Talk:Leroy Grumman

Proposed move
Grumman was commonly known as Roy Grumman, although his given name was Leroy. The two sources currently in the article make note of this, as does a search of Google News archive. He's been dead almost 27 years, so sources that would discuss this are a bit more difficult to find, but it's not at all a stretch given the article sources already in place and the Google News hits above. I made the move and an objection was raised; any thoughts here? Frank |  talk  17:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, more than 60 hits in Google Books. I realize there are more hits in both GNews and GBooks for "Leroy" than for "Roy" but that merely indicates it was his given name. There are still a significant number of hits (significant enough, in my opinion) to support that he was commonly known and referred to as "Roy". Frank  |  talk  17:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although the more common or more familiar name is used in naming Wikipedia articles, in this instance, it is a case of come çi, comme sa. My favourite: Leroy, as used in a majority of reference sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC).


 * Concur with Bzuk on being used in the majority of references. Per WP:NCP: "General Wikipedia Naming Conventions start from easy principles: the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". This boils down to the two central ideas in Wikipedia article naming: (1) The name that is most generally recognisable; and (2) The name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles." "Leroy Grumman" is defintely the most recognizable name. "Roy" appears to have been used by people who knew him, but is not as common in print, hence less "recognisable". Btw, it's Clarence Johnson on WP, not Kelly Johnson! (An issue for that page, not here). - BillCJ (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bill, note my comment below. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

Any references to support that Leroy "is definitely the most recognizable name"? I've provided profiles of the man that specifically note that he went by "Roy". That his given name was Leroy is not in question. He founded a company that for decades was the largest private employer on Long Island (in the tens of thousands of employees). Those people and their families knew him (and of him) as "Roy", as did those who chose to write about him in large, national publications such as Time contemporary to his prominence. Also, can someone turn the WP:COMMECICOMMESA policy link blue for me so I can read it? (Right now, it seems like this is the most applicable policy here.) Frank  |  talk  11:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is definitely not the main problem with this article (see below) and regardless, a consensus of interested/involved editors would be necessary for a disputed/controversial move. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but the proposed move is what this section is about. Doesn't mean the article can't be improved also. Besides - this move isn't disputed or controversial; the only objection is "no consensus to move". Frank  |  talk  01:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have objected to the move, whether you think I phrased it correctly or not. Bzuk has also stated his preference for keeping the title here. I reverted your moved because it was undiscussed, and because you had no consensus to move it (meaning you didn't discuss it all before hand.) I have also stated my objections to the move/preferences for keeping it here, but I don't have to state all that when reverting the move. Btw, I have reverted moves I agreed with because I knew others would object (and often had already), but did support it during the move discussions. Gaining a consensus is important on WP. So far, you do not have a consensus to move. - BillCJ (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Gents, I do remember having read about Leroy Grumman, but not about Roy. I do not have my references handy, though, to provide factual evidence (they're locked in a storage). My proposal: keep the article named as is now, and create a redirect from "Roy Grumman" to "Leroy Grumman". Happy editing! DPdH (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is a factor of the passage of time, but I recently watched two separate video documentaries on the Grumman Wildcat and Hellcat, and both productions pointedly used "Leroy". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC).
 * I had already created the redirect, so I guess this issue is more or less closed now. Frank  |  talk  20:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyviol
There are entire statements and sections copied verbatim from sources. This article should be entirely re-written to avoid further copyviols. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC).


 * What sources is it copied form, and what sections are vios? It definetely needs to be dealt with, but I don't have the books, and haven't had time to track down the internet sources. - BillCJ (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Before I started editing, I noted the only two sources given were cribbed relentlessly and that was extremely unusual. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

Article too focused on the company, not the person
Hi fellow WikiEditors! I've made some small improvements to this brief biography article. What it seems to me, there is more info about "Grumman Aircraft" (the company) than "Leroy Grumman" (the founder). I don't have too much info about his life, can please anyone help? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See note above, the focus of the article is not the main concern, it's about the copyviols. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC).


