Talk:Igor Sikorsky/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Career in Russian Empire

Before Sikorsky emigrated to USA he had a distinguished career in Russia as a designer of aircraft. He was one of the earliest protagonists of a multimotor aeroplane and the 4-engine 'ILYA MUROMET' was a development of the first Sikorsky giant which was flown in St.Petersburg in 1913. Yet all we hear of today are his helicopters (not that one should underestimate their importance). Although the 4-engine aeroplane was originally designed for civilian transport, it could successfully compete with the German 'GOTHA' during WW1.

Who would be interested in discussion on this subject?

alex newall alexnewall@tiscali.co.uk

---

The part about the early use of his planes as bombers is unclear, but it was probably not by the Communists. Is this worth clarifying? Shanen 04:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some "IM" bombers were flown by the Red forces, including a few that were completed in the factory after the revolution. I do not know details but will try to remember to ask Sergei Sikorksky next time I see him. 68.2.139.236 02:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)B Tillman May 06

Rachmaninov

Rachmaninov was an important funder of Sikorsky's first efforts, should that be mentioned? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.35.93.97 (talk • contribs) .

Be my guest, it's true! Mariah-Yulia 02:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Language

Did he speak Russian, Ukrainian, or both? Did his family speak Russian, Ukrainian, or both? The compromise lead seems to have handled ethnicity by mentioning his birthplace and not elaborating, but it seems quite strange to say nothing on the subject. Perhaps by identifying his language we could quietly give readers the information they expect, without upsetting nationalists? Jd2718 16:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't born in Ukraine

hidden thread started by checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of banned User:M.V.E.i.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sikorsky wasn't born in Ukraine, but in the Russian Empire. There wasn't such a state Ukraine then, and certainly not with Kiev as capital. I wrote: "Sikorsky was born in Kiev, then Russian Empire". I added the then so Ukrainians from Ukraine here won't get hurt, but you adding that he was "born in Kiev, capital of Ukraine" is really out of place and out of time, due to the fact that, as i said, there simply wasn't Ukraine then, and Sikorsky himself always said he came from Russia and was born in Russia. No Free Nickname Left 12:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC) So Mozart wasn't born in Austria, since at that time it was the Archbishopric of Salzburg and Kant wasn't a German philosopher since it was never Germany by name but Prussia? It was Ukraine since centuries before, you can mention the Russian empire though. I don't think anyone will object. --Hillock65 00:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Actually it was malorussia most of the time. The name Ukraine is relatively new, it means on the edge-border, Okraina. Okraina of where? Russian Empire. Kant was German ethnicity therefore he can be considered German. I remind you Sikorsky himself always saw himself as someone arriving from Russia, he never saw himself as someone from Ukraine. Hey, dont forget i was the one who added him to more Ukrainian categories besides the once where he was before, but there's a limit. No Free Nickname Left 19:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sikorsky's ethnicity

He is not Russian. Russian means ethnicity. It should read "a citizen of Russian empire of Polish and Ukrainian descent." Sashazlv 03:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Ethnicity is not only defined by lastname origin (or even blood, which is in case of Sikorsky is not clear anyway), it is primarily defined by the individuals' culture and self-identification.

Igor Sykorsky, spoke Russian language, worshipped/was baptized in Russian Orthodox Church, and even in United States assosiated himself with Russian émigrés rather than with Ukrainian or Polish communities.

Therefore, Igor Sikorsky is an ethnic Russian. (Fisenko 22:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC))

Please take a look at Talk:Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation#Ukrainian born Sikorsky on this issue. --Irpen 02:26, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ethnically, he was not Russian but Ukrainian from what we know. But his pre-emigration career in the Russian empire did not have anything Ukraine-specific. Any encyclopedia considers him a Russian-American engineer, see Talk:Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation#Ukrainian born Sikorsky. In this respect he is different from Stephen Timoshenko who played an important role in foundation of the Ukrainian academy of science. As such, Ukrainian name and Ukrainian specifics are important for the latter but not for Sikorsky. --Irpen 03:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

so that means I'm not an american because my ethnicity is european?

In my last change I removed the Russian-American reverance (does anybody sees himself as a Russian-American anyhowe?) and instead wrote that but his parents where Russian. This should make everybody happy, if not: I don't want to understand! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariah-Yulia (talk • contribs) .

OK. It didn't make everybody happy so I removed Russian-American to another place. If i wasn't a friend of a Russian girl...Mariah-Yulia 05:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

All of this is Wikipedia:No original research, Britannica says he is Russian. [1]--Miyokan 05:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Russian is both ethnicity and nationality. In Russian there are two terms, "Russkii" meaning ethnicity and "Rossianin" meaning nationality. Sikorsky's mother was half-Ukranian and his father was half-Polish, as it says in the article, so clearly he was more Russian than Ukranian or Polish. But that's a sily debate, though his nationality is unambiguous, he was Russian and later also American.

So why is it added in the article that his father was half Polish but not that his mother was half Ukrainian? Could someone please add it or remove the reference to his father's mixed ethnicity to be fair. Mykyta (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

See above. FWiW, this isn't the place for a battleground. Bzuk (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not my intent to start a battle. I was not planning to change the statement that he was "Russian American" only to add that his mother was Russian-Ukrainian which is a fact that doesn't change the above statement, nor does it change his father's ethnicity, only provides a complete picture. However if you think it will start a war, by all means leave it alone. Peace. Mykyta (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why was his name in Ukrainian added??

