A progression of successful flights, in my opinion, that leads the reader of Cochranes 1904 book to the Wright Brothers flight in 1903, hurray! The chapter in Cochrane's book; "Conquering the Air", doesn't begin with the Wright Brothers flight in 1903. But, it ends with it as topping all previous flights by other ("Soarers and Gliders"). At least, that's how it appears in his book written before December 1904.Tomticker5 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In 1904 when an author was writing a book, he was likely to put recent material at the end of a section because he had been working on previous sections without being aware of the recent event. Back then it was harder to move parts of a book draft around unless you wished to delay publication by another few months. The whole thing needed to be retyped—they did not have copy/paste like we do! Thus the December 1903 Wright Brothers information follows his descriptions of other guys.

Cochrane is not a scholar, he is a businessman and publisher. Cochrane does not describe Whitehead flying under motor power; he only says Whitehead was working toward that goal. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Cochrane was the author, J.B. Lippincott Co., (Philadelphia and London), were the Publishers. You keep stating that Cochrane defines Whitehead's work as an experiment. Apparently, Cochrane defined everyone in this way. From "Conquest Of The Air" introduction; "Within the last decade experimenters have proved beyond a doubt that flying is not beyond man's ability, and that there are several methods of aerial locomotion, each having some advantages".

He goes on to say; "All the essential features of a successful flying-machine having been worked out by the different investigators, each in his own way proving that such and such things can be done in actual practice, it only remains to put all the good results into one machine, and perfect its weaknesses, and the world will have a practical air-ship. Let us hope that the date of realization will not be delayed by reason of patent disputes and quarrels as to who invented this or that. When the successful air-ship comes, it will not be the work of one brain, but of the hundreds that have studied the problems of flight. Cochrane was just a businessman, not hardly.Tomticker5 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Charles Henry Cochrane was a mechanical engineer, the owner and president of a large business in New York: Utility Heater Company. He was a prolific writer, the author of Artistic Homes, and How to Build Them, The History of the Town of Marlborough, The Wonders of Modern Mechanism, Punctuation and Capitalization, Memories of a Great Printer; Biographical Sketches of the Career of Charles Francis, The way of happiness: a guide to true success, How to play hocus-pocus, On the results of blast-furnace practice with lime instead of limestone as flux, Sanitary Conveniences of Modern Houses, and the one we have been focusing on: Modern industrial progress. There's no reason to doubt what he wrote, but there's no need to align him with modern scholars of aviation. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Then where would you place the Cochrane book content gathered between the years 1895 and 1904? Cochrane casts some doubt to several statements made in the article, especially of those found in the introduction;

"He fell out of publicity in 1903 and lapsed into obscurity". Cochrane didn't think so.

"His claims have repeatedly been dismissed by mainstream aviation scholars". What about scholastic work from 1904 and 1911?

"Claims for Whitehead's flight(s) rest largely on a long local newspaper article". His work was covered by several sources (newspapers) before and after Aug 1901.Tomticker5 (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Why bother arguing about sentences that are in old versions of the article? Regarding obscurity, the article currently says this: "After his aeronautical experiments of the early 1900s, he lapsed into obscurity..." Nothing about pinning down the date to 1903.

Regarding mainstream aviation scholars, there were none in the 1900s. There was no objectivity available to the existing scholars at that time—inventors were deep in the middle of experimentation and theorists were not yet certain why it all worked.

The Sunday Herald article was simply reprinted by other newspapers, not independently witnessed and reported. One newspaper is the source of Whitehead's most controversial claim. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What about these two newspaper articles from 1901?

• 18 Nov 1901, The St. Louis Republic ran a "Republic Special" on Whitehead with the headline; "American will put flying machines on the market". "His invention will retail at $2,000, and he asserts, will be capable of traveling through the air at 45 mph". "Will carry six persons". "Plant for making machines to be enlarged". "He now has fifteen skilled machinists in a building which he constructed for the purpose". "Admittance to the plant is denied to all but himself the stranger who is financing his scheme and the workmen who are bound to secrecy".
• 19 Nov 1901, The Evening World (New York), ran a story, not a reprint, about Whitehead and included a photograph of him on his flying machine. The paper writes; "His name is Gustave Whitehead and he has already travelled over a mile through the air in a ship of his own invention".Tomticker5 (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If you find 100 newspapers from 1901 they will not undermine the later assessment of scholars that Whitehead's experiments added very little to the pool of knowledge about flying, that he did not achieve flight first. What they say about him is that he talked big but delivered nothing. Dvorak wrote, and many believe, that, "Whitehead was given to gross exaggeration. He was eccentric—a visionary and dreamer to such an extent that he actually believed what he merely imagined." Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith wrote that, "Whitehead was an ingenious dreamer who, in later years, managed to make a few powered hops." USAF historian Dr. I.B. Holley wrote a review of Crouch's book and said, "...Gustave Whitehead's highly dubious claims to priority in manned flight..." Fighter pilot and Smithsonian historian Walter J. Boyne said, "Gustave Whitehead made fanciful claims that could never be corroborated..." The 1997 Information Please Almanac printed under the heading Famous Firsts In Aviation: "The current opinion of the Smithsonian is that none of Gustave Whitehead's planes actually flew..."

