Talk:Flying car

Contradictory info

Under design, the first paragraph says "able to fly without a fully qualified pilot at the controls". Then in a lower sub-heading, it says "The person controlling the vehicle must also be licensed as both driver and pilot". Which is it?

It's important to read the first sentence in context. "For mass adoption, it will also need to be ... able to fly without a fully qualified pilot at the controls." That doesn't mean that all flying cars are capable of flying without a qualified pilot, just that it would not be feasible for a flying car available for mass adoption to require a qualified pilot. Most, if not all flying cars built to this day were either prototypes or were produced in limited numbers partially for that reason. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If I may suggest: Rewording would be helpful. As written, the text certainly implies machines that are self-flying. How about: "For mass adoption, it will also need to be environmentally friendly, flown by a person who is not a fully qualified pilot and have an affordable price and operating costs." DonFB (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the current sentence is appropriate. Instead of changing it, I inserted a sentence on the current state of play. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It remains ambiguous. Is the phrase "without a fully qualified pilot at the controls" supposed to mean that mass adoption can happen only if the vehicle can fly without anyone at the controls, or that a non-qualified person will be allowed to fly it? Or both? DonFB (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Both - and any other variations we might not have thought of. We have no idea how it might pan out, so the less we confuse ourselves about it all the better. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"...it would also need to be environmentally friendly, able to fly with or without a fully qualified pilot at the controls...." avoiding the suggestion that all mass-adopted machines will fly with no one at the controls. Or, consider: "...able to fly autonomously or with a person at the controls who is not a fully qualified pilot...." DonFB (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with whatever phrasing is used, provided it is grammatical and does not rule out any options. Whatever floats your boat (or flies your car!) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Whitehead

What is the point in giving column inches to the Whitehead claims of flight here? We should be focusing on his machines' intended role as flying cars, it's more than enough enough to note in passing that such claims rumble on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The evidence that Whitehead's machine had any intended function as a functionally roadworthy 'flying car' is non-existent. It was nothing more than a vague analogous term given to something that at the time had no established name at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is strong enough for you to restore material about him in the article on the Flying car. A strange thing to do if you believe there is no evidence for the inclusion of that material here. I would refer you to, e.g., Weissenborn, G.K.; "Did Whitehead fly?", Air Enthusiast thirty-five, Pilot (1988), pp. 19–21, 74–77. This and other RS are clear that W was trying to invent a flying car. Eyewitnesses attest that he drove down the street in some of his machines, with the wings furled. So I have no idea where you get that "non-existent" idea from (it has been forcefully promoted for the flight claims but not for the flying car claims). But the point at issue is that the "did he fly?" controversy is covered elsewhere and the last thing we need here is to repeat that material. You know: Flight - NO!, Flying car - in his dreams! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, maybe we should sort this out once and for all, and determine whether this whatever-it-was belongs in a list of 'flying cars' at all, given that no serious aviation historian of note attaches any credence to the testimony of 'eyewitnesses' reported in sensationalist press reports, or to any of the other supposed evidence for Whitehead's claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

First, my bad: I checked Weissenborn and he does not mention the flying car angle after all. But equally, who gives a toss about people who can't be arsed to debunk, or even mention, the flying car angle, even if they are "serious aviation historians". Jackson, in his notorious Jane's editorial, references John Brown as his source for the roadable aircraft angle and writes, "not having deduced that invention of the practical aeroplane would be followed in short order by ‘invention’ of the aerodrome and hangar, Whitehead was one of the first to provide it with the autonomy which he believed would be demanded by the private owner. That meant an aeroplane which could be kept in the garage of a town house, then make its own way — with a power drive to the landing wheels and with wings folded or dismantled — along the highway to a convenient meadow or park for take-off. Were this to be a businessman making a call, he would undertake a similar road journey on arriving by air at a suitable field in the vicinity of his customer.. Whitehead equipped his aircraft No. 21, known as the Condor, with two acetylene-fuelled engines of his own design: 10 hp for the road wheels and 20 hp as the main source of forward flight. ‘Main’ because at an appropriate moment during take-off, the flick of a lever would transfer the road engine's output to augment the motor driving the twin propellers." Meanwhile, O'Dwyer has published (through Flight Journal), several photos of the putative ground engine. Now, Jackson is not deemed reliable in his opinion that the thing flew, but nevertheless he was Jane's managing editor and is regarded as reliable - a "serious aviation historian" even - in everything else. Is he reliable as a tertiary source for this? Would Brown be reliable if I could track him down? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

In order to qualify as a 'flying car', something clearly needs at absolute minimum to meet two criteria: to fly, and to function as a 'car'. There clearly isn't support from WP:RS for the former, making the latter entirely moot even if it could be shown to be true, per similar sources. Which, in my opinion, it hasn't. Even if Jackson is RS, he appears only to be so in as much as he is reporting what Brown wrote, which is a statement regarding Whitehead's 'beliefs' as to what intended owners wanted. The actual evidence that Machine No 21 ever demonstrated any practical road-going capabilities is scant, to say the least, and beside the point for the purpose of a list of things capable of flight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask this question first. At what point does an aircraft become an aircraft? During the design phase? During construction? Or perhaps when it makes its first flight? Similarly, at what point does a car become a car?

