Talk:Benjamin Franklin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

First post 20:18 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Max Weber quotes Franklin as the originator of the famous quote "Time is money" (in some form or other), is this correct? (Will look up the source.) Nixdorf 20:18 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

"Remember that time is money"
Benjamin Franklin Advice to a Young Tradesman
Source: http://greenwich2day.com/fun-n-fact/timequotes.htm
MB 20:29 May 13, 2003 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks. Nixdorf 21:57 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think the information about fabricated anti-Semitism belongs in this article. These claims are little-known and rarely brought up, and out of place in an article about Benjamin Franklin. Perhaps a single sentence would be acceptable, but two paragraphs and five links is not. Given that very similar content was added to George Washington, this strikes me as an attempt by someone with an axe to grind to seek out all anti-Semitic fabricated quotes on the net and then attack their purveyors in the encyclopedia in the guise of "defending" historical figures against charges of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, it's simply inaccurate to say his image has been "tarnished" by claims of anti-Semitism, as almost no one has heard of these claims. --Delirium 03:44 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Your claims are incorrect. These farbricated quotes are very widely distributed in books, journals, pamplets and on many websites, as well as in many Usenet newsgroup postings. I can't imagine how you can claim otherwise. You really do need to do some serious research on this well-known topic. RK 20:13 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Here's the removed part:
In recent years Franklin's image has been tarnished by anti-Semites who attempt to use his name to further their goals. Many anti-Semitic Arab and Neo-Nazi books, journals and websites offer forged "quotes" supposedly by America's founding fathers, especially George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. These supposed quotes have been debunked as forgeries by historians.

RK - you are the one making a claim. It's simply inaccurate to say his image has been "tarnished" by claims of anti-Semitism, as almost no one has heard of these claims. Pizza Puzzle

I still hold the position that those sections should be removed completely from both articles. It's kind of sad that extremists have such a large say in the final makeup of articles, that is until they become officially "controversial". 212.127.141.173 03:02 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

First Postmaster General?

If its undocumented, how do you know about it? ChessPlayer 02:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) I have a question to JB. If Benjamin Franklin was supposedly a playboy, then would'nt he have to be able to walk. I have been studying Ben and from what I have heard he was a fairly... well actually a very large fellow who could not walk and had to be carried around every where. so how would he have many lovers if he could not do anything with them?

FC

Jefferson #2 and Franklin #3 or Franklin #2 and Jefferson #3??

The honored Americans section of Talk:George Washington says that Thomas Jefferson has an honor rank of #2 and Benjamin Franklin has an honor rank of #3. However, something began to make me think that it is also possible that Franklin is #2 and Jefferson is #3. Which is correct?? (Go to the Talk:George Washington page to find out how an honor rank is defined.) 66.32.94.195 00:34, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

other inventions?

On this page [1], they also list "Armonica", a musical instrument invented by Franklin. They also credit him for first mapping the Gulf Stream. Samohyl Jan 11:36, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Franklin's birth place

Where on Milk St. was Franklin born? I currently work not very far from there.

Anti-revolutionary

The "Later years" section was ended with one of those "it is not generally known that" pragraphs that so often get plunked into an article by someone unwilling to work his contrarian view properly into the text. I've toned down the pugnacious wording, but really it doesn't belong here at all. Meanwhile, as to

Even as late as 1780, Franklin was willing to allow British sovereignty in return for large degrees of home rule.

Does anyone know what this refers to? Is it a reasonable statement of the facts? It has a seriously exaggerated sound, given the attitude he took toward his English friends, not to mention his coauthorship of the Declaration; but does anyone know? --Dandrake 23:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

After waiting nearly two weeks for anyone to come to the support of that strange unsupported assertion, I'm zapping it. In fact, out goes the whole paragraph, which, though reworded to be true, doesn't fit here anyway. --Dandrake 23:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

picture

Can't we use Duplessis' painting itself? Greuze is greuzy. WB2 07:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Birthdate

Franklin's birthdate is given first as January 17, 1706, and a few paragraphs down in the article as January 6 of the same year. Presumably these are new style and old style, respectively, but that isn't specified and there are numerous other unspecified dates also. Shouldn't the dates should be made consistent and specified n.s. or o.s.? -EDM 21:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Refrigeration

The following paragraph needs, at least, serious editing of its claimed facts. If nothing is forthcoming (a citation that can be followed, citing a published document, would be nice), it will have to be removed.

Franklin deducted the principle of refrigeration by observing that on a very hot day, he stayed cooler in a wet shirt in a breeze than he did in a dry one. To understand this phenomenon more clearly Franklin conducted experiments. On one warm day in Cambridge England in 1758, Franklin and fellow scientist John Hadley experimented by continually wetting the ball of a mercury thermometer and allowing it to evaporate. With each subsequent evaporation, the thermometer read a colder degree of temperature. Another thermometer showed the room temperature to be constant at 65 degrees F. The thermometer used in the experiment was brought all the way down to 7 degrees F. In his letter "Cooling by Evaporation" Franklin noted that "one may see the possibility of freezing a man to death on a warm summer's day."