 * BillZ, you're being unusually obtuse (or I'm being extra dense!), because I'm just not getting it. Could you email me if there's more you don't want to mention in the open? (Use the Wiki-email feature, as I'm not sure you have my new address.) DPdH, I agree the article should be focused nmore on the man than the company. I'll look at it once BillZ is done here, but he's a good writer, so I doubt there'll be much for me to do. :) - BillCJ (talk) 05:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Military Service
I've changed the text to reflect him joining the Navy as opposed to the Marine Corps. I understand that the Marines are sometimes viewed as part of the Navy, but all sources I've read indicate he joined the Navy (not the Marines) anyway. Swirbul was apparently a Marine, which may be a cause for confusion about this. We may never be 100% clear on this point 90 years later, but the sources do say Navy. Frank |  talk  16:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently he left to join the Marines and then transfered to the U.S. Naval Reserve, not the active service before he began his training, at least according to the sources that I have. One of the problems is that historical errors often get compounded as authors draw from other sources and if an error creeps in, then it is repeated. Let me get back to you as to the exact nature of his early military service. An "invisible" is in there for now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Meanwhile, the source I referenced does say the Navy, where there was no reference for it before. It does not seem good faith to summarily remove properly sourced information.
 * Also, please do not reference individual editors in articles (even in comments) or in edit summaries. This is a collaborative effort among thousands to millions of editors, not one or two people. I have no personal ownership interest in this (or any) article. Thanks! Frank  |  talk  16:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have changed it back again, this time with two sources. Let's avoid an edit war by achieving consensus before any further change to which service he joined. I'm not against changes, but I am definitely against changes which aren't reflected by the sources. I guess it is conceivable he joined one branch and then transferred, but since no source I have access to says so, and two sources specifically say he joined the Naval Reserve, for the moment that seems convincing. I realize there may be other sources that say otherwise. I would caution against the Skurla/Gregory book, however, as it is an insider memoir more than a biography, and it is about the company more than about the man. Frank  |  talk  16:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? (Canadianism, here), the information was retained in the article, and in finding two or more secondary sources that will agree, then the change can easily be reverted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

The refs I found to indicate Naval Reserve do not list a year. One (a third not currently cited) lists that he started his career in aviation in 1918 with the Navy but that doesn't indicate when (or which service) he joined. Anyone have a citation for 1917 for Grumman? Swirbul is listed as having left Cornell in 1917 to join the Marines, but I don't see a year for Grumman. Frank |  talk  16:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The date was to correlate with the U.S. entry into World War I, but as I indicated earlier, I am trying to find some refs to support it. As an aside, to reiterate earlier comments, I am being overly sensitive to any BRD issues, and am endeavouring (another Canadianism here) to be as circumspect as possible. (BTW, I do know J personally, and that was a short cut "hi" message, he does cover my back alot (LOL)) Bzuk (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Richard Thruelsen in The Grumman Story (1976) has a chapter about Leroy Grumman's early life and has some interesting information concerning his initial rejection by an examining board when he applied for flight training. He also details his post-World War I career. Some revisions were made to article to reflect that information. FWiW, Thurlesen is the source for many subsequent journalists, as he has a very thorough account that is backed up by exhaustive research. Bzuk (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC).
 * ...which says he joined which service? Frank  |  talk  00:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Most sources say U.S. Naval Reserve, Thruelsen says U.S. Navy; I went with the majority... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC).
 * I am going to reverse myself here as Thruelsen is by far the most authoritative source on Grumman. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Like a flag in the wind, I found a new reliable source and he states U.S. Naval Reserve, I've changed the statement back. (Treadwell 1990, p. 19) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC).

High school graduation
He is reported to have graduated in 1911 in numerous sources, some available easily but not listed in the article, such as http://town.huntington.ny.us/permit_pics/213.pdf and http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/people/grumman.html. Other sources are in the article but not available online and support the 1911 graduation date. The "Sky King" reference (listed in the article) also says it: "In 1911, at age 16, Grumman said in his high school salutatorian address..." Frank |  talk  00:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Might have a been a typo on my part. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

Pruning
The section on the company is now longer and far more detailed than the main article, where the information more properly belongs. This is an article about the man. I am going to significantly prune this section, covering only the highlights, and move it to the Grumman article in the next day or two. Frank |  talk  12:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with that as each entry made was related back to how Grumman was involved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC).


 * Perhaps it would be more useful for the project if we came to a consensus on this, rather than you stating that you don't agree outright. Here's an example, just the first paragraph:


 * Grumman mortgaged his house for $16,950 and Swirbul's mother borrowed $6,000 from her employers to help set up Grumman Aeronautical Engineering Co.[12] The co-founders were soon joined by Ed Poor, Loening's business manager and E. Clinton Towl, who had recently come from Wall Street. These five men would form the company's inner circle of management for the next 50 years. Grover and his brother, Albert P. Loening, also became investors. The company was named after its largest stockholder and first president.


 * That paragraph can much more properly be written (for this article) as:


 * Grumman mortgaged his house for $16,950 and with other investors, including Swirbul, set up Grumman Aeronautical Engineering Co, named after him because he was its largest stockholder and first president.


 * Since this article is about the man, not the company, there's no need for so much detail here. Furthermore, although it's a separate issue, that level of detail is missing from the Grumman article, where it definitely belongs. Frank  |  talk  14:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * True enough but the fact that Grover Loening and his brother is listed is important. It became an article of faith that his employer was on board as a stockholder, giving the fledgling company a de facto approval. Behind the scenes, Grover and Albert actually allowed Sirbul and Grumman to actively recruit Loening employees. Grumman was careful to go this route because he did not want to seem to be responsible for the demise of Loening's enterprise, in fact, he was literally carrying it on, with Lowing behind him. The reason to name the next two business managers is that the five men then formed the board that essentially ran Grumman Aerospace for the next 50 years.

