This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 9, 2018. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of the commemorative obelisk built in 1977 near Banneker's grave be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Maryland may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
- …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.
Citation for the Jefferson quote? BulldogPete
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)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Corker1 (
talk) 20:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
References
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.
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.
Notes: ... . While serving as secretary of state, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), one of Virginia's largest planters and slaveholders, wrote this 30 August 1791 response to Benjamin Banneker (1731-1806), an African-American mathematician and surveyor living in Maryland, who had written a forceful letter to Jefferson the day before, chastising him for holding slaves and questioning his sincerity as a "friend of liberty." .... 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."
Jefferson replied promptly and politely -- but ambiguously on the subject of slavery:
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
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)
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) [1]
References
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)
"It would later be discovered that Jefferson himself perferred the company of one of his own slaves (Sally Hemings).
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
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)
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. —Cel ithemis 05:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
"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."
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
References
Over the 200 years since the death of Benjamin Banneker (1731–1806), his story has become a muddled combination of fact, inference, misinformation, hyperbole, and legend. Like many other figures throughout history, the small amount of surviving source material has nurtured the development of a degree of mythology surrounding his story.
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); External link in |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
(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. .......
(Banneker's) life and work have become enshrouded in legend and anecdote.
The Banneker story, impressive as it was, got embellished in 1987, when the public school system in Portland, Oregon, published African-American Baseline Essays, a thick stack of loose-leaf background papers for teachers, commissioned to encourage black history instruction. They have been used in Detroit, Atlanta, Fort Lauderdale, Newark, and scattered schools elsewhere, although they have been attacked for gross inaccuracy in an entire literature of detailed criticism by respected historians. ....
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help) At
Google Books.
This very well-researched book also helps lay to rest some of the myths about what Banneker did and did not do during his most unusual lifetime; unfortunately, many websites and books continue to propagate these myths, probably because those authors do not understand what Banneker actually accomplished.
Some writers, in an effort to build up their hero, claim that Banneker was the designer of Washington. Other writers have asserted that Banneker's role in the survey is a myth without documentation. Neither group is correct. Bedini does a professional job of sorting out the truth from the falsehoods.
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |work=
(
help)
{{ 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)
Benjamin Banneker, was a Moor, a Muslim, I do not understand why there is no reference to this whatsoever? [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.155.150 ( talk) 04:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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) [1]
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) [2]
References
References
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Nikkoshogun ( talk) 23:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
216.56.46.12 ( talk) 15:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
References
References
Recent biographical accounts of Benjamin Banneker (1731–1806), a mulatto whose father was a native African and whose grandmother was English, have done his memory a disservice by obscuring his real achievements under a cloud of extravagant claims to scientific accomplishment that have no foundation in fact. The single notable exception is Silvio A. Bedini's The Life of Benjamin Banneker (New York, 1972), a work of painstaking research and scrupulous attention to accuracy which also benefits from the author's discovery of important and hitherto unavailable manuscript sources.
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it would be useful to have his almanacs listed. Sprites999 ( talk) 15:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
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. [1]
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)
One more thing, Corker1: please be a bit more economical. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 17:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
References
.... 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.
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 9, 2018. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of the commemorative obelisk built in 1977 near Banneker's grave be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Maryland may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
- …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.
Citation for the Jefferson quote? BulldogPete
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)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Corker1 (
talk) 20:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
References
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.
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.
Notes: ... . While serving as secretary of state, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), one of Virginia's largest planters and slaveholders, wrote this 30 August 1791 response to Benjamin Banneker (1731-1806), an African-American mathematician and surveyor living in Maryland, who had written a forceful letter to Jefferson the day before, chastising him for holding slaves and questioning his sincerity as a "friend of liberty." .... 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."
Jefferson replied promptly and politely -- but ambiguously on the subject of slavery:
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
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)
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) [1]
References
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)
"It would later be discovered that Jefferson himself perferred the company of one of his own slaves (Sally Hemings).
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
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)
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. —Cel ithemis 05:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
"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."
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
References
Over the 200 years since the death of Benjamin Banneker (1731–1806), his story has become a muddled combination of fact, inference, misinformation, hyperbole, and legend. Like many other figures throughout history, the small amount of surviving source material has nurtured the development of a degree of mythology surrounding his story.
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); External link in |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
(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. .......
(Banneker's) life and work have become enshrouded in legend and anecdote.
The Banneker story, impressive as it was, got embellished in 1987, when the public school system in Portland, Oregon, published African-American Baseline Essays, a thick stack of loose-leaf background papers for teachers, commissioned to encourage black history instruction. They have been used in Detroit, Atlanta, Fort Lauderdale, Newark, and scattered schools elsewhere, although they have been attacked for gross inaccuracy in an entire literature of detailed criticism by respected historians. ....
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help) At
Google Books.
This very well-researched book also helps lay to rest some of the myths about what Banneker did and did not do during his most unusual lifetime; unfortunately, many websites and books continue to propagate these myths, probably because those authors do not understand what Banneker actually accomplished.
Some writers, in an effort to build up their hero, claim that Banneker was the designer of Washington. Other writers have asserted that Banneker's role in the survey is a myth without documentation. Neither group is correct. Bedini does a professional job of sorting out the truth from the falsehoods.
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |work=
(
help)
{{ 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)
Benjamin Banneker, was a Moor, a Muslim, I do not understand why there is no reference to this whatsoever? [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.155.150 ( talk) 04:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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) [1]
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) [2]
References
References
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Nikkoshogun ( talk) 23:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
216.56.46.12 ( talk) 15:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
References
References
Recent biographical accounts of Benjamin Banneker (1731–1806), a mulatto whose father was a native African and whose grandmother was English, have done his memory a disservice by obscuring his real achievements under a cloud of extravagant claims to scientific accomplishment that have no foundation in fact. The single notable exception is Silvio A. Bedini's The Life of Benjamin Banneker (New York, 1972), a work of painstaking research and scrupulous attention to accuracy which also benefits from the author's discovery of important and hitherto unavailable manuscript sources.
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it would be useful to have his almanacs listed. Sprites999 ( talk) 15:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
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. [1]
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)
One more thing, Corker1: please be a bit more economical. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 17:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
References
.... 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.
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)