Never mind the necessary copy editing. Cooling from 65F to 7F by evaporation? Of water? At 10% humidity you can get your wet-bulb temperature down to 45F, according to my handy psychrometer slide rule. Only 38 degrees to go. (And: ultra-low humidityIn London? Have you ever been in London on a warm day? It's not quite so dry as the Mojave Desert.) Doesn't matter how many times you repeat the evaporation. What's going on here? --Dandrake 07:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has managed to defend this account, I'm hacking it up to at least the extent of removing outright impossibilities. --Dandrake July 2, 2005 03:34 (UTC)

I did some checking around on google and amazon, and I found a few citations indicating that he wetted the bulb of a mercury thermometer with ether and used a bellows to dry it, which produced a 58 degree drop in temperature. Check out http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf3/letter1.htm, which has excerpts from his letters, and go down to cooling by evaporation, there you'll see a letter Ben Franklin wrote describing the experiment -- Salsb 2 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)

Excellent sourcing, Salsb, and as a bonus the next letter in that collection, headed Faith, Hope, and Charity (though having nothing whatever to do with refrigeration) gives us all a fine example of Franklin's sense of humor. -EDM 2 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)


Liberalist

User:Roylee added a description of one of Ben's views. I think the quote is accurate (based on Esmond Wright's book, "Franklin, His Life as He Wrote It"), but I don't think it needs the prominence of a section in the article. We don't have the kite, lightning rod, stove or bifocals. I've copied his section here for your consideration. Roylee has also covered this material in some of the linked articles. Lou I 8 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)

Removed text:

In 1780 Franklin wrote a letter, Progress of true science, to Joseph Priestley, perhaps his most significant (yet brief) contribution to early liberal theory. Written only 10 years prior to his death, Franklin's radical ideas predate Gene Roddenberry's popular science fiction television series Star Trek by nearly 200 years, as Franklin describes a future society which has completely overcome Earth's gravity, sickness, ageing and bigotry.
  • I agree that this section is unnecessary and disproportionate to its significance. To call that letter Franklin's most significant contribution to liberal theory is, um, overstated. Also, the ideas as described (and as stated in the Progress of true science article) predate many utopian writings, and postdate others. Of the utopian writings they predate, Star Trek is probably not the one that an encyclopedia should mention if it is only going to mention one. I second the deletion of the whole section. -EDM 8 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)

Silence Dogood

Does anyone know why the article Silence Dogood was erased from Wikipedia? I can't seem to find a vfd on it. It was a complete article, and there should have been no reason for its deletion.

Edit: Never mind, I found the deletion log for it, I'll create a re-direct to this article, as I'm not qualified to expand that article. Autopilots 20:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin a spy?

"sources from Pfalstad needed"? I cited my source right there in my change, under "Further Reading"... [2]: Code Number 72 / Ben Franklin: Patriot or Spy?, Cecil B. Currey, 1972, ISBN 0131394932

bibliographies

Has anybody noticed that this 'site hasn't got any bibliographies? SR

Problem solved: I added bibliographies & links Rjensen 02:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Franklin in Mathematics

Apparently Mr. Franklin is a great amateur mathematician as well, especially on the area of magic squares and circles:

[3] [4]

I am no mathematician, however; anyone up to write something on this? - Jeekc 04:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is Ben Great?

I briefly explain BF's world historical importance in the opening papragraph, and cleaned up the bibliography some. Rjensen 04:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


Boston Latin School graduate?

As Kzollman pointed out in his last edit summary, the Boston Latin School website claims Franklin as a graduate. But the article says he left school at 10 and at 12 apprenticed to his brother. Can those both be correct? -EDM 19:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right. Boston Latin's own site claims [5] Franklin only as a "pupil", not a grad. And it's a very common mistake to jump from "alum" to "graduate"; Syracuse University claims Stephen Crane as an alum even though he attended only a single semester, and admitted that he came just to play baseball. Incidentally, the site shown in the edit summary is a "Boston Public Schools" site, not Boston Latin's site. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, my mistake. This site says that BF was taking out of Boston Latin (then called something else) because it was too expensive. He attended another school for a year and then never attended school again. Sorry folks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The article implies that Benjamin Franklin was not a freemason, but he really was: http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/franklin_b/franklin_b.html Al-Kadafi 18:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


Dates lived in London

  • I see in other sources that Franklin stayed in London from 1757-1775. This wikipedia article has him criss-crossing several times during those years. Could someone please look into this and get it straight? Thanks ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm, it seems now the other source is wrong, and he did cross back and forth a number of times during those years... But I'm still not sure what the correct dates should be... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


Benjamin Franklin Practiced Astrology as a Science

Theo, I backed out your change because:

  • you backed out WilliamKF's change
  • you added something about astrology in a sentence which is mostly about science and technology. all I did was move it to the end of the paragraph.
  • I moved your reference to "Poor Richard Improved" to after "Poor Richard's Almanack", to which it is related.

Your comment in the history makes no sence. I know Franklin wrote Poor Richard's; that's why I added to reference to it. Did you even look at my change? I didn't take out any of your astrology stuff; I even added to it. All I did was move it around. Pfalstad 03:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Astrology was practiced as a science, and a technology by Franklin. What do you call weather forecasting using astrology? This was practiced by Franklin. It was not so "minor" interest as is entered in this treatment. Let the true record reflect this fact, and not some personal POV treatment. That does not reflect the true record. As long as it is recongized that Ben Franklin, was not only interested in "astrology stuff" but practiced it as well. I read his personal & professional materials in Philadelphia and his copius writings on, and his practice of, astrology, is well documented. He was more than "interested" in astrology Pfalstad. I am well-versed on Benjamin Franklin. I was born & raised in Philadelphia, and lived in the same neighboor he did two hundred years before. Franklin's astrological works are copius.Theo 03:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Calendar format?

