Talk:George Washington Carver/Archive 1

Weakened constitution?
+

Untitled
In the "Early years" section, what exactly does the reference to "weakened constitition" help us with? Is that one in the medical textbooks, still? Maybe on the page next to Phrenology, which is probably how the condition "weakened constitution" was diagnosed. This reference is plain stupid, and unless anyone can come up with actual references to actual medical conditions, it should be taken out. Which I'm doing right now. A permanently weakened constitution.

PLEASE REMOVE THE NEW YORK YANKEES VANDALISM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.66.47 (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

missing sections
Not sure why but most of this article is not appearing. The article appears to finish at the end of the "Rise to f                          ame" section. However viewing the article though "edit this page" reveals that there is a lot more that is mow missing including further images and text. As this is a protected page I can not edit it to restore the missing sections. Can this be put right please 16:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC) He is a great man

'''How common are Americans who get their name like this: the last name is the same as the rest of the family, but the first and middle names come from someone who is not related to the family?? - Nicole Lambardi  age 12


 * Naming patterns go through trends and fashions, and it's not particularly common now - for two names, anyway, there are more "Britney's" than you'd expect from chance alone.... But there were times in the past when it was very common to name a child after an unrelated person whom one admired, and president's names ("George Washington", "Thomas Jefferson") and other "patriotic" notables ("Benjamin Franklin") were not at all uncommon choices. - Nunh-huh 02:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * See Winfield Scott and Winfield Scott Hancock for another interesting example. One of my own ancestors was also named after Winfield Scott, a popular war hero in the 19th Century. H2O 19:34, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In 1974 the Carver Museum at Tuskegee Institute, which Carver had helped develop, credited him with 287 peanut products. One hundred twenty-three were foods and beverages, sixty-eight were paints or dyes, the rest were cosmetics, stock foods, medicinal preparations, and miscellaneous items. Many items were duplicated under different names: listed as separate entries, for example, were bar candy, chocolate-coated peanuts, and peanut chocolate fudge; all-purpose cream, face cream, face lotion, and hand cream; thirty dyes for cloth, nineteen dyes for leather, and seventeen wood stains. Many of the products were not original in any case. Bar Candy using peanuts and chocolate-coated peanuts were already being ate in restaurants in New Orleans as early as the late 1880s to early 1890s. Even salted peanuts were an entry. One particular entry, the "face bleach and tan remover," is still unknown because Carver did not present forumlas for most of his products. Many consider this particular invention to be bogus, including it with the previously mentioned face creams. He did come up with a lot of uses for the peanut, but many were duplicated, sometimes already discovered, or bogus alltogether. No one knows why he included the duplicated inventions. Some claim that he wanted to run the number of his inventions up while others attribute it to old age since he did catalogue his inventions for the museum when he was quite old. The latter is probably closer to the truth.

i haven't been active in the wikipedia for a long time, but... wtf. this nonsense about carving peanuts and relationships with his assistant has been sitting unchanged a month? Wmorgan
 * I made a small edit to the article after the "sculpture" nonsense appeared and am embarrassed that I didn't catch it. I have to admit, it was funny, though. H2O 23:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Carver was gay and had an assistant named Austin Curtis, Jr., who was a former teacher. He helped him with many of his projects, and the two briefly dated as well.

Is this serious? It was added by a logged-in contributor, but similar previous additions were anonymous and were reverted as vandalism. -Montr&eacute;alais 08:17, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No one knows if Carver was gay. Why does it even matter? People are too obsessed about stuff like that these days.

We disagree with the comment about a relationship between Carver and Curtis. According to Marilyn Nelson the professor wrote to Curtis' father that Austin seemed to him more like a son than an assistant. Curtis had become baby Carver, and his children had aquired a third grandpa.

We agree with your disagree that Carver and Curtis were like father and son. Curtis was like the heir to Carver's plant world. I do however feel that he may of had a relationship with Jim Hardwick. His shock about the marriage shows he had more than a mentor relationship.

I think this article should be more detailed. I have just added several details. WikiPedia should be more focused towards what an actual encyclopedia would. Heck, this site has more information on the Simpsons, a cartoon show, than George Washington Carver, a genius that invented dozens of things commonly used today. --MAX Allen

GW Carter invented dozens of things we use today?
Name one.

