Talk:Gustave Whitehead/Archive 1

message: Archive for Talk:Gustave Whitehead prior to 2008.
Not only is the spelling bad but the Wright's were part German too! How does that fit with the supposed discrimination. Especially at a time when German culture was well-respected in the US and German widely taught in schools, etc. Rmhermen 19:24, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
: Pardon my spelling, but feel free to correct it yourself. The Wright brothers were born on a small farm near Millville, Indiana. The issue about who flew first didn't became an issue until at least 1908 and the discussion went on well into WW1. // Liftarn
This page is factually wrong already in the first sentence. He flew 800m at 15m height in august 1901.
The Wright brothers were upper class, their father a bishop, they knew how to handle lawyers kind of thinking, to keep everything secret, file patents, write contracts, they knew how to talk to other people in high places. Whitehead was a poor immigrant and had to work for his living. After he had become known as motor builder he delivered motors to Curtiss, for example. He also had to work with investors with their own ideas he was forced to try to get to work.
:* The Wright Brothers were not "upper class"; they were thoroughly middle class. I remind you they earned their living fixing, building and selling bicycles, hardly an upper class profession. Simply because their father was a bishop in an obscure church did not make them wealthy or privileged; they were neither. Wilbur was probably a genius and could talk effectively to people, like lawyers. But the Wrights' muddled and largely inflexible efforts of 1906-07 showed they were out of their depth in dealing with national governments and big business as they tried to secure a contract for their invention. They wasted those years, allowing several European aviators and Curtiss to nearly catch up, when they could have publicly demonstrated their invention much sooner and thus avoided most of the controversy which dogged them in later years and festers even today in discussions such as this.   DonFB 4.227.254.199 16:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I would like to know more about claims the Wrights visited Whitehead. Did this take place when they were looking for an engine builder? If so, that would almost certainly have occurred in early 1903 when the Wrights wanted a powerplant, having already successfully devised three-axis control and flown with highly efficient wings of their own design. They would have nothing to learn about flight control or lifting surfaces from Whitehead at that point.  DonFB  4.228.111.44 21:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I want to ask other contributors about this, which I have heard of  in two places now.
At http://gustavewhitehead.org/photo_gallery/a_map_of_whiteheads_life_in.html there is a map of Bridgeport with locations associated with Whitehead marked.
In the upper left corner are 3 points mentioned, and site C has the text "Circular cement runway" and we can see point C on the map.
And a quote from http://www.historynet.com/historical_discoveries/3032816.html
"His U.S. aviation "firsts" numbered more than 20. They included, to name but a few, aluminum in engines and propellers, wheels for takeoff and landing, ground-adjustable propeller pitch, individual control of propellers (to aid in directional control), folding wings for towing on roads (resulting in what was possibly the world's first roadable airplane), silk for wing covering, and concrete for a runway."
Was the circular cement runway used by Whitehead?
What can a "circular cement runway" be used for anyway?
It would, of course, be a very good test track for an airplane anchored to a central pole.
If you first attach a long piece of timber to the central pole, so it can rotate freely, then attach ropes between the timber log and the airplane placed on the circular cement runway so it can be tested  safely. It would be the next best thing to a fullscale windtunnel.
If  an airplane works well flying around a center pole above a circular cement runway it should fly well straight ahead too, if the construction is symmetrical.
Ropes can hinder the airplane from flipping over backwards or forwards without hindering normal flight above the concrete runway which works as starting and landing runway.
Does anybody have any information about this circular cement runway on the map, dimensions?, purpose?, and did Whitehead use it?
Roger491127 (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Circular cement runway?

