text:
Talk:Ballot

Untitled
This page contained a disambiguation between Vote and Ballot (car), the latter page nonexistent, at least at the time. I replaced it with text copied from Ballot design. The history for that page, should anyone care to see it, should still exist there. -Smack 23:27, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perspective view of so-called Butterfly Ballot?
I had not been aware that the Butterfly ballot had to be viewed at an angle.

It looks dreadfully user-UN-friendly!

Can this be the same country that alledgedly lands men on the moon?

Good balloting isn't rocket science!

 * It doesn't have to be viewed at an angle. It should be viewed straight-on, i.e., the top-down view also shown on this page. The "perspective" shot is greatly exaggerated—how many people viewed it such an acute angle? The more rational explanation for voter confusion is a lot simpler: people naturally will read the left-hand side from top to bottom and only then move on the right-hand side—which many won't do because the two major parties are only on the left-hand side. Gore/Lieberman was the second to appear so it was assumed the second circle was what should be punched to vote Democrat. You might then ask, "wouldn't the voter then think, 'what about all the other circles here?'". No. No, they would not. Most already know who they're voting for. They locate the party or the name then punch/check/etc. the closest circle/box.

 * The notion that the angle was to blame is ludicrous. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

BALLS

 * for a better image of the infamous butterfly ballot, see the cover of Jeffrey Toobin's book Too Close to Call.

Separate article needed on Butterfly Ballot
This topic deserves its own article, not just a paragraph in the general article on ballot. Esp re the ballot's contribution to the number of mistaken votes for Patrick Buchanan, which would have led to a Gore victory if the voter was not encouraged to make a mistake via poor ballot design.

Why on earth would 'butterfuly ballot' Chelsea redirect to ballot types? This is a hugely controversial and notable item that definitely deserves its own article. -- 207.34.139.78 (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Make it! Butterfly ballot needs its own page! --Laslo paniflex (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

history of ballots
Should we include in the article? This is certainly the oldest ballot I've ever seen (still being clutched by the ghost-fingers of Themistocles, apparently)  And the photo's already Wikimedia! Hooray!! But, it seems like a short article already...may be unnecessary. However it does nicely reflect the history section. --Marco Passarani (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
I removed the following passage from the text: "The word ballot almost certainly comes from Italian, and has two possible origins. One is from “ballotta”, i.e. the way chestnuts are called in Florence.[3] In 1038 the city council of Florence started meeting in the local Torre della Castagna (Chestnut tower), a gift from the Holy Roman Emperor Konrad II to the city. Votes were cast using chestnuts and the voting process became known as ballottare. The term then spread to the other imperial free cities, and stuck also to other ways of casting votes." ↵ Apart from the fact that the wording was ungrammatical, the authority given for this fanciful tale was the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I followed the link and found it simply gave the origin as from "ballotta", the ball used for casting votes in Venice. Other dictionaries, like the Oxford and the Italian Treccani and Devoto, give the same etymology.Campolongo (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ballot. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/wilson.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ballot


text:
Charles Yorke

Charles Yorke PC (30 December 1722 – 20 January 1770) was a British politician who briefly served as Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain. His father was also Lord Chancellor, and he began his career as a Member of Parliament. He served successively as Solicitor-General and Attorney-General for several governments, during which he was best known for writing what became the Quebec Act. He was appointed Lord Chancellor over his objections, but he committed suicide only three days after taking the post.

Life
The second son of Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke, he was born in London, and was educated at Newcome's School in Hackney and Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. His literary abilities were shown at an early age by his collaboration with his brother Philip in the Athenian Letters. In 1745 he published an able treatise on the law of forfeiture for high treason, in defence of the severe sentences his father had given to the Scottish Jacobite peers following the Battle of Culloden. In the following year he was called to the bar.

His father being at this time Lord Chancellor, Yorke obtained a sinecure appointment in the Court of Chancery in 1747, and entered Parliament as member for Reigate, a seat which he afterwards exchanged for that for the University of Cambridge. He quickly made his mark in the House of Commons, one of his earliest speeches being in favour of his father's reform of the marriage law that led to the Marriage Act 1753. In 1750 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society.

In 1751 he became counsel to the East India Company, and in 1756 he was appointed Solicitor-General, a place which he retained in the administration of the elder Pitt, of whose foreign policy he was a powerful defender.

He resigned with Pitt in 1761, but in 1762 became Attorney-General under Lord Bute. He continued to hold this office when George Grenville became Prime Minister (April 1763), and advised the government on the question raised by John Wilkes's The North Briton. Yorke refused to describe the libel as treasonable, while pronouncing it a high misdemeanour. In the following November he resigned office. Resisting Pitt's attempt to draw him into alliance against the ministry he had quit, Yorke maintained, in a speech that prompted the highest eulogy from Horace Walpole, that parliamentary privilege did not extend to cases of libel; though he agreed with Pitt in condemning the principle of general warrants. Yorke, henceforward a member of the Rockingham party, was elected recorder of Dover in 1764, and in 1765 he again became Attorney-General in the Rockingham administration, whose policy he did much to shape. He supported the repeal of the Stamp Act, while urging the simultaneous passing of the Declaratory Act. His most important measure was the constitution which he drew up for the province of Quebec, and which after his resignation of office became the Quebec Act of 1774.

On the accession to power of Chatham and Grafton in 1766, Yorke resigned office, and took little part in the debates in parliament during the next four years. In 1770 he was invited by the Duke of Grafton, when Camden was dismissed from the Chancellorship, to take his seat on the woolsack. He had, however, explicitly pledged himself to Rockingham and his party not to take office with Grafton. The King exerted all his personal influence to overcome Yorke's scruples, warning him finally that the Great Seal if now refused would never again be within his grasp. Yorke yielded to the King's entreaty, and he was appointed Lord Chancellor and sworn of the Privy Council on 17 January 1770. He went to his brother's house, where he met the leaders of the Opposition, and feeling at once overwhelmed with shame, fled to his own house, where three days later he committed suicide (20 January 1770). The patent raising him to the peerage as Baron Morden had been made out, but his last act was to refuse his sanction to the sealing of the document.

Family
Charles Yorke was twice married:

First, on 19 May 1755 to Katherine Blount Freeman, with one son:
 * Philip Yorke, (31 May 1757 – 18 November 1834) became 3rd Earl of Hardwicke

Second, on 30 December 1762 to Agneta Johnson, with children:
 * Charles Philip Yorke (12 March 1764 – 13 March 1834) was later to be prominent in government.
 * Caroline Yorke (29 August 1765 – 26 July 1818), who married John Eliot, 1st Earl of St Germans.
 * Joseph Sydney Yorke (6 June 1768 – 5 May 1831), who became an Admiral in the Royal Navy.

His wife was heiress to Tyttenhanger House, near St Albans, Hertfordshire.

Agneta (1740 – 30 December 1820) exhibited works in pastels at the Society of Artists between 1771 and 1775. She corresponded with William Gilpin, who instructed her and her three children in their art, and she also rendered some of Gilpin's works, including a view of Netley Abbey, as etchings.

She died in 1820. There is a monument to her at St Andrew's Parish Church, Wimpole, Cambridgeshire.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Charles Yorke


text:
Kučinić

Kučinić (pronounced [kut͡ʃinit͡ɕ]), often anglicized to Kucinich (pronounced [kuːsɪnɪtʃ]) is a Croatian family name. Notable persons with that surname include:

 * Dennis Kucinich (born 1946), American politician
 * Elizabeth Kucinich (born 1977), director of public affairs for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and wife of Dennis
 * Jackie Kucinich (born 1981), American reporter and daughter of Dennis

title: Kučinić


text:
Charles Philip Yorke

Charles Philip Yorke (12 March 1764 – 13 March 1834) was a British politician. He notably served as Home Secretary from 1803 to 1804.

Political career
He sat as a Member of Parliament (MP) for Cambridgeshire from 1790 to 1810. He was commissioned as an officer in the Cambridgeshire Militia in 1793. He was promoted to major in 1795, a fellow officer was Captain George Manby By 1806 he was their colonel. He was MP for Liskeard from 1812 to 1818.

In 1801 he was appointed Secretary at War in Henry Addington's ministry, transferring to the Home Office in 1803, where he was a strong opponent of concession to the Roman Catholics. He made himself exceedingly unpopular in 1810 by bringing about the exclusion of strangers, including reporters for the press, from the House of Commons under the standing order, which led to the imprisonment of Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet in the Tower and to riots in London. In the same year, Yorke joined Spencer Perceval's government as First Lord of the Admiralty. He retired from public life in 1818.