The newspapers printed the big talk. They printed the fanciful conjecture delivered as fact. They wrote up the musings of the ingenious dreamer, which is what you are finding. I'm afraid the article will not be greatly changed with the addition of these articles. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Whitehead didn't control the press. They weren't looking for a fantasy story about air travel, they were covering all the "experiments" in aviation at the time. Especially with a $100,000 prize dangling in front of them for 1st place at the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair Airship race. There was a lot of publicity across the US from 1902 until 1904 about it. Chanute even wrote Wilbur Wright in 1904 and said; "I am glad to see that the newspapers have not yet found you out". To which Wilbur replied; "the fact that we are "experimenting" at Dayton is now public, but so far we have not been disturbed by visitors. The newspapers are friendly and not disposed to arouse prying curiosity in the community". He was right, they were busy doing that at/near Pine Street in Bridgeport, CT at Gustave Whitehead's home and plant. Also, the way the Wright Brothers spun their failed flight of 23 May 1904 that it was really a ruse to keep reporters away. Now, that sounds fanciful. Anyway, how can anyone say the press coverage of the Wright Brother's in 1902-1904 was fact, but Whitehead's coverage fanciful? Whitehead never said he took off without the help of either an automobile head start or being pulled by a rope or tether. According to my research, which is ending on Whithead, the Wright Brother's were the first to take off without the assistance of a tether, automobile, balloon or anything else, just as Cochrane stated in late 1904. In 1904, Whitehead's work is discussed on the very same page as the Wright Brothers. Whitehead has his place in the conquering of the air along with; Lilienthal, Pilcher, Chanute and Wright's. However, this page does not do it justice.Tomticker5 (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Introduction should be re-written

Let's not forget, there's a reliable source from 1904, that literally puts Whitehead on the same page with the Wright Brother's. Whitehead's plane needed to be pulled by ropes or attached to an automobile to gain enough speed to lift-off in 1901, while the Wright Brother's plane needed no other assistance to take off in 1903. I would suggest the following be used as an introduction.

Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the U.S., where he designed and built early flying machines and engines meant to power them from about 1897 to 1911.

Whitehead is said to have made a powered controlled flight on 14 August 1901 in Fairfield, Connecticut. The flight, which was witnessed by a reporter from the Bridgeport Sunday Herald, was in a machine that needed to be pulled by several ropes until it flew in the air on its own power. There were also eyewitnesses and newspaper accounts of several other powered flights in 1901, 1902 and 1903. Scientific American magazine published an article in September 1903, about Whitehead making short flights low to the ground in a motorized triplane originally designed as a glider. In December 1904, his experiments were mentioned in a book by Charles Henry Cochrane.

After his aeronautical experiments had ended, sometime around 1911, he lapsed into obscurity until his name was brought back to public attention by a 1935 magazine article and a 1937 book which focused attention on his life and work and led to "lively debate" among scholars, researchers, aviation enthusiasts and even Orville Wright on the question of whether Whitehead actually flew.

Decades later, several non-academic researchers have promoted their belief that Whitehead made controlled, powered airplane flights more than two years before the Wright Brothers did on 17 December 1903. These claims have repeatedly been dismissed by mainstream aviation scholars. Research in the 1960s and 70s, and pro-Whitehead books in 1966 and 1978 led to renewed examination and dismissal of the claims by aviation scholars.

Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built working replicas of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine. Some of the replicas were built as towed gliders, while the powered ones utilized modern engines and propellers.

Here is my suggested modification to the 2nd paragraph of the above proposed rewritten introduction:

Some researchers claim that Whitehead made powered, controlled, manned airplane flights before the Wright Brothers. Mainstream historians have not supported or verified those claims. Publications at the time of Whitehead's activity offer some evidence for the claims. Most notably, the Bridgeport Sunday Herald newspaper published a lengthy eyewitness account by one of its reporters who described a powered controlled flight made by Whitehead on 14 August 1901 in Fairfield, Connecticut. There were also contemporary second-hand newspaper reports of several other powered flights by Whitehead in 1901, 1902 and 1903. Scientific American magazine published an article in September 1903 about Whitehead making short flights low to the ground in a motorized triplane originally designed as a glider. More than 30 years later, several purported eyewitnesses gave statements that they had seen motorized flights by Whitehead.

I eliminated mention of the Cochrane book from the intro. It can be included in the body of the article. My reading of the Bridgeport Herald article does not say a rope tow was used for the reported manned flight, so I eliminated that wording. DonFB (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well Cochrane mentions the machine was pulled by rope and later it was attached to an automobile. The Bpt. Herald reporter writes there were ropes. He states he tried not to get tangled up in them. He also stated the engine made the sound; "chung" "chung" "chung" like an elevator moving through a shaft.Tomticker5 (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Quoted from the Bridgeport Herald:

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. [snip]

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. [snip] 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. [snip] 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. [snip]

"We can’t hold her!" shrieked one of the rope men. "Let go then!" shouted Whitehead back. (End quote.)

