Talk:Garrett Morgan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This is an excellent page, for its details, for tribute to an inventor, and to an African-American. I've had a file online for 2 years, with fewer details.66.44.54.174 02:45, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

myspace+picture?

that link to myspace and the image of Morgan's image at a "TCU" game has nothing to do with the topic and should be removed.

There has been a guy by the name of Steve Goodpeoples "Shunt" who runs myemospace.com goes around with the Garrett Morgan poster to sporting events and other public places and has people stand next to it and takes photos of it. This is the same guy who sneaked onto the field at Super Bowl XXXIX with fake press passes. I happen to know him from a message forum. --Raderick 10:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Raderick, you are a tool. Don't come over here and play glorp games! --Shunt11 19:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Negationism

I think we should erase the link www33.brinkster not because they are negationism. But they wrote like if Garrett Morgan was an hypocryt man who deserves nothing especially the title "inventor" Roger_Smith —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.78.57.65 (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I am no fan of www33.brinkster, who seems to spend an awful lot of energy showing that Morgan's inventions were not the first -- however, his arguments are very well-documented, accurately presented and argued, and I see no reason not to link to them. If someone has a good verifiable source which could add context to, or give expert evaluation of these claims, though, that would be great!

Rapotter 15:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Rapotter, you seem to be the only defender of www33.brinkster. The reality is that none of his references are verifiable by legitimate educational institutions like mit.edu which contradicts brinkster quite often. Further, brinkster links to people who, though famous, have no connection to the invention or article in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.23.228 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that www33.brinkster did a great job in his historic research. Just because you don't like the results doesn't make them valid. This is not even a case of "Columbus discovered America" but more like a false attribution (i.e. 'Galileo invented the telescope'). The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts in an encyclopedic fashion, not repeat inaccuracies and falsehoods.Ryoung122 23:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Improving this article

I am working to shape up this article -- mainly right now, just light revision and organization. It needs some work!

Morgan is a very important historical figure. However, its is fairly clear that his two most famous inventions were not quite as "new" as once thought; his traffic signal was not the ancestor of the three-light modern signal, and his gas mask was not first, nor the model used in WWI. Nevertheless, he was a notable inventor all the same, as well as a successful entrepreneur with a line of hair care products, and the founder of an important African-American newspaper, the Call and Post. So I am working to balance all these factors and would welcome support from others,

Although I have spent some time researching the Morgan Papers at the Western Reserve Historical Society, I am not relying on this work as it may fall under the policy against original research -- what I am doing instead is trimming back the most egegiously inaccurate claims while (I hope) strengthening all the aspects of Morgan's career for which I can provide clear verifiable sources. I'd be glad of any other wikipedians interested in strengthening this entry!

By the by, I took a photo of Morgan's grave -- it has his traffic signal engraved on it -- and plan to add this image soon. Looking for a suitably public-domain image of Morgan himself, but no luck yet ....

Rapotter 04:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: Have added my photo of the grave, and put in a photo of GAM which I believe will be copyright-free.

Rapotter 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleveland Call

The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History states that the Cleveland Call was founded 'circa 1920' so that's the date I'm going with. Any further information on this would be appreciated!

Rapotter 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no mention of the Cleveland Call in the current version of the article. Probably there should be. It seems like a notworthy topic in relation to Morgan. My understanding is that this was some sort of newspaper / newsletter and he was its founding publisher. But I don't think I know enough about that topic yet to go ahead with putting in something about it. My understanding is also that he ran a sewing equipment repair business, which is also not mentioned in the article. Currently the article seems to say practically nothing about his life and backgroud – it just talks about two inventions (and mentions a third). According to at least one source, he was also an officer of the Cleveland Association of Colored Men, and remained an active member after it merged with the NAACP. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I just figured out what happened. The entire "Early Life" section of the article was deleted without explanation by anon IP user 198.109.0.14 in a revision as of 19:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC). I think that was vandalism, and I just restored the content of that section (back to what it held prior to that edit). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

I am saddened to see that this page has been vandalized at least once a day this past week. There have also been some changes which have been claimed as improvements, but have been inserted in such a manner as to render portions of the article redundant or incoherent.

Those who want to make improvements to this article need only follow WP guidelines, and try to respect both NPOV and the article's overall coherence and organization. I would be happy to see some new work by others on the page!

Rapotter 20:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Brinkster

Just as a note to others editing this entry: while I agree that the Brinkster website is aimed at discrediting Morgan in all kinds of ways, its basic claims about the Morgan Traffic Signal are accurate as far as they go, and amply documented from the US Patent Office. I still find Morgan an admirable figure, and his heroism in saving lives in the Lake Erie Crib Disaster is unquestionable! But however much we may admire Morgan, the entry here ought to state the facts as they are known, not shy away from them. Rapotter 15:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean like his references to the American Traffic Signal Company? The company, though already named such, invented the traffic signal? His sources are unverifiable(links to wiki files are redundant and not truly outside sources) and once traced back a link or two are found to be ambiguous at best or downright fabrications.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.23.228 (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, most of his sources are from the US Patent office. See my comment below Rapotter 20:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There are links to the Patent office, true. But once those archives are accessed they do not coincide with this bigot's assertions, or yours.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BFritzen (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Please do not resort to name calling such as "bigot" as that is considered WP:civil. And please sign and date your posts.<sigh> I share your concerns, believe me (ask KellyCook ;)), but I have tried to find references for this man away from Brinkster, on the Internet anyway, and it is really difficult because the other's contradict themselves! I gave up for this reason. Like Rapotter said, if there is another source(s) that has correct, and reliable information, then please provide it. I was an opponent of brinkster as a source for the very reason you say. But, actually reading the others here, and after leaving my emotions aside, I see they are here as good faith editors trying to source the article and I don't believe they are trying to push a racist view. Maybe there are some, but I don't see any here or they are in the minority.

My only real concern now is, that the article does not become all about discrediting him. That doesn't mean I am against the truth. He didn't invent the first gas mask, but he did invent a safety hood, one that was used for a remarkable rescue. Wikipedia strives for a NPOV, so that means there will be another side, one that strives for balance. This is about the MAN, Garrett A. Morgan, his inventions are but a part of his story, and a very noble notable one.

To add a whole bunch of what other things came before his inventions is not proper, because then it becomes about something else. Sure one can refer to them, but not devote a whole sections (larger than the others) or most of the article about the many other inventors of whatever was before his, and their many variations. Start a new article about the others, or the inventions. Who made these claims in the first place? Did he, Morgan? - Jeeny ^Talk 22:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem: Science Museum Garrett Morgan

References Russell Adams, Great Negroes Past and Present, 3rd edition, Chicago: Afro-Am Publishing Company, 1963 Tim Cook, Through clouded eyes: gas masks and the Canadian Corps in the First World War, : Material History Review , Louis Haber, Black Pioneers of Science and Invention, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc, 1970 Portia P. James, The Real McCoy: African American Invention and Innovation, 1619-1930, Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989 Edward Sidney Jenkins, To Fathom More: African American Scientists and Inventors, Lanham: University Press of America, 1996 Kristine Krapp (ed), Notable Black American Scientists, Detroit, Michegan: Gale Research, 1999 Burt McKinley, Jr, Black Inventors of America, Portland, Oregon: National Book Company, 1989 Patricia McKissack, African American Inventors, Brookfield, Conneticut: The Millbrook Press, 1994 Augustin M. Prentiss, Chemicals in War: a Treatise in Chemical Warfare, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1937 Vivian Ovelton Sammons, Blacks in Science and Medicine, New York: Hemipshere Publishing Corporation, 1989 Otha Richard Sullivan, African American Inventors, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1998

I wanted to let my refs speak for themselves, but they continue to be deleted. This is quite an extensive list of VARIOUS references, not just one. So when we talk about his life and find conflictory information then both sides should be represented peacefully. However, could someone please explain (as no one has yet) why MIT, the Smithsonian, RIT, The Federal Highway Adminstration (all who have similar information about Morgan) are not "scholarly?" Or reliable? I just don't see how that can possibly be. MIT? I mean, really? Do people really think these sources are not legitimate? If so, I really would like to know how or better yet reference something that proves their unreliability (but not from www33.brinkster.com).--BFritzen 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

BFritzen, I haven't looked at them, but please include them if they are indeed there. Wow, that is much better than Brinkster of course! I don't know why any one would say they are unreliable. - Jeeny ^Talk 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the "gas mask" reference:

They Made America: From the Steam Engine to the Search Engine : Two Centuries of Innovators - Page 213 by Harold Evans - 2006 - 692 pages

It speaks to the gold medal he won for his gas mask.--BFritzen 23:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bfritzen -- I am sorry to see that you are still setting forth these inaccurate claims about Morgan's achievements. Most of the books that you reference are either very general, or are written for young adult readers; I have seen many of them, and they just repeat most of the same information. A stack of books is not necessarily judged by weight. I refer you to these references:

Gordon Sessions, Traffic Devices: Historical Aspects Thereof, (Washington DC: Institute of Traffic Engineers, c.1971).