hidden thread started by checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of banned User:M.V.E.i.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He was born in the territory of the Russian Empire, and never lived on the territory of a recognized Ukraine (not in the Ukrainian SSR, and shurely not in todays Ukraine, he died in 1972). When is the name in Ukrainian is added in such cases? When the man considered himself Ukrainian and spoke Ukrainian (like Taras Shevchenko), but Sikorsky spoke Russian, and considered himself Russia, so his really not the person to have his name written in Ukrainian. No Free Nickname Left 13:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Havn't you got better things to do, if somebody wanted to add the name in Swahili I wouldn't have a problem with it. "I want to sing LASHA GOODBUY!" Mariah-Yulia 19:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Havent you got better things to do then writing a response that asks someone if he haven't got better...? When adding a name in another language you need it to be his mothers language, and the offical language of the country he was born in. P.S. You can say "goodbye" to "Lasha" wherever you want, it still wont change the fact that the only one buying your goods is "Lasha", and the one that can turn of your gas supplies is also, "Lasha". No Free Nickname Left 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC) We don't need you Mariah-Yulia 19:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Cheap demogogy. Do you need gas? Do you need oil? Do you need somone to buy your goods? Unless you want to live in a third-world-model village then you need us. Just looked what happend to Georgia when they wanted to show they don't need us. Once we stoped buying their wrotten wine, their whole economy collapsed! No Free Nickname Left 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC) We don't need Nationalism, that was my point. Instead of looking back to the past we should work for the future. Who cares that Sikorsky was Russian or Ukrainian (I don't), the fact that people who never met the man claim him as Russian (god knows why, it doesn't make them look more inteligent) is very strange and it will lead to only upsetting others for no reason or fortune. Some of my best friends are Russian, and that's that. It wasn't a bad song though and good luck to Zenith, I hope they win the championship! Mariah-Yulia 19:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC) The man's ethnicity is part of his biography, that is interesting and an importent part. All of us have ethnicities, it's not nationalism it's biology. When claiming he saw himself as Russian we give references and links. O MY GOD (and i'm an atheist!), you support Zenit?? I Support them to! No Free Nickname Left 19:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC) absolut not coherent : on one sentences you say it is biology (objectiv criteria), and in the next you are telling us that it is a personal viewing (subjective criteria)... By biology he is ukrainian and russian, by personal viewing you say he is russian... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.41.173 (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC) That's why it was mentioned he is of mixed ethnicity in the text, the language his name is written in is a cultural thing, and culture is a metter of choice. For example, a famous Jew who is not Israeli will be mentioned to be a Jew, but won't have his name written in Hebrew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.16.115 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Anton Flettner

Why is all the infomration about Anton Flettner in this article? It felt like there was as much about him as Sikorsky. Wouldn't it be better placed in an article on Flettner himself? I was particularly confused with the section on competing aircraft, had trouble telling which related to Sikorsky's machines, and which to Flettner. --Foxfire949 (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this must be removed as original research and simply irrelevant. Garik 11 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Mention of Flettner is extremely relevant in an encyclopaedia entry on a person who is extremely famous and lauded as the "father or inventor of the helicopter" . Such an attribution is entirely false and misleading.

There should be some reference to Flettner to counteract the misleading and deliberately incorrect statements that Sikorsky produced the first single rotor helicopter, and the idea that he was the first to manufacture helicopters in volume. Those are demonstrably not true and have no place in an article about helicopters or Sikorsky. To do so is to continue or propagate incorrect information. Flettner produced the first single rotor helicopter with anti-torque vertical rotor. Flettner helicopters were the first to enter volume production. Not Sikorsky's .

For a historical figure who is so often paraded as the first to achieve something, discussion of the claim to priority is extremely relevant. None of the common claims about Sikorsky's priority are true.

He did not produce the first stable helicopter. He did not produce the first single rotor helicopter with anti torque vertical rotor. He did not produce the first helicopter to enter mass production. He did not produce the first helicopter to take off and land from a ship. He did not produce the first helicopter to transition from powerered flight to autorotation and back again. He did not produce the first helicopter to enter combat, or to engage in a rescue.

Each of these things are claimed in popular media and the internet about Sikorsky and all are more accurately attributed to Flettner.GregOrca (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but please note that "an encyclopaedia entry on a person who is extremely famous" should not look like original research. We do not make new statements here but merely collect verifiable facts and present them in a neutral way. I have tried to do so with the information on Flettner and provided yet another source to support your claim. I hope you agree that there should be minimum information not directly pertaining to the person who is the topic of the article. I also second the opinion of Foxfire949 expressed above that since you are so much concerned about Flettner's rehabilitation, you should perhaps move all this information to his article. Garik 11 (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I shall indeed. However, as a lecturer in technology, I find from students that Igor Sikorsky is usually the first port of call for anyone researching the history of Helicopters. They usually take these innaccurate claims of priority at face value and rarely come across factual contradictory information, particularly as these erroneous claims are repeated throughout libraries and the internet.

Here again is a classic case. Although I admittedly added too much information to this entry which will be well served in a separate entry, the verifiable facts I earlier presented correcting the common myths regarding Sikorsky were all erased in their entirety, and the reader is given the disservice of being left with the incorrect impression that Sikorsky is the inventor of the helicopter and the first to mass produce them.

The role of wikipedia is surely not to propagate urban myths, but to provide accurate and factual information as I have attempted to do.GregOrca (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort. But now there is a direct wikilink to Flettner's article where the reader should find all the details. This is how Wikipedia works. Garik 11 (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Look sorry to harp on about the accuracy of this page, but once again you have re-edited the entry to make the claim that Sikorsky made the first helicopter with a single main rotor.

The configuration, flown by Flettner years before Sikorsky, became a world standard, but not the world standard. The kaman Huskie which was used in Korea and Vietnam and is recognized for having the best safety record of any helicopter ever in military service does not use this standard, nor does the kaman Kmax or Chinook or other "standard" twin rotor helicopters. If the definition must be narrowed to an extreme to specify an anti torque rotor on a tail boom so that some sort of first can be claimed then that should be specified.

I think that if re-edits are to be made then serious attempts should be made to make them accurate and not merely restate previous vague inaccurate generalisations.