What calendar is used for the dates in this article? Several fall before the switch to Gregorian in 1752 (see this part specifically).

Music

I've heard that Benjamin Franklin was quite a prolific musician, teaching himself violin, harp and guitar (as well as possibly composing a string quartet) in addition to inventing the glass harmonica. I see no mention of this though, and perhaps someone more learned than I am in this area could elaborate.

Music

Having played the harmonica, I was interested in your (and others)listing of the harmonica as among his inventions. I happened to visit the National Constitution Center today in Philadelphia and learned that the instrument Franklin invented was in fact the "armonica", sans the "h", which was a horizontal graduated row of pitched crystal discs which were spun in a lathe-like fashion and played with moistened finger tips producing tones similar to those made by running one's finger tip around the edge of one's wine glass at the dinner table. he used to sing in the choir with my great great great grandfather and he acctually passed downa story in which tehy did a solo!!

Masons

Franklin became a Mason at age 25 (the order's minimum age); this was in January of 1730 (old style, when the new year began in March) or 1731 by the modern calendar. The date is known, but the article suggests some uncertainty.

He was made Grand Master (of Pa.) in June 1734 (not 1735), as can be shown from letters in the Labaree edition of the Papers, vol. 1, pp. 374-77.

Dr. Thomas Bond

There was a link for Dr. Thomas Bond on BF's page that led to the actor Tommy Bond. I've removed the link as it's inappropriate. Seems like a new stub, plus a disambiguation page is needed. As a noob, I'm not sure how to make that happen. Anyone wanna step up to the plate? I could add a little bit of info on Dr. Thomas Bond once the stub's up. yah yuh..

Add Smithsonian link?

Hello! I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. An online version of an issue titled "Making Friends with Franklin" is available for free at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/franklin/start.html

If you think the audience would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an external link. We would be most grateful.

Thank you so much for your attention.

Franklin and Deism

I was surprised that there has been no mention in the article of Franklin's view on religion. May be interesting to note, esp. since there's a perception that every white person had to be Christian in those days.

I am using the Perhaps a single sentence would be acceptable editing guideline for the fabricated quote. Ancheta Wis 08:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Writings

While I didn't add "Fart Proudly: Writings of Benjamin Franklin You Never Read in School," to this article originally, I see no reason for it to be deleted - and the changing reasons of User:Mwanner are certainly not convincing (first it's vandalism, now it's not encyclopedic enough). As long as these writings were written by Franklin (I see no evidence it was a hoax), then they should be included. We can't exclude writings just because we don't approve of their content. | Keithlaw 17:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion-- do a google search, and read the reviews (hint: not the ones on pages where the book is for sale). Granted, when I first deleted this, I thought it was pure vandalism from the title. After you restored it, I looked at what was out there about it, and decided it looked like fluff-- not worth including. I have nothing against the content (I have been known to fart on ocassion myself, and with gladness). I just felt that the book didn't warrant inclusion. -- Mwanner |Talk 17:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the reference again, shown here for easy reinsertion.
I would suggest reading [6] before re-adding. Also, full text for the original Fart Proudly is at [7]. If anyone re-adds, I won't revert ('though I'll hold my nose). -- Mwanner | Talk 19:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
It's still in the article, and I didn't re-add it. Mwanner, I agree that it's not among Mr. Franklin's finest works, and I wouldn't have added it myself. But he did write it, and I didn't see the compelling reason to delete it once someone else took the time to add it (and to add it correctly, with ISBN). Had it been a hoax, or a satire of Franklin, I would have agreed with you. But as long as the information is valid, more is generally better for Wikipedia, in my opinion. If Mr. Franklin didn't want it in his Wikipedia article, he never should have written it in the first place! | Keithlaw 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, OK, now I have removed it again. I think, really, what bothers me about listing this is twofold. One, it seems to me that the purpose of the compilation is not scholarly; it was published to titillate. I don't think we need list every work ever written on an historical figure. Admittedly, though, the fact that it is material that was written by Franklin makes my claim weaker.
The other reason I'd like this omitted is simply that I spend so much of each day removing the "titties" and "penises", etc., etc., added by 4th graders that the idea of having a legitimate entry on farting, especially in a vandalism target like the Franklin article, sets my teeth on edge. But as I said before, if it goes in again, I'll leave it in.
Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 22:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I previously entered the audiobook external link "Dialogue Between Franklin and the Gout". On consideration-- two things, I want to replace the text of LiteralSystems.com with a simple "Creative Commons audiobook", but I would just as well remove this link altogther (if I could) because it doesn't really represent an important example of BJ's writings.--Literalsystems 19:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Fart proudly is extremely relevant to Franklin as it is another insight into his mind. He is a very funny guy and a universal genius. Nemesis1981

