Talk:History by Contract

O'Dwyer deceased

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)

What is it that you seek - citation?

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)

---

Purpose of Article

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)

---

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)

Plan

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)

History By Contract suggested revision

History By Contract re-write

Here is my suggested re-write for the History By Contract ("HBC") article. Once revised, the references within the GW article to HBC will be revised.

History By Contract

History By Contract, limited numbered edition, published in West Germany, 1978; USAFR (ret.) Maj. William O'Dwyer and Stella Randolph (241 pages of text; 48 pages of images; 99 pages of documents; index of documents, no index of text)' the central theme of the book, as stated by O'Dwyer, is that a "cover-up" (Chapter VI "The cover-up") by "Wright interests" and the Smithsonian Institution has prevented recognition of Gustave Whitehead as being the first human to fly a powered aerial machine.

In Stella Randolph's view, History By Contract is an update of her 1937 book Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead with new material gathered by O'Dwyer and others during a 15 year period from 1963 to 1978. Several new witness affidavits were taken and some of the new interviews were recorded and video taped.

Carroll, that first paragraph is rather difficult to read. The opening paragraph or two should be clear expository text. Full details about edition and publisher should go in the article's Bibliography and/or References. How about something more straightforward like:

History By Contract is a 1978 book co-authored by Major William O'Dwyer (USAFR, ret.) and Stella Randolph that claims a coverup by the Smithsonian Institution and the family of the Wright brothers prevented aviation pioneer Gustave Whitehead from receiving credit as the first human to fly a powered heavier than air machine.

I.E., the lead should be quite plain in its meaning and inviting to read. If "family of the Wright brothers" is not accurate, maybe something like "supporters of the Wright brothers". I defer to your knowledge on that, not having seen the book. DonFB (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

DonFB, much improved, very much clearer, thank you - I'm happy with your rewrite.

History By Contract is a 1978 book co-authored by Major William O'Dwyer (USAFR, ret.) and Stella Randolph that claims a coverup by the Smithsonian Institution and the family of the Wright brothers prevented aviation pioneer Gustave Whitehead from receiving credit as the first human to fly a powered heavier than air machine. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The title's meaning

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)

The agreement ended a bitter feud that existed between Orville Wright and the Smithsonian over credit for the first such flight. After short test flights of the heavily-modified Langley Aerodrome by Glenn Curtiss in 1914, the Smithsonian claimed that the Aerodrome, created by former Smithsonian Secretary Samuel Langley and unsuccessfully tested shortly before the 1903 Kitty Hawk flights, was the first winged machine to be "capable" of powered, controlled, manned flight. Orville believed that claim "perverted" the history of flying machines and refused to donate the 1903 Kitty Hawk Flyer to the Smithsonian, loaning it instead to the London Science Museum. When the Smithsonian recanted its claim, Orville agreed to have the Flyer sent back, but died before it returned to the U.S.

History By Contract's Conclusion

"Conclusion" (p. 241); Maj. O'Dwyer and Stella Randolph offer "two petitions to the United States of America, its citizens, and its representatives":

1) the first petition makes three "requests": "… the rejection and nullification of the Smithsonian-Wright contract in its entirety…"; "… review of the practices and acts of NASM, the duties and obligations of NASM and its staff, the qualifications of all NASM employees…"; and "… enactment of legislation which will be enforced, precluding any agency from ever again attempting to represent the United States of America in any similar agreement in the future.";

2) the second petition states that the 1948 agreement had "… denied us the attainment of our purpose of securing [a] complete study, review, and decision concerning Whitehead's place in aviation history…"; the petition asks "… our Government to institute promptly a review of all of our combined research records and findings concerning the work and history of Gustave Whitehead, by a group of true aviation authorities, intent upon scientific investigation and research for the purpose of arriving at truth, rather than secure some morsel of information they may turn to advantage in bolstering preconceived and unfounded beliefs and ideas."

See the Wikipedia article on Gustave Whitehead for a summary of his aeronautical efforts.