Please note : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_Fl_185 http://www.luftarchiv.de/hubschrauber/fl185_1.jpg

This single main rotor, vertical anti torque rotor craft was developed in 1936 and flew in 1937 . Sikorsky's vs-300 which also had a single main rotor and vertical anti torque rotor did not lift off untill 1939 and first flew untethered in 1940. http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/104_spring2004.web.dir/Tim_Chrisman/Web%20project%20TimChrisman/Spring%20Web%20Project/sik-vs300.jpg

Maybe indeed "this is how wikipedia works" but may I humbly suggest that as 1937 comes before 1940, then a single rotor craft that flew untethered in 1937 has historical priority over one that only flew in 1940.GregOrca (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no contradictions. Never does it say that "Sikorsky made the first helicopter with a single main rotor" - only "spearheaded the development of helicopters using the most common configuration (single main rotor with vertical tail rotor)" (references provided). Moreover, I have changed "the world standard" to "dominant in the world" - regardless how good or bad a standard it is. I hope this suits you. Garik 11 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"The VS-300 was not the first successful rotary-wing aircraft to fly, but it was the first of the single-rotor configuration that became dominant in the world." It's not whether it suits me, what should matter is whether or not it is accurateGregOrca (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So do we now agree that this wording is accurate? Garik 11 (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest to avoid the ambiguity "The VS-300 was not the first successful rotary-wing aircraft to fly, nor the first single rotor helicopter with vertical anti torque rotor to fly, but it was the first of the single-rotor with tail boom configuration that became dominant in the world." GregOrca (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is annoying to find this agenda pushed here as well as the Sikorsky R-4 article. Let's just stick to the facts. If there is an incorrect statement in the article, simply remove it. Do not try to debate it in the article, because it doesn't make it a more accurate article. The VS-300 was the first successful American helicopter. The R-4 was the first mass produced helicopter in the world. That means, not a prototype and not preproduction, which disqualifies any helicopter that Flettner created, no matter how viable it was. Those are the facts of history. --Born2flie (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Born2flie's edits

