Talk:Benjamin Franklin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Patriot or Spy?

The author Cecil B. Curry claims that Franklin was a British agent, given the code name of '72' (British Intelligence did refer to him as such in their letters, but they gave numbers to many others for correspondence purposes, including the King of France). The late George MacDonald Fraser (author of the 'Flashman' series), repeats the charge in one of his novels.

Even if it has been debunked, mention of the charge, along with answers to it should feature in the article. The notion is widespread enough to deserve mention as part of the history of the subject.

Ref: 'CODE NUMBER 72 - Benjamin Franklin: Patriot or Spy?' by Cecil B. Curry 71.202.17.218 (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Political Party

Benjamin Franklin was an Liberal Anti-Federalist. Please change. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.221.76 (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Birthday?

Look at the first sentence: "Benjamin Franklin (January 17, 1706 [O.S. January 6, 1705] – April 17, 1790) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America." Shouldn't the O.S. date be 1706 too? 199.164.167.161 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course it should. Someone please change it. The change from Old Style to New Style only involved 11 DAYS, not a whole year. 69.151.11.242 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)EGAD

I noticed that independently, so have changed it. Slightly later: scratch that; there's a comment in there noting that "1705 is correct. In Old Style, new year began March 25". I have no idea whether that's true, but it's there and plausible, so I must leave it until someone better informed than myself comes along. At any rate, I thought it worth updating this talk item. Tom Yates (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

1705 is correct. It can be confusing, but this Slate article explains it more clearly than our article on Old Style and New Style dates. The traditional "correct" way to record Franklin's year of birth is 1705/6, a method called dual dating that is now rare and unfamiliar to many people. —Kevin Myers 06:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Slate site appears to be an excellent source to aid in explaining the birthdate. So I've added it to the date in the lead, and I've also brought it up on the George Washington Talk page as well.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  11:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Lighting Rod

Benjamin Franklin wasn't the only inventor of the lighting rod. In the same age, it was invented by Czech priest Prokop Diviš. I think it should be written in the page. --Zik2 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The lightning rod topic deals with this, as well as other sources. Tedickey (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

To claim that Franklin did not conduct his kite experiment, one author cited the illustrations of Franklin's kite experiment show him standing indoors, the kite string passing through an open window.

I'd say that rather proves Franklin did do his experiment, using due caution. Common sense tells us that he sent the kite up, tossed the dry ball of wound string through the open window, and did his experiment without fear of being electrocuted because he knew a dry string doesn't conduct. - - - - Richard_DuBrul@Yahoo.Com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.177.15 (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

To whom it may Concern: note 30 has a dead link. This is the living one: http://www.benjaminfranklinhouse.org/site/sections/about_franklin/PhysicsTodayVol59no1p42_48.pdf Sorry I can't edit it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.10.155 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Illegitimate Son ?

Wikipedia says: In 1730, at the age of 24, Franklin publicly acknowledged an illegitimate son named William. But this contradicts William's birthdate of 1731. Wikipedia is way too much in a hurry to accuse Franklin of having a supposedly illegitimate son. Many think he was not illegitimate and simply a son of Franklin's common law wife. Wikipedia needs make this clear and stop pointing fingers irresponsibly. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is also possible that Franklin adopted William, or that Franklin had a previous common law marriage which left in those frontier days little or no papers. At any rate simply calling William 'illegitimate' is very irresponsible of Wikipedia. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Osrevad

Osrevad's edits were quite good as it meant removal of fancruft. Most of those things were nothing more than distracting tangents that shift the focus of the article away and weren't helping. Quality improves with Osrevad's deletions. Comments?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My acid test for trivia (and if it passes, it isn't trivial) is whether this tells me something I needed to know about Franklin (even by way of interpretation) that helps me understand him. And the answer is: "No". Good call. --Rodhullandemu 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be better to move the material to a minor article about BF in popular culture? I mean... BF "fans" may have compiled the list, but in the Real World people make use of BF in popular entertainment quite a lot. I don't think such a list is "unencyclopaedic". It might not tell you about BF, but it does tell about his influence. -- Evertype·✆ 09:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Much of the removed material was trivia, but the ones that were retained aren't that different from the removed material (and some such as Neal Stephenson's book) are relatively nonnotable even within the previous list. Tedickey (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for clarity

Original title: Suggestion for clarity in a sentence in the article referencing "Franklin Institute of Boston" (should actually be "Benjamin Franklin Institute of Technology")— title shortened to reduce width of TOC
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Where it says the following in the article,

"Franklin's Boston trust fund accumulated almost $5,000,000 during that same time, and was used to establish a trade school that became the Franklin Institute of Boston.[64]"

there isn't a "Franklin Institute of Boston" but rather what is now called "Benjamin Franklin Institute of Technology" (a technical tranining institute that grants Bachelors and Associate Degrees as well as Certificates in varied technical and engineering fields). The article **DOES** have a hyperlink for "Franklin Institute of Boston" which jumps to an article on the "Benjamin Franklin Institute of Technology" (which is good) but this article may be better to INSTEAD say the following in the above paragraph (for the sake of clarity):

"Franklin's Boston trust fund accumulated almost $5,000,000 during that same time, and was used to establish a trade school that became the Franklin Institute of Boston (actually now called the Benjamin Franklin Institute of Technology)."

. . . and where it says "Benjamin Franklin Institute of Technology" in my suggested paragraph replacement, you can make that school's present-day name hyperlinked to jump to the Wikipedia article by the exact same name. That Wikipedia article on "Benjamin Franklin Institute of Technology" does not even reference anything about "Franklin Institute of Boston" and neither does that school's own web site.

Signed, MENSwikiman (MENSwikiman (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Well, MENSwikiman, you have to look a little hard, and if you take a gander at the website's faculty list, you'll find that several of the faculty received diplomas from the "Franklin Institute of Boston" (just do a simple page search on this web page) in automotive technology, electronic engineering technology and in electrical technology. So it appears that there is indeed such a school. I'm no expert, and perhaps someone from Boston can clarify; however, I would say that the school mentioned in the BF article is a very real part of the Benjamin Franklin Institute of Technology; it's sort of a college within a university type of thing if I don't miss my guess. So what to do with the link in this article would be up to someone who has more of a handle on whether or not I'm correct.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  00:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• PS. Further research uncovers this web page – Benjamin Franklin Institute of Boston. When one compares the contact telephone number on that page with the contact number on this page – Benjamin Franklin Institute of Technology (up at the very top-center), one sees that they are exactly the same.

can someone change the 'preformed' to 'performed'. I cannot, without some inconvenience, as it is semiprotected. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.100.103 (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

typesetter/compositor

Since I didn't know what a compositor was, I clicked on compositor and it redirected to compositing, which I am sure is not what Franklin did for a living. I have changed the wording to typesetter, which makes sense to me. If I am wrong please correct it and tell me why I am wrong on my talk page. Thank You. Griffinofwales (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth?

January 17, 1706 [O.S. January 6, 1705]

Shouldn't both years be 1706? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.138.44 (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Under the old dating style, the new year began on March 25th - so January was still in 1705. See Old Style and New Style dates. Shimgray | talk | 12:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Benjamin Franklin by Joseph Siffrein Duplessis.jpg

Recently the file File:Benjamin Franklin by Joseph Siffrein Duplessis.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 23:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Marvellous, thanks! Shimgray | talk | 22:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Franklin invented the first medical catheter? Not exactly true!