Edward A. Mueller, "Aspects of the History of Traffic Signals", IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. VT-19, no. 1, pp.6-17 (1970).

which are neutral, factual references written by traffic engineers and historians. They have no axes to grind. You will see in their pages some of the many sorts of traffic signals which came before Morgan's. As I have said before, the fact that there were earlier signals does not in any way take away from Morgan's accomplishments, his skill as an inventor, or his heroism in rescuing the men trapped beneath Lake Erie. I am an admirer and supporter of Morgan, and even spent some years trying to convince the Carnegie Medal of Heroism trustees that they ought to give him a posthumous medal -- they refused. But when you can see clearly that, while some of the patents were for signal-related devices, that at least a dozen or more were for actual signals, some of which were electrically operated and automatic, not hand-cranked as was Morgan's, I do not see how you can deny that they ever existed.

By all means, let us be rid of Brinkster -- but the historical record still makes it very clear that there were prior signals, and that Morgan's signal was not the first, not automatic, and not electrically operated. I've held his original patent drawings in my hand, and read his correposndence with his patent attorneys, there is no doubt that he invented a worthy, working signal, but is was not the first. Clevelander96 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I regard your opinion and level headedness highly and in this you are right. But it is damn confusing when there are so many conflicting sources. Most of those sources will coincide with some of YOUR conclusions (not necessarily the Wiki article). Just because a source is written for young adults doesn't make it less valid. That said, we should get a far more accurate portrayal of his contributions. I took exception to the wording in the article that claims that his improvements had no role in the evolution. If I look at other wiki articles with mainly caucasian contributors, I will nary find such a statement.--BFritzen 22:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW I never said they were never existed, but as you can tell by the traffic signal page the Hoge reference is completely misused, claiming that Hoge's version included lights, but Hoge's (in his own words) contributions were used by central fire and police agencies to control signals. This is what that site does. Includes what seemingly is overwhelming source material (when in fact most are nothing more than hand operated stop signs) in a vain attempt to discredit African Americans. The word signal is used for many different devices.

Understand that as you follow my contributions (see MY page) they are designed to enhance the articles though it contradicts some of the very information you researched, it was deleted by an editor who fancies herself an admin for no reason other than to protect the assertions of that bizarre site. In fact, you can follow her attempts (again see Traffic Signal) at deletion of material from various users without reason. Anyway, this is about Morgan. And you have read his primary documents so you know that his traffic signal is significant in its design, not as the Wiki article states "it did not directly impact the evolution of the modern traffic light." And you will also see through my history that this is what I took exception to.--BFritzen 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Garret A. Morgan references that contradict Brinkster

http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/morgan.html

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1624.htm

http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/collection/object_913.html

http://invention.smithsonian.org/centerpieces/iap/inventors_morg.html

Are we to assume that Brinkster knows more than the Massachusettes Institute of Technology? The Premier Technical School in the Whole World? Or the Smithsonian? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.36.23.228 (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Actually, your argument is a stacking the deck fallacy (error in logic). First off, these are not actual research articles from these institutions, but generalized web pages. Second, some of these do not contradict Brinkster. For example, the MIT link states that Morgan invented a traffic signal device in 1923...not the 'first traffic signal' and not 'the' traffic signal. Hence, I wonder if your push against Brinkster smacks of POV bias.Ryoung122 23:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, these references are to very general comments about the nature of Morgan's work. He certainly did invent *a* safety hood, and used it to save lives at considerable personal risk. He certainly did invent a traffic signal. The claim that either of these was the first of its kind is clearly incorrect; the documentation from the US Patent Office is clear; one can also see photographs of the traffic signal at E. 9th and Euclid Ave. in Cleveland showing it was installed and working years before Morgan's patent.

I've spent many years studying Morgan's life and work, and have done much of my research in the original Morgan Papers at the Case Western Reserve Historical Society, as well as the US Patent Office, and the archives of the Cleveland Press. I am a great admirer of Morgan, but we can't make a great man any greater by making inaccurate claims about his inventions. Rapotter 20:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Nor can we discount someone's contributions simply because of skin color. As I asked ABOVE feel free to refute ANY of these sources with LEGITIMATE source material. GO AHEAD. DO SO. But don't undo revisions that delete inaccurate and unverifiable material. These sources are accurate and hardly "general." Are you going to write to the president of MIT and the head curator of the Smithsonian that their information is incorrect and a fictional website is? Stop until you have something valid to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.150.100 (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the Brinkster stuff is all linked to material from the US patent office. As his claims are that there are prior patents to Morgan's, I don't see how one could regard that as undocumented. The sites at MIT and the Smithsonian are just very general, and I am sure their directors/presidents are not implying (as per their web policy) detailed endorsement or scholarly approval. I've worked with Morgan's own papers, interviewed family members, and visited his grave to leave flowers. I am not sure where your concerns are coming from! Please do not (if it is you -- you are an anonynmous user) stop reverting these changes without further discussion. Rapotter 12:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I would be happy to invite a Mediator on this issue, but would request that you please establish a Wikipedia account so that all parties can meet on common, not anonymous, ground. Rapotter 13:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You cease as well. How's this: search www33.brinkster within Wikipedia and note that EVERY instance that the site is used is to discredit those of African dissent. Just because he posts links to the patent offices doesn't mean that his information is correct. As is evident once the archives are searched. Did you search them? Further, a very detailed article on Garrett Morgan Federal Highway Authority a government site still refutes his positions. I would love a moderator for this crap. I want www33.brinkster.com banned from linkage. So much for "general" information. When Brinkster is nothing but out and out lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFritzen (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure and I just googled on "Garrett Morgan Ian Taggart" and the very first entry is a tribute page to Mr. Morgan by a professor at Rhode Island college. -- KelleyCook 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, look at the actual patent diagrams to which Brinkster links. The Federal Highway Administration site you link to says that "While other inventors are reported to have experimented with and even marketed their own three-position traffic signals, Garrett A. Morgan was the first to apply for and acquire a U.S. patent for such a device. The patent was granted on November 20, 1923." Now look at the Brinkster site's links. I have looked at every single US Patent to which he links -- his links go directly to the original patent diagrams -- and it is absolutely clear from these that there were indeed more than 50 traffic signals, many of them automatic and activated by timers, patented prior to 1923. None of this detracts from Morgan's achievement, but clearly the FHWA site is in error.

Clearly, Brinkster has an axe to grind. I find his agenda wrongheaded, but his facts are accurate, at least in Morgan's case (I have not researched his other claims) what he says is supported by primary source materials from the Patent offiice. The links you mention can be listed, and so can the Brinkster's links (just his pages on Morgan, not his general page) -- a link is not necessarily an endorsement. I hope that readers of the Morgan article will have the wisdom to judge for themselves. That's the policy of Wikipedia, as far as I understand it.

If you would like to file an official request for mediation on this matter, please sign up for a regular Wikipedia account, and file one. I would be very happy to submit all the details of this issue to a neutral third party, and abide by their decision. Clevelander96 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at some of the Brinkster stuff and the Brinkster links don't look suitable for Wikipedia under WP:RS and WP:EL, Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources and external links. To the extent that US patents are appropriate for the articles, they can be linked directly from the patent office or using the Template:US-patent template. The Brinkster links should be removed and I'd like to ask the folks reinserting them to please cool it; see the RS and EL guideline pages linked above for advice about when and what to link. 75.62.6.237 01:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have an account BFritzen. The FHWA is in error as is the Smithsonian, MIT, U of Houston, RIT? Legitimate source material, yes. BUT, when that material followed much is linked to legitimate sources that contain none of the information posited. I am all for an mediation on this. And I understand where you are coming from, I do, you saw an edit war in progress and attempted to end it, but unfortunately did not see the "sneaky vandalism" Sneaky vandalism Vandalism which is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. that has occurred. I made legitimate edits and they were reverted with the intent of hindering the improvement of the page. [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by BFritzen (talk • contribs)

PLEASE sign and date your comments! Please, who wrote the above comments?? - Jeeny ^Talk 04:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny, you can see who made a comment by looking in the article history. BFritzen, you can sign comments by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message--please do this on all comments. It shows up as your username (or IP address), plus the date and time, like this: 75.62.6.237 04:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I know. But, I was so busy, and I saw my watchlist getting longer and longer and longer and I became frustrated, (no excuse) but a reason. There is much work to do, and I was concerned that it would escalate out of (MY) control. I've have a folder, with info that I need to sort on this issue, article, etc. Plus many others I'm working on, plus real life stuff. It was easier for me, at the time, while reading the comments to just comment than to go thru history, etc. Thanks for coming in and doing the work and posting the information for me, and others. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 05:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Further inaccuracies

The claim "Though few dispute the claim that Morgan invented the forerunner of the modern traffic light, as his invention improved upon the simplistic design that was in use in sparse areas of the world" has been added to the entry. It's not accurate (where are these "sparse areas"?) and the sources footnoted do not support that "few dispute" the claim, they just restate the claim. I'm hoping to step out of editing this entry until we get some mediation, but wanted to note it on the Talk page.

