Talk:Eli Whitney/Archive 1

This article needs some clearing up

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)

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.

"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)

---

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?

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

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)

This is Wikipedia, People

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

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

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

first and the only cotton gin?

"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"

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)

Inventor

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. 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)

Why is Eli Whitney so very well known?

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)

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?

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).

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)

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)

Wrong birthplace!

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?

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

who's who?

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)

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

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)

Some Vandalism

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)

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)

Time for semi-protection

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)

Article name

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

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)

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

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

Citations in the wrong place?

"...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)

Category needs to be added

Please add Whitney to the People from Worcester County, Massachusetts category. I do not have enough edits to edit this article. --Mcfly007 (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done per request. — ¾-10 03:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Article name REDUX

I haven't researched this yet. I'm calling on anyone who's interested in this article to get involved. How do we KNOW that Eli Whitney, the cotton gin guy, the one who died in 1825, was a "Jr"? The reason I ask is because Roe 1916 p160 clearly says that "Eli Whitney, Jr." was the son of an ex-Governor Edwards, who was a trustee of Eli Whitney (d. 1825)'s estate. Can anyone set this straight? Was Eli Whitney (d. 1825) a "Jr" at all? If Roe is wrong, what are the refs that correct him? I suspect (not yet confirmed) that Wikipedia has this wrong currently. I may not wait to remove the "Jr" from this article title before digging up further research. If the "Jr" belongs, someone will need to come back and *show* why it should be re-added. — ¾-10 17:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, well duh, the "Early life" section tells me that there's a good reason to call him Jr, because his dad was Sr. HOWEVER, there's still a problem here. The guy that Roe 1916 p160 talks about was an important guy who did a good job churning out rifles for the U.S. Army in the 1840s. And he was known as "Eli Whitney, Jr." Which was lamentably ambiguous, since "cotton gin" Eli Whitney was also a Junior, but it was what it was, lamentability or not, and apparently most people didn't know that "cotton gin" Eli Whitney was also a Junior; he was famous simply as "Eli Whitney". OK, at this point, my hypothesis is that we are going to need to have 2 articles, named as follows:

Eli Whitney

Eli Whitney, Jr. (18whatever-18whatever)

OR

Eli Whitney, Jr.

Eli Whitney, Jr. (18whatever-18whatever)

with the latter being about the later guy. — ¾-10 18:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the ambiguous referent of "His" in "His son" at Roe 1916:160 may have confused me. I'm guessing it means that "1840s-steel-barrel Eli" was the son of "cotton gin Eli", not the son of ex-Governor Edwards. However, this still might imply that there's an error in this article, because there is uncertainty as to who was running the company in 1841 (Edwards? "stone crusher Blake"? "1840s-steel-barrel Eli"?), in 1842, and through the rest of the forties. This article seems to suggest that "stone crusher Blake" was running it from 1841 and for some years onward. Roe 1916:160 seems to say that "stone crusher Blake" only ran the company from 1825 to 1835. One thing I wonder is if Roe was mistaken in calling "1840s-steel-barrel Eli" as "Eli Whitney, Jr." I wonder if Roe *should* have been calling him "Eli Whitney III."

Any Wikipedians who live near (or work at) the Eli Whitney Museum may be able to bring clarity. — ¾-10 18:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

