Talk:Benjamin Franklin/Archive02

Infobox

I added an infobox. The WPBiography tag suggested the article needed one. I then struck it from the properties of the WPBiography tag, as it is now present. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 16:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "Religion: Deism" from the Infobox, as the content of "Virtue, religion and personal beliefs" contradicts the notion that Franklin was a deist. With no verifiable evidence to suggest that Franklin was an avowed or even declared deist, I really don't see how listing deism as his religion is accurate, let alone verifiable. Tomshakely | Talk 16:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtue, religion and personal beliefs

Just a quick note: Franklin came from a family of hereditary Dissenters, not Anglicans. Check the Autobiography. I didn't feel comfortable making the change, because I think someone with more of a grasp of the different non-Anglican sects of the day woud do a much better job of it. 76.18.84.29 Benjamin Franklin was a realy young man when he started work76.18.84.29

Rjensen, I have revised this section especially for you. Please don't blatantly remove my citations just because they don't line up to your political/philosophical agenda. Franklin was not a Deists (nor a Christian), but he was definitely a God-fearing man who realized the importance of morality in society. While many of the Founding Fathers were not specifically attached to a particular religion, they were all aware of the importance of religious precepts to the young country. With organized religion in their day so full of pointless dogma and dictator-like leaders, it is reasonable that Franklin and many of his contemporaries were staunchly against the ORGANIZED religions of the day. But this does not mean they were Athiests; they were actually very far from that as is clearly shown through Franklin's own words on religion (which I have added to this Wiki article).

Last time I edited this piece, I inserted Franklin's famous plea for daily prayer at the Constitutional Convention. Rjensen obviously did not appreciate this historical fact and promptly removed it. This is the icing on the cake that proves that while Franklin may have been a Deist as a youth he later became a very God-fearing man who respected all religions; again, this does not mean he was an Atheist. The critical point in his life that changed his view seems to have come about during the period where he realized that his "Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity" was erroneous. Soon after he wrote "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion" which clearly demonstrate his sincere respect and love of God. (Gaytan 16:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This seems to be original research designed to reflect the personal POV of one editor. Wiki does not allow that. Rjensen 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen is clearly showing his bias. This section is currently entitled "Virtue, religion and personal beliefs" therefore some comments about his "Articles of Belief" must be included. As the article stands (without my addition), Franklin is left portrayed as a not very confident Deist, which is clearly not the case. Rjensen, you left the whole question of his religion unanswered by simply stating that he moved away from Deism later in life but offered no explanation or reference (which I abundantly possess and tried to add to this article). Because you mentioned in your edit that my piece on this was too long, I drastically shortened the paragraph on his "Articles of Belief" to show you that I am trying to work a compromise with you and I did not revert to my original.

In addition, anyone wishing to discuss or write about Franklin's religion would be either careless, ignorant, or completely biased if they did not include Franklin's speech at the Constitutional Convention. For you to simply delete that reference two times from this article clearly paints you as intolerant, Rjensen. Do it again without explanation and you are labeling yourself as RADICALLY intolerant. You have yet to explain why you have removed the Constitutional Convention speech twice now. This quote is absolutely essential in order to describe Franklin's religious beliefs. (Gaytan 19:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Rjensen is at it again. Deleting any material which shows Franklin was not a strict deist but rather a man who believed in a god(s) who actually cared about humanity. As seen above, Rjensen tried to remove Franklin's Constitutional Convention speech before but has since given up. Rjensen, you deleted the Great seal paragraph because Franklin's role was not clearly portrayed; well I have fixed that. You also deleted a very important quote from his Articles of Beliefs and Acts of Religion solely to "trim" the article. Sure! You don't like that quote Rjensen because it does not line up with you POV concerning Franklin's deism. What better source for a description of Franklin's belief system than his own writing entitled "Articles of Beliefs"? The most important quote in this section and you simply deleted it for brevity's sake. How ubsurd is that? So, since you don't like primary sources that don't agree with your POV, how about a tertiary source to demonstrate that Franklin was not a strict deist? Is Kerry S. Walters ok with you? I know you love tertiary sources Rjensen. You would take those over primary sources anytime. (Gaytan 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Gaytan needs to read some biographies. From now on everything he inserts has to be fully sourced with reliable scholars or it will get deleted as Original research, which Wiki forbids. Every bio has solid material do it's an easy challenge. Rjensen 16:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your concern. Are you saying Franklin didn't make those statements? I have certainly seen far less scholarly sources sited throughout Wikipedia.66.75.8.138 17:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proselytizing? Who's proselytizing, Rjensen? Again, generalizations. If I am proselytizing (you have yet to specify exactly what I am proselytizing after multiple accusations from you), then I will turn the table on you again. You are proselytizing atheism on all of the American Founding Father Wiki articles due to your intolerant deletions of well-referenced primary sources on the subject.

I have provided additional sources for my edits. Rjensen, please review. I also reviewed the Wikipedia:Reliable sources article which states that primary sources "typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources (expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion).

This does not say that primary sources are banned from Wikipedia. All it says is that primary sources may be used only for descriptive purposes; interpretations of primary source material is what is considered original research, which is what Wikipedia does not allow.

The disagreement between you and I, Rjensen, really comes down to whether or not I provide any original interpretations about the primary sources I've employed. If I do, then my edits are definitely original research according to Wikipedia and should therefore be deleted. If not, my edits stay. It should be that simple.

So, Rjensen, I placed my old edits back into the article (along with some new ones), being extra careful not to include any private interpretations (original research) of the primary sources. I also provided some secondary source references from some so-called expert elitists in order to calm your nerves. You may remove them again if you please, but you MUST provide your reasoning for doing, detailing exactly where and how my edits constitute original research (i.e., personal interpretation of primary sources). You have yet to demonstrate this in any of your previous deletions of my materials. You revert to generalizations when you delete edits that are incompatible to your POV because you have no basis, no concrete evidence to demonstrate the logic behind your intolerant deletions.

