Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dmg46664 (talk | contribs)
71 edits
Line 127: Line 127:
Considering that Franklin devoted much of his adult life to promoting industrialization, and considering that Adam Smith pointedly argued '''against''' industrializing the colonies ("natural course of things," etc.), we're going to need more than the first page of a 90-year-old article to suggest that Adam Smith was following Franklin and defending the colonies.--[[User:Other Choices|Other Choices]] ([[User talk:Other Choices|talk]]) 11:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Considering that Franklin devoted much of his adult life to promoting industrialization, and considering that Adam Smith pointedly argued '''against''' industrializing the colonies ("natural course of things," etc.), we're going to need more than the first page of a 90-year-old article to suggest that Adam Smith was following Franklin and defending the colonies.--[[User:Other Choices|Other Choices]] ([[User talk:Other Choices|talk]]) 11:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
:Although I agree it's desirable to know more than the first page, the fact that the document is 90 years old is immaterial unless more recent publications have pointed in another direction. The first page is none-the-less a summary and conclusions of the paper which favours my take on the evidence. Your evidence for Adam Smith arguing against the industrialization of the colonies is weak. He believed that the route to industrialization was first agriculture and then manufacturing in that order ([[Natural progress of opulence]]), but it's an inference to conclude that he was advocating the artificial holding back of manufacturing (your use of the word '''against''') or anything at odds with Franklin. From the passages you quote, I take him to mean that if you have an advantage in agriculture, that's where the majority of effort should focus (laying the groundwork for Ricardo). Smith's Man of System writings would counter any other reading. --[[User:Dmg46664|Dmg46664]] ([[User talk:Dmg46664|talk]]) 14:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
:Although I agree it's desirable to know more than the first page, the fact that the document is 90 years old is immaterial unless more recent publications have pointed in another direction. The first page is none-the-less a summary and conclusions of the paper which favours my take on the evidence. Your evidence for Adam Smith arguing against the industrialization of the colonies is weak. He believed that the route to industrialization was first agriculture and then manufacturing in that order ([[Natural progress of opulence]]), but it's an inference to conclude that he was advocating the artificial holding back of manufacturing (your use of the word '''against''') or anything at odds with Franklin. From the passages you quote, I take him to mean that if you have an advantage in agriculture, that's where the majority of effort should focus (laying the groundwork for Ricardo). Smith's Man of System writings would counter any other reading. --[[User:Dmg46664|Dmg46664]] ([[User talk:Dmg46664|talk]]) 14:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
::I'm going to forego a rebuttal because we're really getting off topic. Perhaps we can re-focus on improving the article. I suppose you're right about the age being immaterial if there hasn't been any more recent scholarship. If you are motivated to do so, you can freely access JSTOR at any university library.--[[User:Other Choices|Other Choices]] ([[User talk:Other Choices|talk]]) 00:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:52, 27 August 2012

Template:V0.5

Reference to "Jackob Fugger" is incorrect

Hello,

I checked the source [95] directly in Google books because I was looking for "Portrait of American Culture." The author of the source writes that Ferdinand Kürnberger wrote this work. On the same page in source [95], there is the spelling "Jakob Fugger" as well.

Excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
Franklin's writings on virtue were derided by some European authors, such as Jackob Fugger in his critical work Portrait of American Culture. Max Weber considered Franklin's ethical writings a culmination of the Protestant ethic, which ethic created the social conditions necessary for the birth of capitalism.[95]

64.246.215.5 (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin's Birthday

The difference between old and new styles is 11 days, not one year and 11 days. The Old Style date is shown with the wrong year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.29.204 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the correct year. In the Old Style British calendar, which was in effect in Britain's colonies at the time of Franklin's birth, the new year actually began on 25 March 25, rather than 1 January. In the New Style calendar, however, 1 January was the first day of the year. So the date that was 17 January in the New Style calendar corresponded to 6 January in the Old Style calendar and today, we would call this the 6th day of 1706. However, at the time, the Old Style calendar year 1706 would not begein until 25 March, so it was actually 6 January 1705, according to that calendar. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 00:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia as leading city of colonian U.S.

In the opening section it states Philadelphia as the leading city in the colonies. Even if this is true, should this be cited? I feel like it violates the NPOV if it is not cited.--MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it does not in any way violate npov. Rjensen (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should it at least be cited?--MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it's pretty unanimous see these citations 00:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin - errors

B. Franklin made his fortune by lending money at interest; engaging in the slave trade; printing advertisements for slave sales and runaways; also had contract to print money.

B. Franklin's first published work was a poem which his brother James asked him to write, about a lighthouse keeper who drowned.