See this page http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2005/mar/franklin061605.html there are some thingth you would find out the are not corect in wiki I hope it helps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.91.226 (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

virtue, religion and personal beliefs

Following is a proposal for additions to the section on virtue, religion and personal beliefs. I also made a number of small changes for clarity, grouping of ideas, and a few small edits to get rid of repetition of ideas, plus one correction re the church Franklin was baptised in. since i touched almost every paragraph, I thought I would put the post here before putting it into the article. note I have not put the new references in the proper format yet. waldenpond (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)waldenpond

Like the other advocates of republicanism, Franklin emphasized that the new republic could survive only if the people were virtuous. All his life he explored the role of civic and personal virtue, as expressed in Poor Richard's aphorisms. Franklin was a non-dogmatic believer, who felt that organized religion was necessary for men to be good to their fellow men, but he rarely attended church himself. His faith in God was an important factor in his support for the American Revolution. (Novak, p.12,84) When Ben Franklin met Voltaire in Paris and asked this great apostle of the Enlightenment to bless his grandson, Voltaire said in English, “God and Liberty,” and added, “this is the only appropriate benediction for the grandson of Monsieur Franklin.” (Isaacson, p 354)

Franklin’s parents were both pious Puritans. (Isaacson, pp 5-18) The family attended the old South Church, the most liberal Puritan congregation in Boston, where Benjamin Franklin was baptized in 1706. (Isaacson p 15; http://www.oldsouth.org/history.html ) The Revolutionary War generation of this historic congregation include Samuel Adams,; Samuel Sewall, judge and diarist; Thomas Prince, minister and book collector; William Dawes, Paul Revere’s fellow rider in 1775. Old South Church played a significant role in the revolution through the bold actions of the Sons of Liberty at the Old South Meeting House. There, in 1773, Samuel Adams gave the signal for the “war whoops” that started the Boston Tea Party. As poet John Greenleaf Whittier wrote, “So long as Boston shall Boston be, And her bay tides rise and fall, Shall freedom stand in the Old South Church, And plead for the rights of all.” (; http://www.oldsouth.org/history.html)

Franklin’s Puritan upbringing was a central factor throughout his life, as a philanthropist, civic leader and key player in the Revolutionary War. (Novak pp 12,26,42,84,173-5,218n2,242n63; Isaacson, pp 10,25,26,31,49,59,92,102,486,489,490) Franklin rejected much of his Puritan upbringing: belief in salavation, hell, Jesus Christ’s divinity, and indeed most religious dogma. He retained a strong faith in God as the wellspring of morality and goodness in man, and as a Providential actor in history responsible for American independence. (Isaacson, p. 486; Novak pp 11-12, 42, 84, 173-5, 218n2, 242n63) His faith in God was an important factor in his Franklin’s support for the American Revolution, as it was to most of the founding generation. (Novak, pp11-12) As Franklin wrote, “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.” (Novak, p.12)

Ben Franklin’s father, a poor chandler, owned a copy of a book, Bonifacius: Essays to Do Good, by the famous Purtian preacher, and family friend, Cotton Mather, which “Franklin often cited as a key influence” on his life. (Isaacson, p 26) “”If I have been,” Franklin wrote to Cotton Mather’s son seventy years later, “a useful citizen, the public owes the advantage of it to that book.” Franklin’s first pen name, Silence Dogwood, paid homage both to the book and to a famous sermon by Mather.” (Isaacson, p26) The book preached the importance of forming voluntary associations to benefit society. Cotton Mather personally founded a neighborhood improvement group, that Franklin’s father joined. “Franklin picked up his penchant for forming do-good associations from Cotton Mather and others, but his organizational fervor and galvanizing personality made him the most influential force in instilling this as an enduring part of American life.” (Isaacson, p102)

It was Ben Franklin who during a critical impasse during the Constitutional Convention, 28 June 1787, introduced the practice of daily common prayer at the Convention, with these words:

“… In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. … And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: …I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.” (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin.htm )

Franklin briefly belonged to a Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. Shortly thereafter, he became an enthusiastic supporter of one of America’s great evangelical ministers, George Whitefield, “the most popular of the Great Awakening’s roving preachers.” (Isaacson, p110) Franklin did not subscribe to Whitefield’s theology, but he admired Whitefield for exhorting people to worship God through good works. Franklin printed Whitefield’s sermons on the front page of his Gazette. He arranged to publish all of Whitefield’s sermons and journals. Half of Franklin’s publications in 1739-41 were of Whitefield, and helped the success of the evangelical movement in America. Franklin was a lifelong friend and supporter of Whitefield, until his death in 1770. (Isaacson pp107, 110, 112, 113)

When he stopped attending church, Franklin wrote in his autobiography, "...Sunday being my studying day, I never was without some religious principles. I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that He made the world, and governed it by His providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter." (http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111frank2.html

Franklin retained a lifelong commitment to the Puritan virtues and political values he had grown up with, and through his civic work and publishing, he succeeded in passing these values into the American culture permanently. He had a “passion for virtue.” (Isaacson p 485) These Puritan values included his devotion to egalitarianism, education, industry, thrift, honesty, temperance, charity and community spirit. (Isaacson p. 149, 92,486,490) Franklin’s desire to teach these values was itself something he gained from his Puritan upbringing, with its stress on “inculcating virtue and character in themselves and their communities.” (Isaacson p 10,102,489) These Puritan values and the desire to pass them on, were one of Franklin’s quintessentially American characteristics, and helped shape the character of the nation. Max Weber considered Franklin's ethical writings a culmination of the Protestant ethic, which ethic created the social conditions necessary for the birth of capitalism.

One of Franklin's famous characteristics was his respect, tolerance and promotion of all churches. Referring to his experience in Philadelphia, he wrote in his autobiography, "new Places of worship were continually wanted, and generally erected by voluntary Contribution, my Mite for such purpose, whatever might be the Sect, was never refused." “He helped create a new type of nation that would draw strength from its religious pluralism.” (Isaacson p 93ff). The first generation of Puritans had been intolerant of dissent, but by the early 1700’s, when Franklin grew up in the Puritan church, tolerance of different churches was the norm, and Massachusetts was known, in John Adam’s words, as “’the most mild and equitable establishment of religion that was known in the world.’” (Bailyn, 1967, p. 248) The evangelical revivalists who were active mid-century, such as Franklin’s friend and preacher, George Whitefield, were the greatest advocates of religious freedom, “claiming liberty of conscience to be an ‘inalienable right of every rational creature.’” (Bailyn, p 249) Whitefield’s supporters in Philadelphia, including Franklin, erected “a large, new hall, that…could provide a pulpit to anyone of any belief.” (Isaacson, p. 112) Franklin’s rejection of dogma and doctrine and his stress on the God of ethics and morality and civic virtue, made him the “prophet of tolerance.” (Isaacson, p 93ff)

Although Franklin's parents had intended for him to have a career in the church, Franklin as a young man adopted the Enlightenment religious belief in Deism, that God’s truths can be found entirely through nature and reason.(Isaacson p. 46) "I soon became a thorough Deist." As a young man he rejected Christian dogma in a 1725 pamphlet, which he later saw as an embarrassment, A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain., while simultaneously asserting, God is “all wise, all good, all powerful.” (Isaacson, p. 45) He defended his rejection of religious dogma with these words: "I think opinions should be judged by their influences and effects; and if a man holds none that tend to make him less virtuous or more vicious, it may be concluded that he holds none that are dangerous, which I hope is the case with me." After the disillusioning experience of seeing the decay in his own moral standards, and those of two friends in London whom he had converted to Deism, Franklin turned back to a belief in the importance of organized religion, on the pragmatic grounds that without God and organized churches, man will not be good. (Isaacson, p 46, 486)

In 1757 he wrote Thomas Paine, criticizing his manuscript, The Age of Reason: "For without the Belief of a Providence that takes Cognizance of, guards and guides and may favour particular Persons, there is no Motive to Worship a Deity, to fear its Displeasure, or to pray for its Protection….think how great a Proportion of Mankind consists of weak and ignorant Men and Women, and of inexperienc'd and inconsiderate Youth of both Sexes, who have need of the Motives of Religion to restrain them from Vice, to support their Virtue, and retain them in the Practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great Point for its Security; And perhaps you are indebted to her originally that is to your Religious Education, for the Habits of Virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it."

According to David Morgan, Franklin was a proponent of religion in general. He prayed to "Powerful Goodness" and referred to God as "the infinite". John Adams noted that Franklin was a mirror in which people saw their own religion: "The Catholics thought him almost a Catholic. The Church of England claimed him as one of them. The Presbyterians thought him half a Presbyterian, and the Friends believed him a wet Quaker." Whatever else Franklin was, concludes Morgan, "he was a true champion of generic religion."

In 1790, just about a month before he died, Franklin wrote a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale University, who had asked him his views on religion:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble....

On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed a committee that included Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams to design the Great Seal of the United States. Franklin's proposal featured a design with the motto: "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." His design portrayed a scene from the Book of Exodus, with Moses, the Israelites, the pillar of fire, and George III depicted as Pharaoh.

