Writing systems Unassessed

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Politics and Government / Core B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Philadelphia B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:V0.5

I added an infobox. The WPBiography tag suggested the article needed one. I then struck it from the properties of the WPBiography tag, as it is now present. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 16:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always heard that Ben was quite a playboy and had lots of lovers. I have no idea if it's true, but if it is, then it should get written about. I knew a lot of info about him already and I looked him up to see if the lovers part was true. But I see no mention of it. Or maybe I'm mixing him up with some one else.cuz im a jagger...831 -JB --(This edit is timestamped 05:17, 22 July 2005 71.247.178.162)
I have also heard that he was a "playboy." My high school history teacher told me so, though he said there are few historical documents pertaining to Ben's sexually life. I feel History teacher was a reliable source with masters in history but I still would like to see some document evidence. If it is true than it would figure that the original pimp gets his face put on the $100 bill.

As I recall he is reputed to have dozens of illegitimate children, but on a web search I found only William. Was William the only one, or did he just not acknowledge the others? --Djfeldman 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also disappointed that his 8 reasons for prefering older women is absent. --Djfeldman 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

playboy yes, lover no (no sex, says Ed. Morgan in recent book). Rjensen 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand why people get off on degrading important historical figures. From what I can tell from this talk section, it appears that it's all based on rumor anyways. Don't you people have anything better to do than to ridicule people by focusing on their faults? Respect Benjamin Franklin and other Founding Fathers, its the least you can do for them considering all the great good men like them did for you and the world, advancing mankind from tyranny to liberty. Gaytan 16:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not our job here to respect or disrespect anyone; it's our job to report what others have said. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then Jpgordon and JB (71.247.178.162), let's put it into perspective then. What Wikipedia is about is to state facts and not rumors. There is no documentation that Franklin was, in fact, a womanizer. However there is little doubt that he was known for his flirtatious behavior, but what is the true definition of a flirt and how is that a factual statement to make when there are no absolute documented witnesses? If it is to make it into the article, it must be sourced and how exactly can you cite what others have said without there being a direct quote? Theoretically there are numerous books that one can use as a source, but even those authors must cite their own sources and chasing all those down, for the simple purpose of that topic in this article, is quite a task to be had. Is it really worth that kind of time all for the sake of flirting? If you feel so inclined then you are most welcome to do so, but I say it's not even worth the bother and sounds like gossip at best, which is definitely not encyclopedic information. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 17:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is. Historical gossip, while still gossip, can be quite encyclopedic, as it reflects the contemporary opinion and feelings regarding the subject of the gossip. Since it's quite widely rumoured that Franklin was a womanizer, it doesn't matter whether he was or not -- arguably, we need to report that it was widely rumoured. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken, but how do you cite such a thing? As I mentioned, without any direct quotes, there really isn't a reliable way of doing so. I currently am reading Ben Franklin: An American Life, by Walter Isaacson and will post here if I find any direct citations on it. He has an incredible list of resources. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 17:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Religious Belief section of this article. Please review and provide any comments you may have here. The update I gave this section primarily portrays Franklin as a Deist in his early life with a transition away from standard Deism in later life believing in an Interventionist God. While some may argue that Franklin was or was not a Christian, I have simply avoided getting into this argument. Instead, I have pointed out that he was a religious and spiritual man, as can be inferred from his speech at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. This point, I believe, is irrefutable; by the end of his life, he was simply no longer a Deist (since Deist clearly hold the view of a non-interventionist God). Gaytan 16:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am suprised no mention is made of 36 Craven Street, London, which is one of the few, if not the only, remaining house where Benjamin Franklin lived.

This house is undergoing extensive restoration, and it is hoped that it will be open to the public in time for the 300th anniversary of his birth in 2006.

[1]

I added printer at the head of the series of Franklin's occupations. Publisher was listed (and is retained) but is not synonymous with printer; also, Benjamin Franklin chose to include printer in his epitaph.

Right and a fantastic choice too, I might add. In fact, earlier I added an Infobox (per Wiki's request) and under occupation I put "Printer" because that is the precise occupation that Franklin liked to claim, even after he had retired. Well done anonymous! MagnoliaSouth | Talk 17:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.infowars.com/articles/occult/hellfire.htm

I note that it contains the word "Illuminati" without any visible ironic intent; in fact, it speaks of the elite showing secret signs of their Illuminati allegiance. Therefore, it is paranoid crap, or simply a hoax.

