Talk:Mythology of Benjamin Banneker

Trivia tag

I recently posed under User talk:69.117.203.169#Legacy of Benjamin Banneker:

The trivia is, I feel, in the sections "Real estate", "Businesses", and "Advocacy groups", as well as a couple other subsections of "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". However, as these sections contain references, I am reluctant to remove them. Epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone assist in checking if these really are trivia, and if so, to weed these trivia out? Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Move

I am concerned about the recent move from Legacy of Benjamin Banneker. I have been relatively hands-off with editing this page, but it has taken a serious ideological bend. While there are certainly inaccurate aspects of Banneker's life that have become urban legends, in my opinion this article goes too far in the other direction to almost entirely discredit the man's entire life's work. Moving the page title to start off with "mythology" is only the most recent and egregious example of this editorial slant. I disagree with the page move and would like to highlight the page among other editors so that the article can be improved and edited to include a more neutral point of view. -epicAdam^(talk) 01:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added to the first sentence of this page a reference to the following quotation from a webpage that the Maryland Historical Society created in 2014:

Over the 200 years since the death of Benjamin Banneker (1731-1806), his story has become a muddled combination of fact, inference, misinformation, hyperbole, and legend. Like many other figures throughout history, the small amount of surviving source material has nurtured the development of a degree of mythology surrounding his story.

I have also added to the first sentence of this page a reference to the following quotation from a 2002 biography of Banneker:

(Banneker) has existed in dim memory mainly on mangled ideas about his work, and even utter falsehoods that are unwise attempts to glorify a man who needs no such embellishment. ....

These recent observations by the historical society of the state in which Banneker resided and by a Banneker biographer support the importance of highlighting and documenting the myths that have developed over the years regarding Banneker's life and which people are still creating and perpetuating. The citations on this page to these myths do not diminish or discredit Banneker's documented accomplishments, which the main page (Benjamin Banneker) records. Corker1 (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

References

I am also concerned about the way in which this page and its primary author present the "mythbusting" of Banneker in american historical memory. It seems that this article's project is to delegitimize the role of Banneker as a significant scientist in early America. It exaggerates the "controversies" over Banneker's achievements, though in many cases historians have acknowledged that the inaccurate information was usually written in earlier accounts of Banneker's life. For instance, the assertion that Banneker created the first working clock was made by Lydia Marie Childs in 1866, and was rejected in Silvio Bedini's 1971 biography of Banneker. However, this article treats the claim as if it is an active controversy. I am unclear of exactly how to approach editing this text without overstepping the research done by the previous author, but do feel that this page requires a significant reframing. Sophie.hess (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my 3 April 2015 response to a similar comment, the citations in Mythology and legacy of Benjamin Banneker to various myths do not diminish or discredit Banneker's documented accomplishments, which the main page (Benjamin Banneker) records. I further note that, as the history of "Mythology of and legacy of Benjamin Banneker" shows, both old and new versions of Banneker's alleged, but undocumented, achievements have continued to appear in printed and electronic media during the three years that have elapsed since I wrote that response. A Wikipedia article reporting undocumented accounts of Banneker's life therefore continues to remain relevant, especially because information in documents written during Banneker's lifetime reportedly contradict some of those accounts.

Sophie.hess describes an apparent "active controversy" regarding Banneker's clock that began with a 19th century assertion by Lydia Maria Child that Banneker had constructed "the first clock ever made in this country". In response to this comment, I have added to the section entitled "Banneker's clock" in "Mythology and legacy of Benjamin Banneker" a citation documenting Child's assertion. I also cited in that section a statement in Silvio Bedini's 1999 revised biography of Banneker that reported that several watch and clockmakers were already active in Maryland at the time that Banneker constructed his clock. Corker1 (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Why does this exist?

I'm sorry to Corker1 and others who are invested in this, but the existence of this page is an embarrassment to the Wikipedia project.

I've read the justifications, but there is no such page for George Washington, the single most famous anecdote of whom (his honesty in the face of being caught having chopped down the cherry tree) is a well-documented piece of historical horsepockey.

As white historical figures whose lives are full of falsely attributed acts and other myths are not treated in a similar fashion, there is no other explanation for the purpose of this page than an intent to tear down a black historical figure, which is nothing new or novel by any means.

You and Jimmy Wales ought to be ashamed.

Boblamont (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree. The legitimacy of Wikipedia is further corrupted by accepting this article. 68.4.233.73 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblamont (talk • contribs) 10:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC) 

This page does not tear down a historical figure of any race. The main page (Benjamin Banneker) contains a biography supported by verifiable historical documentation. As the main page and its cited references demonstrate, Banneker was an important historical person who deserves recognition. Banneker was a man who rose from humble beginnings to international notice during his own lifetime. He accomplished this despite having an ancestry that many believed to be inferior to others.