At age 20, Franklin wrote his own epitaph:

                        The body of
                   B. Franklin, Printer
              (Like the Cover of an Old Book
                   Its Contents torn Out
         And Stript of its Lettering and Gilding)
                Lies Here, Food for Worms.
              But the Work shall not be Lost;
       For it will (as he Believ'd) Appear once More
             In a New and More Elegant Edition
                   Revised and Corrected
                      By the Author.
                             

Franklin's actual grave, however, as he specified in his final will, simply reads "Benjamin and Deborah Franklin."

This is very good information, and it should go in the article. Ocanter (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I provided some fuller context regarding Franklin's brief flirtation with Deism. I feel the earlier language misrepresented the source. I also changed phrases like "attacked Christian principles," because that is not what the cited sources are doing. The fuller context should help make this clear. Ocanter (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I like your revision of the paragraph better than my own, so please do make the revisions when you have a chance. Ocanter (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Skip to TOC template

The {{Skiptotoctalk}} template has been added to the top of this Talk page for those who want to "get right down to it".  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Biographies

{{editsemiprotected}}

The Biographies contains the line
Mark Skousen. The Compleated Autobiography by Benjamin Franklin (2005) told in Franklin's own words.
Which contains a TYPO
Compleated should be Completed
TheGreatAwesomeness (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

 Not done If you try editing the section, just beside the typo word "compleated" is a hidden comment: <!-- not a misspelling -->. I don't know why it is not a typo but it is advisable not to change it. Thank you for bringing it to attention, --Srinivas 06:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing from this article

1. An extensive discussion of the Pennsylvania Gazette's influence on journalism. 2. Some acknolwedgement that the man was a womanizer. It's not a secret. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.201.49 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In 1751, when Lancaster, Pennsylvania was the largest inland city in the world, Benjamin Franklin established the first print shop in the city, founding a local industry that remains a significant part of Lancaster's economy. Ben partnered with Quaker printer James Chattin in a precursor to today's franchising operations, providing the equipment and paying one third of the expenses in exchange for one third of the profit. He had the same arrangement with printers in New York, New Haven, Annapolis, Charleston, and Antigua. Chattin was unsuccessful in attracting trade, and was replaced with Heinrich Miller and Samuel Holland. In 1753, Franklin sells out to Holland for 200 Pounds Sterling, the same amount he used to establish Franklin College, precursor of Franklin and Marshall. In 1754, he takes back the print shop and rents it to William Dunlap, who brings in his nephew, John Dunlap, from Ireland to apprentice in the shop. In 1757, Franklin moves to England, and William Dunlap moves to Philadelphia to succeed him as postmaster. Meanwhile, John Dunlap acquires some renown, and becomes the first to print the Declaration of Independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.131.100 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

President of Pennsylvania

Special balloting conducted October 18, 1785 unanimously elected Franklin the sixth President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, replacing John Dickinson. The office of President of Pennsylvania was analogous to the modern position of Governor. It is not clear why Dickinson needed to be replaced with less than two weeks remaining before the regular election.

John Dickinson was elected counsellor for the County of Philadelphia October 8, 1782, and his term as counsellor, i.e. member of the Executive Council, expired three years later as required by the Constitution of Pennsylvania (1776), Sect. 19. According to the legal norms existing in the State at that time, Dickinson's term as counsellor (and subsequently as President of the Executive Council) expired on the day of General Election held on the second Tuesday of October (Constitution 1776, Sect. 17), October 11, 1785. There was no need to "replace" Dickinson. Incidentally, Franklin's term as President ended October 14, 1788 (NOT December 1, 1788 as indicated in the left column under his portrait).

--arch_editor (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding See Also sections...

See WP:SEEALSO from the Manual of Style... "This section should generally not contain links that appear in the body text or in navigation boxes" In general, the "See Also" section is reserved for related topics that are not otherwise Wikilinked in the text. All of the ones I removed are clearly Wikilinked in the main text, in some cases several times. I will be presently removing them again unless you would care to work to have the manual of style changed so that this is not part of it. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 17:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for coming and discussing this, Jayron. Here's the thing: At some point in time a past editor thought it was important and appropriate to include those links in the See also section, perhaps so readers would not have to "hunt" for them. Since the words "generally" and "in general" are used in the MoS, it seems that WP:Preserve prevails and the links ought to remain in the See also section. So I would like to take this discussion to the Talk:Benjamin Franklin page to see if there is a consensus to remove the links. I will await your response to make sure you're in agreement to move the discussion.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. I just checked and saw that you've already removed the links again, and you included a link to my Talk page. Since it is more appropriate to discuss this sort of thing on the article's Talk page, I shall go ahead and move this discussion to the BF Talk page to see how other editors feel about this struggle between WP:SEEALSO and WP:Preserve.

I was just doing some general MOS fixes at Benjamin Franklin; and I was trying to keep the See Also section compliant with the MOS. Personally, I am not sure that WP:PRESERVE makes any sense here, since no information is being lost. WP:PRESERVE is not about maintaining the extisting article without improving it; it is merely about not losing existing information. The removed links are clearly linked, often several times, in the text elsewhere, some in the section immediately preceding the See Also section. It is also not immediately apparent why all of those particular links are in the See Also section as opposed to other links from the text. I think that some, such as Founding Fathers of the United States may be worth relinking in the See Also section, but there were others that were not really all that key to understanding Benjamin Franklin, and probably served little purpose as they were clearly. Let's return that one, and discuss any other links you think may be relevent. See Also should not be a random set of tangentally related topics, but like anything else in the article, should be considered for relevence. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I concur with you Jayron. My main concern here was readers having to hunt through a rather long article for a link they couldn't quite remember. I know I've done this in the past, and when found, I've sometimes added the link to the See also section so it would be easier to find for other readers. And yet I do see the wrong in this. Thank you for the education!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ben Franklin Time Management

Ben Franklin was a master of time management and personal productivity. There's a link that I'd like to recommend be placed on the Ben Franklin page. It's a link to a mini-course on his self-developed system of productivity.

Here's the link: http://improveyourself.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=1:iycategory&id=93:mini-course-ben-franklin-time-management

I did not find that link useful. The subject is one that perhaps could have a section in the article. SunCreator (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Date Franklin criticized Thomas Paine?

The article, as of September 2, 2009 says that Franklin criticized Thomas Paine's [/u]The Age of Reason[/u] in 1757. This is clearly impossible since Paine published [/u]The Age of Reason[/u] well after the drafting of the US Constitution in 1787. The date is definitely inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numberonesurvivor (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This article says "In 1757 he wrote Thomas Paine, criticizing his manuscript, The Age of Reason", yet the wiki article on The Age of Reason says it was published starting in 1794. The wiki article on Thomas Paine gives 1793. It seems the 1757 in the Franklin articles is inaccurate. Dclcackle (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Checked the source material for that quote, which is here (cite 89 in the article): [1]. It says "date uncertain" and there appears to be no basis for the 1757 date, so I changed the article to remove the date. --Jayron32 04:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Staying with Charles Darwin?

The article states that Benjamin Franklin stayed with Charles Darwin at Lichfield. However cross referencing against Darwin's article shows that he wasn't born until the 1800s, which was after Franklin's death. Therefore I would suggest that this information must be erroneous.

See the below hyperlink for the dates of Darwin's birth and death.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/darwin_charles.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.50.96.14 (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Darwin wasn't born when Franklin was alive so to say that Benjamin Franklin stayed with Charles Darwin at Lichfield is complete rubbish. I will remove and investigate. SunCreator (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems that an editor has read that Benjamin Franklin met Dr Darwin and assumed that Dr Darwin was Charles Darwin. Clearly not so. SunCreator (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Mea culpa. It was a bad assumption on my part - thank you for spotting this and correcting it. It appears that it was most probably Charles Darwin's grandfather, not Charles himself. I've corrected the text according to the source but it would be nice to confirm that it was in fact Erasmus Darwin he stayed with. --HighKing (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Life in France

The Life in France section is way too short - he spent almost 10 years of his life there; it warrants more than the one small paragraph. --RossF18 (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

llENGLAND?????

it doesnt say in Articles Related to Benjamin Franklin that he was a ambassador to ENGLAND???????????????????? johnjay and rich fan 67.101.189.131 (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Silence Doogood

Why is there a lack of information on this page about the Silence Doogood letters? Why has no one brought this to attention, and/or, written anything into the article about this? Sadly, I only know of the letters, however, and lack the sufficent knowledge to write out anything but a rough idea. 24.206.252.254 (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality?