I suppose different people might give different answers, but reliable sources tend to refer to unbuilt or unflown designs for flying machines as "aircraft". We even have an entire category dedicated to unflown aircraft, which the Whitehead No. 21 article currently falls under. The list section in this article is not "List of flying cars that flew", it's "List of flying cars". Even if we remove the Whitehead No. 21 from the list on the grounds that it never flew, we would still have five unflown, and seven unbuilt (three canceled and four in development) flying cars on the list.

That said, I am not sure how reliable sources treat unbuilt or undriven car designs. If they refer to such designs as "cars" or similar, then the Whitehead No. 21 checks all the boxes to be considered a flying car. If they don't, then most of the unflown and all of the unbuilt flying car designs should be excluded from the list. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see little point in regurgitating the same arguments we had between us a few years back: [1] Possibly an RfC is the solution. Meanwhile, a question, do any modern RS sources actually describe Whitehead's machine as a 'flying car', as opposed to noting that the label was used in earlier sources? This isn't a trivial point, since meanings of words change over time, and in particular, with regard to aviation, agreed terminology simply didn't exist when Whitehead built the No 21. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'd support the removal of the Whitehead No. 21 from this list if no such sources can be found. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

ZLEA makes some good points. Many of our aircraft articles and lists cover projects which never flew, that is no argument against inclusion. What matters is not what we editors think but what RS verifiably call a flying car - or, let us not forget, a roadable aircraft. AndyTheGrump is also wrong to demand primary sources. WP:RSPRIMARY makes it clear that secondary and reputable tertiary sources are preferred, while primary sources must be used with caution. Jackson is just such a reputable tertiary source. He makes a distinction between flying cars and roadable aircraft, explicitly describing the No. 21 as the latter. But we at present do not make that distinction and Roadable aircraft redirects to Flying car. So prima facie we have an RS to cite. But that editorial piece is controversial in other ways, so this is why I am asking, is he a good enough source to keep this machine in the article? If not, why not? Should we be seeking out Brown, who was Jackson's principal secondary source? (Another thing to bear in mind is that Andy is now attacking the very material he restored after I cut it back, so his words and actions contradict each other). I'd be happy to settle on ZLEA's arbitration on this, I doubt we will get any better consensus. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Where on earth are you getting the idea that I'm demanding primary sources? I have just pointed out why primary sources - those from Whiteheads time - didn't have the terminology to describe things, and accordingly why we need to be wary of interpreting phrases from 120 years ago as having the modern meaning. What I am asking for are sources from credible modern aviation historians for the 'flying car' description. Not second-hand Jackson-says-that-Brown-says stuff from an editorial subsequently disowned by the publisher. As for 'ZLEA's arbitration', Wikipedia doesn't work like that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

After I had quoted the tertiary source which is quite explicit, you responded "The actual evidence that Machine No 21 ever demonstrated any practical road-going capabilities is scant,..." which I took to mean you wanted to see that primary evidence. But to get back on topic, I still don't understand why you prefer a big wad of the material you hate rather than a cut-down version. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

As I made clear in the discussion back in 2022 (linked above), and as I have reiterated here, I don't think that Whitehead's machine belongs on the list at all. I reverted your recent change because it replaced sourced content regarding the actual opinion of historians with a vague unsourced statement. That was not an improvement. I then amended the section further, given that it was still making vague claims about 'some historians'. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect academic/historical mainstream consensus, which is clear regarding Whitehead, rather than implying there is any serious debate amongst such sources about the matter.

As I said earlier, I see no point on the few of us going over this ground again. I'll give it a day or two in case anyone else has comments, and if nothing new comes up, I'll start an RfC on whether Whitehead's non-flying 'car' belongs in this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of sources that describe Whitehead's machine as a "car" or "automobile" or "flying car" or "roadable" aircraft or anything similar, so I agree with Andy's skeptical view in asking, "do any modern RS sources actually describe Whitehead's machine as a 'flying car'...?" The article itself does not use any such terminology about the Whitehead machine, nor do the sources for that paragraph. Without any such source, we don't have justification for including the Whitehead text. (My interpretation is that the powered wheels were intended only as a means of gaining takeoff speed, and not intended as a means of locomotion as a roadable vehicle.) DonFB (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Besides the concrete example I gave above in my quote from Jackson, here are three more:

• A transcript of the Bridgeport Herald piece on wright-brothers.org gives an extensive description of its roadgoing capabilities.
• In O'Dwyer's account for Flight Journal (see above), I have now found that one caption does note; "He drove his machine along the road with the wings and tail folded, and then he used that engine to assist in overcoming ground drag during the takeoff roll."
• Glass, Andrew; Flying Cars: The True Story, Clarion, 2015. ISBN-10 0618984828, ISBN-13 978-0618984824. Chapter 2 is titled "Gustave Whitehead's Condor" and gives much detail of the No.21, before remarking that "Despite controversy, the chronicle of Gustave Whitehead's flying automobile..."