hidden thread started by checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of banned User:M.V.E.i.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ethnicity is also a part of his biography. You cant delete references only because they are in Russian, and you can't say they are not reliable only because you don't like them. They are reliable and that's why they were brought, and many were brought. His family origins is an important and interesting thing. "nationalistic bickering"? You can't say "nationalism" on simply giving the origins of the man. Your political views are not a Wikipedia policy. A philosophycal religious work he wrote shouldn't be deleted only because you don't like what he said. And it's not just a work, it's a religious work which should get a seperate section because that's a different work in the list of his works. It's not an aircraft work. His relegion was important for him, not for you to decide if it's important enough to be here, or not. You did alot of damage to be article it will take a while to fix. You deleted whole referenced paragraphs it took people time to write. Great work! I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC) The more I read that section the more I want to ask you: You really belive that if you don't like facts you can delete them? I mean his father was famous, and references were brought about his father. He held nationalistic views, just because you don't like nationalistic thoughts doesn't mean you can delete them if others had it. If you didn't read books written by his father that doesn't mean they werent written. And those views affected on Igor Sikorsky's views, see the work he wrote in phylosophy. The fact his grand father and grand grand father were priest. What's your problem? The really were. I thing showing he had both Russian, Polish, and Ukrainian roots actualy makes a stand against nationalism, or at least against racism. Anyway, that's not important. Facts, reliable facts, shouldn't be deleted only because they don't fit your political agenda. I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC) The more I learn the case and read the history here the more I understand the horrible thing you almost caused here. I belive you didn't try to do it on purpouse that's why I will explaine. There were scandals here on should he be called Russian-American, Ukrainian-American, should his name first be written in Ukrainian or Russian and many other disputes which were really dirty and ugly. Eventually it was decided to simply write about all the ethnicities he had, and that's it, no one has to fight about him. The opinions of his father and his own show what he considered himself (that saves people the argument on who he was). I'm sory I said you damaged the article because I understand you ment only good, and you did exellent job in the Aircraft Designer section, but on gentile topics discussion on the talk page should be held. I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Ethnicity in this article is POV, based on whoever wants to make the case that their part of the ethnicity is more important than another part. The facts that have been established are where he was born and who his parents were. They are the facts that are pertinent to the biography. If the ethnicity played a part in what he accomplished, then it would be important to make sure that every bit of bloodline was traced. Ethnicity has nothing to do with what Sikorsky accomplished. He accomplished aircraft designs regardless of his location. What Sikorsky's ancestry was or wasn't and where he came from has nothing to do with that unless Sikorsky claims that it did. Any other suggestion by a printed source without serious documentation is speculation. I deleted only foreign language external references that were first, not formatted correctly for inline citations (basically external link urls, to which a bot attached a foreign language title), and second, there was no way for English-only readers to readily be able to verify the claims of the sources. And it seemed to be that a good portion of the early life was presented based solely on foreign language sources, and much of it was not about Sikorsky, but rather about the ethnicity of his genealogy. What I could establish by English-language sources, I kept in the intent to keep it as factual as possible and to maintain WP:NPOV. In addition to English readers not being able to read the foreign cited sources, but because they are foreign sources, there was no establishment of their reliability. According to WikiProject Biography guidelines, discussion of the philosophy of an individiual is relegated to the Philosophical views section which comes well after the main biography. This is to prevent the type of back and forth nationalist editing of the biography itself that has previously occurred in this article. If a person was nationalistic, that is addressed in the Philosophical views. What's more, the claims were not about Sikorsky, but about Sikorsky's father, and this isn't Sikorsky's father's biography. It is Sikorsky's biography. Through Google translate, I've figured out that: this link is an opinion piece or a blog from Kiev. What's more, the majority of the article is about Ivan Sikorsky, not Igor Sikorsky. another link to an article about Igor's father, not Igor. This link includes a lot of information that is available from English sources, as well as unsourced commentary. It also includes the information about Sikorsky's grandfather and great-grandfather being priests. Again, not critical to the discussion of Igor Sikorsky's biography. If it can be showed that Igor claims it as a source of his religious fervor, then it is applicable to a Philosophical views section. Another link about Igor's father, with only a mention of Igor. yet another link about Igor's father. Since the foreign language links did nothing to further the biography of Igor, but seemed to be used to make claims about his father to speculate about his father's influence on Igor, I removed them and feel no compunction about having done so. There are other, more pertinent facts about Sikorsky's life that are missing from the article, that are extremely more notable about who he is and what he did than what these links and the whole argument about Sikorsky's ethnicity or the occupations of his grandfathers can ever contribute. --Born2flie (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Lame :-) Very lame. Shure those sources are about his father because the section you deleted was about his father. Be cerful with your wording, geneology, nationality, and nationalism are different words. Ethnicity is not a POV, it's a fact and in this article references by many links. His ethnicity was a part of the man he was. Wikipedia is not an encyclopydic dictionary to delete all not concerning with aviation. But nice try! Not English references can be used on Wikipedia. The claims were about his father but they influenced on his sons religious views. Sikorskt's views were not needed to be speculated because of the book he wrote. I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Surely we can have more constructive discussion than your accusing me of vandalism and merely labeling my discussion as lame. The guideline for sources says that foreign language sources are allowed when similar English sources are not available, which simply isn't the case. This is an encyclopedia, not a book. If the facts about Sikorsky's grandfather and grandfather are to be established, then it also has to be established what bearing they had on Sikorsky. My paternal grandfather was a shepherd and farmer, but if I was notable enough to have a biography, my paternal grandfather would not factor into it. However, my maternal grandfather was a firefighter, and his example led me to pursue firefighting after I graduated from high school. That would be a vital fact to establish why I pursued firefighting. My great uncle was a pilot, and my father and I are both named after him. Growing up knowing that about him influenced me to become a pilot. That would be an item for inclusion in a biography. But if neither my grandfather, nor my great uncle had any influence on me, then there should be no need to reference them. That I was raised in the same religion as them does not make their position within that religion of any consequence unless it has direct bearing on the subject of the article. Otherwise, we might also include the types of flowers that my mother planted in the garden, or encourage the inclusion of any number of inconsequential facts that have no bearing on who I am and what I become. The same goes for the "origins" of Sikorsky's family. If Poland or Polish nationalism plays a part in the story of Igor Sikorsky beyond obscure, unnamed ancestors originating from there, then it has to be established as how it influenced Sikorsky's life. I was born in Georgia, United States because my parents moved there right before I was born. I never lived there afterwards. I never visited there, so I don't draw anything from Georgia, except having been born there. France and Germany have more to do with Sikorsky's life than Poland. He never visited Poland and Polish relatives are not recorded as affecting or influencing him, so ancestors from Poland moving away from Poland is an irrelevant fact for an encyclopedic article. --Born2flie (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC) He sisn't consider himself a Pole, but he is partly of Polish origin, so that should be said. That is his ethnicity, part of who he is, DNA, and saves more conflicts here from the type that already was here before (Ukrainians and Russians fighting for who he was, Russian or Ukrainian. Those writing about ethnicity finished those wars because they show what he was). Did you noticed that since that was done those wars ended? Why do you need to start them again? Again, that shows his background, who he was, and ethnicity is a part of who he was. The Polish part shows where his surname came from. The Russian part to show that he had Russian blood despite he was born in Ukraine. The Ukrainian part was told about to calm down the Ukrainians who started saying he was Ukrainian and that's he's being stolen from them. Thats whp he was, part of him. And I also said you also did good work here and returned your addings. I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC) The problem is creating an article that is less encyclopedic to pacify POV interests who want to bend the article to their POV. NPOV is a policy, not a guideline. Pacifying POV to prevent edit wars does not make a better article. --Born2flie (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC) What was done here actualy is not POV but facts about his ethnicity. The whole point was not to alow nationalists to try "steal him", for example fights weather he was Polish, Russian or Ukrainian, and to say he had all the three ethnicities. Ethnicity is a fact it can't be POV. I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Some people assert that Sikorsky was Jewish, because the name Sikorsky has Polish, Russian, and Jewish roots. Perhaps we should include that as well? I know where to find a link to make the claim! The article suggests that Igor Sikorsky's family emigrated after the January uprising in the Polish regions of the Russian Empire, but Ivan Sikorsky was born in Kiev in 1842, per one of your own source's assertion. So how can the Sikorsky family origin in Russia be an emigration after Igor's father was born and raised in the same area that Igor was born? Of course, I'm making more of a case for the Ukrainian ethnicity by arguing against the Polish one, but the facts have to be established more than simply by the presence in the article of the links provided, and more than by a discussion months ago that went nowhere and concluded nothing. --Born2flie (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC) The way you calculated it is POV and original research. There are clear reliable sources to who Sikorsky was which are not original research like what I brouught. If you have a relible academic link or a book of one of the Sikorsky family who said it? I can't stop you in that. To me it sounds a little weird because, I mean, it's not a new discovery to where the Sikorsky family came from and it's a little weird that to generations of Russian orthodox priests were Jewish but if you have a source it would be nice to read it. The idea is to enter true referenced material and if you bring an academic source, they offcaurse we will have to take it seriously. I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC) No, the way I calculated was based on one of the sources you claim is valid. How can Ivan Sikorsky be born in 1842 in Kiev and then migrate to Kiev from the Polish lands, as claimed of the Sikorsky gentry, after the January Uprising in the 1860's? The link also states that Ivan began school in the 1st Gymnasium in Kiev, which would put this particular Sikorsky family in Kiev well before the January Uprising. So, either the assumption in the article about when the Sikorsky family came to be in the Kiev area is incorrect, or the source link provides invalid information about Ivan's background and is suspect. I have verified the year for Ivan Sikorsky's birth in other English language texts. That is not Original Research, that is the research that is expected of Wikipedia editors to ensure that the information they include in their articles is accurate and verifiable with reliable sources. I have also corrected other errors in the article, such as when Sikorsky built the S-5 relative to employment by R-BVZ, that the S-6 did not have two engines (Bolshoi Baltisky originally had two, but changed to four), and information previously excluded, such as the two visits to Germany with his father that influenced Sikorsky's life. All of this through the research of reliable, verifiable sources. --Born2flie (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Deleted the Polish part, my fault haven't noticed the date problems. What I don't understand why anyone added the Polish thing if it's not true? I don't understand the logic in doing it. Man I feel stupid with the numbers now. The sources there are reliable like the Russian Encyclopedic Dictionery and stuff, from them the information about son and grandson of a priest was taken and about his fathers views (and a seperate article about his father). I was afraid to touch the Polish part to wake Polish nationalists, but until logical explanations are brought on the Polsih part I agree with you. But why couldn't you bring those calculations in the first place? Anyway, deleted. I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I'll search google for a few days for a logical explanation. I mean Sikorsky is a Polish surname but that's not a nargument for the article, maybe they confused the January Uprising with another Polish uprising? I'll try to check that stuff. I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Got the answer. The source about the Polsih roots is that one, it does say the family had a Polish root, but NOTHING about the january uprising, and nothing about the date they came to Russia (it only says it always lived in those lands and they came to Russia together with that part at the Partition of Poland, but the source didn't say which one of the partitions, and if Ivan Sikorsky had a grand and a grand-grandfather who were Russian prists it's shurely not the January Uprising). I think the dude who wrote that was trying to use his logic and that kind of didn't work). It's great you noticed it, great work! I fixed it. I think if there won't be more problems I could move on (I signed that project in order to improve series of articles about the Russian minority in Ukraine. I created the categories, improved a few articles, created a list. If there are any more problems with that article bring them up, if no, tell me there are no more problems and I could leave I don't see any way I can further contribute this project, and it addicts, which is not good). I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Russian Orthodox is possibly a russification. At any rate, they were Eastern Orthodox (I think they referred to themselves as just Orthodox) priests. The Polish Orthodox Church did not come into being until after the October Revolution, in 1924, so Orthodox priests prior to that time in the area of Poland may have been referred to as something else. Most likely, during the Russian Empire, they were all Russian Orthodox, so tracking when the family arrived in Kiev would be difficult to determine by two members of the family being priests. Some other source(s) will definitely be required to say when they came from Poland. --Born2flie (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Orthodox Pole is a logical thing, but a Pole, even if Orthodox, being a Russian nationalist? That's weird. His father completely considered himself Russian, so I guess they mixed with Russians long time ago. From that source I understood that the Sikorsky family came to Russia together with the land. Partisions of Poland, and Kiev to was Poland. I didn't find any source so for now I'm afraid to guess which of the partisions the source was talking about. The text seems pretty fine now. I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Formation of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation

In the "Life in America" section, his article states that "In 1923, helped by several former Russian army officers, he formed the Sikorsky Aero Engineering Company". However, the Sikorsky website states that it was established as The Sikorsky Manufacturing Corporation in 1925. The naming problems may be from translation from Russian references, but the reference here "Id. at p. 735" makes no sense. I put 1925 in the intro, but didn't change Life in America. Would someone with reliable sources clean this up a bit? --M.nelson (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The Sikorsky archives sikorskyarchives.com discuss formation of the Sikorsky Aero Engineering Corporation,[2] which is substantiated by the stock certificate from scripophily.com (image in the article). The company website timeline now also shows that it was 1923, that the company was started. At some point during 1925, it seems apparent that the Sikorsky Aero Engineering Corporation becomes the Sikorsky Manufacturing Corporation, and eventually Sikorsky Aircraft. However, there is no definitive reference quoted yet to say so, and the conclusion is simply WP:SYNTH. --Born2flie (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

McGowen (Helicopters: an illustrated history of their impact, ABC-CLIO, 2005) states that in 1925, the company became the Sikorsky Manufacturing Corporation, but doesn't explain why. Patillo (Pushing the Envelope: The American Aircraft Industry, University of Michigan Press, 2001) says that the change was the result of the financial situation of the company, and the formation of a partnership with Arnold Dickinson, a friend and businessman, who infused the new company with US$1 million. The company eventually reorganized as Sikorsky Aviation Corporation in 1928, after significant success with Sikorsky's amphibious designs. --Born2flie (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The above sources all reference Roosevelt Field, NY, not Roosevelt, NY, so I am correcting the article. Lent (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to properly cite them, then. The reference in the text says manufacturing of the S-29A began in Roosevelt, NY in 1923, then the Sikorsky Manufacturing Company moved to Roosevelt Field. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Great Quote from the dawn of passenger aviation

I am not sure how to fit this in, but it truly gives a feel for the man and the age:

Igor Sikorsky talking about the "Sikorsky 28":

"... Another feature is the promenade deck on the lower wings of the craft for the use of the more adventurous passengers. ..."

"RUSSIAN AIRPLANE WILL BE MADE HERE" (PDF). The New York Times. 20 April 1919. Lent (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

more adventurous passengers ... and less fortunate mechanics. East of Borschov (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Date format

I remember that this article had some date format disagreement. When I heavily edited the article in October 2008, I used the predominant date format used in the article at that time. In July 2010, User:Bzuk arbitrarily changed all the dates (diff) in contravention to WP:MOSDATE, which specifically states that "[i]f an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason." Since this action should have been accomplished with a discussion, I am inviting comments regarding which format of date should be used in this article. I am preferential to an international date style with the numerical date followed by the month. --Born2flie (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It was an arbitrary change, the dating format for aircraft articles had long since been established as the international date style of d-m-y until recently when an effort had been made to standardize any American-related civil articles to the popular style of m-d-y, especially in challenges to the original date convention that had occurred in the articles: Amelia Earhart and Charles Lindbergh. Understand me, I have no abiding interest to change the date styles of aviation-related articles and reluctantly accepted the change and applied it where it made sense, such as in the article on Igor Sikorsky. I have no interest in having two different styles for dates, but that is what the aviation group was advocating, so I went along with it. Change away, but realize that someone else from the project group may revert the changes to represent the new direction of dating. Apparently, this all came from some decidedly contentious and acrimonious debate. Bzuk (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

BTW, Born, you should have known that the change was in place since you are an active member of the aviation project group. FWiW, read my consternation in the veiled rebuff above. Bzuk (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

If this was primarily an Aviation article solely in the purview of WP:AIR, and if the edit referenced there was a discussion on WP:AIR, I would not have broached the subject in the manner I did. You have my sincerest apologies on that. My work, as my user/talk page describes, takes me out of the line of continuity here on the wiki. So, despite my "active" status, there are LONG periods of time when my attention is necessarily diverted to other endeavors. Consequently, I had NO awareness of a decision made this past July, nor a desire to research all the minutiae that the project agreed to in my absence.

