Talk:Gustave Whitehead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing maintenance of the Guideline about Gustave Whitehead.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Biography section?

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

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

[edit] Picture sizes

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

[edit] The length of the talk page

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

[edit] The sparring continues - expression

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

[edit] Reproductions

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

[edit] Whitespace issues again

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

[edit] Beach qoute replaced by Steeves quote

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

[edit] Manly's judgement is irrelevant - stricken

The important fact was that Cayley found Whitehead's airplane so interesting that he sent Manly to find out as much as possible. That shows that Whitehead was not unknown, other aviator pioneers knew about him, visited him, bought motors from him, and the head of the Smithsonian even sent his helper to measure and find out as much as possible about Whitehead's airplane.

What Manly thought about the airplane is irrelevant, because Manly knew very little about what an airworthy airplane should look like. He had never built one, or even seen one before. His loyalty to his employer may also have contributed to his judgement, Cayley saw himself as the designer of the only airworthy construction, and Manly wanted to keep Cayley happy because Cayley was his employer.

[edit] The link to Curtiss

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

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

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

[edit] Stricken editorial comment

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

[edit] The width of the Contents box

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

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

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

[edit] The width of the Info box

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

[edit] Opinions, duplication, suppression

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

Thanks, so I was right about that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Influence section was inserted together with a statement which said that no matter if he flew he had no connections at all to the rest of the world so Whitehead would be irrelevant no matter if he flew or not.
Other people have added statements, which indicate that Whitehead clearly had an influence on the development or aviation industry. I suggest that we strike the proven faulty statement (that he had no influence on the history of aviation no matter what).Roger491127 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] A influence section, in an article about an inventor

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

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

[edit] Technical facts

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Browser problems

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

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

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

[edit] The Wikipedia system for quality

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

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

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but I wish you'd just come out and say it.
If you can't understand my words and sentences you have a problem with reading and comprehending, because few people write as openly vand clearly as I write.Roger491127 (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this may be a response to me re-adding some content that opposes your "Whitehead was a God" stance.
Have I ever said "Whitehead was a God"? No, you are putting words in my mouth which I have never said, and then you criticize those words which you yourself have written. That trick is not allowed in fair debates, and it is called "making a strawman".
As for your "change in the whole society" bit, thankfully most of us don't live in a world where issues are decided by one person. Democracy is a good thing.
To me democracy is based on communication, discussions, trying to come to an agreement, what I have described here. How can you read my words as anti-democratic? Roger491127 (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you are intent having oversight into every edit,
What is wrong with wanting to participate in every edit in an article, it looks like want to keep an eye on this article yourself, by the way.
I'll add a few tags to the page to warn people. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 09:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem understanding what your writing, I have a problem understanding how it relates to the history and biography of Gustave Whitehead. What I meant about the "God" bit was that you are obviously pro-Whitehead, since you weed out any material, sourced or not, that opposes the view that he was the first to fly.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Authoritarianism or discussions?

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

[edit] About the inner feelings of Whitehead and Wilbur

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

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

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

[edit] My last edits

I started with the intention of just adding Wikilinks and setting the page as per Wikipedia:Layout. The books and see also should appear above the external links. At the same time I cleaned up the references as there were multiple links in there to the same reference. However, when I got to the "Technical" section I had to tag it with an Wikipedia:No original research tag. It's conclusions drawn from the rest of the article and is not supported by citations. It needs to be supported by relilable sources or removed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it, I delete it. But let me add, it was supported by scientific and technical knowledge, and a neutral judgement of witness reports, just like in a real encyclopedia. And it was interesting and possibly fruitful. We could have such sections too, if more experts in the field discuss technical conclusions on the discussion page. Roger491127 (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What you suggest is an intersting idea but would require a change to the way Wikipedia works. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to later career sction

I inserted a quote about his later career and health condition, it helps explain why he suddenly disappeared from the scene. As you see, it is referenced correctly and inserted in the right place chronologically in the story of his life as an elderly and not fully healthy man. Roger491127 (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The tags tell us to discuss here the balance and neutrality of this article:

[edit] Unbalanced?