He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1801.

Family
Yorke was the second son of the Hon. Charles Yorke and grandson of Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke. His mother was Agneta, daughter of Henry Johnstone. His brother was Admiral Sir Joseph Sidney Yorke (1768–1831), whose son succeeded to the earldom of Hardwicke.

Yorke married Harriott, eldest daughter of Charles Manningham, Esq. of Thorpe, Surrey in July 1790. They had no children. He died in March 1834, one day after his 70th birthday.

He had a natural son, Charles Eurwicke Douglas.

Legacy
In 1802, Matthew Flinders named Yorke Peninsula in South Australia after Yorke.

title: Charles Philip Yorke


text:
Talk:Panettone

Bad Picture
non-traditional shaped loaf? why include a picture if it doesn't look like the real thing. i'm sure any of the dozens of manufacturers would be happy to have a picture of their loaf included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Peru
Is the original pannetone really consumed in Peru? I undestand that it is eaten in Argentina and Southern Brazil because of the millions of North Italian immigrants.

But in Peru?? It's mostly an indigenous country. Could someone check that data? Please!

This fact is also posted on the Italian and French versions of Wikipedia, but since you have never heard of this fact, maybe we should delete this information on those pages as well. 75.62.139.21 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Peru is a multicultural country, which had a lesser Italian immigration. You may also be shocked to know that this mostly indigenous country also counts Chinese food as a staple. Indeed, Panettone is consumed throughout all regions during Christmas and New Year's. Pozole

Peru does have a strong Italian presence. It is not Argentina (in numbers), but particularly in the Coast and Lima has a very strong Italian Peruvian community. The biggest Ice cream company in Peru was D'Onofrio (Nestle Peru bought it in 1997), http://heladosdonofrio.blogspot.com/2007/11/historia-de-donofrio.html founded in 1911 by Pietro Donofrio. He came to Peru in the late 1800. Many Peruvian Italians have intermarried but the culture remains, particularly in the coast. Some Peruvians of Italian decent include one of Peru's biggest heroes Francisco Bolognesi, peruvian singer Gian Marco Zignago, comedian Ricky Tosso, former major of Lima in the 90's, Ricardo Belmont Cassineli, TV & Radio personality Guido Lombardi, several soccer players such as Flavio Maestri, Claudio Pizarro, Ronald Baroni among many others. Because of these links, after the US and Spain, the biggest Peruvian community of Peruvians outside of Peru is in Italy. User:Dantt777

I have no idea how this information got to be here, but I advise you to check the reliability of its content. As a 100% Italian, from a city very close to Milan, where Panettone originated, and passionate about cooking, I was horrified to read this nonsense about the half cooked panettone OR the fermented raisins. What a load of rubbish. Panettoni require a very long curing process. As they are raised with an acid yeast similar to sourdough, they need to be worked over several days in order to strenghen the yeast enough for it to give the cake its fluffy consistency. The raisins and lemon and orange peel, that are the typical taste of traditional panettone, must be of the best quality and are added dry, without prior soaking (as would be the case for instance in the English xmas pudding). As a final point, if Motta is one of the best known producers of sweets and cakes in Italy and abroad, it is by no means synonymous to Panettone. There are countless other brands that can boast just as old a tradition in the making of Panettone as Motta, and I can think of quite a few whose quality is by far superior. 18:32, 17 December 2003 81.103.18.60

-I've made some changes based on your input, please let me know if it is correct. If there are some other sources, plese include them. Pozole 16:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm another one, just from Milano: Please, change everithing in the principal page, and save this one, that correctly describe the correct preparation of Panettone. Another thing: the traditoional Panettone shape is not high, even if it's true that Motta's one is rather high. With a diameter of 222, 24 cm, the corect highness is about 12-15, for about 1 kg. You have desribed a 2 kilos one.

-Some of the original information has been up for a very long time. The additions I made have been sourced. I never have heard of Panettone being half cooked but perhaps the original editor surmised this from the spongy consistency of the cake. I personally have not eaten Motta's pannetoni for years, since I noticed the quality is nowhere near what it used to be in my grandfather's time. Motta and Alemagna have ben included since they were pioneers of the export of pannetone to the rest of Italy and the world. Pozole 16:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

 * All families in Peru buy panettones in December and they eat them at breakfast and "lonche" (elevens) along with hot chocolate, also there are several companies that produce panettone in Peru, eg: Winter's, D'onofrio, Sayon, Motta, Bimbo, San Jorge, Gloria, Costa, Todinno, Bauducco, etc. so maybe you should come here first before talking (or writing) --†_JuanPa_† (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The so-called Panettone in Peru does not taste like authentic Italian Panettone. Citrons and lemons are not available here in Peru so they use candied papaya. Also the cakes are filled with so much artificial flavorings that the scent literally fills a room when you open and cut up one of the cakes. Also the sides on the bottom that touch the paper and usually burnt and have to be thrown out. These cake batter is obviously not cured or fermented properly. They are cheaply mass produced imitations.

Too personal
This article has a lot of personal references, which defeat the purpose of the encyclopedia.

Note to Editors: Kindly proof-read —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.194.34.103 (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Muffin-like?
To the user that has added the "fact" that panettone is "muffin-like", please provide some citations for this claim. As I stated in my edit summary when I reverted that addition, "Panettone is not at all like a muffin (at least, not shape, texture, taste, ingredients, consistency, density, ...)". You've shown no evidence to the contrary. Mind matrix  15:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Scappi's recipe
Does anywhere know where Scappi is meant to have written his recipe for panettone? I spent three hours in my university's rare books collection trying to find it in the Opera without any luck. There are mentions of "tortiglioni ripieni alla Milanese" (p. 269), "tortiglioni alla Lombarda, fatti con butiro" (p. 270) and "torte d'amido" (p.274). These are, however, in book four which is just a collection of menus, without any recipes to go with them. I reckon that it must be the "tortigliona alla Lombarda, fatti con butiro" which we call "panettone" now, but there doesn't seem to be a recipe anywhere. Thomcurtis (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell folks are mistaking "panforte" in Scappi for "panettone". DG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.93.239 (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

History section
1. Since this section really begins with the 20th century, maybe it should be renamed "20th Century history" - there is an Origins section which is where history per se should probably be discussed.

2. Also, there are two ambiguous/contradictory statements within a sentence of each other a) "Italian bakers produce some 117 million panettone and pandoro cakes every Christmas — worth 579 million euros (416 million pounds)" and B) "Manufacturers offer variations of panettone stuffed with chocolate chips, figs, almonds, cream or even lemon liqueur or limoncello. The traditional recipe remains the favorite, with 50 million sold for Christmas in 2002." Is it 117 million at Christmas or 50 million? Sold where? Italy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bundas (talk • contribs) 02:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This reference (from the Italian Wikipedia page on panettone) says that in 2008 almost 110 million panettone and pandoro have been produced in Italy, for a total worth of aout 600 million euros: http://www.ravenna24ore.it/news/ravenna/002553-panettone-sfida-crisi 85.218.106.16 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it impossible that 117 million panettone was sold, but 50 million of them were traditional, or that was for 2002 only? --2604:2000:A14F:AC00:980B:48E0:A0B9:1804 (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I see the OP's point (item 1). I swapped the "Origins" and "History" sections and renamed "History"->"20th century". --Black Walnut (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

What about Galup panettone?
Is there really no mention of Galup panettone in the whole page?? Not even a single word? I understand it is a variation to the original recipe (it is basically shorter and features a hazelnut frosting) but is so well known and widespread in Italy that it deserves some mention in the page: it has an almost one-century long history now and it even gained the title of "caterer to the Royal House" back in 1937. Plus, the dialect noun galuperia (from Piedmontese galup, literally "delicious") is also used as a term to indicate a number of delicacies which are most typical of Piedmont, it is not just a matter of a mere panettone trademark.--Teno85 (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Do you have any sources about this that aren't about the Galup brand? (That is, about a generic, cultural food known as 'galup', not the company.) Mind  matrix  23:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

 * I have sources for the concept of galuperia (often used in the plural form galuperie) as a reference to different culinary specialties from Piedmont, Northwest Italy: for example, http://www.ghironda.com/rubriche/arciere2.htm refers to a book entitled Galuperie del vecchio Piemonte (Delicacies from old Piedmont), while another book entitled Natale a Torino. Galuperie e altre storie (Christmas in Turin. Delicacies and other stories) is reported in http://www.ibs.it/code/9788866081449/natale-torino-galuperie.html?gclid=CNbo3_OygsoCFZadGwod4yILfw; there is also a number websites referring to galuperie in a generic sense (e.g. http://www.360-gradi.it/eventi/evento-le-galuperie-di-torino-speciale-cioccolato-0000165198.html).
 * As for galup as a singular noun, it is actually a brand founded in Pinerolo in 1922, so you can't really tell we have a cultural food known as galup (besides the brand itself). What I really meant is that Galup has such a solid history and is so well known in Italy that it deserves a mention in this article (it has its own page on Wikipedia Italian version), just like Motta and Alemagna brands which are both mentioned in this Wiki article.--Teno85 (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Known by different names
"Each country names the special bread differently" - do they? If we're talking about original Italian panettone, is it really called by different names in different places where it's appreciated? I have bought it in England and France and it's clearly seen as an Italian speciality and called panettone.

