Talk:George Washington Carver/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

untitled

george washington carver invented these uses for the peanut.

1. penut butter.

2. peanut oil.

3. peanut oil shampoo.

4. salted peanuts.

5. shreded peanuts.

6. pecan flour.

7. milks.

8. pomade.

9. peanut briddle.

10. good soil.

Issues with religion section

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

Validity of, and disagreements among, different sources of information on Carver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Wayne Smith's book Crop Production : Evolution, History, and Technology describes how the U.S. peanut industry developed before Carver got involved. Carver was not one of the major innovators in the peanut industry. Carver made a lot of headlines because he had such a sensational salespitch for peanuts and was a great story in himself as a former slave who was kidnapped and orphaned as an infant but became the first black student and faculty member at Iowa State, and while at Tuskegee became a nationally known celebrity, teacher, scientist, humanitarian, Christian, artist and friend to the rich and famous. [6] The "Reputed inventions" section of this article lists six major reasons why U.S. peanut production increased beginning about 1900, well before Carver became associated with the crop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

while other achievements, such as helping to revolutionize Southern agriculture, are proclaimed by some sources ( including for example the online Encyclopedia Britannica [7]) but disputed by others.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

betsythedevine 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

McMurry's statement on page viii of her preface:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite our disagreements here on the talk page, Plantguy, I really admire the changes you just made to the intro! [8] The detailed info about Carver's work that you added is much more valuable than a vague statement about "helping to revolutionize" something. And your adding this also gives the right balance to your added detail about the mythology. I'm really happy with this and I hope you are too. betsythedevine 04:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Horrible article.

Wow, what a load of quasi-racist garbage this page is. I've never seen an encyclopedia article devoted almost exclusively to smearing someone, and completely quoting an author who wrote smear books about the person. How about you focus on what someone did achieve, instead of making unsupported assertions, or very thin citations, about "myths" and implying he didn't achieve anything. Congrats guys. You've taken internet idiocy to a whole new level. 69.109.47.3 21:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)EGarrett

Better to step up and do the work, than to criticize the work of others. I removed a sarcastic comment here about being thankful that we don't have to eat jelly sandwiches. Which is funny sort of, but also kind of cool when you think about how popular peanuts and peanut butter are. Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile. Boeing didn't invent planes. (Wallamoose (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

A tiger? In Africa??

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

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

Really? Why not? I think there should be tiger in Africa if there aren't. I want proof. (Wallamoose (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

"Beyond the Peanut Man Legend" section needs to go

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

Amen brother. A lot of subtle racism about this wonderful and inspirational man. (Wallamoose (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Claims concerning Moses Carver

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

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

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

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

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

Wash was cool

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

   Well, I'm glad you finally remember, considering he's one of the most famous African-Americans ever!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.147.197 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC) 

Oh

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

chris ford

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

Something is wrong here. . .

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

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

Birthdate

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

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

Peanuts

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

industrail product straw man

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

Semi-protect?

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

You mean American Dad? That is what led to read this article - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.28.133 (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible External Link

Hello, There is an article on the Encyclopedia of Alabama that might be worthy of an external link from this text. Please visit http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1064 to view it. I used to work for the EOA, so I have an interest in promoting the project, something that is unethical on WIkipedia. Please review the link and decide whether it is relevant.

Thanks. 22star (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked it over and added it to the page. Thanks for going through the trouble of submitting it here first. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, this link seems to have gone away. Is there any way in can be reinstated? http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1064

Thanks,

Justin --Duboiju (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

University?

Right now the article says GWC went to Penn State in Highland, Kansas. I don't know where he went to school, but this couldn't be right. Monkey Bounce (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

George_Washington_Carver#Early_years

What academy? The sentence suggests it's in Fort Scott, but it would be nice to have a name. I changed it to read "the academy there", not knowing whether that was right or not. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

George_Washington_Carver#College

Penn State in Kansas? What is that? I want to believe it, but I don't, and I can't find any evidence that there is or was one there. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe he went to Penn State University in Highland, Kansas.Grayjax (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone vandalized that bit of info. It's Highland College in Highland, Kansas. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate?

The infobox says he was born in January, yet the "early years" says July. Clarification request. --Fiffy032 22:41, 04 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, his birthday is unknown. January and July are just two of the months, he stated as a possibility. TenThousandFistsFlyAtYourFace (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Inventor or Mere Clerk

Near the beginning the article states that he "created or disseminated" 100 products. Which was it? If he created them, he was a scientific genius. If he merely disseminated information about them, he was a low-level clerk working in a government office.