In general I think it is fairly balanced, but considering it is an article about Whitehead wehave, of course, presented facts which are positive for Whitehead, presenting counter-arguments to a lot of anti-Whitehead propaganda spread over the years.

We have the text "More recently, aviation researchers Louis Chmiel and Nick Engler acknowledged the possibility that Whitehead flew before the Wright brothers, but asserted that the achievement would be of little significance, inserted without any explanation on the discussion page:

"While Whitehead believers insist that he was first to fly, no one claims that his work had any effect on early aviation or the development of aeronautic science. Even if someone someday produces a photo of No. 21 in flight on August 14, 1901, it will be nothing more than a footnote, a curious anomaly in the history of aviation."[30]" in the Controversy section. It was sneakely inserted at the end of a totally unrelated section, and it seems to be a way to denigrate Whitehead to "a footnote, a curious anomaly in the history of aviation.".

That does not seem neutral, and not based on historical sources. If we are to judge his influence on aviation history, which is something very different from being an inventor, that most negative judgement should have been inserted together with the most positive judgement to balance it, and a new section should have been created, about the significance of his work, I did that, arguing that a new issue had been introduced, so it should have it's own section. Later people added positive stuff about his influence, so the negative quote backfired. Roger491127 (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality?

"For example, Smithsonian Institution Secretary Samuel Langley, who was building a flying machine called the "Aerodrome", secretly sent an assistant to an exhibition to measure and find out as much technical details about Whitehead's airplane as possible. The assistant reported the aircraft did not appear to be airworthy.[31]"

The last sentence, about what the assistant said makes this whole quote into a judgement of the airplane, by some assistant who had never seen an airworthy airplane, changes the the main issue we are discussing. Do you remember what this was an example of? It begins with "For example," An example of what? I can answer that question, it was about other aviators interest and awareness of Whitehead. The important quote is that Smithsonian Institution Secretary Samuel Langley was so interested that he secretly sent an assistant to measure and find out as much as possible about Whitehead's airplane.

The overall structure of the sentence is broken, and the next issue is what the assistant told somebody. This moves the focus from the interest Langley had in the airplane to something totally irreleant. The second sentence makes the important quote into just an introduction to the judgement of this assistant. That is an example of the fact+spin, fact+spin, tactics.Roger491127 (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creating section about inner feelings, beliefs

Religious people always try to get a toe in the door, to spread their ideas about strong determination and relation to death, and of course such ideas crept into this article too. I suggested that the macabre section should be removed, but someone else disagreed. It doesn't fit in any other section, so it should at least be in its own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger491127 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Striking the comparisons with Wright

Earlier has at least twice comparisons with the Wrights have been stricken, presumably because this article is about Whitehead, not about the Wrights, so why do we not strike the comparison with Wilbur Wright in the Belief section? Why not strike that section completely, in most countries such ideas belong to the past, a strong religious belief, death as always present. etc... This section is of the type "If you can't beat them, join them." But it is obvious that neither Wilbur nor Whitehead wanted to be associated with each other, so this selection of quotes is inappropriate and nowhere near the technical issue of inventing an airplane. Roger491127 (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of tags

Nobody, not even the person who demanded a discussion about the neutrality and balance of this article has participated in the discussions for 45 days, so I guess it is up to me to do this alone. I have added information on neglected viewpoints and more anti-Whitehead arguments, and discussed the issue on the talk page, as requested. Roger491127 (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Educator

Added a short text about his role as educator, and a picture of Junius Harworth, the young man who worked with Whitehead longer than any other assistant, and one of the most important witnesses to his flights, referenced several times in this article. Roger491127 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of questioned credibility for the other side too

To remove only one side argument, leaving the argument of the other side is not neutral, so I removed the comparison too. The assumptions of Jakab were unreferenced in his article. And it is obvious that he confused Harworth with Phillips. But the reader will have to find that out for himself now. I used another example from Jakab instead, because it is contradicted by a sourced interview at the beginning of the controversy section. Thus we have an example of Jakab's argumentation which is balanced by the interview mentioned earlier in the section. Roger491127 (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed tags

As nobody else has had anything to say about the neutrality and balance of this article for a long time, I removed the ugly tags. Roger491127 (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)