Talk:George Washington Carver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

Contents 1 missing sections 2 GW Carter invented dozens of things we use today? 3 Carver did nothing to introduce crop rotation 4 Carver was one of the most influential men alive. 5 Plagiarism 6 Vandalism 7 Minor edit 8 grammar stuff 9 Major Addition to Carver Inventions/Improvements section 10 Did he visit the USSR? 11 Named after the first President 12 Categorization 13 Troubles + Disputed sect's 14 What Carver invented 15 The intro 16 Mocked by surprised southern farmers 17 Missing and Inaccurate information 18 Carver's Sexuality 19 Birthdate 20 Black-Scientists.com 21 Inaccuracies Reinstated 22 igjk 23 culturally significant addition 24 Revision 25 American Dad ref 26 The focus of this article should be Carver's achievements 27 Request for consensus on this article 28 Barry Mackintosh and the anti-Carver snark factor in this article 29 Carver's statement "I never patent my inventions" 30 Validity of, and disagreements among, different sources of information on Carver 31 Is there, or is there not, a controversy over whether Carver "helped to revolutionize" southern agriculture?

[edit] missing sections

Not sure why but most of this article is not appearing. The article appears to finish at the end of the "Rise to fame" section. However viewing the article though "edit this page" reveals that there is a lot more that is mow missing including further images and text. As this is a protected page I can not edit it to restore the missing sections. Can this be put right please 16:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC) He is a great man

                   ----seems ok now-----

How common are Americans who get their name like this: the last name is the same as the rest of the family, but the first and middle names come from someone who is not related to the family?? - Nicole Lambardi age 12

• Naming patterns go through trends and fashions, and it's not particularly common now - for two names, anyway, there are more "Britney's" than you'd expect from chance alone.... But there were times in the past when it was very common to name a child after an unrelated person whom one admired, and president's names ("George Washington", "Thomas Jefferson") and other "patriotic" notables ("Benjamin Franklin") were not at all uncommon choices. - Nunh-huh 02:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• See Winfield Scott and Winfield Scott Hancock for another interesting example. One of my own ancestors was also named after Winfield Scott, a popular war hero in the 19th Century. H2O 19:34, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In 1974 the Carver Museum at Tuskegee Institute, which Carver had helped develop, credited him with 287 peanut products. One hundred twenty-three were foods and beverages, sixty-eight were paints or dyes, the rest were cosmetics, stock foods, medicinal preparations, and miscellaneous items. Many items were duplicated under different names: listed as separate entries, for example, were bar candy, chocolate-coated peanuts, and peanut chocolate fudge; all-purpose cream, face cream, face lotion, and hand cream; thirty dyes for cloth, nineteen dyes for leather, and seventeen wood stains. Many of the products were not original in any case. Bar Candy using peanuts and chocolate-coated peanuts were already being ate in restaurants in New Orleans as early as the late 1880s to early 1890s. Even salted peanuts were an entry. One particular entry, the "face bleach and tan remover," is still unknown because Carver did not present forumlas for most of his products. Many consider this particular invention to be bogus, including it with the previously mentioned face creams. He did come up with a lot of uses for the peanut, but many were duplicated, sometimes already discovered, or bogus alltogether. No one knows why he included the duplicated inventions. Some claim that he wanted to run the number of his inventions up while others attribute it to old age since he did catalogue his inventions for the museum when he was quite old. The latter is probably closer to the truth.

---

i haven't been active in the wikipedia for a long time, but... wtf. this nonsense about carving peanuts and relationships with his assistant has been sitting unchanged a month? Wmorgan

• I made a small edit to the article after the "sculpture" nonsense appeared and am embarrassed that I didn't catch it. I have to admit, it was funny, though. H2O 23:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Carver was gay and had an assistant named Austin Curtis, Jr., who was a former teacher. He helped him with many of his projects, and the two briefly dated as well.

Is this serious? It was added by a logged-in contributor, but similar previous additions were anonymous and were reverted as vandalism. -Montréalais 08:17, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No one knows if Carver was gay. Why does it even matter? People are too obsessed about stuff like that these days.

We disagree with the comment about a relationship between Carver and Curtis. According to Marilyn Nelson the professor wrote to Curtis' father that Austin seemed to him more like a son than an assistant. Curtis had become baby Carver, and his children had aquired a third grandpa.

We agree with your disagree that Carver and Curtis were like father and son. Curtis was like the heir to Carver's plant world. I do however feel that he may of had a relationship with Jim Hardwick. His shock about the marriage shows he had more than a mentor relationship.

I think this article should be more detailed. I have just added several details. WikiPedia should be more focused towards what an actual encyclopedia would. Heck, this site has more information on the Simpsons, a cartoon show, than George Washington Carver, a genius that invented dozens of things commonly used today. --MAX Allen

[edit] GW Carter invented dozens of things we use today?

Name one.

Most of his "discoveries" were either not novel or were of mere curiousity value.

Please name one discovery of his that impacts us in any way, shape or form.

---

• I think you'll agree that at least a few of these things he developed/improved have lasting use:

Adhesives Axle Grease Bleach Buttermilk Cheese (synthetic) Chili Sauce Cream Creosote Dyes Flour Fuel Briquettes Ink Instant Coffee Insulating Board Linoleum Mayonnaise Meal Meat Tenderizer Metal Polish Milk Flakes Mucilage Paper Rubbing Oils Salve Soil Conditioner Shampoo Shoe Polish Shaving Cream Sugar Synthetic Marble Synthetic Rubber Talcum Powder Vanishing Cream Wood Stains Wood Filler Worcestershire Sauce

• Source: Hattie Carwell. Blacks in Science: Astrophysicist to Zoologist. Hicksville, N.Y.: Exposition Press), 1977. p. 18.

And he was given 3 patents for developing cosmetics, paints and stains from soybean.

U.S. 1,522,176 Cosmetics and Producing the Same. January 6, 1925. George W. Carver. Tuskegee, Alabama.

U.S. 1,541,478 Paint and Stain and Producing the Same June 9, 1925. George W. Carver. Tuskegee, Alabama.

U.S. 1,632,365 Producing Paints and Stains. June 14, 1927. George W. Carver. Tuskegee, Alabama.

--nixie 01:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Sorry, I don't agree.

Most of the items and uses he supposedly developed were either not original, were poorly described (he left no formulas behind for many of his "creations"), or of no more than novelty application.

That he only had three patents out of his reams of asserted "inventions" demonstrates that he originated very little. Peanuts were important in cosmetics long before Carver came along.

I must point out that you have failed to point to a single Carver discovery still in use today. That he, for example, may have worked on a lubricant does not mean he invented a lubricant that was important in any way. I could create a lubricant from Frankenberry cereal, but that does not mean my product is useful or economical.

A scholarly article penned by a National Park Service historian, Barry Mackintosh, reveals that Carver was more of a self-promoter than a pioneer: http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=256246&messageid=1088896552&lp=1088896552

He was largely a failure as an educator, and not much of a scientist. He claimed that "Mr. Creator" was his muse in the lab, revealing uses for the peanut to Carver.

---

That he only had three patents out of his reams of asserted "inventions" demonstrates that he originated very little. - I have read statements by Carver that he did not believe in the exclusionary nature of patents. Therefore, it would be incorrect to assume that his disinterest in obtaining patents somehow demonstrates a failure to qualify for them.

Furthermore, you say:

I must point out that you have failed to point to a single Carver discovery still in use today. That he, for example, may have worked on a lubricant does not mean he invented a lubricant that was important in any way.

That statement is slightly ridiculous. Many inventions have a lifespan, but that does not necessarily discount from their value at the time they were invented. Take your lubricant example. A peanut-based lubricant may be environmentally safe, though it may not be "economical" today (or have been in Carver's lifetime) in light of envornmentally hazardous lubricants in widespread use. Is a once-groundbreaking microchip that is no longer in widespread use not pinoneering simply because it has been improved upon and supplanted by newer versions?

The Mackintosh article makes numerous misleading assertions (and assumptions), and I felt many aspects of that article are not valid. Most inventors of years past were "self-promoters" (e.g., Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison). Indeed, many pioneering inventions are never widely adopted due to political, marketing and other reasons that have nothing to do with the utility of the invention.

The fact remains that none of Carver's "inventions" (if he in fact had any) was ever adopted on any detectable scale. Certainly, none of his inventions can be considered "pioneering" if it neither stood on its own or was the genesis of some important development. The lifecycle of Carver's putative inventions was stillborn. BulldogPete

Have you no respect!?Certainly,Edisons inventions are more important,but G.W.C.'s are important,too! 70.165.71.229 01:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)→

[edit] Carver did nothing to introduce crop rotation

This is simply laughably false, and suggests Carver was somehow a pioneer in crop rotation.

This article is typical of the leftest slant to wikipedia. GW Carver can honestly be described as 95% showman and publicist/5% amateur scientist.