The majority of mainstream historians, to my knowledge, have never been concerned with, let alone actively questioned, its intended goal as a roadable aircraft/flying car. Anybody got any explicit counter-examples to that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

As Steelpillow is well aware, the Bridgeport Herald piece has been rejected as a reliable source by multiple analysists, for good reason. A quotation from an article in The Aviation Historian, July 2013, [2] lays out why:

"When considering primary source material, it can be vital to examine it in context, not just in isolation. In the case of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald, such an approach is illuminating. The story above, referred to in this article, appeared on page 5 of the August 18, 1901 edition. Research in the paper’s archives shows that the “page 5 story” was often sensational and, as early-aviation historian Nick Engler says, “walked the line between fact and fancy”. Five weeks earlier the page 5 slot was home to The Dog Man of Windham, [illustrated] BELOW, a story about a Yeti or Bigfoot seen in Connecticut’s woods. Other stories that summer described The Great White Shark of the Lexington Wreck, which attacked divers searching for treasure in a sunken ship, and, just a week after the Flying story, The Woodbury Kleptomania, about a woman who stole rare plants and chickens."

As far as I am aware, no other primary source beyond this sensationalist journalism, and its subsequent republication in similar newspapers, has been located regarding the supposed roadgoing capabilities of Whitehead's machine No. 21. O'Dwyer repeats it, because he takes the newspaper report at face value. Without this source, there is nothing to discuss regarding the machine's capabilities as a 'car', making it unsurprising that aviation historians have failed to comment on it. Not that they would be likely to concern themselves with the question anyway, since internal-combustion-engined non-flying vehicles were hardly new in 1901.

WP:FRINGE policy is clear enough regarding the appropriate place for the discussion of fringe topics: only in articles on the topics themselves, and only where such topics meet Wikipedia notability criteria. The inclusion of the Whitehead machine as a 'flying car' in this article is based solely on taking at face value the claims of Whitehead proponents originally sourced to a newspaper that ran stories on Bigfoot and 'dog men'. Attempting to do an end-run around Wikipedia policies on sourcing, NPOV etc by taking the failure of mainstream sources to comment on a minor aspect of the story as justification to include it is entirely untenable. We base content on reliable sources, and don't use the lack of them to shoehorn in material from unreliable ones. That is getting core policy entirely backwards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, most of that. But as our [Andy] is in turn well aware, the only fringe aspect of the No. 21 is whether it flew. Everything else about it is subject only to WP:NOTABILITY and suchlike. And that is what these sources help to establish, which is what concerns DonFB - as so it should. (I would also note that to query "Where on earth are you getting the idea that I'm demanding primary sources?" and a post or two later to complain about "no other primary source" does lead one to question the rationality of Andy's arguments generally.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Statements regarding the No. 21's alleged roadgoing capabilities must, per Wikipedia policy, be cited to reliable sources. The only sources you have offered up are unreliable - they are promoting fringe claims explicitly rejected by a clear consensus of aviation historians of repute. Unreliable sources are unreliable. They don't suddenly become cherry-pickable for 'reliable' content just because nobody has bothered to dispute those particular obscure and irrelevant details. If the only sources you are going to offer up to support the inclusion of Whitehead on the list are these policy-excluded sources, I can see little point in even bothering with an RfC, since local RfCs cannot overrule core Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I propose the text be revised and shortened and accompanied by a citation to the Andrew Glass book, (already cited in the article) as follows:

"In 1901 German immigrant to the U.S. Gustave Whitehead purportedly flew a powered aircraft, which was described as able to propel itself along roads to the site of the flying experiment. [citation to Andrew Glass book]. Consensus among historians is that Whitehead's no. 21 did not achieve sustained self-powered flight.[footnotes 1,3,4]"

Without any sourcing which describes the machine as a "flying car" (or similar), the text is subject to challenge and removal. DonFB (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I have just removed the text and list entry concerning Whitehead, as lacking reliable sourcing. Apologies if this seems premature as if I'd seen your post I would have responded before editing the article. As for Glass, 'described as' seems rather vague, and without seeing the broader context, it is hard to see whether this particular quote justifies inclusion. Also, do we know anything about Glass's qualifications and/or publishing history? Has his book been subject to reviews etc? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Glass, I further note that Amazon's page on him [3] describes the book as 'Juvenile Nonfiction' - a less than ideal source, I'd have to suggest. The description will almost certainly have come from Glass himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I also took note that the Glass book is for youngsters; I don't know if the book can be considered a RS. The text I suggested relies on the original Herald article (and derivatives) for "described as", but I also included the Glass citation as explicit support for "flying car". DonFB (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, the Herald certainly described the No. 21 as having roadgoing capabilities: In a section of the newspaper it used in other editions for tales about Bigfoot, dog men, man-eating sharks and kleptomaniac chicken-thieves. An unreliable source can't be cited to justify inclusion of content not supported by reliable ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the proposal by DonFB. However the idea that only the debunkers can ever be cited is quite false. In many articles on pseudoscience, hoaxes and other rubbish, unreliable sources are indeed cited if their rubbish is notable. Same applies to rubbish aircraft, such as the Boeing 797 hoax - and the Whitehead No. 21. Checkout all the photos of the ground engine in Flight Journal and ask yourself if they are reliable evidence for the intention to use it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

No, a photograph of Whitehead holding an unidentifiable mechanism isn't 'reliable evidence' for the roadgoing capabilities of his machine. What an utterly absurd suggestion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

