This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Women making airplane wings
I just ran across the photo at right on the Seattle Municipal Archives photostream on Flickr, with appropriate permissions, and uploaded it. I think it belongs in the article somewhere, especially because it is a picture showing women with a significant role in building airplanes at a rather early date. There was really no information with the photo other than that it was in Seattle; I'd guess (but can't prove) early Boeing, and from the looks of that wing it must be 1910s. Do others agree this should be added to the article somewhere? And, if so, where? - Jmabel | Talk 07:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
A pretty late reply but I think it should be used somewhere! From a 3-view drawing that I have I would say that is almost certainly the upper wing of a 1919 Boeing-built Thomas-Morse MB-3 biplane. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Bilcat's and Roger's behavior
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Bilkat has reverted a change which was suggested and well argumented for here on the discussion page several days ago, without any counter-arguments or discussion preceeding his revert. Bilcat's behavior conflicts with wikipedia rules which says that editing conflicts should be discussed on the discussion page of the article. History by contract or history decided by politicians, (see the conflict between the legislative assemblies of Connecticut and North Carolina over who flew first, Whitehead or the Wright brothers), is not a good idea. Historical issues should not be resolved by contract or by politicians. It would be just as bad if history was decided by wikipedia editors, where right now the Wright-devotees are in majority and they try to discredit Whitehead with all the means they have. This behavior by some wikipedia editors must be stopped by wikipedia administrators, so wikipedia can preserve its good reputation. Roger491127 (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Rojer, all you have been doing on this page is arguing for days on end. I saw no consensus to add the material to the article, and I reverted it per WP:BRD. WP is based on reliable sources, but does not give undue weight to fringe theories. I stand by my removal as being inline with both policy and the consesus expressed here. - BilCat (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules talk about verifiable sources, not reliable sources. My version is based on verifiable sources and properly referenced, so you can check that they are both verifiable and reliable sources. That Whitehead flew years before the Wrights is not a fringe theory, it has been supported by the legislative institution in Connecticut, and by the tv channel Discovery, and by Readers Digest as early as around 1945, it is today supported by museums both in USA and in Germany and by CAHA (Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association), New England Air Museuem, etc... A fringe idea is something only a few thousand sect members agree upon, but millions of people including reputable institutions like museums, air history institutions etc.. support the idea that Whitehead flew in 1901, and probably in 1902 and maybe in 1899 too.Roger491127 (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I added the {{Undue weight}} header in lieu of simpling reverting you and getting into a constant edit war. Please leave it there until others have weighed in on the issue, and there is a clear consensus one way or the other. Thanks. - BilCat (talk)
From the above discussion on the subject it does not appear to be a consensus for the change, as far as I can see nobody has supported User:Roger491127 position. So rather than edit war the article should be restored to the earlier version. So far we have no signs of support for Roger491127s position from the 90 watchers of the article so perhaps he should consider a WP:RFC from a wider community. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I tried to get arbitration on this issue, but that was deleted by SarekOfVulcan who suggested a Rfc instead,
but here is the text so you can see my argumentation.
I hope that Roger is not trying to make this Aviation History article into a Whitehead Flew First article. Also, it seems to me that much of this discussion should be happening on the Gustave Whitehead article Discussion page. This is arguing about the same subject in a second forum and the Gustave Whitehead article would seem to be the proper place to conduct these discussions. This Aviation History article should be as neutral as we have been attempting to make the Gustave Whitehead article. Also, the assertion that Gustave Whitehead made what we would recognize as "flights" is not a mainstream view, Roger. You've been here much longer than I have, but even I know that articles are supposed to, among other things, reflect the mainstream view. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The Gustave Whitehead section
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
This is what the section looks like today:
"Gustave Whitehead
Main article: Gustave Whitehead
1901 sketch of Gustave Whitehead
On August 14, 1901, in Fairfield, Connecticut, Gustave Whitehead reportedly flew his engine-powered Number 21 for 800 metres (2,600 ft) at 15 metres (49 ft) height.[17] In January 1902, he claimed to have flown 11 kilometres (6.8 mi) over Long Island Sound in the improved Number 22.[18] Whatever the truth of the matter, Whitehead faded from public knowledge.
Beginning in 1935, Whitehead's possible flights emerged from obscurity after the events were featured in a newspaper article and a book.[19] Aviation experts debated the topic, and some decided for Whitehead, while others such as Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith said it could not have occurred.[20]"
Note that it does not mention the around 40 eyewitnesses who have signed sworn affidavits saying they saw Whitehead fly. It does not mention the article written by the eyewitness journalist published a few days after the event. The article is now cut down to a few sentences containing weasel formulations like "Whatever the truth of the matter.." The article says that "Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith said it could not have occurred" without explaining the reasons for his judgement. The people responsible for this massacre of the earlier well written section about Whitehead should be investigated and warned for their deplorable behavior. Roger491127 (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
This is how this section was written before this massacre, 22:50, 22 September 2010.:
Gustave Whitehead
Main article: Gustave Whitehead
The sketch by Dick Howell, August 14, 1901.
On August 14, 1901, in Fairfield, Connecticut, Gustave Whitehead reportedly flew his engine-powered Number 21 for 800 metres (2,600 ft) at 15 metres (49 ft) height, according to articles in the Bridgeport Herald, The New York Herald and the Boston Transcript. No photographs were taken, but a sketch of the plane in the air was made by a reporter for the Bridgeport Herald, Dick Howell, who was present in addition to Whitehead helpers and other witnesses. This date precedes the Wright brothers' Kitty Hawk, North Carolina flight by more than two years. Several witnesses have sworn and signed affidavits about many other flights during the summer 1901 before the event described above which was publicized.[17]
For example: "In the summer of 1901 he flew that machine from Howard Avenue East to Wordin Avenue, flying it along the border of a property belonging to a gasworks. As Harworth recalls, after landing the flying machine was merely turned around and a further "leap" was taken back to Howard Avenue."[18]
In 1897 The Aeronautical Club of Boston and manufacturer Horsman in New York hired Whitehead as a specialist for hang gliders, aircraft models, kites and motors for flying craft. Whitehead flew short distances in his glider.
According to witness reports, Whitehead had flown about 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) in Pittsburgh as early as 1899. This flight ended in a crash when Whitehead tried to avoid a collision with a three-story building by flying over the house and failed. After this crash Whitehead was forbidden any further flying experiments in Pittsburgh and he moved to Bridgeport.[19]
In January 1902, he claimed to have flown 11 kilometres (6.8 mi) over Long Island Sound in the improved Number 22. Affidavit by Pruckner supports this claim.[20]
In the 1930s, witnesses gave 15 sworn and signed affidavits, most of them attesting to Whitehead flights; one attests to the flight over the Sound. Two modern replicas of his Number 21 have been flown successfully. In the 1960s "Members of the CAHA and the 9315th Squadron went door-to-door in Bridgeport, Fairfield, Stratford, and Milford to track down Whitehead's long-ago neighbors and helpers. They also traced some who had moved to other parts of Connecticut and the United States. Of an estimated 30 persons interviewed for affidavits or on tape, 20 said they had seen flights, eight indicated they had heard of the flights, and two felt that Whitehead did not fly."[21]
Instead of using a wind tunnel Whitehead tethered the airplane to a pole and flew around it in a circular motion to test and refine the aerodynamic properties of his airplanes. He later built a circular track out of concrete and used a big steamdriven motor to swing the plane around it over the circular runway he had built.[22]
The Whitehead airplanes 21 and 22 were, as told by many witnesses, so stable in the air that Whitehead could take his hands off the controls and the airplane kept its attitude in the air so steady that it was even difficult to make it turn, until he realized that he could use his body weight to bank the airplane and make it turn. When Whitehead wanted to land he simply aimed for a suitable landing place and turned off the motor and he could watch as the airplane landed itself, and both the airplane and the pilot were undamaged. See, for example the article in Bridgeport Herald by Dick Howell about stability.[23]
Not that it is properly referenced, and the space it uses is much smaller than the section about the Wright brothers which follows it. Roger491127 (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
About Gibbs-Smith, who has been used to discredit Whitehead in the Whitehead section
"Orville Wright himself also dealt with the Whitehead claims in a brief article in the magazine U.S. Air Services (August 1945), which reads as follows:"
Note that Gibbs-Smith is building the whole case against Whitehead on the criticism put forward by Orville Wright, and his criticism has been refuted, point by point by later investigations.