Most of his "discoveries" were either not novel or were of mere curiousity value.

Please name one discovery of his that impacts us in any way, shape or form.

Adhesives Axle Grease Bleach Buttermilk Cheese (synthetic) Chili Sauce Cream Creosote Dyes Flour Fuel Briquettes Ink Instant Coffee Insulating Board Linoleum Mayonnaise Meal Meat Tenderizer Metal Polish Milk Flakes Mucilage Paper Rubbing Oils Salve Soil Conditioner Shampoowait a minute mofu Shoe Polish Shaving Cream Sugar Synthetic Marble Synthetic Rubber Talcum Powder Vanishing Cream Wood Stains Wood Filler Worcestershire Sauce
 * I think you'll agree that at least a few of these things he developed/improved have lasting use:


 * Source: Hattie Carwell. Blacks in Science: Astrophysicist to Zoologist. Hicksville, N.Y.: Exposition Press), 1977. p. 18.

And he was given 3 patents for developing cosmetics, paints and stains from soybean.
 * U.S. 1,522,176 Cosmetics and Producing the Same. January 6, 1925. George W. Carver. Tuskegee, Alabama.
 * U.S. 1,541,478 Paint and Stain and Producing the Same June 9, 1925. George W. Carver. Tuskegee, Alabama.
 * U.S. 1,632,365 Producing Paints and Stains. June 14, 1927. George W. Carver. Tuskegee, Alabama.

--nixie 01:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree.

Most of the items and uses he supposedly developed were either not original, were poorly described (he left no formulas behind for many of his "creations"), or of no more than novelty application.

That he only had three patents out of his reams of asserted "inventions" demonstrates that he originated very little. Peanuts were important in cosmetics long before Carver came along.

I must point out that you have failed to point to a single Carver discovery still in use today. That he, for example, may have worked on a lubricant does not mean he invented a lubricant that was important in any way. I could create a lubricant from Frankenberry cereal, but that does not mean my product is useful or economical.

A scholarly article penned by a National Park Service historian, Barry Mackintosh, reveals that Carver was more of a self-promoter than a pioneer: http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=256246&messageid=1088896552&lp=1088896552

He was largely a failure as an educator, and not much of a scientist. He claimed that "Mr. Creator" was his muse in the lab, revealing uses for the peanut to Carver.



That he only had three patents out of his reams of asserted "inventions" demonstrates that he originated very little. - I have read statements by Carver that he did not believe in the exclusionary nature of patents. Therefore, it would be incorrect to assume that his disinterest in obtaining patents somehow demonstrates a failure to qualify for them.

Furthermore, you say:

I must point out that you have failed to point to a single Carver discovery still in use today''. That he, for example, may have worked on a lubricant does not mean he invented a lubricant that was important in any way. ''

That statement is slightly ridiculous. Many inventions have a lifespan, but that does not necessarily discount from their value at the time they were invented. Take your lubricant example. A peanut-based lubricant may be environmentally safe, though it may not be "economical" today (or have been in Carver's lifetime) in light of envornmentally hazardous lubricants in widespread use. Is a once-groundbreaking microchip that is no longer in widespread use not pinoneering simply because it has been improved upon and supplanted by newer versions?

The Mackintosh article makes numerous misleading assertions (and assumptions), and I felt many aspects of that article are not valid. Most inventors of years past were "self-promoters" (e.g., Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison). Indeed, many pioneering inventions are never widely adopted due to political, marketing and other reasons that have nothing to do with the utility of the invention.


 * The fact remains that none of Carver's "inventions" (if he in fact had any) was ever adopted on any detectable scale. Certainly, none of his inventions can be considered "pioneering" if it neither stood on its own or was the genesis of some important development.  The lifecycle of Carver's putative inventions was stillborn. BulldogPete
 * Have you no respect!?Certainly,Edisons inventions are more important,but G.W.C.'s are important,too! 70.165.71.229 01:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)→

Carver did nothing to introduce crop rotation
This is simply laughably false, and suggests Carver was somehow a pioneer in crop rotation.