See this post from @ZLEA:, back in that old discussion which you are - understandably - reluctant to have us revisit. There is clear consensus here now, as there was back then, to include some mention of the No.21, based on sufficient RS to verify its significance. Or, as others have said before me, take it upstairs. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no such consensus here, quite clearly. People can count. And they can read ZELA's comment of 18th August above. As for 'taking it upstairs', could you please clarify what you mean? An RfC is an option, though as of right now it isn't clear what the question is, since people have made different suggestions. Or if you are prepared to actually put forward specific sources which you wish to cite to justify the No 21 in this article, we can discuss them at WP:RSN. As of right now though, you still seem to be arguing that the material should be included, while failing to actually say which sources should support it. No challenged content can be included without citations. Content cannot be cited to unreliable sources. If you want to include content provide specify the text you are proposing. Provide the necessary citations. Then we can discuss how to proceed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Back in that old discussion, ZLEA took the view that:

Disregarding the obvious Whitehead fan site, the HuffPost source states that "[Whitehead] purportedly took aloft a flying car of his own design". A source used earlier in the article, the December 1981 Popular Mechanics, states that "[Stanley Y.] Beech described the plane as self-powered on the ground, like an automobile" and later explicitly describes the aircraft as a "flying automobile" (here it is on Internet Archive).[4]

Both HuffPost (see WP:HUFFPO) and Popular Mechanics are considered reliable sources. It doesn't matter that they "appear to be a precis of earlier material". Both sources apparently did not see a reason to refute the title of "flying car", while they did choose not to endorse the claims that it actually flew. If you still don't believe the sources to be reliable in this case, feel free to bring it up at WP:RS/N.[5]

The consensus outcome of that episode was that mention of the No.21 was retained.

So the consensus outcome appears to be to go with the form of words proposed by DonFB, supported by both sets of cites. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

You don't get to concoct 'consensus' out of comments made a couple of years ago on two sources, cobbled together with an ongoing discussion of another source entirely where the validity of the source (Glass) is being questioned as being from Juvenile Nonfiction'. And why are you insisting that I bring the sources up at WP:RSN, since it is you that is proposing to cite them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I had forgotten about those. This satisfies my August 18 comment, unless anyone has a legitimate and sensible reason to ignore these two reliable sources. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I made my objections to the HuffPost and Popular Mechanics pieces perfectly clear in the earlier inconclusive discussion. [6] And note that I wasn't the only person to question the validity of the sources - see @Shibbolethink:'s comment re the HuffPost. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see how the sources fare at WP:RSN, if you're still interested. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

In which case, take it to WP:RSN, citing the sources, and the proposed text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

What happened to "I shall certainly bring it up at WP:RSN"? - ZLEA _T\^C 16:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

We got rather sidetracked by your failed attempts to get me sanctioned at WP:ANI. [7][8] Anyway, I'm not the one proposing the sources be cited. You know where WP:RSN is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be a bit weird if the one to bring it up to RSN is that one who is not questioning the reliability of known reliable sources. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if you don't wish to use the noticeboard, don't. As of right now, the article correctly makes no mention of Whitehead's non-flying machine, so I'm happy with the status quo, and if people who aren't happy with it won't go through with the necessary processes to seek broader community involvement, that's not my problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, status quo. A formal RfC on the issue would definitely be beneficial. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:STATUSQUO, the status quo for this discussion is as it was when I opened it - just after I deleted material from the article and Andy restored it. The status quo is not the article state of the moment, as he would have us believe. Per WP:STONEWALLING, it would probably be OK to restore that, so that there is something to tag as under dispute, e.g. with {{under discussion inline}}. The alternative is to change it to DonFB's suggestion, citing appropriate RS (which, again, is clear enough to all but Andy). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Can I take it from the above that you intend to seek broader community involvement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Andy has tagged all three sources for the text comprising the current first sentence of the "Early 20th Century" subsection, which describes the Whitehead machine and its purported feats. I believe it is incorrect to say the David Freeman article in HuffPost "failed verification". That source includes a quote from Jackson, saying, "the Condor propelled itself along the darkened streets of Bridgeport, Connecticut". That verifies our article text, which says the aircraft "was described as able to propel itself along roads". Popular Mechanics was tagged as "better source needed". I believe Popular Mechanics is considered RS by the community. Lastly, the Andrew Glass book is tagged as "unreliable source?" I myself earlier questioned whether that book can or should be considered RS. I pointed out, however, that the book is already included as a reference in the article. I'm not averse to an RFC on inclusion of Whitehead in this article--though it's entirely possible that process will not offer conclusive resolution if it ends with no consensus. I also want to point out that, in this article, none of the machine's supposed feats are stated in Wikivoice. The text says "purported" and says "was described"; we are not stating in Wikivoice that it did or did not fly or drive. In very brief text, the article simply describes historical information that has been reported and repeated and reprinted many times. It can be argued that we owe readers coverage of the description of the unconfirmed historical events to which so much notoriety is attached. DonFB (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the HuffPost (hardly a recognised source for early-20th-century history) quotes Jackson. For something that Jackson's publishers explicitly disowned. As for the Popular Science piece, it again is regurgitating the same material that ultimately originates from the Bridgeport Herald. And I can find no evidence whatsoever that Glass has had any recognition as an aviation historian. His book is unambiguously labelled 'juvenile nonfiction'. And from the limited fragments on Whitehead that Google makes available, Glass is again repeating the Bridgeport Herald account, more or less verbatim.

