Jump to content

Talk:Mary Golda Ross

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Mary G. Ross)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Employer of Mary G. Ross

[edit]

The article states in several places that Mary G. Ross was employed by Lockheed Martin. This is not true. Mary G. Ross retired in 1973 according to the article, and Lockheed Martin was formed in the 1995 merger of Lockheed Corporation and Martin Marietta according to a link in the same article to another Wikipedia page. The article ought to identify the employer of Mary G. Ross as Lockheed Corporation.

24.5.142.193 (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her employer is named as Lockheed throughout the article at this moment. In the categories at the bottom of the article, she is in the category Lockheed-Martin people. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need some photos of her

[edit]

There are images of Mary Golda Ross on line, including one of her with her siblings in the Tahlequah Daily Press article by Agnew, as well as photos of her as an adult at various ages. None are in Wikimedai commons, but perhaps some photos can be used with proper copyright citation. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

[edit]

Under CAREER: "She took astronomy classes there in addition to reading extensively in her chose field of mathematics.[2]" ... Should say "chosen". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.51.136 (talk • contribs)

Done by other editor. MapSGV (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2018

[edit]

Under CAREER:

1) 'improving the aeroelasticity of that first plane so large' should be 'improving the aeroelasticity of the first plane so large'.

2) The section of text this error appears in (citation 6c) looks like a quote, but none of the "quoted" text can be found on the referenced page. I don't know if the entire quote should be removed, or if the source of the quote should be investigated and the citation updated.

 Partly done: The quote is correct as written. I found a few instances of the article online and updated the reference to an article containing that quote. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


"was the first known Native American female engineer.[1] She" should be deleted.

It is widely stated (including on Wikipedia) that Mary Ross is the first female native american engineer. This cannot be true. There were probably thousands before her, some of them hundreds of years before her (definition - "a person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or public works." I thought it possible that she was the first to have earned an engineering degree from an american college or university, but that is also not true. According to Wikipedia her degrees were earned in mathematics and education. I agree that she is entitled to the title "engineer" by virtue of her work history, but there's no reason to think that she was the first native american woman to have worked as an engineer. The qualification "known" does not help. 161.185.160.102 (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the claim is better understood by the entire phrase "female native american". While I would agree that there were most likely many "female" engineers, perhaps she is indeed the first "native american" female engineer. I have no expertise in this area, just my thoughts as to why the claim is made. THX1136 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. While it would seem to be common sense, the cited source (and many others, on a quick Google search) name her as the first. Please see WP:Verifiability. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"was the first known Native American female engineer.[1] She" should be deleted.

No. No. No. The bottom line is Engineer is a protected term and the article uses it improperly. It would be no different in saying a female nurse, or other healthcare worker was the first female Medical Doctor. Unless she earned the required degrees AND licenses (it takes more than an engineering degree to call yourself an engineer), then why are we calling her an engineer? Again, she was NOT a licensed engineer and it would be illegal for her to use that title. She was not by the legal definition. Secondly, the original New Amsterdam article that was cited in support of this has been removed. Where is the primary RS that supports the claim that she was an engineer. BTW: Lots of people work in engineering fields. That does NOT confer a professional title, NOR can an employer grant someone a professional title of "Engineer" (see Microsoft case on this for more details). That does NOT make one an engineer, which requires passage of specific professional tests, experience criteria AND a qualifying degree. So again I ask, where is the RS for this Professional Title? These claims should be removed until this issue is settled. ProfJustice (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy! For reference I have just rescued the New Amsterdam link, the whole article is currently available here. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ProfJustice, a protected term? Engineer means that one works as an engineer. The American Indian Museum posting about her refers to her as a scientist "Because Ross, after a lifetime of high-flying achievement as one of the nation's most prominent women scientists of the space age" and also as an engineer " Later Lockheed trained her to become one of the 40 engineers in known as the Lockheed Skunk Works". In the title of the post, she is "a woman engineer in the space race". I consider the museum a reliable source, and it is used often in the article. I worked as an engineer (but not in aerospace), and I am fully satisfied she rates that title. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glaring Error

[edit]

It would be nice for someone to fix the glaring error in the quote:

...improving the aeroelasticity of that first plane so large it had to be treated as a flexible body...