I read in a book by Jack Fruchtman that Franklin may well have been homosexual, and married simply to conceal this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.61.194 (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Success As An Author

Benjamin Franklin’s contribution to American Literature is noteworthy. Throughout Franklin’s literature is the presence of the values by which he lived. These values include: virtue, industry, hard work, frugalness, and bettering oneself. Franklin was not known for his religious practices, but rather his practicing habits religiously. As a young man, he rose from the lower working class and soon became one of the most well known Americans in Europe. It is germane to conclude that he was face with which Europeans came to associate America and her values; he was the first American. Franklin was raised in the Puritan setting of the New England colonies, but throughout his lifetime instead of adhering to these religious practices he successfully took the Puritan discipline and devotion and applied it to his personal beliefs. These beliefs include the aforementioned values. Not being a religious man and even considering going to church invaluable compared to reading a book. He states in his autobiography that it was more valuable to spend his leisure time reading and becoming more knowledgeable than it was to go to church. As a result, Franklin’s literature reflects these beliefs he held so dearly. His writing was such a landmark in American Literature because it differed so much from that of the traditional American Literature that was written in the Northeast prior to Franklin. In contrast to that of earlier authors, such as Cotton Mather (1663-1728), who wrote about being a good Christian and understanding one’s place in the hierarchy system. Franklin had contrary beliefs in man. He felt that man could make his own future through hard work and dedication to education and industry.

Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion: (1728) In this piece, Franklin addresses God; it is written in the structure of that of a prayer. Franklin says, “He, the Infinite Rather, expects or requires no Worship or Praise from us, but that he is even INFINITELY ABOVE IT.” Franklin delivers the message that approbation is paid to him through working hard and being virtuous. This article sets the precedent for that which the rest of Franklin’s writings are based: his enormous value for hard work and his immense focus on virtue. Review of Franklin’s work: Richard Amacher says, “The Articles of Belief were Franklin's attempts at modernizing and otherwise improving the language of the King James Version of the Bible.” This suggests that Benjamin Franklin was trying to find himself and his place with religion, and perhaps he was changing his religion to better fit him, rather than to create himself with the religion as the premise. Franklin tried to tie together his ideas of values and the churches.

Poor Richard’s Almanac: Benjamin Franklin began publishing Poor Richard’s Almanac at the age of 26 in 1732 until 1758. He wrote Poor Richard’s Almanacs under the pseudonym of Richard Saunders. As these almanacs became more popular, he became successful with this yearly publication that sold thousands of copies. This publication was comprised of: weather, poetry, witty comments, words of wisdom, and miscellaneous comments that pertained to life in the colonies. The following are a few examples of the words of wisdom that make these pieces of literature still remembered today. These aphorisms are still popular in American culture: “In the Humility makes great men twice honourable” “Keep thy shop, & thy shop will keep thee.” “Of learned Fools I have seen ten times ten, “ “Of unlearned wise men I have seen a hundred.” “Three may keep a Secret, if two of them are dead.” “Deny Self for Self’s sake.” “Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy wealthy and wise.” “Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.” Some scholars say that Benjamin Franklin’s political ideas were imbedded in his almanacs. For example, William Pencak says that, “In both their general socio-political outlook and their opinions on particular public events, the almanacs illustrated Franklin’s own efforts toward shaping the mentality of a provincial society that purchased thousands of Poor Richards” (The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography). Franklin was a man who used his resources well and frequently spoke of virtue, frugality, and better one’s self. His almanacs were tools that allowed him to instill in the colonist his beliefs. Through the Alamanacs he encourage colonists to think for themselves and to question the political environment and their niche in that environment. By way of questioning values and religion, Franklin gingerly inquired through aphorisms and stories the thoughts that began to change what soon became America. These thoughts focused on working hard and being able to rise in the hierarchy system; the ways in which to rise had nothing do with church and focused on how virtuous and how hard a man was whiling to work. Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography (1791 in French and 1793 in English) Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography is one of Franklin’s most memorable works. He wrote it in the later years of his life, from 1771 to 1790. This book speaks not only of its author but also of America as a whole. He was the man who painted the picture of America to European nations and their peoples. His autobiography was truly one of the first American texts as it broke away from the church and New England’s traditional Puritan values and focused more on the values he felt necessary for a man to be a good man. It is evident that these values have withstood the passage of time, because they are still what define Americans and they are what America has been built upon. Franklin’s perspective on knowledge and church are ubiquitous throughout the text. To show his beliefs of the superiority of work over church in the text he states, his belief in hard work and dedication: “As I have always thought that one man of tolerable abilities may work great changes and accomplish great affairs among mankind if he first forms a good plan, and cutting off all amusements or other employments that would divert his attention, makes the execution of that same plan his sole study and business (83). This metanarrative speaks of more than just a man, but of the nation as it is trying to break away from the values of that of Britain and define its own place in the world, much like Franklin has tried to work his way up through society through knowledge and experience. The Way to Wealth (1758) Much like many of his other works, his voice transcends through the text to encourage people to “make the wealth small and the want great” (2). He reiterates the motif of his Autobiography: the importance of the abundance of hard work and the eschewal of relaxing and laziness. The pages are filled telling the reader to not borrow money and to work as long as possible. Leisure is redefined by Franklin using Poor Richard’s quote, “leisure is time for doing something useful; this leisure the diligent can will obtain, but the lazy man never; for A life of leisure and a life of laziness are two things” (3). It is only toward the conclusion that Franklin speaks of God and it is only for the convenience of Franklin’s beliefs that there is a moral lesson that is tied to the Bible; he speaks of Job, “Remember, Job suffered, and was afterwards prosperous” (7). Though Franklin relates to the Bible in the sense that work is good and a biblical character, it is not putting God before hard work, but merely using this allusion as a rhetorical device to steer people toward working hard, purchasing little, and being thrifty and frugal. Satire: Franklin’s most famous piece, An Edict by The King of Prussia, was written to “protest the Tea Act in 1773, … merely the best of hundreds displaying Franklin’s clever pen in aid of his chosen causes” (Reference Guide to American Literature). This satire is a parody of the relationship between the colonies and Great Britain. He uses hyperbole to communicate how ridiculous these laws and restrictions are among the colonists. This is shown through the way Franklin explains the grounds by which the subjects can ship goods to Prussia, but they have to pay for the service and transportation. The subjects to the King have to pay just to sail through the port which takes away even more of their money. Franklin’s sarcasm is effective. He writes in a style that at first makes it sound as if he is giving the privilege of allowing them to keep their wool, but he retracts the privilege by not allowing them to sell it for money. The irony of the piece is that Prussia makes it sound like they care about the well being of the subjects, but the King is just holding them down and further handicapping their abilities to be self sufficient, much like Britain was doing the same to the colonies. Franklin is the voice of the colonies in this satire as he relays the colonists’ frustrations. This can further be reflected back to the motif that appears ubiquitously in all of Franklin’s work: the importance of hard work and people having the ability to better their lives for themselves. Franklin stands true to his values as he makes a mockery of the system that has been created. He successfully shows just how ridiculous and unethical the relationship between Britain and the colonies is. Silence Dogood Letters: (April- October 1722) The Silence Dogood Letters are an example of Benjamin Franklin’s satire. He brings social problems to the attention of the people using a woman narrator. The letters were written by Franklin when he worked in his brother’s print shop. He secretly wrote these letters and delivered them to the shop and his brother never knew it was him till some years later. In this composition of letters, Benjamin Franklin spoke as a widow in the colonies and used these letters as a vehicle to express the concerns of average colonists; he wrote as an average colonial woman and addressed issues including: society’s hierarchy, sobriety, and the worries of a widow. Ultimately, these letters to the editor spoke to the people, about the people, and related their present situation to that of Rome and ancient ways. These letters served as the answers to questions and the person who inquired thoughts that many were too afraid to bring to the surface out of the turbid ways and odious facts. For example, the life of a woman after the death of her husband, how children are to be raised in the society into which they are socialized, and how to be a good person and find one’s place. In these letters he speaks of character and even includes a few sayings that would later be found in Poor Richard’s Almanac’s. To quote Lois Gordon, “The first—fourteen essays that appeared in his half-brother’s New England Courant and written under the name of Silence Dogood—is the essential Franklin. His persona, a parson’s widow writing of both the serious and the ridiculous—provides the author distance for irony and satire.” This satire and irony continued to be seen numerous times throughout Franklin’s career. A Scholar’s take on Benjamin Franklin: There are some who believe Benjamin Franklin was a smart and wise man who showed the world what it meant to an American man. There are others who feel was a full of himself and not a good Christian. Scholar Lois Gordon says of Benjamin Franklin: “He gave an American flavor to the epistolary and essay forms, mastered the use of persona in creating the first memorable American comic character, and left for succeeding generations to emulate a crackerbarrel and homey humor. Always, Franklin's work appeals to human reason and retains as its purpose social and moral betterment. "No Piece can properly be called good ... which is void of any tendency to benefit the [Reader's] ... Virtue or his Knowledge.” Benjamin Franklin was the first American and he spoke freely and set the precedence for future Americans.