If you can find some sources which disprove Carver's research into crop rotation then please present them. A simple Google search on Carver and crop rotation brings up plenty of sources that say otherwise. Also, please sign your talk page comments (by adding four tildes (~) at the end) and, if you going to be editing much, a username is a big help. -Willmcw 03:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

In all fairness to the anon, he did not develop crop rotation, but he taught the technique in the Southern United States, this article did make some overzealous statements about Carvers acheievments, which I have been adjusting with research--nixie 03:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Carver did absolutely nothing to introduce crop rotation:

Carver sought to extend the station's influence with the bulletins, leaflets, and circulars appearing under his name from 1898 to his death. "But few technical terms will be used," he promised in his first bulletin, and all but one of the forty he issued offered elementary information on farming and related rural concerns to the uneducated farmer.[29] The bulletins and other farming publications contained little of substance that had not already been printed in bulletins of the Agriculture Department or other experiment stations, and Carver's themes were not new even at Tuskegee. Much of what he would preach was summarized in a leaflet published by the institute before his arrival: "Do not plant too much cotton, but more corn, peas, sugar-cane, sweet-potatoes etc., raise hogs, cows, chickens, etc." [1]

-- Sixpackshakur

If you take the time to read the article you'll see that the overstament of Carvers achievments has been removed--nixie 23:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I read the article but was responding to Willmcw, as is my privilege. Sixpackshakur 02:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carver was one of the most influential men alive.

You ppl dont know what u are talking about . 1st of all Carver was not gay.

2nd he was a genius and none (maybe 1 or 2) of his inventions or discoveries were accidents.

3rd Carver was a highly spiritual person (probably the reason why he didnt marry) .

4th Carver has done as many good deeds as any of you could do in 100 of your puny lives.

5th Even though he was ill treated by the whites he did not hate them showing that he was a highly humanitarian person and believed that God did not put him on the Earth to hate.

6th It would be a greater gift than any of you can imagine to be him. - unsigned comments by User:Wikiuser9000

Please, people, don't post silly nonsense like this. This is in no way scholarly information, just ranting by someone. This isn't a serious contribution, just drivel.

Thanks for working on the biography of this great person. However I notice that you're also deleting info for no apparent reason. Please try to keep as much of the existing information as you can, and then give an explanation when you do delete something. Also, please don't put each sentence on its own line, just make them into paragraphs. Thanks. -Willmcw 19:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

And there's no need to insult your co-editors (unless, in fact, God put you on Earth to hate us). --Dystopos 04:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Different Person: Why do you think an accident made Gw.C famous66.41.126.203 02:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

In accordance with the instructions in Wikipedia:Copyright_problems, I reverted edits from May 31, 2005 (here) that did not represent the (unsigned) contributor's own work. Obviously, there was information about Dr. Carver that perhaps should be included in this article, but since the material appears in full at its source it is still easily available (not to mention through other sources). Josquin 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Block quote

Homosexuality is not normal and whatever moron posted this section must be a fag himself and all this crap about Goerge Washington Carver being gay is so not true and you have no evidence to back it up so there is three possibilities 1.you're an idiot2.you're an idiot and3.you're an idiot if you would like to email me it's rysizzle05@yahoo.com

I was recently reading about this man on NNDB.com and came across a reference claiming he was gay. Does anyone have further information on this subject? It would make an interesting side-note.

I have heard of the possibility that he was gay, but every time someone tries to add it to this article, there is all sort of name-calling and finger pointing. My opinion is...if you can list verifiable sources and are willing to take the heat, then go for it. If it is just a rumor or supposition - look out, it probably won't be taken wery well.--Master Scott Hall 16:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This man is listed as asexual in the asexual article Monkeyduck 01:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Carver was gay all his life. He always had assigned to him male student interns and lab assistants and they always dreaded the assignment because he would force himself on them and they would not come forward publicly and accuse him because of his public reputation. It was common knowledge to the students and faculty of Tuskegee Institute in the 1940's, but due to the brutal and severe nature of racial and economic discrimination in the South, it was not deemed advisable to discredit any Afro-American leader in any way, as he would receive no justice due to the dual standard of justice in this country that still exists and the activities of radical racial-based secret societies that still operate. Public lynchings of black men still occurred in the Tuskegee Institute area up into the 1960's and Montgomery was the first capital of the Confederate States of America. Tuskegee Institute was an all black college-oasis in the middle of an extremely segregated, violent, agriculturally based White society that still resented losing free slave labor for it's plantations. Revenge and racism were rampant. While President Abraham Lincoln was rumored to sleep with his male military bodygard in the White House when his wife was away, and centers of northern culture allowed homosexuality among actors, florists, painters, and other creative workers, the American South was still a closed society in the 20th Century except in larger urban areas with populations exceeding 100,000.

Interesting, and I caught the NNDB profile as well. However, without links that contain verifiable proof, it can't be added. --AWF

[edit] Vandalism

I think this page gets my vote for one of Wiki's most vandalized pages. Though I do have a question, is all of this vandalism from multiple users or one specific user? I'd think given the fact that most of the edits are in the form of 'he is gay' etc that it is from one user. Juuust curious. --ImmortalGoddezz 17:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed the same and agree. Vandalism is unacceptable. People have pointed out that he may have been gay, but the only way that it is admissible in this article is if it is verifiable. Since Carver is dead, as is anyone (male or female) whom he would have had an intimate relationship, and by all accounts, he never "came out", I don't see how his sexual preference could ever be verified. At most, it could be included in a "Controversy" section at the bottom of the article, but only if someone could cite a verifiable source. This particular user has a history of vandalism, but the IP used belongs to a public school. Since I don't think it would be wise to block such an IP, perhaps it would be prudent to request page protection. Since this user vandalizes regularly on many different articles, I think that the only way to be successful in a protection request is to show a vandalism pattern on this article by numerous other users. See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy --Master Scott Hall 18:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This was just featured on TV, it will probably be vandalized.

[edit] Minor edit

I just put in Information about Carver's work on Soy products while he was with Henry Ford.Angrynight 05:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] grammar stuff

does it bother anyone that the meat of this article begins with "over the next few years" ?

If it bothers you go ahead and fix it. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Addition to Carver Inventions/Improvements section

I expanded the section on Carver Inventions using authoritative sources, which were footnoted, to correct widespread misconceptions. I also added two 2006 online articles to the External Links section.

Does anyone object to removing the term "Improvements" from the Inventions section? I have never seen that term applied to Carver products before. It seems inappropriate because Carver and his biographers never cast his purported inventions in that way. Without formulas for virtually all of Carver's inventions, one could not be sure they were improvements anyway. Plantguy 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did he visit the USSR?

I have heard that he did. I think I read it in a "left-wing" book on African American history, maybe Before the Mayflower. That might be interesting to include in the article.Steve Dufour 19:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read that he was consulted long-distance on agricultural methods by the Soviet Union, but it seems very unlikely that he actually went there.

Even the claim that he was contacted by the Soviet Union should be checked carefully. Greg Kuperberg 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Named after the first President

Isn't it obvious that he was named after George Washington, the first President of the United States?67.188.172.165 04:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to non-American readers Philvarner 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

He was called George Carver originally. He only added Washington to distinguish himself from another student named George Carver. Plantguy 18:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

I am removing Carver from the 'Development specialists' category. This category covers individuals who play a role in international development. Carver did a lot of great things, but he only worked in the USA. APB-CMX 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troubles + Disputed sect's

I hate wiki articles that do this: isolated criticisms sections that overwhelm the text and throw-off due weight. This page makes for a truly bizarre read: something of a panegyric to start and then two sections which seem designed for the sole purpose of denigrating the man. They are sourced, but they should be reduced. Marskell 08:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the section on Carver's reputed inventions is more correct than the rest of the article. I have seen no evidence that Carver ever had a single serious invention. All of his inventions as far as I have seen are either simple announcements or kitchen recipes. He did eventually have three patents, which may have been his most serious try, but even these were not commercially successful. If you trace the references back, they always go back either to nothing, or they go back to kitchen recipes. Read "How to Grow the Peanut and 105 Ways of Preparing it for Human Consumption", Carver's own words, if you don't believe me.

Unfortunately, there is an ocean of thin claims that Carver invented hundreds of uses for the peanut and other plants. Most Americans are convinced that it is true. They are convinced at school, and they are convinced by repetition. The sources that say so feed on each other. It's just something that people want to say and believe. Someone recently edited the Wikipedia page and added back these unsubstantiated praises, without even checking the rest of the same page.

But I agree with you that the two critical sections could be better written, especially the section on "troubles" at Tuskegee. That section also makes some truthful points that contradict the rest of the same article. For example, the article says that Carver did not believe in personal gain, but he did. Not only did he file patents, he started a company (or more than one) and tried to sell some of his products.

The best thing would be to reconcile the different parts of the article to make it consistent and polite. However, just removing the criticism would be wrong.

Greg Kuperberg 17:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You can feel the layering—an initial page partially supplanted by additions with a very different slant. This creates strawman points. "He said he did not believe in personal gain but this is not true." Ideas like this can always be edited in with nuance and it isn't our place to sit in judgement on a subject's self-consistency. Even the most modest must pursue personal gain to some degree, after all. Did he leave his life savings, $33 000, to his scientific foundation? Even for 1940s standards, this is an unexceptional amount and doesn't speak to a person hungering after wealth.

And some of it I find plainly contradictory. He was the first black offered a faculty position at Iowa State, but all he was doing was hawking other people's recipies? That doesn't follow. He either did or did not discover two fungi, did or did not find a way to make ink and soap with peanuts, did or did not work with farmers on crop rotation and diversification. It can't all be fradulant or I'd think we'd have sources saying so. Web sources do, of course, meme-ishly reinforce each other, but if we're totally contradicting what's out there, we may be creating OR (I found "is an urban legend" an OR deduction). And do note, that collecting, refining, and publishing material is an accomplishment in itself, even if invention credit is not wholly accurate. Shakespeare rarely invented his own plotlines...