With all due respect to the consensus from WP:AIR, I have a problem with the decision and the way it was carried out. Especially, since it was a "style-only" determination in direct contravention to the previously stated MOS guideline. WP:AIR has a history of working against the MOS to its own ends until such a time when WP:AIR realizes that it cannot battle the broader consensus found across the wiki. My protest is lodged and in a place where it will be more effective than if drowned on the WP:AIR talk page. Bzuk, again my apologies for the method of raising the issue; smearing your good username and demonstrating a lack of good faith towards your edit. --Born2flie (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this was really an WP:Air issue. Wikipedia as a whole went from autolinking dates to not linking them around 2008. Date format did not really matter when they were linked. At this time many articles had some dates in US format and others in International. So date formats have been made consistent in aviation articles based on what the article is more tied to. US date format seems more applicable to this article, but arguments could be made for International format also. -fnlayson (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I'm good with either date format as a case can be made that Sikorsky was Russian-American, but two formats in place seems distracting and jarring. What say you, which one should be used? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC).

photograph misdated

Russian aviators Sikorsky, Genner and Kaulbars aboard a "Russky Vityaz", 1915

the photograph attached to the page must be a misdate. According to the Russky Vityaz page, the ONLY existant Russky Vityaz was destroyed on 23 June 1913 and Sikorsky declined to repair it. Since the aircraft in the photograph doesn't look like an engine fell on it (which destroyed it) I suggest the date of the photograph is 1913, not 1915 72.39.62.16 (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Early planes built in Riga or St. Petersburg?

I think the Russo-Baltic Carrigae Company was moved from Riga Latvia to St. Petersburg after WWII. So his early planes were possibly built in Riga, not St. Petersburg, as the article says. Something to check on. DonPMitchell (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• The Russo-Baltic Company was moved from Riga to St. Petersburg, Tver and Moscow in 1915. Sealle (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Igor Sikorsky's quote on "flight"

Civilization 5 has a great quote by Igor Sikorsky when you discover flight, "Aeronautics was neither an industry nor a science. It was a miracle.".

I think it should be included in this article.

Igor Sikorski was a Polish

Igor Sikorsky [his real family name was Sikorski (very popular Polish surname), changed it in US]

The origin of the Sikorski family is in the Polish nobility that was deported after the failure of the January Uprising. Father of Igor Sikorski was Polish. On the January Uprising Father of Igor Sikorski was fight for Polish freedom, against Russian terror. Of course Ivan Alexeevich Sikorsky was a son and grandson of Orthodox Russian Church priests (But this not mean that they was Russian).

Mother of Igor, was half Ukrainian (on the paternal side) and half Russian (on the maternal side). In Communism time, many of Polish newspaper wrote that Igor Sikorski descent is Russian, but he was very unhappy for that, because he don't feel it.

http://www.456fis.org/IGOR_SIKORSKY.htm http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VfttPpr7-_AJ:www.poland.us/strona,13,12086,0,igor-sikorski-konstruktor-na-zsylce.html+&cd=8&hl=pl&ct=clnk&gl=pl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.128.127 (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sikorsky was descended from Poles, Russians and Ukrainians, but he self-identified as Russian. He spoke Russian, was a prominent member of the Russian immigrant community in the US, and faithfully attended a Russian Orthodox church. That's backed up by reliable published sources, including his own writings, and by his children. Polish immigrants in the US had their own communities and churches, and Sikorsky could have associated with them if he wanted to, but he obviously didn't. The Ukrainians try to claim he was Ukrainian also, but he didn't associate with them either. - BilCat (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Citing that "He spoke Russian, was a prominent member of the Russian immigrant community in the US, and faithfully attended a Russian Orthodox church" is WP:OR. Reliable sources, such as A to Z of STS Scientists by Elizabeth H. Oakes, state he was Ukrainian-American[3]. --Nug (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian American nationality

I'm not sure why this[4] was reverted as it was referenced to two reliable sources. --Nug (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Because there are many other sources identifying him as Russian-American, including autobiographical. - BilCat (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

However we shouldn't exclude those reliable sources that identify him as Ukrainian-American, they are equally valid, otherwise that would be POV. At the very least both should be mentioned. --Nug (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica clearly states: Ukrainian-born American, Ukrainian-born American engineer (It is written by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 contributors, who have included 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents.) see citation http://www.britannica.com/biography/Igor-Ivan-Sikorsky JimChan (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Making it in America: A Sourcebook on Eminent Ethnic Americans By Elliott Robert Barkan

Sikorsky, Igor I. (1889-1972); Aircraft designer and inventor; Ethnicity: Ukrainian

Elliott Robert Barkan uses 4 references and states Igor Sikorsky's ethnicity as Ukrainian JimChan (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Sikorsky was not born a U.S. citizen. He was born in Ukraine and acquired U.S. citizenship through a process of naturalization; therefore, he was a Ukrainian-born American. JimChan (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

While I hate getting into these nationalistic wars the external source britannica.com which I think is regarded as a reliable source currently says "Igor Sikorsky, in full Igor Ivan Sikorsky, (born May 25, 1889, Kiev, Russian Empire [now in Ukraine]—died October 26, 1972, Easton, Connecticut, U.S.)". So he was born in the Ukrainian district of the Russian Empire. It is just messy that there is still a country called Russia that causes confusion. The country now called Russia is totally different from the Russian Empire. How people identify with regions that have changed nationality since birth is something that I leave to others. Hopefully there has been a debate about this. Mtpaley (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@JimChan: I don't know why online version of britanica is different to the printed version 2006 of Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, page 1751 [5].

The printed version would be considered more reliable, which showed Sikorsky was "Russian-U.S. pioneer in aircraft design. After studying engineering in Kiev".

Want more, search [6], some results:

LIFE - 21 Jun 1943 - Page 91

Russia at War: From the Mongol Conquest to Afghanistan

Furthermore, father of Sikorsky - Ivan Alekseevich Sikorsky was a Russian nationalist, who participated in Kiev Club of Russian Nationalists [7]

page 167: Ivan Alekseevich Sikorsky (1842-1919), an ardent Russian nationalist, a psychiatrist....

page 177: Sikorsky insisted that because Ukrainians did not have their own racial history that would differ from the history of the Russian race, there could not be a Ukrainian nation

In an interview with his son, Sergei in 2009, it showed his son and Sirkorsky considered themselves Russian rather than Ukrainian: [8]

"I know that among the employees of the company Sikorsky in America were Petersburgers. Tell us about them. --- The firm Sikorsky - a Russian company, where Russian specialists worked" - duqus (Duqus (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC))

Britannica clearly states that he is Russian-born American aircraft designer. It is written by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 contributors, who have included 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents. http://www.britannica.com/biography/Igor-Ivan-Sikorsky/images-videos/Igor-Sikorsky-Russian-born-American-aircraft-designer/14338 (Duqus (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC))

Conquering

Hi Bill, you write in in your latest change that flying boats were "conquering" the oceans. Could you please explain in what way that term fits?