All of my edits are well referenced to reliable secondary sources. The only purely primary source I use is on Franklin's speech at the Constitutional Convention. But I was careful not to interpret anything, I just put it out there "to make a descriptive point" (as Wikipedia allows) about Franklin's belief system. I also made sure that the referenced website was a reliable one (I doubt you will go out on a limb to claim that the U.S. House of Representatives' offical website is unreliable). (Gaytan 17:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Playboy

Ben Franklin was a PIMP! When he was in France as an ambassador he slept around quite a lot, and was rather a ladies' man. The darker side of history is so often the more interesting. 70.107.186.7 08:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always heard that Ben was quite a playboy and had lots of lovers. I have no idea if it's true, but if it is, then it should get written about. I knew a lot of info about him already and I looked him up to see if the lovers part was true. But I see no mention of it. Or maybe I'm mixing him up with some one else.cuz im a jagger...831 -JB --(This edit is timestamped 05:17, 22 July 2005 71.247.178.162)
I have also heard that he was a "playboy." My high school history teacher told me so, though he said there are few historical documents pertaining to Ben's sexually life. I feel History teacher was a reliable source with masters in history but I still would like to see some document evidence. If it is true than it would figure that the original pimp gets his face put on the one hundred dollar bill.

As I recall he is reputed to have dozens of illegitimate children, but on a web search I found only William. Was William the only one, or did he just not acknowledge the others? --Djfeldman 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also disappointed that his 8 reasons for prefering older women is absent. --Djfeldman 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankin's 8 reasons were part of a letter extolling the virtues of marriage. After stating all the pros of marriage, he continued thusly: "A single Man has not nearly the Value he would have in that State of Union. He is an incomplete Animal. He resembles the odd half of a Pair of Scissars. If you get a prudent healthy Wife, your Industry in your Profession, with her good Oeconomy, will be a Fortune sufficient.

But if you will not take this Counsel, and persist in thinking a Commerce with the Sex inevitable, then I repeat my former Advice, that in all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones. You call this a Paradox, and demand my Reasons. They are these:

1. Because as they have more Knowledge of the World and their Minds are better stor'd with Observations, their Conversation is more improving and more lastingly agreable.

2. Because when Women cease to be handsome, the study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Men, they supply the Dimunition of Beauty by the Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do 1000 Services small and great, and are the most tender and useful of all Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such thing to be found as an old Woman who is not a good Woman.

3. Because there is no hazard of Children, which irregularly produc'd may be attended with much Inconvenience.

4. Because thro' more Experience, they are more prudent and discreet in conducting and Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your Reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen to be known, considerate People might be rather inclin'd to excuse an old Woman who would kindly take care of a young Man, form his Manners by her good Counsels, and prevent his ruining his Health and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.

5. Because in every animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part: the Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as plump as ever: So that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an Old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement.

6. Because the Sin is less. The debauching of a Virgin may be her Ruin, and make her for Life unhappy.

7. Because the Compunction is less. The having made a young Girl miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflections; none of which can attend the making an old Woman happy.

8. They are so grateful!!

Thus much for my Paradox. But still I advise you to marry directly; being sincerely Your affectionate Friend,

Benjamin Franklin. "User:Boggy

playboy yes, lover no (no sex, says Ed. Morgan in recent book). Rjensen 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, guys! I am not even an American (thank G'd) but I think you have really crossed the line over here attacking poor old Benjamin Franklin! I am pretty sure you have no means to prove what you claim, and even if you did, I regard the adjective (or missused noun) "playboy" and "ladies man" to be offensive and ... well.. stupid to my taste. So please donnot fill up Wikipedia with those lame ideas of portraiting Ben Franklin as what you are willing to unless you can offer good evidence or proof and, even if you may, I do think that it is of nobody's concern whether or not he engaged in sexual intercourse with women in Europe. Poor Benjamin Franklin is a human being after all and although he is long dead still deserves some privacy in his personal affairs. If he went around having sex or not is none of YOUR business!!!! Mtoussieh 07:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC) oh, and it appears the next commentary is also simpathetic with my point of view, so please consider our kind remarks![reply]

We're not insulting him, we're just joking. But apparently he was very active with the ladies. Superbowlbound 22:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand why people get off on degrading important historical figures. From what I can tell from this talk section, it appears that it's all based on rumor anyways. Don't you people have anything better to do than to ridicule people by focusing on their faults? Respect Benjamin Franklin and other Founding Fathers, its the least you can do for them considering all the great good men like them did for you and the world, advancing mankind from tyranny to liberty. Gaytan 16:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our job here to respect or disrespect anyone; it's our job to report what others have said. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then Jpgordon and JB (71.247.178.162), let's put it into perspective then. What Wikipedia is about is to state facts and not rumors. There is no documentation that Franklin was, in fact, a womanizer. However there is little doubt that he was known for his flirtatious behavior, but what is the true definition of a flirt and how is that a factual statement to make when there are no absolute documented witnesses? If it is to make it into the article, it must be sourced and how exactly can you cite what others have said without there being a direct quote? Theoretically there are numerous books that one can use as a source, but even those authors must cite their own sources and chasing all those down, for the simple purpose of that topic in this article, is quite a task to be had. Is it really worth that kind of time all for the sake of flirting? If you feel so inclined then you are most welcome to do so, but I say it's not even worth the bother and sounds like gossip at best, which is definitely not encyclopedic information. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 17:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is. Historical gossip, while still gossip, can be quite encyclopedic, as it reflects the contemporary opinion and feelings regarding the subject of the gossip. Since it's quite widely rumoured that Franklin was a womanizer, it doesn't matter whether he was or not -- arguably, we need to report that it was widely rumoured. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look jpgordon guy... the fact that there exists an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia does not give you or me or anyone the right of invading a person's intimacy (even after his or her death!) What you are trying to include in this article is more than a mere portray of Mr. Franklin z"L and more than what you have the right to publish on the internet by means of morality, justice, and even mere human respect! and next commenary is also one I symphatize with, so take THAT from me too! But my main point is that it is none of our business and clearly goes over the line of what is right and wrong to publish even if, hypothetically, you had any means of proving it.

