Talk:Benjamin Banneker

Reference 50

Bob Arnebeck's Web Page(s) <-- Um, So we're just using average peoples web pages for sources now? Can we PLEASE have a duplicate of these letters from (preferentially) a Government archive? --There is no source to these documents on the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Bob Arnebeck's Web Page contains a quotation from an 1809 letter that Thomas Jefferson sent to Joel Barlow that expressed Jefferson's opinion of Banneker's intelligence. In response to the comment that 66.130.189.213 made, I have replaced the link to Bob Arnebeck's Web Page in reference 50 of Benjamin Banneker with a link to an online copy of an 1853 book that contains a complete copy of that letter. The book contains copies of documents from a U.S. Department of State archive. In further response to the comment that 66.130.189.213 made, I note that Bob Arnebeck is the author of the following book, which the first entry in the "References" section of the Benjamin Banneker article identifies: Arnebeck, Bob (1991). Through a Fiery Trial: Building Washington, 1790-1800. Lanham, Maryland: Madison Books. Distributed by National Book Network. ISBN 0-8191-7832-2. Information in "Bob Arnebeck’s Web Pages" further demonstrates that Mr. Arnebeck has extensive knowledge of the history of Washington, D.C. and therefore is not an "average" person. I also note that "Bob Arnebeck’s Web Pages" provides his e-mail address. This address permits readers of his website to contact him to if they wish to further verify the accuracy and sources of information that his Web Pages describe or quote. Corker1 (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson Slavery

Banneker's letter did not offer any evidence to support this allegation <-- Are you kidding? No evidence to support that Jefferson owned slaves and obtaining them through violence (whether or not he was a first party) and maintaining them as slaves by coercion?

I mean are you people f'en kidding me? no evidence to support this allegation? wtf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The article states that, in his August 19, 1791, letter to Thomas Jefferson:

"Banneker accused Jefferson of criminally using fraud and violence to oppress his slaves by stating:

…Sir, how pitiable is it to reflect, that although you were so fully convinced of the benevolence of the Father of Mankind, and of his equal and impartial distribution of these rights and privileges, which he hath conferred upon them, that you should at the same time counteract his mercies, in detaining by fraud and violence so numerous a part of my brethren, under groaning captivity and cruel oppression, that you should at the same time be found guilty of that most criminal act, which you professedly detested in others, with respect to yourselves.

"Banneker's letter did not offer any evidence to support this allegation."

I agree with you, but many of the editors, etc on Wikipedia allow their racist and ignorant philosophies to impact their postings, edits, etc. (Not the ones here but other close-minded editors) I often get blocked by them for trying to correct their errors, and racism.Sometimes, however, it's pure ignorance, but due to "cognitive dissonance" rather than do research to clarify the matter, they remain close-minded in their position. For humanity to evolve harmoniously, many more humans must be willing to admit when they are wrong and/or at least be open to hearing the opposing side and viewing the evidence. My IP address is: 172.56.19.224

Wtf (66.130.189.213) implies that Jefferson "obtained" his slaves by violence and maintained them by coercion. (Banneker's letter actually accused Jefferson of "detaining" (not "obtaining") his slaves by violence.) It is irrelevant (and perhaps unknowable) as to whether such implications are correct or not. The facts are that slavery was legal in Virginia, that Banneker did not support his allegations with evidence, that Jefferson had legal training, and that lawyers are trained to recognize the importance of evidence. Corker1 (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Banneker didn't have to support his "allegations" with evidence in a letter to Jefferson -- they were facts known to Jefferson. Your whole framework is racist to the core. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Jefferson letters

Citation for the Jefferson quote? BulldogPete

I have the Library of America Edition, Jefferson - Writings. 1,517 pages of his writings and personal letters. The quoted letter to Joel Barlow was not present, and I think is most likely fictional.

The authenticity of Thomas Jefferson's 1809 letter to Joel Barlow, in which Jefferson expressed his opinion of Banneker, is verifiable, as the letter's source is referenced and linked in the article. Corker1 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Corker1 (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Nuanced" letter? It is in no way nuanced, but is rather direct. R. H. Ralls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.226.79 (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

For a discussion of some of the apparent nuances in Jefferson's reply to Banneker's letter, see: "A Great Man, but Flawed". The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company, Washington, D.C.] 1992-10-31. p. A.21. Retrieved 2010-05-17. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Corker1 (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a letter to the editor, hardly a discussion, and it says nothing at all about any “nuance”. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Jefferson's letter to Banneker is indeed nuanced, although some readers may not recognize this. The "letter to the editor" in Benjamin Banneker that User:Drmies described above, is actually an OP/ED article, which the cited reference only partially shows. The first paragraph of the OP/ED article states: Harold E. Wefald's defense of Thomas Jefferson's racial views {"Don't Knock Thomas Jefferson," Free for All, Oct. 24} goes too far. Wefald writes that when Jefferson received a letter and almanac from Benjamin Banneker, Jefferson was "honest enough to change his position." Jefferson did not say that he had changed his opinion of the intellectual abilities of blacks. In his letter to Banneker, Aug. 30, 1791, Jefferson merely said: "No body wishes more than I do to see such proofs as you exhibit, that nature has given to our black brethren, talents equal to those of the other colors of men, and that the appearance of a want of them is owing merely to the degraded condition of their existence, both in Africa & America." Closely read, Jefferson's letter is only an indication that he "wishes to see such proofs," but there is no definite indication that he changed his mind. On Banneker's abilities Jefferson was ambivalent.

Further, an article also cited in Benjamin Banneker (which User:Drmies did not cite) states: "Banneker sent a manuscript copy of his work to Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson along with a plea against the continuance of black slavery and received a courteous, if evasive, reply."

Additionally, a note below a copy of Jefferson's letter on the website of the Library of Congress states: " In a polite response to Banneker's August 1791 letter, Jefferson expressed his ambivalent feelings about slavery and assured the surveyor that "no body wishes more ardently to see a good system commenced for raising the condition" of blacks "to what it ought to be.".

Also, a 1999 article in the Baltimore Sun that described Banneker's correspondence with Banneker stated: "Jefferson replied promptly and politely -- but ambiguously on the subject of slavery:"

The above references describe Jefferson's response to Banneker's letter as:
"Closely read, Jefferson's letter is only an indication that he "wishes to see such proofs", but there is no definite indication that he changed his mind.",
"courteous, if evasive",
"polite",
"ambivalent",
"politely --- but ambiquously", and,
"polite but vague".
While Benjamin Banneker could use any of those words or terms, the word "nuanced" concisely summarizes these.

