Talk:Benjamin Banneker

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

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

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

message: On Nov. 10, User:Theduce91 replaced most of the text of this article with a cut-and paste from a copyrighted site, http://www dot notablebiographies dot com/Ba-Be/Banneker-Benjamin.html, in this edit.  They even included "Reproduced by permission of Fisk University Library" for an image that wasn't actually there.
I realize that a lot of work has been done to wikify and edit this material, but the only way I could see to get rid of the copyright violation was to restore the old version of those sections.  I didn't revert the park and memorial section or anything after it, since those weren't part of the cut-and-paste. —Celithemis 05:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of copyright violation 

message: "Benjamin Banneker's mother was Mary Bannaky (1710–?). Oral tradition states that her mother was a Caucasian named Molly Welsh, who was supposedly accused of stealing milk and grahams and sent from England to the colonies as punishment."
:Do you mean...graham crackers? Zigzig20s 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to maker a similar point. We have only just got Graham crackers in the UK, we certaiinly didn't have them back then.  So what do you mean?  A type of biscuit? (cookie in US Eng) Bread?  Grahams is a nonsense in the context of the article. 86.134.47.40 09:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She was accused of stealing milk.  "Grahams" is probably someone's idea of a joke that didn't get caught. —Celithemis 23:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  grahams? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clean up of subtle vandalism 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Banneke.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title: mess 2.0

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

text: If you want to add a section refuting all the BS about Leonardo Da Vinci in books like the Da Vinci Code, or claims like that he invented scissors, then go ahead. In the meantime, it doesn't appear to be standard wikipedia practice to add sections debasing the subject of the article. Instead, you simply list what is cited and factual. The desire to add these sections to articles about Banneker and people like George Washington Carver is odd and honestly, disturbing. The section should be removed in favor of simply leaving factual information about Banneker. 173.2.69.205 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Mythology and Legacy" section of Benjamin Banneker cites a number of publications and websites (including a Maryland Historical Society website) that either document and refute specific Banneker myths or note in general terms that many accounts of Banneker's life contain both documented and undocumented information. At Google Books. At boundarystones.org "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." Published information about many other historical people and events also contain inaccuracies and exaggerations.   However, the myths involving Benjamin Banneker are sufficiently prominent, numerous and well-documented that no biography of the man (including one in Wikipedia) can be complete without a discussion of these.Corker1 (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banneker mythology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  'mythology' and 'legends' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bannekers father a dogon 

message: Benjamin Banneker, was a Moor, a Muslim, I do not understand why there is no reference to this whatsoever? At Google Books
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.155.150 (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The electronicly reproduced pages of the book cited above lack a bibliography.  They also lack in-line references. Further, the book perpetuates and extends at least one erroneous Banneker myth.  As an example, a statement on page 42 erroneously claims that Banneker was the original designer of the streets of Washington, D.C.  Further, the book does not provide any evidence from original source material that can support a claim that Banneker was either a Moor or a Muslim. The book is therefore not a reliable source of information about Banneker. Corker1 (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benyamin Banna Bey MOOR, Muslim.... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: not a suitable link for the external links section. — Bility (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 82.6.74.17, 22 September 2011 