Mtoussieh 07:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken, but how do you cite such a thing? As I mentioned, without any direct quotes, there really isn't a reliable way of doing so. I currently am reading Ben Franklin: An American Life, by Walter Isaacson and will post here if I find any direct citations on it. He has an incredible list of resources. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 17:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. You people are all struggling to find vile trash on all the Founding Fathers no matter what it takes. While so much documented and proven information is available on these great men you all are trying to dig up gossip, rumors, and hearsay. You call this encyclopedic, Jpgordon? If so, there is no help for you. About all the time that this article should contain about this gossip in particular is this: "While some believe that Frankling may have been a womanizer, few reliable sources exist which prove this assertion". Then if you must, quote one such reference. But my point still stands... Why exert so much effort in order to degrade the Founding Fathers when clearly the positives they left for the world greatly outweighs the negatives. This article should be presented in proportion to known and documented positive and negative actions they performed. If you don't want to respect them, at least present a biography of them fairly. Is it not ironic that I am confronted with so much stubborness on the well documented topic regarding the Founding Fathers' teachings on morality and the importance of religion in a society yet no one seems to have a problem on Wiki when people tear these men down by focusing on undocumented rumors that belong nowhere but in sewers and gutters? Gaytan 20:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I guess it is ironic. Is there anything actually in the article that disturbs you? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Womanizer. It's not gossip--there is a full length study by a leading scholar: Mon Cher Papa: Franklin and the Ladies of Paris by Claude-Anne Lopez (1990). Franklin flirted a great deal but there was no sex. Rjensen 23:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are running in circles here Rjensen. (Gaytan 16:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Franklin and Deism

I have updated the Religious Belief section of this article. Please review and provide any comments you may have here. The update I gave this section primarily portrays Franklin as a Deist in his early life with a transition away from standard Deism in later life believing in an Interventionist God. While some may argue that Franklin was or was not a Christian, I have simply avoided getting into this argument. Instead, I have pointed out that he was a religious and spiritual man, as can be inferred from his speech at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. This point, I believe, is irrefutable; by the end of his life, he was simply no longer a Deist (since Deist clearly hold the view of a non-interventionist God). Gaytan 16:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From reading his autobiography, it seems Ben Franklin was indeed Presbyterian, if only in name. According to Franklin, "Tho' I seldom attended any Public Worship, I had still an Opinion of its Propriety, and of its Utility when rightly conducted, and I regularly paid my annual Subscription for the Support of the only Presbyterian Minister or Meeting we had in Philadelphia. (my emphasis...) From my understanding of religious sociology of the era, you didn't pay a subscription fee for a church unless you subscribed to the belief system. Of course, Franklin underlines some differences of opinion that he had with the established institution, but nothing so major to lead me to believe that he was not willing, at least in name, to associate himself with Presbyterian belief and values. But I am no expert. Otherwise, very well written section. Locriani 04:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

36 Craven Street, London, England.

I am suprised no mention is made of 36 Craven Street, London, which is one of the few, if not the only, remaining house where Benjamin Franklin lived.

This house is undergoing extensive restoration, and it is hoped that it will be open to the public in time for the 300th anniversary of his birth in 2006.

[1]

adding printer

I added printer at the head of the series of Franklin's occupations. Publisher was listed (and is retained) but is not synonymous with printer; also, Benjamin Franklin chose to include printer in his epitaph.

Right and a fantastic choice too, I might add. In fact, earlier I added an Infobox (per Wiki's request) and under occupation I put "Printer" because that is the precise occupation that Franklin liked to claim, even after he had retired. Well done anonymous! MagnoliaSouth | Talk 17:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is any of this true?

www.infowarscom/articles/occult/hellfire.htm ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}

I note that it contains the word "Illuminati" without any visible ironic intent; in fact, it speaks of the elite showing secret signs of their Illuminati allegiance. Therefore, it is paranoid crap, or simply a hoax.

What the facts might be concerning the bodies under Franklin's house would be interesting to know. One does get a sense of the sardonic in the coroner's remark that he might have to hold an inquest. Reminds one (speaking of Philadelphia) of the response of the makers of the Liberty Bell to a complaint they received about its having a crack; they suggested returning it in its original packing for repairs.

[Alex Jones] is a very "interesting" person; from his opinions on the "Illuminati" to the Bohemian Grove, he is rather outspoken on various conspiratorial topics. I would tentatively delete the last sentence until further sources surfaced; however, I leave that up to more qualified contributers. infowars.com is simply not a singulary trustworthy site.Infinitys 7th 20:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though this site IS crap, it should be noted that the article about the Hellfire Club - an English club that in popular legend "held notorious, orgiastic and satanic meetings" - does mention Franklin. Daniel Trielli 03:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin and Dashwood were correspondents and co-authors - perhaps the most oddly-paired group of the century, given they produced a rewritten edition of the Book of Common Prayer. It seems pretty unsurprising that Franklin would have visited Dashwood in his time in the UK, though the Hellfire Club seems perhaps too early for him to have attended. Shimgray | talk | 13:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In their 2004 documentary "Hell: The Devil's Domain", the History Channel cites Franklin as having attended several of their meetings... though I am not sure historically accurate that channel is... - Anonymous

Writings

[This is a discussion which began over the inclusion/removal of the book:

"Fart Proudly: Writings of Benjamin Franklin You Never Read in School." Carl Japikse, Ed. Frog Ltd.; Reprint ed. May, 2003. ISBN 1583940790

The original discussion can be found here.]