Slavery

Although the article says he freed slaves and joined an abolitionist organization after 1780 (when Pennsylvania implemented a gradual emancipation law), the article does not detail how many slaves he owned during his lifetime and how deeply he was involved in the slave trade. I recently heard David Waldstreicher (Waldstreicher, David. Runaway America: Benjamin Franklin, Slavery, and the American Revolution. Hill and Wang, 2004. 315 pp.)say that Franklin never freed a single one of his slaves and that he accepted advertising for the sale of slaves. How the founders viewed slavery is a subject of interest so this should be handled with more detail. Nitpyck (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Question About William Franklin

The article says "In 1730, at the age of 24, Franklin publicly acknowledged an illegitimate son named William ..." but the caption under his picture says William was born in 1731. Dan Sachs (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the caption under his name since it is unclear which is the correct birth year. I hope someone with access to the cited texts can clarify this.--JayJasper (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Franklin's Year of Birth: 1706

Franklin was born on 6 Jan 1706 (O.S.) and voluntarily changed his birthdate to 17 Jan 1706 (N.S.) when England adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752. There is no evidence that he added a year to his age by adopting a birthdate of 17 Jan 1705.

There is a note in the article, as follows: "1705 is correct. In Old Style, new year began March 25." The article on the "Julian Calendar" discusses the first day of the new year, which actually varied under the Julian calendar in many countries.

There is no evidence that the change of the first day of the year was considered retroactive by anyone in 1752, as such a change certainly would have generated much discussion in 1752, as well as caused even more confusion than the addition of 11 days.

Therefore, unless there is evidence that Franklin himself changed the year of his birth to 1705, one must accept that his year of birth was 1706, and that he only changed the date of his birth in support of the Gregorian calendar.

Discussion is encouraged.

PlaysInPeoria (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Franklin didn't do anything. No discussion needed Tedickey (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, a more correct date would be 1705/6, similar to the style found in George Washington's family bible and noted in the article on [Julian calendar]. It would be useful to have a citation to Franklin actually using 1705 as his year of birth. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that double-dating for the year is how some people dealt with the calendar change back then, and it is explained in some reference sources, like the ones I've seen in the George Washington article. However, there is no need to add to the confusion for readers, as the calendar change itself is confounding enough as it is (was). As noted in the ref. source, most people in the colonies back then didn't change their birthdays; they kept their original Julian-calendar birthdays for their whole lives. It pretty much took the passing of a generation for the Gregorian to begin to take hold.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  02:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to add external link : Monetary Conditions around Franklin's Grave

I would like to add the following external link in the Benjamin Franklin article to a paper I have written:

There is a photograph of Franklin's grave in the paper. The article is not about Franklin, but of the economic conditions of Pennsylvania just before Franklin set up shop. The paper discusses monetary conditions around Franklin's grave in 2009 and what hints these conditions offer for the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefoperator (talk • contribs) 23:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Contradicting Information.

I am sorry that I must piggyback this onto this part of the page, but I am writting a report on Benjermin Franklin and I would like to point somthing out. We state "England on December 23, 1657, the son of Thomas Franklin, a blacksmith and farmer, and" that Franklins father is a blacksmith and farmer, and then state "Josiah Franklin, a tallow chandler and soap- and candle-maker" he is a soap and candle maker. I think we should figure out which one is true and fix it or if both are true state them in both places. This is sort of thing that makes my teachers act like Wikipedia is the antichrist. I hope this helps. If I don't get a reply I will do some research on my own and post the answer. Forteto (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: Thomas = Ben's father who was a soap and candle maker. Josiah = Thomas's father who was a blacksmith and farmer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.172.112 (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Speede06, 3 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Link in the Biographical and guides section is not from a reliable source and is being used as a link to bolster search engine results on a for-profit website that has nothing to do with history. Visiting the main site www.gigmasters.com will reveal the irrelevance of this domain to the topic of Ben Franklin.

Speede06 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done You are correct, that is a spam link, and it has been removed.--JayJasper (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Glass 'Armonica' (should be 'Harmonica' in written text)

The glass Armonica is incorrectly referred to as a "harmonica" under his musical history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayray (talk • contribs) 18:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the name of the linked topic, which lists armonica as one of the spellings. In the case where this topic refers directly to Franklin, it uses the spelling armonica. Tedickey (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The correctly spelled word is, and always has been, 'harmonica'. It derives from 'harmony'. 'Armonica' is a phonetic spelling of the pronunciation used in erlier times, in which the letter 'h' was routinely omitted from the spoken word, though not from the written word. (cf. English uses such as 'untin' (hunting), 'istory' (history), etc.).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.111.117 (talk • contribs)
A quick search of google books reveals a plethora of sources (1160) spelling it "armonica".
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction with William Goddard: Constitutional Post

According to the article

To restore the mails and open lines of communication... William Goddard laid out a plan for a Constitutional Post before the Continental Congress on October 5, 1774. To his disappointment his plan was rejected in favor of Franklin's government run postal system.

However, according to William Goddard

...Goddard and others were forced to create a plan to set up a Constitutional Post... Goddard had presented his plan for a postal system to Congress beforehand on October 5, 1774... Congress had to deal with other urgent matters and had to delay Goddard's plan...

On July 16, 1775 the plan, now known as the "Constitutional Post", was adopted and implemented... In what was to Goddard an unexpected turn of events, when the Continental Congress on July 26, 1775 authorized a post office run by the government it passed over Goddard and instead named Benjamin Franklin as the first American Postmaster General...