Work Citied Amacher, Richard E. “Chapter 8: Religious and Philosophical Tracts.” Benjamin Franklin. Richard E. Amacher. Twayne’ United States Authors Series 12. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1962. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Longwood University. 1 Nov. 2009 Franklin, Benjamin. Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1986. Print. Franklin, Benjamin. The Way to Wealth. New York: The New York Association For Improving The Condition of The Poor, 1848. Ebook. Franklin, Benjamin. The works of Benjamin Franklin: containing several political and historical tracts not included in any former edition, and many letters, official and private, not hitherto published, Volume 4. New York: Benjamin Franklin Stevens, 1882. E-book. Gordon, Lois. "Benjamin Franklin: Overview." Reference Guide to American Literature. Ed. Jim Kamp. 3rd ed. Detroit: St. James Press, 1994. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Longwood University. 2 Nov. 2009 <http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=LitRC&u=viva_lwc_main>. Gordon, Lois. "Benjamin Franklin: Overview." Reference Guide to American Literature. Ed. Jim Kamp. 3rd ed. Detroit: St. James Press, 1994. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Longwood University. 2 Nov. 2009 Pencak, William. “Polititcs and Ideology in ‘Poor Richard’s Almanack’” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 116.2 (Apr, 1992): 183- 211. JStor. Web. 09 Nov. 2009. <http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=LitRC&u=viva_lwc_main>. "The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Volume I: Boston and London, 1722 - 1726." The History Carper -- Primary Source Documents, Histories, and Stories. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2009. <http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf1/contents.htm>. <http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=LitRC&u=viva_lwc_main>.

Hellfire Club

I don't see any mention of his involvement in the Hellfire Club. --Darth Borehd (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is (was?) the Hellfire Club? If you can find reliable sources for it, please feel free to add it in the appropriate section.--JayJasper (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dialect

Some people assert that Ben's accent made him sound like a Scotsman. Yet it is clear that he grew up in New England. Did people in Massachusetts speak a dialect most closely resembling present-day Scottish? Or did the contemporaries which described his dialect as Scottish-like have the wrong idea of how Scottish sounds?

2010-02-06 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.71 (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference to "Jackob Fugger" is incorrect

Hello,

I checked the source [95] directly in Google books because I was looking for "Portrait of American Culture." The author of the source writes that Ferdinand Kürnberger wrote this work. On the same page in source [95], there is the spelling "Jakob Fugger" as well.

Excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
Franklin's writings on virtue were derided by some European authors, such as Jackob Fugger in his critical work Portrait of American Culture. Max Weber considered Franklin's ethical writings a culmination of the Protestant ethic, which ethic created the social conditions necessary for the birth of capitalism.[95]

64.246.215.5 (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Franklin's Birthday

The difference between old and new styles is 11 days, not one year and 11 days. The Old Style date is shown with the wrong year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.29.204 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's the correct year. In the Old Style British calendar, which was in effect in Britain's colonies at the time of Franklin's birth, the new year actually began on 25 March 25, rather than 1 January. In the New Style calendar, however, 1 January was the first day of the year. So the date that was 17 January in the New Style calendar corresponded to 6 January in the Old Style calendar and today, we would call this the 6th day of 1706. However, at the time, the Old Style calendar year 1706 would not begein until 25 March, so it was actually 6 January 1705, according to that calendar. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 00:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Philadelphia as leading city of colonian U.S.

In the opening section it states Philadelphia as the leading city in the colonies. Even if this is true, should this be cited? I feel like it violates the NPOV if it is not cited.--MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

it does not in any way violate npov. Rjensen (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Should it at least be cited?--MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

it's pretty unanimous see these citations 00:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin - errors

B. Franklin made his fortune by lending money at interest; engaging in the slave trade; printing advertisements for slave sales and runaways; also had contract to print money.

B. Franklin's first published work was a poem which his brother James asked him to write, about a lighthouse keeper who drowned.

B. Franklin probably freed Peter and John, slaves he took to England, who did not return with him. His other slaves died.

B. Franklin was a joint postmaster with William Hunter prior to the Revolutionary War.

B. Franklin became president of the Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society in 1787; Pennsylvania abolished slavery by statute in 1780.

B. Franklin's partner, David Hall, was the former captain of the Charming Sally, and advertised slaves brought into Pennsylvania in the Gazette.

B. Franklin also represented South Carolina.

B. Franklin did not believe in integration of blacks into society. His plan for free blacks included surveillance and oversight so they did not become public burdens.

B. Franklin's autobiography was published after his death. He did not self-publish the book. Marylinn (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Benjamin Franklin National Memorial.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Benjamin Franklin National Memorial.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Benjamin Franklin National Memorial.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hellfire Club

There should be mention of Franklin's association with the Hellfire Club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.65.2 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This has been suggested previously, more than once. If you can provide reliable sources for it, and add it to the article in an NPOV manner, then by all means please do so. Or link the sources here so someone else can add it to the text.--JayJasper (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

deleted inappropriately-sourced OR reference to Adam Smith

I deleted (for the second time) the following sentence from the article: "To understand why this was novel insights on Franklin's part one has to merely see that Economics was only generally recognized as a science with the publishing of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations which was published 9 years later."
I deleted this sentence for the following reasons:

• The cited source says nothing about economics being generally recognized as a science with the publication of The Wealth of Nations, which means that the sentence is WP:Original research.
• The cited source says nothing about Franklin's insight being novel, which once again means that the sentence is WP:Original research.
• The cited source for this statement is a 500-page book, without any page number given. The result is to hide the fact that the source doesn't support the sentence. (I found the relevant point on page 360.)
• The cited source for this statement is from 1840, over 170 years ago. Perhaps there is a more recent source that discusses the congruence between Franklin's thought and that of Adam Smith.--Other Choices (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I re-added the sentence with a better explanation because in your first removal you wrote as a comment "irrelevant to Franklin". I thought it was relevant and so added it back because of WP:BB. Adam Smith wrote about the invisible hand and how a tradesman aiming to help himself, actually benefits society. This is exactly what the article on the Price of Corn is about, with respect to farmers. The only contentious issue, is that I view this as obviously the same... and you contend that it is WP:OR, a new criticism. I think it's a grey line about what is considered sythesis and what isn't. The author of the Google book saw fit to mention it in reference to Franklin. Perhaps a better phrasing of the sentence could be thought of that provides for this allusion in the same way that the author did, whilest removing the contentious nature you have with OR [in the spirit of fixing rather than deleting WP:EP]. Apologies for not including the page number, which is due to my inexperience of managing Wikipedia and Google book links. --Dmg46664 (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I had to track down the actual quote before I realized that the source didn't say anything about economics as a science, which made me realize that there's a problem here beyond relevance. It's actually an interesting general possibility that Adam Smith was influenced by Franklin's thinking, and that would be worth mentioning if well-sourced. I believe that Franklin and Smith actually met once in England, which isn't mentioned in the article. However, in my opinion, the 1840 author's bare mention (in a footnote) of a similarity between Franklin and Smith is a very thin reed on which to base a sentence in the article -- we'll need a better source. Out of curiosity I did a google search and found something something more recent -- from 1924, less than 90 years ago here. You'll have to go to a university library to access more than the first page. I haven't done so yet, so don't know what might be useful in there.--Other Choices (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding economics as a science... does this help? In the Episode 2 of the PBS series Free to Choose right at the beginning (on youtube) Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman asserts Adam Smith's role in establishing economics as a science. It's only one person's opinion, but notable. It also doesn't discuss the Wealth of Nations specifically. In the first PBS episode, Friedman does mention that Smith taught lecture series before publishing the book, so it's possible he predated Franklin. Even if you're right and there isn't evidence to support any innovation on the part of Franklin, I still think it's notable that Franklin was at the forefront of these ideas at the time they were forming. It must be possible to express that somehow in a way that isn't contentious, but still informs the reader of Franklin's participation here. Damn Jstor, it's like a branded chastity belt for knowledge :-) --Dmg46664 (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