None of the sources cited are by recognised aviation historians. All are merely repeating claims ultimately sourced to a sensationalist tale printed in a section of a newspaper otherwise used for stories on Yeti's, 'dog-men', and man-eating sharks. A source explicitly rejected by those actually qualified to write on the subject. A source which describes the No. 21 as having 'flapping wings'. A source that names supposed witnesses later recorded as stating that the events described never happened.

Wikipedia policy on sourcing does not simply divide them along simple binary lines into the 'reliable' and 'unreliable'. It instead requires contributors to assess their reliability for particular statements. And the statement being made here - that Whiteheads machine had the road-going capabilities this Wikipedia article bases its inclusion criteria on - is built around material that mainstream histography rejects. Arguments for including the No. 21 in this article all seem to come down to the same thing - that mere repetition of an incidental detail in claims regarding Whitehead's machine justifies its inclusion.

The relevant guideline here is Wikipedia:Fringe theories. There is no question that the claims regarding No. 21's flight are fringe. They have been repeatedly rejected by those most qualified to comment, and the reasons for the rejection - which look in detail at the broader context than just this one supposed event - have been made absolutely clear. And yet these same claims are being used to give prominent coverage in this article to a machine which by clear consensus amongst those most qualified to judge never flew. Whitehead's supposed 'flying car' didn't fly, and the evidence that it in any way had meaningful roadgoing capabilities as a 'car' is based solely on rejected sources. It's inclusion in this article is a violation of Wikipedia policies on sourcing and undue prominence. It is fringe partisanship being shoehorned in by special pleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@DonFB: agreed, those tags don't stack up. I'd suggest they be removed. If anyone wants to argue against the consensus here, they are welcome to take it to RfC or RSN or wherever, but we are done with that here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be agreement from almost everyone that an RfC is necessary. I'm inclined to think that we should ask two different questions: (a) should Whitehead's machine be discussed in the article 'history' section, and (b) should in be included in the list of 'flying cars'. Any comments? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with those questions. We should of course notify WP:AVIATION to get more eyes on this. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Also WP:Automobiles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I have now started the RfC, below. I have notified the above two projects, along with WikiProject United States History and the broader WikiProject History. If there are other projects which may merit notification, please do so in the appropriate (neutral) manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Given the extensive earlier discussion there (see [9]) I have also posted a notification at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC on the inclusion of Whitehead's No. 21 machine in this article

A two part question: (a) Should Gustav Whitehead's No. 21 machine be discussed in the article 'history' section? (b) Should Gustav Whitehead's No. 21 machine be included in the list of 'flying cars' found in the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• No to (a) and to (b). In brief the inclusion of Whitehead's machine in this article gives entirely undue prominence to fringe claims regarding supposed manned powered flight, some two years before the Wright brothers first such flight, by a machine which by overwhelming consensus amongst credible aviation historians never flew at all (see e.g. [10][11][12][13]).
  

To go into further detail, the inclusion of Whitehead's machine on this list seems to be based on arguments that even if it didn't fly, there are sources which either label it a 'flying car', or otherwise ascribe some roadgoing capabilities to it. It is my opinion that such sources are being misused, since none are written by recognised aviation historians, and all are basing their claims around material ultimately derived from a single sensationalist article on the supposed flight in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald of August 1901. Reasons given for questioning this source are numerous (see e.g. [14]) but in essence the article appears to be a tall tale inserted into the newspaper for entertainment purposes. It can be found, headed by a prominent 'flying witch' image, in a section of the newspaper which had been used within a few weeks to host stories concerning 'bigfoot' and 'yetis', 'dog-men', 'man-eating sharks', and kleptomaniac chicken-thieves.

Beyond the questionable sourcing for Whitehead's No. 21 machine's supposed flying and/or roadgoing capabilities, there have been multiple reasons given to doubt the credibility of his many claims. It should be noted that Whitehead had previously claimed to have flown in a steam-powered machine in 1899. In 1902, the year after the No. 21's supposed flight Whitehead claimed to have flown a new machine twice - once for seven miles, over Long Island Sound. None of these supposed flights have been verified in any substantive manner, no photographic evidence has been found, and multiple supposed witnesses have denied his flights ever took place. Whitehead's failure to either publicly demonstrate his supposedly-successful machines nor to continue their development has likewise been seen as further evidence of their fictitious nature. Ultimately, even a major investor in Whitehead, Stanley Yale Beach was to state that "I do not believe that any of [Whitehead's] machines ever left the ground" [15] Another comment, from Samuel Cabot, who had once employed Whitehead, was more blunt: "…a pure romancer and a supreme master of the gentle art of lying."[16]