It was not until after the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 that a law passed on September 22, 1789, (1 Stat. 70) which created the federal Post Office under the new government of the United States and authorized the appointment of a Postmaster General who was subject to the direction of the President...

According to this article the Constitutional Post was rejected and existed only on paper. According to the other article it was merely delayed and eventually implemented, and only later the system was changed.

Top.Squark (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In what was to Goddard an unexpected turn of events, when the Continental Congress on July 26, 1775 authorized a post office run by the government it passed over Goddard and instead named Benjamin Franklin as the first American Postmaster General

This is again not a contradiction since the Constitutional Post Goddard proposed was later turned down in favour of a government run post. I've removed the contradiction tag again. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:16pm • 11:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм. Let's leave the template until we reach a consensus. This will help attracting more editors who can contribute to the discussion.
Secondly, I am sorry, but it is a contradiction. It is one thing to say the Goddard's plan was accepted, implemented and later replaced by a different system, and another thing to say it was rejected from starters. Moreover, this article creates the impression Goddard's plan was rejected already in 1774 which is completely contrary to the other article. If you can quote a reliable source on this matter, then we can draw conclusions about what is correct and make corresponding amendments. For example, it is possible this article should say "Goddard's plan was implemented, however, to his disappointment it was later replaced by Franklin's government run postal system". Top.Squark (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps reading the text in the citation for that paragraph would help us get rid of any contradictions. I suggest notifying the appropriate WikiProject so that we can have this fixed. Regards —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:53am • 01:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
the solution is to drop the Goddard story which is not included by most biographers of Franklin and does not belong in this article. So I rephrased it, dropped Goodard, and gave a cite.Rjensen (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Thx for dealing with these issues! Top.Squark (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The article itself could be split into other articles, considering its length. Thanks Rjensen! —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:12pm • 10:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction with American Revolutionary War: who were the first to recognize USA?

According to this article

In Paris, Franklin met the Swedish Ambassador to France, Count Gustaf Philip Creutz. So, as fate would have it, Sweden was the first country (after Great Britain) who recognized the young American republic

However, according to the other article

The Dutch Republic signed a friendship and trade agreement with the United States in 1782, and was the second country (after France) to formally recognize the United States.

Thus, according to this article the first country to recognize the United States was Great Britain and the second Sweden, whereas according to the other article, the first country to recognize the United States was France and the second the Dutch Republic.

Top.Squark (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

For what if it's worth, assuming the articles in question have their dates right, the Dutch would be earlier by a year. Squidwiggle (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

During his stay in France, Benjamin Franklin was active as a freemason, serving as Grand Master of the Lodge Les Neuf Sœurs from 1779 until 1781

It says he was in France from 1779 until 1781 thus the Dutch were the second country after France to recognise the US in 1782. Thus no contradictions are present. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:05pm • 11:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
So what if he was in France from 1779 until 1781? The article says "So, as fate would have it, Sweden was the first country (after Great Britain) who recognized the young American republic", without any qualifications. Top.Squark (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I would come to the conclusion since he was in France from that period in time that the statement is correct since the Dutch were the second country after France to recognise the US as a country IN 1782. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:02pm • 02:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Franklin wasn't in France only until 1781. He was Grand Master until 1781. Later we find that

In 1784, when Franz Mesmer began to publicize his theory of "animal magnetism", which was considered offensive by many, Louis XVI appointed a commission to investigate it. These included the chemist Antoine Lavoisier, the physician Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, the astronomer Jean Sylvain Bailly, and Benjamin Franklin.

The section headline reads "Ambassador to France: 1776–1785"
Moreover, Great Britain only recognized the US in 1783, at the Treaty of Paris Top.Squark (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Sweden came in 1783 long after Netherlands. see Treaty of Amity and Commerce (USA–Sweden). Rjensen (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sweden was apparently the first country to recognize the US after Great Britain had done so. The French and Dutch had done so before Great Britain. BTW, Franklin was not an ambassador - France would only have accepted ambassadors from other great powers, not from an upstart republic, and the US did not accredit any ambassadors until the end of the nineteenth century. Franklin was, I believe, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. john k (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

He was Minister to France according to the infobox, The section headline reads 1776-1785 because that was how long he was ambassador for not how long he was in France, if you read the quote I gave it will say he was in France from 1776-1781. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:13pm • 10:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Water spout illustration

In the water spout illustration, does anyone know what the number grid means? 24.24.232.140 (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a magic square to me? 142.150.208.25 (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, it is. A Franklin square, [8] 75.84.101.178 (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Redundant ignorage

The entry discussing Franklin's work with the gulf stream says it was "completely ignored" in england, which seems a little bit too conversational. Shortly afterwards it uses the term ignored once again saying that his work on the wave theory of light was "basically ignored".

I'll fix it in the morning if it's still there. 75.208.66.24 (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the article and restored lost legit edits. No plagiarism by Accotink2 remains. Rjensen (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

timeline discrepancy

The section labelled "Coming of Revolution" deals with events of 1763, but it is placed between Franklin's departure from London in 1775 and his selection as delegate to the Second Continental Congress in 1776. I suggest that it be moved to the first section under "Public Life" and placed just before the last paragraph there (which begins "At this time, many members..."