there were dozens of economists before Smith -- none made it a science as Smith did in 1776. Franklin was one of many pre-1776 writers who touched on some issues of economics. The question is exactly what Franklin said that was original. Rjensen (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding, from the wikipedia page on economics, is that economics is a social science. I suppose that the question of the nature of economics, and of Adam Smith's debatable contributions to the field (Leibniz's mathematical formula, adopted by Lazare Carnot and l'Ecole Polytechnique, is in my opinion the place to start for economics as a physical science; and Alexander Hamilton was a follower of James Steuart, although he did borrow selectively from Adam Smith, with whom he had significant disagreements), is outside the scope of this article, but maybe it should be stressed that this is a controversial subject that can't be summarized with a single sentence. I agree with Rjensen that for this article, the question is exactly what Franklin said that was original.--Other Choices (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the relevant question is whether what Franklin wrote was original or not. This would be true with the section was called "Inventions". However, the section is called "Inventions & Scientific enquiry". Franklin's writings, even should they only "touch" on some economics issues, are very much relevant as they give insight into Franklin, which is the focus of the article. If the article was called "Economics insights pre-Adam Smith", then your arguments would have more weight... because the focus would be on exactly how Franklin contributed, and not that he tried to pursue scientific enquiry. --Dmg46664 (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

yes it's the originality that makes them of interest here. Did Franklin repeat other people's ideas? that's trivia and would not attract the attention of Adam Smith or Malthus. Rjensen (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not the originality that makes them of interest. Leonardo Da Vinci drafted plans for flying machines. They were not the first flying machines designs, which go all the way back to the Greeks. They contained insights but most were never even built and tested in his day, and no-one claims originality of Da Vinci's insights into the mechanics of flight. It is still however notable and of interest to the reader that someone like Da Vinci was both and artist and interested in flight. It is fair to call Da Vinci's interests trivia colloquially... but this is Wikipedia, not a scientific journal of publication. Trivia on Wikipedia is defined as information that is not important. Just as Da Vinci's drawings are of interest to the reader, so is Franklin's economic interests (at least 3 contributors of this page have thought so, so far), likewise important, important enough that Historians have published journals on his relationship with Adam Smith, who kept some of Franklin's publications on the topic. --Dmg46664 (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to get people to pay attention to Franklin--as opposed to Da Vinci or Adam Smith. what did he actually say that was so interesting to RS? we get maybe three words on that. I believe what interested Smith and Malthus were his ideas on population -- the rapid growth in America with doubling every 25 years. Franklin's original idea (picked up by Malthus) was that food supply determines population growth -- and there was abundant food in America. See Carl Van Doren, Benjamin Franklin (1938), pp. 216-18. Edmund S. Morgan 2003 p 75 says "In examining the population statistics, he could envision an American continent filled with good, law-abiding Englishmen and their descendants, and it could be done without any diminution of England's own population." Isaacson p 150 says "The abundance of unsettled land in America, he said, led to a faster population growth. ....Thus, he concluded, America's population would double every twenty years and surpass that of England in one hundred years." Lemay 2:245 says "Franklin made notes on population data during the 1730s and 1740s. By 1749, he noted that the American population was growing more rapidly than any other for which he had data." Rjensen (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read the RS that the user OtherChoices discovered, you'd see that the author suggests that there is some truth to the statements "The Wealth of Nations is a defense of the Colonies", "It was claimed that, but for Benjamin Franklin, Adam Smith would have written the treatise on politics promised....", "The establishment of the statements cited would entitle our Franklin to a place of great importance in the history of economic theory, which at present he is seldom given". Although, as mentioned before, none of us have access to the details of the publication in Jstor, it suggests that he contributed to more than mere population stats and projections, and is worthy of considering his works under the banner of economics.--Dmg46664 (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering that Franklin devoted much of his adult life to promoting industrialization, and considering that Adam Smith pointedly argued against industrializing the colonies ("natural course of things," etc.), we're going to need more than the first page of a 90-year-old article to suggest that Adam Smith was following Franklin and defending the colonies.--Other Choices (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree it's desirable to know more than the first page, the fact that the document is 90 years old is immaterial unless more recent publications have pointed in another direction. The first page is none-the-less a summary and conclusions of the paper which favours my take on the evidence. Your evidence for Adam Smith arguing against the industrialization of the colonies is weak. He believed that the route to industrialization was first agriculture and then manufacturing in that order (Natural progress of opulence), but it's an inference to conclude that he was advocating the artificial holding back of manufacturing (your use of the word against) or anything at odds with Franklin. From the passages you quote, I take him to mean that if you have an advantage in agriculture, that's where the majority of effort should focus (laying the groundwork for Ricardo). Smith's Man of System writings would counter any other reading. --Dmg46664 (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to forego a rebuttal because we're really getting off topic. Perhaps we can re-focus on improving the article. I suppose you're right about the age being immaterial if there hasn't been any more recent scholarship. If you are motivated to do so, you can freely access JSTOR at any university library.--Other Choices (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should split this article pertaining to Inventions, and (social/political and) scientific inquiries (Benjamin Franklin). this article can include a small summary, and a main article link. Maybe having a separate split also for 'social studies and contributions'.

This can include his foresight into why parts in the bill of rights were in place. There are some important facts that should be mentioned somewhere, and this article is long. The only thing really important, is adam smith got influenced, on how mercantilism doesn't work the rest is not that important. his opposition to mercantilism as unsustainable falls into the category of why he was displeased with a lot of how the colonies were run by England. Sidelight12 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Marriage"

Franklin was said to have "established a common-law marriage with Deborah Read on September 1, 1730". There is some confusion over the status of so-called common law marriages. I suspect that what occured was a declaration (not establishment) of aPer Verba De Praesenti marriage. This is an agreement to marry, not a marriage.203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Demography is important

All the main biographers cover Franklin's important work in demography, and it's the subject of scholarly articles. It is covered in histories of demography. The topic therefore has to be covered in this main article. If an editor want to expand on the topic in an extra additional article they are certainly free to do so. But that has not happened. One editor erased the material here and created a stub article Social contributions and studies (Benjamin Franklin) that has no additional information. It's a bad idea to erase solid material and dump it in an article with a strange title that few people will notice. So I reverted. Rjensen (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

[[2]] [[3]] [[4]] Sidelight12 ^Talk 06:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Lunar Eclipse year error

It looks like the Benjamin_Franklin#Meteorology lunar eclipse observation is wrong by a year, says year 1743, October 21, should be 1744, and also was apparently a partial lunar eclipse. Catalog: [5] Image: [6] The wikipedia source is a webpage, so maybe that should be challenged first for correction since it is a very interesting article! [7] 173.240.25.249 (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

On further review source article says it was (November 1) by our calendar. The NASA site shifts to the Gregorian calendar on 1582, but appparently the colonies were still using older calendar system, so it looks like 1743 is correct [8]. Maybe a note should be added on this confusion? 173.240.25.249 (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Lichfield not Litchfield

An error in the text and link in the section "Europe Years": The town where Franklin visited Erasmus Darwin was Lichfield in Staffordshire NOT Litchfield in Hampshire P e mason (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Misspelling under the Illegitimate son William section

France is spelled "Frace" in the second to last sentence in the "Illegitimate son William" section.