'The myth of Gustave Whitehead having made a power flight in 1901 was founded upon the story which appeared in the Bridgeport Herald of August 18, 1901. Although this mythical flight was alleged to have taken place on August 14th, and to have been witnessed by a Herald reporter, the news was withheld four days and appeared as a feature story in a Sunday edition of that paper! Would the editor of the Herald have held back for four days a story of such great human and historical interest, if he believed it to be true? The strangest part of all is that anyone should think that Howell's story was intended to be taken as fact. It was printed with a large heading entitled "Flying", illustrated with witches riding astraddle their brooms.
Note that the Bridgeport Herald was a weekly newspaper, which explains the delay in publishing which Orville puts so much weight on.
Orville also makes a big thing out of the row of "witches riding astraddle their brooms" which we do not know who inserted, it could have been the people who formatted the page before printing it.
The Herald represented that just four persons were present on the occasion—"Gustave Whitehead, Andrew Cellie and James Dickie, his two partners in the flying machine, and a representative of the Herald."
In an affidavit dated April 2, 1937, the above-mentioned James Dickie, after saying that he had worked with Gustave Whitehead when Whitehead was constructing and experimenting with airplanes, said:
I do not know Andrew Cellie, the other man who is supposed to have witnessed the flight of August 14th, 1901, described in the Bridgeport Herald. I believe the entire story in the Herald was imaginary, and grew out of the comments of Whitehead in discussing what he hoped to get from his plane. I was not present and did not witness any airplane flight on August 14, 1901. I do not remember or recall ever hearing of a flight with this particular plane or any other that Whitehead ever built."
Note that Dickies statements and behavior has been explained by the phone interview Major O'Dwyer made with Dickie, which makes it clear that Dickie was very angry at Whitehead because "he never paid me and my father what he owned us. I will never credit Whitehead with anything". But Major O'Dwyer noted that Dickie did not deny being present August 14 1901, he just refused to talk about it.
Andrew Cellie, the witness which could not be found by Stella Randolph was investigated by Major O'Dwyer who came to the conclusion that his name had been spelled wrongly. His real name was Sully and was Whitehead's closest neighbor. He had died before the 1960s but Major O'Dwyer interviewed his relatives and friends who all said that Sulli had said all his life that he was present when Whitehead flew August 14 1901
John J. Dvorak, a Chicago business man, who in 1904 was on the teaching staff of Washington University of St. Louis, spent some months that year with Whitehead at Bridgeport, while Whitehead was building a motor financed by Dvorak. Dvorak finally came to the conclusion that Whitehead was incapable of building a satisfactory motor and in disgust he left. In an affidavit dated July 18, 1936, Dvorak said:
I personally do not believe that Whitehead ever succeeded in making any airplane flights. Here are my reasons: 1. Whitehead did not possess sufficient mechanical skill and equipment to build a successful motor. 2. Whitehead was given to gross exaggeration. He was eccentric—a visionary and a dreamer to such an extent that he actually believed what he merely imagined. He had delusions."
Note that Whitehead refused to work anymore on the motor design Dvorak had made, stating that it could not work due to the faulty design. This made Drorak very angry at Whitehead. Dvorak never found another mechanic who could make his design work either.
In May, 1901, Stanley Y. Beach visited Whitehead at Bridgeport and wrote an illustrated article about Whitehead's machine, which was published in the Scientific American of June 8, 1901. Later he induced his father to advance money to continue Whitehead's experiments. Although Beach saw Whitehead frequently in the years from 1901 to 1910, Whitehead never told him that he had flown. Beach has said that he does not believe that any of Whitehead's machines ever left the ground under their own power, in spite of assertions of persons thirty-five years later who thought they remembered seeing them. Beach's nine years' association with Whitehead placed him in a better position to know what Whitehead had done than that of other persons who were associated with Whitehead but a short time, or those who had so little technical training, or so little interest that they remained silent for thirty-five years about an event which, if true, would have been the greatest historic achievement in aviation up to that time. If Whitehead really had flown, certainly Beach, who had spent nearly ten thousand dollars on the experiments, would have been the last to deny it
Regarding the Whitehead story, Gibbs-Smith quotes Orville Wright who in turn quotes both Dickie and Dvorak. Beach's father's $10k is mentioned
Why would Beach talk his father into investing 10 000 dollars in Whitehead if he did not have a lot of respect for him as a mechanic and airplane builder?
Around 1910 the same think happened between Beach and Whitehead as happened with Dvorak, as told above. Whitehead tried to make an airplane Beach had designed work, but finally Whitehead told Beach that his design was faulty and could not work. Angered Beach sent a mechanic to take the plane apart and put it in Beach's barn. After that Beach said many discrediting things about Whitehead, conflicting with earlier statements he had made when they had a friendly relationship. Quote from somewhere "in his later days, after Whitehead's death, Beach became more and more a politician and sided with the Wrights.." which was politically correct then. That is why there are so many conflicting statements from Stanley Beach about Whitehead. The positive statements are from the earlier years, the negative ones from the time after Beach had become angry at Whitehead, and the really negative statements are from the time after Whitehead's death.Roger491127 (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The whole judgement by Gibbs-Smith is built on faulty statements by Orville Wright. And unfortunately and uncritically these statements were also used by the Smithsonian to discredit Whitehead.
Binksternet's formulation "Gibbs-Smith's rather brilliant analysis and critique of the claims made re: Whitehead" is very faulty and misleading considering that Gibbs-Smith never did any analysis, he just quoted Orville Wright's faulty statements about Whitehead. Roger491127 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The Whitehead entry on this "Aviation History" page is out of conformity with the article on Gustave Whitehead. We've struggled to make that article neutral and verifiable, so an abbreviated version of that article could be used here for the section on Whitehead. Roger, you are repeating something which has been corrected on the GW Article Discussion page - I said that I was the one, not Binksternet, who wrote (as you can plainly see) that "Gibbs-Smith's rather brilliant analysis and critique of the claims made re: Whitehead" and that reference was to a 52 page analysis (plus addendum) Gibbs-Smith authored. In a few days, I will offer a much abbreviated version of the GW Article page for use here. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago80 comments10 people in discussion
What is the appropriate level of weight to give to Gustave Whitehead's powered flight experiments in the Aviation history article? Roger491127 (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC) (signature appended by SarekOfVulcan)
Note that I did not initiate an RFC about this, as SarekOfVulcan suggested to me that I could do. I thought about it but before I had made my mind up SarekOfVulcan had already started an RFC, so we just have to go along with the process.Roger491127 (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I want to protest against that this RFC is undertaken in the talk page of Aviation history, where the majority of the editors are partial, which is exactly what I am complaining about. It is like letting the local police investigate themselves instead of getting an impartial institution investigate the local police when somebody complains about how they treat people or cases, for example. Roger491127 (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on between aviation historians outside wikipedia about if the Wright brothers were really the first to fly. Over the years it has become increasingly probable that Gustave Whitehead built and flew airplanes years before the Wrights. The latter view is shared by reputable institutions like the legislative institution in Connecticut, and by the tv channel Discovery, and by Readers Digest as early as around 1945, it is today supported by museums both in USA and in Germany and by CAHA (Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association), New England Air Museuem, etc. The modern research effort was started by Major O'Dwyer who found a series of photos of Whitehead's airplane nr21 in an attic, and then he worked with this issue for most of his remaining life. He and his friends in CAHA made a nationwide search for people who lived in Bridgeport in 1901 and they found 30 people who were still alive. Out of the 30 people found 20 said they had seen Whitehead fly, 8 said they had heard about his flights, 2 did not think Whitehead flew.
A fringe idea is something only a few thousand sect members agree upon, but millions of people including reputable institutions like museums, air history institutions etc.. support the idea that Whitehead flew in 1901, and probably in 1902 and maybe in 1899 too.
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
In the article Aviation history as well as in many other aviation associated articles the majority of editors are Wright-devotees and they cause such edit-warring as you can study in this article and its discussion page. Editor Bilcat just referred to ""Undue weight ""
and WP:BRD as reasons for his reverts of my version which I consider proper both in content and size, the section about Whitehead had a similar size for years before editors Bilcat and Binksternet decided to cut it down to a few sentences.
If a majority of Wright-devotees among wikipedia editors are allowed to discredit Whitehead and cut down all mentions of him, wikipedia will risk its reputation as having a neutral view based on verifiable sources.