In conclusion, Wikipedia is being asked, based on the flimsiest of evidence, to include Whitehead's non-flying machine in a list of 'flying cars' for no better reason than that credulous sources have been found repeating tall tales, and apparently (if one is to believe earlier discussions) because the actually reliable sources don't explicitly state that Whitehead's non-flying-machine didn't have roadgoing capabilities either. This shoehorning in by 'lack of contrary evidence' regarding something of no particular historical relevance to the history of flight is absurd. Whitehead's exploits may merit discussion in their own article as a historical oddity, but Wikipedia policies are clear enough about not giving fringe material undue prominence in more general articles the manner being done here. Articles on 'flying cars' should not be hosting flights of fancy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I notice that you are still using the term "non-flying machine" a lot. While you're not wrong, the way you are using it and your "Beyond the questionable sourcing" comment seem to imply that the fact that it never flew is at least part of the reason why it should be excluded from the list. As I mentioned in the discussion above, there are five other unflown flying cars on this list, as well as seven unbuilt flying cars (three canceled and four in development). What is your opinion on the inclusion of those "non-flying machines" in the list? - ZLEA _T\^C 00:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an RfC on Whitehead - if his claims were true, they would be of great historical significance. Other content on more recent non-flying projects is in comparison of little concern, and not under discussion here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If the fact that the Whitehead No. 21 never flew is to be considered part of the reason that it should be excluded, then we should expand the RfC accordingly to cover all non-flying flying cars, as it impacts the criteria for inclusion in such a way that affects more than one aircraft on this list. If we are to allow the other unflown flying cars, then the argument that it was never flown is moot. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that we discussed the wording of the RfC above, and at no point was this widening of scope suggested, I would consider attempts to broaden its scope unjustified, and potentially disruptive. If you wish to start another RfC on a broader question, you are free to do so, after appropriate prior discussion. Meanwhile, please respond to the questions as previously agreed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

and potentially disruptive I will remind you to WP:AGF. Had I known that you would continue to leverage the "it never flew" argument, I would not have agreed to limiting the RfC to this set of questions. If the fact that it never flew is mentioned in the closing statement as a factor in the decision, then I will open a new RfC regarding the inclusion of the other unflown flying cars. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We agreed the questions in advance. I made no promises as to how I was going to answer them, and frankly the suggestion that I am doing anything improper by discussing the overwhelming consensus regarding the non-flying status of a supposed 'flying car' in a list of 'flying cars' is absurd beyond measure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you are doing anything wrong, I only pointed out that your argument potentially has larger implications than you seem to realize and it needs to be addressed before it becomes a bigger problem down the line. Am I not free to suggest that the RfC be amended to avoid such complications? - ZLEA _T\^C 02:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have made my position clear. There has been no prior discussion regarding any RfC with a broader scope. It would be improper to amend it now, based on nothing but hypothetical 'implications' that seem to rest on the assumption that content decisions cannot be made on a case-by-case basis. Wikipedia works like that all the time. It is supposed to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No and No -- AndyTheGrump said it far better than I could. But to summarize, there were lots of spurious accounts of working flying machines back then. Used to liven up cheap newspapers on slow news days, and drum up investors for tinkerers. There's no good evidence that this was ever a working aircraft. Furthermore, even if the machine flew, the ability to propel itself briefly along the ground is not the definition of a flying car. ApLundell (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

As defined in the article, "A flying car or roadable aircraft is a type of vehicle which can function both as a road vehicle and as an aircraft." Propelling itself along the road with wings folded is far more than your "briefly along the ground" as if taxiing, while the definition just given (and hence the article content) includes roadable aircraft. Your summary denial is not supported by the article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes and No - The current wording (emphasis mine) is:

"In 1901 German immigrant to the U.S. Gustave Whitehead purportedly flew a powered aircraft, which was described as able to propel itself along roads to the site of the flying experiment. Consensus among historians is that Whitehead's no. 21 did not achieve sustained self-powered flight."

This is is supported at the very least by the Popular Mechanics article. As Andy stated in the discussion above, the article does quote a sensationalist article in Bridgeport Sunday Herald, which can fairly be described as unreliable. However, it also quoted a Scientific American article by Stanley Y. Beech which corroborated the claim that the Whitehead No. 21 was capable of "self-powered on the ground, like an automobile". Obviously, we should not (and currently do not) present these claims as fact, but the fact that this has been described as a flying car (as the HuffPost article does) or something similar to the concept warrants the inclusion of these claims in the 'history' section. That said, I don't believe the existing sources are enough to warrant the inclusion in the list of flying cars, as most only describe purported similar capabilities to the modern definition of a flying car rather than any intention for the aircraft to function as a road vehicle. If any reliable sources can be found that confirm that it as intended to function as such, then I would support its inclusion in the list. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes and No per arguments of ZLEA. If something like the sentence above isn't included, then all other non-flying cars should also be removed from the article. Skyerise (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Yes to both. The fringe argument about whether it flew has no relevance to whether it was intended to be a flying car. About a third of machines in this article never flew, some never even left the drawing board. This is normal for our articles on the various kinds of aircraft. What matters for inclusion is notability.