From dictionary.com:

verb (used with object)
1.
to acquire by force of arms; win in war:
to conquer a foreign land.
2.
to overcome by force; subdue:
to conquer an enemy.
3.
to gain, win, or obtain by effort, personal appeal, etc.:
conquer the hearts of his audience.
4.
to gain a victory over; surmount; master; overcome:
to conquer disease and poverty; to conquer one's fear.

Thanks! -62.155.198.25 (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It means they made it easy to cross the oceans, doing it in hours instead of days or weeks. - BilCat (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't we call them "ocean-crossing" then? Where do you get your definition from?-62.155.198.25 (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

They didn't simply cross the ocean, they made crossing the ocean easier. If you want a strict dictionary definition, synonyms would be subdue, surmount, master, or overcome. - BilCat (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

So first and foremost, they were "ocean-crossing". Did they make it easier than earlier planes? Maybe, maybe not, but that shouldn't be topic of the lede of a marginally related article. In any case, the term "conquering" has a certain meaning, as shown in the quote above, and you still couldn't point out why it's used. The term does not fit. -62.155.198.25 (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually I did show it, your inability to understand it it isn't my problem. Pan Am didn't have earlier planes that could cross the oceans in scheduled airline service, that is the point. All that was available before were ships - BilCat (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's always the stupidity of the others that is the problem. There is NO exception.

Sikorsky's flying boats were the first planes to cross the ocean? If not, why do you claim that "All that was available before were ships"? Why is Pan Am ownership of planes relevant, if others already crossed the ocean?-62.155.198.25 (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It's not simply crossing an ocean as Lindbergh and others did occasionally, but doing so in regular airline service. That didn't happen before, which is why simply saying "crossing" is inadequate.- BilCat (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Nationality: Ukrainian-born American

Encyclopedia Britannica clearly states: Ukrainian-born American, Ukrainian-born American engineer

(It is written by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 contributors, who have included 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents.)

see citation http://www.britannica.com/biography/Igor-Ivan-Sikorsky JimChan (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Sikorsky was not born a U.S. citizen. He was born in Ukraine and acquired U.S. citizenship through a process of naturalization; therefore, he was a Ukrainian-born American. JimChan (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

He was also born in the Russian Empire, and was a citizen of Russia, as has been discussed and cited before. All Britannica claims is that he was born in Kiev, which is now part of Ukraine. They don't discuss his ethnicity. - BilCat (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Russian Empire vs. Russian Federation vs. Russia

These are not the same country. Mr. Sikorsky NEVER was a citizen of Russia. You state an incorrect information. Mr. Sikorsky was a citizen of a different country -- Russian Empire. Ukraine back then was part of this Russian Empire. - JimChan (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That's semantics. Russia = Russian Empire, and that's how I meant it. Also, don't place warnings on this page. - BilCat (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That's NOT semantics. Russia and Russian Empire is not the same country. Russian Empire is ALSO Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania ... JimChan (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's called the "Russian Empire" for a reason - it was never called the Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania Empire. - BilCat (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please provide references supporting the changes and claims that you made about Igor Sikorsky. So far your only reference is Russian nationalistic blog of “Russian World” JimChan (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't cited anything from Russian World, and I've never even seen nor read it. - BilCat (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No, you did. You chanced content to one from a nationalistic "Russian World" blog. BilCat: "Following the Russian Revolution, Sikorsky became a White emigre and opposed Soviet rule." - JimChan (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Britannica online article was contributed by an individual just like Wikipedia

Printed version, published on 2006, clearly stated that he is Russian-born. (Duqus (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC))

Online article of Britannica was written by contributor, the same as Wikipedia, in particular, in this case, written by S. Paul Johnston. Printed edition is more reliable. (Duqus (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC))

In 2015, funny, Ukrainians actively in rewriting history, Sikorsky's birth information on Britannica's online article was edited by lesya yurchyshyn [9]. (Duqus (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC))

Ethnicity: Ukrainian

Making it in America: A Sourcebook on Eminent Ethnic Americans By Elliott Robert Barkan

Sikorsky, Igor I. (1889-1972); Aircraft designer and inventor; Ethnicity: Ukrainian

Elliott Robert Barkan uses 4 references and states Igor Sikorsky's ethnicity as Ukrainian JimChan (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Other sources claim he's exclusively of Russian ethnicity, and some claim he's partially or wholly Polish. They can't all be right. The best WP can do is publish what reliable sources claim. Simply declaring yours reliable and the others not is unacceptable. - BilCat (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please provide references supporting the changes and claims that you made about Igor Sikorsky. So far your only reference is Russian nationalistic blog of “Russian World” - JimChan (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You keep removing them. One is from the Sikorsky Archives, which ought to know,since he founded the company.

When he responds to questions regarding his roots, he would answer: “My family is of Russian origin. My grandfather and other ancestors from the time of Peter the Great were Russian Orthodox priests. Consequently, the Russian nationality of the family must be considered as well established”. In his autobiography, “The Story of the Winged S”, he wrote, “I was born on May 25th, 1889, in Kiev, situated in south western Russia.”. [10] - BilCat (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he was born in "south western" part of Russian Empire (short Russia) -- Ukraine. Ukraine was back then "south western" part of Russian Empire (short Russia). (But his ethnicity was Ukrainian.) See map of Russian Empire (Finland, Poland, Ukraine were part of Russian Empire)http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/map-russian-empire-1914 He was born in "south western" part of Russian Empire (Ukraine) and acquired U.S. citizenship through a process of naturalization; therefore, his nationality was a Ukrainian-born American. Why do you keep changing his nationality to Russian? JimChan (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That source doesn't say he was of Ukrainian ethnicity. It does imply he was of Russian ethnicity, especially with the mention of his family being Russian Orthodox. That's partly why I removed the ethnicity claim from the infobox. But if you're going to include claims to Ukrainian ethnicity, then other claims need to be included too. It may be that you're using "ethnicity" to mean something different than what it generally means in English. In English, it usually refers to his genetic and cultural identity. Genetically, he may well be Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian. Culturally, he appears to have identified as Russian. - BilCat (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