Pieter Brueghel
Anyone have evidence for it being in a painting by Pieter Brueghel, as claimed? I googled and found claims it is shown in The Peasant Wedding, but I looked at images of it and don't see one...

 * The article just says: "It is shown in a sixteenth-century painting by Pieter Brueghel the Elder", which is quite vague, and without any source. There is no mention at The Peasant Wedding and, like you, I certainly can't identify it in that painting. Suggest this claim is removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyway, one would expect it to appear in a Christmas-themed painting. Wikipedia has an article that claims to list all his paintings. I saw no panettone amongst them. I added a "citation needed" flag, in the article, to help spur others into action. --Black Walnut (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest also that Brueghel didn't know anything about Panettone. The modern Panettonne is quite different from those before about 1930. The familiar shape is down to the commercialisation by bakers that include Angelo Motta.--Dorkinglad (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Further to these comments, I came here because Nigel Slater includes the Brueghel claim in his Christmas Chronicles (ISBN 978-0-00-826019-4), page 266: "The cake [ie. a Panettone] appears in The Peasant Wedding (1567), a painting by Pieter Brueghel the Elder, currently housed in the Kunsthistoriches Museum in Vienna." I'm no expert but, examining that painting as Martinevans123 did, I couldn't see anything even vaguely resembling a Panettone. Did Mr Slater even look at the Brueghel? I suspect not! But I wouldn't be surprised if he'd used this article as his source. Suggest the reference be removed before further confusion makes it into the published record. 86.31.203.225 (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Now expunged. My Slater should know better than to go trawling for material that might be a little overdone. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.italiaregina.it/panettone-buy-online/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. John of Reading (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This archive shows that the text was at the external site before it was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panettone&diff=prev&oldid=803919044 added here] -- John of Reading (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Panettone


text:
User talk:Valentine~enwiki

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in articles will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing here. Thanks.

and please don't add adverts or nonsense. You can be blocked from editing if you continue. Secretlondon 23:32, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Valentine. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Valentine~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Valentine~enwiki


text:
User:HappyDog

This is the user page for Mark Clements. I am the famous Green Mark of York and London, both of which are places in England (which is a country probably somewhere to the east of you). I'm not interested in writing anything here at present, but thought I'd add my details in case anyone who knows me was wondering.

Bookmarks

 * User:Sam/List of songs with numbers in the title

Sub-pages

 * /monobook.css/
 * /monobook.js/

title: User:HappyDog


text:
User talk:Sirdog (usurped)

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela. 23:36, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Request for usurpation
Hello, Sirdog. A request has been made via Changing username/Usurpations (or SRUC) to usurp, or "take over", your username because another user would like to use it to edit. The changing username guideline allows a username that is not being actively used to be usurped if the user is given an opportunity to object and does not do so.

If you do not object to being renamed to a new username in order for another user to use the name you currently have, please log in and post a reply here saying so (you may also tell us what username you would like to be renamed to, or we will provide you with a generic one) or use Special:GlobalRenameRequest.

If you do nothing : the request may be filled shortly, and your account will be moved to a generic username. You may request that it be moved to a new username of your choice at any time.

If you object to being renamed : please log in and make an edit to this page clearly stating that you object to usurpation. Any objection on your part will prevent usurpation.

Please note that even if your current username is usurped, you can still edit and your data will not be lost; your preferences, watchlist, and other user settings will be transferred to a new username.

Thank you for your time. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sirdog (usurped)


text:
User talk:Deadbarnacle

DUMP DUMP DUMP barnacle (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Counterintuitive for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Counterintuitive is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Counterintuitive until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Deadbarnacle


text:
Apgar score

The Apgar score is a quick way for health professionals to evaluate the health of all newborns at 1 and 5 minutes after birth and in response to resuscitation. It was originally developed in 1952 by an anesthesiologist at Columbia University, Virginia Apgar, to address the need for a standardized way to evaluate infants shortly after birth.

Today, the categories developed by Apgar used to assess the health of a newborn remain largely the same as in 1952, though the way they are implemented and used has evolved over the years. The score is determined through the evaluation of the newborn in five criteria: activity (tone), pulse, grimace, appearance, and respiration. For each criterion, newborns can receive a score from 0 to 2. The list of criteria is a backronym of Apgar's surname.

History and development of the Apgar score
Apgar originally developed the criteria as a way to address the lack of a standardized way to assess the need for assistive breathing procedures for newborns. In 1952, after some refinement of her initial system, Apgar presented the Apgar score at a joint meeting between the International Anesthesia Research Society and the International College of Anesthetists, and it was then published in Anesthesia & Analgesia in 1953.

In 1955, efforts to establish a scientific basis to the score increased. Alongside Duncan Holaday and Stanley James, Apgar published a research paper using the scores of 15,348 infants to establish the association between a low Apgar score (0-2) and laboratory findings characteristics of asphyxia.

The Apgar score is no longer used as a way to determine the need for newborn resuscitation because supportive measures must be implemented prior to 1 minute after birth, the first time-point at which the Apgar score is determined. However, the Apgar score is a method of assessment endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Interpretation of scores
Various members of the healthcare team, including midwives, nurses, or physicians, may be involved in the Apgar scoring of a neonate. The test is generally done at one and five minutes after birth and may be repeated later if the score is and remains low. Scores of seven and above are generally normal; four to six, fairly low; and three and below are generally regarded as critically low and cause for immediate resuscitative efforts.

A low score on the one-minute mark may show that the neonate requires medical attention, but does not necessarily indicate a long-term problem, particularly if the score improves at the five-minute mark. A constellation of factors may contribute to a low Apgar score value. An Apgar score that remains below three at five minutes and later times, such as 10, 15, or 30 minutes, does not provide supporting evidence for a specific illness but can sometimes be among the first indicators of neonatal encephalopathy. However, the Apgar test's purpose is to determine quickly whether or not a newborn needs immediate medical care. It is not designed to predict long-term health issues.

A score of 10 is uncommon, due to the prevalence of transient cyanosis, and does not substantially differ from a score of nine. Transient cyanosis is common, particularly in babies born at high altitude.

Implementation of scores
In cases where a newborn needs resuscitation, it should be initiated before the Apgar score is assigned at the one-minute mark. Therefore, the Apgar score is not used to determine if initial resuscitation is needed, rather it is used to determine if resuscitation efforts should be continued. Variation between the one-minute and five-minute Apgar scores can be used to assess an infant's response to resuscitation. If the score is below seven at the five-minute mark, the Neonatal Resuscitation Program guidelines specify that the infant's Apgar score should be reassessed at five-minute intervals for up to 20 minutes.

Exceedingly few infants who have an Apgar score of 0 at 10 minutes of age survive with intact neurological function. As a result, the 2011 Neonatal Resuscitation Program suggests that if no pulse is appreciable at 10 minutes of life, "discontinuation of resuscitative efforts may be appropriate." However, in a recent retrospective study including 17 infants with an Apgar score of 0 at 10 minutes who received therapeutic hypothermia, 4 of the 8 surviving babies had no neurological abnormalities and only 1 infant had severe abnormalities, as assessed through brain MRI.

During neonatal resuscitation, Apgar scores may not accurately represent the condition of the neonate as resuscitation measures (i.e. positive pressure ventilation and chest compressions) may artificially elevate scores. As a result, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists encourage the use of an expanded Apgar score report, which records resuscitation efforts utilized at each time point.