B. Franklin probably freed Peter and John, slaves he took to England, who did not return with him. His other slaves died.

B. Franklin was a joint postmaster with William Hunter prior to the Revolutionary War.

B. Franklin became president of the Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society in 1787; Pennsylvania abolished slavery by statute in 1780.

B. Franklin's partner, David Hall, was the former captain of the Charming Sally, and advertised slaves brought into Pennsylvania in the Gazette.

B. Franklin also represented South Carolina.

B. Franklin did not believe in integration of blacks into society. His plan for free blacks included surveillance and oversight so they did not become public burdens.

B. Franklin's autobiography was published after his death. He did not self-publish the book. Marylinn (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benjamin Franklin National Memorial.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Benjamin Franklin National Memorial.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Benjamin Franklin National Memorial.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hellfire Club

There should be mention of Franklin's association with the Hellfire Club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.65.2 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been suggested previously, more than once. If you can provide reliable sources for it, and add it to the article in an NPOV manner, then by all means please do so. Or link the sources here so someone else can add it to the text.--JayJasper (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deleted inappropriately-sourced OR reference to Adam Smith

I deleted (for the second time) the following sentence from the article: "To understand why this was novel insights on Franklin's part one has to merely see that Economics was only generally recognized as a science with the publishing of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations which was published 9 years later."
I deleted this sentence for the following reasons:

  • The cited source says nothing about economics being generally recognized as a science with the publication of The Wealth of Nations, which means that the sentence is WP:Original research.
  • The cited source says nothing about Franklin's insight being novel, which once again means that the sentence is WP:Original research.
  • The cited source for this statement is a 500-page book, without any page number given. The result is to hide the fact that the source doesn't support the sentence. (I found the relevant point on page 360.)
  • The cited source for this statement is from 1840, over 170 years ago. Perhaps there is a more recent source that discusses the congruence between Franklin's thought and that of Adam Smith.--Other Choices (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added the sentence with a better explanation because in your first removal you wrote as a comment "irrelevant to Franklin". I thought it was relevant and so added it back because of WP:BB. Adam Smith wrote about the invisible hand and how a tradesman aiming to help himself, actually benefits society. This is exactly what the article on the Price of Corn is about, with respect to farmers. The only contentious issue, is that I view this as obviously the same... and you contend that it is WP:OR, a new criticism. I think it's a grey line about what is considered sythesis and what isn't. The author of the Google book saw fit to mention it in reference to Franklin. Perhaps a better phrasing of the sentence could be thought of that provides for this allusion in the same way that the author did, whilest removing the contentious nature you have with OR [in the spirit of fixing rather than deleting WP:EP]. Apologies for not including the page number, which is due to my inexperience of managing Wikipedia and Google book links. --Dmg46664 (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had to track down the actual quote before I realized that the source didn't say anything about economics as a science, which made me realize that there's a problem here beyond relevance. It's actually an interesting general possibility that Adam Smith was influenced by Franklin's thinking, and that would be worth mentioning if well-sourced. I believe that Franklin and Smith actually met once in England, which isn't mentioned in the article. However, in my opinion, the 1840 author's bare mention (in a footnote) of a similarity between Franklin and Smith is a very thin reed on which to base a sentence in the article -- we'll need a better source. Out of curiosity I did a google search and found something something more recent -- from 1924, less than 90 years ago here. You'll have to go to a university library to access more than the first page. I haven't done so yet, so don't know what might be useful in there.--Other Choices (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding economics as a science... does this help? In the Episode 2 of the PBS series Free to Choose right at the beginning (on youtube) Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman asserts Adam Smith's role in establishing economics as a science. It's only one person's opinion, but notable. It also doesn't discuss the Wealth of Nations specifically. In the first PBS episode, Friedman does mention that Smith taught lecture series before publishing the book, so it's possible he predated Franklin. Even if you're right and there isn't evidence to support any innovation on the part of Franklin, I still think it's notable that Franklin was at the forefront of these ideas at the time they were forming. It must be possible to express that somehow in a way that isn't contentious, but still informs the reader of Franklin's participation here. Damn Jstor, it's like a branded chastity belt for knowledge :-) --Dmg46664 (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
there were dozens of economists before Smith -- none made it a science as Smith did in 1776. Franklin was one of many pre-1776 writers who touched on some issues of economics. The question is exactly what Franklin said that was original. Rjensen (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding, from the wikipedia page on economics, is that economics is a social science. I suppose that the question of the nature of economics, and of Adam Smith's debatable contributions to the field (Leibniz's mathematical formula, adopted by Lazare Carnot and l'Ecole Polytechnique, is in my opinion the place to start for economics as a physical science; and Alexander Hamilton was a follower of James Steuart, although he did borrow selectively from Adam Smith, with whom he had significant disagreements), is outside the scope of this article, but maybe it should be stressed that this is a controversial subject that can't be summarized with a single sentence. I agree with Rjensen that for this article, the question is exactly what Franklin said that was original.--Other Choices (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the relevant question is whether what Franklin wrote was original or not. This would be true with the section was called "Inventions". However, the section is called "Inventions & Scientific enquiry". Franklin's writings, even should they only "touch" on some economics issues, are very much relevant as they give insight into Franklin, which is the focus of the article. If the article was called "Economics insights pre-Adam Smith", then your arguments would have more weight... because the focus would be on exactly how Franklin contributed, and not that he tried to pursue scientific enquiry. --Dmg46664 (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes it's the originality that makes them of interest here. Did Franklin repeat other people's ideas? that's trivia and would not attract the attention of Adam Smith or Malthus. Rjensen (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the originality that makes them of interest. Leonardo Da Vinci drafted plans for flying machines. They were not the first flying machines designs, which go all the way back to the Greeks. They contained insights but most were never even built and tested in his day, and no-one claims originality of Da Vinci's insights into the mechanics of flight. It is still however notable and of interest to the reader that someone like Da Vinci was both and artist and interested in flight. It is fair to call Da Vinci's interests trivia colloquially... but this is Wikipedia, not a scientific journal of publication. Trivia on Wikipedia is defined as information that is not important. Just as Da Vinci's drawings are of interest to the reader, so is Franklin's economic interests (at least 3 contributors of this page have thought so, so far), likewise important, important enough that Historians have published journals on his relationship with Adam Smith, who kept some of Franklin's publications on the topic. --Dmg46664 (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to get people to pay attention to Franklin--as opposed to Da Vinci or Adam Smith. what did he actually say that was so interesting to RS? we get maybe three words on that. I believe what interested Smith and Malthus were his ideas on population -- the rapid growth in America with doubling every 25 years. Franklin's original idea (picked up by Malthus) was that food supply determines population growth -- and there was abundant food in America. See Carl Van Doren, Benjamin Franklin (1938), pp. 216-18. Edmund S. Morgan 2003 p 75 says "In examining the population statistics, he could envision an American continent filled with good, law-abiding Englishmen and their descendants, and it could be done without any diminution of England's own population." Isaacson p 150 says "The abundance of unsettled land in America, he said, led to a faster population growth. ....Thus, he concluded, America's population would double every twenty years and surpass that of England in one hundred years." Lemay 2:245 says "Franklin made notes on population data during the 1730s and 1740s. By 1749, he noted that the American population was growing more rapidly than any other for which he had data." Rjensen (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the RS that the user OtherChoices discovered, you'd see that the author suggests that there is some truth to the statements "The Wealth of Nations is a defense of the Colonies", "It was claimed that, but for Benjamin Franklin, Adam Smith would have written the treatise on politics promised....", "The establishment of the statements cited would entitle our Franklin to a place of great importance in the history of economic theory, which at present he is seldom given". Although, as mentioned before, none of us have access to the details of the publication in Jstor, it suggests that he contributed to more than mere population stats and projections, and is worthy of considering his works under the banner of economics.--Dmg46664 (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Franklin devoted much of his adult life to promoting industrialization, and considering that Adam Smith pointedly argued against industrializing the colonies ("natural course of things," etc.), we're going to need more than the first page of a 90-year-old article to suggest that Adam Smith was following Franklin and defending the colonies.--Other Choices (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree it's desirable to know more than the first page, the fact that the document is 90 years old is immaterial unless more recent publications have pointed in another direction. The first page is none-the-less a summary and conclusions of the paper which favours my take on the evidence. Your evidence for Adam Smith arguing against the industrialization of the colonies is weak. He believed that the route to industrialization was first agriculture and then manufacturing in that order (Natural progress of opulence), but it's an inference to conclude that he was advocating the artificial holding back of manufacturing (your use of the word against) or anything at odds with Franklin. From the passages you quote, I take him to mean that if you have an advantage in agriculture, that's where the majority of effort should focus (laying the groundwork for Ricardo). Smith's Man of System writings would counter any other reading. --Dmg46664 (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to forego a rebuttal because we're really getting off topic. Perhaps we can re-focus on improving the article. I suppose you're right about the age being immaterial if there hasn't been any more recent scholarship. If you are motivated to do so, you can freely access JSTOR at any university library.--Other Choices (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F509342177
No tags for this post.