As for the two sections, the reputed inventions has a place but I find the "Troubles" partly tangential and ad hominem. Marskell 18:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the "Troubles" section is partly ad hominem and should be changed. I also agree with you that changes have been layered in and that the article should be more consistent. Even so, what Carver ever really invented is a central question. As far as I can tell, the answer is nothing. My impression is that Carver was straightforward about this at first, and didn't really claim that his "uses" were new inventions. But eventually he tried in earnest and didn't succeed.

The statement that Carver didn't believe in personal gain, or the more specific belief that he never tried to profit from his inventions, is relevant. It can be taken as an explanation of why there is no clear connection between Carver and the things that he supposedly invented. But the more correct statement is that he never succeeded in profiting from his inventions. And this was not because anyone stole his ideas. Greg Kuperberg 18:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The introduction has been changed for the worse. It says that Carver's "exact output is difficult to ascertain". That is just not true. Carver has one of the best-documented lives of any American. The evidence is overwhelming that the nation misinterpreted his career. Carver knew all about the myth that was created around him, and eventually tried to live up to it, but he didn't succeed. Of course nothing in science or history is certain and there is no mathematical proof that there are no Carver inventions. Even so, if you look at the actual evidence that people used to conclude that he was an inventor, the right way to say it is that it is a myth, or an urban legend as the page said before.

It is also not true that he left almost no formulas or procedures. He left no formulas or procedures that would prove that he was a successful inventor. But at times, he did leave formulas that are evidence against it. You should read Carver's famous bulletin 105 Peanut Uses, if you plan to seriously edit this Wikipedia page. The title of this bulletin is clearly linked to the widely held belief that he invented hundreds of uses for the peanut. But does this document describe any kind of science or invention, or is it just kitchen recipes? Greg Kuperberg 15:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"The evidence is overwhelming that the nation misinterpreted his career." We need to source that or it's an OR deduction, and any source will need to be balanced against those claiming otherwise. WP:V: Verifiability, not truth. On the related intro point, we have no business labelling it myth, urban legend or anything else unless we can source it. Here is a source for the contention, if you have access to a university library (I don't); but careful, this is a history journal and thus speaking outside its field on the science matters. This brings me back to the earlier point: on specific issues, it's an either/or. Either he did discover two fungi[2], for instance, or he did not. Dealing with specific assertions might be better then 0 or 300.

Re troubles: suggest shrinking and weaving into the text. For instance, the resignations threats can be compressed to one sentence ("five times between") and simply be inserted in the general bio.

I will try and read the bulletin. Marskell 16:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want sources, then yes, Barry Mackintosh's historical article is one of them. It is true that JSTOR requires a subscription or access through a university. However, Mackintosh wrote a very similar article for American Heritage which is freely available here. If you want more sources, I read a biography by Gene Adair, unfortunately out of print. There is also a boigraphy by Linda McMurry, which is also out of print, but which is available used and which was also scanned by Amazon.

Does it matter that Mackintosh, Adair, and McMurry are historians rather than scientists? I'm convinced anyway. For one reason, they do mention Carver's interactions with scientists. But it also helps to allow a certain amount of common sense. What does common sense say about an invention like "peanut nitroglycerine", whose inventor says explicitly that he didn't write down the formula?

Mackintosh also make the fundamental point that there are serious black scientists and educators who are less famous than Carver. Mackintosh particularly admires Booker T. Washington, but he also mentions the scientists Ernest Everett Just and Charles Henry Turner. Now, there are also things to admire about Carver — he wasn't a bad person — but it looks like a mistake that he is more famous than these other men. (Or maybe about as famous as Washington.)

In a passage that was news to me, Mackintosh says that the National Park Service, which is responsible for the Carver National Monument, shelved their own internal biography of Carver because they were afraid of the possible reaction. (Mackintosh himself work for the Park Service for 17 years, but was not connected with this biography.) Finally Mackintosh lists black scholars who have written truthful assessments of Carver's career. But he concluded pessimistically, saying that the public is unlikely to listen to them.

It may well be true that Carver discovered two new varieties of fungi. However, this is not the same as inventing anything. Note also that the article that you cite reads a lot like a Wikipedia article, but it doesn't cite its sources. It also says at the end that Carver invented a way to make shampoo from peanuts. Again, apply some common sense. How realistic is it to make shampoo from peanuts, except by the stone soup method? Greg Kuperberg 17:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Either he did discover two fungi, for instance, or he did not. Dealing with specific assertions might be better then 0 or 300.

One more comment about this. Up to a point, I agree that it's right to emphasize the positive. Carver wasn't a bad person, and maybe he did discovered new varieties of fungi. However, the Wikipedia page is not complete unless it prominently explains that millions of American schoolchildren still learn that he invented hundreds of uses for the peanut, but that it isn't true. Greg Kuperberg 18:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• On your very first clause, "If you want sources"... Well of course I do! Wikipedia requires them. Now, it's always annoying if you've read the sources and some other user comes along and says such-and-such without sources of their own, but it's no small thing to cast doubt on essentially everything a subject is credited with doing, which is what I was reacting to initially. The intro read like "psst! most of what follows is bullshit." Of course, this article does have some sources, so kudos on what you've added. My own web-link was not meant to be authoritative at all but just an example of a specific he might or might not have done. Is the source wrong in the meme sense? Is it lying? Is it accurate? Research papers, of course, are always better. Regarding which...
  • Does it matter if they're historians? Yes it does, if they're being used to verify the veracity of scientific claims/purported accomplishments. WP:RS: "Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing." (emphasis original).
• "How realistic is it to make shampoo from peanuts, except by the stone soup method?" My opinion and common sense, and yours, is irrelevant because it's OR (broken record) without a source.
• On the last point I did not mean emphasize the positive, but emphasize the specific. If you can source that he did not discover two fungi, it will of course appear negative.

Again, I don't want to just say do this or that without having anything to offer myself (I'm also unrealistically coming across as the patron saint of reliable sources :), so I'll try to work on the prose stuff at least when I can and read what you've suggested. Marskell 21:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. [3] 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. [4] 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" [5] 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)

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

[edit] 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 ***

ygggf

• 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)

[edit] Birthdate

Why do [6], [7] and [8] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [9]. 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 [10] 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. [11]. 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) [12], National Inventors Hall of Fame [13] and about.com [14]. 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 [15] 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 [16] 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, [17] 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. [18]Plantguy 17:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] igjk

uil <sup>Superscript text</s j

gjghj jk khk jjkgj kkkkkkkkkkgggggg gjghjk'Italic textjjjItalic text''''Bold text'''''''''''up> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.100.45.74 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC).</sup>

[edit] culturally significant addition

I added a section titled "Man of science, man of faith" to0 Mr. George Washingont Carver's biography. While i was obviously aware of his cultural significance as a scientist, I had more often than not been made aware of his great significance within the Christian community. When I came to his biography page on wikipedia I was very disappointed to very not even a mention of his religious conviction. His legacy lives on now powerfully among two very seperate circles, but equally powerful I would aruge is his legacy within both. I also find his blend of science and faith to be quite noteworthy as it becomes more controversial in light of the modern Creationism vs. Evolution debates. The two contigencies of faith and science seem to become more and more polarized daily. I find the fact of George Washington Carver's solidarity in both to be particularly noteworthy and completed relevant regardless of particular religious conviction or lack thereof. I would encourage any advice or help to make the section more wiki'd, if that is something to be found deficient. I believe his faith is a necessary piece of the puzzle when constructing an accurate representation of who he was and what he did. So strongly did he feel so as to include the topic in his own autobiography. To negate or ignore this testimony from the biography is to falsify the account of who he was. I am glad to contribute to the accurate representation of Mr. George Washington Carver and hope that others will be encouraged by the well-roundedness and dynamic personality that he was and continues to be through often competing legacies: the peanut man of science and that humble man of faith.

A few mentions of Carver's faith do occur in other parts of the article. This section should add some factual information rather than just praise and Bible verses. It seems repetitious and more like a sermon than an encyclopedia article. What were Carver's religious activities? What were Carver's views on evolution?

A few lines contradict other sections of the article and should be deleted or rewritten, e.g. "While George Washington Carver is widely recognized for his scientific contributions which revealed the utility and versatility of the peanut ..." The article makes the point that Carver's scientific achievements were greatly exaggerated, and he was not a good scientist because he did not record his experiments.

"The scientific community gladly embraces and endorses his contributions to their catalogs." As above, the article establishs that Carver's scientific reputation was largely mythical, and he published virtually nothing in scientific journals.

The claim that "His unique blend of courage and discipline have allowed him access, even now, into two circles of influence which have become increasingly more separated in more recent years" is only because the scientific importance of his work has been so greatly inflated. In 1924, he was criticized in the NY Times for being too religious to be a scientist. Thus, he did not really bridge the gap between science and religion but was on the side of religion. Given his talks with "Mr. Creator" it seems that he was anti-evolution. Did he express views on evolution?

A better theme for this section might be that Carver's legacy has more to do with his faith than his largely mythical scientific achievements. He is not a good role model for a scientist because he did not record his experiments. He is a good role model for a Christian in many ways as stated. Yet, even Carver had sins. He was evasive and dishonest when other scientists asked for details of his scientific work. That is neither Christian nor scientific. Carver never tried to correct all the exaggerations about his work in the media.

Carver never wrote an autobiography. The book by Kremer assembled a collection of Carver's writings.