What the facts might be concerning the bodies under Franklin's house would be interesting to know. One does get a sense of the sardonic in the coroner's remark that he might have to hold an inquest. Reminds one (speaking of Philadelphia) of the response of the makers of the Liberty Bell to a complaint they received about its having a crack; they suggested returning it in its original packing for repairs.

[Alex Jones] is a very "interesting" person; from his opinions on the "Illuminati" to the Bohemian Grove, he is rather outspoken on various conspiratorial topics. I would tentatively delete the last sentence until further sources surfaced; however, I leave that up to more qualified contributers. infowars.com is simply not a singulary trustworthy site.Infinitys 7th 20:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though this site IS crap, it should be noted that the article about the Hellfire Club - an English club that in popular legend "held notorious, orgiastic and satanic meetings" - does mention Franklin. Daniel Trielli 03:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin and Dashwood were correspondents and co-authors - perhaps the most oddly-paired group of the century, given they produced a rewritten edition of the Book of Common Prayer. It seems pretty unsurprising that Franklin would have visited Dashwood in his time in the UK, though the Hellfire Club seems perhaps too early for him to have attended. Shimgray | talk | 13:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[This is a discussion which began over the inclusion/removal of the book:

• "Fart Proudly: Writings of Benjamin Franklin You Never Read in School." Carl Japikse, Ed. Frog Ltd.; Reprint ed. May, 2003. ISBN 1583940790

The original discussion can be found here.]

I have added it back in. Amongst his other talents, Franklin was also a humourist and to ignore that is to ignore one entire facet of the man. I have seen that book and it contains other examples of his humourous essays ranging a wide variety of topics. --Darth Borehd 19:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This opening paragraph is falling apart fast. "he invented the idea of America"... Wha??? -Eisnel 06:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it's actually very well written prose! It's an emphatic re-statement of the previous phrase about how he originated the idea of American unity. I like it, it makes the paragraph read nicely and captures the grandure and genius of the idea. Elipongo 01:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there should be a seperate section for his inventions and scientific inquiries. The 'public life' section is a bit messy. Any objections? Richard Bladen 17:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--separate section for science/inventions is called for Rjensen 17:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to contradict itself over whether or not Franklin ever actually conducted his famous kite experiment. First it states with certainty the exact day he performed the experment and the later implies he may never have performed this experiment at all. I have no opinion on the matter, other than that the article is confusing, as is. ike9898 17:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Myth Busters proved that Franklin could not have survived the traditionaly discribed expiriment (lighting actually hiting the kite with a metal key while Franklin's holding it). In fact, they showed that flying a kite with the metal key on a clear day would be sufficent to get a minor electrical shock (similar to rubbing feet on carpet and then touching a metal door handle.) Jon 13:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed that Leibniz is not brought up once in this entry; Franklin was a noted Leibnizian, in fact, he got his idea of the flow of electricity directly from Leibniz. Something needs to be said about this. Matthew 23:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Tun Tavern entry, Ben Franklin was also a colonel in the Pennsylvania Militia. Does anybody have any references to document this? --Darth Borehd 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a supporting reference to this here: http://www.historynet.com/mhq/blbenfranklin/ can the block be removed so I can add it? --Darth Borehd 05:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was at Category:Printers and didn't see Ben, so I added that category. Then I noticed Category:American printers, so I replaced it with that. THEN I saw that Category:Benjamin Franklin is a sub-category of many things, including American printers. The problem with that is that Ben doesn't show up in the articles of the category, but in the sub-category part at the top. I understand we might have a LONG list of categories for this guy, but I would prefer him to appear in the regular lists in the categories. Any thoughts? John (Jwy) 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see Category:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. The solution is to copy all the categories from the Category:Benjamin Franklin to here. I will go ahead and do so on a future visit unless I hear objections. John (Jwy) 01:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody apparently doesn't like popular culture references for some unknown reason. I think it gives a sense of Franklin's relevance to and perception by modern-day Americans and has value. In any event, it was not discussed here and a lot of people have worked on it. Reinstated. --Darth Borehd 00:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not simply delete this quote, but it isn't sourced: "The longer I live the more convinced I become that God governs in the affairs of men." I tried Googling it, but none of the websites that attributed it to Franklin gave sources either. I would be more at ease with the article if someone would either substantiate that quote or remove it. Harkenbane 06:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the hypothesis from that section per WP:NOR, added 'citeneeded' tag after the quote, deleted the phrase 'Note of contention' from article. That phrase belongs in talk space. MilesVorkosigan 16:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I have read in the Wikipedia seem to me to be uniformly excellent.