It might help to combat confusion over his multiple trips to Britain if a subhead ("First Trip to Britain") were placed just before "In 1757, he was sent to England..." and "Europe Years" were replaced with "Second Trip to Britain". "Europe Years" is itself misleading, as it could equally describe the period a decade later when he served as US envoy (*NOT* ambassador) to France.

Winterbadger (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Dialect

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

2010-05-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.71 (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Benjamin Franklin 1767.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Benjamin Franklin 1767.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 17, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-01-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 22:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin
A painting of Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790), one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, in London, 1767, wearing a blue suit with elaborate gold braid and buttons, a far cry from the simple dress he affected when he served as ambassador to France in later years. During his time in London, Franklin was the leading voice of American interests in England. He wrote popular essays on behalf of the colonies and was instrumental in securing the repeal of the 1765 Stamp Act. The painting was done by David Martin and is currently on display in the White House. The bust on the left side is of Isaac Newton.
Archive – More featured pictures...

quote

"By failing to prepare you are preparing to fail." Benjamin Fanklin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.184.26 (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotes, unless extremely notable, should be hosted at Wikiquote. This one does seem to have been fairly-well used, however, so might merit an inclusion, if courced. Rodhullandemu 21:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats. Benjamin Franklin

A good conscience is a continual Christmas. Benjamin Franklin

A great empire, like a great cake, is most easily diminished at the edges. Benjamin Franklin

A house is not a home unless it contains food and fire for the mind as well as the body. Benjamin Franklin

A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one. Benjamin Franklin

A life of leisure and a life of laziness are two things. There will be sleeping enough in the grave. Benjamin Franklin

A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small bundle. Benjamin Franklin

A penny saved is a penny earned. Benjamin Franklin

A place for everything, everything in its place. Benjamin Franklin

A small leak can sink a great ship. Benjamin Franklin

Absence sharpens love, presence strengthens it. Benjamin Franklin

Admiration is the daughter of ignorance. Benjamin Franklin

All mankind is divided into three classes: those that are immovable, those that are movable, and those that move. Benjamin Franklin

All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones. Benjamin Franklin

All who think cannot but see there is a sanction like that of religion which binds us in partnership in the serious work of the world. Benjamin Franklin

An investment in knowledge pays the best interest. Benjamin Franklin

And whether you're an honest man, or whether you're a thief, depends on whose solicitor has given me my brief. Benjamin Franklin

Anger is never without a reason, but seldom with a good one. Benjamin Franklin

Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin

Applause waits on success. Benjamin Franklin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petar Žauhar (talk • contribs) 18:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see Rodhullandemu's comments above. Also note that this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for listing quotes. Thank you.JayJasper (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Nationality

Presumably, because he was born British, into a British colony in the United States, he was British-American? Co8kie (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Although he was born British, it is usual practice to refer to people from this time period as strictly Americans, unless they were actually born in Britain.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin in Paris

How often was Ben in Paris. And it was not just for business, I have heard. Why isn't somebody making a movie about this? Osterluzei (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"in the church" or "as a minister"

As somebody saw fit to challenge my substitution of "as a minister" for "in the church," I will explain why I think my choice of words is more appropriate.
First of all, "in the church" suggests a unified entity such as the Catholic Church, as opposed to the colonial collection of autonomous Congregational churches (plural) to which the Franklin family belonged during Benjamin's childhood. Secondly, using the word "ministry" or "minister" is consistent with common usage. An example from a review of Walter Isaacson's biography of Franklin[9]: "Franklin received some formal education at Boston Latin School, to prepare him for the ministry." Finally, to quote from James Srodes' Franklin: The Essential Founding Father (p. 17) explaining why Franklin's father took him out of Latin School: "Franklin later told his own son, William, that he suspected his father had changed his mind after taking a hard look at the clergyman's penurious life." --Other Choices (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that we disagree is moot. "The church" can have many suggested meanings, not necessarily a unified entity such as the Catholic C., the Romanized C., the Christian C., etc. When one says, "I went to church today," a stranger has no way of knowing which church is meant. And "minister" is but one of many jobs in the church. I suppose that "minister" or even "senior minister" might be what Ben's parents had in mind, but we have no way of knowing. We only know what the cited references tell us. For example, in the Early life section there is a cited reference for the quote, "his parents talked of the church as a career", which is here. The quote is found on page vi. In light of this, and of the fact that I abhor edit wars, it is sincerely hoped that you will self-revert as soon as practicable.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  05:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, you have an indisputable source for your point of view; so I self-reverted to keep the peace. I still think that "as a minister" is more precise, but it's a minor point, definitely not worth fighting over.--Other Choices (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, and sincerely, no "fight" was intended. Cite a reliable source, and a claim is then justified. Best to you!  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  08:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Longer I Live" Reference in Const. Convention

