Talk:George Washington Carver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. 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. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3


Contents

[edit] Issues with religion section

"While contemporary scientific endeavors may practice methodological naturalism, an approach which believes the universe to be unguided or chaotic..." This is hardly NPOV language. It needs to be rectified to the fact of the fact that still is stated as the fact. --212.2.178.37 (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (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

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 Objective 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. [1] 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 [2]) 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)

This month the Discovery or the History channel aired a biography on Carver. Henry Ford and Franklin D Roosevelt sat in his councel. Ford was impressed with the plastics and fuel that Carver was able to make from Soy. Ford actually made shift knobs and deck lids from it. Roosevelt was interested in massage therapy after learning that people with polio were coming from all over the country to be rubbed down with a linament that Carver made from the peanut. In the biography there were several scenes with Ford and Carver in Carvers lab. There were also many farmers and industries who were interviewed that stated that they owe their existence to Carver. So who cares what a few ignorant people think. The leader of the largest automobile company in the world and the leader of the free world came to see this man. And it's on film. It is also mentioned in the biography that Carver did not make peanut butter. Tom 02/24/08

[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! [3] 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)

[edit] Horrible article.

Wow, what a load of quasi-racist garbage this page is. I've never seen an encyclopedia article devoted almost exclusively to smearing someone, and completely quoting an author who wrote smear books about the person. How about you focus on what someone did achieve, instead of making unsupported assertions, or very thin citations, about "myths" and implying he didn't achieve anything. Congrats guys. You've taken internet idiocy to a whole new level. 69.109.47.3 21:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)EGarrett how about all yall cut da B.S and honor george w. carver now how bout we take a moment and bow our heads 4 him b4 yall try 2 change da past an yall ignorant folks end up eatn ONLY jelly on both sides of your bread.NOW BE GRATEFUL

[edit] A tiger? In Africa??

In the peanut products section it says "the nurse claimed that in some parts of interior Africa, tigers and tsetse flies made it impossible to raise domestic animals as a source of milk". There are, of course, no tigers in Africa, except possibly in zoos.

Verimius 15:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Verimius 16:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Beyond the Peanut Man Legend" section needs to go

It's non-informative, redundant, and basically propaganda. The article repeats the same attempts to discredit Carver over and over, in a style that is not echo'd in any other article. No one actually built or used Da Vinci's tank and helicopter designs, nor was his medical research of any use...but the article is not devoted to doing that. Seriously, how do I dispute this piece of quasi-racist propaganda masquerading as an encyclopedia article? EGarrett01 14:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claims concerning Moses Carver

It is claimed here (and I have seen it in print also) that Moses Carver was a German-American immigrant. Census data seems to not bear this out.

1860 US Census, Marion TWP, Newton Co., MO, Series M653, Roll 636, Page 902 Moses Carver 47 M Farmer 3000 3964 OH Susan Carver 46 F OH Jackson Carroll 22 M Farm Laborer MO

1870 US Census, Marion TWP, Newton Co., MO, Series M593, Roll 795, Page 419B Carver, Moses 58 M W Farmer 5000 700 OH Carver, Susan 56 F W Keeping House OH Carver, James 12 M B MO Carver, George 10 M B MO Holt, Nickle 14 M W MO Holt, Nickles 88 M W Farmer TN

1880 US Census, Marion TWP, Newton Co., MO, Series T9, Roll 705, Page 403B Carver, Moses W M 68 Farmer OH NC NC Carver, Susan W F 66 Wife House Keeping OH KY OH Carver, James B M 21 Working on Farm MO MO MO

128.252.174.248 13:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)JFMW

[edit] Concern regarding poor writing and potential misinterpretation

I was reading this article when I stumbled upon this in the first paragraph. "Given racial discrimination of the time, it was unusual for an African-American to be called as an expert."

This is not only a poorly constructed sentence, it can be misinterpreted as "All African-Americans aren't considered experts on the basis of their race." I am an African American male, and I can assure you, I had to do a double take when I read that one. However, I am neither ignorant nor misled - I understand the meaning as it was intended.

In order to clear things up, I suggest the following: "Existing racial inequalities during the time period were reflected in the scarcity of African Americans in the industry."

[edit] Wash was cool

Dudes! Washington Crvor was pretty cool, i just forgot that he was black... that makes him all the more cooler! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupethemonkeyboy (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreement

I so totally agree w/ the guy above, though i don't know why he would forget he was black

[edit] Oh

I guess your right, it was a little weird, oh, i typed in George Washington, the computer added the carvor oon. SOOOOOOOOOOOSSSOOOOO yah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupethemonkeyboy (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

chris ford

i love you all so much thats funny that you forgot he was black lol !!!!! : D

[edit] Something is wrong here. . .

Why is it that every other source I've checked claim that he did have more than 300 uses for peanuts, that he donated most of his inventions to public domain, he played in important role in the adoption of crop rotation techniques in post-Reconstruction South, and amongst other claims? Either the Wikipedia article is wrong or everybody else is. --Darth Borehd (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Then cite the source. Koalorka (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birthdate

On this page, the birthdate of George Washington Carver is listed with certainty twice, but it is actually unknown. He was born a slave, and birth records were not kept of slaves. Many sources list it differently. It is listed variously as "about 1865," "spring 1865," "July 12, 1865 (based on the end of slavery in Missouri)" "circa 1860 (due to a Missouri census record from 1870 listing him as ten years old)," "circa 1864," "July 12, 1861," "May 24, 1864," "sometime around 1861." He was never certain of his birth date, but thought it was near the end of the Civil War. Carver himself gave the date as either spring 1864 or spring 1865. The most likely possibility is Spring 1865. The George Washington Carver Association lists this date. This page is locked so I cannot change it, but I hope somebody will. Billbike (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added a reference to the question of his birth date. Please improve if you see the need and add citation.--TravelinSista (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is everyone too scared to say-write that he was gay?

Because I'm afraid he wasn't, he led a very open gay life even at the summit of his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.155.253 (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • At Iowa State University they openly talk about his homosexuality from the day I started there and graduated from there.

[edit] Peanuts

He invented 300 uses for peanuts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.175.79.120 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] industrail product straw man

I did my best to take the "industrial/commercial product" straw man out of the introductory section but this needs to be done through the entire entry.--Kalonymos (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protect?

Heads up: The episode of Family Guy where they reference GWC and his wikipedia entry is on right now. By the end we're probably going to have a bunch of anons vandalizing the article, just as we did when it aired before. Is a pre-emptive semi-protect in order? (Unless it already is, I didn't notice.) R. fiend (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)