Ropes were used to hold the machine from behind, during both the reported unmanned test flight and the reported manned flight, not to pull the machine to accelerate it. This description actually works in favor of the claim that the machine took off on its own, and slightly damages Cochrane's credibility as chronicler of the events.

In addition to my modifications to the Intro shown above, I also suggest the 4th para of the Intro be revised as follows, to cut redundancy:

Also decades later, several non-academic researchers[note 1] began promoting their belief that Whitehead made controlled, powered airplane flights. These claims have repeatedly been dismissed by mainstream aviation scholars.[note 2] Research in the 1960s and 70s, and pro-Whitehead books in 1966 and 1978 led to renewed examination and dismissal of the claims by aviation scholars.[2]

The footnotes can be retained in the positions shown. DonFB (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is what the new introduction will look like.

Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the U.S., where he designed and built early flying machines and engines meant to power them from about 1897 to 1911.

Some researchers claim that Whitehead made powered, controlled, manned airplane flights before the Wright Brothers. Mainstream historians have not supported or verified those claims. Publications at the time of Whitehead's activity offer some evidence for the claims. Most notably, the Bridgeport Sunday Herald newspaper published a lengthy eyewitness account by one of its reporters who described a powered controlled flight made by Whitehead on 14 August 1901 in Fairfield, Connecticut. There were also contemporary second-hand newspaper reports of several other powered flights by Whitehead in 1901, 1902 and 1903. Scientific American magazine published an article in September 1903 about Whitehead making short flights low to the ground in a motorized triplane originally designed as a glider. More than 30 years later, several purported eyewitnesses gave statements that they had seen motorized flights by Whitehead.

After his aeronautical experiments had ended, sometime around 1911, he lapsed into obscurity until his name was brought back to public attention by a 1935 magazine article and a 1937 book which focused attention on his life and work and led to "lively debate" among scholars, researchers, aviation enthusiasts and even Orville Wright on the question of whether Whitehead actually flew.

Also decades later, several non-academic researchers began promoting their belief that Whitehead made controlled, powered airplane flights. These claims have repeatedly been dismissed by mainstream aviation scholars. Research in the 1960s and 70s, and pro-Whitehead books in 1966 and 1978 led to renewed examination and dismissal of the claims by aviation scholars.

The "some researchers" cannot be delivered without saying "non-academic", otherwise it is giving the reader the false idea that the various pro-Whitehead researchers were/are scholars. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Martin Caidin

From the article: "This position is supported by Library of Congress historian Fred Howard, co-editor of the Wright brothers' papers, and by aviation writers Martin Caidin and Harry B. Combs."

I wonder who decided to include Martin Caidin among the "aviation writers". Have you read the wp article about him? As far as I can understand he was a crackpot who wrote anything about anything. He wrote, among other things, that he could move physical objects with his mind power (telekinesis), for example. He was challenged by Randi to demonstrate this but ignored the challenge.

I think it is obvious that he should be removed from the article. Even the most strongly convinced anti-Whitehead people should be embarrassed by strengthening their cause by including Martin Caidin among their sources.Roger491127 (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

His views about the paranormal do not negate his extensive documented aviation experience, expertise and writings. DonFB (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream aviation scholars?

In the lead it is pointed out that the researchers who support Whitehead's flights are non-academic and that it is their "belief" that Whitehead made motorized flights. The word "belief" is belittling, and I have seen no evidence supporting that all these researchers had no academic education.

The so-called "mainstream aviation scholars" can be divided into a few distinct groups: 1: Wright brothers biographers and admirers. 2: Authors working for the Smithsonian or more or less associated with the Smithsonian. 3: Orville Wright, whose article from 1945 was the basis for most of the "mainstream aviation scholars". 4: Aviation authors who made their judgment before the modern-day research had started. Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith is a member of both this group and the group of Wright brothers admirers. He spent his last 10 years studying the Wright brothers papers. 5: Crackpots like Martin Caidin and people with a strange kind of logic, for example: "Perhaps the last word in the matter should be left to Gustave Whitehead's wife, Louise Tuba Whitehead, who never recalled seeing her husband fly in his flying machines." Carroll Gray http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwhtd.html. With that kind of logic it is very much in doubt that Norgay Tenzing and Hillary reached the top of Mount Everest in 1953, because none of their wives witnessed them doing it.