How about this edit: "Grumman mortgaged his house for $16,950 and with Swirbul's $6,000 set up Grumman Aeronautical Engineering Co. The co-founders along with Ed Poor, Loening's business manager and E. Clinton Towl would form the company's inner circle of management for the next 50 years. Grumman received investment support from Grover and his brother, Albert P. Loening. The company was named after its largest stockholder and first president." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC).


 * That would be a nice addition to the Grumman article. This article, however, is about Leroy, and we simply don't need all that here. Frank  |  talk  16:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was Grumman's initiative to start the company, his pairing with Swirbul, and his work with the former owners that begins the enterprise. See other articles: Amelia Earhart, Charles Lindbergh for similar treatments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC).
 * I don't see the connection. Did either of them form a notable company that is extensively covered in the article about the person?
 * Both of these individuals were notable aviation figures and had a considerable impact on the world stage much like Leroy Grumman achieved. Each of their biographical articles are exhaustive and contain considerable detail. Designers and industrialists such as Grumman, Geoffrey de Havilland, Willy Messerschmitt, Edgar Percival or any other pioneering aviators have received similar treatment. I am perfectly aware that the topic should be predominately about the life story of Leroy Grumman but when he and his company were closely connected not only in the public's mind but also that for most of his lifespan, as the embodiment of the company by instilling his own values and philosophy. I have re-read the passages that were recently added and in each section, a very carefully structured connection was made back to Grumman. I have no problem in some re-writing as it is a very different article now than when it first was created. However, there is now a wealth of information that is included about Grumman that if the above proposed edit indicates the new direction, looses the narrative arc that was developed. For example, the reader knows that Grumman and Swirbul began the company as co-founders, mortgaged their futures to the new company, were part of a small core of managers that had a 50-year controlling interest, whereas the edit indicates that Swirbul was an investor, not that he and Grumman were the driving force behind the company, that Grumman became president because of his stockholding, but not that the Loening brothers backed the operation, essentially giving it the mandate needed for the company to be created from the remainder of the Loening business. Swirbul was tasked to go about the country buying up wrecked Loening amphibians because Grumman had the foresight to  put in place a plan to "put food on the table" as one historian described it. Grumman and Swirbul used reclaimed metal from abandoned projects such as railway bridges to keep the company going when the pair could not afford to buy iron or steel. These actions are a reflection of the man as much as it is an account of the company. FWiW, the Grumman company article can surely gain from having some of this history but at this point, I don't see the value of taking apart all that has been developed. Bzuk (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason to keep the extra info in this article. It is about the person, not the company. The excruciating details belong in the company article, not here. Furthermore, Grumman himself was president for 16 or 17 years; the idea that others were part of an inner core for 50 years belongs with those others. It is important to remember that we are not writing a book here. We are writing an encyclopedic article. Frank  |  talk  00:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not put an edit version on this page rather than the constant reverting. We can then work on that or on a sandbox page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC).
 * A sensible idea. Will do. Frank  |  talk  01:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization
Regarding Grumman's position in the military, he was a machinist's mate, not a Machinist's Mate. If we were writing a narrative, we might write something such as "Machinist's Mate (2nd Class) Leroy Grumman was ...." However, when writing that it was his job title, it is not capitalized. By a similar convention, John McCain is a senator; he is also Senator John McCain. Please see WP:MOSCAP for more details, especially Military terms and Titles. Frank |  talk  14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thnx. Bzuk (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Long Islander of the Century
It sounds perfectly plausible that Grumman was named "Long Islander of the Century" by Newsday as has been claimed occurred in 2001. However, I've done a pretty extensive search of Newsday's archives in a university library's online database and cannot find any way to cite this from a reliable source. The reference I just removed, from the Long Island Business News did not actually cite the source in Newsday, so it's hearsay and not reliable.

I'm not saying it never happened; I'm just saying it can't be properly sourced. If we can find a good source for it, it's worth putting back in, but at the moment, I don't think it's appropriate. (In addition, if we do find a source, we don't need the bit about "beating out such luminaries as Charles Lindberg" - this is WP:PEACOCK wording that is not appropriate. I'm just making that note in advance because I do think we might get a proper reference for it; I just haven't found it myself.) Frank  |  talk  00:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See:Thomas J. Kelly and the Cambridge University entry on Leroy Grumman. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC).