The quotes at the end should be put on the Wikiquotes page. Some may be there already. Plantguy 18:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your insights Plantguy. they are very much appreciated. i will make the suggested changes to my contribution to this page. i merely found the absence of information regarding his "scientific" approach to be disappointing. given your points, i think i may be able to tweak my section to reflect even more accurately the role Mr. George Washington Carver had in science and in the faith community. it seems relevant, as you stated, to point out that he may in fact be more of a faith icon than a scientific one anymore. i attend iowa state university currently and you can't go into a building without being bombarded by a post of George Washington Carver. being as he is perhaps the pride of the university, his faith and beliefs are often curbed here as well, usually focusing on his scientific endeavors in order to comfortably pimp his legacy to their credibility. i think they mean well and it would be foolish not to take advantage of the opportunity to promote your university through the celebrity of one George Washington Carver, but as you brilliantly pointed out, the source of celebrity may be more of mythology than science. i will explore this more and revise my addition. thanks for your help. any more thoughts? Toddv

There are several worthwhile links in the article. The biography by McMurry is probably the best of the many dozens written. The 2006 articles by Mark Hersey and Peter Burchard focus on some of Carver's real accomplishments rather than the myths about his inventions and their impact. Mackintosh's articles debunk the invention myths. The only tribute website that comes close to being accurate is the first one by the National Parks Service on Legends of Tuskegee. It avoids claims that Carver's inventions revolutionized Southern agriculture and the focus on the great number of inventions. Even that site is often superficial and vague in many ways, e.g. it states "His plant hybridization, recycling, and use of locally available technology was ahead of his time." Luther Burbank was far ahead of Carver on hybridization. It is not clear what "locally available technology" means. Perhaps they meant that Carver built his lab from odds and ends.

Perhaps simply "Man of faith" would be a better title for your section. Plantguy 16:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone might want to temporarily lock this, American Dad just made an episode where the end is the main character's son editing Wikipedia to say that Carver didn't invent peanut butter. Amber 03:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I just reverted vandalism on the Peanut Butter page, and somebody created an article saying Mary Todd Lincoln did. --PAK Man 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just came here to pre-emptively semi-protect it after seeing that, figuring there'd be a ton of vandalism on the horizon, but I guess it's been semi-protected for a while already. I'll put it on my watchlist. -R. fiend 03:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Editorial inconvenience notwithstanding, you have to admit that was funny. XD - Gilgamesh 04:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Twas. At first I thought they were going to go to talk radio or something with the "if only there is someplace where we can have something accepted as fact with no evidence" bit, but when I was wikipedia I laughed, then thought "oh dear, this is going to cause disruption". -R. fiend 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

i revised my "man of science, man of faith" section to more accurately portray and satisfy the advice of fellow wikipedia editors. i appreciate the feedback. you will find the recent revision more documented and referenced as well as focusing more on the factual content of his faith life and less on the speculative contribution of his scientific life. any suggestions? please let me know. if you feel it unsatisfactory, please give me a chance to revise to your standards before dumping the entire addition. that would very much appreciated. thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toddv (talk • contribs).

how do i add the quotes i found? not to here, but the quotes section? where is it and how can i link it back to this page? or vice versa? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toddv (talk • contribs).

I added the inappropriate tone template to the section because it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Also, statements like "George Washington Carver’s belief in God did not make him a poor scientist" and "His affinity for scientific scrutiny did not make him a bad Christian" are POV. Nufy8 00:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As Nufy8 noted above, your section is very non-neutral and parts of it are completely unsourced although they make some large claims "The Christian community finds inspiration in (GWCarver)...". One of your sources is The New American which is biased and therefore unreliable and the other sources really only cover a few sentences of the entire section. I'll look it over and redact anything I feel really offends the policies of neutrality and verifiabilty and reduce the tone to something more encyclopedic. As for the quotes, you should check out WikiQuote. There is a template for adding the WikiQuote link to the article. ju66l3r 00:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

i appreciate your help in adding this section to the biographical information on George Washington Carver. i still desire to add perhaps a little more insight into his impact on the Christian community and if i can wrestle up some sources, i would like to add them. he is certainly a very relevant figure for that purpose. however, i run into the difficulty of his faith being an issue of neutrality. clear things up for me a bit. is reporting on the degree of his faith a violation of neutrality? or is mentioning the extent to which Christians draw inspiration from him offense in itself? i will do some more homework, citing, etc. and i would appreciate your input and editing skills to accompany them along the way if you would be so kind. i want to truly depict with some degree of accuracy his impact and yet remain steril enough to be objectively reporting. however, if the reported facts are areas of dispute, then i don't know where to turn. it would make an article on anyone remotely controversial impossible. so you are more familiar with that boundary, which i appreciate. i am more familiar with the extent to which a Christian is and can be influenced by the depth of devotion contained within his life and work. thanks for the advice and editing. i appreciate it dearly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toddv (talk • contribs).

Be sure your sources are free from bias and extremism. If they are, then they should provide good support for any claims of impact on Christians that you want to make. Furthermore, when you do make the claims, start out by more simply stating what the fact is exactly that you want to make in your claim. Do not use overly flowery or superlative prose like that which I removed. Third, make sure that you're not making any new claims that aren't substantiated by a source. Wikipedia is a tertiary source only reporting what a reliable source has already stated. Don't embellish the facts with extra prose and don't try to ascertain what sections of the Bible led Carver to his beliefs (unless a source shows how Carver's reading of a certain passage was a key influence in his life, but I have not seen that fact in any of the sources you've contributed). It is enough to say that Christianity influenced the actions and decisions of Carver and then provide well-sourced evidence of that fact. He may have had deep devotion in his faith, but this article is for letting someone know that this was the fact of the matter and not for trying to describe what deep devotion feels like. Let me add that the additional paragraph outlining how Carver has been included in Christian literature is much better and to the point than what I had edited before. Thanks. ju66l3r 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

i am happy to acquiesce. thank you for the advice and patience. i look forward to learning more and more how to craft information in a way that is both relevant and insightful. you are a valuable ally in accomplishing this ambition. Toddv 11:29 19 february 2007 (UTC)

You should be able to find some solid facts on Carver's faith in the biographies by Linda McMurry [19] and Rackham Holt. Those are usually considered the two best.Plantguy 18:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the tip. i will try to get my hands on it soon enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toddv (talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

I noticed you added a link to a photo of Carver's Bible. Perhaps you could get permission from that NPS website to use the photo in the main body of the article. There is an upload file command in the toolbox to the left of the article.Plantguy 16:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

how do i go about uploading it and attaing permission in order to do so from the site of the photo? i would appreciate your input as to not accidentally upload something illegally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toddv (talk • contribs) 03:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] American Dad ref

The latest episode of American Dad has the main character's son editing Wikipedia to say that Carver didn't invent peanut butter. Someone might want to temporarily lock this article. Amber 03:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If Amber had bothered to check the actual article about George Washington Carver on Wikipedia itself (irony), she would see that Carver did not, in fact, invent modern commercially viable peanut butter but merely reprinted a recipe for an unpalatable and unstable product not readily embraced by the public. This was the point of the humor of the episode, not some racial bias. It was also a commentary on the popularity of wikipedia.75.131.114.59 03:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As usual, American Dad had some valid points beneath the humor. Many government websites do greatly exaggerate the number and impact of George Washington Carver's peanut products. There is actual justification for claiming a conspiracy. National Park Service (NPS) historian, and Carver scholar, Barry Mackintosh, pointed out that about 1961, the NPS suppressed an expert evaluation on Carver's scientific accomplishments because the report found Carver's work was much less than the popular myths. [20][21][22]

American Dad was also correct that the Smithsonian has a role in the conspiracy. A Smithsonian website on Carver states that Carver developed over "450 new commercial products." [23] In truth, Carver did not invent many of the products attributed to him, such as peanut butter. Also, none of the products Carver did originate was ever a commercial success. Few of Carver's original products were ever even produced because Carver only wrote down the formulas for a handful of them.

American Dad was also correct that Wikipedia is one of the very few Carver websites that point out the Carver myths. Encyclopedia Brittanica still inaccurately claims that Carver's inventions revolutionized Southern agriculture.[24] Plantguy 17:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The focus of this article should be Carver's achievements

Here's how the online Britannica starts its (1100+ word) article on the many achievements of George Washington Carver: "American agricultural chemist, agronomist, and experimenter whose development of new products derived from peanuts (groundnuts), sweet potatoes, and soybeans helped revolutionize the agricultural economy of the South. For most of his career he taught and conducted research at the Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute (now Tuskegee University) in Tuskegee, Ala."

Here's how that article ends: "Carver thus increasingly came to stand for much of white America as a kind of saintly and comfortable symbol of the intellectual achievements of black Americans. Carver was evidently uninterested in the role his image played in the racial politics of the time. His great desire in later life was simply to serve humanity; and his work, which began for the sake of the poorest of the black sharecroppers, paved the way for a better life for the entire South. His efforts brought about a significant advance in agricultural training in an era when agriculture was the largest single occupation of Americans, and he extended Tuskegee's influence throughout the South by encouraging improved farm methods, crop diversification, and soil conservation."

Nowhere does the Britannica say that Carver invented crop rotation or peanut butter. He promoted these ideas, among many others, to farmers whose lives and hopes were being crushed by the failure of a one-crop cotton economy.

• It was not somebody's "inventing" crop rotation that helped the South, it was Carver's research into and promotion of scientific farming.

• It was not somebody's "inventing" peanut butter that gave farmers an alternative to their dependence on cotton, it was Carver's research into and promotion of many uses of peanuts so that peanut farmers could get a good price for their crops.