However, a substantial mythology based on accounts that lack supporting verifiable evidence has developed since he lived. Verifiable sources have contradicted much of this mythology. Some of Banneker's biographers (whose works this page cites) and the Maryland Historical Society (which this page also cites) have made such statements as "(Banneker) has existed in dim memory mainly on mangled ideas about his work, and even utter falsehoods that are unwise attempts to glorify a man who needs no such embellishment" and that his "story has become a muddled combination of fact, inference, misinformation, hyperbole, and legend".

Various myths surround many historical figures of all races and both genders. However, as far as I am aware, the number and variety of such myths do not approach those that surround Banneker (except perhaps for some associated with religion). I doubt that you can find nearly as much documented confusion and exaggeration about the accomplishments of other historical figures, regardless of whether they were Caucasian (such as Leonardo da Vinci and Napoleon Bonaparte), African American (such as George Washington Carver and Phillis Wheatley) or Asian (such as Confucius and Genghis Khan).

Writers still continue to perpetuate Banneker myths long after reliable sources have refuted these. New Banneker myths also continue to appear. Banneker's biographers seem to excel in this respect.

To answer your question, "Why does this (page) exist?": There are a number of reasons, none of which is the one that you proclaim. One reason is to document the large number of unsupported stories that surround Banneker and to make readers aware of these. Another is to reduce or eliminate writings that perpetuate and create such stories.

Benjamin Banneker myths are presently part of African American culture. As this page states, Stevie Wonder's popular song "Black Man" relates three different Banneker myths. As this page also states, the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of African American History and Culture contains an exhibit that perpetuates one of these myths. That alone is sufficient to justify the inclusion of this page in Wikipedia.

There is no place on Wikipedia Talk pages for such scatological terms as "b-llsh-t". Please refrain from using them. Corker1 (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not questioning that there is merit in documenting historical mythologies. However, to pretend that as many or more popular untruths do not exist for other (particularly better-known) figures is simply untrue. The Mount Vernon website alone has a paid ad promoting the "Top 10 George Washington Myths." Yet there is no page documenting the falsehoods on the Wikipedia. In fact, between the George Washington and Ferry Farm articles, one would mistakenly believe that a young George Washington truly knocked down a beloved tree and steadfastly refused to lie about it. So the fact that Mr. Banneker appears to have been singled out for the purpose is rather suspicious. Do you not find it at all suspect that the "accounts began to appear in the 1960's" that questioned Mr. Banneker's achievements? Failing to note the context of the period during which the effort to refute stories (true or false) of Mr. Banneker's life makes the entire premise of the page questionable.

Look at the other links in the categories the page is attached to. This page is unique. No other historical figure is given this kind of scrutiny. Even if there is nothing wrong with this page on its own, its uniqueness makes it problematic. I'm perfectly willing to assume that you are someone who values Mr. Banneker's role in history, and that you merely want it to be represented as accurately as possible. Were other figures given equivalent treatment, then the intent of this page would appear more benign. But they are not.

The arrangement of the page also raises questions about the purity of intent of its creation: rather than begin by discussing commemorations and legacies of Mr. Banneker, followed by a section of "Banneker in urban legend and popular culture," it spends most of its time on refuting stories, and tacks on a section noting commemorations as an afterthought, largely to provide an artificial pretense of balance. There is in the very preface to the article a tone that some, if not most, of his commemoration is undeserved. Boblamont (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Boblamont notes that Wikipedia does not contain a page that documents the myths associated with George Washington. Any editor can rectify this situation by creating such a page. This would permit readers to compare the number and variety of myths associated with Banneker and Washington.

Boblamont asks:

Do you not find it at all suspect that the 'accounts began to appear in the 1960's' that questioned Mr. Banneker's achievements?

There is indeed an association between the first description of Banneker myths that the page cites and the culture that existed during 1960s, when the civil rights movement in the United States was increasing popular interest in African-American history.

In 1964, Silvio Bedini, a curator in the new Smithsonian Museum of History and Technology (now the National Museum of American History), wrote an article entitled "Early American Scientific Instruments and their Makers". Bedini introduced a section on Banneker in the article with the sentence:

A name that is too often ignored in the history of science is that of a free Negro, Benjamin Banneker (c. 1734-1806) of Baltimore.

In 1969, Bedini authored a more comprehensive biography of Banneker, which began by stating:

The name of Benjamin Banneker, the Afro-American self-taught mathematician and almanac-maker, occurs again and again in the several published accounts of the survey of Washington City begun in 1791, but with conflicting reports of the role which he played. Writers have implied a wide range of involvement, from the keeper of horses or supervisor of the woodcutters, to the full responsibility of not only the survey of the ten mile square but the design of the city as well. None of these accounts has described the contribution which Banneker actually made.

It was that article, together with a book on Banneker that Bedini wrote in 1971, that initiated a wide-spread interest in Banneker's mythology.