How many of these "mainstream aviation scholars" did really have academic education? Very few, as far as I know, and I have studied all of them.Roger491127 (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The writings and actions from the Smithsonian were very strongly influenced by the fact that Samuel Pierpont Langley was himself trying very hard to become the first motorized flier, and he was the Secretary of the Smithsonian between 1887 and 1907. Langley and the people working for him had a strong reason to belittle and ignore all other competitors during the years when the Langley Aerodrome was in the competition to be the first motorized airplane. When that battle was over the Smithsonian authors started supporting the Wright brothers, to get their airplane to the Smithsonian. After that era the Smithsonian was hindered by the contract from mentioning any motorized flights before the Wright brothers. And nowadays the Smithsonian probably tries to protect its reputation. It is easier to continue as before than to confess that the Smithsonian has betrayed the principles of impartiality and the correct behavior we expect from such an institution, during all of the 20th century and thereafter.

So the authors working for or connected to the Smithsonian should be read and judged with this history in mind. And the "mainstream aviation scholars" who are influenced by the Smithsonian are, of course, also affected by the same history.Roger491127 (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Same old song, Roger. The problem is... modern-day Smithsonian is one of the very highest sources about early aviation. Wikipedia doesn't care that the early Smithsonian history has some black marks. Modern scholars associated with the Smithsonian are acknowledged as top experts. You cannot poison that well with woeful tales of Langley and contracts. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Less about Wright Brother's more about Whitehead

The article should have more Whitehead content and less Wright Brother's content. Whitehead's page is not the appropriate place to have an argument over the credibility of Whitehead's sources for his powered flight's in 1901 versus Wright Brother's sources for their powered flight in 1903.Tomticker5 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. All the reliable sources place Whitehead in the context of claims to beating the Wrights to first flight. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The content about the Wright Brothers and the Smithsonian is highly relevant to the claims by O'Dwyer that the Smithsonian behaved unfairly toward Whitehead. O'Dwyer's claims, in turn, are highly relevant to this article. The WB content is not in the article as an argument in their favor; it is in the article to explain the historical situation and claims resulting from that situation. Claims by Whitehead workers about the Wrights supposedly visiting GW are also appropriate for this article. DonFB (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The pre-1903 content help the reader to understand Whitehead's place in aviation history during that time. He received national attention for his flying before 1903 no matter how you spin it. As early as May 1901, he was being covered for his work with unmanned powered flights and the detailed description of his machine and flights was published along with the names of his financial backers, assistants and witnesses. In Cochrane's 1904 book (reprinted in 1911), he is listed among the short-list of successful soarers and gliders and he is literally placed before the Wright Brother's on the same page (chronologically). That's why I believe the introduction and the article should have more content about Whitehead pre-1904 place in aviation history and less about the academic aviation historians who, more than six decades later, claim he never flew at all. What Whitehead did between 1901 and 1904 in Bridgeport, CT appears to have caught the attention of least 18 newspapers from across the country and he was included in at least one book that I have found covering all classes of industry in 1904. I can only hope that these same aviation historians who dismissed Whitehead's work completely, do not dismiss Cochrane's 1904 work too and claim; "the fact that Cochrane included Whitehead in his 1904 book, casts doubt on his aviation knowledge..."

Removed unreferenced text

I removed " although Howell never claimed it as his" from the sentence which says the article in BSH is widely attributed to Dick Howell. Howell had no reason to claim it, that he was the author was first questioned on this talk page two years ago, long after Dick Howell died. I have read through that issue of BSH very carefully, and 5-6 issues before and after it and I noted two things: 1: No article, not a single one, was signed by an author. So it was obviously the policy of BSH at that time that the authors of the articles did not sign their articles. 2: There are no photos at all in BSH, only drawings. So the reason why Dick Howell chose to use drawings to illustrate his articles was probably not only based on his own wishes. It seems reasonable to assume that BSH did not have access to the rasterizing technology which newspapers have used to print photos during most of the 20th century. This is also probably the reason why Dick Howell did not take a camera with him when he was invited to witness an airplane flight in the morning of August 14, 1901, he could not reproduce a photo in BSH anyway.

That Dick Howell was the author of the article and the person who made the drawing was unquestioned for 109 years until it was questioned here on this talk page 2 years ago. This fact is further strengthened through the research made by O'Dwyer who read many of Howell's articles and studied his drawings. So there is no reason to use formulations which question that Howell was the author and the creator of the drawing, especially when we consider that the only ones who have questioned this are one or two wikipedia editors on this talk page.Roger491127 (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I also question why we use the expression "(widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald)". Nobody had questioned that Dick Howell was the author of the article and the journalist who made the drawing until two years ago, here on this talk page an editor, I am pretty sure it was Carroll Gray, wrote that as the article and the drawing were not signed we cannot know for sure who was the author of the article and who made the drawing. If we look at all other sources there is no doubt that Dick Howell was the author of the article and the journalist who made the drawing. So I think we should attribute the article and the drawing to Dick Howell without weasel formulations which put this fact in doubt.Roger491127 (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Widely attributed" is a good description of the situation. Nothing in the newspaper itself confirms Howell's authorship. We have the word of Stella Randolph and Wm O'Dwyer, both biased, and others who quote them, that Howell was the writer. Without verifiable documentary evidence from the newspaper or elsewhere, we, as editors of this article, are not justified in deciding the issue one way or the other. DonFB (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please google for this expression, "Dick Howell" Bridgeport , you will find a lot of articles saying that Dick Howell was the author of the article about the flight August 14, 1901, and many other articles about Dick Howell, the sports editor of Bridgeport Sunday Herald. And "Sketch made by sports editor Dick Howell of Whitehead's flying machine". "No photographs were taken, but a sketch of the plane in the air was made by Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Herald, who was present." etc.. If you read through all the links you find in this way, avoiding all which have this article as source, of course, I think you will agree that Dick Howell has been recognized by many independent sources as the author of the article in question, and the creator of the drawing. You will not find any sources outside this talk page which questions this fact.

