This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
I recently posed under User talk:69.117.203.169#Legacy of Benjamin Banneker:
The trivia is, I feel, in the sections "Real estate", "Businesses", and "Advocacy groups", as well as a couple other subsections of "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". However, as these sections contain references, I am reluctant to remove them. Epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone assist in checking if these really are trivia, and if so, to weed these trivia out? Thanks, Epicgenius ( talk) 16:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I am concerned about the recent move from Legacy of Benjamin Banneker. I have been relatively hands-off with editing this page, but it has taken a serious ideological bend. While there are certainly inaccurate aspects of Banneker's life that have become urban legends, in my opinion this article goes too far in the other direction to almost entirely discredit the man's entire life's work. Moving the page title to start off with "mythology" is only the most recent and egregious example of this editorial slant. I disagree with the page move and would like to highlight the page among other editors so that the article can be improved and edited to include a more neutral point of view. - epicAdam( talk) 01:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
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. [1]
(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. .... [2]
References
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); External link in |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
I am also concerned about the way in which this page and its primary author present the "mythbusting" of Banneker in american historical memory. It seems that this article's project is to delegitimize the role of Banneker as a significant scientist in early America. It exaggerates the "controversies" over Banneker's achievements, though in many cases historians have acknowledged that the inaccurate information was usually written in earlier accounts of Banneker's life. For instance, the assertion that Banneker created the first working clock was made by Lydia Marie Childs in 1866, and was rejected in Silvio Bedini's 1971 biography of Banneker. However, this article treats the claim as if it is an active controversy. I am unclear of exactly how to approach editing this text without overstepping the research done by the previous author, but do feel that this page requires a significant reframing. Sophie.hess ( talk) 00:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry to Corker1 and others who are invested in this, but the existence of this page is an embarrassment to the Wikipedia project.
I've read the justifications, but there is no such page for George Washington, the single most famous anecdote of whom (his honesty in the face of being caught having chopped down the cherry tree) is a well-documented piece of historical horsepockey.
As white historical figures whose lives are full of falsely attributed acts and other myths are not treated in a similar fashion, there is no other explanation for the purpose of this page than an intent to tear down a black historical figure, which is nothing new or novel by any means.
You and Jimmy Wales ought to be ashamed.
Boblamont ( talk) 01:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblamont ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
There is indeed an association between the first description of Banneker myths that the page cites and the culture that existed during 1960s, when the civil rights movement in the United States was increasing popular interest in African-American history.Do you not find it at all suspect that the 'accounts began to appear in the 1960's' that questioned Mr. Banneker's achievements?
A name that is too often ignored in the history of science is that of a free Negro, Benjamin Banneker (c. 1734-1806) of Baltimore. [1]
The name of Benjamin Banneker, the Afro-American self-taught mathematician and almanac-maker, occurs again and again in the several published accounts of the survey of Washington City begun in 1791, but with conflicting reports of the role which he played. Writers have implied a wide range of involvement, from the keeper of horses or supervisor of the woodcutters, to the full responsibility of not only the survey of the ten mile square but the design of the city as well. None of these accounts has described the contribution which Banneker actually made. [2]
That statement is not correct, as this page is not unique. For example, " Legends of Catherine the Great" reports and refutes a number of myths associated with that empress of Russia. It is especially noteworthy that an editor created "Legends of Catherine the Great" in 2005, seven years before another editor created this page in 2012.This page is unique. No other historical figure is given this kind of scrutiny. Even if there is nothing wrong with this page on its own, its uniqueness makes it problematic.
It is not possible to determine which of Banneker's commemorations are deserved and which are not. It is noteworthy, however, that many of the cited references that describe Banneker's commemorations contain one or more of the myths that the first section of this article documents. Corker1 ( talk) 12:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)There is in the very preface to the article a tone that some, if not most, of his commemoration is undeserved.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |via=
(
help)
I have moved this article from "Mythology and legacy of Benjamin Banneker" to "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" to reflect the titles of the article's two main sections. The article does not contain a section entitled "Legacy of Benjamin Banneker". Corker1 ( talk) 19:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
This page currently has 423,008 bytes of markup; it's far too big. What's the best way to divide it up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Onetwothreeip: You have split " Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker into two separate pages (" Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" and " Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker"). When doing this, you removed context from the new "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" that existed before your split.
You have also not created links to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" from the main article (" Benjamin Banneker") and from other Wikipedia articles that link to "Mythology and Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". You have therefore made "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" into an orphan that few users will be able to access. In addition, you created "cite errors" within "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" that notices within the page's reference section identify as "Cite error: The named reference (citation) was invoked but never defined (see the help page)".
