Jump to content

Talk:Wright brothers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.86.172.174 (talk) at 11:01, 30 June 2017 (→‎Lift Equation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleWright brothers has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 17, 2007Good article nomineeListed

Template:Vital article

Template:NCFA

Template:OhioSB

Huguenot descent

The editor Rsarlls has been repeatedly inserting the claim that the Wright brothers are of Huguenot descent. I have challenged this claim because it's cited to a self-published web site. I'm opening a discussion here so other editors can weigh in. --Laser brain (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely not a reliable source. It's some guy publishing information on his ancestors. I agree better sourcing is needed to include it in the article. Willondon (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished reading Tom Crouch's "The Bishop's Boys" which goes into minute, encyclopedic detail of the Wright's ancestry and I don't remember it being mentioned. I'll look again tonight after work.
As an aside, despite what I thought to be a somewhat slow start, the detail that Crouch put into covering the Wright's ancestry and formative years really went a long way in explaining their behavior as adults. Overall it was a VERY GOOD book. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
I gave a quick look into the matter anew, as I had heard about that assertion already before. Mostly self-published genealogies, however if it comes to be verifiable, the pair seems to be "Huguenot" first, then "Dutch" ancestries, not the reverse. Everywhere I was able to find them, the Brittain / Gano names appear before the Van Cleve's and Van Dick. --Askedonty (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Bishop's Boys, Page 21, Bottom of the page -
"That first American Wright, Samuel, was the great-great-grandson of John Wrighte, who, with his first wife Olive, had purchased Kelvedon Hall, Essex, in 1538. Samuel, a Puritan, was part of the "Great Migration" to Massachusetts, arriving in Boston in the early 1630's." He later became an in-ordained minister in Springfield, MA.
Much of the text in this chapter is directly from Milton Wright's (their father's) manuscript on family history and his ancestors. So I'm not sure where anyone is getting Huguenot because Puritan doesn't equal Huguenot - they are completely different. Ckruschke (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
On the web transcribed excerpts of Milton Wright's manuscript are available at wright-brothers.org. I checked the usual genealogy sites [1] in more detail. The Brittain's I had mentioned above traced back appear to be of English descent ( the Reed's Stillwell branch). The Huguenot member would be then ( perhaps Hugueniot) the eldest son of Etienne Gayneau (born in La Rochelle). I think that component is to tiny relatively to the width of the several branches to be considered a defining characteristic, unless explicitely requested by heirs. I'm not a genalogist however I think the editor should verify that raw genealogical data does not weigh precisely distributions, after generation accumulate. An other point and still also lost into inverifiability, Stephen Gano, the son of Etienne, would not have even belonged to a Huguenot family himself [2]. A Huguenot legacy is to be considered by the contrasting scale of people like Gaspard de Coligny. Otherwise a reference through one's inclusion by Dutch Americans is not exclusive of the individual. --Askedonty (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the great majority of biographies say nothing about Huguenot then it would be undue emphasis for us to say differently. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lift Equation

I think it would be helpful to SEE the change in lift formula by having the correct lift equation beside the one Wrights had to deal with.75.86.172.174 (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong ISBN for McFarland ?

The ISBN 0-306-80671-1 for the McFarland book is not found on Google Books, and on OpenLibrary it points to Miracle at Kitty Hawk (also letters), but content is not accessible. I suggest using https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001114607 instead. TGCP (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Wright brothers. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 13:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wright_brothers&oldid=788250788"