http://www.aviation-bookshelf.com/;/aviation-and-the-forgotten-airplane-aviator.html http://articles.courant.com/2003-12-18/entertainment/0312180311_1_wilbur-wright-s-flight-free-admission-bridgeport-sunday-herald http://www.metropoleparis.com/2008/1328/1328cafe.html?page=2 http://www.ctheritage.org/calendarBestBet.htm

The most prestigious Swedish Science and Technology Magazine http://fof.se/tidning/2002/1/var-broderna-wright-forst This magazine does not simply copy wp or any other source, it researches each issue carefully. Translation: The best evidence for Whitehead's flights is a drawing and an article by sports journalist Dick Howell who was an eyewitness of a successful 800m long flight.

You will also find a lot about Dick Howell as a boxing referee and author of articles about boxing, like this one http://travel-barbados.co.uk/tag/bridgeport.

Using the above search expression I also found the digitized text of "Lost in Flight" by Stella Randolph, published in 1938 at http://bridgeporthistory.us/book.html, very important for me as I can not find this book in a Swedish library.Roger491127 (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

These sources further confirm the appropriateness of saying "widely attributed". We have two facts: 1) Howell's name is not on the newspaper article; 2) he is widely attributed as the author. It is proper for Wikipedia to clearly state those facts, especially in an article such as this, which covers events that are subject to much controversy. DonFB (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No articles in BSH were signed during those years, it was the policy of BSH then. Later, in 1906, we can find articles signed Dick Howell, obviously because the policy in BSH had changed. Maybe when he became chief editor he started to sign his articles.

Many of the texts I found, which states that Richard (Dick) Howell was the author of the article are from before the invention of internet, for example in Stella Randolph's book from 1938: "Richard Howell, now de- ceased, and former editor of the Bridgeport Herald, stated in a story published in the Herald under date of August 18, 1901.."

So I don't see any reason to use the longer and more ambiguous writing "widely attributed to". Why not simply write that Dick Howell was the author? All evidence we have is saying that. Would you write: "The words: "Ich bin ein Berliner", widely attributed to John F Kennedy.."?Roger491127 (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hundreds of people over a time period of 110 years have written that Dick Howell was the creator of that article and the drawing, and this fact was also checked by O'Dwyer who studied hundreds of Dick Howells articles and drawings and found him to be a very reliable journalist and his drawings to be very precise. So there is absolutely no doubt that Dick Howell was the originator of both the article and the drawing. Conclusion: There is no reason to use the expression "widely attributed to". We can safely write that Dick Howell wrote the article and made the drawing.Roger491127 (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We have documentary evidence of Kennedy's speech (newsreels and audio) and eyewitnesses. If Howell's name were on the article, we could say he wrote it. Other people say he wrote it, so that's what we, as neutral editors, can report. DonFB (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The event is subject to much controversy, but nobody outside this talk page has ever disputed that the article and the drawing were made by Dick Howell. That he really was the originator has also been checked very carefully. That Dick Howell was the originator of the article and the drawing is in accordance with all sources we have found from 110 years of research by all who have written about this. Look at all the sources who have written about the BSH article. Note that nobody disputes or even questions who wrote the article and made the drawing. So wikipedia has no reason to make reservations about it either. Or do you think that wikipedia should take another position than what all the sources tell us? It would be wrong for wikipedia to express reservations about an issue which no sources express reservations about. Roger491127 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The wording in this Wikipedia article does not argue the question of the newspaper article's authorship. It accurately points out that no credit is shown in the newspaper for the article (or drawing) and reports that other people, (none connected with the newspaper) assert that Howell wrote it. The wording in this Wiki article is accurate and neutral. DonFB (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If we express reservations about this we start to change the reality we are supposed to describe as exactly as possible. If we start to write about this in another way than how all the sources have written about it wikipedia becomes a part in the discussion we are only supposed to describe. It is not the task of wikipedia to change the history, only to describe it, without adding or subtracting anything from it. Note that the expression "(widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald)" is not referenced. From what source did you get this expression? Roger491127 (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to point out that no credit is shown in the newspaper for the article (or drawing) you would be guilty of OR, or do you have a source you can reference this to? Roger491127 (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"Widely attributed to" is perfectly fine writing, summarizing for the reader what the situation is regarding Howell's uncredited work. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