The lead to "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" states: "A United States postage stamp and the names of a number of recreational and cultural facilities, schools, streets and other facilities and institutions throughout the United States have commemorated Banneker's documented and mythical accomplishments throughout the years since he lived." However, because of the split that you created, "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" does not contain any information about these commemorations, and further, does not contain citations to reliable sources that support information about commemorations.
Further, you have not complied with Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure, which states:
If an article meets the criteria for splitting and no discussion is required, editors can be bold and carry out the split. If unsure, or with high-profile or sensitive articles, start a "Split" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject(s). Additionally, adding one of the splitting templates will display a notice on the article and list it at Category:Articles to be split. This will help bring it to the attention of editors who may assist in establishing consensus, in deciding if a split is appropriate, or in carrying out the split. Templates used without an accompanying rationale, and where there is no obvious reason for the split request, may be removed at any time. Note: To conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that all content contributors receive attribution, the page receiving the split material must have an edit summary noting "split content from article name". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to article name". The "Copied" template can also be placed on the talk page of both articles. For further information, refer to the main Copying within Wikipedia guideline.
Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure describes the following six steps that editors need to take when considering and conducting a page split:
You performed Step 5, but did not perform any of the other five steps.
I therefore reverted the changes that you made to restore the original text of "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" to correct the errors that you made. However, you subsequently reverted my edits without an adequate explanation.
When preparing to move a Wikipedia page, a message entitled "Move Mythology and commemorations of (page)" appears. This message states: "This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding. Please read Wikipedia:Moving a page for more detailed instructions." The same is true for splitting a page into two or more pages.
You justified your reversions with statements such as "Blanking the article or merging the article into another article is most decidedly not an appropriate way to address the issues of context in the article" and "No need for commemorations to be in the same article as mythology. If one of the articles lacks context, context should be added, not the articles merged."
Editors that split or move pages bear the responsibility of appropriately addressing issues of context in the article that they have created and for adding context. They should not expect other editors to assume this responsibility.
Editors that make comments such as "split or move pages merging the article into another article is most decidedly not an appropriate way to address the issues of context in the article" need to provide an "appropriate way" for others to correct the errors that they have created. " Wikipedia:Moving a page" describes such "appropriate ways" to undo a move (or a split). However, it is difficult to undo a page move (or a split) when a subsequent edit has changed a page (see Wikipedia:Moving a page#Undoing a move). In some instances, only an administrator can resolve these difficulties.
Please therefore correct all of the errors that your changes have introduced. Add context to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". Define the named references (citations) that the page now invokes. Provide links to "Commemorations of Benjamin Benneker" in other Wikipedia articles that now incorrectly link to " Mythology of Benjamin Banneker", rather to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker".
Remove the sentence in the lead to "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" that states: "A United States postage stamp and the names of a number of recreational and cultural facilities, schools, streets and other facilities and institutions throughout the United States have commemorated Banneker's documented and mythical accomplishments throughout the years since he lived". If you do not wish to do this, add a link to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" to the lead, or add citations to reliable sources that support this sentence.
If you do not wish to make these corrections, please revert the page split that you created from "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". If you do not do so, you will have failed to follow the steps in Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure and will have vandalized "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". Corker1 ( talk) 08:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to let those interested know that I will be working on heavily revising this article over the next little while. Specific problems I will address include:
These problems, compounded together, suggest there may be a neutrality problem with this article. In its current form, although thorough, it reads like a line-by-line argument against Banneker's life, not an encyclopedia entry about him. It is one-sided, presenting (in general) only the views of Silvio Bedini. Rather than presenting actual myths about Banneker, the article consists mostly of refuting statements made about him in various media. Such meticulous correction of the media is not applied to other biographies on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a fact-checking site to analyze other websites - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should present neutral and factually accurate views. If there are incorrect statements on Benjamin Banneker, then those views should be updated, along with nods to the controversy/debate/lack of sources surrounding his life.
These neutrality problems make the article appear prejudiced and racist, presenting a view that persons of color cannot or could not achieve what Banneker achieved, and that his accomplishments were made up. There is no place for such a view on Wikipedia, and if I cannot fix this article enough to justify its existence on the site, I will nominate it for deletion.
I will be going through this article and editing specifics to better comply with Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and reliable sources. If anyone has any objections, please post below. ***The WikiHunter*** ( talk) 19:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Woodson directed attention to the discovery by Henry Cadbury of Harvard University of this paper on "A Lasting Peace" attributed to Banneker. Cadbury found this paper, bearing a date earlier than than the publication of Banneker's article, among the papers of Dr. Benjamin Rush, a contemporary of Banneker.
