Talk:Eli Whitney/Archive 1

This article needs some clearing up[edit]

First of all, his SLAVE invented the cotton gin, NOT him. Second, I just thought the whole thing seemed unorganized and generally unclear. The worst part seemed to be the section called 'the cotton gin', it talks more about the invention and it successes and patents than it does of Whitney. It could use a lot more information on the development and life before and during the invention. Also, the section about interchangeable parts is missing way to much information. It only has small clumps of information separated by several years. Besides the mention of him delivering the contract, there is nothing between 1800 and 1817, the date of his marriage. And there is also no information between his marriage and his death, a period of 8 years.Hobo Joe 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sentance doesn't make sense. It's not a complete sentance. I'd fix it but I don't what it's trying to say.35.8.153.13 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC) John F.[reply]

"In the closing years of the eighteenth century, Georgia was a magnet for New Englanders seeking their fortunes (its Revolutionary era governor had by Lyman Hall, a migrant from Connecticut."

I edited it to read, "In the closing years of the eighteenth century, Georgia was a magnet for New Englanders seeking their fortunes (its Revolutionary era governor had been Lyman Hall, a migrant from Connecticut)." I personally think that the parenthetical remark is irrelevant, but I'll let someone else decide if it should stay or not. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 03:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: Date of original patent (it was about 200 years off), and I added the original patent number - 21 September, 2006

Removed: "Additional credence is lent by the fact that women were not allowed patents in American antiquity."

Reason: I could find no evidence to support the above. It may have been difficult for women to be in the position to apply for patents, due to their place in society, but there was no prohibition that I can find reference to.

why?[edit]

why in the world is this particular article such a magnet for minor vandalism? Gzuckier 15:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's because Whitney and his times are standard fodder in the curriculum of 12- to 15-year-olds throughout the U.S. The kiddies can't resist vandalizing while they're here (impulse control comes later on in development). That's why perpetual semiprotection would be useful here. But perpetual semiprotection is not done on WP. I guess they don't do it because it would just encourage an arms race between the vandals and the antivandals. Perhaps occasional smackdowns are more effective. Sigh. — ¾-10 00:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, People[edit]

Please don't vandalize articles in order to further your own agenda, especially if you're not going to do it with eloquence. You're just going to hinder people who want to use the information on this site. Thanks. --Malakai

Interchangable Parts[edit]

Whitney is commonly cred with inventing the concept; this is in doubt... Can somebody confirm? Trekphiler 03:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't Whitney. Ehusman 03:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

first and the only cotton gin?[edit]

"Whitney is credited with creating the first and the only cotton gin in 1793"

how is this possible when it later talks about the manufacture of further cotton gins and a factory for them?

American vs "English colonial"[edit]

Regarding my revert on 14 Mar 06: Since Whitney was born in 1765, and America formally declared its independence in 1776 (when Whitney was 11!) it seems misleading to call him an "English colonial and, later, American" inventor. When he was inventing, and indeed throughout all of his adult life, he was an American, not an "English colonial". –Ryan McDaniel 23:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inventor[edit]

I removed this because there is no reference to it in her biography and there is no reference cited in the article. There is also a weasel phrase "some contend".

"There exists question today over whether the cotton gin, which Whitney received a patent for on March 14, 1794, and its constituent elements should rightly be attributed to Eli Whitney; some contend that Catherine Littlefield Greene should be credited with the invention of the cotton gin, or at least its conception.^{[citation needed]} It is known that she associated with Eli Whitney (along with other historical figures such as George and Martha Washington)." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Eli Whitney so very well known?[edit]

I've always been intrigued why it seems more people in America know Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin than know Thomas Edison invented electric lighting. About an equal number of people know Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone as know about Whitney and the cotton gin. Friends who couldn't answer any other question know Whitney invented the cotton gin!