But it is an expression without a reference and an expression which is different from all sources, which without reservations say that Dick Howell wrote the article and made the drawing. This expression "(widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald)" means that wikipedia takes a stand and gets involved in the issue with an expression wikipedia has invented independently of all the sources which without reservations say that Dick Howell wrote the article and made the drawing. It is not the task of wikipedia to get involved in an issue and express a view no source has expressed. Roger491127 (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It is common sense citation style. Anyone can see that there is no attribution in the original, so we say "widely attributed to". Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Is "common sense" your expression for OR, writing whatever you like no matter if it has no reference, or replacing verifiability with your own logic? If "Anyone can see" means that you have read the original and saw that the article was not signed it is what wikipedia calls OR (Original Research). As a wp editor you are supposed to find out what others have written about this article and tell the reader about that, preferably using some representative references. What your "common sense" tells you has no importance. If it had I could fill this article with a lot of stuff my "common sense" tells me. Roger491127 (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the wording is describing an observable fact. Likewise, when a Wiki article describes the plot of a novel or a movie, based on the work's content, that is not OR. Stating that no author credit is given on the news article is not expressing an opinion or presenting a previously unknown fact or conclusion, which is the definition of OR. It is reporting an objective fact, as is reporting that people say (attribute to) that so-and-so wrote the news article. DonFB (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

To observe that fact you need to find a copy of the original article and note that it is not signed. That is Original Research. The rules of wp says that we should report what secondary sources say. The original article is a primary source. In this case we have no choice but to read what the secondary sources say, and they all say that Dick Howell wrote the article and made the drawing. Roger491127 (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And, fortunately for us, there is no conflict between what the secondary sources say and our common sense. I think O'Dwyer is a very reliable person and he read many articles written by Howell and studied his drawings. If he had noted some reason to doubt that Howell was the originator of the Whitehead article he would have told the world about it. In addition to that I have myself studied many articles written by Howell, both signed and unsigned, and my common sense tells me that the style of writing is consistent in both the signed and unsigned articles. So for myself and my common sense this is not a problem. As far as I can understand the secondary sources are correct when they say that the article and the drawing were made by Howell. The rule about reporting what the secondary sources say can be a problem if your common sense says otherwise, but in this case there is no problem. Roger491127 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not prohibit using primary sources, although it should be done carefully. Using or quoting a primary source (the Bridgeport Herald newspaper article) is not original research, if the purpose is to accurately describe content or appearance that anyone may see for themselves by viewing the source. Stating that the article is unsigned is not OR; it is describing a fact which other persons may also see by looking at an image of the article (kindly provided as a reference for this Wiki article by Roger491127). Stating that other people attribute authorship to Howell is not OR; it is describing a fact that anyone can see by looking at reference material in which the attribution occurs. DonFB (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not prohibit using primary sources, although it should be done carefully." To be careful in this case means that wikipedia should be careful so we do not change the history by introducing a reservation where a reservation did not exist before wp wrote an article about it.

If we express reservations about this we start to change the reality we are supposed to describe as exactly as possible. If we start to write about this in another way than how all the sources have written about it wikipedia becomes a part in the discussion we are only supposed to describe. It is not the task of wikipedia to change the history, only to describe it, without adding or subtracting anything from it. Note that the expression "(widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald)" is not referenced. From what source did you get this expression?

It is an expression without a reference and an expression which is different from all sources, which without reservations say that Dick Howell wrote the article and made the drawing. This expression "(widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald)" means that wikipedia takes a stand and gets involved in the issue with an expression wikipedia has invented independently of all the sources which without reservations say that Dick Howell wrote the article and made the drawing. It is not the task of wikipedia to get involved in an issue and express a view no source has expressed. And, stating that the article is unsigned is OR. If we write "The article is unsigned." we are writing a sentence which is not representative for the sources. Roger491127 (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We haven't changed anything. We are describing the situation that exists: no byline on the article; attribution to Howell by secondary sources. We are repeating our arguments. Binksternet also does not agree with your view, so it appears that consensus favors the current wording. DonFB (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have read approximately 30 sources which say that the article with the drawing was written by Dick Howell and 1 or 2 sources which reprint the article without mentioning the author's name. No source has pointed out that the article is unsigned. If people study the original and start pointing out that the article is unsigned, in books and web sites about aviation history, in such numbers that it is changing the balance between the sources which say that the author is Dick Howell we must start to rethink how we should formulate this article. But so far no source I have seen has even mentioned that the article is unsigned. What Binksternet agrees with or not doesn't matter because he has not published a book or web site about aviation history. He is a wp editor. We must report what aviation historians, newspapers, web sites about aviation history and other sources write about this, not what the views of wp editors are. And you still have no reference for the expression "(widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald)"Roger491127 (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about consensus among Wikipedia editors on how this article is worded. You have your arguments about how to refer to the newspaper article, but the consensus of editors does not agree with your arguments. DonFB (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt among the Connecticut historians that I know, that the current Whitehead wikipedia article is biased toward casting doubt on the integrity of the content and sources that support that he flew in Bridgeport in 1901. While there are at least 18 newspapers that printed that he did, these sources have been rebuffed and minimized. Even discounting work from 1904 that supports that he was considered at that time to be among those who had flown in their machines. The article should make it more clear to the reader that it wasn't until several decades had passed after his death that aviation historians gave their opinion that he never flew. On one hand they ask why he even bothered filing for a US Patent in 1905 and then criticize him for lack of documentation. Whitehead's place, in the very significant history of the aviation industry in Connecticut, is safe.Tomticker5 (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Very early in the article, in the Introduction, the text explains that "In the decades since" Whitehead's activity, researchers promoted their belief that GW flew, and aviation historians discounted the claims. That seems pretty clear. The recent addition of the text: "Over the next few months, the story ran in nine other newspapers in all parts of the country and as far away as California and Arizona" is not "rebuffed and minimized" that I can see. DonFB (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a formulation we could replace the current formulation with:

Bridgeport Sunday Herald sports reporter Dick Howell wrote an article in Bridgeport Sunday Herald published August 18, 1901 which was an eyewitness report and he drew a sketch showing the airplane in flight.

http://diepresse.com/home/leben/ausgehen/558951/Und-sie-fliegt-doch A German reporter talks to the people in Gustave Whitehead Museum in Leutershausen and is told that Dick Howell was the author of the article in BSH August 14, 1901.

http://www.multilingualarchive.com/ma/enwiki/es/Gustave_Whitehead This article probably comes from wikipedia in Spanish, but note that Dick Howell is named as the originator of the article and the drawing, without any reservation considering his authorship.

Note that I have been careful to avoid all references which can be traced back to wikipedia, with the exception of the last reference to the Spanish wp. I have just tried to show how many references I can find in half an hour which say that Dick Howell was the originator of the article and the drawing, choosing especially references from 2003 or earlier. If we follow the wp rule about reporting what secondary sources say we have no choice but to say that Dick Howell was the originator. Roger491127 (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't suggest we should actually write something like this with all these references, we should simply write that Dick Howell wrote the article and made the drawing in BSH, without reservations and without references, because that is a fact which is generally known. I just added all these references here on the talk page to show that this is so universally accepted so we need no reservations and no references. Roger491127 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I consider three of the above sources to be reliable. Four others are sourced from Wikipedia (despite your claim to "have been careful" to avoid such sources). Seven of the sources (including a duplicate) are unacceptable because they are messageboard pages, which Wikipedia rules classify as not reliable. One source is the Stella Randolph book, which I would accept (and is already cited in the GW article). Three of the sources are foreign language, so I cannot determine if they are sourced from Wikipedia or Randolph or O'Dwyer. Another source is a Russian gas and energy company, which I consider very questionable. I would accept an additional sentence in the first paragraph of "The Herald article and drawing" section, which could say:

"Other sources also identify Howell as the article's writer and the artist who made the drawing of Whitehead's aircraft in flight."

That sentence should be footnoted with any or all of the reliable sources, which I identify as:

http://articles.courant.com/2003-12-18/entertainment/0312180311_1_wilbur-wright-s-flight-free-admission-bridgeport-sunday-herald

http://www.ctheritage.org/calendarBestBet.htm

(The author of the article in the third citation, below, appears to be a reliable source.)

http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Aviations-Lost-Airplane-Inventor/1023046

DonFB (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The 3 sources in foreign languages are in languages I understand and none of them has any reservations about Dick Howell as the originator of the article and the drawing. One of them is the Swedish Science and technology magazine which is specialized in carefully re-examining stories which earlier have been accepted as historical facts. I don't understand what you find "very questionable" about the Gazprom author. He is at least independent of traditional American views. Why don't you just give up and admit that you have no reference at all for the expression "(widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald)" while there are lots of references for writing that Dick Howell was the author of the article and the creator of the drawing? Roger491127 (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There are only a few references that I consider reliable for use in Wikipedia to support the assertion of Howell's authorship (shown in my post just above). You speak of the Gazprom "author", but that web page shows no author name. The "author" is undoubtedly a public relations staffer relying on existing internet sources, not independent research, to assemble the GW summary. The wording of Gazprom article is quite similar to current and earlier versions of the Wikipedia GW article (for example, its mention of "Harwort" and maps showing the distance of a purported flight). I do not consider it to be independent. "Widely attributed" is simply a description of the point you are making: various secondary sources name Howell. DonFB (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But it is your description, not supported by any reference at all. I have always thought that you are a neutral wp editor, please do not disappoint me by stubbornly keeping a formulation you know is making this article more confusing and doubtful for the reader. Roger491127 (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Regrettably, I cannot return the compliment about neutrality. I'm certain the wording is not confusing to anyone, unless you can show evidence to the contrary. It could be changed to something like, "various sources say Howell wrote the article", but I don't see a need to do that. I think you are forgetting Wikipedia policy that truth (who wrote the article) is not the goal. Perhaps you'd like to offer a suggestion how the Wikipedia article can explain that no author's name is seen on the BSH article, but various sources say so-and-so wrote it. DonFB (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The expression "(widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald)" is certainly more confusing and doubtful than if we wrote as in all the sources, "The article in BSH was written by Dick Howell, who also made the drawing" or something like that. I don't have to offer a suggestion how to explain that no author's name is seen on the BSH article, because it is OR by you to ask about it and it would be OR by me to try to explain it. As wp editors our task is to write what the sources say, and they say that Dick Howell wrote the article and made the drawing.Roger491127 (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(I have already told you that I have read through that issue of BSH very carefully, and 5-6 issues before and after it, and I found that not a single article was signed by an author, and I can speculate that it was some kind of policy for BSH in those days. If that is an explanation which can satisfy your personal curiosity that is fine, but you can't use any of this in the article, because it is my original research. Roger491127 (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