A systematic review that analyzed the relationship between umbilical cord pH and neonatal outcomes found that low cord pH is strongly correlated with mortality, morbidity and cerebral palsy in childhood. To reduce the risk of negative outcomes, it is recommended to obtain a sample of the umbilical artery blood gas when a newborn has an Apgar score of five or less at the five-minute mark. Recognizing the importance of skin to skin contact (SSC), the World Health Organization (WHO), as part of the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, recommends that the Apgar score should be done while SSC is underway whenever possible. This recommendation was adopted by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2009.

Limitations
There are numerous factors that contribute to the Apgar score, several of which are subjective. Examples of subjective factors include but are not limited to color, tone, and reflex irritability. Preterm infants may receive a lower score in these categories due to lack of maturity rather than asphyxia. Other factors that may contribute to variability among infants are birth defects, sedation of the mother during labor, gestational age or trauma. Inappropriately using the Apgar score has led to errors in diagnosing asphyxia.

Various studies have shown that the Apgar score has variability between individual medical providers. One study was done in which several health care providers were assigned to give Apgar scores to the same infants. Results showed an Apgar score consistency of 55% to 82% between health care providers. Ideally, to limit variability and bolster consistency, it is preferred that the same individual determine the 1-minute and 5-minute Apgar scores.

A 2023 paper by Amos Grunebaum, which reviewed the care of nine million babies, was published in the Journal of Perinatal Medicine; the report showed that non-white babies were given lower Apgar scores than white babies, as their darker skin color often results in lower scores on the appearance measure, making them more likely to receive medical care that might not be needed.

Acronym
Some ten years after initial publication, a backronym for APGAR was coined in the United States as a mnemonic learning aid: Appearance (skin color), Pulse (heart rate), Grimace (reflex irritability), Activity (muscle tone), and Respiration.

 * Spanish: Apariencia, Pulso, Gesticulación, Actividad, Respiración;
 * Portuguese: Aparência, Pulso, Gesticulação, Atividade, Respiração;
 * French: Apparence, Pouls, Grimace, Activité, Respiration;
 * German: Atmung, Puls, Grundtonus, Aussehen, Reflexe, representing the same tests but in a different order (respiration, pulse, muscle tone, appearance, reflex).
 * Czech: Adaptace kůže, Pulz, Grimasy, Aktivita svalů, Respirace;

Another eponymous backronym from Virginia Apgar's name is American Pediatric Gross Assessment Record.

Another mnemonic for the test is "How Ready Is This Child?", which summarizes the test criteria as Heart rate, Respiratory effort, Irritability, Tone, and Color.

title: Apgar score


text:
Gustave Whitehead

Gustave Albin Whitehead (born Gustav Albin Weisskopf; 1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines, and engines between 1897 and 1915. Controversy surrounds published accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew a powered machine successfully several times in 1901 and 1902, predating the first flights by the Wright Brothers in 1903.

Much of Whitehead's reputation rests on a newspaper article which was written as an eyewitness report and describes his powered and sustained flight in Connecticut on 14 August 1901. Over a hundred newspapers in the U.S. and around the world soon repeated information from the article. Several local newspapers also reported on other flight experiments that Whitehead made in 1901 and subsequent years. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments were described or mentioned in Scientific American articles and a 1904 book about industrial progress. His public profile faded after about 1915, however, and he died in relative obscurity in 1927.

In the 1930s, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had made powered flights in 1901–02, and the book includes statements from people who said that they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier. These published accounts triggered debate among scholars, researchers, and aviation enthusiasts. Mainstream historians have consistently dismissed the Whitehead flight claims, which Orville Wright later described as 'mythical'.

Researchers have studied and attempted to copy Whitehead aircraft. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown replicas of Whitehead's "Number 21" machine using modern engines and modern propellers, and with fundamental changes to the aircraft structure and control systems.

Early life and career

Whitehead was born in Leutershausen, Bavaria, the second child of Karl Weisskopf and his wife Babetta. As a boy he showed an interest in flight, experimenting with kites and earning the nickname "the flyer". He and a friend caught and tethered birds in an attempt to learn how they flew, an activity which the police soon stopped.

His parents died in 1886 and 1887, when he was a boy. He then trained as a mechanic and traveled to Hamburg, where in 1888 he was forced to join the crew of a sailing ship. A year later he returned to Germany, then journeyed with a family to Brazil. He went to sea again for several years, learning more about wind, weather and bird flight.

Weisskopf arrived in the U.S. in 1893. He soon anglicized his name to Gustave Whitehead. The New York toy manufacturer E. J. Horsman hired Whitehead to build and operate advertising kites and model gliders. Whitehead also made plans to add a motor to propel one of his gliders. In 1893, Whitehead was in Boston where he experimented with gliders, kites, and models, and where he worked at Harvard's kite-flying meteorological station.

In 1896, Whitehead was hired as a mechanic for the Boston Aeronautical Society. He and mechanic Albert B. C. Horn built a Lilienthal-type glider and an ornithopter. Whitehead made a few short and low flights in the glider, but did not succeed in flying the ornithopter. Also in 1896, founding Society member Samuel Cabot employed Whitehead and carpenter James Crowell to build a Lilienthal glider. Cabot reported to the Society that tests with this glider were unsuccessful.

1899
According to an affidavit given in 1934 by Louis Darvarich, a friend of Whitehead, the two men made a motorized flight of about half a mile in Pittsburgh's Schenley Park in April or May 1899. Darvarich said they flew at a height of 20 to 25 ft in a steam-powered monoplane aircraft and crashed into a brick building. Darvarich said he was stoking the aircraft's boiler aboard the craft and was badly scalded in the accident, requiring several weeks in a hospital. Because of this incident, Whitehead was forbidden by the police to perform any more experiments in Pittsburgh. Aviation historian William F. Trimble, pointing to a lack of contemporary proof, dismissed this story in 1982 as a case of "overactive imaginations." Whitehead's stated control method – a shifting of body weight – was said by Trimble to be insufficient to control a powered aircraft, and the supposed charcoal-fired steam powerplant could not have been powerful enough to lift itself off the ground. Whitehead was quoted in Pittsburgh newspapers in December 1899 as still constructing an aircraft, although he did say that he had flown it in Boston. A local historian claimed in 2015 that his research has uncovered evidence of the purported 1899 flight.

Whitehead and Darvarich traveled to Bridgeport, Connecticut, to find factory jobs.

1901
A description and photographs of Whitehead's aircraft appeared in Scientific American in June 1901, stating that the "novel flying machine" had just been completed, and was "now ready for preliminary trials."

Whitehead said he tested his unmanned machine on 3 May, according to a newspaper report. He said in the first test the machine carried 220 pounds of sand ballast and flew to an altitude of 40 to 50 feet for 1/8 of a mile (201 m). On the second test Whitehead said the machine flew a distance of 1/2 mile (805 m) for one and a half minutes before crashing into a tree. The report said Andrew Cellie and Daniel Varovi were Whitehead's financial backers and assistants. Whitehead expressed his desire to keep the location of any future experiments hidden to avoid drawing a crowd that might make a "snap-shot verdict of failure".

The aviation event for which Whitehead is now best known reportedly took place in Fairfield, Connecticut, on 14 August 1901 and was described at length in an article in the edition of 18 August 1901 of the weekly Bridgeport Herald newspaper. The article, written as an eyewitness report, stated that Whitehead piloted his Number 21 aircraft in a controlled powered flight for about half a mile, reaching a height of 50 ft and landing safely. The unsigned article is widely attributed to journalist Richard Howell, later the newspaper's editor. The flight, if it actually took place, preceded the Wright brothers' first powered flights near Kitty Hawk in 1903 by more than two years, and exceeded the best one, which covered 852 ft at a height of about 10 ft. The article was accompanied by a drawing, also credited by some Whitehead researchers to Howell, which depicted the aircraft in flight. The drawing was purportedly based on a photograph, which is believed not to exist. Information from the article was reprinted in the New York Herald, Boston Transcript and The Washington Times, which ran it on 23 August 1901. In the following months, dozens of other newspapers around the world published articles mentioning the reported flight or other aviation activity by Whitehead.

The Bridgeport Herald reported that Whitehead and another man drove to the testing area in the machine, which, when the wings were folded along its sides, functioned as a car. Two other people, including the newspaper reporter, followed on bicycles. For short distances, the Number 21's speed was close to thirty miles an hour on the uneven road, and the article said, "there seems no doubt that the machine can reel off forty miles an hour and not exert the engine to its fullest capacity.".