I also agree that it would be ideal to source the patents directly and avoid referencing Brinkster whenever possible. It's just that his list of the 50 or so prior patents on traffic signals gives evidence of a general statement that there were "at least fify" prior patents, which I think should stay, but would require links to all fifty! Not sure what to do here.

I'm going back to insomnia land, but wanted to say thanks to those who have recently posted here, the ones with cooler heads. Clevelander96 08:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Clevelander, it is poorly written at best. I think the article has a lot of that, and without being guilty of OR I left it there. I commented on your talk page too. Hopefully, all of us together, with a "mediator" can help with this. But, I fear the mediator will not have enough info, unless s/he has knowledge of the subject, but then again, perhaps it will help some how. Thanks for all your work. Cheers! - Jeeny ^Talk 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the statement

"Some claim that Morgan did not invent the first "gas mask", however, those references are usually in reference to the "respirator." Morgan invented the safety hood and later revised it to become a gas mask which was used to save trapped miners. His safety hood eventually evolved to become the gas mask."

has been re-inserted. This, too, is inaccurate. The mask was used -- by Morgan himself -- to rescue trapped workers (not miners) in the Lake Erie Crib Disaster of 1917 as referenced in the article. The only revision Morgan made was to add a small "air reservoir" bag, but that doesn't necessarily make it a "gas mask" since it still had no active chemical filtration.

I'm going to let the entry be for now, though. If I hear from a moderator or admin, I'll be happy to give the history of the page, but for now it seems to me to be one of those instances where WP policies are likely to simply prolong the reign of an article with some significant errors mainly because the expertise to evaluate them is lacking, or too dispersed. I'm going to let it be. Clevelander96 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You bring up a good point: "Expertise." Whose expertise? The article has contradictory primary citation, excuse me, the newer material is confirmed by recognized media. This is accurate despite opinions to the contrary. Link the patent office with one or two and then list the numbers of the other 48. But stormfront has ties to www33.brinkster. And I believe this runs contrary to Wiki guidelines. A moderator is definitely needed, no doubt. I have learned since my earlier postings, and I only add, but I did delete a strange sentence within the external sources. I don't think annotating the sources is good, let the reader come to a conclusion on their own.

Notice that I haven't touched the KKK's material. I left it alone to stand against other material dated 6 years apart yet confirming what was stated. If the grammar or style is a problem then mention that and that can be revised. But dumping documented information is not good.--BFritzen 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that another registered user has removed the first of these two inaccurate statements, only to have the edit reverted by our old friend "198.36.23.228". Aaargh! I just don't see how this will ever be settled, unless an admin can lock the article so as only to be edited by registered users. Clevelander96 17:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh? And how does deleting documented material serve the purpose of Wikipedia. Please explain. --BFritzen 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. I can totally sympathize with both of you, but to continue this way is unproductive and can be considered unconstructive. Leave it for a few days, then come back. Take a break and try to come up with a compromise. Please consider reading this essay Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Cheers, and stay cool. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have explained that both these statements are inaccurate. Morgan can hardly have invented the "forerunner of the modern traffic light" if, as can be seen from the patents, there were already timer-operated, three-lamp automatic signals patented and in use, whereas Morgan's signal had to be crank-operated by a human, had no timer, and used a semaphore system of "arms", none of which are in the "modern traffic signal." The fact that very general websites -- by general, I mean not scholarly, not documented or sourced, and written with a general audience in mind -- repeat often-repeated stories about Morgan -- does not make these claims "documented". Misinformation about Morgan is widespread, but its being widespread doesn't make it authoritative. As to a compromise between statements based on reliable primary-source and documented materials, and statements based on popular legends, I don't know what that would look like. It certainly wouldn't be useful in a work of reference.

Brinkster's site, on the other hand, is amply footnoted from authoritative written histories, illustrated with dozens of period photographs and newspaper clippings, and documented by over seventy U.S. patents. You note that racist sites link to Brinkster, but I don't see any links from Brinkster to them, nor does the Brinkster site itself have any political content per se. Because of this, while it may be that Brinkster's motives in posting this information are quite possibly bad ones, his site itself is a collection of well-documented technical information, and I believe meets WP guidelines for a reliable source. To link to this, or cite it, is not to endorse others who may find Brinkster's site convenient to their warped beliefs.

At any rate, I'm worn out arguing, and so I'm just going to leave this entry be. In fact, I'm going to stop contributing to the Wikipedia altogether. It's not worth the effort to have to continually battle over issues like this. Clevelander96 17:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that you have explained it as inaccurate and I question according to who? MIT and the Smithsonian are not "not scholarly" is a weak argument considering the two sources of said information. But I concede that I will not do anything other than tweak grammar and spelling, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BFritzen (talk • contribs)

Clevelander, please do NOT quit. Take a break. This will work out. The problem is the wording, and the sources too that seem to be contradictory. One is the "light" as it was not a "light" at all, but a "sign", but that it served in a way a "light" would have and does now. Similar to a stop sign? It's the prose that needs to be changed, because the contributions of this man have been exaggerated in some sources and diminished in others. The wording is the problem, more so than the sources. I am not a writer or I would gladly take on the assignment. If one of you are, please try to word the article differently to present accurate information. If neither of you feel comfortable about rewriting the disputed claims, perhaps asking for an expert, (I think they supposedly exist here on wikipedia, but don't know where off hand to find that source, different from a moderator, I think) to help tweak the prose so it includes all the information and is formal? I would hate to lose good editors like you. We need you. If not, this will just stay as it is. It takes time, and sometimes it seems a futile effort, and, oh how I know, can be exhausting. Now that it has been made known that this is a hot issue, others will help out, and it will not be on just a couple of editor's "shoulders". Just add the dispute tags, or reword in a NPOV way, little by little and do what you can, for now. Come back later and add a bit more. Don't give up! I know it's tough. DO NOT GIVE UP! - Jeeny ^Talk 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed that to say "saved lives" That is the motive for him to add the "warning" before "go." I think saying that it didn't save lives is like arguing what 1+1 is. I also included a link to a heavily referenced article that mentions the warning. I am sorry if I deleted your questions within the article, I was unsure how to proceed and leave what you had. --BFritzen 19:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem deleting my questions at all (I put them in "invisible comments" anyway (Ooo magic lol), not in the article itself. I'm just trying to avoid more warring, and hopefully have a good article that is sourced fairly. I'm very sure he helped save many lives by his inventions, but I don't have the source right now. Wording is very important, especially for those who want to spin. Not that I'm saying anyone here is doing that or attempting to either. I really believe that you all are editing in "good faith" it's just the nature of Wikipedia. Well, not just for those who want to spin, as that is not fair, but to especially those wanting to learn, and of course not propagating inaccuracies. That's all. :) ps, I called in the troops. I hope they arrive soon. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 19:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Caution

It is easily demonstrated that the claim that Morgan invented the third, or "caution" signal is false. This idea in fact dates back to 1868, as witness this statement from Richard Mayne, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in London, describing the traffic semaphore installed there:

By the signal "caution", all persons in charge of vehicles and horses are warned to pass over the crossing with care and due regard to the safety of foot passengers. The signal "stop" will only be displayed when it is necessary that vehicles and horses shall be actually stopped on each side of the crossing, to allow the passage of persons on foot; notice being thus given to all persons in charge of vehicles and horses to stop clear of the crossing.

-- Proclamation of Richard Mayne, London Police Commissioner, in 1868; quoted in Edward A. Mueller, "Aspects of the History of Traffic Signals", IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. VT-19, no. 1, pp.6-17 (1970).

I am taking time off from editing this entry, but if anyone is interested in accuracy and factual claims, they should feel free to correct and use this reference. Clevelander96 15:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A breather

OK I've put the article back into mostly its previous state without the edits performed by the three variations of BFritzen, sans the reference to the "racist lies" from brinkster.com. The page has also been semi-protected. Let's take the time to resolve the dispute. -- KelleyCook 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WHAT? What you mean to say is that you deleted and changed documented material because it didn't reflect your personal ideology. Arguing that it "consensus" rules in the face of documented material in favor of "a witness" is ludicrous and the most likely reason most people do not refer to Wikipedia as an accurate source of information.

Get it right though and if you aren't part of the problem, then, with an objective mind, type "www33.brinkster.com into the Wiki search and find that www33.(not any of the others from brinkster).brinkster.com are only used on pages of persons of African descent. This page further includes erroneous assertations with factual (ie patent #s) information.

Unlike him, I have included many (not one site) references to well documented material about said traffic signal and gas mask. What you posit is that in this case, majority (3 or 4 people) rules.

