Jump to content

Talk:Elijah McCoy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elijah McCoy is dead

[edit]

This man was born in 1845 according to the article. I assume he died along the way somewhere? -戴&#30505sv

This man was not born in 1844 according to the article. and he died in 1929. He died from injuries in a car accident that his Wife was killed in seven years earlier. --170.211.79.126 18:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)Matthew Center

The article lists May 2, 1844 as DOB but the photo of the Historical Marker in Michigan (half way down) shows year 1843. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beach48 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imprecision in the birth dates of Black people during this time is not the least bit surprising, especially if they were born at home, with no accredited doctor in attendance.Natcolley (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

someone had vandalized the biography, I've just fixed it.

Me too. The link was changed by 198.209.35.250 to an invalid one. But I'm not sure that I know why that link is in the bibliography (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/tl1865.html). The entry says "Civil War and Reconstruction" but the page itself says "Time Line of The Civil War, 1865". I see no mention of McCoy there. DHR 22:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do pople feel the need to give people the wrong information!? I blame haters e.e! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.182.119 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fact Checking Needed

[edit]

The article says the father fought in the Riel Rebellion (1869 or 1885 according to the link) earning a land grant. One presumes this must have happened before George was 3 (1847), when the family moved back to the US. The sequence just doesn't work (Riel was born in the same year as George or one year later).

This mistake also appears in http://www.africawithin.com/bios/elijah_mccoy.htm . In this article, the date of the Riel Rebellion is put as 1837. There was a rebellion in Upper and Lower Canada in that year 1837 Rebellion.

I wonder how this mistake has flowed.

I would not correct this obvious mistake without knowing the right information. Changing an obvious error to a plausible error isn't an improvement.

George would have been born in Canada West. Ontario didn't exist until 1867. -- DHR 05:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Canada West was not a political entity according to its article. Rmhermen 17:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a rule that it must be a political entity? At the time, all knew what Canada West meant. I think that I've seen it in postal addresses of the time. I've changed Canada West to Canada West, Province of Canada in the hope that this conforms to the convention. The actual edit you made was to change Upper Canada to Province of Canada -- not what you intended. DHR 04:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to editing, so I might be confused, but Rmhermen's last edit does not look like an improvement to me. Information is removed. That information seems correct, interesting, and relevant. I'd like to understand why this was done. DHR 07:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was exactly the change I intended as Province of Canada was the legal entity at the time of his birth - not Upper Canada, which had ceased to exist before he was born. As to the use of informal areas, it is generally not done. I don't know what year his parents fled and so can't tell "where" they fled to. Rmhermen 19:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The birth year was just changed from 1844 to 1843. At the bottom of the article there is still a link to 1844 births. I've seen both mentioned on the web. Interestingly, I've only seen May 2 as his birthday. Which year is correct? DHR 19:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably unknown. One site says: "The date of McCoy's birth is not known; various sources give it as March 27, 1843; May 2, 1843; and May 2, 1844." Brittanica uses 1843, Encarta 1844. We should probably add a weasel statement. Rmhermen 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's split pretty evenly between 1843 and 1844. However, most of the references I have consulted cannot even be considered secondary sources. I have yet to find a scholarly biography of McCoy. One textbook (Holtzapple and Reece, Foundations of Engineering) gets around the DOB issue altogether by saying that he "was born in the early 1840s". If it's an important issue, we should note the controversy explicitly. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a list concerning Further reading

[edit]

Your justification was wrong. I was not whimsical in the selection of the material, and actually went to some effort to compile it.

When you put the word "just" or "mere" in front of anything, you can trivialize it. I once encountered an administrative opinion where that writer asked, "Is mere conviction of a felony reason to remove a sitting judge." I had never ever thought of putting those words together in that form.

You dismissed this as "just a list." Evidently you have not bothered to look at (or otherwise examine) the content of the books, which have specific subject matter pertaining to Elijah McCoy. As of the initial entry, this list did not exist in this form anywhere else on the internet. Indeed, I went to the trouble of putting in the ISBN numbers, so that the "list" could be helpful to our esteemed readers, as they could then find it in bookstores and libraries all over the world.