Boblamont states:

This page is unique. No other historical figure is given this kind of scrutiny. Even if there is nothing wrong with this page on its own, its uniqueness makes it problematic.

That statement is not correct, as this page is not unique. For example, "Legends of Catherine the Great" reports and refutes a number of myths associated with that empress of Russia. It is especially noteworthy that an editor created "Legends of Catherine the Great" in 2005, seven years before another editor created this page in 2012.

Boblamont's final sentence states:

There is in the very preface to the article a tone that some, if not most, of his commemoration is undeserved.

It is not possible to determine which of Banneker's commemorations are deserved and which are not. It is noteworthy, however, that many of the cited references that describe Banneker's commemorations contain one or more of the myths that the first section of this article documents. Corker1 (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Moved article

I have moved this article from "Mythology and legacy of Benjamin Banneker" to "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" to reflect the titles of the article's two main sections. The article does not contain a section entitled "Legacy of Benjamin Banneker". Corker1 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Page size

This page currently has 423,008 bytes of markup; it's far too big. What's the best way to divide it up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Split page

@Onetwothreeip: You have split "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker into two separate pages ("Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" and "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker"). When doing this, you removed context from the new "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" that existed before your split.

You have also not created links to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" from the main article ("Benjamin Banneker") and from other Wikipedia articles that link to "Mythology and Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". You have therefore made "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" into an orphan that few users will be able to access. In addition, you created "cite errors" within "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" that notices within the page's reference section identify as "Cite error: The named reference (citation) was invoked but never defined (see the help page)".

The lead to "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" states: "A United States postage stamp and the names of a number of recreational and cultural facilities, schools, streets and other facilities and institutions throughout the United States have commemorated Banneker's documented and mythical accomplishments throughout the years since he lived." However, because of the split that you created, "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" does not contain any information about these commemorations, and further, does not contain citations to reliable sources that support information about commemorations.

Further, you have not complied with Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure, which states:

If an article meets the criteria for splitting and no discussion is required, editors can be bold and carry out the split. If unsure, or with high-profile or sensitive articles, start a "Split" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject(s). Additionally, adding one of the splitting templates will display a notice on the article and list it at Category:Articles to be split. This will help bring it to the attention of editors who may assist in establishing consensus, in deciding if a split is appropriate, or in carrying out the split. Templates used without an accompanying rationale, and where there is no obvious reason for the split request, may be removed at any time. Note: To conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that all content contributors receive attribution, the page receiving the split material must have an edit summary noting "split content from article name". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to article name". The "Copied" template can also be placed on the talk page of both articles. For further information, refer to the main Copying within Wikipedia guideline.

Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure describes the following six steps that editors need to take when considering and conducting a page split:

Step 1: Create a discussion

Step 2: Add notice

Step 3: Discuss

Step 4: Close the discussion and determine the consensus

Step 5: Perform the splitting

Step 6: Clean up

You performed Step 5, but did not perform any of the other five steps.

I therefore reverted the changes that you made to restore the original text of "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" to correct the errors that you made. However, you subsequently reverted my edits without an adequate explanation.

When preparing to move a Wikipedia page, a message entitled "Move Mythology and commemorations of (page)" appears. This message states: "This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding. Please read Wikipedia:Moving a page for more detailed instructions." The same is true for splitting a page into two or more pages.

You justified your reversions with statements such as "Blanking the article or merging the article into another article is most decidedly not an appropriate way to address the issues of context in the article" and "No need for commemorations to be in the same article as mythology. If one of the articles lacks context, context should be added, not the articles merged."

Editors that split or move pages bear the responsibility of appropriately addressing issues of context in the article that they have created and for adding context. They should not expect other editors to assume this responsibility.

Editors that make comments such as "split or move pages merging the article into another article is most decidedly not an appropriate way to address the issues of context in the article" need to provide an "appropriate way" for others to correct the errors that they have created. "Wikipedia:Moving a page" describes such "appropriate ways" to undo a move (or a split). However, it is difficult to undo a page move (or a split) when a subsequent edit has changed a page (see Wikipedia:Moving a page#Undoing a move). In some instances, only an administrator can resolve these difficulties.

Please therefore correct all of the errors that your changes have introduced. Add context to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". Define the named references (citations) that the page now invokes. Provide links to "Commemorations of Benjamin Benneker" in other Wikipedia articles that now incorrectly link to "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker", rather to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker".

Remove the sentence in the lead to "Mythology of Benjamin Banneker" that states: "A United States postage stamp and the names of a number of recreational and cultural facilities, schools, streets and other facilities and institutions throughout the United States have commemorated Banneker's documented and mythical accomplishments throughout the years since he lived". If you do not wish to do this, add a link to "Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker" to the lead, or add citations to reliable sources that support this sentence.