This is a Arbitration request directed mainly at a policy issue, but I can name a few editors who are more involved than others, Bilcat, Binksternet, MilborneOne are the editors involved in the discussion page of Aviation history. I do no request a warning or any other negative action against these editors. I just want it to be determined if the idea that Whitehead built and flew airplanes years before the Wrights is a Fringe idea as Bilcat justifies his reverts with, or if Whitehead is enough recognized to get more space in such an article than a fringe figure.
I give you a text from the article Gustave Whitehead:
Reproductions
"Today only a series of photographs of the aircraft N21 exists, fortunately enough clear , as well as some sketches. In addition there are also some testimonies of people who witnessed his exploits. Most interesting are those given by Weisskopf’s assistant, who had been interviewed on the purpose of history before he died. On these bases, with a patient and laborious engagement of several persons specialised in several fields, the reconstruction of the design drawings of his aircraft has been carried . A considerable contribution in this result has been supplied by Herb Kelly, an aeronautical engineer who, resuming a technical photographic methodology developed for the Pentagon (geometric method of fading angles) during the second world war, allows to analyse photographs for graphically obtaining synthetic images which can be further transformed into designs perspective. Developments deriving from such technique have been profitably carried out by means of the digital technologies and are today very popular also in the environment of automobiles crash analysis and of aircraft flight tests. - - The initiative, conducted in tight collaboration with the Committee of Leutershausen, had been undertaken by a group of American technicians of several companies like Boeings, Sikorsky, Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed. These constituted a group called " Hangar 21 "and in 1986 constructed a basic replica of N.21 which was presented at Oshkosh; they carried out only some leaps on the runway, but their work gave encouragement to the German committee to construct a more faithful replica . Without the technical contribution of this qualified group of specialists, very unlikely the faithful reconstruction of the aircraft would have been possible. The specialists experiences ranged from V2 to the nuclear submarines nevertheless they have been evidently fascinated by the romantic attraction of this adventure."[1]
Do you think a "fringe" person could have engaged all these highly qualified experts from "several companies like Boeings, Sikorsky, Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed" "The specialists experiences ranged from V2 to the nuclear submarines" who used advanced military technology to produce blueprints from photos? Note also that at least three replicas have been built and have been flown, which refutes the argument from several people who said that such a construction could not fly.
To sum up my request to the arbitration committee: Shall wikipedia treat Gustave Whitehead as a fringe fenomena, a myth, or a person recognized and supported by a lot of reputable institutions and people? Is the story about Whitehead "a viewpoint is held by a significant minority" in Jimbo's wording? Roger491127 (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the current version has excessive detail. What is even worse, is that what is claimed here does not correspond to the POV and details presented in the Gustave Whitehead main article. If Roger or someone wants to shake the status quo and present fringe views as mainstream, he should first try his luck at the main article on the subject. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I have actually worked on the article about Gustave Whitehead for about two years. Until a few months ago I and DonFB got along rather well although we often had different opinions. We discussed peacefully until we reached consensus. But lately a few more editors have shown up who seem to have an agenda which changes the tone and content of the article in a way I cannot influence because now they form a majority. One of them is Binksternet who is also active in this article. He and Bilcat are the two editors who have replaced my section about Whitehead here with the short and belittling version I have quoted in this section, and they are the two main participators in the reverting conflict with me. Roger491127 (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It does not seem properly sourced at the moment. Affidavits are primary sources not secondary ones and these about events 30 years ago, when many of the people giving them were children, are simply not reliable (in the general sense, not the WP sense) and vary greatly in what they describe. And even then it seems to be making claims not in the sources: such as the claim of a flight that crashed supported by a statement by a witness that did not see it fly. It should be limited to what's supported by reliable sources on the topic, otherwise it gives undue weight to his contribution.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that mention of the 1899 flight should be deleted. Too few witnesses. Not even Whitehead ever mentioned it publicly, probably because he considered it a failure because it ended in a crash, if it happened. (But the crash was not caused by a faulty design, it was caused by a collision with a house). Whitehead was very critical of his own work, he was not satisfied with just building and flying and airplane, he wanted to build a machine which could rise vertically from the ground, a helicopter. His own humility about his achievements and self-criticism hindered him from making more publicity about what he had already achieved. It also meant that he did not develop what already worked, he had more advanced ambitions so he just scrapped his working airplanes and continued with new projects. But he was hindered by the fact that he was dirt poor and had to work on projects others paid him to work on and they were not successful. I will remove the mentioning of the 1899 flight now so that part is not a reason to delete the section. I also removed a sentence not supported by the reference attached to the text, I would need to find two more references to support that sentence.Roger491127 (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if I am allowed to participate in this discussion, but if I'm not you can delete my entry.
Note that this is not about determining if Whitehead is mainstream because he isn't, the discussion is about determining if he is a fringe person, only supported by a thousand people in a sect, or if he is supported by a significant minority so he cannot be called a fringe person.
Note that his work is verified by 20 eyewitnesses discovered in the 1960s by Major O'Dwyer and his friends in CAHA (Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association), 17 affidavits collected in the 1930s, Dick Howell's article in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald, Whitehead's own letter to aviation and aviation magazines which were published, public statements by experts ("In October, 1904, Professor John J. Dvorak, Professor of Physics at the University of Washington in St. Louis, announced publicly that Weisskopf was more advanced with the development of aircraft than other persons who were engaged in the work.") and other people during his active years, the photos of his airplanes, the fact that 3 replicas made after the blueprints created using advanced military methods by a team of outstanding experts have flown, refuting statements by his detractors that such a construction could never fly.
Note that his achievements are today recognized by several reputable institutions, like the legislative institution in Connecticut, CAHA (Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association), New England Air Museum, Flugpionier-Gustav-Weißkopf-Museum mit Heimat- und Handwerker-Museum, Flughistorische Forschungsgemeinschaft Gustav Weißkopf (FFGW), Many Web pages are dedicated to Gustave Whitehead, the tv-channel Discovery has made a program about him. The production of blueprints of his airplane: The initiative, conducted in tight collaboration with the Committee of Leutershausen, had been undertaken by a group of American technicians of several companies like Boeings, Sikorsky, Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed, "The specialists experiences ranged from V2 to the nuclear submarines" who used advanced military technology to produce blueprints from photos. Do you really think a "fringe" person could attract the attention and worktime of such a dreamteam of experts?
The issue here is to determine if Whitehead should be treated as a fringe person, a strange sect leader or a myth with no support in reality, OR should he be treated as a person who's achievements are recognized by a significant minority? Is it correct to call him a fringe person and use that as a reason to only mention him in a few sentences which are formulated to discredit him and use weasel words like "Whatever the truth of the matter" and to end the section with " Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith said it could not have occurred", note that Gibbs-Smith only repeated the refutation made by Orville Wright 1948, which has been shown to be faulty on one point after the other.
Study the issue, by reading the article Gustave Whitehead and the discussion page of the article. Note that the current state of the article is strongly influenced by people who want to question every statement and every evidence in favor of Whitehead and his achievements. And that is the main issue, should history be determined by a majority of wikipedia editors, just because they happen to be a majority? Roger491127 (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Compare the current state of the section about Whitehead in Aviation history with this, which a majority of editors (2 or maybe 3) want instead:
On August 14, 1901, in Fairfield, Connecticut, Gustave Whitehead reportedly flew his engine-powered Number 21 for 800 metres (2,600 ft) at 15 metres (49 ft) height.[17] In January 1902, he claimed to have flown 11 kilometres (6.8 mi) over Long Island Sound in the improved Number 22.[18] Whatever the truth of the matter, Whitehead faded from public knowledge.
Beginning in 1935, Whitehead's possible flights emerged from obscurity after the events were featured in a newspaper article and a book.[19] Aviation experts debated the topic, and some decided for Whitehead, while others such as Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith said it could not have occurred.[20] Roger491127 (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Note that this version does not even mention the investigations made in the 1960s by Major O'Dwyer and his friends in CAHA, Andy Kosch, the dreamteam of experts who created blueprints from photos using military methods, the creation of museums dedicated to Whitehead, that three replicas have been flown and a lot of other things which has happened in modern times, long after 1935 which this version gives the reader as the end point of research about Whitehead. It is a very tendentious version.Roger491127 (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid 20 eyewitnesses or 17 affidavits proves little, especially when they seem not to be contemporary sources or reliable ones. You can easily find many more who will assert they have experienced miracles (thousands judging by the number of saints beatified in modern times) or have seen UFOs. That is why WP demands more than eyewitness statements and individual testimony. The history net article is better but it's only one article with a particular agenda. And the investigations since 1960 are just investigations. If they result in good research on Whitehead that is published then that could be used as a source, but on their own they show nothing, and are not part of the history themselves.