  • Haber, Louis. Black Pioneers of Science and Invention. {Louis Haber: Books, 2007.) ISBN 0152085661; ISBN 978-0152085667.
  • Haskens, Jim. Outward Dreams: Black Inventors and Their Inventions. (Walker, 1991.) ISBN 9780802769930.
  • Hayden, Robert C. Nine Black American Inventors. (21st Century, 1997.) 171 pages ISBN 0805021337; ISBN 978-0805021332.
  • Klein, Aaron E. The Hidden Contributors: Black Scientists and Inventors in America. (DoubleDay, October 1971) ISBN 0385006411, ISBN 978-0385006415.
  • Moodie, Andrew, The Real McCoy. ISBN 9780887549021
  • Sullivan, Otha and Haskens, Jim, Black Stars: African American Inventors. (Jossey-Bass. April 21 1998) ISBN 0471148040, ISBN 978-0471148043.
  • Towle, Wendy. The Real McCoy: The Life of an African American Inventor. (Scholastic, 1993.) ISBN 0-590-46134-6.

It would be impolitic for me to say that your edit was "just an edit" or "mere opinion." I do not want to be insulting, so I will contain the urge to say those things, as we all need to work together to create a better encyclopedia for our potential readers.

However, I would urge my fellow editors to think about it. I am sure that once you exam the subject matter and give it some due consideration and thought, your exercise of reason will support the inclusion of this material, and not its exclusion. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

This article needs to be semi-protected again

[edit]

As soon as the last semi protection lifted, we had a recurrence of the prior problem. Perhaps we should go to WP:AIV. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

The real McCoy

[edit]

None of the sources listed enumerated or proposed McCoy as the inspiration for the term, they actually were articles determining that this is completely false. unless someone can find a definitive source stating this McCoy was the inspiration for the phrase it needs to be left out of this article. --Dcowboys3109 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please put new discussion at the end of the page.
The test here is not absolute Wp:truth. There are sources, and in fact they put forth in an objective way the pros and cons of a noteworthy subject matter. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]

you misunderstood my point. i was saying that the source listed enumerates that it is not true that elijah mccoyy was the inspiration for the phrase. i would think that a source espousing the opposite view would be needed to include the said view in the article. For example, an article on why holocaust deniers are wrong could not be used to include reasons why holocaust survivors are right in an article. Nonetheless, i will make a compromise edit instead of reverting to my previous edit. --Dcowboys3109 (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the number of sources that correct the misinformation, there does seem to be adequate controversy/confusion to justify a mention in this article; but the original wording did need improvement. After Dcowboys changes, I further re-worded the forst sentence and adjusted the sequence of information to try to make it flow a bit better. I also removed the link to the disambiguation page, which didn't provide any real usable information - although it can still be reached via the real McCoy article which is still linked from the paragraph. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real McCoy

[edit]

The reference to "The Real McCoy" is in fact a reference to a William McCoy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._McCoy) who sold booze from ships anchored outside of US territorial waters during prohibition. Unlike other rum runners, who sold inferior product in order to capitalize on their contraband, McCoy was known for having the finest quality product. If a bootlegger said he had "The Real McCoy", it meant he had a premium spirit.

It's now clear that the phrase "The Real McCoy" may have applied to any McCoy who had something meaning or substantial to offer. I believe that it applied to everyone mentioned herein. Who ever knows for sure where a cliche begins. Tom 03/21/08

No, it is now clear the phrase can be removed from this entry as it has nothing to do with the inventor. Koalorka (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

me too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.204.132.254 (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts using four tildes.
I totally disagree. The phrase has frequently (and erroneously) been connected to the inventor. This article gets it right, and addresses the misatribution. There is a difference between reputation' and fact and it properly belongs in tthis article. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Correction, Koalorka is blocked per the contributions page. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Origin of phrase - The real McCoy

[edit]

Seeing that there are two threads related above, this one serves as the newest discussion. The article is currently wrong because I've found a 1976 issue of Ebony Jr. that has the story....the 1985 pamphlet story is bull and needs to be reflected as such. See the issue...p. 54.

Further, it references the book Eight Black American Inventors, by Robert C. Hayden, as their source which was published in 1972.

Note:Koalorka is indef-blocked so his comments above can be disregarded.