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
This is the rara avis, maybe the only long and enduring highly POV page I've seen on Wikipedia that leans right (or maybe anti-black in this case). Other than keeping it around as a man-bites-dog museum piece, it is not clear why the whole thing can't be reduced to numbered list of myths inside the Banneker bio article, with references to the refutations.
Reading this tirade, it is hard work to extract any specific set of myths about Banneker, and some of them are inane (e.g. Jefferson not being president yet when he sent someone a copy of Banneker almanac; the "myth" is that President Jefferson had done so!). 73.89.25.252 ( talk) 18:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
However, historical research has shown that none of these legends can be correct. [1] [2] [3] [4] As Bedini reported in 1969, Ellicott's 1791 assignment was to produce a survey of a square, the length of whose sides would each be 10 miles (16.1 km) (a "ten mile square"). [5] L'Enfant was to survey, design and lay out the national capital city within this square. [5] [6] Ellicott and L'Enfant each worked independently under the supervision of the three Commissioners that President Washington had earlier appointed. [5] Bedini could not find any evidence that showed that Banneker had ever worked with or for L'Enfant. [3] [5]
Banneker left the federal capital area and returned to his home near Ellicott's Mills in April 1791. [3] [7] [8] At that time, L'Enfant was still developing his plan for the federal city and had not yet been dismissed from his job. [3] L'Enfant presented his plans to President Washington in June and August 1791, two and four months after Banneker had left. [3] [7] [9] [10]
Further, there never was any need to reconstruct L'Enfant's plan. .....
"By 1929, variations of the myth had become widespread. When describing the ceremonial presentation to Howard University in Washington, D.C., of a sundial memorializing Banneker, the Chicago Defender newspaper reported in that year that a speaker had claimed that:
.... he (Banneker) was appointed by President George Washington to aid Major L'Enfant, famed French architect, to plan the layout of the District of Columbia. L'Enfant died before the work was completed, which required Banneker to carry on in his stead. [11]
However, as a book that won the 1917 Pulitzer Prize for History had earlier reported, L'Enfant lived long after he developed his plan for the federal capital city. He died near the City of Washington in 1825. [12]"
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. However, as Bedini points out, the story of Banneker's involvement in the survey of the Federal District "rests on extremely meager documentation" (p. 104). This consists of a single mention by TJ, two brief statements by Banneker himself, and the newspaper allusion quoted above. In consequence, Bedini's otherwise reliable biography accepts the version of Banneker's role in this episode as presented in reminiscences of nineteenth-century authors. These recollections, deriving in large part from members of the Ellicott family, who were prompted by Quaker inclinations to justice and equality, have compounded the confusion. The nature of TJ's connection with Banneker is treated in the Editorial Note to the group of documents under 30 Aug. 1791, but because of the obscured record it is necessary here to attempt a clarification of the role of this modest, self-taught tobacco farmer in the laying out of the national capital.
First of all, because of unwarranted claims to the contrary, it must be pointed out that there is no evidence whatever that Banneker had anything to do with the survey of the Federal City or indeed with the final establishment of the boundaries of the Federal District. All available testimony shows that he was present only during the few weeks early in 1791 when the rough preliminary survey of the ten mile square was made; that, after this was concluded and before the final survey was begun, he returned to his farm and his astronomical studies in April, accompanying Ellicott part way on his brief journey back to Philadelphia; and that thenceforth he had no connection with the mapping of the seat of government. ...
In any case, Banneker's participation in the surveying of the Federal District was unquestionably brief and his role uncertain.
Meanwhile Andrew Ellicott, the nation's Surveyor General, finished surveying the boundary lines of the federal district, and joined L'Enfant in laying out the city. (Ellicott showed a fine sense of the opportunity presented by the project by hiring a mathematician who was a "free Negro," to help with the survey. The Georgetown newspaper noted the significance of Benjamin Banneker's participation but, nearly sixty years old, he left the arduous project in May and returned to Baltimore to publish his almanac, and thus, contrary to legend, had nothing to do with L'Enfant's plan).
In late August L'Enfant took his completed plan to Philadelphia. The president approved but thought it premature to designate the sites of the other buildings and many monuments that L'Enfant envisioned.