 Done - correction made, thanks for spotting the typo.--JayJasper (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Rephrasing the title "Places and things named after Benjamin Franklin"

"Places and things" just doesn't sound that encyclopedic, does it? Any alternatives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorshil (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposition: List of Ben Franklin's Publications

I find the section titled 'primary sources' to be confusing, as it seems to be composed of some of Franklin's own publications as well as publications written about him. I petition to separate out the 'primary source' section into a section titled 'List of Franklin's Publications' & the sub-section under 'Further Reading' titled 'Compilations of Franklin's Writings' or another title that is more appropriate for the source. --Russot1 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 December 2012

In the early life section of the article it says that his father didn't have enough money to send him to school, but the school he went to was public, free. The real reason his father did not keep sending him to school was because they thought he was no pious enough to become a priest. Jackson9w9 (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

it wasn't tuition that mattered--the father wanted Ben to take a paying job so the father could keep the wages. Rjensen (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: I am closing this request as the above comment indicates there is no consensus for this edit. This is not an absolute "no" response to the original edit request. Please feel free to continue the discussion and work towards establishing consensus here on the talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation for "Note 3" incomplete/erroneous

The citation at the end of Note 3 reads "Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Franklin, Benjamin" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press."; there are a few problems with this:

Referenced is the article "Benjamin Franklin" in the 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, but the author's name is omitted from the citation; only the editor's name appears. (And I don't know how to fix this type of citation.) See "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Franklin,_Benjamin": Author "(R. We)" with link to "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Richard_Webster" appears at the bottom of article, above the list of notes.

Britannica referenced is NOT "11th ed." as shown, but "Vol. 11."

No reference to "Cambridge University Press" in this edition of Britannica; only that the COPYRIGHT is held by "University of Cambridge". The publisher is not shown.

I'd be grateful if someone could correct this citation.

Many Thanks!

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Typo in sentence regarding Society of the Cincinnati

"The publication was critical of the Society of the Cincinnati, established in the United States. Franklin and Mirabeau thought of it as a “noble order,” consistent with the egalitarian ideals of the new republic."

--Surely what was meant here was that the authors viewed a "noble order" (SotC membership is limited to descendants of officers) as INconsistent with egalitarian ideas, and so the publication was "critical" of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.83.17 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Correction made. Thanks for spotting the typo.--JayJasper (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hellfire Club

His membership in the Hellfire Club is missing.184.147.228.122 (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously. If reliable secondary sources can be provided to verify his membership in the club, the information can be added if it is done so in a manner compliant with WP:NPOV & WP:DUE.--JayJasper (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Slaves and slavery

I believe Franklin owned slaves, but he set them free. I have searched through the article and could not find any information on slaves and slavery. I believe Franklin's views on slavery and the fact he owned slaves needs to be mentioned in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

yes late in life Franklin signed petitions against slavery, after decades of his owning one or more slaves. Nash has a good article you can use & I will email a copy Rjensen (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Source: Hoffer (2011), When Benjamin Franklin Met the Reverend Whitefield: Enlightenment, Revival, and the Power of the Printed Word, pp. 30-31

Apparently slaves were quite numerous in Quaker New England during French Indian War. Franklin owned two slaves from 1735 to 1757. In 1750, Franklin purchased a married slave couple. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

According to Nash, Franklin owned seven slaves and was active in the slave trade at his general store including printing ads in his newspaper to capture runaway slaves. This information, I believe, would be good for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a sample edit:

• "During Franklin's lifetime slaves were numerous in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In 1750, half the persons in Philadelphia who had established probate estates owned slaves. Dock workers in the city consisted of 15% slaves. Franklin owned as many as seven slaves, two males of whom worked in his household and his shop. Franklin posted paid ads for the sale of slaves and for the capture of runaway slaves and allowed the sale of slaves in his general store. Franklin, however, later became a "cautious abolitionst" and became an outspoken critic of landed gentry slavery. In 1758, Franklin advocated the opening of a school for the education of black slaves in Philadephia. After returning from England in 1762, Franklin become more anti-slavery in his view believing that the institution promoted black degredation, rather then that blacks were inherently inferior. By 1770, Franklin had freed his slaves and attacked the system of slavery and the international slave trade."Cmguy777 (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I would need page numbers for the Nash information. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

Informed feedback is needed on the Thomas Jefferson talk page regarding whether we should list Architect in the info box on that page. The issue has been discussed at length there in the upper sections. -- Gwillhickers 15:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Letter to Thomas Paine?

The letter Franklin writes is to an unknown atheist. At what point was it proven that the letter was to Thomas Paine? 209.184.116.187 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Franklin stove

Why no mention of the Franklin stove? This great invention should surely be mentioned somewhere in the article. He is remembered by many common folk for this great improvement to everyday living. 86.164.161.64 (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It is mentioned (and linked to) in the lead paragraph.--JayJasper (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

And that's all: nothing else at all, even in the "inventions section". How about a bit of balance in this article? 86.164.161.64 (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request ...

This in the Chess section needs a fix:

"This essay in praise of chess and prescribing a code of behavior for it has been widely reprinted and translated."

Maybe remove "for it" ...GretDrabba (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 Sort of done – I clarified the "it" in the phrase to hopefully make it (the phrase) less nebulous. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That change you made is perfect, thanks.GretDrabba (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Grandfather of traction kiting

Benjamin Franklin is cited by George Pocock in a major noteworthy book for Ben's youthful experiment of being pulled across body of water by use of kite power. The True Benjamin Franklin, by Sydney George Fisher is a possible reference for Ben's experience. A major Pocock work so mentions Ben in an important way: A TREATISE on The Aeropleustic Art, or Navigation in the Air, by means of Kites, or Buoyant Sails: with a description of the Charvolant, or Kite Carriage, and containing numerous most amusing and interesting anecdotes connected with several extraordinary excursions both by sea and land. Later in life Ben would recall and forward his findings into suggesting pulling ships by kite power. The matter is a seed to the noteworthy explosion of sports and commerce of pulling people and hulls by kites. I suggest that some editor form a section in the Benjamin Franklin article to trace the matter and the large notes and art that respect that youthful scientific experience. Joefaust (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Treaty of friendship between US and 'Germany'

"Franklin also co-authored the first treaty of friendship between Germany and America in 1785."

There was no such country as Germany at the time. There wouldn't be until 1871. Which of the many German states then in existence was this treaty of friendship concluded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.5.94 (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Updated link to Franklin's electrical writing and activities

the following URL in the links section of this article is broken http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/personal_pages/bob_m/

A new site is now hosting this material - the URL is

www.compadre.org/psrc/Franklin/

I don't know how to make the correction - could someone please make this change? Rsyzygym (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

To editor Rsyzygym:  Done – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Advice to a Friend on Choosing a Mistress (1745)

Is there a proper place to include at least a brief mention of Franklin's authorship of the letter, "Advice to a Friend on Choosing a Mistress (1745)," originally written to a friend, not necessarily delivered or published, but ultimately resulting in major influences to modern thought on censorship and obscenity laws? For more information, see its wiki page. Mmpozulp (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

mention the legal implications cited in the Advice to a Friend on Choosing a Mistress article. Rjensen (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for an existing or new subheading under which to write? Mmpozulp (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"Bawdy Ben" has the right tone. Emphasize it was not published until the 20th century to protect his reputation. Rjensen (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Adjustment of introduction part

Noticing that the introduction part contains too much contents for an introduction, I tried to reorganize it and decrease the repetitive information. The edited version is saved in my sandbox. Any comments and corrections would be welcomed and appreciated. --Coldwdt (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Erasmus Darwin: Franklin's meeting with him was in Lichfield, Staffordshire, not Litchfield, Hampshire.

Spelling mistake in the section "Years in Europe" leading to an incorrect hyperlink:

"In 1771 Franklin made short journeys through different parts of England, staying with . . . Dr Darwin at Litchfield . . ."

Darwin was a native of the Staffordshire town of Lichfield. Nogbird (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed the link to point to the correct Lichfield. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of Opiates

Franklin developed a painful bladder stone in 1782 while minister to France and took opiates to relieve the pain. --From "They Went That-A-Way" by Malcolm Forbes, pg. 108, Barnes & Noble Books, N.Y., 1988. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

he is awsome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.234.104.36 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Serious Copyright Violations

On just a quick check, this Article has some serious copyright violations; 2.2 Newspaperman is pulled word for word from “The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes (1907–21). VOLUME XV. Colonial and Revolutionary Literature; Early National Literature, Part I.[9]. The section 2.1 Junto and Library pulled word for word from Benjamin Franklin “The First American”.[10] ShoesssS ^Talk 12:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Shoessss: The Cambridge history text is probably in the public domain and the Weebly site lists Wikipedia as a reference. Did you check it didn't copy Wikipedia? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that this seems to be a copy-paste of Social contributions and studies by Benjamin Franklin (the em-dashes properly appearing here are screwed up on Weebly), I'm removing the 2.1 tag. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing other tag as no response yet here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Date Cleanup.