John Paul Parks (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't invent peanut butter

Why is this article protected? Regardless, in the article it says that he is credited with inventing peanut butter. If someone could put "erroneously" before the word credited and perhaps link to the actual inventor, Marcellus Gilmore Edson, it would be appreciated. Thanks--72.1.222.80 (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the claim. A web search offers various suppositions re: the inventor of peanut butter. JNW (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I just want to remind people to take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources to see the guidelines for citing quality sources. This is something that directly affects the quality of the information on Wikipedia, as well as its perception as a legitimate/quality encyclopedic reference. There's nothing wrong with talking about Carver's spirituality; he was obviously a very spiritual person. But let's try not to proselytize as that's not what an encyclopedic reference is there for. Likewise, Creationist websites probably aren't the best source of unbiased info. Lastly, instead of citing another wiki or a half-page high school research paper, it'd be much better to cite the primary/secondary (or even tertiary) sources listed on those pages. Otherwise, you risk turning this into a game of media telephone, like the "Al Gore says he invented the Internet" nonsense. (i.e. One journalist puts a political spin on a public figure's statements; another journalist uses that article as his source and exaggerates a little further; and on and on until the truth is completely unrecognizable from what's being printed.)
--Subversive Sound (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC) what race is he

I was rather surprised when I saw Carver's birthplace listed as,las vegas in a stripclub. It's a rather odd name for a town; I'm not even sure the word "calibrator" existed then. Cited was George Washington Carver: Scientist and Symbol by Linda McMurry; page 8 of that book in an Amazon preview says the town was known as Diamond Grove or Diamond. Disturbingly, that edit was made on November 5, 2008 (21:40, by the defunct Ericvolp12), and has stood ever since - Ericvolp12 made another edit saying Carver went to Penn State instead of Highland College, and that was taken care of, but not the birthplace. Is this some recent thing (I haven't edited in a while) where people try to make vandalism that will fly under the radar for as long as possible?

On a very minor note, the current text says that the town was known as Diamond Grove but is now Diamond; the source, by contrast, says it was known by both names in Carver's time. I'm not sure of the clearest way to get this across. -- Minivet (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction needed, book listed here, "Other Christian literary references include "Man’s Slave, God’s Scientist", by David R. Collins," needs to be changed to "Man's Slave becomes God's Scientist." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.133.110 (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The link to his article How to Grow the Peanut and 105 Ways of Preparing it for Human Consumption in footnote 3 no longer exists. It can be found in Google books at this link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycroft007 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone too scared to say-write that he was not gay, he had a wife?

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

• At Iowa State University they openly talk about his homosexuality from the day I started there and graduated from there.
• If you can find a reputable source for it. Hill of Beans (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't put that in my report :) i need help:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.141.59 (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that not only does it NOT mention his being gay (and he was) but the word "marriage" or "married" is found nowhere in the article. Carver never married. It remains to be seen. COME ON, PEOPLE. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, if specific info from a reliable source or sources, could be found to substantiate this, I'd have no problem whatsoever with it, no, not at all. However, just because a group of folk talk about something, doesn't make it so. In Carver's day, it was NOT acceptable for one to be openly gay, THAT would've been the end of him, AND his career, yes indeed. I'm thinking, yes I am, that folk who were very jelous of him might, just might, have spread vicious rumours about him being so. And, just because one isn't married, or never marries, also doesn't make them gay(happy)bad word.=] . I've never married (though I had a few offers in my day) and I'm no lesbian.

Bc1100 (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to add to this discussion, with multiple reference sources that assert Carver's homosexuality -but the site won't let me! Every attempt to save the changes results in a bizarre error message. With someone of Carver's generation it's unlikely we'll ever have "proof", but there is certainly enough published information out there to make the question worthy of inclusion here. So why is the topic verboten?Fshepinc (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you give some information about the error message?   Will Beback  talk  20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

it has the info about him being gay now, they changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juju111996 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If there is reputably sourced information about his sexual orientation that would be suitable to include in the article. Perhaps the server was having trouble when Fshepinc was trying to edit. Durova³⁰⁶ 19:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only person who notices that the big evidence of his supposedly being gay is that "Carver willed his assets to this man" [Austin W. Curtis, Jr..] "(consisting of royalties from an authorized biography by Rackham Holt) testifies to the importance of each other in their lives." and that supposed fact is contradicted in the next section of the article where it says, "Carver's life savings totaled $60,000, all of which he donated in his last years and at his death to the Carver Museum and to the George Washington Carver Foundation." the rest of it seems to be unsubstantiated rumor from later years rather than from either the person's biography or someone from the period.Tiggertx (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Peanut Butter

I'm suprized there's no mention of Carver's association or lack thereof to peanut butter. Apparently it is a widespread rumor that he invented peanut butter; Apparently a rumor not true? I came here to find out only to find it not even mentioned. Interesting. So is that a Wiki rule? No mentioning of things that are false rumors? Seeing as how it is so widespread it's even taught incorrectly in some schools, it seems it would be worthy of mention in the wiki article. BunnyStrider (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bunny,

I'm also surprised there's no mention of peanut butter here. That was taught to me in school, though I read later it is a myth. Reading the current text carefully, the writers are clever in mentioning he 'invented or dissemintated' products, but not mentioning any products specifically that he invented (any?). Reading between the lines, the writers seem to be trying to please those that believe the old narrative about Carver the inventor ala' Edison by avoiding mention of hype, fraud or lies, while also avoiding claiming he specifically invented any particular products, since apparently no good evidence exists to support this.