I submit my website (www.benandverse.com) for consideration as an external link for two articles: “Benjamin Franklin” and “Poor Richard’s Almanac.”

I am quoting below from Google’s page on “Ben and Verse.” A reference to this page may facilitate a ready verification of the statements below.

The proposed reason for listing it under “Poor Richard’s Almanac” appears in the description from Google’s Directory (and elsewhere):

John McCall’s distillation of sayings from “Poor Richard’s Almanac.”

The proposed reasons for including it, in addition, under the broader topic “Benjamin Franklin” also appear in the following reasons: 1) It’s on a list of a dozen links in the Franklin Institutes “List of Resources for Studying Ben Franklin.”

2) It’s described in the US History Organization’s “Franklin Links” in this way:

See Ben Franklin’s proverbs and quotes in sound bites and rhymes. Find a bio, links, and aphorisms by subject from “Poor Richard’s Almanac.”

3) Its “A+” award from the Webenglishteacher, which describes, under “Benjamin Franklin,” the site in this way:

This site rewrites Franklin’s aphorisms as up-to-date verse, with different proverbs appearing each month. In addition to being entertaining, it has many possible classroom applications.

I realize that these descriptions are much lengthier than those I saw on the relevant pages in Wikipedia. A possible citation occurred to me:

Quotations by subject plus an update in rhyme

This description has been correct for years, and I have instructed my estate to maintain the website so that it will continue to be accurate long after my death.

However, I have added a new miscellaneous section to my website, and I hope to submit proposed links shortly for some articles unrelated to Franklin. 152.163.101.7 17:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider it an honor to be listed in Wikipedia.

Sincerely, John McCall Mccall63@aol.com

As an old indexer, I hope you will forgive me for adding a particularly boring rationale for considering a link for my website, www.benandverse.com.

The website may be distinctive in offering a large number of Franklin’s sayings, organized by subject, with (what seem to me) abundant cross-references.

John McCall 152.163.101.7 12:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps trying to add the Astrologers category to this page, on the grounds that Poor Richard's Almanac contained astrological material, and therefore...

Personally, I feel that this shows Franklin a) wanted to sell an almanac and b) knew that the best way to do so was to stuff it full of astrology, because that's how contemporary almanacs always were. They were publishers stock-in-trade; no need to believe it, just make it sound good and sell it to the farmers. I'm really not sold that his authorship of the almanac means he in any way believed it, not without some actual evidence showing that he did.

Remember, the onus is on the person wanting to include information to prove it, not for those wanting to remove it to disprove it... we can't flatly disprove what he did or didn't believe, but an actual statement by him saying he did would go a long way. Shimgray | talk | 20:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. This is like saying the publisher of a newspaper is an astrologer because the paper runs an astrology column. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon, I won't even bother to offer your ridiculous sentence a rebuttal; the brevity speaks for itself. First off Shimgray, it doesn't really matter what you "personally feel"; all that matters is that you're attempting to distort the facts and whitewash history -- you are trying to deny that one of America's founding fathers was an 'occultist' (and he was by no means the only one). Can you provide evidence that "he just wanted to sell an almanac?" ('The onus is on you...') I doubt it because this is your opinion. But it's easily proven that he was an astrologer by simply LOOKING in the actual almanac. I came to the Wiki Ben Franklin page two days ago and saw this sentence in the intro: "He also practiced and published on astrology (see Poor Richard's Almanac)." This is verbatim, exactly what was there; all I did was put in Category:Astrologers based on what was already there in the article. Logical? Absolutely. I am no apologist or believer in astrology; all I want to do is present history as it was. If he "practiced and published on astrology," wouldn't that make him an astrologer? So what exactly DO YOU know about astrology? Are you an astrology expert and also an expert on Franklin and colonial history?