I have an original reference for the I longer I live quotation from the Journals of the Continental Congress in Library of congress.gov. Could I substitute it? Also, what about giving a condensed version of the quote in the Const. Convention section? Or moving it? Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If your reference to the congressional journal includes a link to the actual text, I don't see any problem with making that substitution. Regarding condensing the "longer I live" quote, it's currently in the section about his personal beliefs, and personally I think it belongs there. Perhaps it could be condensed, but it might be difficult to get agreement on what to remove and what to keep. I think we could remove the following sentence: "And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?"--Other Choices (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me if I add to any controversy, but I feel that sentence is a crucial part of the entire quote. I think that by not approving Ben's proposal, the other FFs were merely showing a desire that church and state be separate. Leave prayers for church and "closet", and affairs of state to the gov't. It was another case of choosing the eagle over the turkey. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is the reference: Farrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. 4 vols. New Haven: Yale UP, 1911. Library of Congress: Farrand’s Records. Lib. of Cong., n.d. Web. 27 Dec. 2010. <http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html>. Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is the quotation:
Mr. President
The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other—our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancienthistory for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.--Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service—
The reference is weird, but its Farrand, vol. 1, pp. 450-2, found online at the Library of Congress. Shall we change it?Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore [from the same source],

Mr. Sharman seconded the motion.
Mr. Hamilton & several others expressed their apprehensions that however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention, it might at this late day, 1. bring on it some disagreeable animadversions. & 2. lead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissentions within the convention, had suggested this measure. It was answered by Docr. F. Mr. Sherman & others, that the past omission of a duty could not justify a further omission—that the rejection of such a proposition would expose the Convention to more unpleasant animadversions than the adoption of it: and that the alarm out of doors that might be excited for the state of things within. would at least be as likely to do good as ill.
Mr. Williamson, observed that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The Convention had no funds.
Mr. Randolph proposed in order to give a favorable aspect to ye. measure, that a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence,—& thenceforward prayers be used in ye Convention every morning. Dr. Frankn. 2ded. this motion After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourng. the adjournment was at length carried, without any vote on the motion. [Note: In the Franklin MS. the following note is added:—"The Convention, except three or four persons, thought Prayers unnecessary."]

So it was rejected, maybe we could add this information in the footnote at the end. --Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Pilgirms were not Puritans

The article says "Ben Franklin's mother, Abiah Folger, was born into a Puritan family that was among the first Pilgrims to flee to Massachusetts". However, the Pilgrims were separatists, not Puritans. The Puritans settled north of Plymouth in the Salem/Boston area. So, if someone could research and update this to either remove "Pilgrims" or changed "Puritan" to "separatist", that would make the article more accurate. (It's like the difference between Fundamentalist Christian and a progressive Christian church). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.65.18 (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Pilgrims were separatists because they wanted to separate from the Anglican Church. They moved from Scrooby, Northhamshire, England to Leyden, Holland. Then, with the lack of work there and the increase of immoral practices among the youth because of the Dutch influence (such as bundling—the act of being in bed together while clothed), they immigrated to the New World in 1620.
The Puritans, however, only wanted to purify the Church of England from its Catholic-like ritual, not necessarily separate. But the Puritans did end up coming to the New World in 1630, ten years later. Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Franklin's mother's mother was allegedly born on Nantucket (present-day Massachusetts) in 1620, per http://www.genealogy.com/famousfolks/benjaminf/d0/i0000023.htm#i23 . However, this is inaccurate, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Morrill . In any case, Franklin's ancestors were not associated with the Separatist congregation at Plymouth Colony.--Other Choices (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see an inaccuracy or contradiction; both sources state that Mary Morill was born in Nantucket. To say that Abiah Folger was born into a Puritan family (or, at least, grew up in a Puritan community) is not unreasonable at all, given that she was born in 1667 in Suffolk, Massachusetts. Massachusetts was where many (if not all) American Puritans resided. I recall reading a Franklin anthology that stated that he disagreed with his parent's Calvinist beliefs, and my U.S. history teacher told us that he was born into a Quaker family. However, we cannot state these claims without sources. Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
And besides, the Pilgrims who fled could have held to Puritanism. Thus the sentence indicates the the Pilgrims' separatist origins, yet that they "merged" into Puritan beliefs. I don't know if they remained distinct in America or not. It seems that the two groups merged by the 1700s. Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
If the other facts stated are correct, the problem is calling her a Pilgrim. If her family sailed for Boston in 1635, and settled there, they were not Pilgrims, who were in Plymouth colony, not Massachusetts Bay. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The above-linked wikipedia article does NOT state that Mary Morrill was born in Nantucket. Rather, it states that "Mary came to the New World as an indentured servant," which means that she was at least a teenager when she came to America. There were no (known) white people on Nantucket in 1620. Regarding the Separatists and the Puritans in early New England; the Puritans were quiet, "de facto" separatists (that's why they came to America), and ministers often moved back and forth between congregations in both colonies.--Other Choices (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
May I add that we fundamentalists still think of ourselves as "Puritans" (or separatists), in the historical sense. The puritans were after the ideals of 'pure' lifestyle, hence their ascribed name. The general idea is (and was) that there are alot of vain influences in this life. - Ecclesiastes 1:2 Benjamin's Mom, the article states that she was liberal, definitely not a TRUE separatist. We can either choose to separate, to remain pure, or congregate and commit trespass against our God. It's in our Bible (KJV). - 2 John 1:9-11 [sorry don't know how to make that a link :-( ]

Prank

I can't believe he invented the violin and the harp, as the article says now. That must come from Sarah Palin, but is not referenced. I can't fix it because I will not bother to register. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.41.142.219 (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Stupidfixer2000, 1 October 2011

you have hackers trying to say his name is george

Stupidfixer2000 (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Abhishek  Talk 17:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Birth date for Benjamin Franklin