I hope the editors here can bring themselves to stop this PC dancing & mention the truth, which is that Carver has no known, good inventions with any evidence he developed them. How tough is that? The truth will set you free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.95.214 (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added a small paragraph about it. If they wouln't discuss on this talk page why it hasn't been included in the article, we shall not let their conspiracy continue any longer. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

--Don't you watch TV? American Dad episode "Black Mystery Month" [[9]] explains the whole story. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133æ̃t͡ʃččČçĉćĆÊ.43.115 (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how to edit, but the discussion of peanut butter says that it was invented by Aztecs, while both souces cited say Incas. Can someone fix please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.130.0.8 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

About his date of birth

On the July 12 page of Wickipedia, under the "Births" section, it lists George Washington Carver. However, at the top of the main article about him, it says:

George Washington Carver (January 1864[1][2] – January 5, 1943) Then, the second sentence in the first paragraph states:                                      

The day and year of his birth are unknown; he is believed to have been born before slavery was abolished in Missouri in January 1864.[1]

So, being like the proverbial curious feline, I did a search on him. Came upon an article on him at

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/carver.htm

In that article, it states that he was born on July 12, 1864 (the same info the July 12 birth section of the July 12 Wikipedia article has) in Diamond Grove, Missouri. I chose to go with what The Great Idea Finder says.

Bc1100 (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

father not german-american

Should the german-american reference to his foster father be removed since this is not proved with any reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC) so rest in peace Geaorge Washington Carver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahelaine (talk • contribs) 22:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy in the Dates Given for Dr. Carver’s Birth

Would someone knowledgeable as to the subject please correct the discrepancy in the dates given for Dr. Carver’s birth between the introduction and “The Early Years?” The introduction indicates he had been born in January of 1864 while under “The Early Years” it indicates he was born on or around July 12, 1865. I don’t know what his date of birth was, but I assume that that given in “The Early Years" must be a mistake as the article indicates he had been born into slavery and had even been kidnapped by slave raiders. If he had been born in July of 1865, then that could not have been the case.

Good point. I've rephrased the sentence to reflect the uncertainty of actual date of birth. JNW (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

External link leads to a 404 Error

The Carver Tribute link from Tuskegee University should be fixed. The new URL is http://tuskegee.edu/about_us/legacy_of_fame/george_w_carver.aspx The End of an Era (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead does not reflect content of article

The following paragraph from the Lead does not represent a summary of sourced content from the article: "In addition to his work on agricultural extension education to advocate sustainable agriculture and appreciation of plants and nature, Carver helped improve racial relations, mentored children, wrote poetry, and painted. He served as an example of the importance of hard work, a positive attitude, and a good education. His humility, humanitarianism, good nature, frugality, and rejection of economic materialism have been admired widely." It sounds like a quote but what is the source?Parkwells (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of article...

In the intro of the article, the last two paragraphs are:

::In addition to his work on agricultural extension education for purposes of advocacy of sustainable agriculture and appreciation of plants and nature, Carver's important accomplishments also included improvement of racial relations, mentoring children, poetry, painting, and religion. He served as an example of the importance of hard work, a positive attitude, and a good education. His humility, humanitarianism, good nature, frugality, and rejection of economic materialism also have been admired widely.

One of his most important roles was in undermining, through the fame of his achievements and many talents, the widespread stereotype of the time that the black race was intellectually inferior to the white race. In 1941, Time magazine dubbed him a "Black Leonardo", a reference to the Renaissance Italian polymath Leonardo da Vinci.[4] To commemorate his life and inventions, George Washington Carver Recognition Day is celebrated on January 5, the anniversary of Carver's death.

Bias? We shouldn't be praising him (or anyone) on Wikipedia, just stating the facts. It's not that bad, but some re-wording is needed here.

Also... It keeps saying he was an "inventor". What did he invent? It sounds to me like he was a brilliant researcher and scientist, but not an inventor (and that image was actually what's been invented, for things like "Black History Month" and "political correctness"). Under the "Reputed Inventions" section, it just lists some numbers of how many things he made (not actually invented). It does say he filed two or three patents, but so did lots of other people who we don't call "inventors". None of his products ultimately made it. It was his research which was important. It says he marketed a few products, and names some mixture of "creosote and peanuts" for respiratory disease? Erm... creosote is pretty nasty stuff, which you can read in the article about it. So my money is on the bet that this "medicine" didn't really work and isn't a notable "invention" either.

• • • • i disagree with you, he invented chemical process for synthesization, and while it may not be an engineering invention it is for chemistry****

It also seems there's no evidence anywhere that any of these things were actually original ideas or creations, rather than improvements or reproductions of other things? Just looking at all of this, it seems like the term "inventor" is a big, big stretch. Nothing of his ever made it. It also says he kept no notes/records and his products weren't made again. So all of those things (original or not) died with him and faded into obscurity without changing anything. It was just his knowledge, intellectual/social accomplishments and research which lived on.

So I say, he wasn't an "inventor". He was many things, and a person I can look up to. But not an inventor... :-\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.27 (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Have to check sources, but he had three patents, which may be why people called him an inventor, I guess, and they could think about inventing "uses" or "products" more than creating them? You've got me, but if that is what the RS - reliable sources say, that's what we use, whether or not individual editors agree with the assessment. I believe some of his crop products were original. Part of the problem is that rather simplistic sources have been used that are not appropriateParkwells (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC).

