Talk:Benjamin Banneker/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Relevant information deleted?

I suspect _someone_ vandalized this page. NONE of Banneker's accomplishments or contributions are listed here. The entire page is devoted to "debunking" his "myth." Someone please correct this. -- R. Robinson

I agree. I was hoping to encourage my High School Social Studies students to use Wikipedia for their research of Benjamin Banneker but after reading the documentation provided I don't think it contains enough relevant information. -- L. Summerville —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.138.78 (talk) 03:30, February 4, 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. This article demonstrates the complete worthlessness of Wikipedia and their ridiculous "business model." Move on, nothing to see here people. --W.Blount 10/15/09—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.223.204 (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The page reports Benjamin Banneker's documented accomplishments as an astronomer, mathematician, surveyor and almanac author. The page also reports and documents the myths, legends and inaccurate information that various books and websites have described. As needed for all Wikipedia pages, readers should check the references that support each statement on the page before drawing conclusions such as those above. Corker1 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The page can pretend to report all it wants, there is so much rubbish that is either made up or unsupported that the value of any information contained here is zilch. The "Jefferson Letter" that is referenced in this article DOES NOT EXIST, the writer of that comment made it up. What is the value of wiki if people just make stuff up and wiki refuses to address these issues dispite being alerted a number of times over an extended period. Wiki is great for people who are into conspiracy theories and playing with the Michigan Militia on the weekends. Thank god there are real reputable sources on the Internet. - wsb 12/08/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.157.151 (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The page references two letters by Thomas Jefferson. The authenticity of each letter is verifiable, as the source for each is referenced and linked in the article. To see images of the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Banneker on August 30, 1791, as printed and published in 1792, access the following web pages: http://etext.virginia.edu/readex/banlet11.jpg and http://etext.virginia.edu/readex/banlet12.jpg in official website of University of Virginia Library. (Retrieved 2009-12-14.) To see an image of the same letter as Jefferson wrote it by hand, access the following web page: http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/special/banneker-benjamin.html#bannekerletter . (Retrieved 2009-12-14.)

A source for the letter that Jefferson wrote to Joel Barlow in 1809 concerning his opinion of Banneker is: Jefferson, Thomas (October 8, 1809). "To Joel Barlow". In Washington, H.A., ed. (1853). The Writings of Thomas Jefferson; being his Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private. Published by the order of the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library, from the original manuscripts, deposited in the Department of State. Vol. 5. Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Maury. pp. 475–476. In "Google Books". Retrieved 2010-08-27.Corker1 (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Corker1 (talk) Corker1 (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You're the one peddling conspiracy theories here, 24.90.157.51 -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I think what happens is groups of bigots or individual ones, purposefully edit articles to reflect racist, sexist, positions. Some also block (I've been blocked many times) for trying to correct articles that have racist, sexist, etc tones. There is a white-washing of articles. It's really pathetic that truth cannot shine and contrary to the founder of WIkipedia's vision, what's happening is Wikipedia is being used to spread racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.I agree. I think what happens is groups of bigots or individual ones, purposefully edit articles to reflect racist, sexist, positions. Some also block (I've been blocked many times) for trying to correct articles that have racist, sexist, etc tones. There is a white-washing of articles. It's really pathetic that truth cannot shine and contrary to the founder of WIkipedia's vision, what's happening is Wikipedia is being used to spread racism, sexism, bigotry, etc. I bet you if you follow the supposed unbiased edits of some of the anti-Benjamin editors here, you'll see a consistent pattern that they edit out the accomplishments of Africans, African-Americans, etc. I also bet you they support either the Confederate American ideals (pro slavery) or at the least they may support the traditional modern American view (blacks are ok as long as they are not telling the truth about slavery, racism. In other words: passive black history devoid of the lynchings, rape, abuse, that black Americans faced. And there seems to be no worker in Wikipedia that officially tracks this type of bigotry and blocks such bigots.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.19.224 (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Nearly half of this WikiPedia entry is devoted to convincing the reader that Bannaker's achievements amount to a "feel good" mythology and are not to be taken seriously. No doubt the of the same racists who try to belittle ANY any accomplished black person. I see it all over WikiPedia. They even tried to convince people Charles Drew wasn't black. Screw these racists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.60.113 (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Which Banneker "myth" do you think is true? Corker1 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to be careful with Wikipedia. I hate to say it but there are a few racists on here doing the same thing they did to blacks years ago. Altering history or, outright destroying it altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"The trouble with people is not that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so." --Josh Billings, American humorist born Henry Wheeler Shaw (1818–1885). Benjamin Banneker reports Banneker's documented accomplishments as an astronomer, mathematician, surveyor and almanac author. The article also reports and documents the myths, legends and inaccurate information that various books and websites have described. As needed for all Wikipedia articles, people should read the references that support each statement in the Benjamin Banneker article before making statements such as those that 66.130.189.213 made. Corker1 (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Corker1, will you be adding material from the published work "Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist" to Einstein's Wikipedia entry? It doesn't seem to have a section exclusively devoted to slandering Einstein or belittling his accomplishments, but instead focuses on factual and cited information about him, ignoring that which isn't. 173.2.69.205 (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This comment about Einstein was just linked in a 4 Jan 2021 article in Wired that criticizes Mythology of Benjamin Banneker. It should be mentioned that Wikipedia actually does have a topically similar Einstein article, relativity priority dispute, and that like Banneker, Einstein is in fact over-credited for some of his accomplishments (in special relativity), but the article on priority disputes seems fair and gives many points of view without excessive detail.