The newspaper reported that before attempting to pilot the aircraft, Whitehead successfully test flew it unmanned, using tether ropes and sandbag ballast. When Whitehead was ready to make a manned flight, the article said: "By this time the light was good. Faint traces of the rising sun began to suggest themselves in the east."

According to the newspaper article, trees blocked the way after the flight had started. Whitehead was quoted as saying, "I knew that I could not clear them by rising higher, and also that I had no means of steering around them by using the machinery." The article said Whitehead quickly thought of a solution to steer around the trees:

"He simply shifted his weight more to one side than the other. This careened the ship to one side. She turned her nose away from the clump of sprouts when within fifty yards of them and took her course around them as prettily as a yacht on the sea avoids a bar. The ability to control the air ship in this manner appeared to give Whitehead confidence, for he was seen to take time to look at the landscape about him. He looked back and waved his hand exclaiming, 'I've got it at last.'"

When Whitehead neared the end of a field, the article said he turned off the motor and the aircraft landed "so lightly that Whitehead was not jarred in the least."

Junius Harworth, who as a boy was one of Whitehead's helpers, said Whitehead flew the airplane at another time in mid-1901 from Howard Avenue East to Wordin Avenue, along the edge of property belonging to the local gas company. Upon landing, Harworth said, the machine was turned around and another hop was made back to the starting point.

On 21 September 1901, Collier's Weekly ran a picture of Whitehead's "latest flying machine" and said that he "recently made a successful flight of half a mile". On 19 November 1901, The Evening World (New York) ran a story about Whitehead's achievements and included a photograph of him sitting on his new flying machine. The article quotes him saying, "within a year people will be buying airships as freely as they are buying automobiles today and the sky will be dotted with figures skimming the air". On 7 December 1901, the Coconino Sun ran a story that stated Gustave Whitehead was the "inventor of the flying machine" and was planning a flight to New York.

During this period of activity, Whitehead also reportedly tested an unmanned and unpowered flying machine, towed by men pulling ropes. A witness said the craft rose above telephone lines, flew across a road and landed undamaged. The distance covered was later measured at approximately 1,000 ft (305 m).

1902
Whitehead claimed two spectacular flights on 17 January 1902 in his improved Number 22, with a 40 hp (30 kW) motor instead of the 20 hp (15 kW) used in the Number 21, and aluminum instead of bamboo for structural components. In two published letters he wrote to American Inventor magazine, Whitehead said the flights took place over Long Island Sound. He said the distance of the first flight was about two miles (3.2 km) and the second was seven miles (11 km) in a circle at heights up to 200 ft (61 m). He said the airplane, which had a boat-like fuselage, landed safely in the water near the shore.

For steering, Whitehead said he varied the speed of the two propellers and also used the aircraft rudder. He said the techniques worked well on his second flight and enabled him to fly a big circle back to the shore where his helpers waited. In his first letter, he expressed pride in the accomplishment: "... as I successfully returned to my starting place with a machine hitherto untried and heavier than air, I consider the trip quite a success. To my knowledge it is the first of its kind. This matter has so far never been published."

In his second letter he wrote, "This coming Spring I will have photographs made of Machine No. 22 in the air." He said snapshots, apparently taken during his claimed flights of 17 January 1902, "did not come out right" because of cloudy and rainy weather. The magazine editor replied that he and readers would "await with interest the promised photographs of the machine in the air," but there were no further letters nor any photographs from Whitehead.

Anton Pruckner, a mechanic and assistant to Whitehead, signed an affidavit concerning the claimed 17 January 1902 flight: "... I knew that the flight took place because of talk by those who had seen it and because Whitehead himself had told me he made it ... I believe Whitehead made that flight, as his aircraft did fly well and with the bigger engine we had built, the plane was capable of such a flight. Whitehead was of fine moral character and never in all the long time I was associated with him or knew him did he ever appear to exaggerate. I never knew him to lie; he was a very truthful man ... I saw his aircraft fly on many occasions."

Gustave Whitehead's brother John arrived in Connecticut from California in April 1902, intending to offer help. He saw his brother's aircraft only on the ground, not in powered flight. He gave a description 33 years later of the engine and aircraft, including details of the steering apparatus:

"Rudder was a combination of horizontal and vertical fin-like affair, the principle the same as in the up-to-date airplanes. For steering there was a rope from one of the foremost wing tip ribs to the opposite, running over a pulley. In front of the operator was a lever connected to a pulley: the same pulley also controlled the tail rudder at the same time."

A 1935 article in Popular Aviation magazine, which renewed interest in Whitehead, said winter weather ruined the Number 22 airplane after Whitehead placed it unprotected in his yard following his claimed flights of January 1902. The article said Whitehead did not have money to build a shelter for the aircraft because of a quarrel with his financial backer. The article also reported that in early 1903, Whitehead built a 200-horsepower eight-cylinder engine, intended to power a new aircraft. Another financial backer insisted on testing the engine in a boat on Long Island Sound, but lost control and capsized, sending the engine to the bottom.

1903
On 19 September 1903, Scientific American reported Whitehead made powered glider flights in a triplane machine towed by an assistant pulling a rope: "By running with the machine against the wind after the motor had been started, the aeroplane was made to skim along above the ground at heights of from 3 to 16 feet for a distance, without the operator touching, of about 350 yards. It was possible to have traveled a much longer distance, without the operator touching terra firma, but for the operator's desire not to get too far above it. Although the motor was not developing its full power, owing to the speed not exceeding 1,000 R.P.M., it developed sufficient to move the machine against the wind." The article said a 54 lb 12 hp two-cycle motor powered a two-bladed 4.5 ft diameter tractor propeller. The engine shown in the article was exhibited by Whitehead at the Second Annual Exhibit of the Aero Club of America in December 1906.

Aerial machines

Whitehead did not give identifiers to his first aircraft, but according to Randolph and Harvey to the end of 1901 he had built "fifty-six airplanes".

Whitehead's Number 21 monoplane had a wingspan of 36 ft (11 m). The fabric-covered wings were ribbed with bamboo, supported by steel wires and were very similar to the shape of the Lilienthal glider's wings. The arrangement for folding the wings also closely followed the Lilienthal design. The craft was powered by two engines: a ground engine of 10 hp (7.5 kW), intended to propel the front wheels to reach takeoff speed, and a 20 hp (15 kW) acetylene engine powering two propellers, which were designed to counter-rotate for stability.

Whitehead described his No. 22 aircraft and compared some of its features to the No. 21 in a letter he wrote to the editor of American Inventor magazine, published 1 April 1902. He said the No. 22 had a five-cylinder 40 hp kerosene motor of his own design, weighing 120 lbs. He said ignition was "accomplished by its own heat and compression." He described the aircraft as 16 ft long, made mostly of steel and aluminum with wing ribs made of steel tubing, rather than bamboo, which was used in the Number 21 aircraft. He explained that the two front wheels were connected to the kerosene motor, and the rear wheels were used for steering while on the ground. He said the wing area was 450 sqft, and the covering was "the best silk obtainable." The propellers were "6 feet in diameter ... made of wood ... covered with very thin aluminum sheeting." He said the tail and wings could all be "folded up ... and laid against the sides of the body."

In 1905, he and Stanley Beach jointly filed for a patent – issued 1908 – for an "improved aeroplane" with a V-shaped trough body and fixed bird-like wings, the pilot hanging below supported by a swing seat. A jointly-designed biplane was built by Whitehead and fitted with a Whitehead 5-cylinder, water-cooled 50 hp motor. The pointed bow of the craft comprised a metal water tank, with hot water being sprayed against the sides inside for cooling.

Whitehead also built gliders until about 1906 and was photographed flying them.

Later career
In addition to his work on flying machines, Whitehead built engines. In 1904, he attended the St. Louis World's Fair and displayed an aeronautical motor. Air Enthusiast wrote: "Weisskopf's ability and mechanical skill could have made him a wealthy man at a time when there was an ever-increasing demand for lightweight engines, but he was far more interested in flying." Instead, Whitehead only accepted enough engine orders to sustain aviation experiments.

His aeronautical work was described in a chapter titled "The Conquest of the Air" in a 1904 book, Modern Industrial Progress, by Charles Henry Cochrane. The book said Whitehead had experimented with a "three-deck machine" and attached a 12 hp motor driving a tractor propeller after tests showed the craft could carry more than his weight. Test of the machine were described as "sufficiently satisfactory that another is being built."