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

text: disagree  The title of the book is "100 Greatest African-Americans".  The selection of Banneker and others for inclusion in the book represent the author's opinions.  A. Cline's review states that the book's biographies lack negative information about the subjects.  Because the selection of subjects was based on opinions, the reviewer's cited statement is relevant.  A. Cline's review is balanced, as it provides both positive and negative opinions and information about the contents of the book.  Corker1 (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To resolve this controversy, I have removed the reference to the review by A. Cline and placed the reference to "100 Greatest African Americans" in a relevant section:  "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker: Plan of the City of Washington". 69.143.203.157 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review by A. Cline 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: If you read the article's first line, and then the first line of the subsequent section your question will be answered. Basically: his parents were both free when he was born.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both. I was confused especially since I was never taught the breakdown in school. To Maunus, I did read the article, that's why I was confused...to Embram, the black slaveowner talk is a very broad topic, but when it boils down, the truth is that many of them "owned" slaves to "free" slaves. A lot of them even bought family members to "set them free". By law they were slaves, but in reality, they were free. That is one aspect that is left out of the school books, but I think it is very important history. Even after being freed or escaping, they never forgot their struggle and fought to free others (even if they had to buy them out). Amazing. That's all I wanted to add to your sentence. Chic3z (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a lovely story, and certainly a politically correct way to excuse the black slave owners, but it's not generally true. Certainly there were blacks (and whites too) who bought slaves in order to free them, but that was not the rule. As scholars have pointed out, free Negroes who acquired slaves were likely "to have the same socioeconomic interest in their human property as did white slave owners. ... [U]p to the 1860's, having economic interests in common with the white slaveholders, black owners enjoyed the same social standing: attended the same churches, same private schools, and places of amusement. They frequently lived on the same streets as white families. Slaves represented an important status symbol, but also an inexpensive source of help in the workplace or in the home. Most of the blacks who held slaves solely for profit were farmers or plantation owners." One example was William Ellison, a former slave who had purchased his own freedom. He became a cotton gin maker and master craftsman, and "owned a large cotton plantation and more slaves than any other free person of color in the South outside Louisiana, even more than all but the richest white planters. Ellison was so successful that many of his white competitors went out of business." - Embram (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How was he born free? 

message: File:Benjamin Banneker.jpg|Benjamin Banneker, Architect
Nikkoshogun (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A crop from the above is already shown in the article. Thank you. Samsara (FA • FP) 09:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2014 

message: 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)
replies: text: See below. Stickee (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2014 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Benjamin Banneker. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 216.56.46.12 (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 20 external links on Benjamin Banneker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www dot notablebiographies dot com/Ba-Be/Banneker-Benjamin.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hmdb.org/Marker.asp?Marker=78504
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses/210/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanantiquarian.org/Exhibitions/Inpursuit/casefloor/casefloor_7.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://shakeosphere.lib.uiowa.edu/persons/person.jsp?pid=1808
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maa.org/publications/periodicals/convergence/benjamin-bannekers-trigonometry-puzzle
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/members/courses/teachers_corner/34224.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031206191132/http://dcpages.ari.net/History/Planning_DC.shtml to http://dcpages.ari.net/History/Planning_DC.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.headlinesciencenow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Letter-from-Benjamin-Banneker-to-Thomas-Jefferson-Aug-1791.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.headlinesciencenow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Jefferson-replies-to-letter-from-Benjamin-Banneker.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boundarystones.org/articles/rchs_1969.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.amazon.com/The-Life-Benjamin-Banneker-African-American/dp/0938420593/ref%3Dcm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://archives.profsurv.com/magazine/article.aspx?i=567
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Benjamin_Banneker.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://catonsville.exploremd.us/oella/benjamin_banneker_historical_park/time_line/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=7440
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.profsurv.com/magazine/article.aspx?i=71563
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blackpast.org/aah/banneker-benjamin-1731-1806
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://blog.library.si.edu/2017/02/americas-first-known-african-american-scientist-mathematician/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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) (2) ''
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)
replies: text:  Apart from OR/SYNTH, the Day and Banneker letters don't resemble each other enough in style or content to assume there is any relation between the two.  Also, if this level of detailed searching for precursors were done in other bios there would be quite a lot of credit in need of removing.  Banneker should be held to the same standard as everyone else, not get a special investigative committee. That other people did similar things earlier is sometimes relevant and important, but does not make the ideas about Banneker mythological. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomas Day's letter

message: There is a section above, going back to 2009, about  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,  -- 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)
thread_title:  Jefferson's letter, again 

message: 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)
replies: text: What are your arguments against the wikilink to describe what the article is saying happens? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should an example of historical negationism have a link to a Wikipedia page explaining historical negationism? 

message: My point is pretty straightforward: the article does not refer to negationism, so linking to that page when talking about  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Let's discuss the issue here [[WP:RFCBEFORE|before]] resorting to an RfC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2023 

message: 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)
thread_title:  DC Survey Claim Followed By Citations Disproving It?