I am therefore restoring to Benjamin Banneker the word "nuanced", which User:Drmies removed. I am also adding to Benjamin Banneker more complete quotes from the references than the article previously contained. I am further adding to Benjamin Banneker the additional references that I have described above. Corker1 (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

"promptly", "politely", "courteous", etc. none of that adds up to "nuanced", at least not in regular American English. You'll have to do better than this OR, Corker1. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

References

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)

Clocks

Some say his clock was the first all-American[1] but David Rittenhouse may have beaten him to it.[2] Kwantus 19:05, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

At age 22, in the mid-1750s, Banneker created the first all-American-made wood clock of this colonial region. --Da Stressor 15:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are still textbooks, kid's books etc. that have BB as MAKING THE FIRST CLOCK. He did invent the first clock by an African-American.

But the pocketwatch he studied at age 21 to make his wooden clock would not have been owned by the Andrew Ellicot linked in the article - check the dates of birth. We need to find out whose watch it really was or remove naming entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.190.117 (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The clock mechanisms were all made of metal in Europe during the time in question. Banneker made his mechanism ENTIRELY from wood. The first African-American Man of Science" ISBN 0-938420-63-1.

As stated in the article, wooden clocks were apparently constructed in America in 1715, and were in commercial production there by 1745, eight years before Banneker completed his own clock. Corker1 (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Benjamin Banneker was fascinated with his friend's (Josef Levi) watch. He then took the watch apart and from this he was then able to carve a similar watch out of wood.Ghhinerm (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

References

The reference (a web page) that Ghhinerm cited above does not contain any citations that enable readers to determine the source of the website's information. A "correction" on the web page states: "There is no record of a Josef Levi connected to the watch Banneker "borrowed." and used to design his wooden clock."

The statements that suggest that Joseph Levi was a friend of Banneker and provided a watch to Banneker therefore lack a reliable source. Corker1 (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Ellicott

Wrong Andrew Ellicott cited (too young to have participated in events listed by date.) Probably could be this A.Ellicott: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Ellicott_%281733_-_1809%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.190.117 (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The article cites the correct Andrew Ellicott (the nephew, not the uncle). The nephew (Major Andrew Ellicott), who was a surveyor, lived from 1754 to 1820 (See Andrew Ellicott). The survey of the boundaries of the future District of Columbia was the first event that the article cites in which Major Andrew Ellicott participated. That survey began in 1791, when Andrew Ellicott was 36 years old. Corker1 (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sally Hemings

"It would later be discovered that Jefferson himself perferred the company of one of his own slaves (Sally Hemings).

Maybe one of the most absurd statements ever made on wikipedia, and totally unnecessary here. It has never been proved the Jefferson "preferred the company" of Hemings, not that their "descendents survive today." Total rubbish. BulldogPete 02:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Bulldog you need to get out more. Not only is it accepted by the family, they are now having joint reunions and there's been a movie made on their relationship starring Nick Nolte. It's titled "Jefferson in Paris". Check it out. It's a good flick. There have also been extensive DNA studies performed.

Martha Jefferson died in 1782. Sally, who was born c. 1773, would have been no more than 14 or 15 when she went to France in 1787. Martha (née Wayles) was most likely Sally's half-sister.

Benjamin Bannker was an African American. His grandfather was an African slave, and his grandmother was a European. His father was African American, and his mother--although biracial or "half white"--she would have

Sounds like it came from a book designed to "empower" young black kids.

Reference proving BB was "one of the most famous" persons in Early America? I rather expect he was obscure at best.

One cannot be a presidential appointee in obscurity. Bulldog you will never be able to erase Bannekers accomplishments. This article wasn't designed to empower young black kids. Empowerment and self worth as well as knowledge of ones place in history is of course the outgrowth of this article. Slander as you will, you will never be able to remove from history that which actually occurred. You will never be able to unprint the almanacs or remove their record of existence. You will never be able to remove his name from the team that designed Wash D.C. You'll just have to live with it. Tom 06/09/06

There is no historical evidence that shows that Banneker was a presidential appointee or that he was on the team that designed Washington, D.C. Banneker served as an assistant to Andrew Ellicott on the survey of the original boundaries of the District of Columbia. That was his only documented activity that involved the District. See "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" section of article. Corker1 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Astrologer?

Was Banneker an astrologer? It seems that he was if he wrote almanacs (e.g., Ben Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac, filled with astrological lore) and compiled ephemeri, because both are used in astrological prediction or in constructing astrological charts or natal charts. Astrology and astronomy were very much one and the same during Banneker's day, so it seems that he was an astrologer as well as an astronomer. There is also some info that suggests that Washington DC was planned with certain astrological principles in mind (according to some sources), and Banneker helped with the layout of DC, as is well known. I'll do some research and possibly add this information in soon. --172.147.89.38 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Banneker did not help with the layout of DC. See "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" section of article. Corker1 (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of copyright violation

On Nov. 10, User:Theduce91 replaced most of the text of this article with a cut-and paste from a copyrighted site, http://www dot notablebiographies dot com/Ba-Be/Banneker-Benjamin.html, in this edit. They even included "Reproduced by permission of Fisk University Library" for an image that wasn't actually there.

I realize that a lot of work has been done to wikify and edit this material, but the only way I could see to get rid of the copyright violation was to restore the old version of those sections. I didn't revert the park and memorial section or anything after it, since those weren't part of the cut-and-paste. —Celithemis 05:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

grahams?

"Benjamin Banneker's mother was Mary Bannaky (1710–?). Oral tradition states that her mother was a Caucasian named Molly Welsh, who was supposedly accused of stealing milk and grahams and sent from England to the colonies as punishment."

Do you mean...graham crackers? Zigzig20s 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to maker a similar point. We have only just got Graham crackers in the UK, we certaiinly didn't have them back then. So what do you mean? A type of biscuit? (cookie in US Eng) Bread? Grahams is a nonsense in the context of the article. 86.134.47.40 09:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

She was accused of stealing milk. "Grahams" is probably someone's idea of a joke that didn't get caught. —Celithemis 23:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean up of subtle vandalism

This article seems to attract vandalism... a lot of it is obvious, but some was quite subtle. I found quite a few factual inaccuracies (such as calling Andrew Ellicott a "lost traveling salesman") which I have removed. However, I am sure there is more that I have missed (I know the period well, but not Banneker's details in particular). The article needs to be completely checked for accuracy and subtle vandalism.Blueboar 18:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Banneke.jpg

Image:Banneke.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

mess.

I deleted the part that claimed the Frederick Douglas "who lived close by" edited the letter that BB wrote to thomas jefferson because BB died before Douglas was born. I'm going to include some of the info from the "about.com" page on BB to make this article more credible. maybe we can get the African American History expert from About.com to verify/fix the information in this article.

mess 2.0

I removed the statement that Molly Welsh was not the ancestor of Benjamin Banneker because this point is disputed by other genealogists who show that the daughter of Molly Welsh, Mary Welsh, was brought before Baltimore County court for having a Mulatto child. Please see Paul Heinegg's webpage: http://freeafricanamericans.com/Adams-Butler.htm for the Banneker Family, this information disputes the Genealogical Society's article and therefore this information should be removed as stated because it gives the impression that the Banneker's oral history is fabricated and therefore seems to be an attempt to discredit his significance to history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.150.73 (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Banneker mythology

There is a great deal of published literature and information on websites about Benjamin Banneker that is either undocumented by citations to original material or that is contradicted by well-documented information. For example, nobody can identify the person who made the first wooden or striking clock in America, as such information is unlikely to be recorded or retained through the years. It is therefore speculation to assume that Banneker made the first such clock.