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |via=
(
help)
Archived November 9, 2017, at the
Wayback Machine
The more I read of the article, the more apparent it is that it is not about the stated topic, Banneker mythology. The actual topic is compendium of inaccurate references to Banneker and fact-checks thereof, a 50 times longer undertaking of little general interest. A summary of the myths and facts, rather than a laundry list of every document where they have occurred, would be pretty short and could go in a single section of this article. Though once completed, it would bolster the case for deleting this article and moving the summary into the Banneker bio page; the current long-form of this article is functioning as a scrapbook for a personal research project. 73.89.25.252 ( talk) 05:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It was the work, also of Major Ellicott, under the orders of General Washington, then President of the United States, to locate the sites of the Capitol, President's House, Treasury and other public buildings. In this, also, Banneker was his assistant. [2]
First of all, because of unwarranted claims to the contrary, it must be pointed out that there is no evidence whatever that Banneker had anything to do with the survey of the Federal City .... All available testimony shows that he was present only during the few weeks early in 1791 when the rough preliminary survey of the ten mile square was made; that, after this was concluded and before the final survey was begun, he returned to his farm and his astronomical studies in April, accompanying Ellicott part way on his brief journey back to Philadelphia; and that thenceforth he had no connection with the mapping of the seat of government. ...
In any case, Banneker's participation in the surveying of the Federal District was unquestionably brief and his role uncertain. [3]
References
Major Ellicott selected Benjamin Banneker as his assistant upon this occasion, and it was with his aid that the lines of the Federal Territory, as the District of Columbia was then called, were run.Quoted in Bedini, 1969, p. 26.
It was the work, also of Major Ellicott, under the orders of General Washington, then President of the United States, to locate the sites of the Capitol, President's House, Treasury and other public buildings. In this, also, Banneker was his assistant.
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. However, as Bedini points out, the story of Banneker's involvement in the survey of the Federal District "rests on extremely meager documentation" (p. 104). This consists of a single mention by TJ, two brief statements by Banneker himself, and the newspaper allusion quoted above. In consequence, Bedini's otherwise reliable biography accepts the version of Banneker's role in this episode as presented in reminiscences of nineteenth-century authors. These recollections, deriving in large part from members of the Ellicott family, who were prompted by Quaker inclinations to justice and equality, have compounded the confusion. The nature of TJ's connection with Banneker is treated in the Editorial Note to the group of documents under 30 Aug. 1791, but because of the obscured record it is necessary here to attempt a clarification of the role of this modest, self-taught tobacco farmer in the laying out of the national capital.
First of all, because of unwarranted claims to the contrary, it must be pointed out that there is no evidence whatever that Banneker had anything to do with the survey of the Federal City or indeed with the final establishment of the boundaries of the Federal District. All available testimony shows that he was present only during the few weeks early in 1791 when the rough preliminary survey of the ten mile square was made; that, after this was concluded and before the final survey was begun, he returned to his farm and his astronomical studies in April, accompanying Ellicott part way on his brief journey back to Philadelphia; and that thenceforth he had no connection with the mapping of the seat of government. ...
In any case, Banneker's participation in the surveying of the Federal District was unquestionably brief and his role uncertain.
Many are suggesting that reports of Benjamin Bannekars' accomplishments would have been kept in a protected research library for future verification. Some Americans at that time were barely used to the idea that Africans had any capabilities that showed them intellectually equal. Many Americans were dedicated to ensuring that Africans remained dehumanized. The goal was to keep slave labor profitable, not aid in the abolition of slavery. Thus, the concerted effort to perpuate the 'mythology' view as truth. ViolStep ( talk) 00:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
If I were looking for information on the "mythology"—not really the term I would use regardless—around Benjamin Banneker and its development and historical context in the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries, this article would be useless. Mainly it's centered around quibbling with "the first" vs. "among the first" in journalistic writing from decades ago, not even with explaining what the mythology is.
At 390kb it's nearly a quarter longer than the actual (oddly bloated) article on Banneker. It's seven times longer than the page on Folklore of the United States. It's longer than Pierre Charles L'Enfant, Andrew Ellicott, L'Enfant Plan, and History of Washington, D.C. combined. Outside of the weird Banneker/Mythology of Banneker/Commemorations of Banneker nexus it appears to only have two pages currently linking in to it (although it does have plenty of redirects, for no apparent reason except inertia); one of those links is a random appearance in a "see also" list in African-American literature. Neither Banneker nor his writings are mentioned in that article.