Just because mainstream writers on the flight controversy are seldom concerned with its roadability, does not make the roadability either controversial or non-notable. We have zero - zero - sources denying its description as a flying car, and plenty of neutral sources which describe the No.21 as a flying car, roadable aircraft, flying automobile and similar, and/or give details of its "ground engine" in this context.,, while sources deemed unreliable over the claims of flight may also provide reliable information on its roadability. As they do here: ,

For your information, See also a previous round of discussion on this same issue in 2022, at Fringe Noticeboard as well as here. The outcome of that was to keep Whithehead in this article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes to A and No to B: The sources are sufficient to support Wikipedia text that describes Whitehead's aircraft as "roadable". I don't believe the sources support a description of the machine as a "flying car". So the article, in my view, has sort of a built-in contradiction by including two non-identical concepts under a single article title. In my view, the two concepts are not the same thing, and I don't know that any of the article sources say the terms and concepts are interchangeable. Therefore, I don't support inclusion of the Whitehead machine in the article's list section titled "Flying Cars", because the sources don't support that phrasing. I think we're inviting some reader confusion (and editorial conflict) by having an article in which, by the wording and section titling, the qualification for an item's inclusion in a prose section apparently conflicts with the qualification for its inclusion in a list section. However, as long as "roadable aircraft" remains a core concept in the article, the Whitehead machine can be included in the prose History section as meeting that description, as shown in the sources, whether or not it flew. DonFB (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Several roadable aircraft ale given in the list, so I have amended its heading to reflect its content. This might change your judgement. But the big difficulty here is to find a consistent and supportable definition of the distinction between a flying car vs a roadable aircraft. Many examples are borderline and can be seen either way, while some sources regard them as different names for the same thing. For example the European Flying Car Association notes that "Our members have launched the idea of organizing a European Grand Prix Competition for roadable aircraft (aka flying car)" [My italics].[17]. Claims of any distinction need to offer RS which trumps such sources, and need to give enough detail to classify each machine listed. Unless and until then, claims that they are different classes are unsupported. You know, when Jackson says the No.21 flew, everything he says is deemed unreliable, but when he explicitly says that the No.21 was a roadable aircraft and distinct from a flying car, he is accepted without question. Sourcing here is a mess, and we need to bear this in mind. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  'Accepted without question' by who? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Brief comments on the sources cited above:

1. Freeman. I see no reason whatsoever to see HuffPost comments by a non-expert as any sort RS on events alleged to have occurred over a century ago. And a statement that something was 'purported' to have happened is not an assertion that it did, anyway.

2. Bongarz. Again, a statement that someone wrote something. Not an assertion that it was in fact true. No indication that PopMech is doing anything more than reporting what had previously written, and nothing to suggest that they had done any historical research themselves, or had the credentials to do so.

3. Glass. This book is self described 'juvenile nonfiction'. I can find no evidence that Glass has any credentials as any sort of aviation historian.

4. O'Dwyer. Mere repetition of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald story. O'Dwyer was one of the Whitehead proponents that responses by multiple aviation historians were diretly aimed at. A fringe source, repeating material to support his fringe claim.

5. Jackson. The editor of Janes. A journalist, and not a historian. His Whitehead-promoting editorial was explicitly disowned by the publishers. [18]

As I wrote in my initial comment, questionable sources regurgitating material already rejected my mainstream historiography are being used to justify inclusion of Whitehead's machine in this article. As for the lack of 'denials' from serious aviation historians on the supposed roadgoing characteristics of the No. 21, this argument seems to be based on the presumption that such researchers might concern themselves with the outcome of obscure arguments on Wikipedia article talk pages. They had no reason to comment on whether a non-flying machine was capable of emulating an automobile: it would have been of no historical significance if it could, since it didn't fly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The flying car/roadable aircraft angle has never been rejected by a mainstream writer. Andy is quite wrong to suggest that it has. The value of these sources is to verify notability, not necessarily absolute truth. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what I am suggesting. Mainstream writers simply haven't written about supposed roadgoing capabilities, since they would be of no particular interest one way or another in something that didn't fly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"The value of these sources is to verify notability, not necessarily absolute truth." Correct, though I would say, "verify the Wikipedia text". The sources may not have the academic rigor of peer-reviewed journals, but it seems like a bridge too far to reject, as Andy would, half a dozen or more established media outlets--none of which has run afoul of RSP. DonFB (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP is for sources which have been discussed repeatedly. It is not an exhaustive list of every possible publication that might be cited. And furthermore, it is Wikipedia policy that reliability be determined in context - the matter to be addressed is whether a source can be considered reliable for the particular statements it is being cited for. And don't you consider the fact that e.g. the sources own publisher went on to disown a source we cite to be of relevance when discussing the appropriateness of its use? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources--Jane's, Flight Journal, History.net, Popular Mechanics; Air Enthusiast, HuffPost, to name several--meet qualifications as reliable sources. Several of them are specifically aviation-related, which supports the concept that they are, as you wrote, "considered reliable for the particular statements". We are not using a reliable gardening magazine for a statement about aviation history, for example. The content of the Whitehead articles in the sources does not necessarily represent accepted facts, nor is it required to. The sources are reporting and opining on a historical controversy, and we are summarizing what they say, with appropriate qualifiers/disclaimers in our text, viz: "purported". DonFB (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

So, do you or don't you consider the fact that one of the sources listed - the Jackson article - was disowned by the publisher to be relevant to a discussion on reliability of that particular article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The publisher distanced itself from the opinion piece; it did not declare the piece false or fraudulent, or retract it. The piece is reliable for the opinion of Jane's editor, a professional with broad knowledge of the subject matter--aviation. DonFB (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