So I agree, the version there at the moment gives too much weight to him based on far too thin evidence. Unless better sources can be found it should be restored to the above version to avoid giving undue weight to him.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Can I comment on your decision. You overlooked the contemporary sources, Dick Howell's article in the Sunday Herald, published by an eyewitness journalist a few days after the event, The retired airforce Major O'Dwyer made an extensive research of this journalist, read all his articles and found him to be a very accurate and truthful journalist who later advanced to be the chief editor of this weekly newspaper. You also overlooked the contemporary statement "In October, 1904, Professor John J. Dvorak, Professor of Physics at the University of Washington in St. Louis, announced publicly that Weisskopf was more advanced with the development of aircraft than other persons who were engaged in the work." You also overlooked the interest of Smithsonian Secretary Samuel Langley, who sent an assistant to take a close look at Whitehead's airplane when it was on an exhibition in Atlanta 1901, and he was especially interested in the construction of the motor. You also overlooked the interest by the Witteman brothers who visited Whitehead many times and bought motors from him and they started one of the first airplane factories in USA. You also overlooked the contemporary articles about him in magazines like Scientific American and American Inventor. You also overlooked the interest of Stanley Beach, the son of the editor of Scientific American, who talked his father into investing 10 000 dollars in Whitehead and who was in close contact with him until 1910 when Whitehead told him that Stanley's aircraft design could not work, Stanley became very angry at him and started making negative statements about Whitehead, conflicting with the positive statements he had made before this clash between them. (10 000 dollars then was like 250 000 dollars today.)
You also say "And the investigations since 1960 are just investigations. If they result in good research on Whitehead that is published then that could be used as a source, but on their own they show nothing, and are not part of the history themselves." but good research on Whitehead has been undertaken in modern times and has resulted in numerous publications, three books, Museums both available for visits and published on internet. The research by retired airforce Major O'Dwyer and others have been published both as books and on internet.
Quote:"but on their own they show nothing". How can you come to that conclusion, The research has resulted in a lot of knowledge about Whitehead, which has resulted in creation of museums about him, a legislature clash between Connecticut and North Carolina, three books published in modern times, the erection of monuments to his honor both in Connecticut and in Germany, and a proper gravestone on his grave, a ceremony attended by a lot of reputable people from the US airforce and others, a big conflict between the Smithsonian and critics of the Smithsonian who think this reputable institution sold their integrity for a replica of Flyer I in 1948 and signed a contract in which the Smithsonian promised to never mention any powered flights before 1903 and the Smithsonian refused to show that contract until use of the freedom of information act and senatorial clout forced them to show it (so the research about Whitehead's flights caused a lot of conflicts in modern times), a program on the Discovery channel and a lot of interest among millions of people. Could a "fringe" person, a myth or a small sect leader cause so much attention and conflicts in modern times?
Your comparison with world religions is not fair, because if they would be considered fringe phenomena they should hardly be mentioned in wikipedia. The fact is that hundreds of millions of people believe in religions which have much much less of realworld hard evidence to support them than the story about Whitehead has. Roger491127 (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
As for what weight to give Gustave Whitehead, GW was one of many dozens of experimenters who attempted to construct heavier-than-air, powered flying machines in the mid-to-late 19th Century and early 20th Century, prior to 17 December 1903. He is not exceptional or unique in that regard. His work was largely derivative, based on the work of others - nothing wrong with that - but almost all of his constructions of engines and machines lacked originality. He is also one of many who possibly managed to make short hops into the air, something which already had been accomplished many years before GW began his work.
So, what weight should we give to GW ? A very tiny fraction of that given Wilbur and Orville Wright and Otto Lilienthal; a very great deal less than that given Alphonse Penaud, the Du Temple brothers, A. F. Mozhayskiy, Alberto Santos-Dumont, Samuel P. Langley, Percy Pilcher, John J. Montgomery, Octave Chanute, and Augustus Herring, among many others; and more than Henry Laurens Call, the builder of the enormous and ground-bound Girard "Mayfly" flying machine.
What makes Gustave Whitehead of interest, in my opinion, are two things... 1) the continuing flurry of arguments and heated discussion which surround the claims made by him and on his behalf (more a sociological phenomenon than an aeronautical one); and 2) his single-mindedness of purpose - the fact that he devoted so much of his life to attempting to fly. Despite being quite poor, he worked on the problem of flight almost non-stop from 1897 until 1911, and there is some slight evidence that his interest and activities date back to 1887/1888. His position in aviation history has become a complicated matter because of exaggerated claims, and outright falsehoods, made by him and on his behalf, and that has negatively impacted on whether mainstream aviation institutions and historians want to be associated with the topic.
Roger's approach to GW is not unique, many of GW's advocates take a similar stance... being aggressive and hostile, casting personal attacks on those who will not 'see the light' and making some deep conspiracy to deny GW his proper place the motivation of those who disagree that GW flew first. These are all aspects of cult-like behaviors, but they do not advance the historical argument one nanometre.
GW's advocates have apparently confabulated an alternative-reality history, or so it appears to me, wherein GW flew first as "proven" by a very suspect newspaper article and a series of confusing and contradictory anachronistic affidavits, wherein the Wright brothers took GW's "secrets"for their own use, and wherein a reproduction flying machine with slightly more wing surface area and weighing 100kg less than the original and using modern lightweight engines and modern efficient propellers "proves" that GW's machine flew - those are only a couple among many examples.
In this reality's history, we know GW built a series of interesting (and, in the case of No.21, quite beautiful) machines meant to fly and engines meant to power flight. We know he was devoted to the task and we know some people who knew him thought him to be a dreamer who had a difficult time distinguishing his desires from his reality, while others were loyal to him and his memory for many decades after his death. We also know GW has become a vessel into which some people have poured, to overflowing, their misgivings about large historical institutions, their distrust of "official history," their nativist tendencies, and their desire for social justice. It has become difficult to even discuss GW the human being in a manner in which those feelings do not erupt, so the discussion often reverts to arguments over some supposed event or a flurry of tedious explanations why this or that did or did not happen.
Roger continues to misstate matters (as just above when he states that the photographs O'Dwyer found in the attic were of the No.21 monoplane of 1901, they were not - they were of a 1910 biplane built by GW), and offers web-sources which often have misstated and misquoted the evidence and have contained obvious factual errors. I am beginning to believe he is firmly set on being intentionally disruptive, although I hope that is not the case. We owe our readers balanced and neutral, verifiable content, don't we, Roger ?
I want to thank Roger for sending me a hostile e-mail demanding that I read the GW Wiki article, for without his confrontational message I would not be here, working on the Wiki aspect of aviation history in general, and GW, in particular.
Again, much of this discussion should be happening on the Gustave Whitehead article Discussion page, shouldn't it ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Let me introduce Carroll Gray with his latest editing trick: Instead of the original text
"American technicians of several companies like Boeings, Sikorsky, Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed, "The specialists experiences ranged from V2 to the nuclear submarines"
he suggested inserting "from Boeing, Sikorsky, Pratt & Whitney, and Lockheed, worked on the project, whose experiences ranged from the Nazi "V2" "Vengeance" rocket of WWII to nuclear submarine design." into the article.
In this way he managed to introduce the word Nazi into the text. That is just one, the latest, example of how he is trying to introduce formulations which will give the reader an impression filled with doubt and despise.
In this case he had to falsify the text the reference points to.
Study the discussion page of Gustave Whitehead and you will get to know Carroll F. Gray and his agenda and his methods better. Roger491127 (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Roger, really, the very mention of the V2 "Vengeance/Vergeltungswaffe" rocket brings in the Nazi regime, I didn't do that, you did when you cited the quote that mentioned the "V2." What I did was specify exactly what the ambiguous "V2" in your quote referred to. There are several items named "V2" - including roller skis... and you might be familiar with the electronic "V2" e-book device, or the electronic game of that name. So, specifying what "V2" refers to in your quote, the one you chose, seems perfectly proper to me.
