Talk:Booker T. Washington

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2023[edit]

<Subscript text --> }} 2601:246:5D80:6330:E4A4:F216:268:6B52 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC) '[reply]

This is wrong 2601:246:5D80:6330:E4A4:F216:268:6B52 (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Booker t Washington believe in god

Take out that ENTIRE 'overview'! It is totally unnecessary (as in all wiki articles), and you just repeat yourself below in the main paragraphs and sections. 98.123.126.45 (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bookers first teacher[edit]

No where on Booker's page is mentioned that his first teacher and the woman ( Viola Ruffner) who helped him the most when he was young is mentioned at all. And yet, she has her own page describing her lifelong connection to Booker. This page should be combined with his history. There are many websites that go into much deeper detail about their relationship, and these should be added also. As I am too old to add all this information myself, I hope that someone reads this and knows how to add it. Viola Ruffner

HarryWV (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Du Bois' book listed as his under "works"?[edit]

I assume it's just a mistake 67.189.110.37 (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. The Souls of Black Folk has been removed from the "Works" list. Thanks for spotting and pointing out the error. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Booker T. Washington page have the "Conservatism in the United States" sidebar? That doesn't make sense. Is this an attempt by a right wing editor to co-opt his legacy?[edit]

Why does the Booker T. Washington page have the "Conservatism in the United States" sidebar? That doesn't make sense. Is this an attempt by a right wing editor to co-opt his legacy? The edit was made in June 2023. 2600:1700:8530:68A0:3CA2:DBC9:5B46:B06E (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request, October 26 2023[edit]

The sentence "He took the family name of Washington, after his stepfather." in "Early Life" should be removed or altered.

In "Early Life," this page says that "He took the family name of Washington, after his stepfather," citing page 34 of "Up From Slavery." However, on that page Washington does not say he took the family name after his stepfather. He says: "I knew that the teacher would demand of me at least two names, and I had only one. By the time the occasion came for the enrolling of my name, an idea occurred to me which I thought would make me equal to the situation; and so, when the teacher asked me what my full name was, I calmly told him "Booker Washington," as if I had been called by that name all my life; and by that name I have since been known."

Washington doesn't mention his stepfather's name at all in "Up From Slavery," so this passage doesn't indicate that he named himself after his stepfather. When he does refer to his stepfather, it's largely in disparaging terms ("Though I was a mere child, my stepfather put me and my brother at work in one of the furnaces..."; "I had been working in a salt-furnace for several months, and my stepfather had discovered that I had a financial value, and so, when the school opened, he decided that he could not spare me from my work..."; "The small amount of money that I had earned had been consumed by my stepfather and the remainder of the family...") I think the more likely interpretation of the passage is that he was naming himself after George Washington, but regardless, the idea that he was naming himself after his stepfather is not supported in the text, and should be removed. Bbctol (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done PianoDan (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, a revisionist view appeared in the late twentieth century that interpreted his actions positively.

I recommend "perspective" replace "revisionist view" since there is no link to primary, secondary or any kind documentation whatsoever, primary, so that we might read and interpret the perspective for ourselves. This phrasing, for all we know, shows a bias in the modern, non-contemporaneous writer. Mscholar77 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]