The article needs new revision...this is why we don't pull stories out but rather try to balance perspectives.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Koalorka does not appear to be indefinitely blocked to me. When I click on the link, that's not what I get. Am I missing something.
However, I agree with Berean Hunter that a balanced discussion, pro and con, is needed. Seems to me that some editors think we are in the WP:truth business. While while may arrive at that, the fact that there is a dispute and that there are other versions of the etymology of Real McCoy is itself noteworthy and should be properly discussed. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Correction, Koalorka is blocked per the contributions page. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Stan[reply]
He's actually evading the block from time to time here...but that is another story.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed a bit of OR, it was restored by Borean Hunter. I have tagged the section. The source does not support the statement to which it is attached, only that the quote is actually in the given document. This would be appropriate in a "In popular culture" *shudder* section, if someone unwisely added such a spam magnet. The "main article" given there firmly refutes the section here.Shajure (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"for which he was well known." - another bit of OR. Leaving it in, but it should be removed or sourced.Shajure (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but WP:PRIMARY allows for original documents to present themselves prima facie. At the present, it is the earliest known publishing of the phrase and it rather stands for itself. What part of the paragraph are you considering OR?
  • "The expression was first known to be published in Canada in 1881. In James S. Bond's The Rise and Fall of the "Union club": or, Boy life in Canada, a character says, "By jingo! yes; so it will be. It's the 'real McCoy,' as Jim Hicks says. Nobody but a devil can find us there."[1]
  1. ^ Bond, James S. The rise and fall of the "Union club": or, Boy life in Canada. Yorkville, Ontario. p. 1
Which bit exactly is the original research? The conclusions reach may be disputable, but I don't see any original research. Everything stated is sourced. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many patents?

[edit]

I have found various factoid numbers for Elijah McCoy patents, ranging from 57 to 100. I also think that a list of patents and a source would be a good addition. There has got to be an authoritative source. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Stawn[reply]

Partial list of Elijah McCoy patents. I have seen evidence of other patents elsewhere. Illustrated tour of Elijah McCoy inventions 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Math discrepancies

[edit]

Can someone fix the math on this page? At the very beginning of the article, it says he moved to the U.S. as a five year old. But if he was born in 1844 and moved in 1847, he was only 3.

Apologies up front if I'm doing something wrong, because I don't have a clue about what I'm doing here. I definitely don't want to touch the page itself. So if someone could just fix that, it would be really nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlynnt (talk • contribs) 04:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rlynnt (and please sign your posts, putting new ones at the end). I noticed the same thing and the bit about returning before having been in Michigan before, tried to improve it. There are still some other dates for us to work out better as the article becomes more complete.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Elijah McCoy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Elijah McCoy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real McCoy

[edit]

The article says that the term Real McCoy didn’t originate with him, citing the previously used term “Real McKay.” If he is the first whose products were dubbed “real McCoy,” then this should reflect that the older phrase morphed and became McCoy thanks to his name and reputation. 108.232.152.148 (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google doodle pushing pov

[edit]

Google doodle recently featured Elijah on their homepage in order to promote their own business interests. Many people have demanded the person/team behind Google doodle be fired due to abuse of power, blatant misinformation, conflict of interests, promotion of Eleiyas and people with 'li' in their name. Google wants to brainwash people into thinking only people with 'li' in their name can be inventors, and everybody else cannot, which is complete garbage. Neri Lynn (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth? This does not even make sense, let alone be relevant. It sounds like a wild anti-Google conspiracy theory, and therefore I would recommend immediate deletion. Plus "Neri Lynn" does not exist.Natcolley (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would qualify for immediate deletion under WP:TALK Delete. "It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material..." Nbauman (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History, Historians, and Black people and their contributions of any kind whatsoever

[edit]

The text says: Historians have not agreed on the importance of McCoy's contribution to the field of lubrication. Early-20th century lubrication literature barely mentions him. For example, his name is absent from E. L. Ahrons' Lubrication of Locomotives (1922), which does identify several other early pioneers and companies of the field.

It should hardly be surprising that - at least as of 1922, no more recent scholarship is referenced - the value of the contributions of Africans anywhere in the Diaspora is disputed. The same would obviously be true for his exclusion from a book from that time period. Unless one is willing to assert that the author, Ahrons, was both all knowing and without bias, exclusion from this book does not prove anything. If McCoy's contributions were of such questionable value, how was he able to keep patenting and selling them? I would like to see this section re-worded or eliminated, based on more current scholarship, if any is available.Natcolley (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like, RE Ahron's work, anyway, it's a confusion of perspective. Note from this article "By 1899, the Michigan Bureau of Labor and Industrial Statistics reported that the McCoy lubricator was in use on almost all North American railroads", emphasis added, whereas a quick look at Ahron's page shows he was British & his books and work dealt primarily with BRITISH railways. So all other issues of race & erasure aside there's no reason his books on trains in England would talk about something used primarily in North America. JamesG5 (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elijah_McCoy&oldid=1196730004"