Also, I reject your accusation that I "falsified" anything - I restated the text of the quote you offered, and clarified the meaning of one term - I did not "falsify" anything. This strikes me as coming very close to you making a personal attack. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The "I just tried to clarify.." would be my preferred defense tactic too, if I had used the sneaky methods you used to get the word Nazi into the article.Roger491127 (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I studied the discussion page of Gustave Whitehead to find a specific text. I noted that somebody has made an archive 6, consisting of only one page of text. Normally we make archives when the discussion page has become too long, like 30 pages or so, so why has somebody made such a short archive. This is just an example of curious things going on in that talk page. A few days ago I found that Carroll F. Gray had deleted parts of the discussion page, so I reinserted the text and told Carroll F. Gray that deleting text from discussion pages is not acceptable behavior in wikipedia.
I didn't find the text I was looking for, but I found support for the sentence I deleted from the Whitehead section in Aviation history, that Whitehead used a big machine for rotating airplanes around it: "The dimensions of the aircraft described by Dickie have nothing at all in common with those of machine No 21, which Weisskopf tested on l4 August; therefore, Dickie cannot have been acquainted with that aeroplane. When Major O'Dwyer spoke with him about the affidavit, "(He) admitted that the engine described in it was one stationed upon the ground, having heavy boilers transmitting steam through a hose to the pipe, causing it to revolve for the testing of tethered aircraft." Roger491127 (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
In the Whitehead subsection, I would support including tightly-edited text about:
The reported flight of Aug. 14, 1901
The claimed lengthy flights over Long Island Sound
The existence of affidavits by people who said they saw flights.
All such text, as currently written, needs some re-writing and correcting.
I also point out that User:Roger491127 carelessly exaggerates and distorts the facts when claiming:
"it has become increasingly probable that Gustave Whitehead built and flew airplanes years before the Wrights. The latter view is shared by reputable institutions like the legislative institution in Connecticut, and by the tv channel Discovery, and by Readers Digest as early as around 1945, it is today supported by museums both in USA and in Germany and by CAHA (Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association), New England Air Museuem, etc"
The Connecticut legislature called Whitehead the "Father of Connecticut Aviation," not the first man to make an airplane flight. Readers Digest repeated claims by Whitehead's son Charles, for whom I have seen no source saying that he saw any flights. The CAHA researched Whitehead's reported flights. No source in the main Whitehead article says that CAHA supports a "first flight" claim for Whitehead. The CAHA owns and operates the New England Air Museum for which I know of no source (including its website) that says it recognizes a "first flight" by Whitehead. I have not seen the Discovery Channel program, but the Channel's website refers to Whitehead's reported flight using the words "allegedly", "supposedly" and "apparently". I know of no claims for Whitehead supported by "etc". Of all the sources mentioned by User:Roger491127, only a museum in Germany, in Whitehead's hometown, explicitly supports a "first flight" claim for GW. DonFB (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Roger has made a false accusation that I "had deleted parts of the discussion page, so I reinserted the text and told Carroll F. Gray that deleting text from discussion pages is not acceptable behavior in wikipedia." I told him very clearly on the GW article Discussion page that I did not delete any discussion, and have not and never will do so. This false accusation is but one of many times Roger has made disparaging comments about me, rather than staying focused on the content.
Also, note that in the spirit of community, I have changed my wording in the GW article from "Nazi 'V2' 'Vengeance' rocket of WWII" to now read "WWII German 'V2' 'Vengeance/Vergeltungswaffe' rocket" which serves the purpose of specifying what the formerly ambiguous "V2" means. I would not mention that on this page except for Roger throwing it into the discussion here, as I know it properly belongs on the GW article Discussion page. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It is still a falsification of the text the reference refers too, and introducing German WWII terms is still an example of spindoctoring the text to discredit Whitehead by association to Nazis in WWII. Please just quote the text as it is written so the reference becomes correct. Roger491127 (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an example of the kind of discussions which can happen when Carroll Gray is involved, the first two texts are written by him:
I know from personal experience that a very minor chop in the water can toss a flat-bottomed boat out of the water. In this case, the flat bottomed boat-like fuselage would have also been pulled along by tractor propellers, so, you see, it is not the impossibility you believe it to be.
I did not say in my article or here that G.W. lifted off (made a take off) the surface of Long Island Sound (assuming that G.W. did anything 17 January 1902 on Long Island Sound), I did not say he made a flight then, either... I said he might have made hops in the water which he considered to be flying. I do not believe there is any evidence to support the notion that G.W. made "flights" in our current meaning of that word. That does not make G.W. a liar, though, if his definition of a "flight" was different from our current one. As I say in my article, simply lifting off the ground and making short hops with wings extended and propellers turning, after running along a road with the wings folded in, could easily be thought of by most people in 1901 or 1902 as a flight.
DonFB wrote this about Carroll Gray's theories: "Now, having spent so much time learning about him, I accept that he probably made some "hops". So, I find your new construct about what a "flight" means quite interesting and "creative". I do have some quibbles with the article, among them, your comment that discussion about GW has been "essentially static since 1937". That seems to overlook the Kosch and German experiments, not to mention everything O'Dwyer wrote and did. I wonder how you interpret GW's own statement (as shown in his letter to American Inventor, copied in the American GW website) that he achieved a "height" of 200 feet over L.I. Sound. The word is unequivocal; it does not appear to be an ambiguous measurement that might apply to distance. Your theory about his hopping-skipping flight offers a not-unreasonable middle ground for debaters to move toward, but the "height" question is another matter."
What I was really searching for was my own (Roger's) comment about this but I can't find it. Anyway, it went like this: Carroll Gray, do you seriously suggest that Whitehead thought he was flying while he was really cruising around on the water surface in a 7 miles circle on the water of Long Island Sound, sometimes airborne for a few feet when thrown off the crest of a wave? Roger491127 (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
A few sentences. Whitehead was severely discredited by Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith, Orville Wright and by other aviation historians who give more credence to affidavits signed by people who worked closely with Whitehead such as James Dickie, John J. Dvorak and Stanley Y. Beach than to any number of affidavits signed many years later by those who did not know much about Whitehead's work, and who were not personally involved with construction, financing and testing. Beach, Dickie and Dvorak agree that Whitehead never flew. See Talk:Gustave_Whitehead#From_the_Gibbs-Smith_book for detailed quotes. Whitehead should only be given a few sentences in this article. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
How "creative", to focus on the three people who were very angry at Whitehead. As Dickie said in a phone interview with O'Dwyer: "I would never credit Whitehead with anything because he never paid what he owned me and my father." But O'Dwyer noted that Dickie did not deny that he was present August 14 1901, he just refused to talk about it. Roger491127 (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I should think anyone with common sense would be angry at Whitehead, the way he promised the sky, spun tales, and never delivered. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Roger, what is the point of discussing my WW I AERO article on GW's aerial experiments here, instead of the GW article Discussion page ? Actually, since my WW1 AERO article on GW is not referenced in the GW Wiki article, why is it being discussed here at all ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Roger, again, discuss these GW Wiki article-related matters on the GW Wiki article Discussion page. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
A one or two sentence reference to GW should be placed under the sub-section "Other early flights" (which should probably be changed to "Other early flights & flight claims") and GW should not have a separate section here, as do Langley, the Wrights and Santos-Dumont - that places him in an elevated status which does not reflect mainstream thought and thus the Aviation History article appears to endorse the claims of "flights" made by and on behalf of GW. There should be a link to the GW Wiki article and only a brief mention here. I will offer the one or two sentence reference in a few hours. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Carroll, this is a formal procedure called an RFC and it has been placed here in the talk page of Aviation history. Roger491127 (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
And, Caroll, wikipedia is not about truth or your original research and ideas, it is based on verifiable sources, and verifiable sources say that Whitehead built and flew motorized airplanes more than two years before the Wright brothers. This is supported by a number of witnesses, around 40 eyewitnesses, and reconstruction work by very qualified experts who made blueprints from the very good photos of Whitehead's nr21, and three replicas made after these blueprints have flown, refuting arguments stating that his construction could not have flown. Roger491127 (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
DonFB and Binksternet do not seem to understand how an RFC works. First DonFB deleted this part from my version:
The Whitehead airplanes 21 and 22 were, as told by many witnesses, so stable in the air that Whitehead could take his hands off the controls and the airplane kept its attitude in the air so steady that it was even difficult to make it turn, until he realized that he could use his body weight to bank the airplane and make it turn. When Whitehead wanted to land he simply aimed for a suitable landing place and turned off the motor and he could watch as the airplane landed itself, and both the airplane and the pilot were undamaged. See, for example the article in Bridgeport Herald by Dick Howell about stability.[1]
Note that the steadyness of Whitehead's airplane was described in Dick Howell's article, it was also supported by affidavits by Harworth and others, so Don FB's deletion is conflicting with verifiable sources.