You obviously know nothing about astrology (I know a great deal, however), because if you did you would realize that Franklin could not have figured out, calculated, and/or included all of the astrological information in Poor Richard's Almanac without being an astrologer. Look at all the mathematical calculations (an ephemeris), the glyphs, zodiac signs, astrological aspects, etc. on the scanned pages in the links below...that is REAL astrology, not the lame Sun sign newspaper bunk 'jpgordon' is talking about. And yes, he was the publisher, but also the author, written under his pseudonym/pen-name/nom-de-plume Richard Saunders. This source should be entirely sufficient given that it's an academic source, but see for yourself. Do some internet searches; crack a biography or other books (contrary to popular belief, the internet isn't the ultimate source of knowledge -- it doesn't have EVERYTHING); just go to the bottom of Wiki's Poor Richard's Almanac page and follow the external links and then go through some of the alamanacs and see that they (NOTICE: ALL OF THEM) are chock-full of astrological info. [2] -- Medical astrology [3] -- cover page; almanac contains an ephemeris, used in both astronomy and astrology. [4] -- astrological info on all pages, especially pgs. 1 & 2. I could put more here but it would be redundant. My point is beyond proven. Don't deny history and write off his interest in the occult as simply commercial; heck, even if it was commercial, it doesn't change the fact that he was an astrologer, the fact that "he practiced and published on astrology." So please be logical -- I will be if you won't. I'm putting the category back in. --172.146.172.46 01:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't give a damn if Franklin was an astrologer or not - many intelligent people have believed some inspiredly crankish things (just look at Newton!), and it doesn't reflect badly on them. I'm not contesting he wrote the almanacks - they're some of his most famous works - but I am contesting that he credulously believed everything he wrote, especially something which was so definitely a staple piece of publishers fodder at the time. I am not claiming I am an infallible source on the matter, but if you're "presenting history as it was" without being able to quote a historian saying so, we have a problem.

