Talk:Granville Woods

Studying electronics in the 1870s -- really?

Electronics didn't begin to emerge as an engineering discipline until after 1910, or so, certainly no earlier than the mid-1890s with Marconi's pioneering work on radio. This piece of nonsense in the article calls its entire content into question. —Quicksilver^{T @} 23:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Quicksilver you should study a little more before you call something nonsense. One of Wood's most important inventions was the Multiplex Railway Telegraph. Patented on Nov 15,1887 it enabled messages to be sent to and from moving trains and railway stations. Conductors could now be warned of obstacles in their path well in time to stop the train. Also on Sept 13,1881 Louis H. Latimer (another african american) and Joseph P. Nichols recieved patent 247,097 for their version of the elctric lamp. As you can see, this is considerably before the mid 1890s. I've listed all of Woods patents on the main article page. Tom 02/20/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.66.122 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 February 2008

"Tom", you'd do well to acquaint yourself with the meaning of the word "electronics". The telegraph was electrical in nature, but wasn't "electronic" in any sense of the present meaning of the word. Electric lamps aren't considered "electronic" either. As a 30-plus-year career electronic engineer and Registered Professional Engineer, I'm well aware of the history of my chosen profession. —Quicksilver^{T @} 05:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The article didn't say that Woods studied electronics as an engineerng dicipline. Those were your words. Obviously the engineering dicipline of the early 20th century emerged from the pioneering efforts of inventors like Woods. When you called the article nonsense you proved how little you knew about him. How can you claim to know the history of your profession and not know one of the founding fathers of it? How can you not be filled with gratitude and appreciation for a mind such as Woods that's affected the lives of millions of people worldwide? How can you, after reading his patents on the main page, make anything other than an apology for your earlier comment. You not only exposed your ignorance of him, you also exposed your distaste for the history that he made. In your thirty years as an engineer, what have you done that has contributed so much to mankind? Where are your patents? On what historical authority do you quality this article as nonsense? Tom 03/01/08

Vandalism damage

This article has been damaged by vandalism, both blatant and subtle, beyond the point of recognition, compared to the first dozen or so edits since its inception. To repair it will require a systematic review of its editing history since 9 December 2003. Study of electronics (see my comment above) is probably an example of such vandalism. Recently, over 90% of activity has been either vandalism or reverts of vandalism. Almost all damage has been caused by non-registered users. Accordingly, I've applied the {{semiprotected}} template to the article this day. —Quicksilver^{T @} 00:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it needs to be "repaired", as this assumes that the early versions of the article were in some way better than later ones. No, what it needs is an editor(s) prepared to do the research and edit the article to the standard required. I would be interested to know whay the article has been vandalised so often ... are you suggesting a "racial" motivation? Olana North (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that you haven't studied the change history of the article. Review it from the day it was created, see what the changes were, particularly by non-registered users editing from IP address ranges belonging to public schools, then try to tell us again that you disagree, with a straight face. I'm in no way suggesting that the vandalism is "racially" motivated: Who knows what goes on in the mind of the typical bored, restless 13-year-old? —Quicksilver^{T @} 06:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't need (or want) to study the change history of the article. I don't rely on what others have written, I prefer original research using non-web based material (i.e. books and published papers etc). I did have a quick look through the change history to see what your contributions had been to improving the article, but it seems that the best you could manage was some punctuation. I now consider you un-worthy of any further attention. Olana North (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

is lame syce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.70.214 (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of this is lifted word for word from http://www.blackinventor.com/pages/granvillewoods.html ... just FYI - Atown 25/02/09

Reference# 2

The reference link takes you to a webpage with just a patent number. There is no description to go with the patent number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcmurray2099 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Articulate and well-spoken man"

I would like to rewrite this, delete these adjectives, or if they're from a direct quote, place it within quotation marks. This description of Woods is likely from a contemporaneous source and the use of words like "articulate" and "well-spoken" at the time (as now) has been revealed to be a roundabout way of saying that a black person doesn't speak like "most" black people, as if being "articulate" is an remarkable trait for an electrical engineer. You wouldn't find similar adjectives used out of nowhere for white historical figures, and it's a subjective opinion that leads to no substantive, encyclopedic understanding of the subject. Matuko (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)