If you do not wish to make these corrections, please revert the page split that you created from "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". If you do not do so, you will have failed to follow the steps in Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure and will have vandalized "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker". Corker1 (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I have corrected each of the errors that I was able to identify that resulted from the page split that Onetwothreeip performed. Corker1 (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This page needs work

I wanted to let those interested know that I will be working on heavily revising this article over the next little while. Specific problems I will address include:

• The organization is a little unclear, and some sections have crossover between myths. I will be reorganizing the sections to each focus on one "myth" and renaming them appropriately.
• Many of these "myths" are little more than factual errors that have been repeated several times. Others are points of debate about the details of Banneker's life which have no real answer, or at best several opinions on the true answer, but are presented as "myths" that have been refuted. I will be rewriting sections to more accurately reflect the nature of these "myths", and would also suggest renaming the entire article to "Controversies surrounding Benjamin Banneker" to more accurately and neutrally reflect the nature of such arguments.
• At some points the article seems overly concerned with whether or not Banneker's achievements were "remarkable". This is a matter of opinion that has no place on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the history in western society of ignoring the accomplishments of Africans and African-Americans might lead some to view these statements as implicitly racist. The connotation is that Banneker is only famous because he is black, not because of any meaningful accomplishments. These statements should be removed promptly.
• The article relies overwhelmingly on one source, Silvio Bedini, to refute these "myths", and in some places quotes his opinion as the only justification for dispelling a "myth". Other sources and perspectives should be included.
• In addition, in at least one place, Bedini's writings are misquoted. Where the article discusses Henry Cadbury's discovery of the 1793 letter, it says that the letter "bore a date" earlier than Benjamin Banneker's publication of the peace letter. However, the source cited says that Cadbury believed the letter had been published before Banneker's publication, but could not find any such publication. It says nothing about Cadbury's basis for this belief or any date written on any such letter. I haven't yet found copies of Bedini's texts to read, but I suspect that there may be misquotations in other parts of this article.

These problems, compounded together, suggest there may be a neutrality problem with this article. In its current form, although thorough, it reads like a line-by-line argument against Banneker's life, not an encyclopedia entry about him. It is one-sided, presenting (in general) only the views of Silvio Bedini. Rather than presenting actual myths about Banneker, the article consists mostly of refuting statements made about him in various media. Such meticulous correction of the media is not applied to other biographies on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a fact-checking site to analyze other websites - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should present neutral and factually accurate views. If there are incorrect statements on Benjamin Banneker, then those views should be updated, along with nods to the controversy/debate/lack of sources surrounding his life.

These neutrality problems make the article appear prejudiced and racist, presenting a view that persons of color cannot or could not achieve what Banneker achieved, and that his accomplishments were made up. There is no place for such a view on Wikipedia, and if I cannot fix this article enough to justify its existence on the site, I will nominate it for deletion.

I will be going through this article and editing specifics to better comply with Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and reliable sources. If anyone has any objections, please post below. ***The WikiHunter*** (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

See responses in next section.

In addition, ***The WikiHunter*** incorrectly claimed that the article (Mythology of Benjamin Banneker) misquotes a cited source (one of Silvio Bedini's works) that describes a peace plan that historian Henry Cadbury discovered among the papers of Dr. Benjamin Rush. ***The WikiHunter*** wrote: "Where the article discusses Henry Cadbury's discovery of the 1793 letter, it says that the letter "bore a date" earlier than Benjamin Banneker's publication of the peace letter. However, the source cited (Bedini) says that Cadbury believed the letter had been published before Banneker's publication, but could not find any such publication."

However, Mythology of Benjamin Banneker additionally cites a different source (a biography of Carter G. Woodson that Charles H. Wesley authored) that also describes Cadbury's discovery of the peace plan. Wesley reported that Woodson observed that "Cadbury found this paper, bearing a date earlier than than the publication of Banneker's article, among the papers of Dr. Benjamin Rush, a contemporary of Banneker." It therefore appears that ***The WikiHunter*** confused the two sources. Corker1 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Longwinded POV-fest

This is the rara avis, maybe the only long and enduring highly POV page I've seen on Wikipedia that leans right (or maybe anti-black in this case). Other than keeping it around as a man-bites-dog museum piece, it is not clear why the whole thing can't be reduced to numbered list of myths inside the Banneker bio article, with references to the refutations.

Reading this tirade, it is hard work to extract any specific set of myths about Banneker, and some of them are inane (e.g. Jefferson not being president yet when he sent someone a copy of Banneker almanac; the "myth" is that President Jefferson had done so!). 73.89.25.252 (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is one of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Rather than summarising what reliable sources say about the myth-making around Banneker, the article itself wrongly directly critiques the sources said to be in error. The content needs cutting down to use only secondary sources that discuss whether and how Banneker's life and achievements have been misportrayed. Fences&Windows 21:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

As noted in the article and its cited references, a number of secondary sources have described and refuted the many myths about Banneker since the 1960s. The citations at the end of the first paragraph in the lead section of the article identify 12 secondary sources that have described these myths from 1969 to 2020. The main article also identifies those 12 sources (see the first paragraph in the section of Benjamin Banneker entitled Mythology and commemorations). Nevertheless, a number of sources that some consider to be reliable have repeated and embellished these myths since 1969.