This article is typical of the leftest slant to wikipedia. GW Carver can honestly be described as 95% showman and publicist/5% amateur scientist.


 * If you can find some sources which disprove Carver's research into crop rotation then please present them. A simple Google search on Carver and crop rotation brings up plenty of sources that say otherwise. Also, please sign your talk page comments (by adding four tildes (~) at the end) and, if you going to be editing much, a username is a big help. -Willmcw 03:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * In all fairness to the anon, he did not develop crop rotation, but he taught the technique in the Southern United States, this article did make some overzealous statements about Carvers acheievments, which I have been adjusting with research--nixie 03:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Carver did absolutely nothing to introduce crop rotation:

Carver sought to extend the station's influence with the bulletins, leaflets, and circulars appearing under his name from 1898 to his death. "But few technical terms will be used," he promised in his first bulletin, and all but one of the forty he issued offered elementary information on farming and related rural concerns to the uneducated farmer.[29] The bulletins and other farming publications contained little of substance that had not already been printed in bulletins of the Agriculture Department or other experiment stations, and Carver's themes were not new even at Tuskegee. Much of what he would preach was summarized in a leaflet published by the institute before his arrival: "Do not plant too much cotton, but more corn, peas, sugar-cane, sweet-potatoes etc., raise hogs, cows, chickens, etc." 

-- Sixpackshakur

If you take the time to read the article you'll see that the overstament of Carvers achievments has been removed--nixie 23:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I read the article but was responding to Willmcw, as is my privilege. Sixpackshakur 02:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Carver was one of the most influential men alive.
You ppl dont know what u are talking about. 1st of all Carver was not gay.

2nd he was a genius and none (maybe 1 or 2) of his inventions or discoveries were accidents.

3rd Carver was a highly spiritual person (probably the reason why he didnt marry).

4th Carver has done as many good deeds as any of you could do in 100 of your puny lives.

5th Even though he was ill treated by the whites he did not hate them showing that he was a highly humanitarian person and believed that God did not put him on the Earth to hate.

6th It would be a greater gift than any of you can imagine to be him. - unsigned comments by User:Wikiuser9000

Please, people, don't post silly nonsense like this. This is in no way scholarly information, just ranting by someone. This isn't a serious contribution, just drivel.


 * Thanks for working on the biography of this great person. However I notice that you're also deleting info for no apparent reason. Please try to keep as much of the existing information as you can, and then give an explanation when you do delete something. Also, please don't put each sentence on its own line, just make them into paragraphs. Thanks. -Willmcw 19:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And there's no need to insult your co-editors (unless, in fact, God put you on Earth to hate us). --Dystopos 04:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Different Person: Why do you think an accident made Gw.C famous66.41.126.203 02:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism
In accordance with the instructions in Copyright_problems, I reverted edits from May 31, 2005 (here) that did not represent the (unsigned) contributor's own work. Obviously, there was information about Dr. Carver that perhaps should be included in this article, but since the material appears in full at its source it is still easily available (not to mention through other sources). Josquin 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Block quote Homosexuality is not normal and whatever moron posted this section must be a fag himself and all this crap about Goerge Washington Carver being gay is so not true and you have no evidence to back it up so there is three possibilities 1.you're an idiot2.you're an idiot and3.you're an idiot if you would like to email me it's rysizzle05@yahoo.com I was recently reading about this man on NNDB.com and came across a reference claiming he was gay. Does anyone have further information on this subject? It would make an interesting side-note.
 * I have heard of the possibility that he was gay, but every time someone tries to add it to this article, there is all sort of name-calling and finger pointing. My opinion is...if you can list verifiable sources and are willing to take the heat, then go for it. If it is just a rumor or supposition - look out, it probably won't be taken wery well.--Master Scott Hall 16:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This man is listed as asexual in the asexual article Monkeyduck 01:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Carver was gay all his life. He always had assigned to him male student interns and lab assistants and they always dreaded the assignment because he would force himself on them and they would not come forward publicly and accuse him because of his public reputation. It was common knowledge to the students and faculty of Tuskegee Institute in the 1940's, but due to the brutal and severe nature of racial and economic discrimination in the South, it was not deemed advisable to discredit any Afro-American leader in any way, as he would receive no justice due to the dual standard of justice in this country that still exists and the activities of radical racial-based secret societies that still operate. Public lynchings of black men still occurred in the Tuskegee Institute area up into the 1960's and Montgomery was the first capital of the Confederate States of America. Tuskegee Institute was an all black college-oasis in the middle of an extremely segregated, violent, agriculturally based White society that still resented losing free slave labor for it's plantations. Revenge and racism were rampant. While President Abraham Lincoln was rumored to sleep with his male military bodygard in the White House when his wife was away, and centers of northern culture allowed homosexuality among actors, florists, painters, and other creative workers, the American South was still a closed society in the 20th Century except in larger urban areas with populations exceeding 100,000.