I’ve noticed that the On This Day article for 26th October says Franklin ‘departs from America for France on a mission to seek French support for the American Revolution.’

Is it possible to do a touch of cleaning up: to show when he left America for France? (I suspect that December date given is the date he got to France: but would find it helpful if it were clarified.) Cuddy2977 (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality scale

Why is this article still rated "B" on the quality scale? What prevents it from being classed in the "GA" category? -The Gnome (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Prussia is not Germany.

This article, and many others on Wikipedia dealing with events taking place before 1871, incorrectly mention Germany as if it was a country, when there clearly was no Germany during Franklin's lifetime and Prussia is not Germany, yet I can't edit it to fix the problem.174.73.5.74 (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

historians certainly disagree--they write often about the history of Germany in the 18th century (comprised of multiple independent countries) The treaty Treaty of Amity and Commerce (Prussia–United States) was with Prussia and I made that change. Rjensen (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society

The article seems to make a serious error in conflating the Royal Society of Arts (which admitted Franklin in 1756, see Benjamin_Franklin_Medal_(Royal_Society_of_Arts) which was instated in 1956 on the 200th anniversary thereof) with the Royal Society. The follow-on application of the FRS post-nominal letters is particularly problematic. These claims should be removed unless citations can be provided proving membership in the actual Royal Society of London &c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:480:24D:945F:AF08:F491:8B42 (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"He was one of ten children born to Josiah Franklin with his second wife Abiah Folger. "

Narrowly read, I think this is true - but his father had 17 children - seven by his first wife. So saying that Franklin was "one of ten children" is a little misleading - even if technically correct when you read the entire sentence carefully. I could easily imagine people just assuming that he was one of ten children, period - so I think we need to be a little more clear.

I think I'll change this to "He was one of seventeen children born to Josiah Franklin." because that better encapsulates the gigantic size of the family he came from - which seems like it's more significant than the narrow explanation of which mother bore all of those kids. Since we're writing about Franklin himself, that seems like a clearer statement.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015 Two years 1734 1749

Section: Freemason (additional information concerning Freemason Section) Benjamin Franklin served as Grand Master of Philadelphia for two separate years (1734,1749). Serving for two separate terms shows the esteem of Benjamin Franklin among his peers in Freemasonry. http://www.pagrandlodge.org/gmaster/history/1734franklin004.html

Ddenney411 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add me Im doing a project and i have valuable info

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesarmistead25 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: There are multiple issues with your request:

• You have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.
• This is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you.

--I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 19:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

slaves and slavery

suggest you finish the section with line about Franklin's change in attitude at the end of his life. According to National Archives http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/franklin/ and book The Great Upheaval by Jay Winik Franklin wrote supporting abolition and petitioned congress to end both slavery and the slave trade as his last public act before his death. As it stands the section leaves the impression that he still was neutral at the time of his death. 72.188.34.53 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

and also it would be good to know how many slaves he owned, and what he used them for. Since Britain had as good as outlawed slavery in Britain by 1774, it is relevant to the reasons the Americans went to war against the British, ( as outlined in Professor Horn's book, "The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America" ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 12:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

something amiss

i can't make heads nor tails of this sentence: "Franklin often Bethlehem staying at the Moravian Sun Inn.[8]" obviouslly something's amiss.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.62.15 (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Science humor

What's so humorous about Franklin's observations of oil on water? He may have played tricks with the oil he carried in his cane, but the section says nothing about that. Renaming section to Oil on water, but keeping the former title as an anchor so as not to break any links that may exist to it. --Thnidu (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a humorous story because Franklin many times played it as a trick on his companions. He said he could calm roiling waters, and he went upstream waved his cane (secretly releasing some oil) and indeed they did calm down. That's a funny prank. Rjensen (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ben Franklin's OS birth year should be 1706 and not 1705.

The article referenced is also correct so it must be a typo but I don't know how to correct it. But both birthdays have amazing patterns that make it easy to memorize. 01/06/1706 and 01/17/1706. The year 1706 is comprised of both 06 and 17. The calendar was switched in 1752 when Ben was 46 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.90.119 (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

1705 is correct for the O.S. date. Prior to the adoption of the Gregorian calendar, the British Empire practised "Annunication Style" dating, under which New Year's Day fell on 25 March (the Feast of the Annunciation). Therefore, converting to an O.S. date that falls between 1 January and 24 March involves subtracting one from the year number. Those patterns you're seeing aren't there. (Placing New Year's Day on 1 January is called "Circumcision Style" dating, believe it or not.) Binabik80 (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

European Union

In his book "Weggenosse des Jahrhunderts" from 1968 the german author https://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Henle wrotes: "I remembered the warning of Benjamin Franklin from the year 1787, that for Europe there was one solution: to create at once a federal union by a constituent assembly." (p. 110, PDF p. 126 - in german). Does anybody know the source of Franklin's announcement ? In case it's true it testifies an astounding political vision. Just keep in mind the european states got a union already in the 18th century - what would have been spared us. Somehow a nice fiction for a "what happend if"-novelle...--Eckhart Triebel (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Laki

I performed original research on this, so I can't make the edit and cite myself, but Ben Franklin attributing the severity of the 1783/1784 winter to volcanic activity marks the first recorded example of someone connecting vulcanism and winter. 206.113.192.12 (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015

He is a dad of three kids. Rayutter21 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. This is already mentioned in the infobox and all three children are discussed in Benjamin Franklin#Common-law marriage to Deborah Read Cannolis (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Franklin as presented by the History Channel

The History Channel ran a show where Franklin was a member of the so-called Hellfire Club, and would travel to Ireland and engage in orgies in a neolithic tomb.

Any truth to this? 24.51.217.118 (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There's some mention in the article for Hellfire Club which cites page 121 of this source:

• Ashe, Geoffrey. The Hell-Fire Clubs: A History of Anti-Morality. Great Britain: Sutton Publishing, 2005.

Unfortunately I can't verify it at this time. That article also says that many of the records were destroyed, and the members of the club are usually linked by the letters people wrote to each other. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No mention of his invention of Franklin squares

Early form of capacitor : The shocking history of electric fishes: p169 - Rod57 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2015

Can I please edit this I have been studying Benjamin Franklin ever since I was little. I just find what he did so interesting. I mean what would we do without electricity today. He was a good man who never really got much sleep, the reason for this is he was always studying the whole night on what interesting things we have in this world. I wish I could do something g like he did and I really hope that you accept me to edit this article and I promise you guys will benefit from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChineseTurtle1 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Tolerance in Massachusetts during Franklin's youth

I have just deleted the following passage from the section "Virtue, religion and personal beliefs":

The first generation of Puritans had been intolerant of dissent, but by the early 18th century, when Franklin grew up in the Puritan church, tolerance of different churches was the norm, and Massachusetts was known, in John Adams' words, as "the most mild and equitable establishment of religion that was known in the world." (Bailyn, 1992, p. 248)

Although they did not share the fate of the Boston martyrs (1659–1661), the Ashfield Baptists were persecuted between 1763 and 1771; Franklin turned 57 in 1763. Adams' statement dates from a 1774 meeting with Isaac Backus, who took a very different view on the nature of the Massachusetts establishment. As this article is about Franklin, I propose that it is best to delete the passage, which I have just done. GroupCohomologist (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth

The date of birth is at least partly wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.52.40 (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2016

Please combine the first and second sentences. 23:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Resulting sentence is too long. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Postmaster

BF was never appointed PMG to the US. He was appointed PMG of the United Colonies. He continued as PMG when the United Colonies passed a declaration of independence on July 2, 1776. The July 4 date misguidedly celebrated related to a now iconic propoganda document. (See the records of the Continental Congress and John Adam's letter of July 2 to his wife). There is no basis for the November 1776 date for his resignationl, and post office records show he quit in October.

Bernard Biales2601:197:300:308E:B06A:D74B:A3AB:F02B (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin libary

Why does he have a libary on 6and Gratiot. Isaiah85 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Franklin Firmware - added to section on Things named after BF

Would a more senior editor please add the following to the places and things named after Benjamin Franklin:

• Due to Benjamin Franklin's early support of what is now the open source ethic, the Franklin software is named after him. Franklin is for controlling RepRap 3-D printers and other robots.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Burth55 (talk • contribs)

References

-- I added another reference- Burth55 (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)