As another example, it is clear that Banneker played no role in the planning and design of Washington, D.C., although he did perform astronomical observations while assisting in the first survey of the boundaries of the District of Columbia. (See "Benjamin Banneker Stories" for further information.)

I therefore revised the Benjamin Banneker article to remove material that was undocumented. I further created a section that documents some of the published and web-based "mythology" that serves to misrepresent and/or exaggerate Banneker's accomplishments. I consider it unfortuntate that public officials and others are still repeating this mythology, as Banneker's documented accomplishments appear sufficient to earn him a lasting place in history. Corker1 (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

But I also worry that we may be adding original research — banned, of course, by Wikipedia — to this article. Everything (including claims that the mythology is not or cannot be true) must be cited! And not to a customer review on Amazon. Scartol • Tok 17:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to add a section refuting all the BS about Leonardo Da Vinci in books like the Da Vinci Code, or claims like that he invented scissors, then go ahead. In the meantime, it doesn't appear to be standard wikipedia practice to add sections debasing the subject of the article. Instead, you simply list what is cited and factual. The desire to add these sections to articles about Banneker and people like George Washington Carver is odd and honestly, disturbing. The section should be removed in favor of simply leaving factual information about Banneker. 173.2.69.205 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The "Mythology and Legacy" section of Benjamin Banneker cites a number of publications and websites (including a Maryland Historical Society website) that either document and refute specific Banneker myths or note in general terms that many accounts of Banneker's life contain both documented and undocumented information. Published information about many other historical people and events also contain inaccuracies and exaggerations. However, the myths involving Benjamin Banneker are sufficiently prominent, numerous and well-documented that no biography of the man (including one in Wikipedia) can be complete without a discussion of these.Corker1 (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

References

'mythology' and 'legends'

I first tagged as needing citations and have now deleted the statements "All lack support by historical evidence. Some are contradicted by such evidence." If these statements aren't synth, then they can be verified by sources. Without citations, they violate neutral point of view, since not everyone agrees that, for instance, the clock has to be a fiction. And of course some of the doubts raised about Banneker's achievements are the products of unexamined racist assumptions that a black man in his day couldn't have done these things. That makes the issue of neutrality acute, and requires that the article not make such sweeping (and some would say, dismissive) statements in Wikipedia's voice without any attribution.

The statements are fine in the intro of the main article if they summarize the content of that article. This is a summary section, but articles should be independently verifiable, and if statements are challenged, then you do need to provide citations. You can't just say "I don't have to provide citations cuz I know this is true." The fact that I'm requesting citations as an experienced editor, or as just somebody passing by for that matter, is sufficient indication that the statements shouldn't be here unless they're attributed. The statements contradict presentations of Banneker on websites intended to be educational, and if they're setting the record straight, have a special obligation to provide the reader with sources without demanding that the reader, who may be a youngish student, pursue the topic to another article.

I would also submit that without citations, the statements are mere assertions, and add no information beyond the existing characterization of stories about Banneker's achievements as "mythology" and "legends"—which do have citations. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protection

I have requested temporary semi-protection (see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection) for this article because of frequent vandalism by anonymous IPs. This vandalism is currently increasing. Please comment if you so desire. (talk) Corker1 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to request: "Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected."

Bannekers father a dogon

Perhaps a member of the Dogon tribe (reputed to have a historical knowledge of astronomy), Banneka may have cleared Molly's land, solved irrigation problems, and implemented a crop rotation for her. Soon thereafter, Molly freed and married Banneka, who may have shared his knowledge of astronomy with her.[2]

What does the above information have to do with the article. It is pure unverifiable BS and there is no way to verify if any of it is true. I just dont see how information like this can be left in the article without some sort of warning that it is pure BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.172.16 (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Mathematician?

I'm not sure what definition of mathematician is being used here if the fact that he made 'mathematical calculations' in surveying and astronomy counts... could his mathematical achievements be mentioned (i.e., something he proved of note?). The references which use the term 'mathematician' don't seem to help, unless the word is being used in a sense which would make all physicists, programmers, surveyors, accountants and actuaries mathematicians by default. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.104.54 (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Banneker's journal contains mathematical puzzles that are unrelated to his work as a surveyor and astronomer. This appears sufficient to credit him as being a mathematician, as well as a surveyor and astronomer. See the following references, which the article cites: Fasanelli, Florence; Jagger, Graham; Lumpkin, Bea, and Mahony, John F., Corker1 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was able to find some examples of puzzles that where found in his journal.

"A gentleman sent his servant with 100 pounds to buy 100 cattle, with orders to give 5 pounds for each bullock, 20 shillings for cows, and one shilling for each sheep, the question is to know what number of each sort he brought to his master."Ghhinerm (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"Divide 60 into four Such parts, that the first being increased by 4, the Second decreased by 4, the third multiplied by 4, the fourth part divided by 4, that the Sum, the difference, the product, and the Quotient shall be one and the Same Number."Ghhinerm (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added a reference to the Notable works section of Benjamin Banneker that cites an article that contains six puzzles from one of Banneker's journals. The article contains the two puzzles that Ghhinerm listed. The same writer (John F. Mahoney) authored the article that Ghhinerm cited and the article that I cited. Corker1 (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Edit request from Abstractart, 30 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The editorializing in describing Banneker's letter to Jefferson, claiming that Banneker provided "no evidence" for his "charges" of Jefferson's criminality when dealing with his slaves, is unnecessary and tendentious. It is clear that Banneker is not specifically referring to Jefferson committing a crime against the laws of the land or committing fraud as defined by Virginia law, but that he is referring to slavery itself as being fundamentally a result of violence and fraud. Even if you disagree with this interpretation, it is an obvious enough interpretation of the text that taking the tack of claiming Banneker didn't provide "evidence" for his accusations is unwarranted -- the fact that Jefferson was a slaveowner is evidence enough.

Similarly, I find the reference to Fenty and Jefferson having different opinions of Banneker's intelligence as being part of his "myth" to be an offensive and unnecessary snipe at Banneker. Whether someone is a "genius" is purely a subjective concern, and there is therefore no reason to claim Jefferson's low opinion of Banneker's intelligence as somehow being evidence against Fenty's opinion, especially since Jefferson is far from any kind of objective judge and, indeed, had very strong reasons to be biased against Banneker, given that the letter from Banneker excoriated him personally in the strongest moral terms.

