Talk:Miriam Benjamin

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2020 and 20 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alc123alc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox photo

@Blueclaw The Chrome infobox that pops up when you search for Marie Van Brittan Brown, Bessie Blount Griffin, and Miriam Benjamin all have the same photo. I don't suppose you've made any progress finding out who the photo is actually of? Amekyras (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

AAREG says this is her picture.[1] (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This is her picture, taken from the Boston Globe dated May 20, 1906, page 9: [2] Rhpitts1055(talk) 19:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy

Did anyone bother to read the patent? Qwirkle (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:WTRMT, based on this vague statement and the pending AfD discussion, as well as the addition of an independent and reliable source that appeared to adequately address the issue, I removed the accuracy tag from the article [3]. Qwirkle, you restored the accuracy tag with the edit summary [4] "As the talk page suggests, a simple comparison with the patent shows this article is inaccurate", but it is not clear to me what you are referring to. Can you please further explain the basis for the accuracy tag? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The patent, and the better sources show a simple mechanical system with a button on the right side of the char seat actuating, in turn, a bell (“gong”) and flag. What does the article claim? Qwirkle (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Qwirkle, the article states this, based on several sources, so will you agree to the removal of the tag? Beccaynr (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

One step forward, one step back, by the look of it. The signal system adopted is about as different as you could get. Qwirkle (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If you could clarify the basis for the accuracy tag, Qwirkle, now that the article has been updated with several sources, including the patent, that would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Bases, bases. Plural.

Why do we still have any inaccurate sources used? Any cite which implies the system was lighted -before small scale electric lighting even existed- is obviously a crap source. Any source which claims that this system communicated remotely (beyond visually and aurally , of course) is obviously a crap source. Any cite which claims this was -the- ancestor of more recent call systems is obviously wrong. Hotels and even grander rrivate homes were already using electrical or mechanical call systems at the time of her invention. Those are what aircraft call buttons are based on, mostly. Qwirkle (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Qwirkle, it is not clear what you are referring to without examples, so I would appreciate it if you would specify what you are concerned about in the article. The U.S. Census describes her invention as a precursor to what is used on airplanes - text like this in the article is based on analysis, synthesis, and commentary from WP:SECONDARY sources, so it appears okay to include. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The US census has no particular interest or expertise in this subject. The article doesn’t source itself at all, so there is no way to tell what level of expertise it is based on. For all we know, this could come from Wiki or worse. Qwirkle (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Apparently they do have interest and expertise, e.g. "Profile America is produced by the Public Information Office of the U.S. Census Bureau. These daily features are available as produced segments, ready to air, on a monthly CD or on the Internet at http://www.census.gov (look for "Multimedia Gallery" by the "Newsroom" button)" and they are clearly not sourcing their information to Wikipedia. Beccaynr (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I will let this speak for itself. Qwirkle (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Qwirkle, if you will not agree to remove the factual accuracy dispute tag from the top of the article, would you agree to requesting a third opinion about whether the tag is warranted given the current state of the article? The tag as placed applies to Articles for which much of the factual accuracy is actively disputed, and from my view, it does not appear to be supported after the extensive updates to the article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Qwirkle, I saw that you edited this Talk page after I posted the comment above [5] but did not respond to the question, so I have requested a Third opinion because from my view, the discussion is at a standstill. However, if you agree to remove the tag, please do so, and then remove the request for a third opinion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

While we wait for a third opinion, I have removed the template [6] based on what appears to be a consensus that has since developed in the AfD discussion about the sources and accuracy. Beccaynr (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. A contention that a problem is resolvable does not prove it is resolved. Qwirkle (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you would specify your concerns, particularly now that you have again restored the template [7]. Beccaynr (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Qwirkle, I have asked you to explain why you believe the accuracy tag should continue to be placed on this article after the concerns you explained were addressed. After several weeks, I removed the tag [8], with the edit summary "rm template per WP:WTRMT#1, issue adequately addressed, #7, discussion is dormant, #8, lack of discussion", and you then reverted it [9] with the edit summary "no". You are repeatedly disregarding my request for an explanation as to why you continue to add the tag back into this article, and instead of discussing the issue, simply continuing to restore the tag, even though per WP:WTRMT, this lack of discussion appears to be one of the reasons the tag can be removed. I therefore continue to request that you explain what basis you have for the accuracy tag, so Jack Frost can consider it if they are able to provide a 3O. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Simply putting words after someone else’s doesn’t always address them. The article’s subject invented a very narrow variant of waiter flagging systems, which had been around for at least about 10 years at that point…and which, unlike Miss Benjamin’s system, were actually used on some scale well into the 20th century. Somewhat later, after looking at, inter alia, Ms. Benjamin’s system, Congress adopted an annunciator system about as different from it as could be. Again, annunciators predate Miss Benjamin’s invention. The sourcing is often risibly wrong on parallel subjects to boot. Yeah, this article should be disputed. Qwirkle (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have anything besides WP:OR to dispute the accuracy of the article? And in any event, what does the assertion that annunciators predate Benjamin's invention have to do with the accuracy of anything claimed in this article? There is no assertion that she created the first of such systems, and the article states a "similar but more complicated system" was adopted in Congress, which is sourced to the History, Art & Archives website of the U.S. House of Representatives. Beccaynr (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Which says volumes about that source, yes. The two systems are about as different as could be, which just might explain the differences in rate of adoption. Qwirkle (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