Then Binksternet replaced my version with his own version of the Whitehead section, during ongoing RFC procedure which has not been declared concluded yet. I therefor revert to my version which has been present during this RFC discussion, because that is the version we are discussing about. Roger491127 (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
A very similar version has been present in Aviation history for years. I just added a lot of references to the already present statements and added a few sentences to the old article, before a new version, much shorter and belittling version was placed there by Binksternet and Bilcat and a revert war happened between them and me. And as I cannot win a revert war against two or more enemies this RFC has been started by SarekOfVulcan to determine the issue. Roger491127 (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Roger, why not suggest a couple or three sentences that give an overview of GW's work ? The mainstream view is that GW does not merit being placed along-side the Wrights and Langley and so on. Wikipedia expresses the mainstream view in a neutral manner. So, posting tons of words here will not change that mainstream view. Since that is so, why not suggest some sentences and let's work to see if we can agree on what could be said here in the Aviation History page about GW. We can then work on the GW Wiki article page. Would you be willing to do that ? I'll hold off on offering my own sentences for a day or so until you've had a change to respond. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The "mainstream view" doesn't have a lot of weight in wikipedia. Try to look for the article Tiananmen Massacre or the article Tiananmen Square Massacre and you will be redirected to an article called Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, and the content of the article is very different from the "mainstream view", because it is built on verifiable sources, not on the "mainstream view". Roger491127 (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Roger, you didn't respond about offering a couple or three sentences that give an overview of GW's work. Will you do that ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is my suggested text for Gustave Whitehead to appear in the section "Other early flights & claims of flights"
Gustave Whitehead, a poor German immigrant to the US, claimed an August 14, 1901, half-mile flight about sunrise and also claimed a January 17, 1902, 7 mi. circling flight over Long Island Sound - these claims are generally not accepted as truthful. Affidavits signed more than 30 years and more than 60 years after the claimed flights both supported and contradicted those claims. He built many aerial machines and aeronautical engines and patented one glider design in 1908.
Here is the smaller version of the Whitehead dispute, reduced in size to match Wikipedia guidelines for WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, with references extracted and listed underneath:
Gustave Whitehead's aircraft was represented in a sketch in the Bridgeport Herald.
On August 14, 1901, in Fairfield, Connecticut, Gustave Whitehead reportedly flew his engine-powered Number 21 for 800 metres (2,600 ft) at 15 metres (49 ft) height. In January 1902, he claimed to have flown 11 kilometres (6.8 mi) over Long Island Sound in the improved Number 22. After 1903, Whitehead faded from public awareness.
Three decades later, Whitehead's possible flights emerged from obscurity after the events were featured in a 1935 newspaper article and a 1937 book. Aviation experts debated the topic, and some decided for Whitehead, while others such as Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith said it could not have occurred.
I think this shortened section meets all the needs of this article about aviation history, and clearly shows the reader where to find out more about the dispute. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That's very good, Binksternet, but I would change "and some decided for Whitehead, while others such as" to read "and a few decided for Whitehead, while the great majority, such as Charles Gibbs-Smith, said it could not have occurred" Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
A fine recommendation. Agreed. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, this GW piece belongs not in its own Section but within the "Other flights & claims of flights" so I will move it there. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but now the template which points to the "main article" about Whitehead is out of place. That sort of template goes below a section header. I think it should be removed, as the reader can easily click on Whitehead's name to go to that article, or click on the Whitehead No. 21 link. Removing template. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing that and changing it, Binksternet. Live and learn, thanks. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
RfC still going
The RFC discussion has not ended so I restored the version we are discussing about.
I still want to protest against that this RFC is undertaken in the talk page of Aviation history, where the majority of the editors are partial, which is exactly what I am complaining about. It is like letting the local police investigate themselves instead of getting an impartial institution investigate the local police when somebody complains about how they treat people or cases, for example.
Note that Whitehead is the strongest contender to the Wright brother in the issue of who flew first, therefor he needs a detailed section which can be compared with the Wright brothers section. Roger491127 (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
A consensus is emerging from the RfC, one achieved by DonFB, Carroll F. Gray and Binksternet. If you revert to your preferred version, supported only by yourself, you are edit warring against consensus. Note that consensus does not mean unanimity.
Whitehead is only the strongest contender in the minds of his fans. Everybody else considers him a fraud or a dreamer. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Binksternet wrote at User talk:Roger491127: "This pair of edits you made to Aviation history demonstrate a continuation of edit warring. You are reverting to your preferred version against the consensus achieved by DonFB, Binksternet and Carroll F. Gray. Edit warring may result in your account being blocked, so please stop."
You are a part of this conflict, and you have made as many reverting changes as me, so I don't think you are suitable as arbitrator in this issue. I would like to see this issue determined by people who are impartial, people who have scientific education but do not have any preconceptions about aviation history. If they read the arguments from both sides in this issue I am certain that they would support me. Roger491127 (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
What use do we have of an RFC if it is decided by exactly the people who were acting in a partial and incorrect way to begin with? An RFC should be determined in a forum where impartial people decide the outcome. Roger491127 (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Text by me here was deleted with the motivation that the text was already present at another place in this discussion page. My reason for copying it here was to get it into the RFC section. This time I will not make the mistake of copying text here, I will move text here instead, with a comment replying to Binksternet.
Harworth said that nr21 was flown along a street from one Avenue to the next avenue where Whitehead landed and then turned the airplane around and started again and flew back to the starting place and landed there. This shows that nr21 was very controllable and landed without being damaged. Harworth also was present at the longest flight August 14 1901 and says that the flight was one and a half mile long, which is also told later by Whitehead himself. That he could do four flights the same day shows how soft landings nr21 did because it was undamaged every time it landed. Whitehead's and Pruckner's witness statements about what happened over Long Island Sound shows that nr21 could land in water undamaged because a second flight was made after the first, it also shows the stability in the air, because it was even difficult to make it turn, By slowing down one of the propellers and using the rudder Whitehead could make a very slow turn which resulted in a circle 7 miles long, he then aimed the airplane at a suitable place in the water near the shore where his helpers stood and turned off the motor and the airplane landed for the second time that day undamaged in the water and his helpers pulled the airplane out of the water.
August 14 1901 Howell tells us that Whitehead used another method for a much faster turn to avoid some trees, he used his body weight to bank and turn the plane around the trees. Howell says in his article that Whitehead turned around and waved to his friends, so he did not need to keep his hands on the controls all the time "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.". Howell then tells us that Whitehead aimed the airplane at a suitable landing place, turned off the motor, and the plane landed so softly that Whitehead and the plane was undamaged. That he made three more flights the same day also tells us that the plane landed so softly that it was not damaged. So I think I have good support in verifiable sources for a statements that says that nr21 was very stable in the air and that it landed itself softly and undamaged on both land and water after Whitehead had turned off the motor.
Howell's article: "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." Roger491127 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I have now checked the text you deleted and based on my argumentation above I restored it, with one little change, I left out the word "many" from the phrase "many witnesses", because I have at least Howell and Pruckner, which makes the word witnesses into plural form, but the word "many" is maybe too much before I have checked more sources. Roger491127 (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I simply ignored the change made by Carroll F Gray after DonFB's change because I hope most people will agree with me that Carroll lives in his own world. He has said that Whitehead probably thought he was flying when he really just made small hops, on land and at sea, which is clearly conflicting with height numbers like Howell's 50 feet above ground, and Whitehead supported by Pruckner 200 feet above the water.