I'm appalled at the spite that's been poured into this article by people whose knowledge of history seems to consist in the dates of antique peanut recipes and patents. The focus of this article should be Carver's achievements in the context of his own time. If you want to devote one tiny subsection to debunking a century's worth of pious-myths-purveyed-to-schoolchildren, that's about all the space that topic deserves. Instead you now have an article full of debunking, so that even Carver's real achievement of rescuing southern farming is now labeled a "myth." betsythedevine 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Key parts of what the Encyclopedia Brittanica says about Carver are simply false or deliberately misleading. His products did not "revolutionize the agricultural economy of the South" because none was ever a commercial success. Carver did not write down formulas for most of the products, so people could not manufacture them.

You need to go beyond Encyclopedia Brittanica and read the authoritative sources listed at the end of the article such as McMurry, Hersey and Burchard.

You are totally wrong that "Carver's real achievement" was "rescuing southern farming." It was not a real achievement, just a myth. Read Hersey especially. He describes how the many black tenant farmers could often not use crop rotation because the landowners required them to grow cotton to maximize income. Plantguy 07:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not say, and the EB does not say, that Carver's "products" revolutionized southern agriculture. It was in his role as an educator and in later life a figurehead that enabled him to publicize the ways agricultural practice needed change.

I take it, however, that you don't contest the point of this comment--that the article should focus on what Carver did rather than on what he didn't do. betsythedevine 11:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The EB quote you provided does very clearly say that Carver's plant products helped revolutionize Southern agriculture. i.e.

Carver's "new products derived from peanuts (groundnuts), sweet potatoes, and soybeans helped revolutionize the agricultural economy of the South."

That is vague and very misleading. Name one plant product Carver actually originated that was a commercial success during his lifetime or after. As an example of how vague and misleading that statement is, you could truthfully say that anyone who lived during Carver's lifetime and ate peanuts "helped revolutionize the agricultural economy of the South."

Absolutely, it is important to provide the facts of what Carver did, including the problems he had at Tuskegee with Booker T. Washington, the fact that his list of peanut products was greatly inflated and included many products he did not originate, the fact that he started four companies to try to commercialize his peanut products, the fact that he did not write down the formulas for most of his plant products so no one could make them or evaluate them, etc. A factual article has to include the bitter with the sweet. The EB article is more like a eulogy than a factual article.

It is especially important for an encyclopedia to correct widespread misconceptions, like false claims that Carver invented peanut butter and crop rotation and EB's misleading claim that Carver's "new products derived from peanuts (groundnuts), sweet potatoes, and soybeans helped revolutionize the agricultural economy of the South." Plantguy 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The full EB quote refers to Carver's development of those products, not his invention of them. The full body of the EB article makes it clear that his "development" efforts included not just research and teaching but also promotion.

Carver's success in persuading farmers to change their habits was what changed southern agriculture--not the financial success of any peanut product.

I have no objection to the body of this article including "the bitter with the sweet." My objection is to the snarky tone that now pervades it--and to your re-editing this bio's summary so that more than half its text now refers to your obsession with debunking Carver "mythology." In fact, I first heard about this article on Craigslist, where somebody calling him/herself "indep" points to it in support of his views that Carver was no big deal. In other Craigslist posts, "indep" pushes a similar POV about other widely admired historical figures who were black.

You state above that the Encyclopedia Britannica is slanted and misleading--and that some 30-year-old writings by a US Parks official represent "the authority" on Carver in 2007.These are pretty extraordinary claims--please give some citations that back you up on this. betsythedevine 17

36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because Mackintosh's articles were from 1976 and 1977 does not invalidate them. Show me a more recent article or book that disproves Mackintosh's central thesis that it is a myth that Carver or his peanut product inventions played a major role in revolutionizing Southern agriculture.

I already did give several citations the full content of which are available online. They are cited at the end of the Wikipedia article. Hersey, Burchard and McMurry are all professional historians. The recent scholarly literature tries to recast Carver's importance as more of an environmental seer, ahead of his time.

Hersey (2006) is from a refereed professional history journal. Hersey states "The mythical Carver was "the Peanut Man," a cultural icon that emphasized and inflated his scientific discoveries and obscured the legitimate reasons for historians to consider him."

Burchard (2006) from the Carver National Monument states "Linda McMurry, in her 1981 book, on Carver, ... takes as her thesis that he was exploited as a symbol by self-interested groups, and that his fame was based on myth."

McMurry (1981) is the most recent authoritative Carver biography. In her preface, McMurry states "For a variety of reasons both the value of his discoveries and the significance of his role in revolutionizing the Southern economy were considerably inflated."

Professor C. Wayne Smith is an agronomy professor at Texas A&M University. His 1995 book Crop Production : Evolution, History, and Technology has a chapter on peanuts. It does not mention Carver at all as a factor in the increase in U.S. peanut production in the early 1900s.

Where are your recent authoritative Carver references, not a tertiary source like the Encyclopedia Brittanica? It seems like you are basing your arguments only on EB. Wikipedia is not supposed to copy the errors in EB. It is supposed to come from primary and secondary sources and be more in-depth. Just look at some of the 5-star rated Wikipedia biography articles. They are very detailed.Plantguy 20:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for consensus on this article

IMO, this biography has been too-aggressively edited to emphasize debunking myths about Carver. I see that people have already complained about the negative tone of the end product.

The existence of myths about a historical figure doesn't need to have this effect on an article. There is no mention of the cherry tree in the bio summary for George Washington -- there is a detailed section in the article discussing and debunking some myths about him. The bio for Thomas Edison has a section for criticisms--and another for tributes. Edison's bio summary describes his life and achievements--it also includes one debunking POV sentence, "Some of the inventions attributed to him were not completely original but amounted to improvements of earlier inventions or were actually created by numerous employees working under his direction. "

In my opinion, the Carver biography summary should contain one sentence referring readers to a later section on myths about Carver. The rest of the summary should be devoted to his notable life and achievements. Do others agree that this would improve the article?

Furthermore, those eager to debunk myths about Carver should present evidence in the form of citations showing at least one recent source saying something false about Carver. Furthermore, instead of (for example) dismissing Carver's unwordliness as a myth, on the basis that he filed some patents and started some companies, they should also describe some of the many generous activities on his part that could have given rise to such a myth.

Do others agree that this would improve the balance and NPOV of the article? betsythedevine 17:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC) (reworded, betsythedevine 02:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

I would agree to have the top section of the main bio (Sections 1-6) just have a link to the debunking myths section but only if the bio does not present any of the myths as if they were facts. In the top section, it would be appropriate to say that Carver is widely known as the Peanut man for promoting the U.S. peanut industry but it is false to say he invented over 300 uses for the peanut or that his peanut products revolutionized southern agriculture. Sections 7-9 would remain as is.

Your example of George Washington and the cherry tree is not a close analogy. George Washington's fame was based on actual accomplishments, not on the cherry tree myth. Carver's fame is based mainly on the Peanut Man myths. There are many legitimate reasons for admiring Carver, which I added to the intro and listed in the Behind the Peanut Man myth section.

Your request to balance the myth that Carver never sought financial gain for his inventions but generously gave them to all mankind is already there in the Behind the Peanut Man myth section. You are welcome to add to the list.

I have no problem in including recent examples of sources that present Carver myths as if they were facts. There are so many of them, including the EB. Plantguy 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Mackintosh and the anti-Carver snark factor in this article

Barry Mackintosh is a former US National Park official [25], the author of two substantially identical articles debunking the "myth" of George Washington Carver--the first one published in 1976 [26] and the second one in 1977 [27].

Mackintosh's admiration for Booker T Washington seems to play a major role ih his apparent hostility to Carver, and much of his work is devoted to describing clashes between Washington and Carver. Another online document by Mackintosh describes his annoyance at the suppression, in 1962, of a Park Service report suggesting that many of Carver's reputed scientific "discoveries" had been exaggerated by his admirers. [28]

Now, if Carver's debunkers want to cite, as they do, all three articles by Mackintosh, it seems only reasonable to make clear as well that they are not citing three independent historical articles but three articles by one Barry Mackintosh, someone whose bona fides as a historian we don't know.

Mackintosh's anti-Carver bias would earn criticism if he were editing Wikipedia. For example:

In a materialistic era Carver's disregard for financial gain was among the remarkable qualities exciting the public imagination. He sought or arranged for commercial exploitation of his products on at least four occasions, acquired three patents and a possible interest in others, and granted over $60,000 to the George Washington Carver Foundation at the end of his life despite reported losses in bank failures.[71] But since his patents and business ventures were not highly remunerative, since he lived almost penuriously, and since his estate—while comfortable—did not befit a scientific genius responsible for hundreds of commercially valuable discoveries, his commercial activity was generally ignored or denied outright.

Three patents out of a lifetime of research are treated clear evidence that Carver's "disregard for financial gain" is mythical. betsythedevine 23:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Barry Mackintosh is absolutely an authoritative source on Carver. His findings are echoed by other Carver experts including Linda McMurry, Peter D. Burchard and Mark Hersey. Mackintosh was a professional historian with the National Parks Service from 1965 to 1999. [29] His 1976 Carver article had 91 footnotes including many to original sources and other Carver biographies.

The 1976 Mackintosh article was in a refereed journal for professional historians so has all the sources. The 1977 version was a shorter, less technical version for a general audience.

The 1962 report on "Scientific Contributions of Carver" that the NPS suppressed was a study they commissioned with two University of Missouri professors in the Department of Agricultural Chemistry, William R. Carroll and Merle E. Muhrer. What the NPS said about the report was,

"While Professors Carroll and Muhrer are very careful to emphasize Carver's excellent qualities, their realistic appraisal of his 'scientific contributions,' which loom so large in the Carver legend, is information which must be handled very carefully as far as outsiders are concerned.... Our present thinking is that the report should not be published, at least in its present form, simply to avoid any possible misunderstandings."[30]

Notice even the NPS used the term "Carver legend."

