Talk:George Washington Carver/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

What Carver invented

I am starting a new section heading because the last section is too long and ranges over a variety of points. Let's agree that Carver was not a bad person and that his Wikipedia biography should be duly positive. Let's also agree that some of his achievements are not in dispute among any sources. Regardless of whether or not his wisdom was original, he did nationally promote the planting and use of peanuts.

Let's agree that sources are important. I also agree that our own opinions don't matter. Common sense is a different story. You cannot know what has and has not been adequately sourced without common sense. I maintain that an invention like making shampoo out of peanuts is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. If you don't find strong evidence, you should suppose that it isn't true. It isn't the same kind of claim as that Erno Rubik invented the Rubik's cube. You cannot treat all assertions as equal; some are a priori more plausible than others.

The main point is that the idea of Carver as a wizard inventor is a popularized myth. This is principally a historical question, because Carver's popularization was a historical American event. Indeed, I found several sources that document the main point. The books at least cite scientists. Why aren't these sources good enough?

If you want to view it as purely a science question with no room for historians at all, his main publication were his agricultural bulletins, which lists uses of peanuts such as:

84. PEANUT BRITTLE NUMBER TWO: 2 cups granulated sugar, 1 cup freshly roasted peanuts. Shell and clean the peanuts; put in the stove to heat; put sugar in frying pan, and heat over a hot fire until it changes to caramel; put the peanuts in a well buttered tin; pour the sugar over them at once; when cold turn the pan up-side down, and tap bottom until the candy falls out; break into small pieces.

What kind of scientist do you require to explain the nature of this peanut brittle formula? Do I need to reference a Nobel laureate in chemistry, or can I appeal to common sense and conclude that it wasn't a new invention? Can't the Carver bulletin itself be used a source that indicates non-invention?

Okay, I concede that when I read your last statement, you might not entirely disagree with me. Maybe we can agree that you cannot replace all thought with citations; somewhere down the line you also have to analyze the source material. Greg Kuperberg 22:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little bit troubled because I thought my last post friendly and engaged with your concerns. Where did I say it is "purely a science question with no room for historians at all"? I did not say that, and I don't think so in the slightest (how could anyone thoughtfully think so with a historical bio?). His status in terms of race relations, history of science, bio as myth, scientist as popularizer, are all important and should rely on historians to a large extent. Specific statements of science possibility/impossibility ought to be sourced to science papers, ideally—that's all.

I take your point about common sense (with the caveat about science sources above). I maintain, commonsensically, that it seems impossible to me that a reconstruction era black could have achieved the status Carver did by merely hawking bullshit. Were his accomplishments exaggerated by guilty and/or progressive whites? Quite probably, and here's where an historian is ideal.

You're also sort of misrepresenting what I said on the "positive" angle. Again, that he did/did not do X, may or may not be positive. That's what I just suggested above (I think I did, *scratching head*). I'm personally unconcerned if we call someone a fraud, but am concerned about:

• Balancing sources against each other, and arriving at a non-primary representation, rather than a primary deduction.

That's it, in a nutshell. No deductions allowed. Marskell 23:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to mischaracterize you and I am happy to leave your position in your own words. It is easy to get caught up in cross-characterization; we may not disagree as much as it may seem in basic Wikipedia philosophy.

Concerning the specifics of the case at hand: First, I agree that sourcing some kind of food scientist would be ideal. I cannot produce any specific source of that type either pro or con at the moment, although I'm pretty sure that some of the historians do reference them. So that sourcing question simply needs more work; but it also begs the question of what to say if you haven't found this gold standard of citation. In my view, serious historical accounts such as Mackintosh are the best that we have. I think that it is the wrong time to dispute these presently best sources.

Concerning the basic claim, you say very reasonably:

I take your point about common sense (with the caveat about science sources above). I maintain, commonsensically, that it seems impossible to me that a reconstruction era black could have achieved the status Carver did by merely hawking bullshit. Were his accomplishments exaggerated by guilty and/or progressive whites? Quite probably, and here's where an historian is ideal.

I agree with you that the first version is an extroardinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. But extraordinary evidence is there in the three sources that I cited. Your second, rhetorical question, is the explanation. His accomplishments were exaggerated to the point of outright falsehood, by all sides: by blacks, by guilty whites, by progressive whites, and even by segregationist whites. As Mackintosh explains, Carver's genial personality appeased every faction. (Everyone other than some of his close colleagues at Tuskegee, that is.) If you add to that a somewhat naive and ill-educated American public of the 1920s and 1930s, then I don't think that it's so impossible to believe.