I am conflicted about this. I'm not aware that Tom Crouch or Charles Gibbs-Smith ever said anything about "flying car" or "roadable" vehicle in their dismissals of the Whitehead claims. On the other hand, six sources can be identified that do mention the machine's ability to self-propel on streets or roads: Paul Jackson in Jane's; David Freeman in HuffPost quoting Jackson; the original Bridgeport Herald newspaper article; the Andy Glass book; Frank DeLear in History.net ("possibly the world’s first roadable airplane"); and William O'Dwyer in FlightJournal.com ("He drove his machine along the road"). In another category is Weissenborn in Air Enthusiast, who says the "airplane" was "pushed through the streets". Applying my editorial judgement, I think it makes no difference whether #21 ever flew in deciding whether to mention it in this article, because, as other editors have noted, several "flying cars" named in this article never flew. Delving further into my personal opinion, I do not believe Whitehead intended the machine to be a car, or any kind of utilitarian road vehicle, even though six sources offer some support for the idea of a "roadable" vehicle. It seems to me that the intent of this article is to name and describe vehicles that are or were intended to be used as cars, not merely as vehicles that could self-propel to a flying field and accelerate for takeoff using that propulsion. So where does this leave me? I still haven't decided, but thought I'd post this for the sake of discussion. DonFB (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This article includes roadable aircraft in its opening sentence, and Roadable aircraft redirects here. On this basis, whatever one thinks the ground engine was intended for, to reject it one has to accept the stronger claim that it was neither a flying car nor a roadable aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I hadn't bothered to review the intro or redirects as I should have. DonFB (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• I find this this sentence in the History section problematic: Consensus among historians is that Whitehead's no. 21 did not achieve sustained self-powered flight. Sources: Scientific American says that Dan Schlenoff was a contributing editor, Flying Magazine says that Ashley Burns is just a writer, and since Crouch is the only bonafide historian; one historian does not make a "consensus among historians". We shouldn't be using sources like this to imply two of the people are historians, when their own publications don't recognize or identify them as such. We can use Crouch to make an allegation "that Whitehead's no. 21 did not achieve sustained self-powered flight", but it should be attributed per WP:ACCORDINGTO.

A couple of newspaper clippings that pre-date the Bridgeport Herald August 1901 article:

• December 6, 1899 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• June 21, 1901 Vermont Phoenix
• July 26, 1901 The Minneapolis Journal

— Isaidnoway (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are other newspaper articles describing Whitehead's claims. Some of which pre-date the August 1901 one that his supporters now cite as evidence that he was the first to achieve sustained powered manned flight. This isn't news to anyone familiar with the topic. Or surprising to anyone familiar with the habits of many newspapers at the time, which (as is still true now) would publish all sorts of entertaining tall tales. We don't base historical article content on tabloid primary sources making extraordinary claims unsupported by any other evidence. And no, we don't need to attribute to Tom Crouch the overwhelming mainstream consensus that Whitehead's claims have been unverified. I cite multiple highly credible sources directly refuting the claims regarding Whitehead in my first post. [19] I suggest you read them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to the sources used in the History section now. Two of them are not historians, and it is misleading to our readers to represent them as such. And Crouch, or anyone employed by The Smithsonian, has a vested interest in discrediting Whitehead, and anyone else for that matter, due to The Smithsonian's agreement not to recognize any successful pre-Wright powered flight, as part of its acceptance of the Wright Flyer. And I did read your first post, and I don't find your argument compelling enough to remove any mention of Whitehead from this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, we can add more sources, if you don't like the existing ones. Suitable sources for the Wrights being the first to achieve sustained manned powered flight must run into the hundreds, if not thousands. And given that the Smithsonian says nothing that the other sources don't say, claims that they have a 'vested interest' in arguing against the Whitehead claims are clearly meritless. We don't reject sources because proponents of fringe claims concoct conspiracy theories about them AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not a matter of not "liking" the present sources; we don't use misuse sources like this; to imply that the people who wrote the articles are historians, when they're not. And yes, WP:BIASED sources like Crouch are allowed, so if he is the only actual historian we have making an allegation, his opinion should be attributed to him, per WP:ACCORDINGTO. Or in the alternative, the wording of the sentence could be changed, removing "historians", and the present sources can be kept.

And I'm not sure where you got the idea that proponents are concocting conspiracy theories about The Smithsonian, when Crouch himself in 1987 acknowledges and admits The Smithsonian has a vested interest here in this article - if the Smithsonian ever again recognized any other aircraft as having been capable of powered, sustained, and controlled flight with a man on board before December 17, 1903, the executors of the estate would have the right to take possession of the machine once again. The Smithsonian signed the agreement. And like I said above, it doesn't make any difference if it is Whitehead or anybody else, the Smithsonian has a binding contract with the estate that forbids them from stating anything other than the Wrights were the first to achieve sustained manned powered flight. This is well documented in multiple reliable sources, and the Smithsonian has also been roundly criticized in multiple sources for agreeing to that stipulation just to appease the egos of the Wright brothers. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

#21 Status in list

I suggest the Status column for the Whitehead machine be shown as "Built", instead of "Not flown" (there are multiple photographs, after all). In the "Notes" column, let's add: "Historians dismiss claims that it flew." (With appropriate referencing) DonFB (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)