I have added it back in. Amongst his other talents, Franklin was also a humourist and to ignore that is to ignore one entire facet of the man. I have seen that book and it contains other examples of his humourous essays ranging a wide variety of topics. --Darth Borehd 19:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess

This opening paragraph is falling apart fast. "he invented the idea of America"... Wha??? -Eisnel 06:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it's actually very well written prose! It's an emphatic re-statement of the previous phrase about how he originated the idea of American unity. I like it, it makes the paragraph read nicely and captures the grandure and genius of the idea. Elipongo 01:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also regard that line as unfitting, as Einsel did. Look, even if you THINK he "invented the idea of America" and it would make a great thing to write about him in a book or his grave-stone or something... it is NOT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS ABOUT! beacause, unless he actually "invented" the idea of America and maybe in a manner he could have pattened, it is not a fact rather a mere way of exagerating his roll in the bringing- up of the idea and is very subjective.. how could you PROVE that in fact HE invented the idea of America? I am skeptical about removing it myself but I strongly suggest someone else does if it is already three of us who judge it unfitting.

Mtoussieh 07:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, he did introduce a compromise to the Constitutional Convention, but that's just more skillful political manuvering. After all, he was public relations. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 20:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Section?

Perhaps there should be a seperate section for his inventions and scientific inquiries. The 'public life' section is a bit messy. Any objections? Richard Bladen 17:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--separate section for science/inventions is called for Rjensen 17:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you agree too? Well, me three! haha! yeah, separate section would be good.

Mtoussieh 07:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent contradictions in discussion of kite experiment

The article seems to contradict itself over whether or not Franklin ever actually conducted his famous kite experiment. First it states with certainty the exact day he performed the experment and the later implies he may never have performed this experiment at all. I have no opinion on the matter, other than that the article is confusing, as is. ike9898 17:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Myth Busters proved that Franklin could not have survived the traditionaly discribed expiriment (lighting actually hiting the kite with a metal key while Franklin's holding it). In fact, they showed that flying a kite with the metal key on a clear day would be sufficent to get a minor electrical shock (similar to rubbing feet on carpet and then touching a metal door handle.) Jon 13:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leibniz

I am amazed that Leibniz is not brought up once in this entry; Franklin was a noted Leibnizian, in fact, he got his idea of the flow of electricity directly from Leibniz. Something needs to be said about this. Matthew 23:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Militia Service

According to the Tun Tavern entry, Ben Franklin was also a colonel in the Pennsylvania Militia. Does anybody have any references to document this? --Darth Borehd 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a supporting reference to this here: http://www.historynet.com/mhq/blbenfranklin/ can the block be removed so I can add it? --Darth Borehd 05:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin in Popular Culture

Somebody apparently doesn't like popular culture references for some unknown reason. I think it gives a sense of Franklin's relevance to and perception by modern-day Americans and has value. In any event, it was not discussed here and a lot of people have worked on it. Reinstated. --Darth Borehd 00:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note of Contention?

I'd rather not simply delete this quote, but it isn't sourced: "The longer I live the more convinced I become that God governs in the affairs of men." I tried Googling it, but none of the websites that attributed it to Franklin gave sources either. I would be more at ease with the article if someone would either substantiate that quote or remove it. Harkenbane 06:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the hypothesis from that section per WP:NOR, added 'citeneeded' tag after the quote, deleted the phrase 'Note of contention' from article. That phrase belongs in talk space. MilesVorkosigan 16:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Richard! His sayings updated (a proposed link)

The articles I have read in the Wikipedia seem to me to be uniformly excellent.

I submit my website (www.benandverse.com) for consideration as an external link for two articles: “Benjamin Franklin” and “Poor Richard’s Almanac.”

I am quoting below from Google’s page on “Ben and Verse.” A reference to this page may facilitate a ready verification of the statements below.

The proposed reason for listing it under “Poor Richard’s Almanac” appears in the description from Google’s Directory (and elsewhere):

John McCall’s distillation of sayings from “Poor Richard’s Almanac.”

The proposed reasons for including it, in addition, under the broader topic “Benjamin Franklin” also appear in the following reasons: 1) It’s on a list of a dozen links in the Franklin Institutes “List of Resources for Studying Ben Franklin.”

2) It’s described in the US History Organization’s “Franklin Links” in this way:

See Ben Franklin’s proverbs and quotes in sound bites and rhymes. Find a bio, links, and aphorisms by subject from “Poor Richard’s Almanac.”

3) Its “A+” award from the Webenglishteacher, which describes, under “Benjamin Franklin,” the site in this way:

This site rewrites Franklin’s aphorisms as up-to-date verse, with different proverbs appearing each month. In addition to being entertaining, it has many possible classroom applications.

I realize that these descriptions are much lengthier than those I saw on the relevant pages in Wikipedia. A possible citation occurred to me:

Quotations by subject plus an update in rhyme

This description has been correct for years, and I have instructed my estate to maintain the website so that it will continue to be accurate long after my death.

However, I have added a new miscellaneous section to my website, and I hope to submit proposed links shortly for some articles unrelated to Franklin. 152.163.101.7 17:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider it an honor to be listed in Wikipedia.

Sincerely, [name removed] [email removed]

Your web site will not be listed until someone else believes it worthy. To this end, are those quotations sourced? Anything else? I don't think so, but those rhymes still aren't considerable due to Wikipedia:No original research, unless someone is willing to put those into a major newspaper or published work. Anyway... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom Indexed

As an old indexer, I hope you will forgive me for adding a particularly boring rationale for considering a link for my website, www.benandverse.com.

The website may be distinctive in offering a large number of Franklin’s sayings, organized by subject, with (what seem to me) abundant cross-references.