Also, if you say "hawking bullshit", then you should remember that Carver wasn't devoid of talent. He was a pretty good painter and a very good public speaker, for example. He had enough to be a celebrity. He is not the only celebrity whose career has been grossly misinterpreted by the public and even by public grade schools. Greg Kuperberg 00:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't comment further before a sleep and reading the sources already cited. We're not disagreeing so much, and any full disagreement of mine is probably already stated above.

I will only (re-)mention three verbs (don't take is badly!) and vicariously violate my own rule of "opinions don't matter". Anyhow: invent, collate, distribute. There's a difference between the three, and an accomplishment in all of them. Marskell 00:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The intro

While my concerns above are outstanding, I also don't want to leave the intro wrong if "difficult to ascertain" is an error. Could we, per above, say "widely credited with having developed more than 300 uses for the peanut, although much of his work was the collation and distribution of outstanding material" leaving aside both invent and myth for the timebeing. Marskell 12:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Re what is there now "Since Carver left no formulas for these products other than a single patented peanut cosmetic, later investigators were unable to evaluate or confirm his production of many of them" from the AmericanHeritage source. Marskell 12:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just like you, I also changed my perspective when I slept on it. :-)

For now you can change the article as you please, but the changes that you suggest are only small improvements. I can see that you are taking this issue seriously; you certainly deserve credit for that.

I am increasingly convinced that the article needs a major overhaul. It needs a different tone; it needs meticulous citations; and it needs an instruction near the top that there is so much mythology about Carver that editors should first read what is already in the article before making possibly erroneous changes. Depressingly, it may need indefinite attention from Wikipedia admins to stay truthful, and it may take time to convince them too. The one bright spot is that it shouldn't have to cite 100 different sources. It should be enough to cite McMurry's biography plus some other small change.

One of the things that affected my perspective was a few articles written in the New York Times while Carver was still alive. (They require TimesSelect, but this is not expensive and it is a good product.) For example, here is an article from 1924 that has Carver wowing an audience of Alabama church women with an account of his plant products. He said that God revealed his discoveries to him. He said that he could make an egg yolk from a sweet potato. He said that he had a peanut product that could cure pulmonary diseases, which the Times reporter took as a reference to tuberculosis. He said that Thomas Edison had offered him a fortune to work in Edison's lab, but that he had turned down the offer. He said that a man had sent him a check for $100, but that he sent back the money.

Meanwhile McMurry's book says that Carver went to some lengths to start a for-profit company years before he made this speech. She leaves open the possibility that he would have donated its profits to Tuskegee, but at the very least he would have controlled its revenue. She also said that Carver repeated the story of the Edison job offer many times, but that it was never confirmed.

Then, here is an article from 1933 in which Carver claimed that peanut oil cured polio. According to McMurry, his polio claim was sensational and he was famous enough that he was inundated with pleas for polio patients. He pursued this claim for some time.

Then, here is an article from 1941 in which Carver claimed that he had found a persimmon extract that cured periodontal disease.

What am I supposed to think about an inventor who publishes simple kitchen recipes; claims hundreds of products without revealing formulas; claims sensational products such as "peanut nitroglycerine"; claims that his discoveries come directly from God; claims cures of major diseases; claims that he never pursues money, but has failed business ventures; and claims handsome but unsubstantiated job offers? Greg Kuperberg 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying, been up to other stuff. You're right about a full-bodied overhaul being necessary. I was thinking of changing this or that but it will just create a domino affect where other things need doing. One thing you might try is hauling the article into user space and working on it there. Let me know if you do. Marskell 15:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have spoken my mind. I'm not sure when I will have time to do such an overhaul myself. Even if I don't, other Wikipedia regulars are free to read this and take action. Greg Kuperberg 03:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Wiki. So much to do. I did come across this in that accidental way, wanting to read on the man, and here we are with much debate after the fact. I don't suppose that if you (having read the sources) and me (having at least looked at them) are not willing to work, someone else in the medium term will settle down and do so. Anyhow, you defended your points well. It'll be on my watchlist. Marskell 00:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mocked by surprised southern farmers

The section that reads "Southern farmers came together in 1920 to plead their cause before a Congressional committee hearings on the tariff. Carver was elected, without hesitation, to speak at the hearings. On arrival, Carver was mocked by surprised southern farmers, but he was not deterred and began to explain some of the many uses for the peanut." confuses me quite a bit. It seems to be saying that he was sent by southern farmers to congress to testify, and then was mocked by the same southern farmers who were surprised that he showed up. Who was surprised here? The farmers, members of congress, someone else? And why were they surprised? Because he was black, was unknown to them, other reasons? Pdarley

I think it should be that he was mocked by surprised Southern congressmen. Greg Kuperberg 03:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing and Inaccurate information

"his mother were kidnapped by Confederate night raiders and sold in Arkansas"

according to American Decades. Gale Research, 1998. that he was not sold the Gale Research lists the captors as bandits not Confederate night raiders

"his best filly "

according to the Gale Research the filly was worth 300 dollars

"Carver's father is unknown"

he was killed in a log rolling accident according to the Gale Research

This page has info on George Washington and.... George Washington Carver.