 * Interesting, and I caught the NNDB profile as well. However, without links that contain verifiable proof, it can't be added. --AWF

Vandalism
I think this page gets my vote for one of Wiki's most vandalized pages. Though I do have a question, is all of this vandalism from multiple users or one specific user? I'd think given the fact that most of the edits are in the form of 'he is gay' etc that it is from one user. Juuust curious. --ImmortalGoddezz 17:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have noticed the same and agree. Vandalism is unacceptable. People have pointed out that he may have been gay, but the only way that it is admissible in this article is if it is verifiable. Since Carver is dead, as is anyone (male or female) whom he would have had an intimate relationship, and by all accounts, he never "came out", I don't see how his sexual preference could ever be verified. At most, it could be included in a "Controversy" section at the bottom of the article, but only if someone could cite a verifiable source. This particular user has a history of vandalism, but the IP used belongs to a public school. Since I don't think it would be wise to block such an IP, perhaps it would be prudent to request page protection. Since this user vandalizes regularly on many different articles, I think that the only way to be successful in a protection request is to show a vandalism pattern on this article by numerous other users. See Semi-protection policy --Master Scott Hall 18:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This was just featured on TV, it will probably be vandalized.

Minor edit
I just put in Information about Carver's work on Soy products while he was with Henry Ford.Angrynight 05:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

grammar stuff
does it bother anyone that the meat of this article begins with "over the next few years" ?


 * If it bothers you go ahead and fix it. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Major Addition to Carver Inventions/Improvements section
I expanded the section on Carver Inventions using authoritative sources, which were footnoted, to correct widespread misconceptions. I also added two 2006 online articles to the External Links section.

Does anyone object to removing the term "Improvements" from the Inventions section? I have never seen that term applied to Carver products before. It seems inappropriate because Carver and his biographers never cast his purported inventions in that way. Without formulas for virtually all of Carver's inventions, one could not be sure they were improvements anyway. Plantguy 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Did he visit the USSR?
I have heard that he did. I think I read it in a "left-wing" book on African American history, maybe Before the Mayflower. That might be interesting to include in the article.Steve Dufour 19:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read that he was consulted long-distance on agricultural methods by the Soviet Union, but it seems very unlikely that he actually went there.

Even the claim that he was contacted by the Soviet Union should be checked carefully. Greg Kuperberg 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Named after the first President
Isn't it obvious that he was named after George Washington, the first President of the United States?67.188.172.165 04:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to non-American readers Philvarner 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * He was called George Carver originally. He only added Washington to distinguish himself from another student named George Carver. Plantguy 18:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Categorization
I am removing Carver from the 'Development specialists' category. This category covers individuals who play a role in international development. Carver did a lot of great things, but he only worked in the USA. APB-CMX 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Troubles + Disputed sect's
I hate wiki articles that do this: isolated criticisms sections that overwhelm the text and throw-off due weight. This page makes for a truly bizarre read: something of a panegyric to start and then two sections which seem designed for the sole purpose of denigrating the man. They are sourced, but they should be reduced. Marskell 08:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the section on Carver's reputed inventions is more correct than the rest of the article. I have seen no evidence that Carver ever had a single serious invention.  All of his inventions as far as I have seen are either simple announcements or kitchen recipes.  He did eventually have three patents, which may have been his most serious try, but even these were not commercially successful.  If you trace the references back, they always go back either to nothing, or they go back to kitchen recipes.  Read "How to Grow the Peanut and 105 Ways of Preparing it for Human Consumption", Carver's own words, if you don't believe me.