More follow-up: According to a page on the museum's website, http://www.eliwhitney.org/new/museum/eli-whitney/family, "cotton gin Eli"'s son, that would be "1840s-steel-barrel Eli", was born in 1820 and was known by the name "Eli Whitney, Jr." And I believe history generally knows him as "Eli Whitney, Jr." Therefore, even if "cotton gin Eli" was indeed technically a Junior (to be confirmed), we're gonna need to do some mighty powerful disambiguatin' here in this article, and explain the genealogy a bit. — ¾-10 18:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone has bothered to email the Eli Whitney Museum, but I just did. Wikipedia must have it incorrect as I would think that the museum would have better information. Who knows. The museum says that Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. And Eli Whitney, Jr. was his son who married Henrietta. Wikipedia has this confused. I also asked the museum to find some ancestry of Eli Whitney, the cotton gin inventor. Hopefully, someone will straighten this out. Also, the photo that Wikipedia uses is the photo of Eli Whitney and according to the museum it is NOT the photo of Eli Whitney, Jr.Mylittlezach (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The 'photo' of Eli Whitney you are referring to is is an image of a well-known painting of Eli Whitney by the American artist and inventor Samuel F. B. Morse from the Yale University Art Gallery. It is certainly an image of Eli Whitney. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia refers to the person in the photo as Eli Whitney, Jr and not Eli Whitney. There is a discrepancy from Wikipedia and the museum.Mylittlezach (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe I can shed light on this discrepancy. I am going to call them by nicknames to keep clear who I am talking about. Cotton-gin Eli is "THE" Eli Whitney that is most famous. Steel-barrel Eli is his son. Now get this: they BOTH have some basis to be called by the name "Eli Whitney Jr": Cotton-gin Eli because his father, apparently, from what I've read, was Eli Whitney Sr; and Steel-barrel Eli because that's how everyone knew him during his lifetime and for decades afterward. In other words, even though Cotton-gin Eli was "technically" a Junior, history and fame never CALLED him that, because they knew him as simply "Eli Whitney" period. Meanwhile, Steel-barrel Eli was "technically" the third generation, but history and fame never CALLED him that, because, working from Cotton-gin Eli being just "Eli Whitney" period, they called his son "Junior". I am 99% sure that the above is correct. Now here's the part I don't recall certainly off the top of my head: I believe that Steel-barrel Eli had a son, also named Eli, who history and fame have always referred to as "Eli Whitney III" (ie, "the third"), BUT that man was "technically" the fourth generation. [¶] Because history and fame knew these men as Eli [period], Eli Junior, and Eli the third, that is what Wikipedia should also call them. The person who changed the title of this Wikipedia article about Cotton-gin Eli to "Eli Whitney Jr" did it solely based on the fact that his dad was a Senior. That title-changing editor was, no doubt, entirely ignorant that Steel-barrel Eli is the man that history has known for a century as "Junior". Therefore, we should change it back, which would put Wikipedia's article title back in line with historical usage and [thus] with the museum's nomenclature. But I can't do it because only admins have the authority to do a page move over an existing redirect. — ¾-10 01:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Guys and gals, I am going to go look up how to flag down an admin and get their help to change the name of this page back to "Eli Whitney". Fingers crossed. — ¾-10 13:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Done at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I hope no one tries to block this request without actually knowing anything about the topic, such as that steel-barrel Eli existed, and that he was called "Eli Jr". — ¾-10 13:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Anthony, an admin, for doing the move. Much appreciated. — ¾-10 04:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've now fixed all the embarrassingly wrong stuff (2011-04-24)

Hi all. With my changes of 2011-04-23 and 2011-04-24, I've now fixed all the embarrassingly wrong stuff. This includes:

• Wikipedia no longer conflates the "Junior" issue.
  • It no longer tries to call Cotton-gin Eli (b. 1765) "Junior", because that's not how history has called him (see earlier talk thread for explanation if needed);
  • It recognizes that his son, Steel-barrel Eli (b. 1820), was in fact the one that history has long known as "Junior";
  • It no longer conflates Eli Junior with Eli Whitney Blake, who was his cousin—not the same man;
• It no longer tries to claim that Gribeauval "perfected" the American system (duh?!);
• It no longer tries to fork the coverage of the details of the development of intechangeability, because that's what {{main|interchangeable parts}} is for.

Whew! What a large load of crap cleaned up! But I am happy, because this latest iteration of article version just goes to prove once more that Wikipedia is a self-correcting mechanism, given enough time. Cheers, — ¾-10 15:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: The cycle time could be reduced if more members of the decently educated portion of the general public would bother to participate in improving Wikipedia. It seems a little weak that, out of all the people in the world who were capable of fixing this article, it didn't get done until *I* did it. Sigh. Oh well. I'll just keep showing all y'all up. And don't fret about Wikipedia becoming too good (i.e., a scary-good free resource), because it will happen without you anyway. Welcome to the world of tomorrow! ;-) — ¾-10 15:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Common Misconceptions

On Wikipedia's own List of common misconceptions page, it lists that he did not in fact invent the cotton gin, yet on this page it is in the first sentence. Someone needs some citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.248.209 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No such reference in made on the cited Wikipedia page. There is no reference to cotton gin at all. N0w8st8s (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)n0w8st8s

You are responding to a comment from 2010. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Unintended Consequences

I've removed the following line referring to the cotton gin leading to the American slave economy: "(regardless of whether Whitney intended that or not)"

I think it was intended to point out that, though the cotton gin did indeed affect slavery, there is no reason to assume it was Whitney's intention. However, by even bringing it up, it achieves the opposite. It would be like an article on Hitler's mother that says "She gave birth to Adolf Hitler, which led directly to the Holocaust (whether she intended that or not)."

