Talk:Jesse Quinn Thornton

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

Comments[edit]

This page was very poorly written and an example of the worst of Wikipedia. The sentences were rearranged to make better sense and other information added. No relevant references were deliberately removed.144.35.8.13 (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your opinion on the article. As to relevant info removed, isn't that your opinion? Why are his connections in Illinois that you removed not relevant, but the expanded info you added on the Donner Party is relevant? Aboutmovies (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I know how long it takes to write and reference an article -- and also how it feels to have all one's work wiped out. (Thanks a lot.) "Thornton later moved to Quincy, Illinois where he was a well educated person" is an excessively unsophisticated sentence. You've already said that Thornton went to college (in an age when very few people did); obviously he was well-educated, but he was well-educated wherever he went, not just Quincy. Further, neither Thomas Hart Benton -- a senator from Missouri -- nor Stephen Douglas lived in Quincy, as the sentence implies. The information is not irrelevant, but poorly written and misplaced. As for the Donner Party info, I rearranged one existing passage and added one additional sentence. The Donner Party is a popular topic and Thornton is known as an important early source for it, so explaining how he came to write about it is not out of line, IMO. When the rest of Thornton's bio is added, the Donner references won't be as obvious.144.35.8.13 (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your original edits were reverted because you removed sourced info. I then left a mundune message why it was reverted, and you decide this article is an example of the "worst of Wikipedia" which means you haven't looked around much. But it also is not constructive and a little incivil. As to the removal of the sourced info, again, as I said, if it is poorly worded, then re-write it, but don't remove it. And yes, I know the Donner Party info is relevant, that was part of the point. Both it and the connections to the senators are equally relevant and should be in the article. Which is why I re-added it. So I did read what you wrote, and saw that you had decided to remove sourced info, plus it went from being almost entirely sourced to sections now much less sourced, so it was reverted. Since you un-did the reversion (which was very easy to do so I'm not sure what the sarcastic thanks is for), I've simply re-added the content you removed, and slightly changed a sentence that was more about my earlier edits last year and not about your edits. And about your message on my talk page, its not me who is bothered, it is the community (see Words to avoid). Trust me, things would look a lot better if we didn't have to worry about copyright issues and all the policies/rules that interfere with good, colorful writing. But Wikipedia has a ton of rules and such, and everyone is expected to follow them. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're probably going to be really ticked now. I've altered much of the original entry, making numerous corrections and replacing the previous references with references to primary sources whenever possible. There are a couple of details I need to check, and then I will replace one or two others. As for "worst of Wikipedia," read "worst aspect of Wikipedia", i.e., all sorts of poorly written and mistake-ridden information is disseminated in an excessively popular database until somebody finds it and takes the time to correct it. Also, just because a source is referenced, it doesn't mean that the source is correct, that you have interpreted it correctly, or that it belongs in the article.

One more thing: The dude's name. All the sources I've seen -- including the Library of Congress -- give it as JESSY Quinn Thornton; where did you find "Jesse"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.228.152.241 (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm. Primary sources. Well, see reliable sources and how at Wikipedia we tend to shy from primary sources. Second, you may want to read about Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography and see if you really want to use it as a source, since it has been proven to have made stuff up. With the name, the few places that actually list a first name instead of an initial, such as here it is Jesse and here it is Jesse and here it is Jessie and here it is Jesse do not have it ending in a Y. That's the entire list from the sources in the article that have links and use an actual first name, so that's where it came from. Point of historical note for you, things like this pop up all the time where there are multiple versions for the name, due to the educational level/literacy of the populace. Also, are you implying I have mis-interpreted a source with the "hat you have interpreted it correctly"? Which one? And the same last line where that is would also apply to you, in that just because you found it in a book does not mean its correct (see the note about Appleton's) or that it belongs in a Wikipedia article (see the note about primary sources). And by the way, West Virginia did not exist in 1810, thus he could not be born in West Virginia. We try for historical accuracy, so it needs to say Virginia, and then feel free to add a note afterward about it now being in WV. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At Wikipedia we tend to shy from primary sources" -- Snort. That explains a lot.
  • Appleton's: I did not accept Appleton's uncritically. Most of its information appears in other sources, including some you reference. Wikipedia criticizes Appleton's for 200 biographies of fictitious persons and poor editing. JQT is not a fictitious person, and while I did find a few garbled statements, for the most part Thornton's bio is verifiable; I chose to use it because it presents a concise, accessible, and mostly accurate biography. (The same cannot be said for many of Wikipedia's entries.) Just because Wikipedia says some of Appleton's is bad doesn't mean that all of it is bad.
  • "Point of historical note for (me)": Snort. I know all about problems with name spellings, thank you, but none of the ones you give are from primary sources. I was pointing out that an authoritative source -- the Library of Congress, which has full-time, trained staff to research people's names -- has determined that Thornton spelled his first name "Jessy" and scholars writing about the man use this spelling. (Do a Google Search on "jessie quinn thornton" and compare it to the results you get from searching "jessy quinn thornton.") I'd also like to point out that Thornton used "J. Quinn Thornton" exclusively, as far as I can tell, and this form of his name should be represented somewhere in the entry.
  • As for an example: Your insistence on including the statement that Thornton was friends with Benton and Douglas, referencing an unsupported claim on the Norfleet website which you swallowed without question. It appears that Norfleet may have misinterpreted a statement found elsewhere: JQT worked closely with Benton and Douglas on the Oregon bill while he was in DC in 1848. Thornton may, of course, have been friends with Benton and Douglas before 1848, but what's the evidence, besides Norfleet's say-so? (No offense to Phil, who's created a remarkable website.)
  • West Virginia: Oh, dearie me-- I neglected to go back and fix that! I'm so sorry. Thank you so much for taking care of it, sorry to put you to so much trouble -- but that's what Wikipedia's all about, fixing other people's mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.228.152.241 (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the page was recently moved, I did some more research. The only item close to his era in which I can find a first name has it as Jesse. Given he was still in Oregon at the time and presumable had to register with the state when he was admitted to the bar, I think that is decent evidence. As a belated rebuttal as to the LOC, I'll guess they are human and make mistakes and decisions. As in, they simply could have gone with one version of the name over another. Since you put yourself out as a researcher, I'm sure you have come across errors galore from other researchers, as I know I have. As to Appleton's if you ever come across this, please add the page number, volume, and year, as the original one does not seem to have an entry. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesse Quinn Thornton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesse Quinn Thornton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesse_Quinn_Thornton&oldid=1208537541"