== == Sources and citations will be added after the text is settled. Comments and suggestions, please. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating, and stuff I hadn't seen before. But, again, it's pretty hard to read with all that legalistic quoted phrasing. Maybe you could paraphrase a lot of it, sprinkled with a smaller selection of choice quoted phrases. Also, I would start the section with a straightforward paraphrased statement, like:

The authors conclude the book with two proposed petitions to the U.S., its citizens and representatives.

DonFB (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

These phrases strike me as quoteworthy:

"the rejection and nullification of the Smithsonian-Wright contract in its entirety"

"true aviation authorities"

"preconceived and unfounded beliefs and ideas"

Not necessarily to limit it to those, but they kind of stand out for me. DonFB (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll take your comments to heart and offer a revision in a day or two. Thanks, again. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest suggestion for HBC article

Here is the latest, and simpler, version of an article about History By Contract. I've had difficulty locating opposing comments about the book's content, to provide balance. Source citations will be added, of course, and the details of the book will be stated in the Bibliography, as DonFB recommended.

History By Contract is a 1978 book co-authored by Major William O'Dwyer (USAFR, ret.) and Stella Randolph that claims a coverup by the Smithsonian Institution and the Wright brother heirs prevented Gustave Whitehead from receiving credit as the first human to fly a powered heavier than air machine. Stella Randolph saw History By Contract as an update of her 1937 book Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead with new material gathered by O'Dwyer and others during a 15 year period from 1963 to 1978. Several new witness affidavits were taken and some of the new interviews were recorded and video taped.

The title's meaning

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 agreement ended a feud between Orville Wright and the Smithsonian over credit for the first such flight. After short test flights of the heavily-modified Langley Aerodrome by Glenn Curtiss in 1914, the Smithsonian claimed that the Aerodrome, created by former Smithsonian Secretary Samuel Langley and unsuccessfully tested shortly before the 1903 Kitty Hawk flights, was the first winged machine to be "capable" of powered, controlled, manned flight. Orville believed that claim "perverted" the history of flying machines and refused to donate the 1903 Kitty Hawk Flyer to the Smithsonian, loaning it instead to the London Science Museum. When the Smithsonian recanted its claim, Orville agreed to have the Flyer sent back. He died before it returned to the U.S.

Conclusion

The authors conclude the book with two proposed petitions to the U.S., its citizens and representatives. Among other things, the petitions requested "the rejection and nullification of the Smithsonian-Wright contract in its entirety"; a group of what the authors term "true aviation authorities" would review Gustave Whitehead's work.

See the Wikipedia article on Gustave Whitehead for a summary of his aeronautical efforts. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources and citations will be added after the text is settled. Comments and suggestions, please. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(The text below is a copy of Discussion that began under the Gustave Whitehead article. History and Diffs can be seen at that article. DonFB (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

It needs referencing on the book's content, influence, meaning etc by parties not related to the book. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been seeking "outside" commentary about this book, but am having a Dickens of a time finding any. I've posted a simpler version of the suggested History By Contract article on the History By Contract Discussion page. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You make it sound like it fails the GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The situation, as I see it, is that the book is certainly notable but apparently only to the pro-GW group. Those who reject the claims made on behalf of and by GW seem to not have made public comments about the book. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Isn't this a fairly common circumstance ?- a published work does not provoke opposing commentary but does contain material of note. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's notable too, although that does seem hard to prove under the rules. The fact that little or nothing has been written about it seems to support something I said earlier: the defenders of the Wright orthodoxy merely dismiss this (or any) challenge, but, subsequent to Gibbs-Smith, don't even bother to offer evidence or serious argumentation to back up their dismissal. If anyone mounts a serious challenge to the existence of the HBC article, it may be appropriate to invoke WP:IAR (Ignore All Rules). DonFB (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt IAR would count as a satisfactory argument at AfD, and Verifiability is one of the core policies. The answer is to find sourcing. There may be adequate coverage by pro-GW authors; though they might be supporters of the premise, so long as they were not directly involved in the book they would probably count as being not "affiliated with the subject or its creator". GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(End of copied text.) DonFB (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this article (HBC) violates the verifiability rule. The content can be found (verified) in the actual HBC book. This article may be in violation of the notability rules for books, because, so far, it's just a description of what's in the book, without any outside commentary about the content. That's why ignoring the rule that says you shouldn't just summarize a book may be appropriate. DonFB (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