 * Unfortunately, there is an ocean of thin claims that Carver invented hundreds of uses for the peanut and other plants. Most Americans are convinced that it is true.  They are convinced at school, and they are convinced by repetition.  The sources that say so feed on each other.  It's just something that people want to say and believe.  Someone recently edited the Wikipedia page and added back these unsubstantiated praises, without even checking the rest of the same page.


 * But I agree with you that the two critical sections could be better written, especially the section on "troubles" at Tuskegee. That section also makes some truthful points that contradict the rest of the same article.  For example, the article says that Carver did not believe in personal gain, but he did.  Not only did he file patents, he started a company (or more than one) and tried to sell some of his products.


 * The best thing would be to reconcile the different parts of the article to make it consistent and polite. However, just removing the criticism would be wrong.

Greg Kuperberg 17:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You can feel the layering—an initial page partially supplanted by additions with a very different slant. This creates strawman points. "He said he did not believe in personal gain but this is not true." Ideas like this can always be edited in with nuance and it isn't our place to sit in judgement on a subject's self-consistency. Even the most modest must pursue personal gain to some degree, after all. Did he leave his life savings, $33 000, to his scientific foundation? Even for 1940s standards, this is an unexceptional amount and doesn't speak to a person hungering after wealth.


 * And some of it I find plainly contradictory. He was the first black offered a faculty position at Iowa State, but all he was doing was hawking other people's recipies? That doesn't follow. He either did or did not discover two fungi, did or did not find a way to make ink and soap with peanuts, did or did not work with farmers on crop rotation and diversification. It can't all be fradulant or I'd think we'd have sources saying so. Web sources do, of course, meme-ishly reinforce each other, but if we're totally contradicting what's out there, we may be creating OR (I found "is an urban legend" an OR deduction). And do note, that collecting, refining, and publishing material is an accomplishment in itself, even if invention credit is not wholly accurate. Shakespeare rarely invented his own plotlines...


 * As for the two sections, the reputed inventions has a place but I find the "Troubles" partly tangential and ad hominem. Marskell 18:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the "Troubles" section is partly ad hominem and should be changed. I also agree with you that changes have been layered in and that the article should be more consistent. Even so, what Carver ever really invented is a central question. As far as I can tell, the answer is nothing. My impression is that Carver was straightforward about this at first, and didn't really claim that his "uses" were new inventions. But eventually he tried in earnest and didn't succeed.

The statement that Carver didn't believe in personal gain, or the more specific belief that he never tried to profit from his inventions, is relevant. It can be taken as an explanation of why there is no clear connection between Carver and the things that he supposedly invented. But the more correct statement is that he never succeeded in profiting from his inventions. And this was not because anyone stole his ideas. Greg Kuperberg 18:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The introduction has been changed for the worse. It says that Carver's "exact output is difficult to ascertain". That is just not true. Carver has one of the best-documented lives of any American. The evidence is overwhelming that the nation misinterpreted his career. Carver knew all about the myth that was created around him, and eventually tried to live up to it, but he didn't succeed. Of course nothing in science or history is certain and there is no mathematical proof that there are no Carver inventions. Even so, if you look at the actual evidence that people used to conclude that he was an inventor, the right way to say it is that it is a myth, or an urban legend as the page said before.

It is also not true that he left almost no formulas or procedures. He left no formulas or procedures that would prove that he was a successful inventor. But at times, he did leave formulas that are evidence against it. You should read Carver's famous bulletin 105 Peanut Uses, if you plan to seriously edit this Wikipedia page. The title of this bulletin is clearly linked to the widely held belief that he invented hundreds of uses for the peanut. But does this document describe any kind of science or invention, or is it just kitchen recipes? Greg Kuperberg 15:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "The evidence is overwhelming that the nation misinterpreted his career." We need to source that or it's an OR deduction, and any source will need to be balanced against those claiming otherwise. WP:V: Verifiability, not truth. On the related intro point, we have no business labelling it myth, urban legend or anything else unless we can source it. Here is a source for the contention, if you have access to a university library (I don't); but careful, this is a history journal and thus speaking outside its field on the science matters. This brings me back to the earlier point: on specific issues, it's an either/or. Either he did discover two fungi, for instance, or he did not. Dealing with specific assertions might be better then 0 or 300.