I love george washington carver cuz hes a brotha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.141.140 (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Misspelling on page

In "College" section, "In early 1888, Carver obtained a $300 loan at the Bank of Ness City or education" should be "In early 1888, Carver obtained a $300 loan at the Bank of Ness City for education" ("for" is missing the "f") Asst2drsalary (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

At Tuskegee

This section, with a listing of multiple resignations and cites, trivializes Carver's career and is OR in the letters between him and Booker T. Washington. If a historian has agreed these are significant, there might be a place for the references, but it seems undue weight to give so much space to this topic, since Carver taught at Tuskegee for 47 years. The resignation letters represent a small part of his career. What were his relations with other presidents of the college? and students? That's what we should be learning more about here - what did he do as Dept. Head? What classes did he institute, research programs? Parkwells (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Red link

{{Edit protected}} The red link in the article should point to George Washington Carver Peanut Discoveries. -- 202.124.73.85 (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done (for now - target is AfD'd right now Skier Dude (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ref. [3] link leads to "404 not found". Correct link is: http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/publications/guides/carver_peanut.html Jättenfinn (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 3 has a broken link...

"How to Grow the Peanut and 105 Ways of Preparing it for Human Consumption" should point to http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/publications/guides/carver_peanut.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irhiggs (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

GEORGE WASHINGTON CARVER DAY

Dear friends,

After some extensive research on the internet I was able to find that President Harry S. Truman signed the Joint Resolution on December 28, 1945, saying, "I do hereby call upon officials of the Government to have the flag at half staff on all government buildings on January 5, 1946, in commemoration of the achievements of George Washington Carver."

This can be verified by researching Proclamation 2677 of President Harry S. Truman.

My information was obtained from the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum website at the following link: Hope that helps!! Amadou Amcisse (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Agricultural School on Wheels

The following image seems relevant to this article: Movable School ~ Fopam (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

How can I insert images?

I took pictures of a commemorative coin I own and would like to upload them from my computer and add them to a Wiki article but I can't even do it here in talk. Carnation7 (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at:

• WP:Preparing images for upload
• WP:Uploading images
• WP:Picture tutorial

Those should give you a good starting point. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Update External Link?

I would like to update the external link to the National Historic Chemical Landmarks (NHCL) resource about this topic. I am the program coordinator of the NHCL program, and the page that is referenced has been replaced with http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/PublicWebSite/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/carver/index.htm. May I make this change to the two citations(under "External Links" section and Note 39, which is the same link)?

The NHCL site also offers a PDF version of a print resource that can be added to the "Print Publications" section. May I add a link to this resource? KLindblom (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

yes please update. Rjensen (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 March 2012

Please update the external link to the National Historic Chemical Landmarks (NHCL) resource about this topic. I am the program coordinator of the NHCL program, and the page that is referenced has been replaced with http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/PublicWebSite/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/carver/index.htm. Would a registered user please make this change to the two citations (under "External Links" section and Note 39, which is the same link)?

The NHCL site also offers a PDF version of a print resource that can be added to the "Print Publications" section. If advisable, please add the link to this resource at http://portal.acs.org/portal/PublicWebSite/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/carver/CNBP_028393.

Please see also the talk page discussion about this request. Thank you.

KLindblom (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2012

Note #3 has a link to http://plantanswers.tamu.edu/recipes/peanutrecipes.html, which is now broken.

The correct link to " "How to Grow the Peanut and 105 Ways of Preparing it for Human Consumption" is: http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/publications/guides/carver_peanut.html

Donschaffner (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done - Happysailor ^(Talk) 21:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on May 22, 2012

I suggest adding the follow reference to the Honors and Legacy section of the GWC page

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carver_Hall  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richlegge (talk • contribs) 20:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC) 

Gasoline and Nitroglycerin from Peanuts

How can gasoline be derived from peanuts? I wonder if the writer of that sentence (in the introduction) is thinking of the use of peanut oil as a fuel for Diesel's engine. Uranographer (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

At least in the United States, it is common to refer to Diesel as gasoline. --207.215.78.126 (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Gasoline is never confused with diesel fuel in the USA. That's just nonsense.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request on November 12, 2012

Broken Link in the "Print Publications" list at the end of the article, for "Barry Mackintosh, "George Washington Carver and the Peanut: New Light on a Much-loved Myth," American Heritage 28(5): 66–73, 1977."

The correct/updated link is: http://www.americanheritage.com/content/george-washington-carver-and-peanut

204.195.38.57 (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. – MrX 21:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Some other links need updating:

"George Washington Carver. "How to Grow the Peanut and 105 Ways of Preparing it for Human Consumption", Tuskegee Institute Experimental Station Bulletin 31" is http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/fruit-nut/carver-peanut/

"George Washington Carver. "How the Farmer Can Save His Sweet Potatoes and Ways of Preparing Them for the Table," Tuskegee Institute Experimental Station Bulletin 38, 1936" is http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/vegetable/carver-sweetpotatoes/

"George Washington Carver. "How to Grow the Tomato and 115 Ways to Prepare it for the Table" Tuskegee Institute Experimental Station Bulletin 36, 1936" is http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/vegetable/carver-tomato/

The End of an Era (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

B You are an autoconfirmed user and should be able to edit the article yourself. - MrX 16:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The article has a lock and won't let me edit it. The End of an Era (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Try logging out and then back in again, and let me know if you can see the edit tab at the top of the article. - MrX 23:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Done Vacation^nine 06:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is this article still protected?