I'll also note that after looking through the first 500 articles including "mythology of," this is the only one devoted to sloppy newspaper language around a single individual. Generally articles styled "Mythology of" deal with American science fiction or fantasy television shows featuring elaborate serialized mystery storytelling from the 1990s-2010s. Whether those articles should exist or be folded into their main articles is a topic for another place, but this one definitely should be folded back into the main article on Banneker. Messier object ( talk) 06:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
I recently posed under User talk:69.117.203.169#Legacy of Benjamin Banneker:
The trivia is, I feel, in the sections "Real estate", "Businesses", and "Advocacy groups", as well as a couple other subsections of "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". However, as these sections contain references, I am reluctant to remove them. Epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone assist in checking if these really are trivia, and if so, to weed these trivia out? Thanks, Epicgenius ( talk) 16:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I am concerned about the recent move from Legacy of Benjamin Banneker. I have been relatively hands-off with editing this page, but it has taken a serious ideological bend. While there are certainly inaccurate aspects of Banneker's life that have become urban legends, in my opinion this article goes too far in the other direction to almost entirely discredit the man's entire life's work. Moving the page title to start off with "mythology" is only the most recent and egregious example of this editorial slant. I disagree with the page move and would like to highlight the page among other editors so that the article can be improved and edited to include a more neutral point of view. - epicAdam( talk) 01:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
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. [1]
(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. .... [2]
References
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); External link in |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
I am also concerned about the way in which this page and its primary author present the "mythbusting" of Banneker in american historical memory. It seems that this article's project is to delegitimize the role of Banneker as a significant scientist in early America. It exaggerates the "controversies" over Banneker's achievements, though in many cases historians have acknowledged that the inaccurate information was usually written in earlier accounts of Banneker's life. For instance, the assertion that Banneker created the first working clock was made by Lydia Marie Childs in 1866, and was rejected in Silvio Bedini's 1971 biography of Banneker. However, this article treats the claim as if it is an active controversy. I am unclear of exactly how to approach editing this text without overstepping the research done by the previous author, but do feel that this page requires a significant reframing. Sophie.hess ( talk) 00:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry to Corker1 and others who are invested in this, but the existence of this page is an embarrassment to the Wikipedia project.
I've read the justifications, but there is no such page for George Washington, the single most famous anecdote of whom (his honesty in the face of being caught having chopped down the cherry tree) is a well-documented piece of historical horsepockey.
As white historical figures whose lives are full of falsely attributed acts and other myths are not treated in a similar fashion, there is no other explanation for the purpose of this page than an intent to tear down a black historical figure, which is nothing new or novel by any means.
You and Jimmy Wales ought to be ashamed.
Boblamont ( talk) 01:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblamont ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
There is indeed an association between the first description of Banneker myths that the page cites and the culture that existed during 1960s, when the civil rights movement in the United States was increasing popular interest in African-American history.Do you not find it at all suspect that the 'accounts began to appear in the 1960's' that questioned Mr. Banneker's achievements?
A name that is too often ignored in the history of science is that of a free Negro, Benjamin Banneker (c. 1734-1806) of Baltimore. [1]
The name of Benjamin Banneker, the Afro-American self-taught mathematician and almanac-maker, occurs again and again in the several published accounts of the survey of Washington City begun in 1791, but with conflicting reports of the role which he played. Writers have implied a wide range of involvement, from the keeper of horses or supervisor of the woodcutters, to the full responsibility of not only the survey of the ten mile square but the design of the city as well. None of these accounts has described the contribution which Banneker actually made. [2]
That statement is not correct, as this page is not unique. For example, " Legends of Catherine the Great" reports and refutes a number of myths associated with that empress of Russia. It is especially noteworthy that an editor created "Legends of Catherine the Great" in 2005, seven years before another editor created this page in 2012.This page is unique. No other historical figure is given this kind of scrutiny. Even if there is nothing wrong with this page on its own, its uniqueness makes it problematic.
It is not possible to determine which of Banneker's commemorations are deserved and which are not. It is noteworthy, however, that many of the cited references that describe Banneker's commemorations contain one or more of the myths that the first section of this article documents. Corker1 ( talk) 12:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)There is in the very preface to the article a tone that some, if not most, of his commemoration is undeserved.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |via=
(
help)
I have moved this article from "Mythology and legacy of Benjamin Banneker" to "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" to reflect the titles of the article's two main sections. The article does not contain a section entitled "Legacy of Benjamin Banneker". Corker1 ( talk) 19:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
This page currently has 423,008 bytes of markup; it's far too big. What's the best way to divide it up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Onetwothreeip: You have split " Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker into two separate pages (" Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" and " Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker"). When doing this, you removed context from the new "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" that existed before your split.
You have also not created links to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" from the main article (" Benjamin Banneker") and from other Wikipedia articles that link to "Mythology and Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". You have therefore made "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" into an orphan that few users will be able to access. In addition, you created "cite errors" within "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" that notices within the page's reference section identify as "Cite error: The named reference (citation) was invoked but never defined (see the help page)".