John McCall 152.163.101.7 12:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still have not forgiven you but forgiveness comming up... be patient as it might take a few minutes.

Astrology

Someone keeps trying to add the Astrologers category to this page, on the grounds that Poor Richard's Almanac contained astrological material, and therefore...

Personally, I feel that this shows Franklin a) wanted to sell an almanac and b) knew that the best way to do so was to stuff it full of astrology, because that's how contemporary almanacs always were. They were publishers stock-in-trade; no need to believe it, just make it sound good and sell it to the farmers. I'm really not sold that his authorship of the almanac means he in any way believed it, not without some actual evidence showing that he did.

Remember, the onus is on the person wanting to include information to prove it, not for those wanting to remove it to disprove it... we can't flatly disprove what he did or didn't believe, but an actual statement by him saying he did would go a long way. Shimgray | talk | 20:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is like saying the publisher of a newspaper is an astrologer because the paper runs an astrology column. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon, I won't even bother to offer your ridiculous sentence a rebuttal; the brevity speaks for itself. First off Shimgray, it doesn't really matter what you "personally feel"; all that matters is that you're attempting to distort the facts and whitewash history -- you are trying to deny that one of America's founding fathers was an 'occultist' (and he was by no means the only one). Can you provide evidence that "he just wanted to sell an almanac?" ('The onus is on you...') I doubt it because this is your opinion. But it's easily proven that he was an astrologer by simply LOOKING in the actual almanac. I came to the Wiki Ben Franklin page two days ago and saw this sentence in the intro: "He also practiced and published on astrology (see Poor Richard's Almanac)." This is verbatim, exactly what was there; all I did was put in Category:Astrologers based on what was already there in the article. Logical? Absolutely. I am no apologist or believer in astrology; all I want to do is present history as it was. If he "practiced and published on astrology," wouldn't that make him an astrologer? So what exactly DO YOU know about astrology? Are you an astrology expert and also an expert on Franklin and colonial history?

You obviously know nothing about astrology (I know a great deal, however), because if you did you would realize that Franklin could not have figured out, calculated, and/or included all of the astrological information in Poor Richard's Almanac without being an astrologer. Look at all the mathematical calculations (an ephemeris), the glyphs, zodiac signs, astrological aspects, etc. on the scanned pages in the links below...that is REAL astrology, not the lame Sun sign newspaper bunk 'jpgordon' is talking about. And yes, he was the publisher, but also the author, written under his pseudonym/pen-name/nom-de-plume Richard Saunders. This source should be entirely sufficient given that it's an academic source, but see for yourself. Do some internet searches; crack a biography or other books (contrary to popular belief, the internet isn't the ultimate source of knowledge -- it doesn't have EVERYTHING); just go to the bottom of Wiki's Poor Richard's Almanac page and follow the external links and then go through some of the alamanacs and see that they (NOTICE: ALL OF THEM) are chock-full of astrological info. [2] -- Medical astrology [3] -- cover page; almanac contains an ephemeris, used in both astronomy and astrology. [4] -- astrological info on all pages, especially pgs. 1 & 2. I could put more here but it would be redundant. My point is beyond proven. Don't deny history and write off his interest in the occult as simply commercial; heck, even if it was commercial, it doesn't change the fact that he was an astrologer, the fact that "he practiced and published on astrology." So please be logical -- I will be if you won't. I'm putting the category back in. --172.146.172.46 01:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't give a damn if Franklin was an astrologer or not - many intelligent people have believed some inspiredly crankish things (just look at Newton!), and it doesn't reflect badly on them. I'm not contesting he wrote the almanacks - they're some of his most famous works - but I am contesting that he credulously believed everything he wrote, especially something which was so definitely a staple piece of publishers fodder at the time. I am not claiming I am an infallible source on the matter, but if you're "presenting history as it was" without being able to quote a historian saying so, we have a problem.

Benjamin Franklin might have been an astrologer. He might have spoken Polish, too. But we don't have any sources saying he spoke Polish, and we don't have any sources saying he was an astrologer. You're making inferences; those inferences are not reliable sources. In order to incorporate material, it needs to be verifiable in reliable sources. "I read X and think it means Y" does not qualify, I'm afraid. Give us a source, a good sensible third party calling him an astrologer, and it can stay. Shimgray | talk | 16:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Franklin was such a copious writer, one would think that, were he an astrologer, he would have said something about being one. He does make a few comments about astrology in his autobiography, some ironic and some descriptive; and is said to have "had an astrologer", whatever that means. But this argument -- You obviously know nothing about astrology (I know a great deal, however), because if you did you would realize that Franklin could not have figured out, calculated, and/or included all of the astrological information in Poor Richard's Almanac without being an astrologer -- assumes a fact not in evidence: that Franklin calculated any of this stuff. There was no reason he would have had to; there were already "almanacks of celestial motions" -- i.e., ephemerides -- published in the Colonies at least a decade before Poor Richard's Almanac came out.[5] Franklin wasn't the sort to reinvent the wheel if he could copy the information or get someone else to do the calculations. Besides, of course he could have "included all the astrological information...without being an astrologer"; all he needed to do that was the desire to include it. So categorizing him as an astrologer requires more evidence than has so far been provided. I think it wouldn't be a problem to put him in Category:Astrology, though, since his almanac was a huge seller, and as such constituted an important astrological resource in 18th century America. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like it says in the article, anybody that "practices" astrology is an astrologer, and anyone that "publishes on" it even more so. Pick up a good dictionary and it'll tell you that much. Who is disputing this category? --64.12.117.7 02:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put article in Category:Astrology per Jpgordon. --152.163.101.7 03:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it'd make more sense to put the Almanack in cat:Astrology, rather than its author? Shimgray | talk | 18:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Some people here seem strangely hell-bent on pushing the idea that Franklin was an astrologer. The reason why we, or at least I, are unwilling to let someone place this idea in an encyclopedia article that will be seen and reused by hundreds of websites and millions of people is not based on a dislike of astrology or astrologers, but rather, a skepticism toward the assertion that Franklin was an astrologer and a dislike of claims based on (so far) merely a previous quote from a Wikipedia article and the belief that everything Franklin wrote was his and his alone. This is precaution, not editor bias… More to the point, I myself have an interest in astrology; that doesn't make me an astrologer, nor would it make any sense to associate me with that category unless it was a major component of my life (which, so far as I know, it certainly was not for Franklin.) 66.229.182.113 03:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was born and raised in Philadelphia, and it is a well-known fact that Benjamin Franklin (and many of America's Founders) was a experienced, and widely-known astrologer. A fact. The "idea" that someone's "personal" feelings would be enough to make this fact a "non-fact" is ridiculous considering all the evidence to the contrary. The facts of Benjamin Franklin being a practicing astrologer are contained in hundreds of texts (many of them Franklin's own words and statements) as well as in history books of Colonial America. Franklin's horoscopes, and drawings, and astrological writings are all over the city of Philadelphia, and in Washington DC, which was built according to astrological principles. These are historical facts and so to have a "dislike" of these facts due to personal preferences (such as saying the word "astrology" with a mindset of "pop-culture astrology") doesn't have a place. It seems some have much more learning to do about Benjamin Franklin, considering the fact the man was obviously an astrologer, and quite expert at that according to his ability to forecast the weather using his ephemeris.Theo 14:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Then it should be blitheringly easy to find a verifiable reliable source asserting this. That's what we've been saying all along. (I don't know what the DC connection is, though; Franklin was dead before DC was founded. But that's neither here nor there.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture

The pop culture section is largely a collection of trivia, of no encyclopedic value, much of it given over to the promotion of various industries (Broadway musicals about the Revolution, the city of Philadelphia, the Ray Bradbury novel Fahrenheit 451, a populist science TV entertainment, a video game about skateboarding, a few Disney movies). While the connections may be relevant within the context of the articles about the relevant items, those connections are trivial within the context of Franklin, the scientist, technologist and statesman. Moreover those interested can pick up the connections from the whatlinkshere connection. I suggest that we might at least consider removing many of these items from the article, and find a more appropriate way of describing those items which are of undoubted relevance. --Tony Sidaway 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—How historical figures are currently perceived affects their relevance to the times. Franklin is admired both for his own life accomplishments but he also gained the status of cultural icon. The fact that he is in video games and cartoons demonstrates his appeal to children. He is the most approachable and charismatic Founding Father. If George Washington is the father of the United States then Ben Franklin is the witty and wise grandfather. His accomplishments in science and literature make him the ideal role model for children. His progressive views are more in line with the enlightened outlook of today's Americans. For example, he was not a slave owner but an abolitionist. His sexual peccadilloes, scandalous in his own time, scarcely draw more than a wink and chuckle from most modern-day Americans. He was not a member of the aristocracy like Washington or Jefferson, but the son of middle-class Americans who found success through his own ingenuity and hard work. His entrepreneurial spirit and free-thinking has led him to be the symbol of American businesses and scientific endeavours. Around the world it is Ben Franklin, not George Washington, which is seen as the iconic American. A list of links just wouldn’t convey the enormous impact Franklin has on modern society. The pop culture list needs to remain as a testament to his legacy and the meaningfulness he still has to today’s Americans. --Darth Borehd 15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin helped invent popular culture--he was Poor Richard after all--and therefore his relationship to it belongs in the article. Rjensen 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you to a point, however the writing is bad. This is, after all, not an almanac as you suggest. I agree that it should be pointed out that he is the inspiration for many things, but Wiki's general concensus prefers that trivia items should be written in prose over bulleted lists and trivia discussed in articles should be restricted to the most important, or influential, facts only. It should be completely rewritten, in my opinion. Perhaps it's time for a peer review, or better still a request for comments? MagnoliaSouth | Talk 01:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every year, Philly celebrates his birthday. I do indeed think Benjamin Franklin was a great man, but Philly takes it too far. Its like he's the only thing Philadelphia is proud of. I hear/see commercials, ads, general messages saying "Philly's got Benergy!" AAAHH! For two months I saw these messages! They won't stfu! Why does Philly drive people to hate Ben Franklin? --66.218.18.240

Last Will and Testament of Ben Franklin

We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of Ben Franklin's Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of Ben Franklin. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to Ben Franklin's Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of Ben Franklin. Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Franklin Institute's copy [6] will do just as well; although we thank livingtrust for their kindness. JCScaliger 02:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki's Writing Systems Project

Benjamin Franklin has been added to the above named project. Admittedly I was initially confused as to why he was added (the discussion can be found here), however if anyone knows a bit about his alphabet invention, perhaps you might be interested in working on this? MagnoliaSouth | Talk 22:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving Old Discussions

I'm currently working on archiving old discussions, discussions that have stopped, unsigned discussions that did not illicit a response and so forth. I don't have time to do it all at once, but will be a slow process. Anyone wishing to help, or improve the formatting, is most welcome. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 01:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin is a loyalist?

User:66.67.121.16 (talk) added this tidbit to the article:

franklin only contradicks himself, seeing that he was a loyalist,yet he helped in the proccess of becoming independent from britain

I'm unaware of any sources to validate this claim, and I've removed the sentence, but if anyone can verify it, then feel free to re-add it. Vectro 20:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was he layal in, say, 1754? Of course he was. So were all the colonists; actual disunion was still a minority opinion when Paine began writing late in 1775.

Do we need to make this clearer? Maybe. JCScaliger 15:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin the musician

This link: Franklin the Musician and Inventor was apparently added by a linkspamming anon. While I do not want to encourage such people, it seems moderately interesting. I won't weep if it goes. So I put it up for discussion. JCScaliger 15:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on the matter but if it can be well sustained why should it go?

and another thing: if anyone could expand it .. gr8! Mtoussieh 07:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deist prayer?