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

message: A few excerpts from Beach's reports in Scientific American in 1906 and 1908 contradict Orville's version of Beach's beliefs about Whitehead. 
Beach's reports referred to powered flights in 1901 by Whitehead in the issues of January 27, November 24 and December 15, 1906, and January 25, 1908. Included were these phrases: "Whitehead in 1901 and Wright brothers in 1903 have already flown for short distances with motor-powered aeroplanes," "Whitehead's former bat-like machine with which he made a number of flights in 1901," "A single blurred photograph of a large bird-like machine constructed by Whitehead in 1901 was the only photo of a motor-driven aeroplane in flight." 
The last quote is from a long article by Beach on the first annual exhibit held by the newly formed Aero Club of America at the 69th Regiment Armory in New York City. The report appeared in Scientific American, January 27, 1906. Roger491127 (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stanley Y Beach

message: In the Towed flight section
The reference is incorporated in the text itself, so this tag is not motivated. Roger491127 (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of tag

message: Removed the citation needed tags, because Pruckner's affidavit, plus the witnesses who described how Captain Brown viewed the event, noted it in his logbook, together justify the expression multiple witnesses. That the logbook and the photo has not been found yet does not make these witnesses useless. These witnesses exist, it is only the photo and the logbook which are missing.  Note that Pruckner, Whitehead himself, and the witnesses who told the researchers about captain Brown means that at least 3 people support the 1902 flight.
"About 15 years ago, a friend rummaging through the attic of a house in East 
Lyme, Conn., told Kosch he came across the captain's leather-bound journal 
containing a picture of Whitehead in flight with a description of the 
spectacle. 
Later, when he learned of the journal's value, the friend attempted to 
retrieve it, Kosch says, but the owners had moved to California. Kosch 
eventually made contact with them, but they later told him they could not 
find the journal, he says, and the search for it met a dead end. " 
Captain Browns full name: Beckwith Brown.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple witnesses, citation needed tags

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

message: While I was making all references into standard footnotes you made some changes and suggestions, so there was an edit conflict. Considering that I had worked a lot more than you I restored and saved my changes. Nice, huh? Proper footnotes. Now I will look at your changes and decide what to do about them.
Let's discuss your changes one by one: Roger491127 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. DonFB (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit conflict

message: I am adding material on Randolph and O'Dwyer. I also propose the "Airplanes" section immediately follow the "Experiments in Flight" section, followed by the "Later Life" section, followed by "Controversy". The article thus tells his life story, then goes into the lengthy Controversy text.  To summarize: Intro, Early Life/Work; Experiments in Flight, Whitehead's Airplanes (could be renamed "Aircraft" and include the Glider text and photo); Later Career, Controversy; Photos; Modern Repros. The Controversy section is big, and should be. It can include (as you suggest) "Pro" and "Anti" subsections. The  "Photos" section could also be included as a subsection within "Controversy". DonFB (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, I've seen that before; it's good stuff. Why dontcha' put it in Early Life/Work? Edit it as necessary for writing, punctuation, and to blend it smoothly with existing text, etc. Make a footnote for it, of course DonFB (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization suggestions 

message: I have renamed some section titles and made all titles into the same form, so the content box looks more consistent, all titles same level. Changed the partisan-sounding title to Controversy and the earlier Controversy section into Research. Made no changes to actual content.
I hope you accept these changes. There are still a few repetitions of content, but I don't think it matters much. Roger491127 (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to assume good faith, and presume that because you are new to editing here you are not completely familiar with the etiquette of Wikipedia. 
#My edit was not vandalism. To quote Wikipedia:Vandalism; "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." My edit was a slight reorganization of some pictures, avoiding the clustering that many articles in their initial stages have. I also removed the forced sizing of thumbnailed images, as suggested by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
# Because you are new, I will not take the accusation of Vandalism as a personal attack. 
# I suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, which states that "If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so." Heck, every time  anyone edits a page, there is the note "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."
# Edits do not require to be discussed on the talk page first, if they are not contentious and there is not a dispute in progress on the page. If this page is involved in a dispute then perhaps it should be protected from further editing, or a tag from Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes be placed at the top of the article.
- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I have just installed Firefox, and the whitespace is not so big, acceptable. 87.249.177.39 (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No there isn't, it's always there. Look at my last comment in the section above. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Browsers