It's been four years since the protection templates were added. Five of the links in 'Print Publications' are bad. They need to be checked and fixed. 24.98.1.233 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to racist vandalism, is my guess. But you need to point out specifics in the links here so that they can be fixed.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The links under 'Print Publications' numbered #1,2,4,5,6. And I'd move the Google books result ahead of the Questia result since Questia wants you to sign up to read the book, while Google does not. These links were (partially) identified by another poster in the above "Edit request on 12 November 2012" section, but no one has addressed them for three-and-a-half months now. If the page was not protected, then they would have been fixed last year. Yes there will be vandalism. The guy is a common subject of middle school history classes, so racist delinquents will vandalize the page, but throwing on protection templates is a lazy way to solve crowd vandalism that prevents crowd improvements. 24.98.1.233 (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected: "Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed." Vandalism, as far as I can tell, largely comes from unregistered users; creating an account would let you make these fixes. Seems like a good compromise to me. Wingman4l7 (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 May 2013

This text:

Personal life

Carver never married, but at age forty, he began a three-year courtship with Miss Sarah L. Hunt, an elementary school teacher and the sister-in-law of Tuskegee Institute Treasurer Warren Logan, which lasted until she took a teaching job in California.[32] Rumors of his homosexuality persist but are undocumented.[33] The letters that most seem to confirm the rumors were written to white teenage boys, and Carver would not risk a homosexual relationship in Black Belt Alabama.[34]

Should be removed.

After cross referencing resources this seems to be an incorrect and bias inferred statement that does not fit in the dialogue of this historical figure. His personal beliefs are not mentioned. Such personal beliefs that are evident in this quote:

" ' When Dr. Carver died the United States lost one of its finest Christian gentlemen. To the world he was known as a scientist. Those who knew him best, however, realize that his outstanding characteristic was a strong feeling of the eminence of God. Everything he was and did found origin in that strong and continous feeling.' - Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States"

taken from p.59  of  George Washington Carver : Innovator in Agriculture  by Lisa Halvorsen, ISBN:156711657 

As well as books by Melanie Zucker Stanley : ISBN 1587960036 p.15

Many references site that "religion was important to George" including this one:

George Washington Carver: an Innovative Life by Elizabeth Mcleod ISBN: 139781553379065 p.10

I can provide more references until an edit is very seriously considered or accomplished. Thank you for this valuable resource, Hoping to keep the integrity of information from blatant bias and mal-information. Keeping a copy of this request to share information and cross inquiry with others. Again thank you. aej99

Aej99 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: solely because the "Rumors of his homosexuality..." statements were directly copied and pasted from the source and are therefore a copyright infringement. I have no prejudice against this statement being re-added if an editor can use his/her own words. If you wish for the "Carver never married..." statements to be removed, you would need to establish consensus for such an edit first. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Became a Christian at 10 years old?

This claim is made in the article:

George Washington Carver became a Christian when he was ten years old.

The link several sentences later is broken (), and there is no apparent reference for this. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that he was raised in some religion other than Christianity or was raised in an athiest household. If the person originally making this claim meant that he was baptized at 10 or born-again at 10, that should be written. However, most people, including the vast majority of Christians, wouldn't consider either of these events as "becoming a Christian". Ufwuct (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2014

205.124.153.50 (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Cat feet is what he ate

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2014

Some of the information on this page is not accurate Murraymurraymurray (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What information? Materialscientist (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2014

George Washington Carver is a notable graduate of Iowa State University, with many statues and plaques commemorating his time at the university in addition to naming of Carver hall. Please add the following honor to the "Legacy and Honors" section:

• 1969, Iowa State University constructs Carver Hall in honor of Carver– a graduate of the university.

Mhelgie (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2014

The link to reference 47, "The Legacy of George Washington Carver", Iowa State University Library is broken. The current link should be: http://www.add.lib.iastate.edu/preserv/cdm/gwcbio.html

This same link also needs to be fixed in the section "External links -- Other" where Iowa State University, The Legacy of George Washington Carver appears.

Also, in that same section please add an entry for "Iowa State University, George Washington Carver Digital Collection" linked to: http://www.add.lib.iastate.edu/preserv/cdm/gwcarver.html

Under the section "External links -- Archival Collections" please add an entry for the "Finding Aid to the George Washington Carver Collection. Special Collections Department, Iowa State University Library, Ames, Iowa" linked to the finding aid at: http://www.add.lib.iastate.edu/spcl/arch/rgrp/21-7-2.html

2610:130:101:500:EC1F:F51E:48F6:FAAC (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Auric talk 15:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

George Washington Carver inventing peanut butter

This article should have an entire section on how George Washington Carver invented peanut butter It is a crucial part of his career and the article fails to mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.45.68 (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014

108.200.152.41 (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)g hmsj,hfjdskfjgkjalgkfjlaglyrwy7tflgywo1q 1 ydyfjkrgkkreluy42386423943243t

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2014

Under the "Print publications" section could you please add the following entry:

George Washington Carver. "Plants as Modified by Man." Bachelors thesis, Iowa State University, 1894.