Unless there's some controversy to suggest that maybe he DID intend his invention to give a boost to the slave trade, there's no need to state it. And if that controversy exists, it should be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zegota (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018

47.186.45.133 (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC) First of all We all know that the cotton gin or the milling machine was not invented by Eli Whitney, but by a slave!Eli Whitney claimed the invention as his own, but does not deserve the credit. Go back and read some real history, before the whitewashing!

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2019

Paragraph 4 of the "Later life and legacy" should say "who not only" not "who only". Samwri (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done and added an "also" in the followup clause. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Whitney’s practice of fraud upon US government

As Simon Winchester chronicles in chapter four of his book, The Perfectionists, Eli Whitney received a government contract to create muskets with interchangeable parts, but had no expertise in this area and did not deliver the weapons he promised. He deceived John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and others with a limited display. The Wikipedia article as it stands suggests he contributed to the success of wars, when in fact he compromised soldiers and his government. I would advocate adding excerpts from Winchester’s book. Niftwhich (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022

There are two areas that need editing, both claims made several times in this article:

firstly, Eli Whitney did not, in fact, invent the cotton gin. It is now well established that he significantly improved cotton gin technology, building on earlier models at use in the South, the earliest of which stemmed from Asia and Africa Source: Angela Lakwete, Inventing the Cotton Gin: Machine and Myth in Antebellum America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 2005).

Additionally, there is no real evidence that Eli Whitney hoped that his modification of the cotton gin would reduce the South's reliance on slavery. Instead, this often repeated account appears to be a myth. In fact, Whitney spent considerable time in Georgia as a tutor (as mentioned in the article), working on a plantation which used slave labor, where he became aware of the stopgap in cotton processing, which he sought to alleviate. Source: Hatfield, Edward. "Eli Whitney in Georgia." New Georgia Encyclopedia, last modified Oct 31, 2018. https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/eli-whitney-in-georgia/ and also “Eli Whitney's Patent for the Cotton Gin,” National Archives https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/cotton-gin-patent

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that Whitney was disturbed by slavery in any way. Instead, his invention was intended to speed up the processing of cotton, a job done by enslaved labor. He wrote to his father in Sept 11, 1793 that he had perfected a device by which “one man will clean ten times as much cotton as he can in any other way before known.”

Source: “Correspondence of Eli Whitney Relative to the Invention of the Cotton Gin.” The American Historical Review 3, no. 1 (1897): 90–127, p. 100 https://doi.org/10.2307/1832812.

That same year, in a Nov 24 1793 letter to Thomas Jefferson, Whitney wrote about how he hoped to improve the speed of cotton processing, because currently, “it is the stated task of one negro to clean fifty weight (I mean fifty pounds after it is separated from the seed), of the green seed cotton per day.”

“Correspondence of Eli Whitney Relative to the Invention of the Cotton Gin.” The American Historical Review 3, no. 1 (1897): 90–127, p. 100, fn. 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/1832812.

These letters suggest that Whitney hoped to increase the rapidity of cotton processing, while fully aware that this was a task consigned to slaves. Wansin457 (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Crazy claim without source

Please remove the beginning line of the second paragraph that says "Whitney himself believed that his invention would reduce the need for enslaved labor and help hasten the end of southern slavery." The claim cites this site which has since been deleted, likely because it's incorrect. There's no evidence I could find online that Eli Whitney planned to end slavery with the cotton gin beyond this source and the wikipedia which references this source. Instead, I found an overwhelming number of sources listing his motivation as cash, hoping to patent the cotton gin. Please delete the inaccurate claim for me as I don't have the valid permissions (I think). Troglodyte8 (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Gun making?

I didn’t see anything on this 47.5.105.168 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)