Talk:History by Contract

message: A private email in my possession from the New England Air Museum states that O'Dwyer is now deceased. I could not find citable confirmation on the internet, but editors of this article may wish to locate such referenceable information and change the 2nd paragraph, which is a wholesale copy-and-paste from an 11-year old article when O'Dwyer was certifiably alive. DonFB 02:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Dwyer deceased 

message: O'Dwyer was alive at that posting. The article was likely from Flight Journal magazine, a division of Air Age, "who flew first" debate, "The Who Flew First Debate"
Flight Journal,  Oct 1998  by O'Dwyer, William J. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_/ai_n8815811
AeroHistorian (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is it that you seek - citation? 

message: This article should be about the O'Dwyer/Randolph book "History By Contract" but the third section is an advocacy blurb for G.W. - not stated as conclusions by O'Dwyer/Randolph, but stated as facts.
Note that Stella Randolph and Wm. O'Dwyer are listed as "co-authors" while the article states the book is by O'Dwyer.
There's a lot that can be said about the book.
Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is ripe for your contributions, Carroll. Certainly agree w/your observations about the 3rd section. Perhaps you can guess who wrote it. DonFB (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of Article

message: I plan to delete the third section entirely and provide a synopsis of the book's contents, utilizing material drawn from the book, as well as comments critical of the book from verifiable sources, and to source the material in the article. The article also will have a neutral tone. Any comments or suggestions or objections ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plan 

message: The "contract" of the book title refers to the Wright-Smithsonian agreement, which prohibits the Smithsonian from officially recognizing any manned, powered, controlled airplane flight before that of the Wright brothers on 17 December 1903. 
::The coauthors felt that the "contract" stifled inquiry into early aviation history and required Smithsonian to only recognize the Wrights, explaining its resistence to the evidence amassed on the flights of Gustave Whitehead.AviationHist1 (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title's meaning 

message: The article clearly states that Jane's accepts Whitehead as flying before the Wright brothers. But using the word "preponderance" in the article regarding the evidence that Jane's considered is, as I have stated, taking a point of view about the weight of the evidence. If a reliable source describes the evidence that Jane's considered as a "preponderance," we can say that in the article. Otherwise, it is only the opinion of an editor of the article to use that word. DonFB (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Jane's 

message: <<The article clearly states that Jane's accepts Whitehead as flying before the Wright brothers. But using the word "preponderance" in the article regarding the evidence that Jane's considered is, as I have stated, taking a point of view about the weight of the evidence. If a reliable source describes the evidence that Jane's considered as a "preponderance," we can say that in the article. Otherwise, it is only the opinion of an editor of the article to use that word. DonFB (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of Edits - Responses in Capitals 

message: Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral in its articles. You (AviationHist1) have made it pretty clear that you believe strongly in the flights reported and claimed for Whitehead, and your edits reflect your strong point of view. My goal in editing is to keep the article neutral. There is no universal verdict about what Whitehead did. Some people passionately believe the claims and reports about him. Other people, including respected historians and biographical authors, do not. So it is not appropriate for this article to say "he flew" or "his flights" or to use similar expressions without qualification, because there is no broad agreement among the public or professionals about such events. 
Unless or until there is very wide acceptance by historians that he flew, this article should use terms like "reported" or "claimed". That's what it means for this article to be neutral. The article should give the pro and the con according to reliable sources, but not try to give its own slanted view one way or the other. For example, Whitehead's reported flights are not unequivocally "now-acclaimed," as you wrote, except in certain circles, but not generally by everybody.
You can take this post as an explanatory preface to further editing I'll be doing as needed, but it's late now, so it will have to be tomorrow. DonFB (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More to come 

message: I noticed that there was a very misleading section in the Whitehead's Recognition section, so I corrected it, with citations from Library of Congress (not from your personal websites). Dr. John B. Crane is well-known for reversing his position on Whitehead and supporting his flights, but that was not mentioned, only his earlier one was mentioned with one of the editors here mentioning his opinion that concurred with the earlier negative opinion, as if that validated it. The Crane section is fixed now. To quote early negative statements seems part of the playbook to hoodwink the readers by those who have pro-Wright websites and edit this page and others concerning Gustave Whitehead. That is called bias and misinforming the public. AviationHist1 (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I clarified the matter of Crane's revised views. I would be much more comfortable if there could be a link to the second Crane article so it can be read directly. The current link is a citation. There have been examples of mis-statements, mis-quoting and mis-paraphrasing in the recent past and it would be good to have these quotes supported by a link to the material. It is not correct to say Crane reversed his views, he revised them and continued to credit the Wrights with the first full mastery of flying. Since the Crane material is quoted, where did the editor find the quotes ? A link to the source of the quotes would also help clarify the statements. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitehead's Recognition Changes 

message: I have removed two sections of text because the text was not about the book but about Whitehead and the dispute about him being first in powered, manned flight. This article about the book cannot be a WP:POVFORK, a rehashing of the Whitehead biography but with a different slant. Nor can it be used as a WP:COATRACK to cover a topic other than the book. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POVFORK removals 

message: As a result of the admitted Smithsonian bias in favour of Langley, the Wrights refused to allow the Flyer to be shown in the US except at one place - MIT on the Great Lawn (1916).  The Smithsonian is absolutely free to disavow the Flyer as long as it returns the exhibit - which seems not to violate any principles for a museum I know of.  seems neatly dispositive here.  This article, of course, is only about a book and its claims, but that does not mean that properly referenced material other than from the book is not utile.  Material related to the content of the book, even if not part of the book, is clearly proper under Wikipedia policy.  Collect (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Langley

message: Is an editor self-referencing a website they control acceptable under wiki standards and policies ? Information and guidance on this point would be appreciated - the only "external link" offered in this article raise the question for me and I cannot locate a germane wiki policy. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Carroll, I'd suggest studying the Conflict of Interest (WP:COI) guideline if you haven't seen it. The policy is quite detailed and may offer needed guidance. In this specific situation (adding a link to one's own website), it might be better to reach agreement with another editor who could add that kind of information (but not necessarily required; see below). As a knowledgeable writer on the topic, you're generally free to add content to articles; this particular circumstance might trigger a provision of the COI guideline. DonFB (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

text: The Guideline offers this brief advice, WP:COI#Citing_yourself, relevant to your question. DonFB (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, DonFB, the present issue is not so much about my own website(s), which others are free to link or to not link, but about the link that exists currently. In essence, this article is being used as an advertisement for that site. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, my error. I think the real problem with that site is that it offers no identifying information about itself, which makes its reliability questionable. If I'm not mistaken, it may already have been deleted once by another editor, possibly when it was used in a footnote. I would say under Wiki policies it could probably be deleted, but replacing it with a legitimate substitute would be a good idea, so readers can see the actual full the text of the Agreement online. DonFB (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History by Contract. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130506202509/http://www.historybycontract.com/contractFull.html to http://historybycontract.com/contractFull.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is supposedly about a book. Almost all of it instead relates to another subject - an agreement between the Smithsonian and the Wright estate. Where is the evidence that the book itself is notable? Where are the reviews etc necessary to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)? I am very tempted to nominate this article for deletion as a WP:COATRACK article, constructed in a manner to propagate an argument rather than discussing the book directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability - is this a WP:COATRACK?