You misinterpreted Mackintosh as basing the myth that Carver never sought to profit from his inventions just on Carver's three patents. Carver started four separate companies to make and sell some of his products.

This article attempts to stick with the facts, and not the myths and legends. It is not snark or anti-Carver bias, simply the facts. Plantguy 08:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The focus of Barry Mackintosh's scholarship, starting with his 1974 Master's Thesis at the U of Maryland on "The Carver Myth" (cited here [31]), seems to be debunking and diminishing the achievements of George Washington Carver. Debunking someone's achievements is a good franchise. If I write an article praising Einstein's work, I'll have a hard time getting it published or read. If I write an article slamming Einstein and claiming his wife discovered relativity--suddenly people will want to read what I wrote.

Is it research or POV that causes Barry Mackintosh to accuse [32] Carver of "a penchant for self-promotion," "conscious deception," "misleading representations of the nature of his scientific work and output"? Perhaps some study of history outside the National Parks might have introduced Mackintosh to the public pronouncements of other scientists who are welcomed into the public spotlight. Very few of those pronouncements, especially after being translated into a reporter's exciting news story, read like the whispers of a blushing violet or could withstand word-by-word dissection by someone looking for errors.

Carver can't do anything right for Mr. Mackintosh. Mackintosh asserts (on what evidence?) that Carver's fame was created by whites who liked humble black people. Then Mackintosh, also white, slams Carver for not being humble enough.

Is it research or POV that causes Barry Mackintosh to write "Carver contributed even more to the myth indirectly ... Rather than contradicting untruths, he let them pass or issued modest protestations unlikely to be received as sincere criticism. His customary response to spoken claims was similar. "I always look forward to introductions about me as good opportunities to learn a lot about myself that I never knew before," he would begin on the platform, dissociating himself from inaccuracies without actually seeming to do so under a cover of humor and apparent modesty."

Thus even Carver's attempts to correct myth-makers are dismissed the mind-reading Mr. Mackintosh as yet more evidence of Carver's guilt.

I am not trying to promote a Carver "legend." I just think that the many, many anti-Carver statements by Mr. Mackintosh suggest that his work should be taken with a giant grain of salt. Furthermore, I think it's important to make it clear that three of the online sources you keep citing are in fact the work of the same individual. But you and I shouldn't disagree about that--if you think Mackintosh is a famous Carver scholar, you should be proud to keep mentioning his name.

Some of Mackintosh's claims are backed up by research--for example, Carver's clashes with Booker T Washington. Some of his many, many different claims that Carver deserves little credit for this..for that..for the other thing..seem to derive more from POV than from the facts. For example, Mackintosh lists all the "humble" and "apolitical" qualities that could have made white racists prefer Carver to a (hypothetical) uppity black agronomist. But these details, and our modern revulsion against such historical racist attitudes, don't add up to evidence that Carver's fame was manufactured by whites. betsythedevine 20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mackintosh was after the facts based on his reading of the primary and secondary literature on Carver. McMurry is considered the most accurate and authoritative biography on Carver, and she echoes much of what Mackintosh states as do other recent Carver scholars. Your rant against Mackintosh has little credibility because you provide no authoritative sources that contradict Mackintosh. Some of your complaints about Mackintosh seem irrelevant because those parts are not in the Wikipedia article, e.g. in your words "white racists prefer Carver to a (hypothetical) uppity black agronomist."

You are correct that authors that debunk the status quo often get the most attention. If Mackintosh was wrong on the facts, why haven't any other historians attacked Mackintosh's work in over 30 years?

Carver was promoted by both whites and blacks but in his day, the whites had almost all the power. The NAACP gave Carver their highest award in 1923, the first major award Carver received in the U.S. Carver was promoted by many groups including the peanut industry, Iowa State, and the federal government. Burchard (2006) details how one justification for making Carver's birthplace a national monument during wartime was that it would make all black Americans fell more like a part of the U.S. war effort, not for Carver's scientific discoveries.

Much of the Carver Wikipedia article is not based on Mackintosh. There are many other sources. The Booker T. Washington section is based on the multi-volume Papers of Booker T. Washington [33], which got deleted from the reference list because of all the hasty deleting of text. Plantguy 21:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You say "Mackintosh was after the facts"--I'm sure he was. It's also clear from those detailed quotes of his work that he wrote up his facts with a strong anti-Carver slant. In fact, it's the snarky tone of the Mackintosh stuff, loudly reflected in much of this article, that I object to--not the facts he describes.

You cite McMurry as evidence for Mackintosh. Are you aware of what she says about him? Amazon lets you search her book for the word "Mackintosh" [34]. Far from treating him as an authoritative source, she mentions his work only on pp 307-308 (according to both the index and Amazon's search), mentioning him there primarily to debunk his POV. "A final question is whether Carver deserves continued recognition after the myth is destroyed. For some, such as Mackintosh, the answer is no. Yet this is plausible only if the real Carver was nothing more than the mythology, an assertion that ignores the significance of his true vision or philosophy, and his impact on individuals. " To that, I say amen. betsythedevine 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What you interpret as an anti-Carver slant, I consider facts. I read Mackintosh for the facts, not his opinions. I make my own opinions based on the facts he presented such as Carver's actions and statements. For example Carver created the myth that he magnanimously gave his products to all mankind with statements such as "One reason I never patent my products is that if I did it would take so much time, I would get nothing else done. But mainly I don't want my discoveries to benefit specific favored persons."

Mackintosh's facts have been drowned out by the pro-Carver slant of the vast majority of popular articles, websites and children's books that present one or more Carver myths as fact. If you average them together, there still is a very big pro-Carver slant overall. If Wikipedia is to have any integrity, it should be more accurate than the many Carver tribute websites.

I didn't say that McMurry agreed with everything about Mackintosh, only that "she echoes much of what Mackintosh states" about Carver's fame being based mainly on the Peanut man myths. I have no problem if you want to put more emphasis on Carver's philosophy as long as you do not present the Peanut Man myths as facts. Plantguy 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to present any myths as facts.

What I interpret as an anti-Carver slant is Mackintosh's choice of wording and interpretation. You consider them facts. OK, we disagree. If you want to discuss the "never patented inventions" issue, let's take that to a different section. This one is about Mackintosh's credentials and point of view. betsythedevine 23:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carver's statement "I never patent my inventions"

Plantguy says above, "For example Carver created the myth that he magnanimously gave his products to all mankind with statements such as "One reason I never patent my products is that if I did it would take so much time, I would get nothing else done. But mainly I don't want my discoveries to benefit specific favored persons."

He considers this evidence that Carver lied, intentionally creating fake myths about himself. I see this statement differently. I consider it less like a perjured statement made under oath than it is to a common kind of thing people say in conversation, "Oh, I never watch television." What the person who says this is most likely saying is that they very rarely watch television. And three patents filed after a lifetime of research and (even Carver's debunkers admit) many recipes for novel products--that makes filing patents a very rare activity. betsythedevine 23:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not use the word "lie" or "intentional." You complain about the article's POV but want to substitute your own POV rather than just objectively discuss facts. An encyclopedia is supposed to present facts and let readers interpret the facts for themselves. The facts in this case are

1. Carver obtained 3 patents.

2. Carver started four companies to produce and sell some of his peanut products.

3. Some of Carver's most famous quotes contradict facts 1 and 2.

An objective biography of Carver would report facts 1-3 as part of his life story. Getting a patent is an honor in itself. Trying to produce and market some of his peanut products can be interpreted in many positive ways, such as Carver wanted to earn more money for his foundation. Let the readers decide how to interpret facts 1-3.

Carver's debunkers do not admit "many recipes for novel products." There is only evidence of many ideas for using peanuts as substitutes to make existing products. Carver never wrote down the formulas for most of his products so we don't know what the recipes were. If Carver had filed more patents, we would have had more of his recipes. Thus, more patents would have been a good thing. Plantguy 05:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that trying to patent and market some of his products could be interpreted in positive ways. I am happy to see the article include information about Carver's three patents and four companies--and not just in the context of debunking the "myth" that he was generous and unworldly.

I am not trying to put my own POV into the article. Let's keep this discussion within the bounds of Wikipedia policy on assuming good faith and no personal attacks.

My goal is to have a factual, verifiable article describing the life and work of George Washington Carver--plus one section describing popular myths about his reputed inventions with a factual case of the evidence otherwise. Maybe you also want to have a section discussing the controversy over his contribution to southern agriculture--and another discussing what you consider "myths" about his persona. I think that's a little excessive, but it's better than jumbling these three very different issues all together. betsythedevine 14:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my comment on your POV. The Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:No personal attacks, in a nutshell is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." That precludes use of my name as part of the discussion as in the "Request for consensus on this article" discussion. Terms like spite, anti-Carver bias, "aggressively-editing" and snark do not seem appropriate either because they refer to contributors.

Barry Mackintosh should not be attacked here either unless one can cite publications by other professional historians that dispute Mackintosh. The discussion should be on Carver, not on a specific Carver historian. A Mackintosh discussion should be restricted to a Barry Mackintosh Wikipedia article, which has yet to be created.

The part on Carver's peanut products not having a significant part in revolutionizing Southern agriculture is fact and should be in the top part of the article. Authoritative publications by virtually all recent Carver experts (e.g. McMurry, Mackintosh, Hersey, Adair, Kremer) and a peanut crop history expert (Smith) confirm that fact. What authoritative publications dispute them?