That source also says, "Given the similar needs on the House Floor, it seemed a likely candidate. Benjamin was a schoolteacher in Washington, and she lobbied for adoption of her invention in the House. News reports often said that she was on the verge of having it installed in the Capitol." As noted in the patent you mentioned at the beginning of this discussion, the invention was also designed for legislatures, and contemporaneous news reports were also added to the article. Independent and reliable sources support a description of the invention as similar, even though a more complicated system was ultimately adopted, so your opinion appears to lack the verifiability needed to support the tag. Beccaynr (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: Hello, Qwirkle and Beccaynr. Firstly, my sincere apologies for the delay; I believed I had responded, then have been unfortunately caught up since the fact that I hadn't was brought to my attention.

In forming my opinion I have reviewed the article, the discussion on this talkpage, and the sources within the article (most particularly sources 9,10,11,12, & 14). I have made no previous edits on this subject and have no existing relationship with either editor involved in this discussion.

As I understand it, the dispute relates to whether the {{disputed}} tag should remain on the article. This tag appears to primarily relate to the alleged invention and subsequent patent for a device referred to as 'the Gong and Signal Chair for Hotels' by Miriam Benjamin.

The guideline on accuracy disputes states, in part, Articles for which much of the factual accuracy is actively disputed should have a {{Disputed}} warning place at the top.... This guideline defines factual inaccuracies as ...information that is verifiably wrong.

Whilst the sourcing could be stronger, there are secondary sources for each of the claims made in relation to this invention. That is, these claims are broadly verifiable. In contrast, there are not sources which appear to discuss the counterpoint to these claims (i.e. they are not 'verifiably wrong'), although various sources have been interpreted to form the conclusion that these claims are dubious. I am of the view that doing so strays into original research. This policy states original research ...includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

Given the above, and taking into account the guidance on when to remove maintenance templates, my opinion is that the {{disputed}} tag should be removed from the article.

I trust that this is helpful, and please do not hesitate to ping me with any queries. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Jack Frost, I appreciate your response. Per WP:ONUS, I will remove the tag. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

So, something sourced to something which vectors folklore as fact is acceptable? Perhaps we should get going on the Washington article, and tell the readers about cherry trees? Qwirkle (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Sluby 2004

With regard to the restoration of the Sluby, 2004 source and reference [10], this book is published by Praeger Publishing, which publishes scholarly and general interest books, e.g. Join the Praeger Publishing Partnership. Also, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible, it appears reliable sources can still be used for other information, just not as sources for details that better sources are able to clarify. Beccaynr (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. Banneker is central to the topic, and her coverage of him is both bad, and easily shown as such to even the laziest of wikiteurs, since there is an article about the mythology of Benjamin Banneker. Qwirkle (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about Miriam Benjamin, so per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, it is unclear to me how apparent errors that are unrelated to Benjamin are relevant in a source that otherwise appears to be reliable. If the unrelated coverage is so easily shown to be bad, then please feel free to explain, but I am currently uncertain how it relates to the page of information cited about Benjamin, which is mostly biographical information, with some commentary on the significance of her legal career. Beccaynr (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it is unclear to you why noticing that a source is demonstrably inaccurate about a core topic might suggest that maybe we shouldn’t use it, but that isn’t what WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is about.Indeed, it rather suggests other reasons to distrust this sort of source. Qwirkle (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The contention that coverage unrelated to Benjamin is inaccurate is not specifically supported, even though you indicated it is easy, so I am not able to assess your concern. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS asks us to focus on the topic at hand, so the purported inaccuracy on an unrelated topic does not appear to be a relevant consideration per the guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Don’t confuse “unable” with “unwilling”. It’s trivial to read the section on Banneker in Sluby and compare it with Mythology of Benjamin Banneker. Qwirkle (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Maggs cite.

“First, a work shouldn’t be cited in the body and in further reading, as this had been. Next, the section on Miss Benjamin’s invention is gross[ly inadequate]. (I appear to have run out of summary space.)

Is this book used elsewhere, and why was it added? Qwirkle (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)