I may have indirectly contributed to the attention from Wired, by complaining about the length and POV of the other article at its talk page, but where scholarly or public disputes about mythology exist then covering them is fine, the problem in this case is creating a giant treatise from a very narrow subject. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Day's letter

User:Drmies has deleted the following text from the section of Benjamin Banneker entitled "Correspondence with Thomas Jefferson":

An English abolitionist, Thomas Day, had earlier written in a 1776 letter that a London printer had published in 1784:

.... you dare to call yourselves the masters of wretches whom you have acquired by fraud, and retain by violence! ....
If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves. ....
There can be no prescription pleaded against truth and justice; and the continuance of the evil is so far from justifying, that it is an exageration of the crime.

User:Drmies did not discuss the above deletion on this Talk page. Instead, User:Drmies explained the deletion by stating: "what is this? Why is this in here? Has nothing to do with Banneker: no need to make as if Banneker needed a model".

The cited excerpts from Thomas Day's 1776 letter are relevant to Banneker's 1791 letter to Jefferson and to Jefferson's 1809 letter to Joel Barlow. The section entitled "Correspondence with Thomas Jefferson" states that Jefferson's 1809 letter to Barlow expressed a different opinion of Banneker than did Jefferson's 1791 letters to Banneker and to the Marquis de Condorcet.

Thomas Day's 1776 letter, which a London printer published in 1784, contained words and phrases that were similar or identical to those in Banneker's later letter. Those words and phrases include:

(1) Day's letter: "you dare to call yourselves the masters of wretches whom you have acquired by fraud, and retain by violence! ".
Banneker's letter: "in detaining by fraud and violence so numerous a part of my brethren".

(2) Day's letter: "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves. "
Banneker's letter: Reference to the Declaration of Independence, which Jefferson had drafted. The first paragraph in the section entitled "Correspondence with Thomas Jefferson" describes that reference.

(3) Day's letter: " There can be no prescription pleaded against truth and justice; and the continuance of the evil is so far from justifying, that it is an exageration of the crime. "
Banneker's letter: "that you should at the Same time be found guilty of that most criminal act, which you professedly detested in others, with respect to your Selves."

The section entitled "Correspondence with Thomas Jefferson" should therefore contain the language in Day's letter. The similarities between Day's and Banneker's letters are too great to be disregarded. The similarities may be relevant to Jefferson's 1809 letter to Joel Barlow, which stated: "I have a long letter from Banneker which shews him to have had a mind of very common stature indeed."

I am therefore restoring to the section entitled "Correspondence with Thomas Jefferson" the text that User:Drmies deleted. Corker1 (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• And I am reverting you since "contained words and phrases that were similar or identical to those in Banneker's later letter" is your own conclusion: it is original research. There are tons of people who made similar comments; no rationale is offered for why Day's letter is included. Even if a secondary source noted what you note here, it would be undue to have Day's letter take up as much space as Banneker's letter--and one can't help but wonder why a white man's letter needs to accompany a black man's letter. Surely the days are over when white abolitionists had to verify the very prose of a black man.