In 1908, Whitehead designed and built a 75 hp lightweight two-cycle motor at the suggestion of aviation pioneer George A. Lawrence, who was having difficulty obtaining an aeronautic engine. The water-cooled machine was designed so that functional cylinders continued to work if others failed, a safety factor to help avoid accidents due to engine failure. The men formed Whitehead Motor Works with an office in New York City and a factory in Bridgeport, Connecticut, that built motors in three sizes: 25, 40 and 75 hp, weighing 95, 145 and 200 pounds respectively.

Whitehead's business practices were unsophisticated and he was sued by a customer, resulting in a threat that his tools and equipment would be seized. He hid his engines and most of his tools in a neighbor's cellar and continued his aviation work. One of his engines was installed by aviation pioneer Charles Wittemann in a helicopter built by Lee Burridge of the Aero Club of America, but the craft failed to fly.

Whitehead's own 1911 studies of the vertical flight problem resulted in a 60-bladed helicopter, which, unmanned, lifted itself off the ground.

He lost an eye in a factory accident and also suffered a severe blow to the chest from a piece of factory equipment, an injury that may have led to increasing attacks of angina. Despite these setbacks, he exhibited an aircraft at Hempstead, New York, as late as 1915. He continued to work and invent. He designed a braking safety device, hoping to win a prize offered by a railroad. He demonstrated it as a scale model but won nothing. He constructed an "automatic" concrete-laying machine, which he used to help build a road north of Bridgeport. These inventions brought him no more profit than did his airplanes and engines. Around 1915 Whitehead worked in a factory as a laborer and repaired motors to support his family.

He died of a heart attack, on 10 October 1927, after attempting to lift an engine out of a car he was repairing. He stumbled onto his front porch and into his home, then collapsed dead in the house.

Rediscovery
Whitehead's work remained mostly unknown to the public and aeronautical community after 1911 until a 1935 article was published in Popular Aviation magazine, co-authored by educator and journalist Stella Randolph and aviation history buff Harvey Phillips. Randolph expanded the article into the book Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead, published in 1937. She sought out people who had known Whitehead and had seen his flying machines and engines, and she obtained 16 affidavits from 14 people and included the text of their statements in the book. Four people said that they did not see flights, while the others said that they saw flights of various types, ranging from a few feet to hundreds of feet to more than a mile.

Harvard University economics professor John B. Crane wrote an article for National Aeronautic Magazine in December 1936 disputing claims and reports that Whitehead flew, but he adopted a different tone the following year, after further research. He told reporters, "There are several people still living in Bridgeport who testified to me under oath, they had seen Whitehead make flights along the streets of Bridgeport in the early 1900s." Crane reported Harworth's claim of having witnessed a 1½- mile airplane flight made by Whitehead on 14 August 1901, and he suggested that a Congressional investigation should consider the claims. In 1949, Crane published a new article in Air Affairs magazine which supported claims that Whitehead flew, but he made no reference to his first article, nor did he refute his previous evidence.

In 1963, reserve Air Force major William O'Dwyer discovered photographs in the attic of a Connecticut house showing a 1910 Whitehead "Large Albatross"-type biplane aircraft at rest on the ground. The Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association (CAHA) asked him and his 9315th U.S. Air Force Reserve Squadron to investigate whether Whitehead had made powered flights. O'Dwyer continued his research for years and became convinced that Whitehead did fly before the Wright brothers. Former CAHA president Harvey Lippincott said in 1981 that Whitehead "may have flown 100 to 200 feet, 10 to 15 feet off the ground. This is confirmed by the witnesses that we have interviewed and talked with, and this seems reasonable for the state of the art in aviation at that time." O'Dwyer later contributed interviews of reputed flight witnesses to a second book by Stella Randolph The Story of Gustave Whitehead, Before the Wrights Flew, published in 1966. O'Dwyer and Randolph also co-authored History by Contract, published in 1978, which criticized the Smithsonian Institution for signing an agreement with the estate of Orville Wright, requiring the Smithsonian to credit only the 1903 Wright Flyer for the first powered controlled flight.

In 1968, Connecticut officially recognized Whitehead as "Father of Connecticut Aviation". The North Carolina General Assembly passed a resolution in 1985 which repudiated the Connecticut statement and gave "no credence" to the assertion that Whitehead was first to fly, citing "leading aviation historians and the world's largest aviation museum" who determined that there was "no historic fact, documentation, record or research to support the claim".

In 2013, Jane's All the World's Aircraft published an editorial which asserted that Whitehead was first to make a powered controlled flight. The editorial reignited debate over who flew first and motivated Connecticut to establish "Powered Flight Day" to honor Gustave Whitehead, rather than the Wright Brothers. The editorial relied heavily on researcher John Brown, whose claim that a vintage photo showed Whitehead's machine in powered flight was disproved by another researcher, Carroll F. Gray. Jane's corporate owner later issued a disclaimer concerning the editorial, stating that it contained the views of the editor but not necessarily the publisher.

The Royal Aeronautical Society noted that: “All available evidence fails to support the claim that Gustave Whitehead made sustained, powered, controlled flights predating those of the Wright brothers.” The editors of Scientific American agree: "The data show that not only was Whitehead not first in flight, but that he may never have made a controlled, powered flight at any time.”

Claimed witnesses
Andrew Cellie and James Dickie were named in the Bridgeport Herald article as two witnesses to Whitehead's early-morning flight. The article was published without a byline, but researchers and scholars on both sides of the controversy attribute it to Richard "Dick" Howell, the sports editor. James Dickie denied seeing a flight in a 1937 affidavit, taken during Stella Randolph's research. He said that he was not present at the flight on 14 August 1901, and that he thought that the newspaper story was "imaginary". He said that he did not know Andrew Cellie, the other associate of Whitehead who was supposed to be there, and that none of Whitehead's aircraft ever flew, as far as he knew. An article in Air Enthusiast, however, pointed out that Dickie's description of the airplane did not match Whitehead's Number 21.

O'Dwyer had known Dickie since childhood and wrote that he spoke to him by telephone, and that Dickie had a grudge against Whitehead:

"His mood changed to anger when I asked him about Gustave Whitehead. He flatly refused to talk about Whitehead, and when I asked him why, he said: 'That SOB never paid me what he owed me. My father had a hauling business and I often hitched up the horses and helped Whitehead take his airplane to where he wanted to go. I will never give Whitehead credit for anything. I did a lot of work for him and he never paid me a dime."

O'Dwyer wrote that Dickie's 1937 affidavit had "little value" and that there were inconsistencies between the affidavit and his interview with Dickie. There is no known transcript or recording of his interview.

Andrew Cellie was the other eyewitness to the flight on 14 August 1901 named by the Bridgeport Herald, but Randolph could not locate him for an interview in the 1930s. O'Dwyer searched through old Bridgeport city directories in the 1970s and concluded that the newspaper likely misspelled the man's name. He surmised that it was Andrew Suelli, a Swiss or German immigrant also known as Zulli and Whitehead's nextdoor neighbor before moving to the Pittsburgh area in 1902. Suelli's former neighbors in Fairfield told O'Dwyer that Suelli had "always claimed he was present when Whitehead flew in 1901."

Junius Harworth and Anton Pruckner sometimes worked for Whitehead, and they gave statements to Stella Randolph that they saw him fly on 14 August 1901. Anton Pruckner was a tool maker who worked for a few years with Whitehead, and he attested in 1934 to the flight. He also attested to a January 1902 flight by Whitehead over Long Island Sound; the 1988 Air Enthusiast article, however, said that "Pruckner was not present on the occasion, though he was told of the events by Weisskopf himself."

Whitehead claimed in his first letter to American Inventor that he made four trips in the airplane on 14 August 1901, and that the longest was 1½ miles. Witnesses reported seeing several different flights on 14 August 1901. The Bridgeport Herald reported that a half-mile flight occurred early in the morning on 14 August, and Whitehead and Harworth said that a one and a half-mile flight was made later that day. In all, witnesses reported that four flights took place on 14 August 1901.

The following are from the affidavits that Stella Randolph collected in the 1930s, quoted in part:

 * Affidavit: Joe Ratzenberger – 28 January 1936:

"I recall a time, which I think was probably July or August 1901 or 1902, when this plane was started in flight on the lot between Pine and Cherry Streets. The plane flew at a height of about twelve feet from the ground, I should judge, and traveled the distance to Bostwick Avenue before it came to the ground."

