Talk:Benjamin Banneker

mess.

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2023

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

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

DC Survey Claim Followed By Citations Disproving It?

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

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