Talk:Garrett Morgan

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Garrett Morgan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040415162048/http://web.mit.edu:80/invent/iow/morgan.html to http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/morgan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Question for Quirkle

An editor reverted my adjustments, claiming that a consensus had been established on your behalf. Did you have a problem with those adjustments? I thought of the most recent edit as conciliatory and rather an improvement on the lede, and am surprised at the strident tone of the reversion, especially since Morgan's race was re-added to the lede by an ungrammatical IP and not by any discussion that I can find. Chubbles (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I dunno about “conciliatory”, I wasn’t aware of any animosity, but I’d say your edit was an overall improvement; five steps forward, one step back. More relevant info was added, compactly and accessibly; but one important point was downplayed.

As for “consensus”, if an article this badly written is the best wiki can do, then wikipedia is doomed. Qwirkle (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Retaining the five steps forward, per talk page. I'm not really interested in dragging the conversation out, so even though I believe this is confusing to non-Americans and over-weights his blackness at the expense of his achievements, I'll move on to other pastures.

Obviously, I think there is a great deal of material about race or ethnicity (sex, gender, sexuality, political party, sandwich preferences...) added as simple chauvinism, pov-pushing, and so on, but in a good many cases it’s an important part of a subjects history. I think that removing it blindly, almost like a meat-bot, is as equally dangerous as adding it blindly, like a meat-bot. Qwirkle (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, everything I've tried to do here was at least partly in the service of proving I wasn't doing this like a meat-bot, and it seems I have failed colossally in that endeavor. Of course it is an important part of this subject's history, and I don't have a problem with it being mentioned in the lede. I think you were right to point out that the lede was actually underemphasizing his achievements as an organizer and politician advancing black causes, and it'd even be reasonable to include something specifically about how historians have interpreted his place vis-a-vis race in the histories of technology and the beauty industry. But there's a general convention that articles start out "Foo is an X Y", where X is nation of origin and Y is purpose/occupation/reason(s) for notability. When nation of origin is replaced with ethnicity, it confuses two distinct concepts that it is rather important, for a variety of reasons, not to confuse. Additionally, this is the very first thing the article tells us about him - that he was black - which is not what we do for most other inventors, certainly not the white ones. It might make sense to couch the lede in that way for, e.g., lynching victims and civil rights leaders, two groups of people I have found often referred to as African-American in the first sentence of the lede, and I have not changed those pages. I don't think it makes that much sense here. But I'm not a major contributor to this article, so...que sera. Chubbles (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing there I disagree with, really. My comment about meatbottery had to do with a look at your contributions page, not this article. Yeah, if comparison of this article’s format with many other article's formats left a reader with the impression that this guy’s major point of importance was his melanin count, that would be a Bad Thing. Qwirkle (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

e

eqqewqe--50.226.181.182 (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Italic textdswe f

Mixed race

Garrett Morgan was of mixed race, not "African American" alone. His grandfather, according to non-Wikipedia sources, was white, and his mother was mixed-race as well, being part American Indian.

My reason for bringing this up is it appears a certain amount of "wokeism" has infused this article, with over-emphasis on the "African American" part. Rather that making a big deal out of that, why isn't he referred to as "mixed race" once, rather constantly going "African American" this and "African American" that?

216.152.18.132 (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

He faced discrimination based on race and pointing out that truth cannot be labeled as "wokeism." It doesn't matter if he was not African American alone and it doesn't take away from the fact he was black. His grandfather that you mention was a white Confederate Colonel and kept his son (Morgan's father, Sydney) as a slave until 1863. The reason that his race is identified was because he faced setbacks and hardships during the period because of his skin color despite possessing incredible skills that could help the general public. It cannot be denied that "African American inventors faced the threat of declining sales once their racial identity became known. How did Morgan solve this puzzle? Promotional materials and newspaper accounts suggest that he carefully crafted his image as a capable inventor for the press and the broader public in a way that enabled him to hide his skin color"[1] It's important to understand that he was African-American ALONG with being part Native American and white because that's what "mixed race" is. Peytwn (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is there a so much debate about his background

so why isn't he referred to as african american when he's recognized as african american in every other source i look up 2603:6011:800:140:9C28:DE58:1883:EE02 (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The man called himself the "Black Edison" i don't think referring to him as an african american should be an issue. 2603:6011:800:140:9C28:DE58:1883:EE02 (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Garrett morgan logic

Pbskids.com 98.226.234.234 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)