 * Affidavit: Thomas Schweibert – 15 June 1936:

"I ... recall seeing an airplane flight made by the late Gustave Whitehead approximately thirty-five years ago. I was a boy at the time, playing on a lot near the Whitehead shop on Cherry Street, and recall the incident well as we were surprised to see the plane leave the ground. It traveled a distance of approximately three hundred feet, and at a height of approximately fifteen feet in the air, to the best of my recollection."

 * Affidavit by Junius Harworth – 21 August 1934:

"On August, fourteenth, Nineteen Hundred and One I was present and assisted on the occasion when Mr. Whitehead succeeded in flying his machine, propelled by a motor, to a height of two hundred feet off the ground or sea beach at Lordship Manor, Connecticut. The distance flown was approximately one mile and a half."

Other witnesses signed affidavits reporting additional powered flights in 1902. Elizabeth Koteles stated that she had witnessed a flight at Gypsy Spring which was 5 feet off the ground for a distance of 150 to 250 feet, and John Lesko also stated that he had witnessed a flight in Gypsy Spring. Other people signed affidavits saying that they saw short flights of varying altitudes and distances in the 1901–02 time period.

O'Dwyer organized a survey of surviving witnesses to the flights. Members of the Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association (CAHA) and the 9315th Squadron (O'Dwyer's Air Force Reserve unit) went door-to-door in Bridgeport, Fairfield, Stratford, and Milford, Connecticut to track down Whitehead's long-ago neighbors and helpers, and they also traced some who had moved away. Of an estimated 30 persons interviewed for affidavits or on tape, 20 said that they had seen flights, eight indicated that they had heard of the flights, and two said that Whitehead did not fly.

Photos

No photograph has been found conclusively showing any manned Whitehead machine in powered flight, although such photographs have been reported to exist. The Bridgeport Daily Standard reported on 1 October 1904 that pictures were exhibited in the window of Lyon and Grumman's hardware store on Main Street in Bridgeport, Connecticut "showing Whitehead in his aeroplane about 20 feet from the ground and sailing along". The article said: "Of course he has not perfected his invention but says that he has frequently flown over half a mile. There are people who believe Whitehead is all that the newspapers have represented him to be. The photographs show that he has the ability to make short flights".

A photo was displayed in the 1906 First Annual Exhibit of the Aero Club of America at the 69th Regiment Armory in New York City which showed an unpiloted Whitehead aircraft in flight. The photo was mentioned in a 27 January 1906 Scientific American article which stated that the walls of the exhibit were covered with a large collection of photographs showing the machines of various inventors. The report said, "No photographs of ... man-carrying machines in flight were shown, nor has any trustworthy account of their reported achievements ever been published. A single blurred photograph of a large birdlike machine propelled by compressed air constructed by Whitehead in 1901 was the only other photograph besides that of Samuel Pierpont Langley's scale model machines of a motor-driven aeroplane in successful flight." Peter L. Jakab, National Air and Space Museum (NASM) Associate Director and Curator of Early Flight, suggested that the image "may very well have been an in-flight photograph" of one of Whitehead's gliders.

In 2013, Australian researcher John Brown analyzed a panoramic photograph from the 1906 Aero Club Exhibit room which shows photographic images on the wall in the background. Brown concluded that one of the images, which he examined by greatly enlarging it, was "the long lost photo of Whitehead's No. 21 in powered flight". He said that the image also correlated with the drawing that was published in the 1901 Bridgeport Herald article which reported a Whitehead flight. Brown's conclusion was disputed by aviation historian Carroll Gray, who said that a clear archival photograph is virtually identical to the enlarged image and proved "beyond any reasonable doubt" that the wall image from the 1906 exhibit showed the glider The California, built by aviation pioneer John Joseph Montgomery, on display suspended between trees at an exhibit in a California park in 1905.

Bridgeport Herald article and drawing
Stella Randolph stated in Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead (1937) that Richard Howell wrote the article about a Whitehead flight in the Bridgeport Herald, although the article carried no byline. O'Dwyer wrote that Howell made the drawing of the No. 21 in flight which accompanied the newspaper article, saying that Howell was "an artist before he became a reporter." O'Dwyer spent hours in the Bridgeport Library studying virtually everything that Howell wrote, and he concluded: "Howell was always a very serious writer. He always used sketches rather than photographs with his features on inventions. He was highly regarded by his peers on other local newspapers. He used the florid style of the day, but was not one to exaggerate."

Andy Kosch, who built and flew a replica of No. 21, said, "If you look at the reputation of the editor of the Bridgeport Herald in those days, you find that he was a reputable man. He wouldn't make this stuff up." Howell died before the controversy began concerning Whitehead.

Gibbs-Smith doubted the veracity of the account and complained that the newspaper article "reads like a work of juvenile fiction." Aviation historian Carroll Gray asserts that similarities in the Bridgeport Herald newspaper story show that it is a broad rewrite of an article published in the New York Sun newspaper on 9 June 1901. Gray points out that the Sun article described an unmanned test of a Whitehead flying machine on 3 May 1901, but the Bridgeport Herald changed this to a manned flight.

Mrs. Whitehead and skeptics
An early source of ammunition for both sides of the debate was a 1940 interview with Whitehead's wife Louise. In the Bridgeport Sunday Post, she quoted her husband's excited first words upon returning from Fairfield on 14 August 1901: "Mama, we went up!" She said that her husband was always busy with motors and flying machines when he was not working in coal yards or factories, but she never saw any of her husband's reported flights.

Smithsonian Institution Curator of Aeronautics Peter L. Jakab said that Whitehead's wife and family did not know about his August 1901 flights. Louise Whitehead told Randolph that she sewed the material for the wings on the plane and took care of the household, but did not watch any experiments. Whitehead's daughter Rose was three years old at the time of the controversial 1901 powered flight, and the other children had not yet been born.

Stanley Yale Beach
Stanley Yale Beach was the son of Scientific American's editor (he became editor himself), and he had a long personal association with Whitehead. His father Frederick Converse Beach contributed thousands of dollars to support Whitehead's work on Stanley Beach's airplane designs from 1903–1910. Beach also claimed to have taken most of the photos that appeared in Randolph's 1937 book Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead. In 1908, Beach and Whitehead received a patent for a monoplane glider.

There were multiple articles published in Scientific American under Beach's editorship in 1903, 1906, and 1908 which stated that Whitehead had conducted "short flights" and flew "short distances" in 1901, similar to the hops made by Maxim and Herring. Beach gave an extensive description of a "novel flying machine" in the 8 June 1901 issue and included two photographs of a "batlike craft" on the ground, not flying.

Beach drafted a statement in 1939 concerning his relationship with Whitehead, at the request of Major Lester D. Gardner, Secretary of the Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences in New York. It was not published, but Beach gave permission for changes to be made in the statement, and it was edited by Gardner and aviation publisher Earl Findley, a close friend of Orville Wright. Researcher Susan O'Dwyer Brinchman suggests that Findley and Gardner hoped that the statement would help to defend the Wright brothers' primacy in flight against the recent challenge in Randolph's article and book. Beach's edited statement was sent to Wright, who relied on it in 1945 to rebut renewed publicity about Whitehead. The edited statement said: "I do not believe that any of his machines ever left the ground under their own power in spite of the assertions of many persons who think they saw him fly." It also said that Whitehead never told Beach that he had flown. The statement offered some words of praise, saying that Whitehead "deserves a place in early aviation, due to his having gone ahead and built extremely light engines and aeroplanes. The five-cylinder kerosene one, with which he claims to have flown over Long Island Sound on 17 January 1902 was, I believe, the first aviation Diesel."

O'Dwyer believed that Beach had "recanted" his earlier view that Whitehead had flown, as indicated by the Scientific American articles. He asserted that Beach became a "politician", "rarely missing an opportunity to mingle with the Wright tide that had turned against Whitehead, notably after Whitehead's death in 1927." O'Dwyer argued in History by Contract that Beach's statement was self-contradictory. In one part, it claims that Whitehead did not fly, and in another it describes how Whitehead's machine always landed safely in "pancaking" fashion.