Bizzare, could just be my sampling error, but is there some other reason Whitney is so well remembered? --Fxer 17:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney gets mentioned in a lot of history textbooks (or at least he used to, I haven't seen one in a long time). Part of the reason why he does get mentioned in the history taxtbooks is already found in the current version of the wikipedia article - "some historians believe that this invention allowed for the African slavery system in the Southern United States to become more sustainable at a critical point in its development." - Tim Fowler 14:55 5 Oct. 2006

K.R.S.-O.N.E. - Eli Whitney: Black Inventor?[edit]

I'm curious about something. In KRS-ONE's (BDP)song, "You Must Learn", Eli Whitney is mentioned seemingly as if he is a Black American inventor. I've heard about this before, as well. I know that the picture posted with this article doesn't portray him as such, but is there ANY evidence to suggest that he actually was of African descent? If so, this would be ironic, that his invention led to a huge growth in African slavery. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.28.10 (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've never before heard anyone say that Eli Whitney was of African descent. If you verify this with a citation from a reliable source, then you might want to add it to the article. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 18:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New Jersey public school system was "teaching" our kids that he was black. They have also miscredited several inventions to Black inventors... If I was of a more conspiritorial mind I'd say the schools are trying to "change" history in the name of "diversity". Cratewrinkle2 (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong birthplace![edit]

About last 2 months i visited this page and it said he was born in "Lickme, Arizona" what the? but thank god now it's fixed. Whoever did that is just crazy. It stayed there for weeks, maybe wiki didn't find it a vandalism. But whoever changed that birthplace is sick, i was even confused.

Reliable source?[edit]

Is http://www.sachem.org/newhistory.html a reliable source? Right now we use it for a fact which I'm pretty sure is true but I don't know if the site is reliable. www.sachem.org doesn't return anything, the page in question is sloppily designed and I can't find anything about this organization. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I scrolled up and down and wondered who runs it. Durova^Charge! 04:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wikilinked to the article Lemelson-MIT Program, but looking at it, the whole thing is a copy-vio see here. Not sure what to do. . .speedy? R. Baley (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it with non-copyvio text (the text there was also pretty pov anyways). The older revision should probably be deleted. I'm not sure the program is really notable by itself. It may make more sense to redirect to The Lemelson Foundation. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I would !vote to oppose deletion, but the way it sits now is fine with me. R. Baley (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No strong opinion either way. I'll probably work on the lead a bit more for the portal drive and move along to the next biography, unless something's pressing? Durova^Charge! 07:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who's who?[edit]

eli (cotton gin) whitney,his nephew eli whitney (blake)and his son eli whitney (Blake)jr.(of colt fame?) cotton gins father(also named eli whitney). could someone smarter than me see if they could bring some order to these links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J8079s (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: see #Article name REDUX. — ¾-10 18:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there to be some confusion somewhere. In this article it says that Eli Whitney, Jr. invented the cotton gin. And just for the record, I was taught that he was black when I was in school in the 60's. That is not the confusion I am talking about. If you go the the Eli Whitney Museum and Workshop, http://www.eliwhitney.org/new/museum/eli-whitney it says that Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and that Eli Whitney, Jr. is his son. Can someone with more resources than me please look into this? Thanks.Mylittlezach (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some Vandalism[edit]

I'm pretty sure there is some vandalism on this page, particularly referring to the introduction paragraph. --173.28.227.28 (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree. I am reverting it if it will let me. I'm having log in trouble —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.159.3 (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time for semi-protection[edit]

Look at the article history for the past month. Why are we wasting the time of our volunteers, which is a valuable resource that has limits? We simply don't need to allow tweens and teens to vandalize this article dozens of times a day. There is no need for it. It ain't worth it. Anyone who has something constructive to add can jump through the hoops that semi-protection provides. I just requested semi-protection over at RFPP. — ¾-10 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

Why Eli Whitney, Jr., if Eli Whitney, as the individual is commonly known, is free? Qqqqqq (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was an excellent question, which made me realize that the hatnote (which would have made the answer apparent) was missing here. If you click through from the hatnote, you'll be able to deduce the logic that they followed in page naming. I believe that the hatnote used to be here, but with the giant waves of IP vandalism that this page receives every single day, it can be hard to follow the rvv badminton and confirm that nothing was lost along the way. Any article about a subject that figures prominently in middle-school curricula (in this case, U.S. curricula in particular) really should have some kind of filter in front of it to cut back the massive daily vandalism, but much of the Wikipedia community doesn't believe in permanent semiprotection, so you get what we got here, which is a failure to maintain quality. Sigh. — ¾-10 17:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. That makes sense now. Thanks for the explanation! Qqqqqq (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: see Talk:Eli Whitney#Article name REDUX. — ¾-10 17:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in the wrong place?[edit]

"...is given by historian Merritt Roe Smith to Captain John H. Hall and by historian Diana Muir writing in Reflections in Bullough's Pond to Simeon North. In From the American System to Mass Production, historian David A. Hounshell described..." These references need to be moved to the citations section. Alexanderaltman (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]