The article's descriptions of the many repetitions and embellishments of such refuted myths are neither WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH. The descriptions are updates to a recurring condition that has persisted for the half-century that has elapsed since secondary sources began to refute the myths. The article's sections group these myths into general categories.

The article does not "directly critique the sources said to be in error". The article describes the statements that those sources have made and reports the relationships of those statements to earlier statements that other sources have made.

The first entry in this section states that the article "leans right (or maybe anti-black in this case)". That is not correct. The article's images show that the colorations of the originators and perpetrators of the myths have been both white and black. They have also been both male and female.

The article's wikilinks report that those perpetrators that held public offices were both Republicans and Democrats, i.e., both conservative and liberal. Some have been employees and agencies of federal and local governments, as well as of public school systems. Further, the main article (Benjamin Banneker) describes Banneker's documented accomplishments and the accolades that he received during his remarkable lifetime.

This article may indeed be a rara avis. That is because there are not many occurrences of well-documented modern urban legends that have persisted long after reliable sources have conclusively refuted them. Corker1 (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I can well believe that Banneker is subject to a ton of mythmaking, but why can't this be a much shorter numbered list of myths, linked to refutations, in his biography article? The sheer length of this piece makes it hard to grasp what are the main myths, and whether the extent of the mythology is such as to constitute its own phenomenon. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The article's lead states (with citations): "Several such urban legends describe Banneker's alleged activities in the Washington, D.C., area around the time that he assisted Andrew Ellicott in the initial survey of the boundaries of the future federal district. Others involve his clock, his astronomical works, his almanacs and his journals." The article groups these myths into sections whose order approximates their importance, based on the number of works that describe each and their relationships to similar myths.

Wikipedia contains a number of articles devoted to myths and legends associated with various individuals, groups, cities, nations and geographical locations. These include: Legends of Catherine the Great, Mythologies of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Batak mythology, Legends of Tallinn, Mythology of Indonesia, Greek mythology, Mythology in France, Welsh mythology, Mythology in the Low Countries, Folklore of the Low Countries and Legends of Africa. The extent of the mythology associated with Benjamin Banneker appears to constitute at least as much of its own phenomenon as do the myths and legends that some of the other Wikipedia articles describe. Corker1 (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

That does not answer the question of why this all could or should not be tremendously condensed, to a point that it can be included as a list in the Banneker bio article.

To take just one example, I read again the mind-numbingly long section on the first myth, Plan of Washington DC and eventually gave up on trying to understand what the actual facts of the matter are. Apparently Banneker was involved, as an assistant (whatever that meant in terms of his extent of participation and skills) and provided help in cleaning up the mess when the chief, L'Enfant, left. Or something else --- there is so much material provided that constructing an overall narrative is like a jigsaw puzzle left to the reader. The problem is that this is not written as an article about what the facts are, and how they are mythologized, concerning Banneker; that information could be summarized in a couple of sentences with links to many sources. It is written as a blow-by-blow historiography, i.e., its subject is the evolution of material about Banner, turning the article into a giant scrapbook of Bannekeriana. What readers want to know is what is true, and what is false, about Banneker, with the incredibly detailed documentation of that separated as references. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Another problem, which is part of what makes the article appear biased, is treating stories about Banneker that are in essence true as being myths if the common version contains some inaccuracies. If the story is not seriously exaggerated or misleading it should be treated differently from mythology, such as omitting it or consolidating all these lesser inaccuracies for quick treatment in a single section. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

73.89.25.252 (talk) stated: ".... I read again the mind-numbingly long section on the first myth, Plan of Washington DC and eventually gave up on trying to understand what the actual facts of the matter are. Apparently Banneker was involved, .... and provided help in cleaning up the mess when the chief, L'Enfant, left. Or something else --- ...."

However, the article states in the section entitled "Plan of the City of Washington" (bolding added):

However, historical research has shown that none of these legends can be correct. As Bedini reported in 1969, Ellicott's 1791 assignment was to produce a survey of a square, the length of whose sides would each be 10 miles (16.1 km) (a "ten mile square"). L'Enfant was to survey, design and lay out the national capital city within this square. Ellicott and L'Enfant each worked independently under the supervision of the three Commissioners that President Washington had earlier appointed. Bedini could not find any evidence that showed that Banneker had ever worked with or for L'Enfant.

Banneker left the federal capital area and returned to his home near Ellicott's Mills in April 1791. At that time, L'Enfant was still developing his plan for the federal city and had not yet been dismissed from his job. L'Enfant presented his plans to President Washington in June and August 1791, two and four months after Banneker had left.