We do have opposing comments (which might suffice as balance) on the central theme of HBC, that the Wright/Smithsonian agreement prevented the Smithsonian Institution from recognizing "prior claims." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue, I believe, is not so much the idea of "balance," but rather, that the article does not (yet) contain information from other reliable sources--academics, researchers, newspapers, magazines, etc.--that offer commentary about the book's content. To be "notable," a book (or any topic) needs to be commented upon by "outside" reliable sources. Otherwise, any trivial book, known only to its writer and a handful of other people, could be the subject of a Wikipedia article.

The content of every article should be "notable," in the sense that the larger world (reliable sources) has commented, discussed, judged, reviewed or otherwise taken note of the subject matter. But again, I think the HBC book is notable even in the absence (so far) of outside commentary about it in this article. Hence, my suggestion that IAR could be used to defend the article if necessary. DonFB (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this very useful and informative explanation. This presents an interesting circumstance. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I restored the section Whitehead's work, which had been deleted with reasons, no reference and copyvio, I gave it a reference and rewrote it to avoid copyvio. Roger491127 (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Jane's

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)

As I mentioned in an Edit Summary, many fewer than a "score" of witness statements refer to the specific, reported flight of Aug. 14, 1901. Harworth attested to it, and I think Pruckner. The other affidavits and interviews talked about one or another flight the witnesses said they saw, but not necessarily that specific one. It is extremely misleading to suggest that a "score" of witnesses said they saw the Aug. 14, 1901 flight. DonFB (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If the article does refer to the witness statements, the article should not imply to the reader that those statements were made in the same period as the newspaper reports. The article should explain to readers that the witness statements came many years later. DonFB (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Also regarding the witness statements: none of them refer to the alleged "photo" of Number 21 in flight. The witness statements refer to various flights the people said they saw, but none of them refer to the photograph that Brown claims to have identified. Your edit clearly said the witness statements "pertained" to the photograph, and that is not factual. DonFB (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

AviationHist1, your edit referred to "journalists'" statements about the reported Aug. 14, 1901 flight. That misleads the reader into believing more than one journalist/reporter witnessed such a flight. Only one direct witness newspaper article by a journalist exists about the event. It is not misleading to refer to the "press" or "newspapers" which repeated that single story, but it is misleading to write about "journalist statements," as if to tell readers that multiple journalists saw a flight. They did not. DonFB (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of Edits - Responses in Capitals

<<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)>>

I AM REPORTING THAT JANE'S (NOT I) FELT IT WAS A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, AS THEY EXTENSIVELY EXPLAIN IN THEIR EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW. IF THEY DIDN'T THEY WOULDN'T HAVE RECOGNIZED WHITEHEAD FLEW BEFORE THE WRIGHTS. THEY ARE HIGHLY RESPECTED BECAUSE THEY ARE METICULOUS. THIS IS UNLIKE THE SMITHSONIAN, BOUND BY A CONTRACT TO RETAIN THEIR PREMIERE EXHIBIT, THAT IS INCORRECT ON A NUMBER OF GROUNDS, AND CERTAINLY IN NO POSITION TO DECIDE ANYTHING.

As I mentioned in an Edit Summary, many fewer than a "score" of witness statements refer to the specific, reported flight of Aug. 14, 1901. Harworth attested to it, and I think Pruckner. The other affidavits and interviews talked about one or another flight the witnesses said they saw, but not necessarily that specific one. It is extremely misleading to suggest that a "score" of witnesses said they saw the Aug. 14, 1901 flight. DonFB (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

THE SCORE OF WITNESSES CONFIRMED THAT WHITEHEAD FLEW MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE DEC. 17TH 1903, BEFORE THE WRIGHTS. SINCE YOU INDICATE YOU HAVE NOT READ HISTORY BY CONTRACT, DONFB, YOU SHOULD OBTAIN THE BOOK AND READ IT, THEN YOU WOULD NOT BE CONFUSED. YOU COULD ALSO READ RANDOLPH'S BOOKS, AS THE EVIDENCE IS ALSO THERE.