I am only, like, eleven, and I probably shouldn't be editing, but I would like to point out that I (probably not only me) disagree with the statement "Other common MYTHS are that Carver invented Peanut Butter and crop rotation" He DID in fact, invent peanut butter AND crop rotation, but he was (and is still) not given credit by all people because he was African American.

YOU'RE RIGHT, APPARENTLY. ELEVEN YEAR OLDS SHOULDN'T BE EDITING. CARVER DID NOT INVENT PEANUT BUTTER!

There are a lot of websites and books that have the facts wrong on Carver, especially children's books. Probably the most accurate Carver websites are the four listed in the External Links section, especially the first one. [1] Carver did not invent peanut butter. He couldn't have because he hadn't even started working on peanuts in 1890 when peanut butter was first sold by William Harvey Kellogg, who got the first U.S. patent on it. Carver didn't start college at Iowa State until 1891.

Check some authoritative references such as Encyclopedia Brittanica or the book by Andrew F. Smith, Peanuts: The Illustrious History of the Goober Pea (2002. Chicago: University of Illinois Press). The 1989 Carver biography by Gene Adair has a foreward by Coretta Scott King where she admits that Carver's scientific inventions have been exaggerated. Barry Mackintosh's article on Carver also explains how Carver myths arose. [2] Ancient peoples knew about crop rotation, because the Romans wrote about it. Carver did not invent it. He merely encouraged farmers to rotate crops as had many others before him.

Actually, it's the other way around. If Carver had not been African-American, he probably would not be famous because his work was not remarkable compared to the many others who promoted crop rotation and planting of peanuts. In the 1959 book on "achievements of outstanding American Negroes" [3] titled The Negro Vanguard, Historian Richard Bardolph wrote of Carver, "...no white scientist with precisely the same achievements would have been called a 'wizard' or 'the greatest industrial chemist in the world."Plantguy 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

TO THE PERSON WHO SAID ELEVEN YEAR OLDS SHOULD NOT BE EDITING: #1 the possibility that GWC invented peanut butter is not a closed debate. Lots of sources say he started working with it in the 1880s which predates the later inventors (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blpeanutbutter.htm). #2, you shouldn't be yelling at an eleven year old (by using all caps). Remember, this is wikipedia, he or she has just as much a right to be editing as you. You should be ashamed as yourself.

Wikipedia members should help delete all the information about george washington.

Carver's Sexuality

• • • In my coursework in LGBT Studies, Carver's name was often brought up as being gay, but for many reasons, this was left out of the history books . . . and when one considers the fact that other influential black male leaders such as Bayard Rustin's sexuality is . . . left out . . . it's not surprising that it's been edited out on Wikipedia, as well. This is from GLAAD's website (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation):

George Washington Carver (Inventor) George Washington Carver is one of the most well known African American historical figures as well as one of the most important figures in American Agriculture. Most school children know him as the inventor of hundreds of uses for the peanut and the person who popularized peanuts as an agricultural crop. Although primarily famous as the driving force behind the peanut's growth in importance in agriculture, Carver is also notable for many other reasons. Carver was the first African American to attend Iowa State University as well as its first African American faculty member. His research included many other plants other than the peanut, and his work as an educator and innovator within the agricultural community led to the spread of "movable schools" or extension agencies to the South. Carver died in 1943, and has since been honored with commemorative postage stamps, a fifty-cent coin, and inclusion in the Hall of Fame for Great Americans and the National Inventors Hall of Fame. One fact about Carver's life which is rarely if ever mentioned is his sexuality, which may not be relevant to most of his achievements but is integral to the understanding the inventor as a whole. Sources: http://www.noglstp.org/historical.html http://blackstripe.com/blacklist/ http://www.george-washington-carver.com/george-washington-carver/ http://home.earthlink.net/~blkembrace/speech.htm

source: http://www.glaad.org/publications/resource_doc_detail.php?id=3093 ***

• Of the four sources the GLAAD article cites, the 2nd is under construction (and apparently has been since 2002) and currently has nothing about Carver, the last one is a dead link, and the third one has nothing on his sexuality. Only the first source currently claims Carver is LBGT, apparently citing the book The Gay 100. According to http://www.adherents.com/people/100_gay.html (which lists the 100 gay people mentioned) he isn't one of the 100, though it's certainly possible he could've been mentioned in someone else's article. I believe we have a copy of The Gay 100 in our schools GLBT library, so I might take a look at it and clarify this, but at the moment I don't think there's enough sources to warrant us saying Carver is gay. 66.189.116.168 01:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate

Why do [4], [5] and [6] state that he was born on July 12, 1864, if no-one knows his birthdate? 1ne 23:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems like yet another Carver myth. The first trivia item indicates that Carver recognition day is January 5, the day he died, because his birthdate is unknown. Plantguy 00:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It does, but there's two hits from universities. 1ne 02:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

University websites do sometimes contain errors. Do they provide an authoritative source? Plantguy 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps July 12 is simply the day Carver decided to celebrate his birthday.Plantguy 17:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I did notice the descrepency. Should the trivia part be deleted rather than leave the contradiction? Especiall since the box is there about Trivia being discouraged. Seems the main article should be given priority when there is a contradiction.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Black-Scientists.com

A wikipedia editor has been placing this link on articles all over the place, including this one. While it is on topic, the website has no content whatsoever, other than a list of links to wikipedia articles about black scientists. I suggest these links need to be removed from all the wikipedia articles, unless this website is expected to suddenly explode with high value content sometime in the next few days. --Xyzzyplugh 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies Reinstated

The wording in the introduction of this article is very misleading, i.e. "his exact output is hard to ascertain." There is no doubt that Carver's 300-plus peanut products are mainly a myth. Check the article's authoritative references by Barry MacIntosh, Linda McMurry and Andrew F. Smith and Carver's 1916 peanut bulletin with its 105 peanut recipes from other sources. Carver mainly just reprinted published recipes that used peanuts and suggested peanuts as a exotic substitute in existing products such as shoe polish or massage oil. None of his peanut inventions was ever a commercial success contrary to the many claims that he revolutionized southern agriculture. It is also false (in the Rise to Fame section) that "His less well known, but also outstanding contributions to agriculture, such as crop rotation systems for soil enrichment, revolutionized southern farming ..." Carver did not invent crop rotation. It was in use since ancient times [7]. This was discussed before on this Talk page.

The introduction of this article was accurate back in Sept. 2006, when the introduction read as follows:

"George Washington Carver (c. early 1864 – January 5, 1943) was an African American botanist inventor who worked in agricultural extension at the Tuskegee Institute in Tuskegee, Alabama, and who taught former slaves farming techniques for self-sufficiency. He is also widely credited in American public schools and elsewhere for inventing hundreds of uses for the peanut and other plants, although this laudation amounts to an urban legend. (See Reputed inventions.)"

It is very sad that so many seemingly prestigious organizations undermine their reputation by perpetuating myths about Carver. For example, the U.S. Library of Congress claims that the peanut was not even recognized as a U.S. crop in 1896 [8] and goes on to give Carver virtually sole credit for making peanuts the number 6 U.S. crop by 1940. Yet, an entire book on U.S. peanut crop production was published in 1885 - Jones, B. W. 1885. The peanut plant: Its cultivation and uses. New York: Orange. [9]. The Library of Congress even owns a copy of this book! Several USDA researchers wrote peanut bulletins before Carver's first peanut bulletin in 1916 (this article, footnotes 12-17).

Other inaccurate webpages on Carver are those by Iowa State University (his alma mater) [10], National Inventors Hall of Fame [11] and about.com [12]. The latter makes the ridiculous claim that Carver invented peanut butter in 1880, when he would have been about 16 years old!

Plantguy 00:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Further Corrections and Accomplishments

This Wiki bio on Carver has expanded greatly due to further contributions and I hope further research will be done to present a more accurate and balanced picture of this scientist. There are several obvious factual mistakes which have been picked up from other sources and repeated here and several grave omissions regarding his work for the US govenrment, especially during WW II. For example, the claim that he left no records is not true: you can see some at the Carver Museum in Tuskegee, Alabama. His desk, journals, inventions and even some of his work is on display, some preserved in formaldehyde jars. More is not on display. Also, no mention made of the more than a dozen medicines, dyes and dozens of food products he created and developed: refer to: http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/story.asp?S=1107203

Regarding the circumstances of his death, which obviously someone picked up from some other written source: Dr. Carver lived in a ONE story Victorian house on the main street of the campus next to a house built for Booker T. Washington. It was a ONE story house, (still standing) barely had 2 or 3 steps up to the front porch. There were no steps for him to fall down "at home". The entire campus is a National Historic Landmark which includes this house, his museum, his laboratory building, and his Foundation's buildings. Dr. Carver's image is on a 1951 U.S. silver 50 cent piece with Booker T. Washington.