 * Re troubles: suggest shrinking and weaving into the text. For instance, the resignations threats can be compressed to one sentence ("five times between") and simply be inserted in the general bio.


 * I will try and read the bulletin. Marskell 16:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want sources, then yes, Barry Mackintosh's historical article is one of them. It is true that JSTOR requires a subscription or access through a university. However, Mackintosh wrote a very similar article for American Heritage which is freely available here. If you want more sources, I read a biography by Gene Adair, unfortunately out of print. There is also a boigraphy by Linda McMurry, which is also out of print, but which is available used and which was also scanned by Amazon.

Does it matter that Mackintosh, Adair, and McMurry are historians rather than scientists? I'm convinced anyway. For one reason, they do mention Carver's interactions with scientists. But it also helps to allow a certain amount of common sense. What does common sense say about an invention like "peanut nitroglycerine", whose inventor says explicitly that he didn't write down the formula?

Mackintosh also make the fundamental point that there are serious black scientists and educators who are less famous than Carver. Mackintosh particularly admires Booker T. Washington, but he also mentions the scientists Ernest Everett Just and Charles Henry Turner. Now, there are also things to admire about Carver &mdash; he wasn't a bad person &mdash; but it looks like a mistake that he is more famous than these other men. (Or maybe about as famous as Washington.)

In a passage that was news to me, Mackintosh says that the National Park Service, which is responsible for the Carver National Monument, shelved their own internal biography of Carver because they were afraid of the possible reaction. (Mackintosh himself work for the Park Service for 17 years, but was not connected with this biography.) Finally Mackintosh lists black scholars who have written truthful assessments of Carver's career. But he concluded pessimistically, saying that the public is unlikely to listen to them.

It may well be true that Carver discovered two new varieties of fungi. However, this is not the same as inventing anything. Note also that the article that you cite reads a lot like a Wikipedia article, but it doesn't cite its sources. It also says at the end that Carver invented a way to make shampoo from peanuts. Again, apply some common sense. How realistic is it to make shampoo from peanuts, except by the stone soup method? Greg Kuperberg 17:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Either he did discover two fungi, for instance, or he did not. Dealing with specific assertions might be better then 0 or 300.

One more comment about this. Up to a point, I agree that it's right to emphasize the positive. Carver wasn't a bad person, and maybe he did discovered new varieties of fungi. However, the Wikipedia page is not complete unless it prominently explains that millions of American schoolchildren still learn that he invented hundreds of uses for the peanut, but that it isn't true. Greg Kuperberg 18:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On your very first clause, "If you want sources"... Well of course I do! Wikipedia requires them. Now, it's always annoying if you've read the sources and some other user comes along and says such-and-such without sources of their own, but it's no small thing to cast doubt on essentially everything a subject is credited with doing, which is what I was reacting to initially. The intro read like "psst! most of what follows is bullshit." Of course, this article does have some sources, so kudos on what you've added. My own web-link was not meant to be authoritative at all but just an example of a specific he might or might not have done. Is the source wrong in the meme sense? Is it lying? Is it accurate? Research papers, of course, are always better. Regarding which...
 * Does it matter if they're historians? Yes it does, if they're being used to verify the veracity of scientific claims/purported accomplishments. WP:RS: "Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing." (emphasis original).
 * "How realistic is it to make shampoo from peanuts, except by the stone soup method?" My opinion and common sense, and yours, is irrelevant because it's OR (broken record) without a source.
 * On the last point I did not mean emphasize the positive, but emphasize the specific. If you can source that he did not discover two fungi, it will of course appear negative.
 * Again, I don't want to just say do this or that without having anything to offer myself (I'm also unrealistically coming across as the patron saint of reliable sources :), so I'll try to work on the prose stuff at least when I can and read what you've suggested. Marskell 21:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)