I commented Carrolls idea about hopping off wavecrests like this: Do you really mean that Whitehead thought he was really flying 200 feet above the water while he was actually cruising on the water surface of Long Island Sound in a big 7 miles circle and maybe was thrown a few feet off a wavecrest now and then? Roger491127 (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Even DonFB, who is usually against me and siding with Carroll to form a majority against me had to question Carrolls idea of small hops. DonFB:"I wonder how you interpret GW's own statement (as shown in his letter to American Inventor, copied in the American GW website) that he achieved a "height" of 200 feet over L.I. Sound. The word is unequivocal; it does not appear to be an ambiguous measurement that might apply to distance. Your theory about his hopping-skipping flight offers a not-unreasonable middle ground for debaters to move toward, but the "height" question is another matter." Roger491127 (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Discussion about Roger491127's behavior
I was forced by Binksternet into a formal procedure called an informal procedure for insulting Carroll F Gray a week ago. That procedure was ended with no result I have heard about. I was not warned or reprimanded or blocked, I heard nothing about the result of that procedure, the discussion was just removed from where it was held, which gives me the impression that the people who reviewed the case did not think I had insulted Carroll in a degree which needed any action. Roger491127 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
A few more words about Carroll F Gray. A central idea on his web page is "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." I have tried many times to explain to him how strange that idea is, to let his wife have the last word on if he flew or not, when at least 40 people knew more about Whitehead's experiments in aviation, and we know from interviews and other sources that Mrs. Whitehead hated his occupation with aviation, and she was very busy with taking care of the home, the children, the cow, the chickens, the garden and she had to work outside the home to support the economy of the family. So she had neither any interest nor time to watch any flights.
This argument does not influence Carroll F Gray the least, he continues to say that Mrs. Whitehead should have the last word on the issue of if Whitehead flew or not. To me that is a proof that Carroll F Gray lives in his own world and harbors ideas which are impossible to understand for other people. Roger491127 (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
From http://www.michaelmccafferty.com/adventures/euro/072097.htm
"Here's a photograph of the monument erected just outside the ancient walls of Leutershausen, honoring their most famous citizen. What you see here is a replica of Weisskopf's flying machine No. 21, perched atop the monument." There is a similar monument in Connecticut. Those monuments adds to the reasons to not treat Whitehead as a fringe person. Roger491127 (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
"'In 1963,' O'Dwyer said, 'when I read of Dickie's denial, I wondered if he was the same Jim Dickie I'd known ever since I was a youngster. I phoned him, and although he was much older than I, he remembered me well and we kidded each other about the old days. But his mood changed to anger when I asked him about Gustave Whitehead.
'He flatly refused to talk about Whitehead, and when I asked him why, he said: 'That SOB never paid me what he owed me. My father had a hauling business and I often hitched up the horses and helped Whitehead take his airplane to where he wanted to go. I will never give Whitehead credit for anything. I did a lot of work for him and he never paid me a dime.' I noticed, though, that Dickie did not tell me he was not with Whitehead on August 14, 1901, saying simply, 'I don't want to talk about it.' Also, he did not say he never knew anyone named Andrew Cellie-not surprising since Cellie was Dickie's next-door neighbor on Tunis Hill in Fairfield, and they both hung around Whitehead's shop.'
O'Dwyer, searching through old Bridgeport city directories in the 1970s, found that Andrew Cellie, a Swiss or German immigrant also known as Zulli and Suelli, had moved to the Pittsburgh area in 1902. Meanwhile, Cellie's former neighbors in Fairfield assured O'Dwyer that Cellie had 'always claimed he was present when Whitehead flew in 1901.'" Roger491127 (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2010 (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) 17:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
"Ironically, several flight experimenters who later dismissed Whitehead as a fraud showed a strange curiosity about his work. Testimony exists, for example, that the Wright brothers visited Whitehead's Bridgeport shop in 1901 and 1902 and had discussions with him. Among the witnesses were Anton Pruckner, Whitehead's young machinist and engine assistant, and Cecil Steeves, another of Whitehead's young neighbor helpers. Asked in later years how he knew the two men were the Wright brothers, Pruckner replied, 'They had to introduce themselves.' He said the pair visited 'more than one time.' Steeves, in a recorded interview in 1937, said he remembered a visit by the Wrights. 'They came from Ohio,' he said, 'and under the guise of offering to help finance Whitehead's inventions, actually received inside information about his work…. After they had gone away, Mr. Whitehead turned to me and said, 'Now that I have given them the secrets of my invention they will probably never do anything in the way of financing me'-a good prophesy, as it turned out.'" Roger491127 (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
"Thanks to members of the CAHA and the 9315th Reserve Squadron, a headstone replaced spike 42 at commemorative graveside ceremonies on August 15, 1964. The granite stone bore a likeness of Airplane No. 21 and the inscription, 'Gustave Whitehead, January 1, 1874–October 10, 1927. Father of Connecticut Aviation.' Present were aviation pioneers Charles Wittemann and Clarence Chamberlin. Whitehead's then surviving daughters-Rose Rennison, Lilian Baker and Nellie Kusterer-were present, as were Anton Pruckner and representatives of all U.S. Armed Forces, the CAHA, the 9315th Squadron, and state and local governments. A statement from Connecticut Governor John Dempsey proclaimed August 15 as 'Gustave Whitehead Day,' as did statements from Bridgeport and Fairfield officials."
This was the quote I was looking for. Note all the attention and people who were present and what they represented when a gravestone for Whitehead was erected. No "fringe" person could have been honored by so many and reputable persons and institutions. Roger491127 (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Quote from Binksternet: "Whitehead is only the strongest contender in the minds of his fans. Everybody else considers him a fraud or a dreamer." Do you really think Whitehead can be seen as a fraud or a dreamer when you look at the list of institutions and people present when his gravestone was erected? Roger491127 (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I do. No matter how many people you find who believe in Whitehead, the greater number who dispute his claim are not thrust aside. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Quote from Carroll Gray: " in the 18 August 1901 article we have GW telling us he essentially rode the machine, turning off the engine driving the propellers to land, but otherwise being a passive passenger until he has a flash of insight and shifts his body weight to change the direction in which he's heading. Assuming that it even happened, whatever else might be said about that, it's difficult to call that a "controlled" flight." If you compare that with the landing one of the Wright brothers made after managing to keep Flyer I in the air for 260 meter, when the front rudder was broken, wasn't Whitehead's landing a lot more controlled, soft and safe? He only made a little adjustment of the direction just before landing, and the machine landed itself safely after he had turned off the motor. Note that he always landed exactly where he wanted to land and he landed without damage to the airplane or himself. Remember Harworth's affidavit about Whitehead starting from one avenue, flying along a street and landing on the next avenue, turning the airplane around, starting again and flying back to the starting point. Don't you realize that he must have had very good control of his airplane, flying along a street in a town twice without crashing into people, horses, cars, telephone poles, houses, trees, etc... and landing twice at a place on an avenue which was big enough and free from hinder. Roger491127 (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Moving Jimbo's reference text here:
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
Note the text above about erecting the gravestone: "Present were aviation pioneers Charles Wittemann and Clarence Chamberlin. Whitehead's then surviving daughters-Rose Rennison, Lilian Baker and Nellie Kusterer-were present, as were Anton Pruckner and representatives of all U.S. Armed Forces, the CAHA, the 9315th Squadron, and state and local governments. A statement from Connecticut Governor John Dempsey proclaimed August 15 as 'Gustave Whitehead Day,' as did statements from Bridgeport and Fairfield officials."
Note that the "few fans" Binksternet is talking about includes "representatives of all U.S. Armed Forces, the CAHA, the 9315th Squadron, and state and local governments" and aviation pioneers Charles Wittemann and Clarence Chamberlin. A statement from Connecticut Governor John Dempsey proclaimed August 15 as 'Gustave Whitehead Day,' as did statements from Bridgeport and Fairfield officials."
So in which of Jimbo's categories can we place Whitehead? A fringe person? Hardly, considering the representation and attention around his gravestone. It seems much more suitable to place him in the category "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents", that means not a fringe person. Roger491127 (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Note also the last sentence from Jimbo: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
So proper weight is not determined by wikipedia editors or the mainstream view. Compare with the mainstream view of the Tianmen Square massacre and the article in wikipedia which is far from the mainstream view spread by media, mainly USA dominated media. Roger491127 (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Whitehead's gravestone is not the touchstone for relevance and weight. His gravestone is not a whole picture of 1900 aviation efforts. No amount of monuments, plaques and gravestones dedicated to Whitehead will sway the argument about appropriate WP:WEIGHT. The question of how much weight to give Whitehead is answered in books on aviation history and about aviation pioneers. Unlike your assertion that the "mainstream view" doesn't determine weight, Jimbo points to WP:Reliable sources such as mainstream books. Here are some I found:
Picture history of early aviation, 1903-1913, which has two photos and a handful of sentences about Whitehead, and states that "it is doubtful that this [1901] machine ever flew at all." It concludes: "Whitehead was one of many experimenters who, despite claims to the contrary ...contributed nothing at all to the progress of aviation."