I followed the cease and no longer touched what was written by any others, but left my well documented material there, which you erased for no reason.--BFritzen 21:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW doing what you did is considered vandalism by Wikipedia.--BFritzen 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That sucks, BFritzen. I am on your side. I am also on the side of truth, and sometimes I do not like the truth. I posted a bunch of stuff under the "brinkster" heading. Hang in there. - Jeeny ^Talk 22:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Look again, BFritzen, I think you will see that those last edits were done by AQu01rius, a Wikipedia admin. I've refrained from any edits, just posting here, let us reason together. Clevelander96 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

AQu01rius locked it. Click "last" next to KelleyCook and you will see her revisions to my previously documented entries. I wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they weren't documented, but she replaced them entirely. I am all for reasoning together. Check the Brinkster link (above). I have provided many more references. All verifiable.--BFritzen 00:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who Kelley Cook is, she/he is new to this discussion/edit series, so far as I know. But in any case, I think it is not the quantity of references, but the quality. Having been a webmaster in the past on academic and institutional sites, I know that all of these have a disclaimer (this text, xxxx, does not necessarily reflect, or is endorsed by, XXXX university/institution). The strongest evidence, I think we can all agree, would be either a primay source document (I would use my xeroxes from the Morgan papers, but I can't do so without permission from WRHS), or else from a peer-reviewed academic journal (the JSTOR article on the Lake Erie Crib disaster cited by Jeeny is one such). Whatever the ultimate claims made here, we should not mistake statements for documentation, there is a big difference. Clevelander96 00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't care one much about the state of Mr. Morgan's page. I do care about truth and verifiably of Wikipedia in general and I do care about Traffic Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). And after a hit and run edit on that page it was perfectly obvious that the an anonymous IP address from Syracuse — who later logged on from home, and who finally after getting hit with a 3RR warning from yet another page, then created an account named User:BFritzen — went on a multipage binge reverting all instances of brinkster.com from Wikipedia, solely because he/she didn't agree with the content. Moreover on the Traffic Light page, he attempted to change history proven by the patents [2] [3]. I, being a good Wikicontributer, reverted all those edits as anonIP vandalism.

As the content on Ian Taggart's page is verifiable -- at least the dates and pictures from all the patents are -- he/she stooped to calling the page racist. Also I noted that before I even got involved, User:Clevelander96 (nee User:Rappator), told him to stop his edits and he refused to do so. In conclusion based on the page consensus, there is no longer a reference to Brinkster.com on this particular page, but that also does not mean that someone, especially a new editor can go erase long standing items, ignore WP:OR add unverifable hearsay non-truths to this and many other pages as User:BFritzen attempted to do. As I said I am bowing out of this page, I'll leave it up to the ones that wish to keep it in good order. I do hope that that User:BFritzen will cool down and eventually become a good Wikieditor by following the rules. And if he really wishes to get rid of the brinkster.com references sitewide, then take it up with Wiki-management. -- KelleyCook 19:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good. Experience doesn't make you right, Kelley. But I am glad that the Brinkster garbage is loosed from this page. If we were to address the "truth and verifiably [sic]" of Wikipedia, then that is what is important, not making nasty comments to people who try to enhance the site. And thanks for equating me with an anonymous user in my building without any real proof whatsoever. --BFritzen 17:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Right! Because someone else in his building (who apparently shares his IP address as well) just happened to make edits to the same Wikipedia articles that he'd been editing. Not only that, but this "neighbor" seems to agree with BFritzen in a remarkable way as to exactly HOW the article should be edited.

I'm reading this talk page, and it's just a constant struggle between BFritzen and the WORLD! He is so dead-set on being right that no amount of evidence can sway him.

I know, I know, this is an old conversation, but I just can't read these things without putting in my two cents. Ultranothing (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Third-party opinion on sources

Jeeny asked me to look on this page and to offer an opinion regarding the sources. In my opinion, the article is heavily undercited and in dire need of referencing. The references it does have are sketchy at best.

• http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/morgan.html - Although this comes from MIT, it has no author and no references itself. It is not a piece of scholarship.
• http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/education/gamorgan.htm - Although this comes from the ever-reliable government, it also has no author and does not quote its own sources. It is also not a piece of scholarship.
• http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/onlinestuff/stories/garrett_morgan.aspx - This still has no author, but at least it does cite its references. This is borderline, in my opinion.
• "Guardian of the Public Safety: Garrett A. Morgan and the Lake Erie Crib Disaster" by King is an academic journal article - fine.
• http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=01475024 - link says "no patents have matched your query"

I am not sure why the editors of the page have not availed themselves of the nice bibliography at the sciencemuseum.org article. Reading those books would provide them with reliable, published information and would more than likely lead them to other sources. Wikipedia's policy on sources states that "Wikipedia welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals" (I think a scientist wrote that last part because the best humanities work is done in books). But the point is the "peer-reviewed." See also WP:ATT. Awadewit ^Talk 10:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As a side point, I might just mention that the order of information in the article could stand to be revised as well. It was confusing. Information about the hood/mask (the distinction was not entirely clear), for example, should be introduced before he uses it - that way the reader knows what he is doing. Try to imagine an ignorant reader - that is the hardest thing to do. Also, I would consider integrating the inventions into the chronology of his life. Awadewit ^Talk 10:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article. You gave some good advice and direction. Thank you. - Jeeny ^Talk 13:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

About - link says "no patents have matched your query", the patent number is correct, the syntax of the link is just wrong. Clevelander96 19:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix that. How about his link [4] It says there's no text, but to click on the images, which is in Quicktime. I'm sure that would be fine in the article, right? - Jeeny ^Talk 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the real place to fix it is go to the folks who wrote {{US patent reference}}. If they fix the template, then the link on this page should JUST WORK. -- KelleyCook 21:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Again thank you for the review. For future reference in its use in other articles (such as Traffic Light), is there a stance on initial source of contention, the now commented out source — http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/trfclt/ -- KelleyCook 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=01475024&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-adv.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPALL%2526S1%3D01475024%2526OS%3D01475024%2526RS%3D01475024&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page

That is the link to the Patent for Garrett Morgan Traffic Signal.

I still believe there is opinion put forth as to the Traffic Signal such as precursors to Morgan's (ie Hoge's device was a transmitter that changed the signal in case of emergency, yet is said to be a patent for the invention itself and "therefore not the precursor to the modern traffic light."--BFritzen 19:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not the inventor of gas mask

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stenhouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.247.142.181 (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2007‎ (UTC)

my friend is directly releated to garrett morgan. His wife, Mary Anne hassek, was my great-great-great-great-great-great cousin five times removed. So, were distant relatives —Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthernSouljaBoy (talk • contribs) 19:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide ANY documentation (outside of wiki or brinkster (or sources that use brinkster or wiki like about.com) that support this Stenhouse character? If not, it isn't acceptable under wiki guidelines. BFritzen (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There's ample documentation of Stenhouse's invention. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states that "[Stenhouse] was principally known for his application of the absorbent properties of wood charcoal to disinfecting and deodorizing purposes in the form of charcoal air-filters and charcoal respirators"; his obituary in Nature Vol. XXIII (1880-81)states that "He was the inventor of the charcoal respirator, of the charcoal ventilator for sewers, and of a process for rendering fabrics waterproof by means of paraffin."Clevelander96 (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but they are not used within the article. That is what I meant.BFritzen (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical Affirmative-Actionism?

While true that other claimed inventions are subject to considerable dispute (i.e. the 'Wright Brothers invented the airplane'), it seems this dispute centers not just on 'racism' but on 'affirmative-actionism'. That is, some in the educational establishment believe that young inner-city minority youths need some role model to challenge them to participate successfully in the current modern Western system. In order to do so, efforts have been made to re-write history to give credit to certain African-Americans. This is not new. Critics will note many Europeans have taken credit for items that were invented elsewhere, such as the printing press (invented in China, not by Gutenberg) or even by taking credit for ancient Egypt. 1950's textbooks proclaimed that Egyptians and North Africans were of the 'Caucasian' race. Hence, it could be argued that this was an overreach based on race.

Now, however, the situation is reversed. Recent data show that African-Americans are overrepresented in children's textbook illustrations by a considerable margin. Likewise, myths were created to give credit to African-Americans for such everyday items as the 'gas mask' and the 'traffic light.' In the case of the traffic light, especially, research shows that not only was Garrett Morgan not even close to being the first, but the development of the modern traffic light proceeded from a device invented in Detroit in 1920 by a 'white man'.

If we are to scrub the sins of race misreporting from the historical record, we cannot do so by repeating the same mistakes in the past. Martin Luther King said it best when he said "judge people by the content of one's characater, not the color of one's skin." Let's face it, if Mr. Morgan had been white he would have been a little-known inventor.