This claim comes from a non-authoritative source and should be redacted, as it is clearly nonsense. The Wright Brothers flyer already dealt with this issue before 1903, as did numerous craft that flew before the P-38 (e.g. B-17, DC3, etc.). You may wish to check/cite papers like RH Ricketts (1993) Experimental Aeroelasticity History, Status and Future in Brief, NASA TM 102651 (available online). The error is immediately recognizable to any aerospace engineer. It is this sort of sloppiness that really damages Wikipedia's credibility. 128.252.174.220 (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: For better or worse, most Wikipedia editors are not aerospace engineers. I checked the source provided and agree with your claim that the Wright Bros had already dealt with the issue. However the source you provided does not mention how Mary G. Ross dealt with aeroelasticity, and its unclear what the original source meant she was working on. Regardless, the original quote in the article was taken verbatim from the original source, which is not standard wikipedia practice. I have turned it into prose, and merely said that "Ross helped to solve numerous design issues involved with high speed flight and issues of aeroelasticity". Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving this as "numerous issues of aeroelasticity" is still unsubstantiated. It sounds like Ross was really what was then known as a computer (that is, a "human computer"; the article erroneously calls her a mathematician), especially as it appears she did not have a degree in engineering at that time. I have not run across her name in the WW2/pre-WW2 aeronautical history literature; the article seems to overstate her contributions pretty dramatically. It would also help to have technical sources rather than just media like "Indian Country Today Media Network" and "American Indian Source". Just some friendly advice. 128.252.174.220 (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merely because you haven't run across someones name doesn't mean they aren't notable. More technical sources would be good, but as is the article is partially based on her entry in American women in technology : an encyclopedia which calls her an engineer. In terms of issues of aeroelasticity we could include information from Lockheed_P-38_Lightning#High-speed compressibility problems, which discusses the various problems the engineering team had with the P-38. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need to take offense. She very well may be notable by your standards; I obviously did not comment on that. The observation I made was that your article overstates her contributions. You can fix it or not. I just thought you should know. Best wishes. 128.252.174.220 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The goal is to overstate her contributions, it's part of the wikipedia's systemic bias. ProfJustice (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agena Rocket Program

[edit]

Hello, I noticed a way to improve this article, but I don't have that access. In the introduction, it mentions the Agena Rocket Program that she worked on, but it's not linked to the page with the information on the subject. I looked it up and there is a page on it, but it would be a lot more convenient for curious readers such as myself for the pages to be linked. The page is titled "RM-81 Agena" and the URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RM-81_Agena Thank you, and I hope I was helpful. Ragnar Drakkasborg (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Ragnar Drakkasborg[reply]

 Done Thanks for pointing that out! I've edited the page to reflect that. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More Overstatement and Errors

[edit]

