Talk:Igor Sikorsky

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

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)

Most of his blood was Russian, so he was mostly Russian ethnicity. I heard from a few people that his mother was not Ukrainian but Russian ethnicity. In google i found interestion information on the topic. I also entered this [2] link to the article. Here we get the surname of his mother before merrige, Temryuk-Cherkasov. Temryuk is a Ukrainian surname, but Cherkasov is clearly Russian, which shows that his mother was infact half Ukrainian and half Russian. Acording to many web sites (i give you [3][4][5][6], and those are just three of hundreds) his father was a Russian nationalist, so how was Ivan Sikorsky Polish?? So actualy Sikorsky was mostly Russian. No Free Nickname Left 18:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Russian. And most of his blood was Russian to. No Free Nickname Left 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Sikorsky

Sikorsky's mother's ethnicity

I heard from a few people that his mother was not Ukrainian but Russian ethnicity. In google i found interestion information on the topic. I also entered this [7] link to the article. Here we get the surname of his mother before merrige, Temryuk-Cherkasov. Temryuk is a Ukrainian surname, but Cherkasov is clearly Russian, which shows that his mother was infact half Ukrainian and half Russian. I added that link and i added that information to the article. No Free Nickname Left 17:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sikorsky's father? Polish??

Acording to many web sites (i give you , and those are just three of hundreds) his father was a Russian nationalist, so how was Ivan Sikorsky Polish?? Please explain and give references. He shurely had Russian blood, and his father and grandfather were Russian priests. I added that information and a few links. For now i havent deleted he had Polish blood to, and that they were deported after the January uprising, but if references won't be given here on the talk page that will be deleted. If it's a book, then please give the name, and please skan and upload the page with that quote. No Free Nickname Left 18:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i found it. You can see it in this link, so he really did have a root in Polish nobility. Nevertheless, most of his fathers blood was still Russian. But the information about his Polish roots stays. No Free Nickname Left 20:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't born in Ukraine

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)

Why was his name in Ukrainian added??

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

• 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:

1. 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.
2. another link to an article about Igor's father, not Igor.
3. 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.
4. Another link about Igor's father, with only a mention of Igor.
5. 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)