If you, or other wp editors, had not looked closely at the photocopy of the article and noted that is was not signed, which was Original Research by you, or other wp editors, you would not have a need for an explanation and no reason to write "(widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald)". So forget about your, or other wp editors' Original Research and write what the sources have written. Roger491127 (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can readily agree that the newspaper probably had some policy of not printing a reporter's name. All the more reason for this article to explain that secondary sources, not the newspaper, name the author. I've already explained that reporting/describing the content or appearance of a source, without giving an opinion about it, is not original research and is done in a great many articles. I was already aware of the absence of a reporter's name before I saw the actual image (which I had seen prior to the link from this article). Anyway, this article already does what you want: it names sources (Randolph, O'Dwyer) and says they wrote that Howell was the author. As I suggested, this article could also mention one or more of the other few, reliable, sources who wrote the same thing. A large number of other sources--message boards and the like--also make the attribution, but they are not reliable sources. DonFB (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I wrote "or other wp editors" because my memory tells me that it might have been Carroll Gray who originally pointed it out, but no matter who caused this situation it is based on Original Research by wp editors. So we should go back to what we wrote before somebody pointed out that the article was unsigned and somebody introduced the formulation "(widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald)", because that change was based on Original Research by wp editors. Roger491127 (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

See my comment immediately above; you may have missed it while composing your post above this one. DonFB (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No I did not miss it, but I was just about to post an even sharper formulated followup:

As we have had that formulation, "(widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald)", for some time, other web sites and encyclopedias have copied it, and thereby we have changed the history writing, based on Original Research by wp editors. We have a responsibility to right what we have done wrong, so the only responsible way to handle this is to change our text back to what we wrote before this case of Original Research by wp editors. After a few years we will, hopefully, see that the formulation we spread has disappeared again. Roger491127 (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Before we introduced the formulation "(widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald)" all sources who wrote about this named the author as Dick Howell, without reservations, and so did we in this article. That is the situation we need to restore, as Original Research by wp editors introduced the formulation "(widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald)" and that was an influence upon the history writing which we had no right to impose. Roger491127 (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It is valid to point out the influence of Wikipedia. That's why I watch this and other articles, because I don't want POV text to spread like a virus. Fortunately, I believe, this article is more accurate in its current form than it was previously. DonFB (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you defend the mistake of Original Research made by wp editors and the introduction of a changed history writing based on that mistake? Don't you understand that you have introduced doubt and confusion about an issue which there is no valid reason to doubt? It was clear that Dick Howell was the author of that article even before O'Dwyer investigated the issue and it became even clearer after he had checked it. And now you dare to introduce doubt about the issue based on Original Research. You have the chance to correct this mistake and prove that you are an impartial wp editor. Roger491127 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not think you adequately understand what original research is, in the context of Wikipedia. I encourage you to read, or re-read, the relevant policy pages. Perhaps you can explain what "changed history" or "mistake" you perceive. Howell's name was never on the article--no history change, no mistake. Randolph and O'Dwyer assert that he wrote it--no history change, no mistake.

I am willing to further discuss the use of "non-academic". But later, probably tomorrow. If you write more about it, start a new section titled "Non academic" or something similar. Click the New Section tab at the top of the page. DonFB (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have read the rules about original research very carefully and it is obvious that the change from saying that the article in BSH was written by Dick Howell to the formulation "(widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald)" was based on original research. Original research is a mistake. From a situation where all who wrote about Dick Howell described him as the author of the article and the man who made the drawing this mistake from one or more wp editors has lead to the spreading of a new formulation, "(widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald)". That is a mistake that changed the history. This mistake spread doubt and confusion where there was no doubt or confusion before. It is your responsibility to correct this mistake. Roger491127 (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)