Further, there never was any need to reconstruct L'Enfant's plan. .....

The section therefore makes it clear that Banneker had no involvement in the planning of the City of Washington. The section states that Silvio Bedini could not find any evidence that showed that Banneker had ever worked with or for L'Enfant, despite an extensive search of records containing documentation of the City's planning and design. The section further states that Banneker left the national capital area before L'Enfant was dismissed from his job. Banneker therefore could not have "provided help in cleaning up the mess when the chief, L'Enfant, (who was not the chief and left no mess) left."

It is true that this information is in the middle of the section, rather than at the section's beginning or end. However, the information's location places the information in its proper context relative to other information within the section.

Readers of Wikipedia articles need to read the entire sections of the articles in which they are interested. Where desired, readers should confirm the reliability of the article's information by accessing the references that the articles cite. As all of the references that the article cites are available on-line without charge, the process required to fully understand that information is not unduly burdensome.

73.89.25.252 (talk) also stated: "Another problem, which is part of what makes the article appear biased, is treating stories about Banneker that are in essence true as being myths if the common version contains some inaccuracies.'" However, none of the stories that the article describes are "in essence true." The article's citations show that each is incorrect. Corker1 (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There is undoubtedly improper synthesis and editorialising. You must not bring sources together to reach conclusions not stated in the sources, but this article does so. It is a project more suited to a personal blog or a thesis than an encyclopedia, and you're showing clear signs of believing you WP:OWN this article. As an example of the problems:

"By 1929, variations of the myth had become widespread. When describing the ceremonial presentation to Howard University in Washington, D.C., of a sundial memorializing Banneker, the Chicago Defender newspaper reported in that year that a speaker had claimed that:

.... he (Banneker) was appointed by President George Washington to aid Major L'Enfant, famed French architect, to plan the layout of the District of Columbia. L'Enfant died before the work was completed, which required Banneker to carry on in his stead.

However, as a book that won the 1917 Pulitzer Prize for History had earlier reported, L'Enfant lived long after he developed his plan for the federal capital city. He died near the City of Washington in 1825."

None of this is from sources that discuss mythologizing or errors about Banneker (they are sources said to be making errors, or sources misused to show other sources making errors). This kind of original research needs removing entirely and the article needs to get to the point faster about what the myths were, how they arose, and how we know they're myths. Fences&Windows 23:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Mis-targeted article

The more I read of the article, the more apparent it is that it is not about the stated topic, Banneker mythology. The actual topic is compendium of inaccurate references to Banneker and fact-checks thereof, a 50 times longer undertaking of little general interest. A summary of the myths and facts, rather than a laundry list of every document where they have occurred, would be pretty short and could go in a single section of this article. Though once completed, it would bolster the case for deleting this article and moving the summary into the Banneker bio page; the current long-form of this article is functioning as a scrapbook for a personal research project. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

73.89.25.252 (talk) stated: "The actual topic is compendium of inaccurate references to Banneker and fact-checks thereof" However, 73.89.25.252 (talk) has not identified even one inaccuracy within Mythology of Benjamin Banneker. Enough said. Corker1 (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The claim was not that the article is inaccurate (or accurate), but that its content consists of recording every last obscure reference to Banneker that contains an inaccurate statement about Banneker, and then lengthily fact-checking that statement. That is not mythology of Banneker, it is the collection and critical analysis of Banneker-related texts, and it takes up 50 times the space needed to cover the stated topic, making it difficult for anyone who lands at this page to get much out of it. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Like many Wikipedia articles, this article contains a lead section that summarizes the information that the article contains. The main article (Benjamin Banneker) contains a similar summary in its section entitled Mythology and commemorations.

This article contains additional sections that contain specific information each general subject category. As stated previously, readers of Wikipedia articles need to read the entire sections of the articles in which they are interested.

Where desired, readers should confirm the reliability of the article's information by accessing the references that the articles cite. As all of the references that the article cites are available on-line without charge, the process required to fully understand that information is not unduly burdensome.

Any editor can create additional sections, subsections and paragraphs to improve the article's readability. To further increase readability, editors can also reduce the length of sentences without removing information. If the article is too long, editors can create subordinate articles to further increase readability. All of those procedures are preferable to removing information that can benefit those readers who wish to acquire an in-depth knowledge of the article's subjects.

The main article and this article each contain a section entitled "See also". Those sections contain the following information: "List of common misconceptions: a list of many common misconceptions, including some about Benjamin Banneker". Readers can access that list if they wish to see short summaries of misconceptions about Banneker and other historically significant people, as well as about a wide variety of other subjects. Corker1 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

So you do have a short list of the main Banneker myths over at List of common misconceptions, that if made slightly longer and with references added could go in the Banneker bio page, making this page basically irrelevant? Or, for as long as this page exists, as an executive summary of its content?