Please link this entry using the following URL: http://cdm16001.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p15031coll7/id/287/rec/1 2610:130:101:500:C0F2:A111:D181:1E3F (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: Is this something that was published? Or just his thesis? Cannolis (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The thesis above was not published. Perhaps it would be better to place under the "Other" section heading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:130:101:500:3155:73CE:BA14:1FEB (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2015 need help with it

170.235.205.98 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Extant writings

I have been unable to find an online copy of Carver's Master's thesis, and neither could I find more than the titles of his bulletins from his time in Tuskegee. Are there copies of these still in existence? If so, where can they be found?CountMacula (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2015 (broken link)

The link to the George Washington Carver Correspondence Collection under Other is broken. Currently, it is:

George Washington Carver Correspondence Collection

It should be

George Washington Carver Correspondence Collection

(collection.php should be collection2.php) Sheepeeh (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Kharkiv07^Talk 14:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Austin Curtis (d) 2003, circumstances of Jan 1943 death, legacy,

The situation with Dr. Curtis was that Dr. Carver had selected him over other candidates to continue his research at Tuskegee when he died. Dr. Curtis had been a college teacher and his salary at Tuskegee was paid out of a grant. Before he died, Mr. Holt published a biography of Dr. Carver, and the royalties contract specified that 50% of the author's royalties would go to Mr./Mrs. Holt, 25% to Dr. Carver and 25% to Dr. Curtis. Dr. Curtis, being Dr. Carver's assistant since 1935 and being paid more than Dr. Carver by the Institute, kept this contract and it's terms a secret from the administration of Tuskegee Institute, who handled affairs for and supported Dr. Carver. Later Dr. Carver had a white attorney in town handle his business affairs, including companies promoting products from his research. When Dr. Carver died in January of 1943, the executor of his estate was Dr. Frederick Douglas Patterson, who was also the President of Tuskegee Institute at the time, and also the head of the Board of Trustees. He hit the ceiling when he saw this contract because he had no knowledge of it: Dr. Curtis had intentionally kept it secret. Dr. Curtis had already received $7,000.00 in royalties from the book (which at that time amounted to several years' salary for him) and was set to receive more, and if the book was made into a movie, his share of the movie rights would be a lot higher. Dr. Patterson felt that Dr. Curtis did absolutely nothing to merit or deserve this 25% of the royalties under the contract - there was no consideration given, he did not help write the book and he was on salary to be the assistant to Dr. Carver. Dr. Patterson admitted that perhalps Dr. Carver was aware and consented in his old age to the split in the royalties, but that for Dr. Curtis to accept it was against all the principles for which Dr. Carver had worked all his life and for using all income to fund the Carver Museum and Research Foundation. In hindsight it looks like Dr. Curtis was just taking advantage of a senior citizen. Author Ethel Edwards wrote that Dr. Carver was repulsed by Mrs. Margaret (Rackham) Holt, met with her once, didn't like her and refused to work with her on the biography and never met with her again because he felt she would not sensitively understand his mission. She was persistent since she had a book contract, and eventually bribed Dr. Curtis to get the detailed biographical information for her book from Dr. Carver, promising Dr. Curtis 25% of HER royalties. However, Dr. Curtis was already being paid a salary to assist Dr. Carver in any way, and the final contract had Dr. Curtis receiving 1/2 of Dr. Carver's royalties from this book. Dr. Patterson's action was swift and sure: Dr. Austin Curtis was immediately fired from Tuskegee Institute for unethical behavior. Dr. Curtis countered saying that he was offered to stay if he turned over the money or he could resign, but Dr. Patterson clarified the situation: Dr. Curtis was fired and there was no negotiation or possiblity of remediation and he could not work for the Carver Museum or Foundation. Dr. Curtis moved to Detroit and continued to manufacture Carver's peanut oil creations. Dr. Patterson gave him until April 1, 1944 to leave Tuskegee's campus. Dr. Curtis was married and his wife left Tuskegee with him. Dr. Frederick Patterson in later years went to on found the United Negro College Fund, work at the Phelps-Stokes Fund, and achieved many other notable accomplishments in higher education for his minority race.

  97.76.210.2 (talk)francois f etienne   — Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC) 

Need sources with page numbers to have included in the article.Parkwells (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Military collaborations

Dr. Carver was sent to Washington during both world wars to help the United States military with his scientific genius. In World War I, he worked with Military Intelligence to decode the German's invisible ink and did other work for them. In World War II, during the Atlantic shipping crisis, the U.S. Army brought him to Washington D.C. to create his bread flour from sweet potatoes to use for the troops, since supplies were difficult to obtain from regular sources in Europe during the war. His sweet potato flour bread was used by the U.S. military for a few weeks until they got their supply chain opened up. Also, many counties around the world sent representatives to Tuskegee to study with Carver concerning his forestry methods. He was offered jobs in Russia repeatedly, in fact Russia wanted 50 Americans to come over there to help with their forests, but he recommended someone else for that job. Several African nations especially tapped his scientific knowledge for use in their countries. In all this, Dr. Carver refused to accept any pay, saying he was already paid by Tuskegee Institute. When he made speaking engagements on network radio, his fee was donated to his research foundation. ~~Jean-Pierre St. John... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.210.2 (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Need cites to reliable sources; perhaps the most recent biography would be useful.Parkwells (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on George Washington Carver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120723220545/http://www.pbs1914.org/notable_sigmas/education_science/P21/ to http://www.pbs1914.org/notable_sigmas/education_science/P21/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130622151149/http://www.lib.iastate.edu:80/spcl/gwc/friends/friends8.html to http://www.lib.iastate.edu/spcl/gwc/friends/friends8.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150204142735/http://www.nps.gov/archive/gwca/expanded/quotes_2.htm to http://www.nps.gov/archive/gwca/expanded/quotes_2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2015

Please edit the following line: "When he was seventy, Carver established a friendship and research partnership with the scientist Austin W. Curtis, Jr. This young white man, a graduate of Cornell University, had some teaching experience before coming to Tuskegee."