Hi. I commented above about the aeroelasticity error in the article yesterday. In reading further down, I noticed a few more issues that are really somewhat remarkable. First, the claim of "Most of the theories and papers that emerged from the group, including those by Ross, are still classified" is very likely not true. In 1994, President Clinton issued a bulk declassification order (Executive Order 12937) that covered millions of documents from before WW2 into the 1970s, which would seem to overlap with the timing of most of her career. Among these were about 6M from the Navy Bureau of Aeronautics and about 5M from the Air Force, which seem to overlap with most of the areas of her career. Whatever she worked on that might once have been classified probably is no longer. Second, the claim of "One of Ross' seminal roles was as one of the authors of the NASA Planetary Flight Handbook Vol. III, about space travel to Mars and Venus" seems to be outright false. This document is an old NASA SP (available online here) having no individually-listed authors. More to the point, it is a contractor report from General Dynamics. Mary Ross worked for Lockheed, according to your article, and since she does not appear in any of the authoritative aerospace historical sources, it seems impossible to resolve such a claim conclusively. As I said above, it's a little disturbing that your article is based almost entirely on non-authoritative documents. It now also seems clear that there was little meaningful fact-checking. If you want an intellectually-honest article on this individual, I would respectfully suggest redacting anything that cannot be confirmed from authoritative sources. Otherwise, all you have is a dishonest fairy tale here. 128.252.11.235 (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! You seem very interested in this topic, I invite you to create a Wikipedia account so that you can have attribution for your edits and talk page contributions. IP addresses are often shared and I see that the IP address you are using has been warned in the past: but there is no way to know if it was you or someone else who made that edit. I also recommend you briefly look at Wikipedia's chief policies for content: verifiability, our prohibition on original research, and our requirement for neutral point of view. If you can find additional sources to back up your claims above we can amend the article. I'm not sure what you mean by "authoritative document", as here on Wikipedia we put an emphasis on secondary sources over primary sources. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon, but that's one of the most bureaucratic statements I've ever read. Do you honestly mean to say that the absence of Ross' name on NASA SP-35 is not sufficient grounds to remove the statement from your article that says she was an author of SP-35...that you would actually need a source that says Ross was not an author on that report to redact this statement? Wikipedia's rules cannot possibly be that absurd. "Authoritative document" is one written/vetted by experts in the field. The web page from "The National Museum of the American Indian", which is the source of many of the misstatements in your article, is not authoritative for the purposes of aeronautical history. Ben Rich, Walter Boyne, and Steve Pace all wrote good books on various aspects of Lockheed's history. Any of these are "authoritative". I'm not looking for attribution. I only stumbled on this article from the August 9 GoogleDoodle. Consider my comments more as a favor of furnishing an expert opinion to whomever maintains this article as to its historical accuracy and, by extension, its worth as an encyclopedia article. Right now, with the errors, overstated claims, and shoddy sourcing, it's close to worthless. 128.252.174.220 (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out the source you provided, but noted that there is in fact no authors listed, so the fact that Mary Ross isn't listed doesn't seem reason for exclusion. I do agree that it appears to be prepared by General Dynamics, and that Mary Ross did not work there. However the document provided noted that it was the 9th part in a series for Volume III, it is possible that other parts were prepared by sources other than General Dynamics. There may be more than meets the eye about who created it as well, Lockheed may have even subcontracted parts of it (although that is pure speculation on my part). Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Having checked all the references (and some) for translating the article in hebrew, I can say that the fact that she is the author of chapters in the handbook is mentioned in several articles from 2009 for example:Briggs, Kara (October 7, 2009). "Mary G. Ross blazed a trail in the sky as a woman engineer in the space race, celebrated museum". The National Museum of the American Indian. Retrieved August 13, 2018. Golan's mom (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also NASA agrees that she was part of the people writing it... Golan's mom (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-checked today and...WOW. If this sort of logic is characteristic of Wikipedia, it is in real trouble. You're saying that because a blog and a NASA PR page (which, by the way, links to the SP-35 document that does not contain Ross' name) say that Ross is an SP-35 author, that's good enough for you. Does the fact that SP-35 was a General Dynamics contract report and the fact that Ross did not work at General Dynamics give you any pause at all? This seems to be a false/mistaken claim that has propagated throughout the non-aerospace literature by authors who never did any vetting or fact-checking. 128.252.79.225 (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HI IP, another ref for you "particular set of Mars orbital excursions was conducted by M. G. Ross" mentioned in the "Manned flight to Mars and Venus in the 70's" [1] . SP-35 1963 version made by Lockheed. Golan's mom (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prairieplant: (or any other editors who see this) Can I get your input on this discussion, as I see you've been involved above and have been editing this article? Specifically as to the verifiability of the sources (and if the NASA document provided above should affect how we write this article), and whether you believe this article to be overstated/peacocking? Do the last two sentences in each of the above IP's claims have any merit? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek I am not so worried what that about what that IP wrote. That person does not understand that a Wikipedia account is not to give him or her credit so much as to have him or her take responsibility for their work, and their criticisms of work by others, which seem to come easily from that IP (looking at the contribution list). You did all the follow up you could do with the one url that IP shared. With no authors listed, there it stops. If there are reliable source books on the Skunk Works or any other aspects of her work, then I hope we find them, but I do not think they will be found from those clues. IP gave little more than first name and last name of possible authors, no book titles, year of publication, isbn, or any of the ways that make it easy to find a book especially by men with rather ordinary names. As it is said that work of that era is still classified, it seems there will be limits on a full biography of her career.
Time Magazine wrote an article posted on line about Mary G Ross in response to the google doodle, and said that Lockheed sent her to UCLA for classes to be certified as an aeronautical engineer, not simply engineer, and rehired in that job title, post war. I guess my mind is still stuck on objections to calling her an engineer, in a thread above. This is the link here to the Time article, a short one. We can write only from sources at hand. Did any engineering journals write about her in response to the google doodle, there is an idea. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Ms. Ross is a Registered Professional Engineer of California in Mechanical Engineering" from the Silicon Valley Engineering Council where she was inducted to the Hall of fame in 1992. see here. she was a Life Member of both the Society of Women Engineers and the American Indian Science and Engineering Society. By the way from the Hall of fame: "The first woman engineer in the history of Lockheed" , but this obit from 2008 says First Native American woman engineer AND first female engineer at Lockheed Missiles and Space Company Golan's mom (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Prairieplant: None of you, in fact, has done any meaningful follow-up. Regarding "I hope we find them", a trivial Google Book search of "Lockheed aeronautical history" shows dozens of books, including the three I mentioned above, as the top hits no less. Evidently, none of you did even this minimal level of searching. As far as the "Planetary Handbook", it seems to me that the burden of proof belongs to the claim of authorship. SP-35 was a General Dynamics contract report. Ross was not an author. Moreover, the fact that Ross did not even work at General Dynamics strongly implies she had not even an informal or unacknowledged role. It would seem to be a serious breach of journalistic ethics to maintain this claim in your article under these circumstances. 128.252.79.225 (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
hi IP Thank you for your insistence. Did you look inside the report? The link wass a report from 1970, prepared by General Dynamics. Inside, one of the references,is "Space Flight Handbooks, Vole 3 - Planetary Flight Handbook, NASA SP-35, " from 1963 That one was made by Lockheed so you are right that the link was wrong, NASA & blogs were right that she was one of the authors of the Space Flight Handbooks, Vol 3, SP-35, just an earlier version Golan's mom (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polaris reentry vehicle

[edit]

According to the memorial on find a grave, it seems she also worked on the "Polaris reentry vehicle". I am unfamilair with what article to link it. Golan's mom (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Identity in STEM

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GraceKT (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by BaileeJackson (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of membership of Society of Women Engineers

[edit]

Just reading article from SWE, it would suggest that Ross was not an SWE member until at least 1969 (when her application was received), rather than the general "since the 1950s" stated in this article. Are there any other corroborating sources either way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:EE3F:2100:2C3A:AA1F:CCAE:C595 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Golda_Ross&oldid=1210850682"