If the article does refer to the witness statements, the article should not imply to the reader that those statements were made in the same period as the newspaper reports. The article should explain to readers that the witness statements came many years later. DonFB (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE DOES NOT IMPLY THAT. ALSO, THE WITNESS STATEMENTS WERE NOT NEEDED AT THE TIME, THERE WAS AMPLE KNOWLEDGE OF HIS FLIGHTS, UNDISPUTED. THE SEARCH WAS NOT TO BE FIRST, BUT FOR A PRACTICAL AIRPLANE. LOOKING AT THE SITUATION WITH A 2013 VIEWPOINT IS INCORRECT. THE WRIGHTS, WHO WELL KNEW WHITEHEAD HAD FLOWN, AND HAD COME TO FIND OUT HIS SECRETS OF FLIGHT, WERE SECRETIVE UNTIL 1908. THEY KNEW SECRETS COULD BE STOLEN, FROM FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE. WHITEHEAD'S FLIGHT WAS DOCUMENTED BETTER IN SOME RESPECTS, AS IT WAS REPORTED BY THE LOCAL MEDIA IN DETAIL, WITH AN ENGRAVING MADE FROM THE PHOTO, IN THE WEEKLY NEWSPAPER, FOUR DAYS LATER. THE CONFLICTED AND MISLEADING SMITHSONIAN STANCES ARE UNSUPPORTABLE AND UNWELCOME HERE.

Also regarding the witness statements: none of them refer to the alleged "photo" of Number 21 in flight. The witness statements refer to various flights the people said they saw, but none of them refer to the photograph that Brown claims to have identified. Your edit clearly said the witness statements "pertained" to the photograph, and that is not factual. DonFB (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

YOU MISUNDERSTAND WHAT I WROTE. WITNESS STATEMENTS TO THE FLIGHT AND TO THE VIEWING OF THE BLURRED PHOTOGRAPH IN VARIOUS EXHIBITIONS WERE CONFIRMED BY THE PHOTO ANALYSIS. AGAIN, YOU MUST READ HISTORY BY CONTRACT, WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR INFO FROM?

AviationHist1, your edit referred to "journalists'" statements about the reported Aug. 14, 1901 flight. That misleads the reader into believing more than one journalist/reporter witnessed such a flight. Only one direct witness newspaper article by a journalist exists about the event. It is not misleading to refer to the "press" or "newspapers" which repeated that single story, but it is misleading to write about "journalist statements," as if to tell readers that multiple journalists saw a flight. They did not. DonFB (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

JOURNALIST STATEMENTS ABOUT THE PHOTO (IN SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN) AND THE BRIDGEPORT HERALD'S EDITOR'S REPORTS ARE THE JOURNALISTS I REFERRED TO, BUT MULTIPLE OTHER JOURNALISTS WROTE ABOUT WHAT WAS THEN BEING DISSEMINATED ABOUT THAT HISTORIC EVENT.

IT WOULD APPEAR THAT YOU ARE CONSPIRING WITH WRIGHT INTERESTS TO DENIGRATE THE BOOK HISTORY BY CONTRACT AND JANE'S DETERMINATION. ALL ONE MUST DO IS LOOK AT THE TALK HISTORY TO SEE THAT. HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AviationHist1 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC) AviationHist1 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

More to come

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)