 * I don't mean to be flippant here, but...see WP:RS. This shouldn't be hard to nail down if Newsday really had such a poll; I even tried again and couldn't find it. Frank  |  talk  01:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the normal recourse simply to mark the section as needing a citation instead of reverting? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Did that at first, but after days of exhaustive searching on the man, I haven't been able to find anything approaching reliable to support it. If it seems likely it just needs a cite, it's ok to leave it in. If nothing supports it, it's best to leave it out. We are, after all, looked at as a resource, and verifiability is included in the first of the five pillars. Frank  |  talk  01:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A number of different sources did refer to the honour, so it's not that it came out of supposition... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As you pointed out above, "Thurlesen is the source for many subsequent journalists" - which actually, in my mind, leads to transcribing errors over time. By the same token, somebody once said he was given this honor, and attributed it to Newsday, but...Newsday itself can't be used as a verification of the information. I'm not saying that it came out of supposition...just that it can't be properly attributed. It may well be true, but we must keep in mind that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Frank |  talk  01:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep looking, Newsday is likely to have a searchable index somewhere. All you (or I, since we seem to be the only ones interested in this article?!) need is a date and source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC).
 * I've already searched four...Newsday's own web site plus three databases: NewsBank, LexisNexis and Ebscohost. Frank  |  talk  02:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think that it is verifiable. I do have a note that Leroy Grumman is enshrined in the Long Island Technology Hall of Fame, inducted in 2002, which is in an online source and probably as prestigious an honour. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC).
 * I think it should be verifiable, but so far I've been unable to do so and nobody else has provided a reliable source either. He has won (and 26 years after his death, continues to win) numerous awards, so I don't doubt that it is possible he won this poll. We just need a reference from a reliable source. Frank  |  talk  17:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * At the risk of actually doing research, I did find the reference for the Long Islander of the Century that was part of a centennial project run by the "marketing" department of Newsday. The weekend supplements featuring selected historical personalities including Leroy Grumman whose biographical article appeared first in the grouping, were published early in 2001 with the final "poll" results appearing in the February 2001 weekend supplement. Due to the restricted nature of having only a few candidates, Grumman ran against Charles Lindbergh and Thomas J. Kelly, who was responsible for the design of NASA's Lunar module, the marketing/advertising manager characterized the poll as a "glamour run-off" which far from being scientific. The reason why the supplement was not archived was that it was considered more of an "adeditorial" as is much of the newspaper's advertising supplement. When other sources began to quote the results of the poll, Newsday staff were quick to point out that the poll was neither definitive nor intended to be anything other than a "puff piece." Considering all of that, Grumman's 2002 induction into the Long Island Technology Hall of Fame is much more significant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure what "at the risk of actually doing research" means, but the end result, I think, is that the information is inappropriate in the article. It would be nice to have citations to support it not being in the article for future reference, such as a link to Newsday staff pointing out that it was an advertising supplement. In any case, I think we've arrived at the right place regarding this particular point. Frank  |  talk  22:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that talking to Newsday staff constitutes first-person research as I couldn't get a handle on the information any other way. FWiW, I was hoping that I would merely get a pointer to where the information was located but finding out that the reason the supplement was never archived even in the publishing house library was due to the newspaper considering the poll of limited value.  Bzuk (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC).
 * That's reasonable, and I'll assume you meant nothing unintended by the "at the risk of actually doing research" comment. Thanks for wrapping this one up. Frank  |  talk  02:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Working style
Although the article alludes to the company culture, it can be attributed to the unusual pairing of Swirbul and Grumman. They resolved early in their partnership to work out of one office; both men further pledged that any problems or conflicts that arose between them would not fester, and that neither man would leave the office until they came to an understanding. That conflict resolution model worked wonders on their relationship and was translated directly into the company's employees. During his entire tenure, Grumman's "boys" remained loyal and steadfast. It was the only aeronautical company throughout the mid-20th Century that maintained its workforce in numbers that were twice that of the industry standard. When Grumman asked employees to fill in a request to leave for other prospects in the weeks before VJ Day, only 126 employees out of 20,500 indicated that they wanted to leave their employ. See: O'Leary (1983), p. 29. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC).
 * An excellent point to be made in the Grumman article. Frank  |  talk  03:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and a point made about Grumman's personal working style... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leroy Grumman. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229194814/http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AWARDS_aero_eng to http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AWARDS_aero_eng
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822015332/http://www.grummanpark.org/runway1.htm to http://www.grummanpark.org/runway1.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Leroy Grumman. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071119103632/http://nationalaviation.blade6.donet.com/components/content_manager_v02/view_nahf/htdocs/menu_ps.asp?NodeId=1460199960&Group_ID=1134656385&Parent_ID=-1 to http://nationalaviation.blade6.donet.com/components/content_manager_v02/view_nahf/htdocs/menu_ps.asp?NodeID=1460199960&group_ID=1134656385&Parent_ID=-1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820070358/http://techisland.org/inductees.asp to http://techisland.org/inductees.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501131850/http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/people/grumman.html to http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/people/grumman.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)