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: I wish you would put a citation needed tag on important unreferenced sentences, instead of just deleting them. Sooner or later I'll find the reference for it. It is probably even available among earlier stricken material or in the archived talk page.
I found it, referenced, earlier in the article. Content repeated because somebody took up the issue of Whitehead's importance in aviation history, which is a very different issue than the issue of who invented and successfully demonstrated the first airworthy airplane.
One could suspect that after realizing that his reputation for being the inventor of the first airworthy airplane is on its way to becoming indestructable, someone tried to focus on another issue, like how much influence his work had on the development of an aviation industry.
Other people have tried to include entrepreneurship as a qualification for an inventor, to detract from Whitehead's work and reputation as an inventor. He did not have the lawyer-like qualifications and resources of Wright brothers had which they used to make sure they would become known as the inventors of the airplane, qualifications like having contacts, playing a dirty game to win the place in the history books, which they won, and held for a long time, with the help of institutions like the Smithsonian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The link to Curtiss

message: The width of the Contents box is a serious browser problem.
Smaller displays or bigger fonts will make the Content box big enough to overlay the first text of the article. The solution is simple, make the content box thinner.
With only a few cuts of very long entries the problems stopped in the standard mode of Opera. But I need a bigger font, set as a minimum in my browser, the contents box is still too wide.
My suggestion. we make a flat (no levels) contents box and change sections names to become shorter. Roger491127 (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The width of the Contents box

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

message: As an engineer of that era who actually inspected a Whitehead aircraft in an official capacity, Manly's assessment--regardless of your personal disagreement and speculation about his "loyalty" and what he "knew"--is a fact of history and highly relevant to this article, which deals extensively with questions and controversy regarding Whitehead's work. 
: Most of the article is about "this article, which deals extensively with questions and controversy regarding Whitehead's work." But then somebody added a section about his influence upon the development of aviation as a whole, or american aviation industry, and he also inserted a first item into this section, which basically reduced Whitehead to a curiosity, something that happened in total isolation from the rest of the history of aviation.
: Of course others added items to this section which proved that the first statement was wrong. He was in contact with most other early aviators and he had some influence on the aviation history. Then we should remove the first item which was introduced in such a sneaky way, obviously to denigrate Whitehead. But it misses it's goal. It does not deal with Whitehead as an inventor, it introduces a new issue which has nothing to do with inventing, building, demonstrating, in front of enough witnesses, so it can be seen as sufficiently verified to make it highly probable that he invented, built, and demonstrated his invention in front of enough witnesses. Anyhow, that trick to denigrate Whitehead backfired and led to a section about his influence. Roger491127 (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A influence section, in an article about an inventor 

message: :(I suggest a new section, about what we know, and can safely conclude, about Whitehead's aircraft. Obviously written by experts and reviewed and discussed by technology experts. Who is an expert or not is decided by the discussions on the discussion page.)
:A photo is usually a good evidence, but we should not forget the value of newspaper articles and loads of affidavits, especially when the affidavits are from many separate people, written independently of each other, and a story which does not conflict with our knowledge of science and technology. Roger491127 (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical facts

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

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

message: I question the inclusion of this block of text:
"In his first letter to American Inventor, Whitehead said because "the future of the air machine lies in an apparatus made without the gas bag, I have taken up the aeroplane and will stick to it until I have succeeded completely or expire in the attempt of so doing." His words bore an eerie resemblance to those in another letter, written in 1900, to aeronautical expert Octave Chanute: "For some years I have been afflicted with the belief that flight is possible to man. My disease has increased in severity and I feel that it will soon cost me an increased amount of money if not my life."[10] The author of that letter was Wilbur Wright."
This section is macabre to a lot of people, talking about thinking about death, etc.. The quotes can be interpreted in several different ways. And the inner life of W is not the issue of this article.
This article is about what Whitehead achieved, not about The psychology of Whitehead.
The similarity with something Wilbur wrote is a coincidence, a strong and important coincidence in the mind of the one who put these quotes together, which may not mean anything, or there can be a hidden agenda behind it. I don't think Whitehead would have liked being paired up with Wilbur because of a similarity in their expressions of their inner feelings. 
It was inserted in a sneaky way, inserted at the end of another section, and without a word about it on the discussion page. Therefor, I delete it. Roger491127 (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About the inner feelings of Whitehead and Wilbur