The lead to "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" states: "A United States postage stamp and the names of a number of recreational and cultural facilities, schools, streets and other facilities and institutions throughout the United States have commemorated Banneker's documented and mythical accomplishments throughout the years since he lived." However, because of the split that you created, "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" does not contain any information about these commemorations, and further, does not contain citations to reliable sources that support information about commemorations.
Further, you have not complied with Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure, which states:
If an article meets the criteria for splitting and no discussion is required, editors can be bold and carry out the split. If unsure, or with high-profile or sensitive articles, start a "Split" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject(s). Additionally, adding one of the splitting templates will display a notice on the article and list it at Category:Articles to be split. This will help bring it to the attention of editors who may assist in establishing consensus, in deciding if a split is appropriate, or in carrying out the split. Templates used without an accompanying rationale, and where there is no obvious reason for the split request, may be removed at any time. Note: To conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that all content contributors receive attribution, the page receiving the split material must have an edit summary noting "split content from article name". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to article name". The "Copied" template can also be placed on the talk page of both articles. For further information, refer to the main Copying within Wikipedia guideline.
Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure describes the following six steps that editors need to take when considering and conducting a page split:
You performed Step 5, but did not perform any of the other five steps.
I therefore reverted the changes that you made to restore the original text of "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" to correct the errors that you made. However, you subsequently reverted my edits without an adequate explanation.
When preparing to move a Wikipedia page, a message entitled "Move Mythology and commemorations of (page)" appears. This message states: "This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding. Please read Wikipedia:Moving a page for more detailed instructions." The same is true for splitting a page into two or more pages.
You justified your reversions with statements such as "Blanking the article or merging the article into another article is most decidedly not an appropriate way to address the issues of context in the article" and "No need for commemorations to be in the same article as mythology. If one of the articles lacks context, context should be added, not the articles merged."
Editors that split or move pages bear the responsibility of appropriately addressing issues of context in the article that they have created and for adding context. They should not expect other editors to assume this responsibility.
Editors that make comments such as "split or move pages merging the article into another article is most decidedly not an appropriate way to address the issues of context in the article" need to provide an "appropriate way" for others to correct the errors that they have created. " Wikipedia:Moving a page" describes such "appropriate ways" to undo a move (or a split). However, it is difficult to undo a page move (or a split) when a subsequent edit has changed a page (see Wikipedia:Moving a page#Undoing a move). In some instances, only an administrator can resolve these difficulties.
Please therefore correct all of the errors that your changes have introduced. Add context to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". Define the named references (citations) that the page now invokes. Provide links to "Commemorations of Benjamin Benneker" in other Wikipedia articles that now incorrectly link to " Mythology of Benjamin Banneker", rather to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker".
Remove the sentence in the lead to "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" that states: "A United States postage stamp and the names of a number of recreational and cultural facilities, schools, streets and other facilities and institutions throughout the United States have commemorated Banneker's documented and mythical accomplishments throughout the years since he lived". If you do not wish to do this, add a link to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" to the lead, or add citations to reliable sources that support this sentence.
If you do not wish to make these corrections, please revert the page split that you created from "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". If you do not do so, you will have failed to follow the steps in Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure and will have vandalized "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". Corker1 ( talk) 08:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to let those interested know that I will be working on heavily revising this article over the next little while. Specific problems I will address include:
These problems, compounded together, suggest there may be a neutrality problem with this article. In its current form, although thorough, it reads like a line-by-line argument against Banneker's life, not an encyclopedia entry about him. It is one-sided, presenting (in general) only the views of Silvio Bedini. Rather than presenting actual myths about Banneker, the article consists mostly of refuting statements made about him in various media. Such meticulous correction of the media is not applied to other biographies on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a fact-checking site to analyze other websites - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should present neutral and factually accurate views. If there are incorrect statements on Benjamin Banneker, then those views should be updated, along with nods to the controversy/debate/lack of sources surrounding his life.
These neutrality problems make the article appear prejudiced and racist, presenting a view that persons of color cannot or could not achieve what Banneker achieved, and that his accomplishments were made up. There is no place for such a view on Wikipedia, and if I cannot fix this article enough to justify its existence on the site, I will nominate it for deletion.
I will be going through this article and editing specifics to better comply with Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and reliable sources. If anyone has any objections, please post below. ***The WikiHunter*** ( talk) 19:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Woodson directed attention to the discovery by Henry Cadbury of Harvard University of this paper on "A Lasting Peace" attributed to Banneker. Cadbury found this paper, bearing a date earlier than than the publication of Banneker's article, among the papers of Dr. Benjamin Rush, a contemporary of Banneker.