Again, the race myth is not the only one out there. There are other myths, like the nationalist myth. The Wright Brothers didn't really invent the airplane; the device they made in 1903 couldn't even fly when tried out in 2003 (and only 'flew' in 1903 based on the wind-assisted takeoff) and was further preceded by Gustave Whitehead, whose 1901 plane was successfully recreated and flown in 1986. A search of historical records shows that the Wright Brothers weren't generally given credit until inking a deal in 1948 with the Smithsonian institution. Sort of like Saddam's 'weapons of mass destruction,' if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it...that is, until the advent of the internet, which has freed us from the mind-controlling propaganda of the 'establishment.'

So, instead of condemning Brinkster for his legitimate and documented research and substituting undocumented but 'endorsed' fictional propaganda, I suggest a step back to do a little researching of one's own.

In particular regard to the hood invention, it seems that Morgan made a contribution that was noteworthy. The traffic signal 'invention' is another story.

Yes, I hold two degrees in history and graduated summa cum laude. Thanks.Ryoung122 23:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Racism vs. Fairness

Here is an example of racial bias: http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/issue0112/blinn.htm

In contrast to such an anti-black propaganda piece, the Brinkster articles seem to focus on 'just the facts'.Ryoung122 23:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Five Myths of the Garrett Morgan traffic signal

It seems that, like all historical inaccuracies, there is an attempt by some to 'reformat' the myth to respond to critics. Brinkster notes that there are actually FIVE Garrett Morgan traffic signal myths:

• 1. Myth: Garrett Morgan invented the first traffic signal
• 2. Myth: Morgan's signal was the first to earn a patent
• 3. Myth: Morgan's signal was automatic
• 4. Myth: Morgan invented the first three-color or three-phase signal
• 5. Myth: The Morgan signal was important or influential

Inventing history: Garrett Morgan and the traffic signal

In early 1922, African-American inventor Garrett Augustus Morgan designed a cross-shaped traffic signal, for which he submitted a patent application on February 27 of that year. The patent — which was not even among the first 50 traffic signal patents issued in the United States — was granted on November 20, 1923. For whatever reason, numerous writers and public figures have credited Morgan with inventing any or all of the following:

world's first traffic signal first traffic signal to earn a patent first automatic traffic signal first traffic signal with a third "all-directional stop" phase first signal with a yellow light phase the basis for modern traffic signal systems None of these claims are even remotely true, as rest of this page shows.

Myth: Garrett Morgan invented the first traffic signal Some notable early signals, prior to Morgan's 1922 invention London, 1868

The first known signal device for regulating street traffic was installed in 1868 in London, at the intersection of George and Bridge Streets near the Houses of Parliament. Designed by railroad signal engineer JP Knight, it had two semaphore arms which, when extended horizontally, meant "stop"; and when drooped at a 45-degree angle, meant "caution." At night, red and green gas lights accompanied the "stop" and "caution" positions (Sessions 1971; Mueller 1970).

By the signal "caution", all persons in charge of vehicles and horses are warned to pass over the crossing with care and due regard to the safety of foot passengers. The signal "stop" will only be displayed when it is necessary that vehicles and horses shall be actually stopped on each side of the crossing, to allow the passage of persons on foot; notice being thus given to all persons in charge of vehicles and horses to stop clear of the crossing.

Proclamation of Richard Mayne, London Police Commissioner, in 1868; quoted in Mueller 1970

Salt Lake City, about 1912 A contender for "inventor of the first electric traffic light" is Lester Wire of Salt Lake City (Sessions 1971).

Mr. Wire, who died in 1958, was a Salt Lake police officer who invented the first electric traffic light in 1912.... The first hand-made model was a wooden box with a slanted roof so rain and snow would fall off. The lights were colored with red and green dye and shone through circular openings. The box was mounted on a pole, and the wires were attached to the overhead trolley and light wires. It was operated by a policeman. In ensuing years, Mr. Wire improved upon the first model.

"Peak Named for Inventor," Deseret News (Salt Lake City), February 9, 1967

Cleveland, Ohio, 1914 On August 5, 1914, several years before Garrett Morgan invented his T-shaped semaphore-type signal, the American Traffic Signal Company installed red and green traffic lights at each corner of the intersection of 105th Street and Euclid Avenue in Cleveland (see this 1914 Motorist article documenting the debut of the lights).

The installation was patterned after the design of Cleveland inventor James Hoge (Sessions 1971; Mueller 1970), whose U.S. patent #1,251,666 describes a system of electrically powered stop-go indicators, each mounted on a corner post. In Hoge's design, the signals are wired to a manually operated switch housed inside a control booth, and are electrically interlocked in such a way as to make conflicting signals impossible. Also described in the patent is a system to allow communication between the signal controller and the police and fire departments. The Cleveland installation incorporated all of the above elements in some form or other, plus a bell to warn the drivers of color changes.

from Hoge's patent #1,251,666

William Potts' 4-way, red-yellow-green signals, Detroit, 1920 In October and December of 1920, a Detroit policeman named William Potts constructed several red-yellow-green light signal systems. Some lights were mounted atop "traffic towers" manned by policemen; others were overhead suspension lamps remarkably similar in form to a modern traffic light. The 4-direction traffic lamp pictured below is of the latter type, and is on display at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan.

A 1920 vintage Potts signal, at the Henry Ford Museum.

William Potts

An entry in the museum's artifact database describes the item:

The world's first three-color, four-direction, elec. traffic lamp, was installed at the intersection of Woodward Ave. and Fort Street, Detroit, Michigan in October, 1920. It was designed by Superintendent (then inspector) William L. Potts of the Signal Bureau, Detroit Police Department. Basic design remains practically unchanged today. The signal remained in use until 1924 and became a part of the world's first synchronized signal system. This system extended from Jefferson to Adams on Woodward Avenue and was controlled manually from a tower at Woodward and Michigan.

museum archives, Henry Ford Museum & Greenfield Village (as of Jan 29 2003)

The meanings of the colored lights were essentially the same as today. Green meant "go"; red meant "stop"; and yellow (amber) meant "clear the intersection" (Mueller 1970). An analogous color scheme had been used by the railroads, where as early as 1899, the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad introduced a system wherein red, yellow, and green meant "stop", "caution", and "all clear" respectively (Brignano 1981).

For more about Potts and his signals, read this 1947 Motor News article entitled "Mr. Trafficlight".

New York City, early 1920s In New York City, Dr. John F. Harriss, Special Deputy Police Commissioner in charge of traffic control, organized a system of red, yellow, and green lights to control traffic along Fifth Avenue. The idea reached the experimental stages as early as February 1920 (New York Times, Feb 06 1920). By March of that year, the colored lights were in service ("The Traffic Lights," New York Times, Mar 15 1920).

By January 1922, an interconnected matrix of traffic lights was expanding throughout Manhattan:

Dr. John F. Harriss, Special Deputy Police Commissioner, began experimenting yesterday with powerful signal lights which will be installed from week to week until traffic in most of Manhattan will be simultaneously stopped and started by red, green and yellow lights all operated by a single switch in Times Square.

"To Rule All Traffic from Times Square", New York Times, Jan 05 1922, p.1

The original New York traffic towers were not true four-direction signals like the lights in Detroit. Instead of simultaneously shining different colors in perpendicular directions, the Manhattan signals shone only one color at a time: red for north-south movement (main avenues), yellow for all traffic to stop, and green for east-west movement (side streets). Stationed at each tower was a traffic officer to enforce the signals.

Myth: Morgan's signal was the first to earn a patent In the U.S. alone, more than 60 traffic signals patented before Morgan's A common variation of the Morgan myth stops short of crediting Morgan with the first-ever traffic signal, instead bestowing upon him the honor of supposedly having received the first patent for one in 1923. Actually, the earliest US traffic signal patent was issued to Ernest E. Sirrine in 1910, and dozens more followed in the years preceding Garrett Morgan's invention.