Abstractart (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The edits proposed above would result in a misinterpretation of the sequence of events that the article reports. Banneker wrote a letter to Jefferson that accused Jefferson of fraud, criminality and violence when dealing with slaves. Jefferson had legal training. Although Banneker's letter was accusatory, Jefferson's only basis for later writing to Joel Barlow that Banneker's letter showed that Banneker "had a mind of very common stature indeed" was that Banneker had not provided evidence to support his accusations. Note that Jefferson used the word "evidence" in his letter to Barlow. To Jefferson, the words "criminal" and "fraud" were legal terms, not moral ones. They needed to be supported by evidence, as did an accusation of violence. Regardless of Banneker's intent, Jefferson recognized that Banneker had given him an opportunity to state with some justification that Banneker "had a mind of very common stature indeed". A reading of Banneker's entire letter to Jefferson (referenced in the article) shows that nothing else in Banneker's letter could have justified any such statement.

The article does not "claim Jefferson's low opinion of Banneker's intelligence as somehow being evidence against Fenty's opinion". The reference to Fenty and Jefferson having different opinions of Bannker's intelligence is related to the Banneker mythology. As the article reports, Fenty's letter to the Director of the United States Mint repeated some of this mythology. As the article also reports, Jefferson stated in his letter to Barlow, "The whole do not amount, in point of evidence, to what we know ourselves of Banneker". Jefferson's statement demonstrates that he recognized one or more Banneker myths that existed in his own time. Fenty's letter did not recognize any such mythology. As a result, Fenty came to a very different conclusion regarding Banneker's intelligence than Jefferson had. Corker1 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This is all OR and opinion. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Benyamin Banna Bey MOOR, Muslim....

Benjamin Banneker, was a Moor, a Muslim, I do not understand why there is no reference to this whatsoever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.155.150 (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

References

The electronicly reproduced pages of the book cited above lack a bibliography. They also lack in-line references. Further, the book perpetuates and extends at least one erroneous Banneker myth. As an example, a statement on page 42 erroneously claims that Banneker was the original designer of the streets of Washington, D.C. Further, the book does not provide any evidence from original source material that can support a claim that Banneker was either a Moor or a Muslim. The book is therefore not a reliable source of information about Banneker. Corker1 (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.6.74.17, 22 September 2011

Would like to add an external link: http://www.progress.org/banneker/bb.html Who Was Benjamin Banneker? 82.6.74.17 (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: not a suitable link for the external links section. — Bility (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Review by A. Cline

The review of the book by A. Cline is irrelevant here. The review say nothing about Banneker, therefore the negative opinion arbitrarily pulled out of the review is not directly relevant to this article and moreover, produces an undue bias about the book. At best, it belongs to the page about the book, and must be cited there in balanced way. If you disagree, please explain how this opinion is relevant to this article. Lotygolas Ozols (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

agree it should be removed from teh page.Millertime246 (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

disagree The title of the book is "100 Greatest African-Americans". The selection of Banneker and others for inclusion in the book represent the author's opinions. A. Cline's review states that the book's biographies lack negative information about the subjects. Because the selection of subjects was based on opinions, the reviewer's cited statement is relevant. A. Cline's review is balanced, as it provides both positive and negative opinions and information about the contents of the book. Corker1 (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

To resolve this controversy, I have removed the reference to the review by A. Cline and placed the reference to "100 Greatest African Americans" in a relevant section: "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker: Plan of the City of Washington". 69.143.203.157 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Letter from James McHenry

Would like to add documented historical information regarding Benjamin Banneker. A letter from James McHenry (a self-described personal friend of Benjamin) to the publishers of the Almanac for 1792 is recorded in a book entitled The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry, Steiner, 1907. It is as follows:

"McHenry's benevolence led him to give his countenance to the negro mathematician Benjamin Banneker and to write a commendatory letter, on August 20, 1791, to the publishers of the Almanac for 1792, which Banneker prepared. This letter was printed in the Almanac; gave a brief sketch of Banneker with especial reference to his mathematical powers, and concluded with the following sentences, noteworthy as showing McHenry's wide sympathies: "I consider this negro as a fresh proof that the powers of the mind are disconnected with the color of the skin, or, in other words, a striking contradiction to Mr. Hume's doctrine, that 'the negroes are naturally inferior to whites, and unsusceptible of attainments in the arts and sciences.' In every civilized country, we shall find thousands of whites liberally educated and who have enjoyed greater opportunities for instruction than this negro, his inferiors in those intellectual acquirements and capacities that form the most characteristic features in the human race.

But the system that would assign to these degraded blacks an origin different from the white, if it is not ready to be described by philosophers, must be relinquished as similar instances multiply; and that such must frequently happen, cannot well be doubted, should no check impede the progress of humanity, which meliorating the conditions of slavery, necessarily leads to its final extinction. Let, however, the issue be what it will, I cannot but wish on this occasion to see the public patronage keep pace with my black friend’s merit.”

This letter is reprinted in Carey’s American Museum. V.greglan (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added to Benjamin Banneker#Banneker's almanacs and journals descriptions of the above statement and another one that James McHenry wrote that were published in Banneker's 1792 and 1793 almanacs, supported by references containing these two statements. I have quoted McHenry's statement in the 1792 almanac (which V.greglan cited above) within the reference to Steiner's book. Corker1 (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Family History

Benjamin Banneker was an interesting man himself, however I believe that his family history has and interesting role in who he is, and should be told. I see that in the main article there is a little section about his family history. It would be nice to elaborate on this section.Ghhinerm (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin grandmother, Molly Welsh, was a WHITE milkmaid in England. She was then accused of stealing milk and was sentenced to become and indentured servant for seven years. She became an indentured servant in Maryland. Once freed she had no money, so she rented a farm and was forced to buy two slaves to help her support herself, even thought she was against slavery because of her experience. One of the slaves named Bannaka, refused to work. It was only when Molly and Bannaka were able to communicate that she found out why he refused to work. He was apparently a part of a royal family over in Africa, and by working as a slave he would disgrace his family. After Molly had payed all her debts and had some money to spend she freed both slaves. In 1696 Molly and Banaka married defying the stringent miscegenation laws.Ghhinerm (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Mary Benjamin's mother married a recently arrived slave named Robert. Robert took Mary's last name of 'Banneky'. Robert was reportedly from Guinea. From Robert and Mary, Benjamin was born in 1731 who also had the final name change from Banneky to Banneker.Ghhinerm (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

References

There are no reliable sources for the story that one of Benjamin Banneker's two grandmothers was white and came to America from England or from anywhere else in Europe, or that his grandfather ("Banneka") claimed to be African royalty or had ever refused to work. The "Family History" section of Benjamin Banneker cites a reference that reports that the sources for this story are publications that discuss information obtained from interviews with descendants of Banneker's relatives. These interviews took place many years after the deaths of Benjamin Banneker, his parents and his grandparents. Therefore, the interviews are not reliable sources

No known documents produced before or during Benjamin Banneker's lifetime report that he had any European ancestors or that his grandfather ("Banneka") claimed to be African royalty or had ever refused to work. Further, Benjamin Banneker described himself as having an African ancestry.