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
This is the rara avis, maybe the only long and enduring highly POV page I've seen on Wikipedia that leans right (or maybe anti-black in this case). Other than keeping it around as a man-bites-dog museum piece, it is not clear why the whole thing can't be reduced to numbered list of myths inside the Banneker bio article, with references to the refutations.
Reading this tirade, it is hard work to extract any specific set of myths about Banneker, and some of them are inane (e.g. Jefferson not being president yet when he sent someone a copy of Banneker almanac; the "myth" is that President Jefferson had done so!). 73.89.25.252 ( talk) 18:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
However, historical research has shown that none of these legends can be correct. [1] [2] [3] [4] As Bedini reported in 1969, Ellicott's 1791 assignment was to produce a survey of a square, the length of whose sides would each be 10 miles (16.1 km) (a "ten mile square"). [5] L'Enfant was to survey, design and lay out the national capital city within this square. [5] [6] Ellicott and L'Enfant each worked independently under the supervision of the three Commissioners that President Washington had earlier appointed. [5] Bedini could not find any evidence that showed that Banneker had ever worked with or for L'Enfant. [3] [5]
Banneker left the federal capital area and returned to his home near Ellicott's Mills in April 1791. [3] [7] [8] At that time, L'Enfant was still developing his plan for the federal city and had not yet been dismissed from his job. [3] L'Enfant presented his plans to President Washington in June and August 1791, two and four months after Banneker had left. [3] [7] [9] [10]
Further, there never was any need to reconstruct L'Enfant's plan. .....
"By 1929, variations of the myth had become widespread. When describing the ceremonial presentation to Howard University in Washington, D.C., of a sundial memorializing Banneker, the Chicago Defender newspaper reported in that year that a speaker had claimed that:
.... he (Banneker) was appointed by President George Washington to aid Major L'Enfant, famed French architect, to plan the layout of the District of Columbia. L'Enfant died before the work was completed, which required Banneker to carry on in his stead. [11]
However, as a book that won the 1917 Pulitzer Prize for History had earlier reported, L'Enfant lived long after he developed his plan for the federal capital city. He died near the City of Washington in 1825. [12]"
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. However, as Bedini points out, the story of Banneker's involvement in the survey of the Federal District "rests on extremely meager documentation" (p. 104). This consists of a single mention by TJ, two brief statements by Banneker himself, and the newspaper allusion quoted above. In consequence, Bedini's otherwise reliable biography accepts the version of Banneker's role in this episode as presented in reminiscences of nineteenth-century authors. These recollections, deriving in large part from members of the Ellicott family, who were prompted by Quaker inclinations to justice and equality, have compounded the confusion. The nature of TJ's connection with Banneker is treated in the Editorial Note to the group of documents under 30 Aug. 1791, but because of the obscured record it is necessary here to attempt a clarification of the role of this modest, self-taught tobacco farmer in the laying out of the national capital.
First of all, because of unwarranted claims to the contrary, it must be pointed out that there is no evidence whatever that Banneker had anything to do with the survey of the Federal City or indeed with the final establishment of the boundaries of the Federal District. All available testimony shows that he was present only during the few weeks early in 1791 when the rough preliminary survey of the ten mile square was made; that, after this was concluded and before the final survey was begun, he returned to his farm and his astronomical studies in April, accompanying Ellicott part way on his brief journey back to Philadelphia; and that thenceforth he had no connection with the mapping of the seat of government. ...
In any case, Banneker's participation in the surveying of the Federal District was unquestionably brief and his role uncertain.
Meanwhile Andrew Ellicott, the nation's Surveyor General, finished surveying the boundary lines of the federal district, and joined L'Enfant in laying out the city. (Ellicott showed a fine sense of the opportunity presented by the project by hiring a mathematician who was a "free Negro," to help with the survey. The Georgetown newspaper noted the significance of Benjamin Banneker's participation but, nearly sixty years old, he left the arduous project in May and returned to Baltimore to publish his almanac, and thus, contrary to legend, had nothing to do with L'Enfant's plan).
In late August L'Enfant took his completed plan to Philadelphia. The president approved but thought it premature to designate the sites of the other buildings and many monuments that L'Enfant envisioned.