Austin W. Curtis was not a young white man. He was a young black man.

Please refer to the following link for source.

http://www.sevensteeples.com/curtis2.html

We'd like the text to be accurate to say "This young black man, a graduate of Cornell University, had some teaching experience before coming to Tuskegee."

I am not a registered user of Wikipedia so I cannot make the edit on my own but would appreciate your prompt attention to this request. Thank you very much in advance!!

Pparker1 (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Pparker1:  Done NottNott talk|contrib 20:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Biographer Christina Vela is a Slanderer!

I would call on all researchers, historians, and all defenders of TRUTH to rise to debunk the slanderous assertions by the so-called biographer Christina Vela (of what "nationality"?) slander that George Washington Carver was a "probable" Bi-Sexual! Washignton was nothing of the sort, and would take most uncharacteristically hostility and anger to this sullying of his personality! As publicly testified by the recently passed centenarian, Civil Rights leader, and American heroine, Amelia Boynton Robinson (and can therefore can be easily corroborated,) that the esteemed Mr. Carver was a EUNUCH, which completely explains his austere life, and life-long bachelorhood! The poor soul was castrated, mostly likely by his captor, Moses Carver himself! This unspeakable vicious act was put upon this young innocent child (and probably his brother, as well,) at age six, or seven, to prevent the child (prepubescent)from dallying with Moses Carver young daughters, when the he was put to care for them (for what? As this duty was exclusively reserved for the stereotypical "Mammy",)! I challenge any pompous "wants-to-be" intellectual on this! The unspeakable, satanic brutality of the "peculiar institution" of the slave "system" of bondage and captivity of human beings for profit and debauchery exploits the memory, and monumental achievements of Dr. Carver for deplorable social-engineering of by the homo-sexual lobby. A separate biography "page" should be made on this slanderer, Christina Vela. Also, Dr. Carver was an avowed Christian, of the most pure and authentic faith and definition, and could not possibly even given thought , much less condone such debauchery!!! --184.207.8.137 (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Veryverser

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2016

George Washington Carver was born in the year 1865, not 1860. 98.102.69.114 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Logan

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Potential timeline problems regarding 1911.

I'm a nobody, and I do not want to put in the very hard work to be a somebody by picking apart research to make Wikipedia better. But, I am either misreading or there are overlapping events attributed to 1911 that don't make sense. This article states that Booker T. Washington's biography published in 1911, which I did confirm through multiple book listings, praises Carver. While a few paragraphs prior Washington was "reprimanding" Carver for lacking ability in certain assigned tasks.

I have no clue what the correct dates are for the mentioned events, but 1911 just does not make sense.

Thanks so much to all of you who dedicate so much of your personal time so that people like me can learn about amazing people like George Washington Carver.

JJ JJDivan (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016

In this article, there seems to be a formatting issue in the paragraph just above the section titled "Relationships". I believe it has to do with a US dollar amount that is being referenced.

Thank you. 137.53.241.1 (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing this out. Sunmist (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC); edited 22:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on George Washington Carver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316221924/http://files.usgwarchives.org/la/winn/bios/edenborn.txt to http://files.usgwarchives.org/la/winn/bios/edenborn.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150311144211/http://parks.lacounty.gov:80/wps/portal/dpr/Parks/George_Washington_Carver_Park to http://parks.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/dpr/Parks/George_Washington_Carver_Park
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727170350/http://peanut-butter.org/peanut-butter/History+of+Peanut+Butter to http://peanut-butter.org/peanut-butter/History+of+Peanut+Butter

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2017

I wanted to add a George Washington Carver School to the list. This one is in Newark NJ http://www.nps.k12.nj.us/car/ Fbradshaw (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on George Washington Carver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212103355/http://skyways.lib.ks.us/counties/NS/gwcarver.html to http://skyways.lib.ks.us/counties/NS/gwcarver.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://parks.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/dpr/Parks/George_Washington_Carver_Park
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120607210643/http://www.thecarveracademy.org/page.cfm?p=10 to http://www.thecarveracademy.org/page.cfm?p=10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830120300/http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/story.asp?S=1107189&nav=menu200_2 to http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/story.asp?S=1107189&nav=menu200_2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228085906/http://www.tuskegee.edu/global/story.asp?s=1107203&ClientType=Print to http://www.tuskegee.edu/global/story.asp?s=1107203&ClientType=Print

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Taxon authority?

I see that as per IPNI, he has a standard botanical author abbreviation. But I haven't been able to find any taxa he named. Does anyone know if he was the authority for any nomenclatural or taxonomic acts? I presume he was since IPNI goes through the trouble of listing him. Any ideas? Umimmak (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Eddie Murphy on George w. Carver

The article should mention the Saturday Night Live "Black History Minute" skit featuring Eddie Murphy as Shabazz K. Morton dealing with George Washington Carver.