Traffic signal patents, up to Nov 20 1923 (source: USPTO patent database) Patent# Inventor Invention Title Filed Patented 976,939 E.E. Sirrine Street Traffic System * 4/28/1910 11/29/1910 991,964 T.M. Flaherty Signal for Crossings 9/24/1909 5/9/1911 1,084,411 S.F. Du Ree Traffic Lantern 4/1/1913 1/13/1914 1,123,925 R.W. Roderick Traffic-Guide 1/27/1914 1/5/1915 1,158,610 O.H. Whitman Crossing Signal 7/20/1914 11/2/1915 1,181,719 A.A. Anderson Traffic Control Semaphore 9/1/1915 5/2/1916 1,184,598 J.G. Wallmann Apparatus for Regulating Street Traffic 5/20/1914 5/23/1916 1,195,583 F.B. Henretta Traffic-Director * 5/26/1916 8/22/1916 1,224,632 W. Ghiglieri Traffic Signal * 1/12/1915 5/1/1917 1,232,375 J.W. Nethercutt Street-Crossing Signal 1/13/1917 7/3/1917 1,234,249 W. Zabel Signal 9/5/1916 7/25/1917 1,236,441 F.J. Husbands Automatic Traffic Signal * 10/9/1916 8/14/1917 1,236,625 J. Tomko C. Oppenlander Electric Signal Device 12/13/1915 8/14/1917 1,240,090 E.A. Pound Automatic Traffic Regulator * 7/11/1916 9/11/1917 1,240,640 H.T. Winston Traffic Signal 12/21/1916 9/18/1917 1,249,539 F.D. Spear Traffic Signal 10/6/1916 12/11/1917 1,250,083 J.A. Black Traffic Signal 8/3/1917 12/11/1917 1,251,666 J.B. Hoge Municipal Traffic Control System 9/22/1913 1/1/1918 1,254,305 C.W. Blakeslee Street Traffic Signal 1/24/1916 1/22/1918 1,254,862 H.C. Strout Traffic Sign 3/3/1917 1/29/1918 1,254,971 W.L. Bradley Traffic Signaling Device 11/8/1915 1/29/1918 1,259,350 W.A. Braden Crossing-Signal 7/25/1910 3/12/1918 1,261,251 C.A. Lynch Electrically-Operated Crossing-Signal 9/19/1916 4/2/1918 1,264,114 F. Milliken Street Light [signal] 8/18/1917 4/23/1918 1,264,300 H.D. Heuer Street Traffic Signal Apparatus 5/23/1914 4/30/1918 1,267,767 B.M. Harris Street Traffic Controlling Apparatus 1/25/1915 5/28/1918 1,268,288 J.W. See Signal for Street Intersections * 7/8/1914 6/4/1918 1,273,607 G.R. Hawks Traffic Signal 9/20/1916 7/23/1918 1,275,749 S.C. Repsholdt Traffic Signal Tower 9/2/1916 8/13/1918 1,283,858 F. Milliken Street Lamp [signal] 11/17/1917 11/5/1918 1,295,585 C.H. Peck Traffic Guide 8/3/1915 2/25/1919 1,301,396 W.A. Dau Traffic Signal 4/19/1916 4/22/1919 1,307,544 O.A. Erdmann Traffic-Signal * 11/29/1915 6/24/1919 1,308,658 W.E. Carr Street-Crossing Signal 9/20/1916 7/1/1919 1,313,445 F.A Wright, W.J. Brong Electrical Grade Crossing Signal 6/1/1917 8/19/1919 1,315,049 D.C. Stickrath Portable Street Signaling Device 3/29/1919 9/2/1919 1,317,009 L.P. Ernst Traffic Signal Control 1/28/1919 11/23/1919 1,317,819 C.H. Peck Portable Street Traffic Signal 3/8/1916 10/7/1919 1,326,009 R.E. Wetter Signal Apparatus 1/20/1919 12/23/1919 1,328,269 B.W. Davis Signal System for Controlling Street Traffic 10/30/1914 1/20/1920 1,331,574 L.F. Maire Traffic-Signal 4/12/1917 2/24/1920 1,331,691 G.W. Bennett Traffic Sign * 12/23/1918 2/24/1920 1,332,917 C.H. Peck Street Traffic Signaling Device 4/19/1915 3/9/1920 1,335,240 F.J. Husbands Traffic-Signal * 3/11/1918 3/30/1920 1,338,028 D.J. Linehan Traffic-Signal 5/15/1919 4/27/1920 1,353,999 T.O. Miller Street Traffic Signal 11/26/1917 9/28/1920 1,354,249 D.W. Gore Traffic Signal 12/6/1919 9/28/1920 1,355,361 J. Selligman Traffic Signaling Device 6/17/1920 10/12/1920 1,356,276 J.H. Gourley Highway-signal 4/8/1919 10/19/1920 1,357,875 A.W. Kent Traffic Signaling System 3/5/1917 11/2/1920 1,359,529 S.C. Repsholdt Traffic Signal Tower 7/15/1919 11/23/1920 1,360,796 S.C. Repsholdt Traffic Signal Tower 7/15/1919 11/30/1920 1,368,185 J.E. Miller Traffic Director 5/28/1920 2/8/1921 1,372,401 E. Cadeddu Street Signaling Device 9/11/1920 3/22/1921 1,382,482 J.W. Curry Traffic Directing Apparatus 10/21/1918 6/21/1921 1,385,807 R.E. Wetter Traffic Signal System 11/23/1918 7/26/1921 1,394,918 L.C. McAdams Traffic-Signaling Mechanism 1/26/1920 10/25/1921 1,394,966 J.W. Brenkert Street Traffic Signaling Device 3/27/1920 10/25/1921 D59,785 G.N. Russel, O.W. Russel Traffic Signal (design) 7/5/1921 11/22/1921 1,430,901 J.A. Hamberg Traffic Signal 7/12/1921 10/3/1922 1,434,050 A. Duran Semaphore 7/13/1920 10/31/1922 1,447,659 T.E. Hayes Combination traffic guide and traffic regulating signal 8/7/1922 3/6/1923 1,448,379 H. Bock Traffic Signal * 11/8/1921 3/13/1923 1,462,266 G.C. Degner Traffic Regulator * 11/3/1920 7/17/1923 1,465,346 H.W. Chittenden Traffic Signal 8/26/1922 8/21/1923 1,466,809 Lola Strong Automatic Traffic Signal * 11/16/1920 9/4/1923 1,467,206 W.F. Stellner Traffic Signal 10/12/1922 9/4/1923 1,467,303 H. Bezer Highway-crossing protection 8/28/1918 9/11/1923 1,473,448 C.M. Snell Automatic Traffic Signal * 5/23/1923 11/6/1923 1,475,024 G.A. Morgan Traffic Signal 2/27/1922 11/20/1923

Asterisk (*) denotes an automatic signal (which, for the purposes of this table, means having a standard or optional capability of operating by itself, without requiring human control or vehicle actuation).

Not all new signals were patented, especially those created as public projects by police departments (such as in Salt Lake City, Detroit, and New York City).

Myth: Morgan's signal was automatic It was operated with a hand crank

Certain website authors, while conceding that other traffic signals preceded Morgan's, try to sell yet a different variation of the story: that Morgan patented the very first automatic traffic signal. Besides ignoring several automatic signals preceding the Morgan patent (see patent table above), the originators of this myth apparently did not read the patent itself, which describes a mechanical, crank-actuated unit operated by a human traffic director who must turn the crank every time the signal is to change from "stop" to "go" and vice versa:

The operation of a signal constructed according to my invention is as follows:—Assuming that traffic is moving in the direction indicated by the “Go” characters in Fig. 1 and that the director desires to change the right of way, then the crank 28 is turned, whereupon the arms 13 are immediately raised by virtue of the rack and pinion connections actuated by the crank shaft 27. ... Then as the crank is turned still further, the gear 32 engages the gear 33, whereupon the indicators are revolved while the arms are still held in vertical position. ... [B]y the time the crank has been turned a complete revolution, the arms are in substantially horizontal position and are automatically held in the desired direction by the indexing plunger 36.

from Garrett Morgan's US Patent No. 1,475,024 (emphasis added)

Myth: Morgan invented the first three-color or three-phase signal Garrett Morgan's 1922 invention was by no means the first traffic signal to use a third signal phase in addition to the usual stop and go. The Detroit and New York police departments had been using three-color traffic lights since 1920. The rest of the country would eventually follow suit, adopting red, yellow, and green lights to control road traffic.

The Morgan signal had no yellow light. Instead, it had a "third position" that displayed the word STOP in all directions before allowing traffic to proceed in any one direction, thereby providing extra time for the intersection to clear. This method of including an "all-stop" phase as part of the regular signal cycle goes back at least seven years earlier to January 1915, when William Ghiglieri of San Francisco described the operating cycle of his own red-green traffic light:

First, a short series of rings from the bell accompanied by a green display east and west and a red display north and south, this starting the east and west traffic. Second, a change to red on all four sides without a bell signal, thus stopping the east and west traffic. Third, two short series of rings from the bell with green displays north and south and red displays east and west, this starting the north and south traffic. Fourth, a change to red on all four sides without a bell signal, thus stopping the north and south traffic. This cycle is then repeated.

William Ghiglieri's US patent #1,224,632 (emphasis added) Application filed January 1915; patented May 1917.

Ghiglieri signal (cutaway view) It is noteworthy that Ghiglieri's signal — invented seven years prior to Morgan's — could do all that the Morgan signal could do; furthermore, it could be controlled by automatic timer whereas Morgan's could not; and on top of that, Ghiglieri's alternating red-green light design bore far more resemblance to a modern traffic light than did Morgan's mechanical semaphore.

The all-red interval was rarely if ever used in three-color signals until 1950, when the Institute of Traffic Engineers began recommending that a momentary all-red phase follow the yellow phase (Eccles 2001).

Myth: The Morgan signal was important or influential Despite claims on various websites that Morgan's invention was used "throughout North America," the absence of his signal in 1920s photographs and news articles suggests that it was not installed in large numbers anywhere. Notably, it did not merit a single mention in the book-length historical study by Gordon M. Sessions (1971), which covers a wide variety of devices in tracing the development of traffic control.