Regarding his brushes with Booker T. Washington: everybody had a hard time with Booker T. Washington because of the hard decisions he (Dr. Washington) had to make to build up the school. It was when Dr. Washington was succeeded by Dr. Robert Russell Moton, who became President of Tuskegee Institute in 1915, that a warm, family feeling was generated amongst the faculty and staff, the endowment was multiplied and more staff facilities and new buildings became available, and the the VA hospital was added to the community to stabilize the economy. Dr. Carver benefitted from Dr. Moton's leadership as did all other faculty, staff, students and residents of the community. Also, many harsh comments are made regarding Dr. Carver's interaction with farmers and industry but absolutely no reference is made to the environment of the day., ie., Jim Crow laws in the South, segregation, racial discrimination, etc.

No credit given for his development of the "Jessup Wagon", a traveling educational agricultural extension office. He even created five different kinds of paper and yet you say there are no records of his accomplishments! Even what little credit is given to Dr. Carver in this ongoing bio project is a miracle considering the conditions under which he had to work. No mention is made of his oil paintings, which would require an art historian to evaluate. Again, I encourage more accurate research and contributions on this biography and there are a few more published books written about Dr. Carver, not considered here, which would give a more balanced picture of his work and actual accomplishments http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/story.asp?S=1107203 . I look forward to seeing further discussions on this article. Thank you.68.215.192.205 01:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I just revised the page before seeing the above comments, and I did mention that given racial segregation in 1921, Carver was a novel choice for the peanut growers to have speak for them in a Congressional committee.

Another section is probably needed in the article, perhaps titled "Artist and Humanitarian" as that is where many of Carver's main contributions were made. Most biographies emphasize the largely mythical peanut inventions.

The article does not say Carver left no records, just that he did not write down formulas for most of his original plant products, which is true. Where is an authoritative source that describes how Carver's created five kinds of paper that you mention?

The article does mention his extension work. The Jessup wagon can be added into that section.

I did not write the section on Carver falling down steps to his death. If you have an authoritative source for the circumstances of his death, feel free to revise it.

Plantguy 22:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the Jesup wagon to the intro.

The Tuskegee website cited above [13] suffers from many of the same inaccuracies that so many Carver websites do, e.g. it erroneously claims Carver's work created over 300 products from peanuts "contributing greatly to the economic improvement of the rural South." That is simply not true as the Wikipedia article details.

Tuskegee's Carver website includes a list of sweet potato uses "discovered" by Carver [14] Unfortunately, it is highly deceptive. There are many multiple listings including 73 dyes, 14 wood fillers, 14 candies, 5 library pastes, 5 breakfast foods, 4 starches, 4 molasses, 3 after dinner mints and 2 dried potatoes. That is a very padded list! If the multiple listings are removed, there are only 41 uses and even some of those are duplicates, such as hog feed and stock feed, vinegar and spiced vinegar, and dry coffee and instant coffee. There is no published reference for the list, and not a single recipe for any of the products. It was supposedly compiled from Carver's records. Just because Carver mentioned in his records that he developed dye from sweet potato is not sufficient proof of discovery. It is also absurd to claim 73 dyes. Edison might have claimed he invented hundreds of incandescent light bulbs by simply considering each bulb of a different color, size and wattage a separate discovery.

In his 1937 sweet potato bulletin, [15] Carver claimed 118 sweet potato uses but only listed a few dozen food recipes, no dyes or wood fillers. He specifically mentioned that many of the recipes came from a USDA bulletin, a bulletin he did not write. The Tuskegee website claimed that Carver "discovered" more than 100 uses for sweet potato. That is misleading because many of the uses on the list appear to have been "discovered" by simply reading other people's bulletins or by padding the list.

Wikipedia should rely mainly on authoritative references such as those by Barry Mackintosh, Linda McMurray, Mark Hersey, Peter Burchard, and Louis Harlan not on hagiographic websites on Carver that cite no sources.

Plantguy 01:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

On the question of whether Carver fell down stairs to his death, a Nov. 21, 1941 Time magazine article says there were 19 steps to Carver's room and Henry Ford paid for an elevator to be installed. [16]Plantguy 17:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)