Wikipedia articles must be based on information from reliable sources. Benjamin Banneker therefore should not elaborate on this story. Corker1 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

References

No proof that grandmother was white

It is not possible at this point to state as fact or deny that Banneker's grandmother was a white woman from England. Oral tradition in this case is unreliable at best.Even the current president of the united states is refered to as "black" even though his mother is clearly white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.143.44 (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

For detailed discussions on the question of whether Banneker had an English grandmother, see the following two articles that Benjamin Banneker cites as references:

(1) Perot, Sandra W. (2008). "Reconstructing Molly Welsh: Race, Memory and the Story of Benjamin Banneker's Grandmother. Masters Theses. Paper 210 (Introduction and abstract)". ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Amherst. pp. 5, 19–21, 33–36, 67. Archived from the original on 2013-09-16. Retrieved 2013-09-16. Full text (PDF)
(2) Russell, George Ely (December 2006). "Molly Welsh: Alleged Grandmother of Benjamin Banneker". National Genealogical Society Quarterly. 94 (4). National Genealogical Society: 305–314.
Corker1 (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

How was he born free?

I just need some clarification. How was Benjamin Banneker born a free man (1731) in Maryland (a slave state) when Frederick Douglass (1818) and Harriet Tubman (1820) were born slaves in Maryland...am I missing something? Or was there a special situation which allowed Banneker to be born free in a slave state? Confused. Chic3z (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If you read the article's first line, and then the first line of the subsequent section your question will be answered. Basically: his parents were both free when he was born.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because a state was a slave state didn't mean that all black Americans in them were automatically slaves. There were free black Americans (known as "free Negroes") in all the states from colonial times on. Some of them were even slaveowners. - Embram (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. I was confused especially since I was never taught the breakdown in school. To Maunus, I did read the article, that's why I was confused...to Embram, the black slaveowner talk is a very broad topic, but when it boils down, the truth is that many of them "owned" slaves to "free" slaves. A lot of them even bought family members to "set them free". By law they were slaves, but in reality, they were free. That is one aspect that is left out of the school books, but I think it is very important history. Even after being freed or escaping, they never forgot their struggle and fought to free others (even if they had to buy them out). Amazing. That's all I wanted to add to your sentence. Chic3z (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a lovely story, and certainly a politically correct way to excuse the black slave owners, but it's not generally true. Certainly there were blacks (and whites too) who bought slaves in order to free them, but that was not the rule. As scholars have pointed out, free Negroes who acquired slaves were likely "to have the same socioeconomic interest in their human property as did white slave owners. ... [U]p to the 1860's, having economic interests in common with the white slaveholders, black owners enjoyed the same social standing: attended the same churches, same private schools, and places of amusement. They frequently lived on the same streets as white families. Slaves represented an important status symbol, but also an inexpensive source of help in the workplace or in the home. Most of the blacks who held slaves solely for profit were farmers or plantation owners." One example was William Ellison, a former slave who had purchased his own freedom. He became a cotton gin maker and master craftsman, and "owned a large cotton plantation and more slaves than any other free person of color in the South outside Louisiana, even more than all but the richest white planters. Ellison was so successful that many of his white competitors went out of business." - Embram (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2014

• 
  Benjamin Banneker, Architect

Nikkoshogun (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done A crop from the above is already shown in the article. Thank you. Samsara (FA • FP) 09:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2014

Benjamin Banneker, the Head architect for the plan all the way from the Washington Monument to the White House.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Benjamin_Bann_2DollarBil0(61)_copy.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Benjamin_Bann_2DollarBil060.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Benjamin-Banneker.jpg

Nikkoshogun (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

See below. Stickee (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2014

Benjamin Banneker not just Surveyor but Architect and Planner for Washington D. C.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Benjamin_Banneker_at_work..jpg

Nikkoshogun (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Added image. Stickee (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no verifiable evidence that demonstrates that Banneker was involved with the design and planning for Washington, D.C. The association of Banneker with the design and planning of that city is a myth that historical research has refuted. See Legacy of Benjamin Banneker#Plan of the City of Washington for more information.

There is no representation of Banneker in the image that Stickee added to Benjamin Banneker. I have removed the image from the article because the image is not relevant to the article. Corker1 (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That's okay. I know nothing at all about the subject of this article. I just browse CAT:ESP occasionally and approve/enact requests which have no objections after a few days (such as this one). Stickee (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The image is that of a 2005 history painting entitled A Vision Unfolds by Peter Waddell. A recent search for information about this painting revealed that the artist intended to show Banneker presenting a map of the Territory of Columbia to George Washington and Andrew Ellicott. The first such map that is presently known was prepared by Andrew Ellicott in 1793, two years after Banneker left the federal capital area in 1791. As the pictured event is fictitious, I have added the image to Mythology and legacy of Benjamin Banneker#Other legends and embellishments. I have also added text that describes the painting and its context, supported by citations to reliable sources that my search revealed. Corker1 (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Benjamin Banneker. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes: Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mdhs.org/underbelly/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/photo-7.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016

216.56.46.12 (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Image

Corker1, I wasn't aware that Benjamin Banneker did not have a "real-life" portrait. The image you removed is the same image used on US stamps officially etc. Could you please find a source which states that none of him exists? Let I remind you however, that Jesus Christ doesn't have an actual portrait but is often depicted with universally accepted art (he did exist by the way). Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Mythology and legacy of Benjamin Banneker#Benjamin Banneker postage stamp states: "A Banneker biographer subsequently noted that, because no known portrait of Banneker exists, the stamp artist had based the portrait on "imagined features"." The cited source (an on-line encyclopedia article that Silvio Bedini wrote after authoring several published biographies of Banneker over a period of 30 years) states: "No known portrait of Banneker exists. Lacking such, an image frequently used is a woodcut portrait bust of a young black man, imaginary and not based on life, wearing the typical Quaker garb of the period. Purported to be of Banneker, this image illustrated the cover of a 1797 edition of one of his almanacs. The most accurate representation known may be found on a modern mural painting by the late William H. Smith of the survey of the federal territory. It hangs in the Maryland House on the John F. Kennedy Highway in Aberdeen, Maryland. In 1980 the U.S. Postal Service issued a commemorative stamp honoring Banneker based on imagined features.".

Citing a page in one of Bedini's earlier biographies, Benjamin Banneker#Notable works states: "The title page of a Baltimore edition of his 1795 almanac had a woodcut portrait of him as he may have appeared, but which a writer later concluded was more likely a portrayal of an idealized African American youth." Benjamin Banneker#Notable works contains an image of the cited woodcut portrait.