The oft-repeated story that Morgan sold his patent to General Electric for $40,000 — an enormous sum back then — should be taken with a grain of salt. No record of this transaction appears either in the US patent assignment records at the National Archives, or in the GE historical business records at the Schenectady (New York) Museum, or in Morgan's legal and business papers at the Western Reserve Historical Society in Cleveland. Ads and photos from the 1920s indicate that GE's early traffic signal products were of the type with a row of colored lights, not the semaphore type.

William Potts' 1920 invention

Garrett Morgan's 1922 invention

Although many prefer to think that the signal on the right formed the basis for modern traffic control systems, the less inspiring reality is that the traffic light had already evolved into its familiar red-yellow-green form before Garrett Morgan came along with his T-shaped semaphore. Technologically, the Morgan device was more dead end than prototype: its crank-driven design did not lend itself to the automation and interconnection that was already happening with the fully electrical signals of the same era. It was novel enough to earn a patent, and was admirable and creative, and so forth, but contributed nothing new in terms of functionality and played no part in the chain of development that led to the modern traffic light.

References US Patent Database (http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html)

Gordon Sessions, Traffic Devices: Historical Aspects Thereof, (Washington DC: Institute of Traffic Engineers, c.1971).

Edward A. Mueller, "Aspects of the History of Traffic Signals", IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. VT-19, no. 1, pp.6-17 (1970).

M. Brignano and H. McCullough, The Search for Safety: A History of Railroad Signals and the People Who Made Them (American Standard, Inc. 1981)

Eccles and McGee, "A History of the Yellow and All-Red Intervals for Traffic Signals" (Washington DC: ITE, 2001) Ryoung122 01:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Time to put an end to this nonsense. Koalorka (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Koalorka, thanks for your posting. The history of this entry is that, some time ago, I pointed out all of these objections to the account given in the article. I am an admirer of Garrett Morgan and have done research in his personal papers, but I do not think this entry should include or repeat claims that are clearly inaccurate. The problems were that 1) The Brinkster pages which outline these issues are, it has been pointed out, from a fairly strident social/political source. To the extent that they are demonstrably factual and can be verified by other neutral sources (such as the US Patent office) I think they should nevertheless be fully considered; 2) The sources which repeat the clearly inaccurate claims about Morgan have the look of authoritative sites -- their sponsors, such as the US Dept. of Transportation, and the London Museum of Science, appear to be solid. Trouble is, the persons writing for those sites simply reiterated claims made elsewhere. They are not scholarly sources, but they are "official" in a sense. So when I have in the past modified the claims about the Morgan signal, I got into edit wars with people who insisted these sites were unimpeachable sources of truth. I have no wish to go through such a battle again, but hope that this time around, cooler heads will prevail. Mr. Morgan was a successful businessman, inventor, and civic leader -- and clearly, in terms of his acts at the Lake Erie Crib disaster, a hero. I don' think that inaccurate claims about certain of his inventions do him any credit, or should have a place in an encyclopedia entry. Clevelander96 (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh. But it is the source material. The argument always has been the source. Brinkster33 was deemed inappropriate "I've looked at some of the Brinkster stuff and the Brinkster links don't look suitable for Wikipedia under WP:RS and WP:EL, Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources and external links. To the extent that US patents are appropriate for the articles, they can be linked directly from the patent office or using the Template:US-patent template. The Brinkster links should be removed and I'd like to ask the folks reinserting them to please cool it; see the RS and EL guideline pages linked above for advice about when and what to link. 75.62.6.237 01:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)."

However, following his links we find that the USPO should be referenced and not that site. This is the source of contention. You are reasserting his (brinkster's) assertions from an unreliable source. If you wish to link the patent office do so. BFritzen (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My Interest?

In 2004, I was taking a history class at a university when I met an educator who told me that it didn't matter if the Garrett Morgan story was true or not, what mattered was the 'positive effect' it was having on the young children of America today. He said that young minority students needed positive role models, and so these stories are framed to serve that purpose.

Except that in many cases, the story is either not true or only a half-truth. The traffic signal myth was particularly egregious, however. It didn't take much research to find out that what we had here was a case of politically-correct historical revisionism, not based on reality. Like all historians, I know that history is not 'what really happened' but that history is written with an agenda. Even the 'Chinese invented paper in 105AD' turned out to be not quite true (it seems the Chinese had paper earlier than 105AD; that was the 'official' date, however, of Chinese government recognition).

Today's history is undergoing contast reshaping and re-examination. We now realize that Columbus didn't 'discover' America...the Native Americans were already here. Yet he did make a 'discovery' for early modern Europeans. As Satchel Paige said: "It's all according to from where you're looking at it." The Viking settlements in America died out, but Columbus's impact was lasting.

In that light, what kind of historical reassessment should we make of Garrett Morgan? Clearly, he was an important inventor and like most inventors, his work built upon the foundations of others, and we shouldn't discredit that. Also, like the bow and arrow, items may be invented separately at different times, by different cultures. However, a closer look at reality finds this is not even the case when it comes to Garrett Morgan and the traffic light. Traffic signals had been in Cleveland since 1914 (red and green lights only), so he didn't invent them even for Cleveland. His was not the first patent, nor did his semaphore invention fit in the modern line of the evolution of the traffic light. Just as scientists like Chris Stringer argue that Neanderthals were an evolutionary dead-end, and the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution shows that some branches lead nowhere, so Garrett Morgan's traffic light appears to be a stick off the traffic light family tree that was not original and led nowhere.

That said, I am not prepared to say the same thing for the gas mask, nor is my interest in particular in the gas mask. One invention dispute is enough. It may be that Mr. Morgan's gas mask invention, while not the 'original' gas mask, improved upon the originals and led to new innovations that would be incorporated into later models. If so, it could be said that Mr. Morgan's gas mask would fit in the main trunk of the 'gas mask evolutionary family tree.'Ryoung122 01:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

RYoung, thanks for the detailed, documented, and sensible remarks about the Morgan Traffic Signal. As you can see, I've been arguing for the same thing for some time here.

I hate to add another "invention dispute," but Morgan's "gas mask" is in quite the same sort of position as his traffic signal, for different reasons:

• Morgan's safety hood was a passive respirator with no active filtration of air. It was basically a hood with a long pair of hoses which dragged on the ground, drawing the air at ground level up to the hood's wearer. In later models, Morgan added a sponge filter which the user was supposed to wet, wring out, and insert, so there was some filtration in that model.

• Trouble is, passive respirators had already been invented, back in the late 1800's. The better masks of Morgan's era used either a pressurized air reserve, active filtration, or both.

• The most common claim is that Morgan's mask was the ancestor of the WWI gas mask. Alas, completely untrue. Mustard gas, the main chemical weapon of that era, was heavier than air, and would have clung to low spots on the ground -- anyone wearing a Morgan-type hood would have died sooner rather than later.

• All that said, Morgan's hood was reasonably effective for use in fires, or in situations where some lighter-than-air posionous gas was the problem. At considerable personal risk to himself, Mr. Morgan, roused in the pre-dawn hours, grabbed a safety hood and went to the Lake Erie Crib explosion, where he made repeated trips in to rescue trapped men.

Anyway, maybe we should only tackle one at a time -- but there it is Clevelander96 21:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we need to stick with the truth, not an agenda. Even though I understand the reasoning, but heck, truth is better than fiction. What he did was remarkable, and that should count. No need to re-write history to make children feel better about themselves. There needs to be a better way to do that, than to create inaccuracies. That's what's wrong with a lot of history, as mentioned by Ryoung. The people writing it have an agenda. I'm sure the Iraqis have a much different history, than the US does, and so on and so on. That's what I loved about the concept of Wikipedia, that we would not have these problems, of one sided history. <sigh> Good to "see" you Clevelander. :)- Jeeny ^Talk 23:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

garret morgar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.117.178 (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC) garret a. morgan was a grate man for inventing the first traffic light sigional —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.120.95 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Garrett Morgan did not only invent the traffic signal. He invented the gas mask and also some hair dye and other things. These are just the popular things he invented. He is probably a great man because he saved lives of workers during an explosion in an underground mine. Blacky98 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Historical Context to Avoid Controversy?