Benjamin Franklin might have been an astrologer. He might have spoken Polish, too. But we don't have any sources saying he spoke Polish, and we don't have any sources saying he was an astrologer. You're making inferences; those inferences are not reliable sources. In order to incorporate material, it needs to be verifiable in reliable sources. "I read X and think it means Y" does not qualify, I'm afraid. Give us a source, a good sensible third party calling him an astrologer, and it can stay. Shimgray | talk | 16:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Franklin was such a copious writer, one would think that, were he an astrologer, he would have said something about being one. He does make a few comments about astrology in his autobiography, some ironic and some descriptive; and is said to have "had an astrologer", whatever that means. But this argument -- You obviously know nothing about astrology (I know a great deal, however), because if you did you would realize that Franklin could not have figured out, calculated, and/or included all of the astrological information in Poor Richard's Almanac without being an astrologer -- assumes a fact not in evidence: that Franklin calculated any of this stuff. There was no reason he would have had to; there were already "almanacks of celestial motions" -- i.e., ephemerides -- published in the Colonies at least a decade before Poor Richard's Almanac came out.[5] Franklin wasn't the sort to reinvent the wheel if he could copy the information or get someone else to do the calculations. Besides, of course he could have "included all the astrological information...without being an astrologer"; all he needed to do that was the desire to include it. So categorizing him as an astrologer requires more evidence than has so far been provided. I think it wouldn't be a problem to put him in Category:Astrology, though, since his almanac was a huge seller, and as such constituted an important astrological resource in 18th century America. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like it says in the article, anybody that "practices" astrology is an astrologer, and anyone that "publishes on" it even more so. Pick up a good dictionary and it'll tell you that much. Who is disputing this category? --64.12.117.7 02:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put article in Category:Astrology per Jpgordon. --152.163.101.7 03:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it'd make more sense to put the Almanack in cat:Astrology, rather than its author? Shimgray | talk | 18:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Some people here seem strangely hell-bent on pushing the idea that Franklin was an astrologer. The reason why we, or at least I, are unwilling to let someone place this idea in an encyclopedia article that will be seen and reused by hundreds of websites and millions of people is not based on a dislike of astrology or astrologers, but rather, a skepticism toward the assertion that Franklin was an astrologer and a dislike of claims based on (so far) merely a previous quote from a Wikipedia article and the belief that everything Franklin wrote was his and his alone. This is precaution, not editor bias… More to the point, I myself have an interest in astrology; that doesn't make me an astrologer, nor would it make any sense to associate me with that category unless it was a major component of my life (which, so far as I know, it certainly was not for Franklin.) 66.229.182.113 03:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was born and raised in Philadelphia, and it is a well-known fact that Benjamin Franklin (and many of America's Founders) was a experienced, and widely-known astrologer. A fact. The "idea" that someone's "personal" feelings would be enough to make this fact a "non-fact" is ridiculous considering all the evidence to the contrary. The facts of Benjamin Franklin being a practicing astrologer are contained in hundreds of texts (many of them Franklin's own words and statements) as well as in history books of Colonial America. Franklin's horoscopes, and drawings, and astrological writings are all over the city of Philadelphia, and in Washington DC, which was built according to astrological principles. These are historical facts and so to have a "dislike" of these facts due to personal preferences (such as saying the word "astrology" with a mindset of "pop-culture astrology") doesn't have a place. It seems some have much more learning to do about Benjamin Franklin, considering the fact the man was obviously an astrologer, and quite expert at that according to his ability to forecast the weather using his ephemeris.Theo 14:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good. Then it should be blitheringly easy to find a verifiable reliable source asserting this. That's what we've been saying all along. (I don't know what the DC connection is, though; Franklin was dead before DC was founded. But that's neither here nor there.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pop culture section is largely a collection of trivia, of no encyclopedic value, much of it given over to the promotion of various industries (Broadway musicals about the Revolution, the city of Philadelphia, the Ray Bradbury novel Fahrenheit 451, a populist science TV entertainment, a video game about skateboarding, a few Disney movies). While the connections may be relevant within the context of the articles about the relevant items, those connections are trivial within the context of Franklin, the scientist, technologist and statesman. Moreover those interested can pick up the connections from the whatlinkshere connection. I suggest that we might at least consider removing many of these items from the article, and find a more appropriate way of describing those items which are of undoubted relevance. --Tony Sidaway 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—How historical figures are currently perceived affects their relevance to the times. Franklin is admired both for his own life accomplishments but he also gained the status of cultural icon. The fact that he is in video games and cartoons demonstrates his appeal to children. He is the most approachable and charismatic Founding Father. If George Washington is the father of the United States then Ben Franklin is the witty and wise grandfather. His accomplishments in science and literature make him the ideal role model for children. His progressive views are more in line with the enlightened outlook of today's Americans. For example, he was not a slave owner but an abolitionist. His sexual peccadilloes, scandalous in his own time, scarcely draw more than a wink and chuckle from most modern-day Americans. He was not a member of the aristocracy like Washington or Jefferson, but the son of middle-class Americans who found success through his own ingenuity and hard work. His entrepreneurial spirit and free-thinking has led him to be the symbol of American businesses and scientific endeavours. Around the world it is Ben Franklin, not George Washington, which is seen as the iconic American. A list of links just wouldn’t convey the enormous impact Franklin has on modern society. The pop culture list needs to remain as a testament to his legacy and the meaningfulness he still has to today’s Americans. --Darth Borehd 15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin helped invent popular culture--he was Poor Richard after all--and therefore his relationship to it belongs in the article. Rjensen 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you to a point, however the writing is bad. This is, after all, not an almanac as you suggest. I agree that it should be pointed out that he is the inspiration for many things, but Wiki's general concensus prefers that trivia items should be written in prose over bulleted lists and trivia discussed in articles should be restricted to the most important, or influential, facts only. It should be completely rewritten, in my opinion. Perhaps it's time for a peer review, or better still a request for comments? MagnoliaSouth | Talk 01:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of Ben Franklin's Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of Ben Franklin. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to Ben Franklin's Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of Ben Franklin. Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Franklin Institute's copy [6] will do just as well; although we thank livingtrust for their kindness. JCScaliger 02:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franklin has been added to the above named project. Admittedly I was initially confused as to why he was added (the discussion can be found here), however if anyone knows a bit about his alphabet invention, perhaps you might be interested in working on this? MagnoliaSouth | Talk 22:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on archiving old discussions, discussions that have stopped, unsigned discussions that did not illicit a response and so forth. I don't have time to do it all at once, but will be a slow process. Anyone wishing to help, or improve the formatting, is most welcome. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 01:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]