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |via=
(
help)
Archived November 9, 2017, at the
Wayback Machine
The more I read of the article, the more apparent it is that it is not about the stated topic, Banneker mythology. The actual topic is compendium of inaccurate references to Banneker and fact-checks thereof, a 50 times longer undertaking of little general interest. A summary of the myths and facts, rather than a laundry list of every document where they have occurred, would be pretty short and could go in a single section of this article. Though once completed, it would bolster the case for deleting this article and moving the summary into the Banneker bio page; the current long-form of this article is functioning as a scrapbook for a personal research project. 73.89.25.252 ( talk) 05:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It was the work, also of Major Ellicott, under the orders of General Washington, then President of the United States, to locate the sites of the Capitol, President's House, Treasury and other public buildings. In this, also, Banneker was his assistant. [2]
First of all, because of unwarranted claims to the contrary, it must be pointed out that there is no evidence whatever that Banneker had anything to do with the survey of the Federal City .... All available testimony shows that he was present only during the few weeks early in 1791 when the rough preliminary survey of the ten mile square was made; that, after this was concluded and before the final survey was begun, he returned to his farm and his astronomical studies in April, accompanying Ellicott part way on his brief journey back to Philadelphia; and that thenceforth he had no connection with the mapping of the seat of government. ...
In any case, Banneker's participation in the surveying of the Federal District was unquestionably brief and his role uncertain. [3]
References
Major Ellicott selected Benjamin Banneker as his assistant upon this occasion, and it was with his aid that the lines of the Federal Territory, as the District of Columbia was then called, were run.Quoted in Bedini, 1969, p. 26.
It was the work, also of Major Ellicott, under the orders of General Washington, then President of the United States, to locate the sites of the Capitol, President's House, Treasury and other public buildings. In this, also, Banneker was his assistant.
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. However, as Bedini points out, the story of Banneker's involvement in the survey of the Federal District "rests on extremely meager documentation" (p. 104). This consists of a single mention by TJ, two brief statements by Banneker himself, and the newspaper allusion quoted above. In consequence, Bedini's otherwise reliable biography accepts the version of Banneker's role in this episode as presented in reminiscences of nineteenth-century authors. These recollections, deriving in large part from members of the Ellicott family, who were prompted by Quaker inclinations to justice and equality, have compounded the confusion. The nature of TJ's connection with Banneker is treated in the Editorial Note to the group of documents under 30 Aug. 1791, but because of the obscured record it is necessary here to attempt a clarification of the role of this modest, self-taught tobacco farmer in the laying out of the national capital.
First of all, because of unwarranted claims to the contrary, it must be pointed out that there is no evidence whatever that Banneker had anything to do with the survey of the Federal City or indeed with the final establishment of the boundaries of the Federal District. All available testimony shows that he was present only during the few weeks early in 1791 when the rough preliminary survey of the ten mile square was made; that, after this was concluded and before the final survey was begun, he returned to his farm and his astronomical studies in April, accompanying Ellicott part way on his brief journey back to Philadelphia; and that thenceforth he had no connection with the mapping of the seat of government. ...
In any case, Banneker's participation in the surveying of the Federal District was unquestionably brief and his role uncertain.
Many are suggesting that reports of Benjamin Bannekars' accomplishments would have been kept in a protected research library for future verification. Some Americans at that time were barely used to the idea that Africans had any capabilities that showed them intellectually equal. Many Americans were dedicated to ensuring that Africans remained dehumanized. The goal was to keep slave labor profitable, not aid in the abolition of slavery. Thus, the concerted effort to perpuate the 'mythology' view as truth. ViolStep ( talk) 00:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
If I were looking for information on the "mythology"—not really the term I would use regardless—around Benjamin Banneker and its development and historical context in the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries, this article would be useless. Mainly it's centered around quibbling with "the first" vs. "among the first" in journalistic writing from decades ago, not even with explaining what the mythology is.
At 390kb it's nearly a quarter longer than the actual (oddly bloated) article on Banneker. It's seven times longer than the page on Folklore of the United States. It's longer than Pierre Charles L'Enfant, Andrew Ellicott, L'Enfant Plan, and History of Washington, D.C. combined. Outside of the weird Banneker/Mythology of Banneker/Commemorations of Banneker nexus it appears to only have two pages currently linking in to it (although it does have plenty of redirects, for no apparent reason except inertia); one of those links is a random appearance in a "see also" list in African-American literature. Neither Banneker nor his writings are mentioned in that article.
I'll also note that after looking through the first 500 articles including "mythology of," this is the only one devoted to sloppy newspaper language around a single individual. Generally articles styled "Mythology of" deal with American science fiction or fantasy television shows featuring elaborate serialized mystery storytelling from the 1990s-2010s. Whether those articles should exist or be folded into their main articles is a topic for another place, but this one definitely should be folded back into the main article on Banneker. Messier object ( talk) 06:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)