User talk:Aquatictomato

Uh well, ... I mean your response is ridiculous. There is NO VERIFIABLE RESOURCE FOR HER SUGGESTION (HELLO, LOOK UP THE MEANING OF SUGGESTION) How did you research the matter in 2015? This is an absolute untruth you are promoting on this site. Here is an actual review from another reader of her book, "This is one of the few scholarly works on Mr. Carver. Ms. Vella gives a good sense of Carver's personal history and for that she is to be commended. One area of concern is labeling Mr. Carver as 'bisexual' due to a particular relationship between himself and a young man. No doubt this relationship existed, but labeling Mr. Carver a 'bisexual' strikes me as an unnecessary injection of contemporary sexual politics into an otherwise clear-headed history. Another concern is that one does not get a clear sense of Carver's scientific contributions and how they affected American agriculture. I think this is a weakness as Mr. Carver's national prominence was based upon his scientific work and the practical uses to which they were put. Even a chapter dedicated to this aspect of Mr. Carver's life and work would have provided the reader with more historical insight into why Mr. Carver was famous."

Actually there are many other comments similar to mine. The sentence should be removed.Bold text It is, as I said, gratuitous.Aquatictomato (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sundavi wrote to Wikipedia in January 2019 with the following, "Please remove this line below, which is libel against the very core belief system of George Washington Carver: "in her 2015 biography, Christina Vella reviews his relationships and suggests that Carver was bisexual and constrained by mores of his historic period" The above line conflicts and defames the character of George Washington Carver, as a man of the Bible and its orthodox beliefs that he practiced." I agree with Sundavi's request.The sentence should be removed.Aquatictomato (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Aquatictomato (talk)