Article intends to show change of calendar by 11 days. However, it shows January 1705 and January 1706. Don't know which is correct, but at least one is not. JL28552855 (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is formally correct. He was born in what we now refer to as 1706, but in the British use of the Old Style calendar, the new year didn't begin on January 1, but on March 25. So, the date known as January 13, 1706 in the New Style was January 6 in the Old Style and since in that calendar, the year had a different start date, 1705 would go on til March 24. However, what I want to know is this: if Franklin was born in Boston, which was then a town in the British North American colonies, why is the New Style date given first, with the Old Style date in parenthesies? The UK and its colonies made the change of calendars in September 1752, so at the time of Franklin's birth, the Old Style would have been applied in Boston. Thus, his birth date was must've counted as January 6 in Boston, in the colonies and in the UK itself. So, shouldn't his birth date be given as January 6, with a note in parenthesies that this date corresponds to January 13 in the New Style calendar? /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 17:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
His death date is given in New Style - as that was THE style then and now. To determine how long people lived, it is easier to use the same style for both dates. People alive at the time of the switch made decisions on which date to celebrate their birthday. I suspect many just celebrated twice. Different conventions apply for people who died before New Style came in, such as Franklin's father.--JimWae (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 11 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I think some mention should be made of Ben Franklin appearing on currency, such as the $100 bill and Franklin half-dollar.

71.82.165.174 (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note the pic, "Franklin on the Series 1996 hundred dollar bill", and the info in the article about it. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Puritan values?

The article as it now stands is something of a hagiography. It states on the one hand that, "Franklin retained a lifelong commitment to the Puritan virtues and political values he had grown up with," with no apparent attempt reconcile this with other statements in the same article, namely that Franklin had an illegitimate son and lived common law with Deborah Read. Neither does the article refer to Franklin's fondness for prostitutes nor his letter in which he offered advice on choosing a mistress. As major and as admirable a figure as Franklin can take the whole truth. There is no need to whitewash him. Msfeatherstone (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


And what a hagiography it is! Nothing about the Hellfire Club he belonged to (even though it mentions his association with Francis Dashwood), and nothing about the TEN CORPSES they dug up from under his home in England in 1998, dated to when he was living there!! Typical Wikiwash. Now it's locked so no chance of anything but a hagiography. Imagine, if you will, what would be written by some staunch Wikipedian if, say, ten dissected and burned bodies were excavated from George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, and forensically dated to the time he lived there! They'd have a field day! Either the writers of this article didn't know about this documented fact, or, far more likely, they removed any reference to it, lest the plebs hear something even slightly distasteful about their mythological hero Ben Franklin. What a disgrace. Something we've come to expect from this so-called encyclopedia, alas. Perhaps I disagree with the previous, that there is a need to whitewash him, for the sake of the plebs and their political religion. Otherwise, we couldn't very well hold him up as some sort of secular saint as is done without question! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.5.183 (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"Poor Richard's Almanack publication date"

The Benjamin Franklin Wikipedia page says 1733, but the Poor Richard's Almanack page says 1732, and the SparkNotes for The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/franklinautobio/section5.rhtml) says 1732. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.114.24 (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"Doctor" Franklin

Okay, I realise that a lot of people (especially those crazy French) had a tendency to refer to Franklin as "Doctor," but I feel as though it's a bit misleading to refer to him that way on a page intended to be purely factual in nature. I would point out that Franklin never achieved anything above what we would now call a high school education, and certainly was never a postgraduate student. I won't change the reference now, because I do realise that this was a way that a lot of people referred to him, but I'd like to (tentatively!) suggest that that reference be either omitted or changed to be listed after his proper name. In my humble opinion, it should not be listed at the beginning of his article, though I do feel it is important to note. Thoughts?

Sherlockian87 (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Prefixes should not be in wikipedia articles anyway. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I added a paragraph on his grandson William Temple Franklin, somebody reworded it a bit and added the honorific "Dr". I've been an American for a long time now an I love Benjamin Franklin-$100 bills are my favorite, and that was the first time I head him referred to as Dr. Franklin. A Google search shows only a few references to him as Dr. Franklin. The honorific is misleading, especially for younger people or foreigners. He was unpretentius in life, and everybody knows him as "Ben". 7mike5000 (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. "Doctor" is misleading & unencyclopedic.--JayJasper (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2011

Under Places and Things named after Franklin, could you please add Franklinia alatamaha, commonly called the Franklin tree. It was named after him by his friends and fellow Philadephians, botanists James and William Bartram. Add link to the Franklin tree in Wiki.

JimSchutzbach (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I have added this for you. A WP:RS would have been beneficial but as the statement is already in the Franklinia alatamaha and this article I found on google search http://www.terrain.org/articles/18/rowland.htmsupports your statement I have added it. Many thanks for your contribution. - Youreallycan (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Benjamin Franklin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs better/more uniform referencing. Has some inlines that are hyperlinks, but also references in references section that do not have any inline companions plange 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Science

1500s and going through 1900s, for each century, name a scientist who has made the biggest contribution and why.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benjamin_Franklin/Archive_1&oldid=1209768875"