Dr. Carver's death circumstances - outline for further research

In the fall of 1941, Dr. Carver, through his Foundation, finally opened his Museum. He knew his health was deteriorating. In late 1942 he went to Dearborn, Michigan to again hobnob with Henry Ford, who adapted a lot of his research to car manufacturing and prototypes, some of which were built but not put into full production due to the beginning of WW II and war production requiements. There are films of the cars built by Henry Ford using soybean-derived plastic which were dent-proof when hit with an axe, which he did on the film. Henry Ford had a large summer estate in Georgia and it had bedrooms and laboratory for Dr. Carver and Dr. Curtis to use whenever they visited.

When Dr. Carver arrived back in Tuskegee, he was physically drained but continued trying to finish all the details of his museum, to which he had relocated all of his laboratory equipment in anticipation of a larger, modern laboatory being added to the Museum building. He was living in the dorm room at Dorothy Hall which had the elevator paid for by Henry Ford, since it was known he had trouble with steps and had even used a wheelchair for a while. He had been in the hospital for a long time in 1937, weak with anemia and heart disease.

On December 19, 1942, in the dark hours of the early winter morning, he was walking to the Museum by himself, and when he stepped off the side porch of Dorothy Hall, he slipped on some ice and fell to the ground. The maid, Mrs. McAlister, heard his cry and immediately ran out to him. Two passing male college students also came and helped Dr. Carver up intending to take him back to his room in Dorothy Hall. He refused to go and told them to take him to his Museum because he had work to do. He leaned on them all the way, and when he got there told them he was fine. He stayed at the museum, went in his laboratory, later went to his office and dictated some letters to his secretary, handled some business with a lab assistant, and at noon returned to his room in Dorothy Hall, which had the elevator. He got in bed. All the newspapers of Jan 1943 state Dr. Carver was in his bed the last 10 days of his life and died in his bed at home. However, this is not correct. His secretary, in a documented interview, stated that two days before he died he had walked over to his office to work for a few hours.

At this point in his life, Dr. Carver never went to hospitals -- if a health crisis existed, as it did one time, the college cooking professor who prepared his meals, would call a doctor at the VA hospital to come to his room for a home visit. [There was a hospital for Macon County blacks named John A. Andrews Memorial Hospital in Tuskegee.] From his bed, one letter was written from him to C.R. Walryn on December 16, 1942; and another letter to Betsy Graves Reyneau (an artist) on December 19, 1942. His secretary, Jessie Abbott, wrote a letter to H.O. Abbott, (who had moved to Chicago in 1937), on January 2, 1943, concerning Dr. Carver's condition. Mr. Abbott was another teacher (related to Mrs. Jessie Abbott) at Tuskegee and was Dr. Carver's traveling companion on his many trips and lectures the last ten years. Three days later Dr. Carver was served dinner, didn't eat any of it, just drank some milk, and said he waned to take a nap, and passed away peacefully in his bed at Dorothy Hall at 6:00 P.M., based on the fact that Dr. Curtis called Dr. Carver's secretary on the telephone around 6:00 P.M. and told her Dr. Carver had passed.

Dr. Carver had a spectacular funeral at Tuskegee Institute in the Chapel that Friday, January 8, 1943, at 2:30 PM, with a long funeral procession. Many photographs were taken of this (and some are available at the Ford Museum) and of all the VIP's who attended from all over the countryItalic text. There are probably newsreels also. This was during war time after Pearl Harbor and in the segregated South, so it is understandable that media coverage was sparse or not widely distributed due to racial discrmination since Dr. Carver was classified as a "negro".

Dr. Carver had a complex system for treating polio with peanut oil or other oils. He did not just massage a patient with peanut oil. The polio patient had to be at a certain point in the disease as verified by a letter from their doctor. Dr. Carver analyzed their skin and prepared an unique oil for the individual patient. He then determined which muscles were atrophied and had a method for using the oil, which he believed was also topically absorbed, into those muscles by massaging, with full knowledge of circulatory problems and other health issues of the patient. From research with cosmetics, he found out peanut oil would expand skin. This is what produced such great results. (Dr. Carver's first professional job was teaching college-level biology at Iowa State College.) In 1933 the Associated Press did a news story about Tuskegee Institute, Alabama looking like Lourdes, France, because so many paralyzed pilgrims were coming there in droves and being healed by Dr. Carver. At that time he lived in Roosevelt Hall and in the evenings and weekends a line of cars would be stretched for blocks waiting to consult with him for healing. Being a scientist he kept records of the 250 people he directly treated and all were benefited by his treatments and directions for care given to his family/care givers. Dr. Carver also received thousands of letters from people and companies and governments all over the world requesting help, not just for health problems, but also for agricultural and others types of situations.

Dr. Carver also treated President F.D. Roosevelt for his polio condition, but not in person. On two documented occasions he sent the President oil with instructions and President Roosevelt acknowledged this in a letter sent back to Dr. Carver. Dr. Carver also knew Henry A. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture, and the Wallace Family, taught the son at Iowa State, so he had some respect at and access to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 97.76.210.2 (talk)Francois F. Etienne <Sources>, AP archives, GWC Papers/microfilm, published biographies, on-site interviews, other newspaper archives. Interview with Mrs. Jessie Abbott funded by Rockefeller Foundation for Oral History Project of Afro-American Women. Book: "Dr. George Washington Carver - Scientist" by Shirley Graham and George D. Lipscomb, Illustrated by Elton C. Fox, (c) 1944 Simon & Schuster.