Smithsonian Institution

Reports that Whitehead made a flight in Connecticut were noticed by the Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Secretary Samuel Langley was at the time building his manned aircraft, the Langley Aerodrome "A". Langley's chief engineer, Charles M. Manly, suspected claims for the Whitehead machine were "fraudulent". He asked Smithsonian employee F.W. Hodge to inspect the Number 21 aircraft, which Whitehead had put on display in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Hodge reported the machine did not appear to be airworthy.

For many years the Smithsonian Institution did not formally recognize the 1903 Wright Flyer as the first successful aircraft. Instead, it proclaimed the Langley Aerodrome as first to be capable of manned powered flight. This policy offended the surviving Wright brother, Orville, who sent the Wright Flyer to the Science Museum in London on long-term loan, rather than donate it to the Smithsonian. In 1942 the Smithsonian publicly recanted its position, and Orville agreed to bring back the Flyer.

As a condition for receiving the airplane, the Smithsonian signed an agreement in 1948 with executors of Orville Wright's estate. Popularly called a "contract," the agreement required the Smithsonian to recognize only the 1903 Wright Flyer, and no other aircraft, as first to make a manned, powered, controlled flight. The agreement, which was not made public, allowed the Wright family to reclaim the Flyer if the Smithsonian failed to comply.

In 1975, O'Dwyer learned about the agreement from Harold S. Miller, an executor of the Orville Wright estate. O'Dwyer obtained release of the document with help from Connecticut U.S. Senator Lowell Weicker and the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. O'Dwyer said that during an earlier 1969 conversation with Paul E. Garber, a Smithsonian curator of early aircraft, Garber denied that a contract existed and said he "could never agree to such a thing."

The 1978 book co-authored by O'Dwyer and Randolph, History by Contract argued that the Smithsonian compromised its objectivity when it signed a 1948 agreement with the estate of Orville Wright requiring the Institution to recognize the 1903 Wright Flyer as the first aircraft to make a manned, powered, controlled flight or forfeit possession of the aircraft. The book published correspondence between O'Dwyer and the Smithsonian in which he asked the Institution to look at the evidence and to attend interviews of people who said they saw Whitehead fly. The book called for nullification of the agreement.

George Gunther, a Connecticut state senator, said History by Contract was too heavy-handed. Gunther said he had been having "cordial" conversations with the Smithsonian about giving some credit to Whitehead, "but after O'Dwyer blasted them in his book, well, that totally turned them off."

According to the Smithsonian, the agreement was implemented to close the long-running feud with the Wright family over the Institution's false claims for the Aerodrome. Brinchman documented that Gardner and Findley, who helped Orville rebut the Whitehead claims, also participated in crafting text in the agreement that the Institution is required to use in its labeling of the Wright Flyer.

The agreement remains in effect to the present day. In 2005, Peter Jakab of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum (NASM) said the agreement would not stop the Smithsonian from recognizing anyone as inventor of the first airplane if indisputable evidence were found: "We would present as accurate a presentation of the history of the invention of the airplane as possible, regardless of the consequences this might incur involving the agreement. Having said that, however, at this time, as in 1948, there is no compelling evidence that Whitehead or anyone else flew before the Wright brothers." In 2013 senior aeronautics curator Tom Crouch of NASM said, "I can only hope that, should persuasive evidence for a prior flight be presented, my colleagues and I would have the courage and the honesty to admit the new evidence and risk the loss of the Wright Flyer."

Purported meeting with the Wright brothers
In the 1930s, Whitehead was said by three witnesses to have helped the Wright brothers by revealing his secrets perhaps two years prior to their first powered flights.

Statements obtained by Stella Randolph in the 1930s from two of Whitehead's workers, Cecil Steeves and Anton Pruckner, claimed that the Wright brothers visited Whitehead's shop a year or two before their 1903 flights. The January 1988 Air Enthusiast magazine states: "Both Cecil Steeves and Junius Harworth remember the Wrights; Steeves described them and recalled their telling Weisskopf that they had received his letter indicating an exchange of correspondence." Steeves said that the Wright brothers, "under the guise of offering to help finance his inventions, actually received inside information that aided them materially in completing their own plane." Steeves related that Whitehead said to him, "Now since I have given them the secrets of my invention they will probably never do anything in the way of financing me."

Orville Wright denied that he or his brother ever visited Whitehead at his shop and stated that the first time they were in Bridgeport was 1909 "and then only in passing through on the train." This position is supported by Library of Congress historian Fred Howard, co-editor of the Wright brothers' papers, and by aviation writers Martin Caidin and Harry B. Combs.

O'Dwyer said Octave Chanute "encouraged" the Wrights to look into engines built by Whitehead. In a letter to Wilbur Wright on 3 July 1901, Chanute made a single reference to Whitehead, saying: "I have a letter from Carl E. Myers, the balloon maker, stating that a Mr. Whitehead has invented a light weight motor, and has engaged to build for Mr. Arnot of Elmira 'a motor of 10 I.H.P. ... '"

Orville's rebuttal
In 1945, Whitehead's son Charles was interviewed on Joseph Nathan Kane's national radio program Famous Firsts as the son of the first man to fly. That claim was repeated in a Liberty magazine article, which was condensed in a Reader's Digest article that reached a very large audience. Orville Wright, then in his seventies, countered the magazine articles by writing "The Mythical Whitehead Flight", which appeared in the August 1945 issue of U.S. Air Services, a publication with a far smaller but very influential readership.

Orville began by questioning why the Bridgeport Herald "withheld" such important aeronautical news for four days and suggested the story thus must not be true. Whitehead researchers have pointed out that the Herald was not a daily newspaper but a weekly, published only on Sundays. Orville noted that James Dickie, named as a witness by the Herald, had declared in an affidavit that he was not present at the event, did not know the other named witness and never saw a Whitehead aircraft fly. Orville discussed John J. Dvorak, a physics professor at Washington University in St. Louis, who had designed an engine and hired Whitehead to build it after praising him publicly. Dvorak became dissatisfied with Whitehead's progress on the engine and severed the business relationship. Orville quoted Dvorak's 1936 affidavit: "I personally do not believe that Whitehead ever succeeded in making any airplane flights." Dvorak's negative comments that Orville quoted included the phrases: "Whitehead did not possess sufficient mechanical skill ... was given to gross exaggeration ... He had delusions."

Orville also relied on the unpublished statement by Stanley Beach. Orville wrote that Whitehead never told Beach he had flown, and that Beach believed none of Whitehead's aircraft ever left the ground under their own power. Orville asserted that if Whitehead had flown, Beach would surely have known about it after associating frequently with Whitehead for nine years and helping him financially.

Orville's critical comments were later quoted by both the Smithsonian Institution and British aviation historian Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith.

Replica aircraft
To show that the No. 21 aircraft might have flown, Connecticut high school science teacher Andy Kosch, a pilot, built a replica of the craft, using existing photos and blueprints created by experts working with O'Dwyer in a project called "Hangar 21". The replica used modern ultralight engines and included other substantive changes. On December 29, 1986, Kosch flew the replica and claimed a distance of about 330 feet at six feet above the ground.

On 18 February 1998, another reproduction of No. 21 was flown 500 m in Germany. The director of the aerospace department at Deutsches Museum noted that such a replica was not proof that the original did actually fly. The 1998 reproduction used modern research and materials such as fiberglass, and had modern engines, along with other changes.

Honors
Connecticut Governor John N. Dempsey designated 14 August as "Gustave Whitehead Day" in 1964 and 1968. A large headstone replaced the bronze marker of his grave at a formal dedication ceremony on 15 August 1964 attended by elected officials, members of every branch of the armed services, Clarence Chamberlain – famed aviator, CAHA, the 9315th Air Force Reserves Squadron, and surviving members of his family, his three daughters, and his assistant Anton Pruckner, commemorating Whitehead as "Father of Connecticut Aviation".

The "Aviation Pioneer Gustav Weißkopf Museum" was established in Leutershausen, Germany, in 1974.

A memorial fountain and sculpture commemorating Whitehead's "aviation first" was dedicated in May 2012 and is located on a traffic island at the intersection of Fairfield Avenue and State Street in Bridgeport

On 25 June 2013, Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy signed into state law House Bill 6671 recognizing Gustave Whitehead as the first person to achieve powered flight.

title: Gustave Whitehead


text:
User talk:Ephillips

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela. 23:39, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Might i respectfully suggest a minor format change for the .ltd.uk &c pages - see the example at .ltd.uk Best wishes --Tagishsimon

".gov.uk" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect .gov.uk and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 16 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bonoahx (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ephillips