  One more thing, Corker1: please be a bit more economical. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I have independently removed this restored reference to Thomas Day for exactly the same reason: original research / improper synthesis. Fences&Windows 12:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Apart from OR/SYNTH, the Day and Banneker letters don't resemble each other enough in style or content to assume there is any relation between the two. Also, if this level of detailed searching for precursors were done in other bios there would be quite a lot of credit in need of removing. Banneker should be held to the same standard as everyone else, not get a special investigative committee. That other people did similar things earlier is sometimes relevant and important, but does not make the ideas about Banneker mythological. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Let's discuss the issue here before resorting to an RfC

My point is pretty straightforward: the article does not refer to negationism, so linking to that page when talking about A substantial mythology exaggerating Banneker's accomplishments misleads the reader. In particular, negationism is typically associated with pernicious forms of revisionism, and characterizing the mythology of Banneker in this way may be read as tendentious. See also WP:SURPRISE. Generalrelative (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Negationism is "falsification or distortion of the historical record" and the article says "exaggerating Banneker's accomplishments." How can one exaggerate his historical accomplishments without distorting the historical record? How is it possible to do one without always doing the other? The article defines a textbook example of negationism. I agree negationism is generally used to deny atrocities and thus use here may violate a ejusdem generis analysis, but the actual definition of negationism pretty clearly applies here. Obviously, no one believes those who falsify history to overemphasize Benjamin's achievements have insidious intentions, but it's fair to point out that what he actually did and said was extraordinarily impressive but that those who try to make him a deity (like those who glorify the founding fathers) are wrong. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) I was summoned to the (now closed) RFC. Having, admittedly only a superficial understanding of the topic, I have to agree with Generalrelative's point. Unless significant RS introduce the topic of negationism iro Banneker, it's tendentious editorialising and WP:OR for WP to introduce the topic, or link to it to imply 'falseness'. We would only link to explain and expand a term used by a source about the subject - or a fairly close synonym. A greater or lesser degree of mythologising and/or demonising and/or whitewashing is normal for popularly known historical figures, only the most extreme cases tend to be called 'negationism', since the term implies intentional falsification. Working from a definition of negationism to prove that coverage of anyone was/wasn't negationist just isn't what WP does.Pincrete (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't believe saying something that is "exaggerated history" is in fact "falsified history" is original research. The article say people have exaggerated history about this person. Exaggerated history cannot be real history and thus must be falsified history. Falsfied history and negationism is the same thing. So if A equals B and B equals C then A must equal C. That's not original research. What do you mean by "RS" and "iro"? As for the tendentious editorializing, I don't get how saying exaggerated history is in fact false history is tendentious or editorializing, it's just a fact. Can you give an example of an exaggerated history that is entirely true or otherwise not falsified history? Multiple sources agree there have been exaggerations about this historical figure and I am claiming those exaggerations are always negationism unless you can cite one historical example that is "grossly exaggerated" and "not falsified in the slightest". To reiterate, my view is negationism and exaggerated history are the same things because exaggerated history is always false history and falsified history is negationism. Certain historical figures are glorified and demonized, but that's not the argument here. The argument here is there is a bunch of historical statements about this individual that is contrary to reality, and such statements perfectly comply with the definition of negationism. You said negationism is extreme and requires intentionality and that's your strongest argument yet (since I conceded earlier I don't believe the people who exaggerate this American hero's [Benjamin] accomplishments are insidious like people who deny atrocities), do you have a definition that can substantiate that? If so, I'll concede my entire argument. I am not accusing anyone of negationism, the article concretely affirms people are negationists as long as it says that people exaggerate (i.e falsify) history about this guy. That one sentence is already a charge of negationism unless you can prove they are exaggerating history, but all the exaggerations are historically correct and not falsified. Since mutual exclusivity clearly applies here, I think the best response is proving negationism is extremism and intentionality. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Should an example of historical negationism have a link to a Wikipedia page explaining historical negationism?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was to discuss the issue before starting an RFC. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

---

There appears to be a dispute on whether we should include a link to negationism when describing negationism on this page. Do you support including a link to the Wikipedia page on historical revision so viewers can have better clarity on what historical exaggeration better entails? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support This is the norm for Wikipedia articles where if we describe a phenomenon we give a link explaining that phenomenon for better clarity. Countless pages do this and there is no reason not to do it here. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This is wildly premature. Please refer to WP:RFCBEFORE. That said, I'd be happy to discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: What are your arguments against the wikilink to describe what the article is saying happens? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2023

The parents last name is Banneky it should be Banneker. 2605:59C8:14F5:A200:B1CC:5B45:6BC7:449E (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Not done. The mother's name is given as "Banneky" in both cited sources. People sometimes changed the spelling of their names from generation to generation back then, which is what I think is going on here. Generalrelative (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)