The influence of air power upon history, page 28, by Walter Boyne. One sentence in the whole book: "Gustave Whitehead made fanciful claims that could never be corroborated about an aircraft of dubious strength and lift that had one mysterious engine for ground run, and another mysterious engine for flight."
Aeronautics and space flight collections. A list of collections of historic papers and archival memorabilia important to aviation. Lists early flight pioneers Chanute, Langley, the Wrights, etc. No mention of Whitehead.
Wilbur and Orville: A Biography of the Wright Brothers. A handful of pages mention Whitehead. Words such as "preposterous", "incredible", "ridiculous" and "mythical" attend Whitehead's purported flights. Albert Zahm is identified as the person who with "malicious spite" was behind the 35-year attempt to "malign" the Wrights and oust them as first to fly. In the footnotes, it identifies O'Dwyer as joining with Stella Randolph to reopen the effort.
By the way, I did not write "few fans", I wrote "fans", as in "minds of his fans". I think it is fine that Whitehead has fans, more than a few, though they often act more like Wright detractors than Whitehead fans. The point I will keep returning to is that there are far more historians and aviation experts who do not think Whitehead flew in 1901 or 1902. His fans constitute the fringe. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I did not refer to his gravestone but the organisations and prominent people who were present and the other people who gave him a lot of attention, see above. Your list of books are mainly old and written by institutions and people who had an interest in discrediting Whitehead. Several of them written before the modern investigations during the 1960s and forward, some written by the Smithsonian which had their dirty hands to hide. Gibbs-Smith is repeating Orville's arguments from 1945 which have been refuted on point after point. The Smithsonian also used Orville's arguments to discredit Whitehead. The first argument Orville used was "Why would a newspaper wait 4 days with publishing such an extraordinary story if it was true? Refutation: Sunday Weekly was a weekly newspaper so it was only published on Sundays. And so it goes on about point after point in Orville's statements, which were used as the basis for most of the books you mention. Roger491127 (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's assume your position has some merit. We are working on the question of how much weight to give Whitehead in this overview article. The mainstream sources give us a choice of nothing about Whitehead or very little. I do not choose nothing, I choose very little. The refutations of the mainstream sources would all go at the Gustave Whitehead article, not here. Binksternet (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The refutations of the mainstream sources have been addressed at the Gustave Whitehead article, that's why I know it so well I do not even have to look it up. But we are discussing what weight Whitehead should have here, so I have to refer to the refutation of Orville's arguments here too, especially considering how much Orville's arguments have been spread and used by a lot of institutions and authors. Roger491127 (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
No, no arguments are needed here in this overview article. What we do is very briefly describe the guy's claim, and say that there is a dispute. The weight given Whitehead in mainstream sources about aviation history sets his footprint here as nothing at all or very little. If we start arguing any of the points, pro or con, we go against WP:WEIGHT, and crack open the door for more in the future. Having no argument in this article correctly places that task at the man's biography article and gives this one the proper weight. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
You can use my version of the Whitehead section to describe to "describe the guy's claim" and add that those claims have been disputed by Orville Wright in 1945 and his refutation has been copied and repeated by the Smithsonian and aviation authors and have been the basis for discrediting Whitehead and in the contract signed by the Smithsonian in 1948 the Smithsonian promised to never mention any powered flights before 1903. That would give the reader a comprehensive view of Whitehead and the refutation of the claims made by Whitehead and around 40 witnesses about his achievements. Roger491127 (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
When it comes to determining WP:WEIGHT for Whitehead I want to refer to the text above about erecting the gravestone: "Present were aviation pioneers Charles Wittemann and Clarence Chamberlin. Whitehead's then surviving daughters-Rose Rennison, Lilian Baker and Nellie Kusterer-were present, as were Anton Pruckner and representatives of all U.S. Armed Forces, the CAHA, the 9315th Squadron, and state and local governments. A statement from Connecticut Governor John Dempsey proclaimed August 15 as 'Gustave Whitehead Day,' as did statements from Bridgeport and Fairfield officials."
And also:
"In 1968 Connecticut officially recognized Whitehead as "Father of Connecticut Aviation".
A person honored in all these ways by all these institutions and "prominent adherents" (in Jimbo's wording) cannot be treated as a fringe person. He must be placed in the category "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" (Jimbo's wording). Roger491127 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Books are actually not good references because an author sits alone at his keyboard and can write whatever he wants, he gets no criticism or comments while writing the book.
A better reference is the original research a person has to formulate to become a doctor, because it is criticized and scrutinized by a committee of examiners before it is accepted as correct and the person is given the title doctor.
"Criteria for award of research doctorates vary somewhat throughout the world, but typically requires the submission of a substantial body of original research undertaken by the candidate. This may take the form of a single thesis or dissertation, or possibly a portfolio of shorter project reports, and will usually be assessed by a small committee of examiners appointed by the university, and often an oral examination of some kind."
Even better reference are wikipedia articles, because they are constantly scrutinized, criticized and updated.
On the whole it is difficult to find really reliable sources, you have to go through a lot of sources and make a judgement about each source, how much it conforms with other sources, how old the source is, if the source has a hidden (or obvious) agenda, and after all this research you can make a judgement about the issue you are interested in.
But the main point I want to make is that books are clearly overvalued as reliable sources, especially in academic environments. Roger491127 (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Well first of all you have to edit within the current policies about which sources are considered reliable and which not. You can argue in favour of changes to policies at the policies talk pages. Secondly you are wrong about how academic books are produced - when primnted in academic presses they generally go through a peer review just as rigorous as for a doctoral dissertation or a journal article. Wikipedia articles are of course ridiculous to suggest as a source because that would be both circular and suggest that they are of a uniformly professional quality.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Let me clarify my point. Books which have not been academically peer reviewed are usually overvalued as sources, especially in academic environments. But even peer reviewed books can contain a lot of faults. I have studied at university and have seen many examples of this. The most common fault is omission of sections which should have been included but were omitted. Roger491127 (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
That still does not make wikipedia articles better sources. Or doctoral dissertations for that matter.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The fault of omitting sections which should have been included is exactly the problem we are discussing here too. Some people think we should omit a section about Whitehead because many books have omitted sections about Whitehead because the Smithsonian and Gibbs-Smith omitted sections about Whitehead because Orville Wright wrote down a bunch of reasons to omit Whitehead from the history of aviation, and his arguments have now been refuted, so the whole chain of omissions of Whitehead becomes faulty. Roger491127 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I inserted the refutation of Orville's arguments here but it was deleted because it was already published earlier on this page, so look it up above if you are interested. It is in the section called: About Gibbs-Smith, who has been used to discredit Whitehead in the Whitehead sectionRoger491127 (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
There was a clash between Beach and Whitehead in 1910 when Whitehead told Beach that Beach's airplane design could not work. Beach became very angry and after that he started to make negative statements about Whitehead, conflicting with the positive statements he had made before this event. In later years, after Whitehead's death Beach became more of a politician and sided with the Wrights and made even more damaging statements about Whitehead. See O'Dwyer about this. Roger491127 (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts
I have been watching this for a while, I have to say that there is a lot of text and it is difficult to navigate, perhaps an admin can add some headers or collapse more of it into shells? There have been complaints about impartiality, hopefully as a British citizen I would be impartial (if I could prove that a Brit flew a controlled powered flight first then I would!). I would like to say, quite honestly, that I had not heard of Gustave Whitehead before this discussion, in reading all about aviation since a small boy he has never featured. This disturbed me slightly so I made a special effort to search for him in my reasonably sized private library of good quality aviation books obtained from around the world. I found no mention of him. I do have access to a very large university library (that specialises in aviation subjects) and I will try to research him and his machines there. My views on the Whitehead No. 21, as an aircraft engineer, pilot, former professional gliding instructor and aeromodeller with a good grounding in stability and control, airframe structures, weights and power to weight ratios etc. is that this machine could only have got airborne by using a steep hill with a strong wind blowing and could not have sustained flight. Even then it would have been extremely dangerous and I read that it was apparently done at night as well? His 'fame' appears to be localised. The original RfC question was how much weight should he have in this (Aviation history) article. I would say, not much. Mention him and his claims by all means but that's it. I will try to see what there is in the University library because I am intrigued and if I find any new sources that said he flew then be sure that I will report it here. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