There are problems of course. The Banneker misconceptions entry has no sources. And several of the claims about misconceptions, as in this article, depend on subjective judgements such as what constitutes "one of the first" to do something. That Banneker as a famous figure may be too generously credited for some things that he did but others did earlier is not necessarily so inaccurate as to be mythology, and the presumption that it must count as such is your personal judgement. Building a wooden clock versus "inventing" one is another example --- there is clearly a spectrum of clock-making activity and Banneker was somewhere notable on it even if not as notable and impressive as some sources have said, and with incomplete information on the details of what he did. There is no doubt some loss in transmission from the past but "mythology" is a rather strong and loaded term. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've asked for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Fences&Windows 23:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have made a start at removing the original research and irrelevant background material in the section "Plan of the City of Washington". This article is not the place to list those who are alleged to have repeated myths or made errors as a hall of shame, nor is it the place to go into detail of the surveys, etc. All content must be derived from sources directly discussing the mythologising of Banneker's life and works. Fences&Windows 21:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Your edits are damaging this article, as you have removed information that makes the article understandable. For example, you retained a sentence that states: "Klinkowitz noted that Murray had not provided any support for his claim that Banneker had recalled L'Enfant's plan for Washington, D.C. Klinkowitz also described a number of other Banneker myths and subsequent works that had refuted them". However, you deleted an earlier paragraph that quoted Murray's statement. Readers therefore do not know who Murray was and what Murray claimed.

Deleting text that supports other text approaches vandalism. I do not wish to engage in an editing war with you. However, if you do not carefully proof-read your edits to assure that that you are providing information that is in its proper context, are not ascertaining that you are retaining all relevant citations and are not correcting editorial errors, I will need to start reverting some or all of your edits.

You should also be aware that you cited an unreliable source (an article in Wired) when requesting asked for input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography concerning this article. The Wired article states that Banneker was an "inventor". However, the main Wikipedia article (Benjamin Banneker) does not state that Banneker was an inventor, but only that he reportedly completed a wooden clock that struck on the hour, using a pocket watch as a model.

The present article (which you are editing) cites in its section entitled "Banneker's clock" several earlier unreliable sources that also claim that Banneker was inventor. When you edit this article, please assure that you do not remove descriptions of "myths" that unreliable sources (such as the Wired article) have initiated or perpetuated. Corker1 (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the need to include detail on Murray's paper; that was a slip and I've reincorporated it. I've also revised how Martha Ellicott Tyson's account was presented, because she is notable but was not even named and the use of the term "story" implied an element of fiction even though I do not believe her writing has been implicated in mythmaking. I promoted a Bedini quote from footnote to main text, as it seemed particularly pertinent. Some of the retelling of the historical detail of Ellicott's and L'Enfant's disagreements and respective contributions can likely be further reduced, but this section is now much closer to a straight account of the mythmaking and relying only on secondary sources that discuss mythologising. Fences&Windows 11:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Your edits contained at least one incorrectly documented statement, which could have become the basis for yet another myth. When discussing a sentence that described Shirley Graham's report of Banneker's reconstruction of L'Enfant's plan from memory, you wrote "Bedini said this was dispelled as a legend,". However, the reference that you cited contains no such information.

You also removed the citation at the end of the above sentence that supported the sentence's statement that others had repeated and extended Graham's fable. Your deletion left that part of the sentence without any documentation.

You also deleted information near the beginning of the section that you edited that explained the reason for Ellicott's and L'Enfant's works. This made it difficult for readers to understand the remainder of the section. I have therefore needed to edit this section to correct these deficiencies.

Your comment above states in regard to Martha Ellicott Tyson: "I do not believe her writing has been implicated in mythmaking." Please therefore note that Bedini reported in his 1969 journal article that Tyson had stated:

It was the work, also of Major Ellicott, under the orders of General Washington, then President of the United States, to locate the sites of the Capitol, President's House, Treasury and other public buildings. In this, also, Banneker was his assistant.

Bedini reported in a number of this books and articles that he could not find any documents that demonstrated that Banneker had any involvement in the planning, design or survey of the City of Washington. Julian P. Boyd, a professor of history at Princeton University, emphasized this in his discussion of information in Bedini's 1972 book concerning the survey of the federal district and city, stating:

First of all, because of unwarranted claims to the contrary, it must be pointed out that there is no evidence whatever that Banneker had anything to do with the survey of the Federal City .... All available testimony shows that he was present only during the few weeks early in 1791 when the rough preliminary survey of the ten mile square was made; that, after this was concluded and before the final survey was begun, he returned to his farm and his astronomical studies in April, accompanying Ellicott part way on his brief journey back to Philadelphia; and that thenceforth he had no connection with the mapping of the seat of government. ...
In any case, Banneker's participation in the surveying of the Federal District was unquestionably brief and his role uncertain.