Subject: History by Contract

I feel strongly, as all Americans should, that we should not SELL a place in history in order to obtain a desired exhibit. The SELLING of the place in history in trade for the Wright Flyer is inappropriate and that should be the main focus of this article. Jane's All the World Aircraft is considered to be "the bible" of aviation history. It recognizes Gustave Whitehead. Smithsonian's opinions are of no consequence as they are bound by the contract, which is the point of the book and the article - that history must not be bound by contract. Smithsonian covered up the contract for years and with good reason. This is not to place to denigrate Whitehead nor his researchers. When you make negative, biased insertions I will remove them. I hope you have lots of time on your hands. I will invite a larger group to monitor this article and will continue to press wikipedia to stop the insertion of biased, negative commentary. My commentary in the article is factual, based on what the topic is. In history there are authorities and Jane's is the top world authority on aviation history. It is not biased to report what Jane's says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AviationHist1 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC) AviationHist1 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You have the right to feel as you do about the subject, but your particular point of view must not intrude into the article. Wikipedia articles are not intended as vehicles of personal opinion. The Smithsonian and its officials, like Tom Crouch, as well as historians and authors like Gibbs-Smith and Howard, no matter what you personally think of them, remain legitimate experts and sources for an article like this. It is fine for this article to describe the "History by Contract" opinion about the Smithsonian and its actions. The article should do that. But the article should NOT take its own position on the subject, as you apparently think it should. That's a fundamental violation of Wikipedia's basic policy of neutrality. Wikipedia can describe the controversy, but should not take part in it. You may feel I have contributed negative, biased insertions to the article. I don't believe I have, but similarly, if I see that you have added biased material that exaggerates or inaccurately describes the subject matter to promote your admitted personal opinion about the subject, I will make changes to preserve the neutrality of the article. You should try to learn to separate your personal opinion about the subject from Wikipedia's description of the subject. The two are not the same.

I strongly urge you again to read or re-read the Wikipedia neutrality policy. It sounds like you do not understand some of this website's basic rules. I'd welcome having you invite others to monitor or contribute to this article. DonFB (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

---

I do understand neutrality. If you are going to quote Crouch, do so with a citation. I am interested in a fairly represented article here. The Talk History shows the story. Inserting negative information to denigrate anything in the article must not be done "on your own". What I insert are cited statements. I do understand the rules, it appears that you wish to manipulate these. I welcome anyone who can insert information mainly on the topic of History by Contract and its implications.

AviationHist1 (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that the subject is veering off from covering the book's content, reception and influence and into discussing the to-and-fro over Whitehead. Some of that is background to the book's creation. But this article is not the place for the debate on Whitehead except where the book touches upon it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks for that comment.DonFB (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. However, the Contract is pertinent to Whitehead in several ways. First, it precludes recognition without losing the Wright Flyer. Second, it explains why Smithsonian would not take a look at compelling evidence. Thirdly, it was designed by Orville, who wanted credit to go to himself, not even his brother, nor anyone else, including Whitehead, who he was well aware was a contender. The contract was cleverly designed to prevent recognition of anyone but Orville. So there is a component there related to contenders such as Wilbur and Whitehead that must be addressed, and is addressed to some extent in the book. Personally, I believe there is enough evidence to have shown Whitehead likely flew before the Wrights. There may be others as well, and how would we know, with a contract such as this? Does anyone want to study history that has been contrived for profit? This is more than just about Wrights vs. Whitehead. This is about what the Contract limits and its impact - not about why it happened, on the surface.

AviationHist1 (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the book History by Contract, in writing about the Contract itself within the context of this article you need to say what points the authors make about the contract and the responses to the book's publication and its importance to the Whitehead or any other early flyer's cases but not so much as to give undue weight to any matters that are not covered directly by the book. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The section "History Behind the Contract" needs to be updated so it covers what the book does. The long-winded explanation of what you THINK the reason for the contract is, or what Smithsonian's excuses are for signing it, have nothing to do with the book's contracts. Perhaps you should start a new Wikipedia page for the Wright-Smithsonian Agreement and put all your excuses there, which we will of course, make sure are balanced. But this section has to GO. Secondarily, I want to make it perfectly clear that this and all wikipedia pages about the topic of Gustave Whitehead have been made non-neutral by a group of rogue editors that collude to portray Whitehead and his researchers in a negative light. You see them on this page and on the others also - Gustave Whitehead and the State of CT page as well. I will be including this in a book I am writing and naming who is doing this, alerting the major media to this insidious attempt to control the evolution of historical inquiry and understandings. AviationHist1 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

AviationHist1, since you have written "Personally, I believe there is enough evidence to have shown Whitehead likely flew before the Wrights." would you please define and explain what you mean by 'flying' ? I suspect part of the problem facing us in this article and in the Whitehead article is that some of us have a simple definition of what it means to fly. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Whitehead's Recognition Changes

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)

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)

POVFORK removals

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)