Regarding portraits of Jesus Christ, what constitutes "universally accepted art"? There are thousands of imaginary portraits of the man, as well as a shroud that some believe bears an image of his face and body. As Race and appearance of Jesus shows, the portraits exhibit differing skin and hair hues, varying amounts of facial hair, and halos of various dimensions. Corker1 (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Good points Corker1, especially about the Shroud of Turin. However, take the article of Jean Baptiste Point du Sable into account. It's a good article, depicts a picture but states "There are no known portraits of Jean Baptiste Point du Sable made during his lifetime. This depiction is taken from A.T. Andreas' book History of Chicago (1884)" as its caption. What would make this situation different? There's also multiple different depictions of him and there is no universally accepted art of him IMO. Banneker's images are at least somewhat consistent. Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

As Savvyjack23 stated, Wikipedia reviewers judged Jean Baptiste Point du Sable to be a "Good Article" (WP:GA). However, peer reviewers later rejected a nomination for Jean Baptiste Point du Sable to be promoted to "Featured Article" (WP:FA) (see: Talk:Jean Baptiste Point du Sable).

WP:FA states: "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles." As Jean Baptiste Point du Sable is not a "Featured Article", editors should not use the style and content of that article as examples for other Wikipedia articles.

The placement of an imaginary image in the infobox or elswhere in the article lead is not ideal, even if the image legend states that the image is imaginary and cites the source of the image. It appears preferable to place such an imaginary image within the body of an article, rather than in the article's infobox.

MOS:LEADIMAGE advises: "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." If all published imaginary images of Banneker are indeed "at least somewhat consistent", it is likely that all of those images are derivations of a single original imaginary image. Such consistencies do not imply that any of the images even remotely represent Banneker at any stage of his life. As a result, there does not appear to be any "easy representation" of an image of Banneker.

Benjamin Banneker's "Notable works" section contains an image of a woodcut portrait of Banneker from the title page of one of Banneker's almanacs. As I have previously noted, Silvio Bedini stated that he considered that portrait to be imaginary.

One such imaginary image in a biographical Wikipedia article is sufficient, as some people may consider additional imaginary images to be trivial. Anyone interested in viewing additional imaginary images of Banneker can find several on the Wikimedia Commons page for Benjamin Banneker, which the External links section of Benjamin Banneker references.

As I have previously noted, Bedini stated that a portrayal of Banneker in a mural painting in Maryland House in Aberdeen, Maryland, may be the most accurate representation known of Banneker. Bedini's writings are reliable sources of information on Banneker. Therefore, an image containing the Maryland House portrayal might be suitable for inclusion in an infobox or elsewhere in the article lead. However, Wikimedia Commons does not presently contain any such image that editors can add to Benjamin Banneker. Corker1 (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

References

While it is worth noting in the lede that no contemporary image was captured of Banneker, illustrating the article with images used to depict Banneker is absolutely appropriate. Historical figures are often idealized and depicted in ways that aren't accurate. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Statements indicating that there are no contemporary images of Benjamin Banneker or of any other historically significant person, while of interest, are not important enough to be placed in a Wikipedia article's lead section. Editors should place such information within the body of the article, where the editors can discuss the background of this information and provide citations to reliable sources that support the information.

Benjamin Banneker#Banneker's almanacs contains an imaginary image of Banneker that appeared on the cover of one of his almanacs. The text adjacent to the image states: "The title page of a Baltimore edition of his 1795 almanac had a woodcut portrait of him as he may have appeared, but which a writer later concluded was more likely a portrayal of an idealized African American youth.(reference)"

It is not appropriate to place this image in the article's lead section or in an Infobox. The image is just one of a number of such imaginary images, some of which are available in a Wikimedia Commons category that is linked to the article in Benjamin Banneker#External links. Corker1 (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you identify a policy or guideline which mandates the removal of "imaginary images"? I don't see why we should treat this article different from any other article about any other historical figure. Gamaliel (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no policies or guidelines that mandate the removal of imaginary images. That is the reason that Benjamin Banneker#Banneker's almanacs has for a number of years contained an image that a recognized authority on Banneker's life, Silvio Bedini, considered to represent that of an idealized African American youth, rather than of Banneker himself.

However, as I have stated above in several places, editors of biographical Wikipedia articles should not place imaginary images of historically significant individuals in Infoboxes unless the images are clearly fictional works of art, rather than apparently real portraits of a person. Such imaginary images can confuse readers unless accompanied by lengthy explanations supported by citations to reliable sources. Infoboxes and lead paragraphs introduce articles; they are not the place for such explanations and citations.

As I also stated above, MOS:LEADIMAGE advises: "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." There does not appear to be any "easy representation" of a person whose only images are imaginary. This is especially true when several different imaginary images are available, and, as I have also stated above, the imaginary image that an expert (Silivo Bedini) considered to contain the closest portrayal of Banneker, is not available in Wikimedia Commons.

Wikipedia contains procedures for dispute resolution (see WP:DR) . Any editor can request a third opinion to resolve a dispute (see WP:3). If you do not consider that this dispute is presently resolved, I suggest that you request a third opinion. Corker1 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

"editors of biographical Wikipedia articles should not place imaginary images of historically significant individuals in Infoboxes". Again, this is not a guideline or policy. Why should we deviate from standard practice here? 23:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I think an request for comment would be the best route at this point. We don't seem to be able to agree. Let's get wider input. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

A request for external comment is not presently needed. I consider that the image the User:Gamaliel recently placed in the Infobox of Benjamin Banneker in response to my above comments is acceptable, as the image clearly represents a work of art. Note, however, that this image is a cropped portion of a larger image of a mural that Mythology and legacy of Benjamin Banneker#Plan of the City of Washington describes as perpetuating a Banneker legend that lacks a verifiable source. Corker1 (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Benjamin Banneker. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www dot notablebiographies dot com/Ba-Be/Banneker-Benjamin.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hmdb.org/Marker.asp?Marker=78504
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses/210/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanantiquarian.org/Exhibitions/Inpursuit/casefloor/casefloor_7.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://shakeosphere.lib.uiowa.edu/persons/person.jsp?pid=1808
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maa.org/publications/periodicals/convergence/benjamin-bannekers-trigonometry-puzzle
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/members/courses/teachers_corner/34224.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031206191132/http://dcpages.ari.net/History/Planning_DC.shtml to http://dcpages.ari.net/History/Planning_DC.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.headlinesciencenow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Letter-from-Benjamin-Banneker-to-Thomas-Jefferson-Aug-1791.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.headlinesciencenow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Jefferson-replies-to-letter-from-Benjamin-Banneker.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boundarystones.org/articles/rchs_1969.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.amazon.com/The-Life-Benjamin-Banneker-African-American/dp/0938420593/ref%3Dcm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archives.profsurv.com/magazine/article.aspx?i=567
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Benjamin_Banneker.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://catonsville.exploremd.us/oella/benjamin_banneker_historical_park/time_line/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=7440
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.profsurv.com/magazine/article.aspx?i=71563
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blackpast.org/aah/banneker-benjamin-1731-1806
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://blog.library.si.edu/2017/02/americas-first-known-african-american-scientist-mathematician/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2018

I think it would be useful to have his almanacs listed. Sprites999 (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Your suggestion is welcome, Sprites999, but you don't need to make a formal edit request. His almanacs are discussed extensively. Why do you think a list should be added? What source can you provide as a reference? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:06, 14 March 2018 (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

Deletion of sentence in lead section

User:Drmies has deleted the following text from the lead section of Benjamin Banneker: "However, many accounts of his life falsely exaggerate his accomplishments or attribute to him the achievements of others."