The article is a "factual, verifiable article". Just look at all the references. It has far more than Encyclopedia Brittanica. Anyone can go through the article and insert a (reference needed) tag for anything they think needs one.

As stated in the "Request for consensus on this article" debunking of Carver myths could be restricted to a myths section if none of the myths are presented as fact elsewhere in the article. The details in the "Carver bulletins" and "Reputed inventions" sections should be retained but could be placed elsewhere. For example, the Carver bulletins section could become a subsection in the "Life while famous" section. The "Reputed inventions" section could become a subsection of the myths section. Plantguy 17:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Validity of, and disagreements among, different sources of information on Carver

Hi, Plantguy--i agree and apologize for any comments that sounded as if I were accusing you, rather than criticizing the tone of the article. I absolutely respect and honor your work to make this a better article.

Now, as for criticizing what I see as POV-pushing by Barry Mackintosh--while in his case as well, I am sure that his intention is to clarify a muddy and distorted hagiography--that is not against Wikipedia policy to try to analyze a published source. I would indeed need to quote more authoritative sources to challenge any fact cited by Mackenzie.

But I don't need external sources to quote Mackintosh, arguing that his choice of words and the way he presents his facts would tend to prejudice even an unprejudiced observer to dismiss Carver's work as unimportant just because it doesn't live up to the inflated myth.

Einstein wasn't the superhuman genius painted by his legend either--but myth is a harsher standard than any human person should have to stand up to!

Mackintosh, it seems to me, writes in such a way that the reader is encouraged to believe Carver was hypocritical, self-promoting, money-grubbing, etc. when in fact what Mackintosh is trying to demonstrate that the myth of Carver's superhuman generosity, humility, etc. is contradicted by some of Carver's actions?

Do you see the distinction I'm trying to make? It would be fine for an Einstein article to debunk the myth that he was omniscient and infinitely wise--it wouldn't be fine for such an article to leave readers with the impression that basically Einstein was no smarter than the average person, but his "myth" had been created from sheer hot air. betsythedevine 23:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)HI enms

I don't find Mackintosh has a specific POV, only that he has so many facts that it leads to an inevitable conclusion that several of the common stories about Carver are myths. That other Carver scholars have not tried to rebut his facts or conclusions after 30 years is further evidence that he is correct. It just so happens that his two articles are freely available online, but so are several other scholarly publications about Carver that are cited. The Wikipedia article emphasizes many of Carver's other talents and accomplishments and provides a detailed account of his life, unlike the narrower focus of Mackintosh.

In Gene Adair's 1989 Carver book, Coretta Scott King wrote in the introduction that the impact of Carver's plant product work was exaggerated but he still had great influence in other ways. The thesis of McMurry was that Carver's major importance was as a symbol for various causes, including a symbol of black achievement. It seems that Carver is still the most famous African-American scientist. One of Carver's greatest accomplishments was to be the first black student, an outstanding student and first black faculty member, all at Iowa State University, when racial segregation was the law of the land.

All the books and articles by university professors and professional historians that I can find agree that Carver's new peanut products did not revolutionize Southern agriculture. As pointed out, even Encyclopedia Britannica contradicts all the experts, indicating the pervasiveness of that Carver myth. Therefore, an accurate article on Carver should point out that Carver's new peanut products did not revolutionize Southern agriculture and also describe Carver's other accomplishments. After Mackintosh, Carver historians have been recasting Carver's importance, as in McMurry, Hersey, Adair and Burchard.

The "Carver invented peanut butter myth" is so widespread that the American Dad TV series had a Feb. 2007 episode devoted to it. If you want a published source for the claim, the 1993 book by Axelrod and Phillips (pp. 235-236 What Every American Should Know About American History: 200 Events That Shaped the Nation. Bob Adams Inc. Publishers) listed Carver's 1921 invention of peanut butter as one of its 200 events that shaped the nation. Those two pages are viewable via Google books.

I have searched in vain to find a commercially successful Carver peanut product that would have increased the demand for peanuts. Before Carver started working with peanuts, virtually all U.S. peanuts were used as roasted peanuts, in peanut butter, in candies or confections and as peanut oil for cooking. That has never changed to this day.

Mackintosh and other Carver scholars have presented many facts to indicate that Carver was partly a self-promoter. It was virtually a job requirement because Tuskegee wanted Carver to be in the headlines. However, Carver's self-promotion is not emphasized in the Wikipedia article. Many, if not most, celebrities are self-promoters to some extent.

It is also hard to dismiss the facts presented by Mackintosh and others that Carver was not entirely candid about his new plant products. Carver refused to reveal his formulas even when asked by other agricultural chemists. Again, that is not a major focus of this Wikipedia article. Mackintosh did not use the term "money-grubbing." Mackintosh merely stated, correctly, that others had exaggerated Carver's unconcern about money, and that Carver had 3 patents and 4 companies to sell his plant products.

Carver would not have become famous without intelligence, talent and a strong work ethic. That he does not live up to the many myths and legends, created mainly by other writers, does not diminish his importance in other ways, such as improving race relations, as a role model, folk philosopher, etc. Wikipedia readers deserve an accurate article, not just the many myths and legends. Plantguy 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Like you, I favor an accurate article. I do not dismiss the facts presented by Mackintosh and others. I do think most people would consider a 2007 article in the Encyclopedia Britannica a more authoritative source of historical fact and interpretation than one person's writings based on his 1970s master's thesis. The Britannica cites McMurry as one of its sources for Carver info, and she in turn cited (and criticized) Mackintosh.

Britannica's statement in the summary that Carver's work "helped revolutionize" the agricultural economy of the south is expanded in the body of the article--the basis for that statement has nothing to do with how commercially successful any of Carver's supposed inventions became. "In 1914, at a time when the boll weevil had almost ruined cotton growers, Carver revealed his experiments to the public, and increasing numbers of the South's farmers began to turn to peanuts, sweet potatoes, and their derivatives for income. Much exhausted land was renewed, and the South became a major new supplier of agricultural products."

I look forward to discovering whether the facts to back up that statement are found in McMurry.

Another reputable source would be Andrew Smith's 2002 book Peanuts. Its Harvard Business School reviewer describes it as "serious scholarly work, examining an important commodity in the American economy and diet,". Here's how that reviewer describes its treatment of Carver: "While Smith credits Carver with the successful promotion of peanuts, he provides a balanced view of Carver’s career. Carver spent decades devising a seemingly infinite number of peanut-derived foods and other products, yet his efforts were largely commercial failures, and he proclaimed spurious peanut cures for polio and other major diseases. While tempering his praise for Carver, Smith demonstrates his respect by devoting an entire chapter to Carver’s life and achievements."

So both Smith and the Britannica credit Carver's influence on southern agriculture to his promotional work, not his inventions. In case it's not clear, I agree with Mackintosh, Coretta Scott King, and others that Carver's inventions were exaggerated. I agree with you that Wikipedia should report the facts, not the fiction, about his work. Barry Mackintosh's work, which was all done in connection with illustrating his thesis that Carver's fame is based on myth not reality, should be fact-checked with data from later sources. betsythedevine 22:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has been fact-checked against numerous sources newer than Mackintosh as indicated in the references, including two 2006 articles. In any field of scholarship, once something is published in a professional journal, like Mackintosh's 1976 article, it is considered established fact unless another scholar disputes it in print. It doesn't matter if the publication is 30 years old or one year old. Unless another professional historian has pointed out flaws in Mackintosh's facts in print, his work is still considered established fact.

McMurry did not dispute Mackintosh's main thesis that Carver's peanut products played no significant role in revolutionizing Southern agriculture. She disagreed with him on interpretation on other minor points. In her preface McMurry says "For a variety of reasons both the value of his discoveries and the significance of his role in revolutionizing the Southern economy were considerably inflated."

The new quote from Encyclopedia Brittanica reveals another error. It says Carver released his information in 1914 but Carver's first peanut bulletin was in 1916, and it included only food recipes Carver had compiled from other publications, not the results of Carver's experiments with industrial products derived from peanuts. EB is a tertiary source, it ranks lower in reliability than professional historians or peanut experts such as McMurry, Hersey, the two Smiths, and others cited in the article. The 2007 date does not mean that much. The EB article may not have been updated for a long time. In his 1976 article, Mackintosh contended EB was inaccurate on Carver. This article provides numerous, more authoritative sources that confirm that Carver's new peanut products had no significant effect on Southern agriculture.

While Carver certainly promoted peanuts, there is no hard evidence that Carver's promotion of peanuts had any significant effect on peanut production. Carver was one of many agricultural workers who advocated planting of peanuts. This article cites six agricultural bulletins on peanuts and a book on peanuts, all published before Carver's first peanut bulletin in 1916. If Carver had been the spokesperson for a particular brand of peanut butter, then there might have been hard evidence of his impact. For example, if sales of a brand of peanut butter promoted by Carver had increased 50% or decreased 50%, then that would have been hard evidence that Carver's promotion had an effect.

Some of the many things that clearly increased the demand for peanuts in Carver's time included Cracker Jack (1893), roasted peanut vending machines (1901), Planters Peanut Co. (1906), Joseph L. Rosefield's invention of shelf-stable, non-separating peanut butter (1923), Peter Pan peanut butter (1928), Skippy peanut butter (1933) and many new peanut candies such as Mary Jane (1914), Clark Bar (1917), Baby Ruth (1920), Oh Henry (1920), Butterfinger (1923), Goobers (1925), Mr. Goodbar (1925), Reese's peanut butter cups (1928), Snickers (1930) and Payday (1932).