Langley

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. [1] 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)

External Links

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)

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)

The Guideline offers this brief advice, WP:COI#Citing_yourself, relevant to your question. DonFB (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Agreement disclosure

I think the subject of the Agreement's initial disclosure could use some revisiting. This article had said the agreement was "long undisclosed." Crouch has said he has sent many copies on request. This article says O'Dwyer obtained a signed copy of the agreement with help from a U.S. senator in 1976--28 years after the agreement was made. (My understanding is that the book of this article's title is the source for the statement about how O'Dwyer obtained the agreement.) In this article's text, Crouch does not say when he (or any predecessor) began sending out copies of the agreement. The fact that O'Dwyer apparently needed the help of a U.S. senator (and, possibly, the Freedom of Information Act) to obtain the Agreement does say something about the Agreement's availability and whether it had, or had not been, "long undisclosed" during the preceding 28 years.

The foregoing statements do raise the question whether the Agreement was "undisclosed," "public," "private," "confidential," or characterized by some other status during those 28 years. Brinchman had pointed out the Agreement does not exist on any Smithsonian website. When I requested and received my copy in 2006, I asked the Smithsonian if the Agreement was printed in any of its publications or published on any Smithsonian website. I received answers: "does not exist on-line as far as I know"; and, "As far as I know, the Smithsonian hasn't published the agreement. But it is a public document and we always make it available to anyone who wants to see it."

Clearly, the Smithsonian has made no effort to publicize the Agreement over the decades. I do think that fact (if we can agree it is a fact) is relevant to this article. I don't know precisely what History by Contact says about the Agreement's public/non-public status, but I believe the book does address the issue and makes a claim about the Agreement's status in that regard.

In addition to quoting what Crouch has said, I think this article, which is about the book, should give some details, perhaps in quoted form, of what the book says about the Agreement's disclosure status.

(Note: the quotations from my private emails are not intended to be used as sources for this article; I mention them to provide information in this Discussion about the apparent non-disclosure of the Agreement in official Smithsonian print and online documentation.) DonFB (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, DonFB, there was no FOIA filed about the Agreement - that was and is a fabrication - O'Dwyer asked Sen Weicker to request a copy, and he did so and received a file copy. O'Dwyer then asked Sen. Weicker to request a signed copy, which he did and the SI sent one. While the following constitutes OR, you should know I have looked and not found any instance of anyone at the SI ever denying the existence of the Agreement. That was a cornerstone of the allegations made by O'Dwyer against the SI and so far as I know was a false allegation. As for when the Agreement first saw light of day, I am still looking, but it appears to me that it was long before O'Dwyer obtained his copy.

It's difficult for me to understand why SI would want to publicize the Agreement - make a public display of it. On the other hand, as I said, I know of no instance when anyone denied it existed. I quoted part of TC's statement, and linked the full statement, to provide balance and to demonstrate that NASM's Senior Curator has made a public comment about the Agreement.

My status as an editor makes this all a bit sticky for me, but I did post a pdf of the Agreement on one of my sites, along with a detailed article on this very topic. I chose to link someone else's site for the pdf when I made the revisions I just made in this article.

My objective here was to introduce some balance into the article, not to push it over to a defense of the Agreement... does it seem to you that I accomplished my objective ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you appropriately revised some parts that sounded a little slanted. But you might have gone a little far in downplaying the book's charges against SI. Again, I don't have the book, so I don't know exactly what it says. But my impression is that it rather directly accuses SI of withholding the Agreement, or failing to disclose it, or words to that effect. Also, if the Agreement was available, why would O'Dwyer have to call on his U.S. senator for help in getting it? It's easy enough for Crouch now to say he sends it out willingly, but my curiosity remains unsatisfied about what happened when O'Dwyer got wind of the Agreement, and why no researchers/historians before him apparently knew anything about it. I think those issues need more attention in the article, based on what the HBC book says. This is not to say that HBC's claims are necessarily accurate, but the article seems not to adequately give the HBC point of view regarding SI's actions/behavior regarding the Agreement and its disclosure. Brinchman (or maybe John Brown) had quoted a letter from SI that seemed to directly deny that any such agreement existed...have you seen that? DonFB (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do have that letter, it's dated September 12, 1968 (Paul Johnston NASM Director to O'Dwyer), and is cited by S. Brinchman and her father (O'Dwyer) as saying that SI denied the existence of the agreement, it does not say any such thing. That is why I deleted the citation SB had to that letter. The only possible source in that letter of the mischaracterization that O'Dwyer and SB made, at least the only thing that I can see is this (item "b" of 3) "We have no mandate to sit in judgment on, - nor to endorse, nor to detract from anyone's accomplishments either by implication or by direct action."