User:Drmies did not discuss the above deletion on this Talk page. Instead, User:Drmies explained the deletion by stating: "So? This commentary applies to many—Washington, Jeff Davis, Charlemagne, but I don’t see that in their articles".

MOS:LEAD states: "The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. .... It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

Benjamin Banneker contains a section entitled "Mythology and commemorations". That section contains the following paragraph:

"A substantial mythology exaggerating Banneker's accomplishments has developed during the two centuries that have elapsed since his death, becoming a part of African-American culture (see Mythology of Benjamin Banneker).[150][151] Several such urban legends describe Banneker's alleged activities in the Washington, D.C., area around the time that he assisted Andrew Ellicott in the federal district boundary survey.[43][151][152] Others involve his clock, his astronomical works, his almanacs and his journals.[151][153]"

The sentence that User:Drmies deleted summarizes an important paragraph in "Mythology and commemorations". That paragraph describes several prominent controversies. The inclusion of the sentence in the lead is therefore consistent with MOS:LEAD.

User:Drmies stated: "This commentary applies to many—Washington, Jeff Davis, Charlemagne, but I don’t see that in their articles". That statement is irrelevant.

The lead paragraph of Legends of Catherine the Great states: "During and after the reign of the flamboyant and powerful Empress Catherine II of Russia, whose long rule led to the modernizatiton of the Russian Empire, many urban legends arose, some false and others based on true events, concerning her sexual behavior." Therefore, the lead of at least one other WP article contains a sentence that is similar to the sentence that User:Drmies deleted from the lead of Benjamin Banneker.

Further, any editor can add such a sentence to the lead of George Washington, Jefferson Davis, Charlemagne, etc. if those articles contain relevant information. If those articles lack such relevant information, any editor can add the information if citations to reliable sources support the information.

For the above reasons, I am restoring to the lead of Benjamin Banneker the sentence that User:Drmies deleted. Corker1 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Corker1, thank you, but that statement, "This commentary applies to many—Washington, Jeff Davis, Charlemagne, but I don’t see that in their articles", is far from irrelevant. Yes, I can go ahead and add that to a thousand articles on historical characters--or I can take it out here, because we know this is what happens to historical characters, and because it's really telling that this sentence is found in an article on an African-American and smacks more than a little of bias. At the very least, and to forestall any more such questions, you could propose a less loaded version. Given that you have made almost 4,000 edits to that article, surely you can fine-tune this a little bit better. I'd like to ask Nikkimaria and Brianboulton, who commented on the FA nomination in 2017, if they can have a look at this article for the sake of neutrality. They didn't promote the article but mostly on formal grounds, and pertaining to the references, and they found so much of that I wonder if they got to look at the article in terms of neutrality. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Benjamin Banneker contains a biography supported by verifiable historical documentation. As the cited references demonstrate, Banneker was an important historical person who deserves recognition. Banneker was a man who rose from humble beginnings to international notice during his own lifetime. He accomplished this despite having an ancestry that many believed to be inferior to others.

However, a substantial mythology based on accounts that lack supporting verifiable evidence has developed since he lived. Verifiable accounts (most notably those that Silvio Bedini wrote) have contradicted much of this mythology.

Some of Banneker's biographers (whose works Benjamin Banneker cites) and the Maryland Historical Society (which Benjamin Banneker also cites) have made such statements as "(Banneker) has existed in dim memory mainly on mangled ideas about his work, and even utter falsehoods that are unwise attempts to glorify a man who needs no such embellishment" and that his "story has become a muddled combination of fact, inference, misinformation, hyperbole, and legend". A comment that states "this sentence is found in an article on an African-American and smacks more than a little of bias" therefore smacks more about the bias of the commenter than about the bias of Benjamin Banneker.

Various myths surround many historical figures of all races and both genders (see List of common misconceptions). However, User:Drmies does not appear to recognize that the number and variety of myths about other historical people do not approach those that surround Banneker (except perhaps for some associated with religion). I doubt that anybody can find nearly as much documented confusion and exaggeration about the accomplishments of any other historical figures, regardless of whether they were Caucasian (such as George Washington, Jefferson Davis and Charlemagne), African American (such as George Washington Carver and Phillis Wheatley) or Asian (such as Confucius and Genghis Khan).

Writers still continue to perpetuate Banneker myths long after reliable sources have refuted these. New Banneker myths also continue to appear. Banneker's biographers seem to excel in this respect, perhaps because, as a number of writers have pointed out, abolitionists and advocates of racial equality have exaggerated Banneker's accomplishments for nearly 200 years without recognizing that their accounts of Banneker's life lack documentation from Banneker's own writings or from writings of others produced during Banneker's lifetime. Corker1 (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Writers still continue all kinds of myths. That you don't know of more confusion or exaggeration really doesn't mean all that much to me; there are plenty of historical characters about whom myths and exaggerations are told, but not telling lies, having wooden teeth, or chopping down a cherry tree don't lead to comments like "falsely exaggerate". If you don't see how this is no different for Banneker than for others, that's one thing, but if you can't tell how the tone of "falsely exaggerate" is very leading, then I am not sure I can explain it to you. So I maintain that this is undue. What you could have done here is propose a more neutral wording, which is more fruitful than adding another wall of text to this talk page (you're at 206 edits and 57k). Drmies (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The original lead (which I did not prepare) stated: "However, many accounts of his life exaggerate or falsely attribute his works." However, after many years, another editor stated that this was confusing, apparently because "falsely attribute to others" is ambiguous. I therefore changed the sentence to "However, many accounts of his life falsely exaggerate his accomplishments or attribute to him the achievements of others". The other editor raised no objection to this.

Drmies now objects to that wording. In response, I have changed the sentence to "However, many accounts of his life exaggerate his accomplishments or attribute to him the achievements of others", removing the word "falsely'", but still more or less adhering to the original lead.