Your comment above states that you are editing this article to make it rely only upon secondary sources. However, although Wikipedia prefers that articles rely upon information in secondary sources, this is not a requirement. Many articles contain information derived from primary sources where no secondary sources exist.

Secondary sources are important because they sometimes review and critique information in primary sources that may be incorrect. However, citing only secondary sources is not essential when primary sources clearly contain factual information, rather than original research.

Perhaps even more importantly, some secondary sources (including even Bedini's works) repeat incorrect information that their sources contain or introduce questionable interpretations of the information that they describe. In addition, many secondary sources lack in-line citations and therefore obscure the sources of their information (which may or may not be accurate). A large number of secondary sources involving Banneker's life have this deficiency.

It is therefore important for editors to review information in primary and secondary sources before adding the information to Wikipedia articles or removing such information from the articles. This is especially important when an article's purpose is to describe and document the myths and urban legends that surround the subject of a main article.

If you choose to continue revising this article, please carefully check each of your edits to assure that they are not removing important background information or supporting documentation. Please do not remove information from primary sources if the sources report facts and do not contain original research.

Thank you. Corker1 (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

References

No verifiable evidence

Many are suggesting that reports of Benjamin Bannekars' accomplishments would have been kept in a protected research library for future verification. Some Americans at that time were barely used to the idea that Africans had any capabilities that showed them intellectually equal. Many Americans were dedicated to ensuring that Africans remained dehumanized. The goal was to keep slave labor profitable, not aid in the abolition of slavery. Thus, the concerted effort to perpuate the 'mythology' view as truth. ViolStep (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That could conceivably explain why such reports no longer exist, but the crucial thing is that there's no evidence said reports ever existed to begin with. Anyone can claim anything about a historical figure by saying "this totally happened even though I can't prove it; the proof must have been destroyed or fallen to the ravages of time even though there's no indication of that either." There are plenty of situations where a document is lost yet is known to have existed due to being mentioned by others. That isn't the case with exaggerated accounts of Banneker's life, which date long after his death and make no such mention of now-extinct records to substantiate their claims. --Ismail (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Six years later: why does this article exist?

If I were looking for information on the "mythology"—not really the term I would use regardless—around Benjamin Banneker and its development and historical context in the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries, this article would be useless. Mainly it's centered around quibbling with "the first" vs. "among the first" in journalistic writing from decades ago, not even with explaining what the mythology is.

At 390kb it's nearly a quarter longer than the actual (oddly bloated) article on Banneker. It's seven times longer than the page on Folklore of the United States. It's longer than Pierre Charles L'Enfant, Andrew Ellicott, L'Enfant Plan, and History of Washington, D.C. combined. Outside of the weird Banneker/Mythology of Banneker/Commemorations of Banneker nexus it appears to only have two pages currently linking in to it (although it does have plenty of redirects, for no apparent reason except inertia); one of those links is a random appearance in a "see also" list in African-American literature. Neither Banneker nor his writings are mentioned in that article.

I'll also note that after looking through the first 500 articles including "mythology of," this is the only one devoted to sloppy newspaper language around a single individual. Generally articles styled "Mythology of" deal with American science fiction or fantasy television shows featuring elaborate serialized mystery storytelling from the 1990s-2010s. Whether those articles should exist or be folded into their main articles is a topic for another place, but this one definitely should be folded back into the main article on Banneker. Messier object (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a terrible article and feels like an AI bot wrote it. It seems to be steeped in racism. Why does it exist? When you don’t have anything like it for other figures? There is tons of evidence of Banneker’s Achievements. And instead you wrote an entire article that cites known racists in the name of trying to be fair and debunk myths? Wow. Wikipedia is really going down. We know there are biases in terms of gender and race but this is ridiculous. You won’t be on the right side of history on this one. Instead use language like one of the first instead of writing a whole stupid article trying to tear this American historical figure down. 108.31.244.89 (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to deny that the article is bloated (e.g. I don't think readers benefit from learning that the actor who played Uncle Phil in Fresh Prince narrated a DVD in 2005 that contained an erroneous claim about Banneker.) But I don't think the lack of equivalent articles for other individuals that have myths around them (like, as has been noted, George Washington) means this article deserves to be deleted. As long as the information is reliable and there are multiple credible sources pointing to exaggerations and myth-making about Banneker, it can be justified. It also helps prevent the main Benjamin Banneker article from being filled with information on what Banneker didn't do, as opposed to focusing on his life and real accomplishments. --Ismail (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ismail here. It's worth noting, however, that the account responsible for much of this bloat was indef blocked for ownership and refusal to abide by consensus. It seems that this particular article has been allowed to remain in this state because it has escaped real scrutiny from the community. I'd say that an attempt to strip out the dross is entirely justifiable here (maybe looking to the original 2012 version as a guide), and if any disputes arise surrounding that, posting about it at WP:NPOVN. Generalrelative (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)