C. Wayne Smith's book Crop Production : Evolution, History, and Technology describes how the U.S. peanut industry developed before Carver got involved. Carver was not one of the major innovators in the peanut industry. Carver made a lot of headlines because he had such a sensational salespitch for peanuts and was a great story in himself as a former slave who was kidnapped and orphaned as an infant but became the first black student and faculty member at Iowa State, and while at Tuskegee became a nationally known celebrity, teacher, scientist, humanitarian, Christian, artist and friend to the rich and famous. [35] The "Reputed inventions" section of this article lists six major reasons why U.S. peanut production increased beginning about 1900, well before Carver became associated with the crop.

I have no problem if you want to fact-check this article using Andrew Smith's 2002 peanut book. Smith's book is exactly the kind of authoritative source that Wikipedia articles should rely on. However, just reading a book review of Smith's book is not sufficient. After you read the book, please report here if Smith disagrees with any facts reported in this article. Even the quotes from the book review do not make Carver seem that important with his "spurious peanut cures" and "commercial failures."

When I get a chance, I will expand the opening section of this article because it was cut so much that it does not do Carver justice. Plantguy 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A bio summary is usually fairly short -- for example, Charles Darwin, Barbara McClintock, and Rudyard Kipling, all recently Wikipedia:Featured_articles.

I completely agree with you that the book review of Smith's book is useful primarily as a guideline to whether or not the book itself is valid and scholarly.

I think we've both pretty well described our own POVs on this talk page, so maybe it's time to turn more attention to making the article better.

Just one more comment though. You removed a clause I had put into the summary which stated that there was a controversy over whether or not Carver improved southern agriculture:

while other achievements, such as helping to revolutionize Southern agriculture, are proclaimed by some sources ( including for example the online Encyclopedia Britannica [36]) but disputed by others.'

Your edit summary described this description of ongoing controversy as a "false statement on Carver products revolutionizing Southern agriculture". I strongly object to this edit summary. First of all, as should be clear, those who describe Carver as "helping to revolutionize" southern farming do not base that claim on Carver's peanut products. Second, if the Encyclopedia Britannica which cites McMurry is in disagreement with Mackintosh on this point, then surely you will agree that a the topic is a matter in dispute. My statement described the existence of a dispute, and it was accurate. betsythedevine 02:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You cut out some factually correct information that I had added to the intro with no explanation, such as the widespread myth that Carver invented peanut butter. That is a clear fact. Why cut that out?

There is no dispute among Carver experts that Carver's role in revolutionizing Southern agriculture has been greatly exaggerated. That includes both his peanut products and his promotion of peanuts. You say the EB article is based on McMurry but McMurry says,

"For a variety of reasons both the value of his discoveries and the significance of his role in revolutionizing the Southern economy were considerably inflated."

Thus, EB does not agree with its own source. It is not a dispute but a clear error by EB. If you want to be true to McMurry and other Carver experts then an essential statement in the intro would be,

"Carver's impact in revolutionizing Southern agriculture has often been exaggerated." Plantguy 21:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to your question about why I removed some "factually correct information" from the bio summary in this edit.

He experimented with peanuts and other plants, and he is widely credited for inventing hundreds of uses for the vegetation, although he often left no formulas or procedures. However, + In the post-Civil-War South, where an agricultural monoculture of cotton had depleted the soil and impoverished many farmers, Carver experimented with alternate agricultural crops, described many possible uses for plant products, and is widely credited for inventing hundreds of uses for (among others) the peanut. - both the number and economic impact of Carver's peanut and other plant products have often been greatly inflated. Many of the items on lists of Carver's peanut products were existing uses and recipes he compiled from cookbooks. None of the novel uses for peanuts that Carver originated was ever a commercial success. It is a widespread myth that Carver's peanut products revolutionized Southern U.S. agriculture. Other common myths are that Carver invented peanut butter and crop rotation. Peanut butter was first marketed in the U.S. about 1890, well before Carver started working with peanuts. Crop rotation had been practiced since ancient times and was advocated by many Americans before Carver. (See Reputed inventions below.) + His most important accomplishments were in areas other than invention, including agricultural extension education, improvement of racial relations, mentoring children, poetry, painting, religion, advocacy of sustainable agriculture and appreciation of plants and nature. He served as a valuable role model for African-Americans and an example of the importance of hard work, a positive attitude and a good education. His humility, humanitarianism, good nature, frugality and lack of economic materialism have also been widely admired. - - Even during his lifetime, Carver's reputation as an inventor was greatly exaggerated by writers eager for a more compelling story or genuinely ignorant of his actual accomplishments. Carver made no serious effort to set the record straight. Authors have often given Carver spectacular praise, dubbing him the black Leonardo da Vinci, the Wizard of Tuskegee, the Goober Wizard and the Peanut Man. Decades of laudatory articles, biographies and awards deeply ingrained Carver's largely mythical peanut inventions in the public mind. So much so that they have prevented objective evaluations from replacing the mythical ones. In 1961, the National Park Service suppressed their commissioned, expert evaluation of Carver's scientific accomplishments because Carver's real accomplishments were so much less than the popular legends. ^{[1] [2]} When objective evaluations of Carver's inventions were published in 1976 ^[3] and 1977 ^[4] by Barry Mackintosh, in 1982 by Linda McMurray ^[5] and in 1989 by Gene Adair, they were largely ignored by most authors of encyclopedia articles and biographies on Carver.

Before that edit, nearly half the bio's summary had been given over to a long and detailed debunking of Carver's myth. As described earlier on this talk page, I believe Carver's bio summary should talk about his own life and achievements, mentioning and pointing to myth-debunking in the full article. That was the reasoning behind the edit.

betsythedevine 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Cutting all but a vague mention that "There are also many myths about Carver." makes for an inaccurate and deliberately misleading introduction. At the very least, there should be one example, such as the myth he invented peanut butter. A Carver biography should be objective, not just a hagiography. Plantguy 02:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there, or is there not, a controversy over whether Carver "helped to revolutionize" southern agriculture?

McMurry's statement on page viii of her preface:

"In the end he won international fame for his efforts to find commercial uses for Southern resources and was proclaimed one of the world's greatest chemists. For a variety of reasons both the value of his discoveries and the significance of his role in revolutionizing the Southern economy were considerably inflated."

McMurry says that Carver's role was "inflated" -- that is, the superhuman claims made for him exceeded his real impact. She does not say that his real impact was zero.

The Encyclopedia Britannica describes Carver's work as "helping to revolutionize" southern agriculture. This does not claim him as the only influence, the primary influence, or even a major influence on the revitalization of the south. It claims not much more than that his influence was non-zero.

Is the glass half full or half empty? Is the important fact for Carver's bio summary that he devoted a lifetime to improving southern agriculture and is described by some as having "helped" to revolutionize it? Or is the important fact that his lifetime of work fails to live up to the inflated claims that have been made for it?

McMurry devotes her book to understanding Carver's life, his environment, and his real achievements. That Carver's myth outstripped the reality is only a small part of her endeavor.

In the preface, she mentions many Carver historians and sources whose work was a source of useful information. Barry Mackintosh is not on that list. She mentions his work only to criticize two of his major points. "One scholar has implied..." and etc., page 307, that "one scholar" is Mackintosh. On page 308, "For some, such as Mackintosh, the answer is no."

Following McMurry, I'm guessing that Barry Mackintosh's apparent "importance" as a source of information about Carver is the result of his work being available online, and not due to its being held in high esteem by other historians. betsythedevine 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The article introduction says that Carver worked on peanuts. It goes without saying that he "helped" revolutionize Southern agriculture if only a tiny bit. The statement is not needed. You said yourself that it says only that his contribution was "not-zero" so is very vague. Any American who lived in the late 1800s and early 1900s and bought peanuts "helped" revolutionize Southern agriculture.

The statement is also objectionable because it is part of an oft-stated Carver myth. The bios of Carver contemporaries who had a much bigger, quantifiable impact on the U.S. peanut industry than Carver, such as Joseph L. Rosefield, Amedeo Obici, and John Harvey Kellogg, are not credited with helping to revolutionize Southern agriculture.

You are correct that your last sentence is indeed just a guess. Wikipedia articles are to be based on reliable published sources, not guesses. McMurry says nothing about the accuracy of Mackintosh's facts. She just disagrees with him on some minor matters of opinion. Her Preface did say that she did not cite the majority of materials she relied on, i.e. "Numerous other uncited monographs, regional histories, and articles were nonetheless essential to understanding Carver and his environment."

The statement you quoted from McMurry is exactly the central thesis of Mackintosh!

Wikipedia recommends that Wiki articles mainly use books and articles by academics. That includes the writings of Linda McMurry, C. Wayne Smith, Andrew Smith, Barry Mackintosh, Peter Burchard, Louis Harlan and Mark Hersey, all important sources for this article. Wikipedia gives several cautions about tertiary sources, like EB, including that unsigned EB articles "may be less reliable" than signed ones.

I revised the intro to make Carver's exact contributions clearer. Plantguy 03:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite our disagreements here on the talk page, Plantguy, I really admire the changes you just made to the intro! [37] The detailed info about Carver's work that you added is much more valuable than a vague statement about "helping to revolutionize" something. And your adding this also gives the right balance to your added detail about the mythology. I'm really happy with this and I hope you are too. betsythedevine 04:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy that you approve of the changes. Plantguy 04:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)