Greetings,

It seems that much of the significance of Garrett Morgan has been as a tool of "affirmative-action" educational activism. This article has removed claims that Morgan invented the traffic signal, but it also removed the history of the controversy. As such, the reader is left with a chopped-down, sanitized view that tells neither side of the story. I suggest a comparison with the version about a year or so ago to restore some context to this article.Ryoung122 03:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but there isn't actually any substantial controversy over these issues, any more than in any other article which has gone through some disputes over NPOV and reliable sourcing. If one could document, outside of WP itself, that claims about Morgan have created some substantial, serious controversy that can be shown to be independent from the back-and-forth here in this entry, though, one could reference such sources and describe the extent of such disagreements. Controversies inside of WP are rarely notable or substantial enough to support mention in the entry. Clevelander96 (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you completely misunderstood what I said. The Brinkster site was a controversy outside Wikipedia. The inflated claims made by Garrett Morgan can still be found online as well. Therefore, it is not a controversy within Wikipedia, but one without.Ryoung122 02:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Garrett Morgan: the man and the myth

Garrett Morgan is more than just an inventor. He was also part of an effort to boost African-American self-esteem by promoting African-Americans as inventors. In some of this government-policy nonsense of the 1970s, documentably false and unhistorical myths were spread about Garrett Morgan, including the notion that he was the inventor of the current, modern traffic signal. Historical research shows that dozens of traffic signals existed before Morgan's, and that Morgan's was more akin to a railroad crossing than the modern traffic light. All of this is thus relevant, and its exclusion and minimization from the article is a bit of historical revisionism.Ryoung122 20:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a modicum of truth to this, but I believe it is vital that WP not go beyond the parameters of a neutral, referenced, factual encyclopedia. It is precisely by being this that WP can best serve as a corrective to unsubstantiated claims of any kind and motive. The prior signals by Potts and others should be mentioned here briefly in order to make it clear where Morgan's signal stood in the evolution of the modern signal; the rest should be (and largely is) covered in the main entry for Traffic signal. Clevelander96 (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we stick to sources, please? The US Department of Transportation says:

While other inventors are reported to have experimented and even marketed their own three-position traffic signals, Garrett A. Morgan was the first to apply for and acquire a U.S. patent for such a device. The patent was granted on November 20, 1923. Morgan later had the technology patented in Great Britain and Canada as well.

Insofar as the current article doesn't cite any sources for the traffic light section, it appears prudent (according to the relevant Wikipedia policies) that we include the info as it appears on the DOT site. (If we have reliable sources that can provide a counter-argument, fine. But it should be supplemental, not presented as the only truth.) And we should avoid original research. Scartol • Tok 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 Comment:. Note that the US DoT link provided above by User talk:Scartol is now a 'dead' link leading to "Page Not Found" at the US Federal Highway Administration website.--220 of ^Borg 02:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent large addition

I have reverted the large addition of text by an anonymous user. While there is a good case to be made for Potts and others this should not be in an entry for Morgan, but in the entry for Traffic light, where much of it already is. Text here should address the biographical subject of the entry. Clevelander96 (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Garrett Morgan saved people?

Wasn't or ISN'T it true that Garrett and some other guy saved aroud 13 or so people due to his gas mask in an explosion? It does state in the Garrett Morgan wikipedia article about an explosion but I think they should add the info.

--Blacky98 (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That was Morgan and his brother. According to newspaper accounts, they rescued two people and brought out the bodies of several others (accounts vary as to the exact number). I will keep working on this. Clevelander96 (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words Galore

Under the "Traffic Signal" section, it reads "According to a frequently told story...It's said that...The story nevertheless has been widely circulated..." These sorts of weasel words have no business in a WP entry. Editors need to either cite primary sources or not make the assertions. That's the rule. I'm going to prune the nonsense out of that section unless and until the claims can be re-added, backed up with primary sources. Bricology (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The 'Traffic Light' section

Specifically this 3,582 Kb addition here added by 76.119.76.228 (talk · contribs) at 03:45, 24 January 2012‎.

I deleted it here @ 13:42, 1 October 2013 as un-encyclopaedic, un-cited/poorly sourced, possibly including original research and non-neutral POV. I was reverted within ≈30 hours by 50.138.198.185 (talk · contribs) ,here

This edits' only purpose seems to be to 'attack' Morgan. The 'Traffic Light' section itself merely says Morgan patented a traffic signal. The deleted paragraphs go into all sorts of things not even (currently) mentioned on the page. --220 of ^Borg 07:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed--it looked like an argument based on WP:SYNTHESIS and original research. JNW (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for you input. JnW --220 of ^Borg 03:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

How does one cite sources to the absence of proof? His signal was not installed in large numbers, anywhere. There are no records of the transaction between Morgan and General Electric. How are these things proven, but by the lack of proof to the contrary? What should the sources be in this instance? 50.138.207.158 (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The page makes no claim that his signal was installed at all, it may imply that it had great influence, and I note that many sources say it did, but may well be incorrect. This may be more 'Was Invented Here' Syndrome (vs Not invented here 'syndrome', an attempt to over-blow his signals influence because he was American (and conveniently 'black'). We need a really good historical investigation into this aspect of Morgan's inventing. However the fact that he is of African ethnic background may be inhibiting this due to fears of racism accusations. Totally my POV

I am not American and don't care either way. But this section just seems totally out of place. If we had a large section detailing his great influence in the development of Traffic lights, and this section was countering that, then I would say ok (if it was a lot more wp:NPOV, and WP:SYNTHESIS and original research removed, but that would likely leave nothing behind!). But we have no such 'pro'-Morgan section so this 'anti'- Morgan section is simply not required.

If there is a public 'controvery' over the issue that is/has been discussed in reliable sources, that is again another situation. 220 of ^Borg 03:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with 220 of Borg and JNW. We should try to make sure we're only including material that is supported by reliable sources, and we should not stray into the domain of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH or attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that we personally perceive. It is indeed unfortunate that some sources that we would ordinarily consider reliable seem to contain some errors. However, we should only say things that are supported by reliable sources. The statement saying "There is no evidence to support the claim that Morgan's traffic signal was ever put into service" is not supported by any reliable source – we should not be taking it upon ourselves to decide that there is an absence of evidence of something. Similarly, the assertion that there is an "absence of his signal in 1920s photographs" is not supported by any reliable source, and obviously we do not have access to all photographs made in the 1920s. The phrase saying "it was not installed in large numbers, if at all" is not supported by any reliable source. The fact that some of his devices are not mentioned in some published articles is not notable in itself. The discussion of whether there is a record of a particular transaction in some particular places is not appropriate either, unless some reliable source has said that. The discussion of whether GE was acting in a way that would make it plausible that it would want to purchase Morgan's patent rights is not appropriate either, unless some reliable source has discussed that. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, there has been a controversy -- in fact, quite a few of them -- over the years of this article's existence. You may have to look in the archived talk pages to find it, but it's been a feature of this entry since it started. The controversy, though, has not been 'public' and so can't really be documented from external sources. And although there has not been a great deal of new work on Morgan's life and career, the question could be researched -- indeed I have spent many an hour with the Morgan papers at the Western Reserve Historical Society -- but that work is inadmissable because it's original research, not yet published in a recognized reliable source. I think one can set aside the "General Electric" story as there is no documentation of that in any reliable source I know, including newspaper archives, the Cleveland Memory pages, etc. -- the claim seems to date to the 1970's; whether or not a signal was installed is also unknown, though there are some online photos which seem to indicate at least a prototype was built. The other claims that have caused rancor -- that this signal was the first, or the first automatic, and demonstrably inaccurate; one could cite any of the many patents for signals prior to Morgan's -- but to say much more once again crosses the line into original research. I feel as though the whole matter should be left as brief as possible, with only what can clearly be documented -- at least until there is an independently-written, published, reliable account of the matter. Clevelander96 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

p.s. this item [5] in Jet Magazine from 1973 is the earliest mention I can find of claim that Morgan sold his signal to GE.Clevelander96 (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There are so many sources that refer to that $40,000 sale that it's kind of hard to resist including it in the article. I suppose the magazine probably got that information from Morgan's son. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see this page is even a bigger disaster.

Just read the bottom of the article with all the [citation needed]s....74.111.23.188 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Old page history

Some old page history that used to be at the title "Garrett Morgan" can now be found at Talk:Garrett Morgan/Old history. Graham87 11:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from a descendant

My name is Shirley Morgan. My father's name was Selvia Morgan Sr. and my paternal grandfather was name Steve Morgan.They mostly resided in this small town called Ashdown or Wilton Texas.

My father selvia reported and told us stories about his uncle Garrett. He reported about Garrett's accompliments but at the time he reported that the white man had to get the credit for it because he was black. Man in general continue to argue about senseless issues.

In today's society. I propose the question. What are you doing to make this society a better place. You can follow me on Poemhunter.com and I recently wrote a book called If you only knew. I bought the shoes bought the hat. society needs to stop bashing my ancestor and do your research.Let his grandson111 carry on his legacy. My nieces and nephews will know about Garrett Morgan Sr. My father was born in 1920 surely he knew what happened. We heard the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.246.62 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Marshall Cavendish book -- reliable source?

I note that more than twenty of the references in this article come from a chapter in a book, Inventors and Inventions, published by Marshall Cavendish. I'm not sure how reliable this is as a source; it's pubished in Malaysia by a company that churns out numerous reference works, but the credited author-- "Mary Sisson" -- does not appear to be a historian or scholar, and is credited with many entries on unrelated subjects in others of their books. Even if this source is taken as reliable, it would seem undesirable to have so many parts of the article sourced in just one text. Clevelander96 (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)