As per Deism article, some deists do pray. They do not think prayer must be asking for God to do something in reply. Prayer that praises or is a form of contemplation is completely within the realm of traditional deism of an uninvolved God. Prayer for miracles would be outside traditional deism - but many deists allow some subtle intervention by God - as small as having people think about what is the "Divine Plan" and so inspiring them to "do the right thing". Even traditional Deists believed in a reward in the afterlife (even punishment for some who did evil). Some even believed that "cosmic justice" was even built into the structure of the universe, & rewards & punishments would come even in "this" life. It is a GROSS overinterpretation to read BF's call to prayer as a "disavowal" of deism. Looking again, I am not convinced his attitude towards prayer is anything more than acknowledgement that nothing will succeed unless it is already part of the Divine Plan --JimWae 19:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To say that modern deists pray is acceptable. But to say that traditional deists prayed is a sham. Re-read the Deism article closely and you will find that traditional deists, up until the 20th century or so, were staunchly opposed to prayer. They believed that man could in no way effect Providence to directly influence anything in the world's future. The traditional deist writers and current scholars on the subject widely agree that for deists of old (traditionally), Providence had abandoned the world to its own reason and many actually spoke against the need for prayer. So JimWae, please be careful to qualify your reasoning by stating that modern deists may pray, but traditional deist did not. The deism view of prayer that prevailed during Benjamin Franklin's day clearly fell into the traditional side. Franklin therefore moved away from this quite a bit in his life since he began to value prayer and he believed that Providence could in fact directly influence the world (i.e. his call for prayer to raise up the new nation at the Constitutional Convention). With that, I believe that we should seriously consider the accuracy of Franklin's Infobox on this article: should we really call him a Deist? Or should we qualify this somehow? Maybe he was closer to just being a plain old theist? This will take some more study to figure out. Unless someone out there already has the answer. (Gaytan 19:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

JimWae - In the "religion" section of the Franklin article you commented that a true deist believes that "Divine goodness doth dispense rewards and punishments both in this life and after it." Now, my quotes came from Isaacson. As for your position on deism, I don't know what your sources are. But as I said above, traditional deists were strongly against any kind of prayer, since they believed it was fruitless due to their understanding that God put everything into motion a long time ago and that man has no say in it. The deism article clearly portrays this as the deist line of thinking. Isaacson argues that Franklin was not a pure deist, as many believe today, but was actually a man who believed in the value of good deeds and prayer to influence god to change the course of humanity. If you disagree with Isaacson, please provide your reasoning, with references please. (Gaytan 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

After digging a little deeper into this subject, I found that you reference to deism's belief that "Divine goodness doth dispense rewards and punishments both in this life and after it" was asserted by Lord Herbert of Cherbury during the first half of the 17th century. My quotes in the Franklin article came from Isaacson, which are ultimately based on the deism expounded by Tindal in his "deist bible", Christianity as Old as the Creation in 1730. Because deism has evolved over the centuries, expecially over the question of prayer, we have to compare Franklin to the deism that was prevalent in his day. So the question is, which of these men's ideas were more prevalent in Franklin's day, Lord Herbert of Cherbury or Tindal? Franklin's (1706-1790) early brush with deism in the 1720's probably was more akin to the deism of Lord Herbert of Cherbury. But for the second half of Franklin's life, Tindal's work was predominant, which taught that prayer was fruitless due to their understanding that God put everything into motion a long time ago and that man has no say in it (see deism). During this latter part of Franklin's life, he was definitely out of step with most deists. Today, deists seem to be changing their tune on this doctrine, reverting back to some doctrines found in the deism of Lord Herbert of Cherbury and away from Tindal. Isaacson argues that Franklin was not a pure deist, as many biographers also believe today (in comparison to Tindal's deism), but was actually a man who believed in the value of good deeds and prayer to influence god to change the course of humanity. If you disagree with Isaacson, please provide your reasoning, with references please. (Gaytan 16:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I will take you seriously for a moment, despite your comments on my talk page
- What makes you think Franklin would in any way conform to the deism that was prevalent in his day? Tindal's work appeared (in England) when Franklin was already 24 or so. Franklin apparently considered a form of polytheism plausible - so he was not just following the deism of others.
- Btw2 - I'm glad to see some evidence that you have followed your own advice to me & have read the deism article
- Btw3 - that Tindal's book was called the "bible of deism" does not indicate its contents became a matter of doctrine. Deists have not had a "Deist's Creed" that they must affirm or be banished. Deism isn't even a religion - more like a religious perspective. People keep wanting to put religion in the info-boxes - for some people, "Deist", though not a religion, is just the best label available
- don't forget Pope http://www.potw.org/archive/potw261.html
- prayer has been thought (by many) to be communion with God, even at http://www.onr.com/user/bejo/bibleprayer.htm
- I have to wonder how much of the article on Tindal - esp his attitude to prayer - is accurate, given the slant of the article - taken from the 1911 Britannica - http://www.onr.com/user/bejo/tindal.htm
  - I see now that you were the editor who added the paragraph about Matthew Tindal's views on prayer - do you have a source - and have you interpreted it any more NPOV than the other sources you have summarized? I note that the 1911 Britannica still has problems of its own
    - I think you ought to read some of this: http://www.dynamicdeism.org/library/christianity_as_old_as_the_creat.htm Note that it is a dialogue - and do a search for "gross". Arguments against miracles are NOT arguments against prayer --JimWae 07:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, in cosmic justice, rewards for good behaviour are part of Providence - not a change in plans, but part of the plan - because there is (thought to be) some kind of moral order, some "natural law", built-in to the plan.
--JimWae 06:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move discussion about deist prayer to your talk page under "Founding Fathers and deism". Gaytan 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Benjamin Franklin

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston, United States

The Ancestry portion of the article says that Franklin's family left England for "Boston, United States" in 1683. This is historically inaccurate, as the United States (which Ben may or may not have invented) did not exist at that time. Some authorized person should edit the (slightly complicated) cross references so that the text reads "Boston, Massachusetts" or something similar and correct.