As we've discussed before, the agreement does not force NASM/SI in any way, it states - and we should go by what the document says - that unless SI does a list of things, it will breach the agreement and the '03 Flyer will be returned to the O. Wright estate. What Paul Johnsston said is true, what SB and O'Dwyer said about what P. Johnston wrote, is untrue. For one thing, Johnston was not asked in O'Dwyer's letter about the agreement, since it was not known to O'Dwyer that one existed until June of 1975. So, the 1968 letter was said by S. Brinchman and O'Dwyer to deny an agreement when such an agreement was not known by O'Dwyer until 7 years later - it makes no sense.

That's opinion, I know, but I believe it is fair and relies on the "facts" as we have them. So, I removed that citation, as it was a mis-statement of what the letter said. Johnston's one and one-third page letter was in response to a pressuring (in my view argumentative) five page letter from O'Dwyer. There is more background to this but it is probably irrelevant to this article.

I'll be pleased with whatever you wish to do with this article DonFB, you always strive for a fair and balanced reading... and this article is about the book, so maybe all this is excessive, or not - trusting in your good judgment. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that Johnston's quote, "We have no mandate to sit in judgment on, - nor to endorse, nor to detract from anyone's accomplishments..." is a clear case of denying the existence of the Agreement. It does not matter whether O'Dwyer had no knowledge of the Agreement at that time. Johnston certainly did, and clearly, in my view, pretended that it did not exist, or was not worthy of discussion. We evidently disagree about this issue. My point is that the authors of HBC used that letter and that quotation from it to try to make their case. This article is about HBC and its views. If there are reliable sources who refute those views, fine--we should use those sources also. But such material shouldn't be deleted from the article based only on editors' interpretation of the meaning. We should present the material, because it's what the book is about, and this article is about the book. It may well be that reliably sourced refutation does not exist, but that cannot justify preemptive deletion of the material. DonFB (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I am pleased to support whatever you wish to do with this. Yes, we disagree, but that doesn't mean I cannot support your edits, I do. The assumption, also, in your statement, above, and in O'Dwyer's response 7 years later when he saw this statement as a denial, is that P. Johnston knew that this agreement existed. Is that a "fair" assumption, maybe, maybe not, but it an assumption. Of course, you are correct that this really doesn't matter, the article is about the book. Whether or not O'Dwyer fabricated material or mis-stated quotes or manipulated matters is part of the book. If a secondary source can be found that comments on all that, then it is fair to include, also.

To clarify, the statement I quoted in the September 12, 1968, letter is a response to O'Dwyer's request/urging/demand that SI/NASM convene a committee to determine whether Whitehead flew. The quoted section is Johnston's statement that SI/NASM has no "mandate to sit in judgment" - i.e., to convene the sort of committee that O'Dwyer wanted.

However, as I said above, I am pleased to support whatever you wish to do with this. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Good that you're amenable to further revision of these things. I've been somewhat reluctant to edit portions of the article that directly characterize what the book says, since I don't have a copy. I personally believe "long undisclosed" is probably fair phrasing, but even better would phrasing or description that can be found in the book (quoted or paraphrased). In any case, I'm traveling the next several days, so I probably won't try to do anything until next week. I'd be glad to see any suggestions you might have which describe the book's characterization of the Agreement's low profile. DonFB (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Notability - is this a WP:COATRACK?

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)

I've now removed the blatant coatracking, though my earlier point about notability remains. Books meet Wikipedia notability guidelines through evidence of significant coverage in RS of the book itself. Not coverage of the subject the book is discussing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)