He was born in "south western" part of Russian Empire (Ukraine) and acquired U.S. citizenship through a process of naturalization; therefore, his nationality was a Ukrainian-born American (south western part of Russian Empire-born American). Why do you keep changing his nationality to Russian? JimChan (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Because the nation he was born in was the "Russian Empire (short Russia)". That's what his nationality means in English. - BilCat (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No, south western part of Russian Empire (Ukraine) is his place of birth. Nationality in English means: "Nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a state" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality Again, repeating for a third time facts supported by references: Igor Sykorsky was born in "south western" part of Russian Empire (Ukraine) and acquired U.S. citizenship through a process of naturalization; therefore, his nationality was a Ukrainian-born American. -- JimChan (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The state was the Russian Empire. - BilCat (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of his life, ~2/3, his state was United States of America. There is no such state as Russian Empire. Russian Empire was ALSO Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania ... JimChan (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The 1989 edition of Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia calls him a "Russian-born American". I'm sure it's not the only one. - BilCat (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a link. JimChan (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The link that you have provided is to a Russian propaganda blog of "Russian World" -- Russian propaganda lies and highly questionable content. Please provide a link to support your claims of 1989 edition of Funk & Wagnalls. - JimChan (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That was in the version I reverted too. I should have reverted further back. Funk & Wagnalls is a print encyclopedia. Your local library may be able to find one for you. It's still a reliable source per WP's guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please try to comment in one place. It's very confusing when you post the same thing twice in two places, and then add on more. - BilCat (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Basically, you don't have a link to a reputable source. You don't have a real reference to support your claims.

(You're making changes in multiple places, and forcing me to respond in multiple places.) -- JimChan (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's just respond here for now then. Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia is a reliable source. You just don't want to accept it because disagrees with your view. - BilCat (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your accusations are ridiculous. You're telling me (and readers of Wikipedia) to go to a library and to find an old edition of an encyclopedia to verify your claims. Multiple current encyclopedias are not good for you, because they all contradict your claims. This is a joke. Right? Since you're getting personal... Why are you removing REAL references (links) to highly reputable sources? Why do you change content without providing the references to support your claims? It appears you're having a Russian propagandistic agenda. You use Russian Neo-Nazi “Russian World” propaganda blog as references, and remove everything mentioning Ukraine. Why? -- JimChan (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not required to be online, per WP:RS. - BilCat (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@JimChan:You wrote: Elliott Robert Barkan uses 4 references and states Igor Sikorsky's ethnicity as Ukrainian, BUT you don't known which books stated that he is Ukrainian, don't you!?

So, instead of saying that, you must cited from 4 references he mentioned to prove.

In one of the references Barkan provided, the autobiography of Sikorsky, he never mentioned he is Ukrainian: The Story of the Winged­S: An Autobiography

I hope that Barkan didn't cite Wikipedia for his book! :) (Duqus (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC))

Making it in America: A Sourcebook on Eminent Ethnic Americans

By Elliott Robert Barkan

He cited from other sources, which I could cited from others (reliable ones) which contradict from what this book states.

Also, his book did not clearly show which his sources stated that Sikorsky is Ukrainian. So, you must show which references he used stated that. ;) (Duqus (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC))

Russian ethnicity

While many books, include the Britannica, point out that Sikorsky is Russian. His family consider themselves Russian, and Wikipedia shows that he is Ukrainian?

Printed version 2006 of Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, page 1751 [11].

Excerpt: "Russian-U.S. pioneer in aircraft design. After studying engineering in Kiev".

MANY more books show the same result [12]

Furthermore, father of Sikorsky - Ivan Alekseevich Sikorsky was a Russian nationalist, who participated in Kiev Club of Russian Nationalists [13]

page 167: Ivan Alekseevich Sikorsky (1842-1919), an ardent Russian nationalist, a psychiatrist....

page 177: Sikorsky insisted that because Ukrainians did not have their own racial history that would differ from the history of the Russian race, there could not be a Ukrainian nation

In an interview with his son, Sergei in 2009, it showed his son and Sirkorsky considered themselves Russian rather than Ukrainian: [14]

Excerpt: "I know that among the employees of the company Sikorsky in America were Petersburgers. Tell us about them. --- The firm Sikorsky - a Russian company, where Russian specialists worked" - duqus (Duqus (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)).

From http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/About_the_Archives.php

http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/sikorsky-archives-home-flash.swf, in which clearly states, "The Russian-born scientist, engineer, pilot and. entrepreneur made fixed and rotary wing aviation"

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/corporate/photo/features/2015/fact-sheet-Sikorsky.pdf

"the Russian-born scientist, engineer, pilot and entrepreneur, made fixed- and rotary-wing aviation history with a mix of genius"

http://www.sikorsky.com/Lists/Assets/MissionDownloads/SAC_Pioneering_Tech_Brochure.pdf

"Igor Sikorsky was a Russian-born scientist, engineer, pilot, and entrepreneur who made fixed- and rotary-wing aviation"

http://www.sikorsky.com/Lists/eNewsletter/2013/Commlinks_0313.pdf

Some 90 years ago, on March 5, 1923, a Russian refugee named Igor Sikorsky organized a new company. In the original application, it was incorporated as the (Duqus (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC))

Early life

First 1919, later 1900. Please correct the order.Xx236 (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sikorsky's interaction with the company he founded between 1942 and his death

Maybe there was a lot more information in the article that is no longer here, but to read it in its current form (17 Oct 2018) you would not know he did anything after 1942. Was he the CEO of Sikorsky for the rest of his life, or what? When did he retire from his organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.34.146.76 (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2019

Change "Russian-American" to "Ukrainian-American". Change "Kiev, Russian Empire" to "Kiev, Ukraine" or "Kiev, Russian Empire (modern Ukraine)". Some resources: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Igor-Sikorsky https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/gas-disputes/us-to-help-ukrainian-activists-restore-sikorskys-mansion-in-kyiv-375206.html 1katap (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

References

"Present-day Ukraine" already mentioned in the body text, not necessary to repeat in infobox. "Russian-American" is what Britannica and Sikorsky himself says. – Þjarkur (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)