While we're at it, Ben's article does not happen to mention his discovery of the gulf stream, either directly or with a reference to the Gulf Stream article. Likewise, the Gulf Stream article does not mention Franklin or anyone else as the discoverer.

Snezzy 03:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please include insurance as contribution

Benjamin Franklin was one of the early proponents of mutual insurance. In 1751, Franklin and his Union Fire Company met with other Philadelphia fire-fighting companies to discuss the formation of a fire insurance company. Out of those discussions, the Philadelphia Contributionship was formed, which was the first successful fire insurance company in the colonies. About seventy Philadelphians initially subscribed to the contributionship. In May 1752, the board of directors, of which Franklin was a member, decided to form an insurance company. Members agreed to make equal payments to the contributionship, which would be used to pay for losses any member would sustain through fire to his property.

Aliases

Hey - I am redirecting a bunch of Franklin's aliases to this article - I wrote them down after seeing the Franklin exhibit.

Some seem POV (I.e. Great Person - which I haven't created yet) - So we should list them :) WhisperToMe 08:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Armonica or Harmonica

I noticed in there are two disparate references to a Glass Harmonica and a Glass Armonica in the Ben F. Wikipedia entry. I checked the Franklin Institute web site and a couple others and it appears the Glass Harmonica reference is incorrect. I am new to providing input and am not sure how this gets changed. Can someone correct this? Thanks Dohn 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same word; it depends on how Italianate you want to be in spelling it. Leave it be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions

"He more than anyone invented the idea of an american nation..." Seems like an opinion to me. 71.29.121.219 02:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Site Freed from Copyright Restrictions

63.3.72.1 15:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC) People who might want to quote from my Franklin website, Ben and Verse (www.benandverse.com) can do that now at any length and for any purpose, commercial or educational, as long as they attribute the source.[reply]

I suggest that the following material be deleted after the editor has considered it. To me the editor is the “cock of the walk.” If you consider the link worthwhile, please include it. If not, please don’t. Even so, I hope that I have answered in part your very reasonable objections. I respect your aim as the same as mine: to bring Franklin in authentic way to more people, and I believe your objections deserve a response.

So as long as I’m “here” I thought I might address a few of the excellent points that the editor raised when I proposed my website as a link. 1. “Your website will not be listed until someone else believes it worthwhile.” That seems very reasonable. At this point, my website is listed in some of your links – most recently, I suppose, in Clutsy.

2. “To that end, are those quotations sourced?” I’m not sure whether this means “Do others quote you?” or “Do you cite your sources for quotations?” If either of these interpretations is correct, there are answers below.

3. You very reasonably add “those rhymes aren’t considerable due to Wikipedia “No original research,” unless someone is willing to put them into a major newspaper or published work.” Long before I even thought of a website, the Washington Post (in December 14,1996) published verses I submitted, which I later used on my website. (It’s been a long time since then so, not surprisingly, my Franklin verses have been published internationally in literary magazines.)

4. I have referred to the Wikipedia policy on original research and feel comfortable with it, though you point out that publication in a respected source is sufficient: I quote from “This page in a nutshell:” a. “Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.” Each of my verses is explicitly derivative, based on a specific saying from “Poor Richard’s Almanac.”

      		b. “Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis.” Each verse from “Poor Richard’s Almanac” is not only cited by year but also in virtually every case in its entirety. I do not presume to offer an analysis, scholarly or otherwise, of the Franklin’s verse. The source I use is reliable, based on the version by Leo Lemay, without whose encouragement my website would never have existed.

c. Content should not be synthesized to advance a position. My website advances no position regarding Franklin (as, say, Franklin as the classic entrepreneur or the principal founding father), nor is there an effort to convert the individual sayings into some doctrine. However, I consider this a legitimate caution. I raised my concern about the possibility of distorting the original with Dr. Lemay, who sensibly pointed out that the original was right there beside the update. This would seem a reasonable guarantee of neutrality.

5. On this last point especially, I feel certain that you (as a scholar for Wikipedia) can find many counter objections. And I respect your conscientious caution, but for me the main concern whether or not you feel the link would be worthwhile to a reasonable number of those who visit here.

Please excuse the length of my reply and, except for the copyright statement, I ask you to delete it. It can be of little interest to others.

If you've read to the end of all this, it's a sign that your patience has returned.

Thank you, John McCall Mccall63@aol.com

63.3.72.1 15:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC) to license your contributions under the GFDL.[reply]

Ben and Verse Links

I see that I referred to my website as being listed on "some" of your links. That strike me as being much too vague. I also mentioned "Clutsy" as a source. Well, I think I did see it on Clutsy, but on going back, I didn't see it prominently placed. Please just say it's on the Electric Franklin, where it is listed with reasonable prominence.

Please serve up some more patience.

Sorry also to hash up the format above. As you see, I am very low tech. I think I'm supposed to sign this as follows: 209.244.42.171 14:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue raised on conservative website

The following site says the following:

Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it and failing to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[4] an act that was debatably against the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgement of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

Any truth in this assertion? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to uncover any evidence of the truth of this assertion. Anybody have other references to this? If documented and supported, it should definately be added. --Darth Borehd 03:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

daylight savings time.

Did or did not b. franklin invent daylight savings time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.18.213.132 (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This site is great!!!

i've been using this website for my school research project on Benjamin Franklin and it has given me everything that I need to do my project with! thanks wikipedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.167.25.160 (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Remember - "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia best served verified." --Evb-wiki 06:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]