Too many cooks spoil the broth. Wordsmithing of this nature usually accomplishes nothing, because some other editor will most likely change the broth again by adding or removing an ingredient. Corker1 (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Corker1 claims that too many cooks spoil the stew. Robert Cray added, "ain't nobody cooking but me and you"--but Corker doesn't want anyone else doing any editing here. The claim of OWNERSHIP is reinforced by silly little edits like this, and by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_Banneker&diff=965662479&oldid=965660279 false claims of vandalism}. Corker's desire to be the only cook here directly contradicts a whole bunch of things about our beautiful project--I know Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, but the Wikipedia article has "collaboration project" in its opening line. There are plenty of problematic things here, including an exaggerated and arcane system of documentation (which includes an enormous amount of unnecessary quotation, possibly NONFREE violations), but it wouldn't be so bad if Corker's edits wouldn't so obviously throw shade on an important African-American person, while whitewashing a person who owned over 600 enslaved people and was flabbergasted when a person of color criticized him. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Response to Drmies: Jefferson did own enslaved people, but some, including Sally Hemmings, stayed loyal to him when they could have easily escaped. Further, Jefferson was always conflicted about slavery. Like many slave owners, he believed (and often wrote) that slavery should end. However, like many others, he could see no way that this could happen under existing legal mechanisms, which protected property owners from governmental seizures without compensation.

In this regard, note that until the late 19th century, the conversion of free people into property routinely occurred in Africa with the encouragement of local rulers who profitted from the conversion and supported raids and wars that captured people. Such conversions did not legally occur in North America. North American slavery therefore had its roots in Africa, not in America. Once a slave reached America, only an owner could free the slave without compensation.

I do not know where you got the idea that Jefferson "was flabbergasted when a person of color criticized him". Nothing in Jefferson's writings suggest this.

Regarding the direct quotes that you removed, many were from 18th and 19th century sources that are no longer under copyright protection. The quotes that you removed from more recent sources were short and were therefore not NONFREE violations. All of the quotes served to make them easy to access. As they were in footnotes, they did not interfere with the article's readibility, but instead increased its readabilty.

Regarding your statement that "Corker doesn't want anyone else doing any editing here", look at the history of the article. If you make an effort to do this, you will find that nearly all additions and subtractions that other editors have made were not reverted and remain in place. Your statement is simply not correct. Corker1 (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Jefferson's letter, again

There is a section above, going back to 2009, about Corker1 calling Jefferson's reply to Banneker's letter "nuanced". (They restored it here, after I removed it.) See here, Talk:Benjamin_Banneker#Jefferson_letters. Corker derived "nuanced" initially from this letter to the editor, "A Great Man, but Flawed". The Washington Post. -- and in the earlier section Corker claims that "some readers may not recognize" the nuance. Well, it's pure original research. You can look up to see what all things Corker throws on one big heap and summarizes it as "nuanced", but it won't fly.

In addition, there are other things we can add to the plethora of adjectives that Corker things add up to "nuanced". For instance, Jabari Asim, in an article published in the Yale Review and reprinted in The Best American Essays, 2019 edition, calls Jefferson's response "tepid and noncommittal", full of "sly implications, coy dismissals, and passive-aggressive misdirection". There's more things that we can add, things that Asim said prompted Banneker to write the letter: "Jefferson's whiteness was so fragile that a profligate lifestyle utterly dependent on human trafficking, sexual exploitation, and coerced labor was not enough. He had to buttress it with deliberate falsehoods designed to comfort the planter class and allay their fears of rebellious blackness. Incensed, Banneker called him on it"--and then follows the letter. Now, we can do the whole thing where we include every single commentary, or we can stick a bit closer to historical fact, without coming up with adjectives like "nuanced". Drmies (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• BTW, I just got Ibram X. Kendi's Stamped from the Beginning in. Here he is, on p. 122, "On August 30, 1791, Thomas Jefferson sent Banneker his standard reply to antislavery and antiracist lectures"--that won't add up to "nuanced". (Never mind that he later added that he doubted Banneker hadn't cheated in his mathematical work.) Drmies (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Rewording statements that could be construed as prejudiced

I am rewriting the following statement at the end of the summary:

"However, many accounts of his life exaggerate his accomplishments or attribute to him the achievements of others."

This statement without corresponding citation and using different words than appear in the actual Mythology section appears out of place and racially prejudiced. In its current wording, the connotation is that "People commemorate Benjamin Banneker because he's black, but he didn't really do all that much."

I have changed the line to:

"In addition, a number of urban legends and myths about Banneker have formed in the years since his death."

This line is more neutral and removes the connotation that Banneker's accomplishments are meaningless or due only to his race. It also better summarizes the Mythology section of the article.

Speaking of which, that section has some problems. First of all, why is it called Mythology and combined with commemorations? The section could be renamed to Legacy like other biographical pages. In the case of George Washington, the relevant section is titled Historical Reputation and Legacy.

On top of that, the Mythology section does not actually describe any specific myths associated with Benjamin Banneker, which makes it seem like the whole point of the section is to cast doubt on Banneker's accomplishments. I am going to take a look at the mythology article to see what I can do to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihunter734 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Corker1 reverted this edit without explanation. This is the second time User:Corker1 has restored this line after an editor removed it, and this time the removal (really a replacement) was explained extensively. The Wikipedia article on edit warring says: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense."

A similar Wikipedia page on reverting says to "Revert vandalism on sight, but revert an edit made in good faith only with an explanation and after careful consideration."

I'm not going to re-revert the edit, in order to avoid an edit war, but I would ask that User:Corker1 explain their reasoning. ***The WikiHunter*** (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The section of Benjamin Banneker entitled Mythology and commemorations contains a link to Mythology of Benjamin Banneker. That article contains more information about the myths associated with Banneker's life and works than does the section in Benjamin Banneker entitled Mythology and commemorations. That section summarizes information in Mythology of Benjamin Banneker and cites supporting secondary sources.

***The WikiHunter*** notes that a sentence in the lead section states: "However, many accounts of his life exaggerate his accomplishments or attribute to him the achievements of others." ***The WikiHunter*** further states: "This statement without corresponding citation and using different words than appear in the actual Mythology section appears out of place and racially prejudiced." However, the sentence lacks a citation and is not out of place because it is in the lead section of the article. Lead sections summarize information in articles and do not require supporting citations (see MOS:LEAD).

***The WikiHunter*** states that a sentence in Benjamin Banneker has "the connotation is that "People commemorate Benjamin Banneker because he's black, but he didn't really do all that much." However, Benjamin Banneker contains no such connotations and is not "racially prejudiced", as the article describes and documents Banneker's actual accomplishments with quotations from his contemporaries and with citations to reliable sources.

My 29 November 2020 response to the edit that ***The WikiHunter*** made is in the "Revision history" page for Benjamin Banneker. My response states: Undid revision 991234731 by Wikihunter734 (talk) edit reduced readability and impact of sentence, which other editors have already changed. Corker1 (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2021 (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.

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)

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)

DC Survey Claim Followed By Citations Disproving It?

The first section of the article has an unsourced claim that he helped Andrew Ellicot survey DC in 1791. In the following section about myths that surround Mr. Banneker there are two sources cited that say there is no evidence he was involved. Seems like something that needs to be sorted out, but this is too controversial a subject for me to just edit it on my own. 2002:496A:3296:0:B443:C252:A609:A355 (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

He was black and a slave in 1751 2600:1008:B074:2BE0:8C89:8A6D:576:CD87 (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)