Talk:Jim Thorpe/Archive 1

Childhood
Hmmm... looks like we should probably find something more about his childhood and about his life after Stockholm (he was one of the early stars of the National Football League), and a picture might be nice too. - jredmond 03:39, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I believe some of the facts are mistaken. I have read from several sources that he was 5'11 '' 180 in his 1912 football season and that his mother was 1/4 french. I will try to find where I have read that before, i think it was on espn--not sure. Anyone know the source of his height and wieght in the article? --NoYes 05:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the link to pentathlon in the article might be confusing - I don't think the events were the same as in the ancient pentathlon, I suspect they were all track and field events. A google search suggests they were long jump, 200m sprint, discus, javelin and 1500m. Average Earthman 12:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This article now reads,
 * A pentathlon based on the ancient Greek event had been organized at the 1906 Summer Olympics, but the 1912 edition would consist of the long jump, the javelin throw, 200-meter dash, the discus throw and the 1500-meter run.
 * The modern pentathlon, which consists of running, swimming, shooting, equestrian and fencing, was begun by the Baron de Coubertin in 1912, which I believe he intended to replace the pentathlon of ancient Greece. I've never heard anything about this other pentathlon, the one Thorpe is reported to have won. Taco Deposit 14:13, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, he definitely won it, the IOC website says he did. Unfortunately, they don't say what events were actually in it. There is [one website] which has a biography of Thorpe on it that lists the five events, but I'd rather get some firmer evidence for it than rely on something someone has written on a webpage with no cites. The BBC has on more than one occasion said the pentathlon Thorpe won contained the events in the Modern Pentathlon, but they're wrong - the IOC website itself gives one Gosta Lilliehook as the winner of the Modern Pentathlon, and the Pentathlon Thorpe won is listed under the Athletics category. Average Earthman 15:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Gosta Lillehook won the first Olympic 'Modern' pentathlon, and this Jim Thorpe article seems correct. In 1912, 1920 and 1924 there were two pentathlons at the Olympic games. One was the 'modern' and the other the 'traditional' (athletics) pentathlon.  In addition the athletics pentathlon was replaced with the decathlon.  The modern pentathlon was not to replace the athletics version it was a new independent event. Pentathlon (athletics version) results can be found at http://www.gbrathletics.com/ic/ogm.htm and can be viewed in the table below.


 * Note# -The events in the athletic pentathlon were long jump, javelin, 200 metres, discus, 1500 metres although in 1906 the more traditional greek events were contested, standing long jump, discus (greek style), javelin, 192 metres (one stade), graeco-roman wrestling.
 * Note*-Jim Thorpes Olympic results were re-instated in 1982. David D. 20:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

While I cannot offer any sources, I remember with pretty good confidence, from reading a young-adult book about Thorpe which was definitely written before 1980, that all his events at the 1912 Olympics were track and field. (There was an anecdote about how his entire preparation for the long jump consisted of making some chalk marks on the pavement.) I don't have the book any longer, but it made a great impression on me and I reread it many times. So consider this corroborating evidence that his pentathalon was not the "Modern" version.


 * Rpresser 00:53, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

Thorpe first president of NFL
I don't understand what the "NFL Presidents" table at the end of the "Reinstated" section is supposed to be. Can someone clarify this? -Aaron jul 18 2005
 * It appears to refers to the fact that he was the first president. He was followed by xxx and preceded by no one since he was the first. I think it should be in the football baseball section since there is says Thorpe was named the APFA's first president,  Or is it meant to be a footer?  Also the table would make more sense if Thorpes name was actually in the table.  Don't ask me how to fix it I'm not sure how this kind of table works.  It seems to get it's data from information that is stored somewhere else in wikipedia.  David D. 04:26, 19 July


 * I fixed the table using &#123;{succession box}} Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Mach Chunk
I always thought Jim Thorpes Indian name was Mauch Chunk?2005 (UTC)--User talk:Scottfisher Thanks, Scotty
 * No, Mauch Chunk (see the wikiarticle) was the name of the town in PA that was renamed "Jim Thorpe" in his honor.--BillFlis 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Item moved from article
I have noved this statement, "That is why Steve O'Neal owns the record with his 98 yard punt," from the article page because the citation request (cn) was removed from it without any attempt to provide a citation. Per Wikipedia policies, this item may not be re-added to the article until and unless a citation to a reliable published source is provided. -- Donald Albury 00:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review
I have listed this article on the Featured Article Review page; see its entry here for my reasoning. Please help to improve the article if you can and to give your views on the article's FAR page. Thanks, --Miskwito 03:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

World Famous Indians Basketball
It's not entirely true that Thorpe's World Famous Indian teams - including basketball - were unknown until 2005 - perhaps it should say that "until 2005 most of Thorpe's biographers were unaware of Thorpe's basketball career." My father, Hap Moran often told stories of playing a few games with this team and after he died in 1994 I was in contact with Grace Thorpe, Jim's daughter, and through her with Robert Whitman, who wrote "Jim Thorpe and the Oorang Indians, the NFL's Most Colorful Franchise" in 1984. Whitman knew about the World Famous Indian Basketball team and referred me to the Marion County Historical Society which had a file of clippings on the team. I published an article in the newsletter of the Professional Football Researchers Association in 1999 that mentioned the team based on my father's stories and the material in the Marion Historical Society. Revmoran 00:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for your recollections, material added to Wikipedia must be verifiable by being published in reliable sources. A newsletter of an association may well be challenged by some editors as not being 'published', or not being a 'reliable source'. -- Donald Albury 00:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thorpe's image in his World Famous Indians basketball uniform was distributed to the press and available on postcards. Here is a detail. Would it be a good addition to the article? Revmoran 00:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I will (at a late date) add my support for Remorvan's arguments. Thorpes basketball activity is well known to sports authorities.  Part of the problem is that PBS' History Dectives television sho did a story in 2006 (or 2005) where they research a basketball ticket bought on ebay.  The trumped up the "Undiscovered nature" of Thorpe's basketball career when in fact it was well documented in newspapers from the 1920s. Stude62 02:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already in the article using almost Moran's exact wording and backed up by a source. Quadzilla99 14:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening
The second paragraph is awkwardly written. As part American Indian, I'm not overly concerned about political correctness, but the wording could be better. I'm taking a stab at it.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Info Box Photo
My first visit to this page and I was shocked to see a photo of Thorpe sitting at a desk in street clothes as the primary photo. The info box should definitely have a photo of him in athletic garb from his competitive days, not sitting at a desk 30 years down the road.--Fizbin (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is in finding images that can be used in Wikipedia. We are quite strict about copyright issues. Please read Image use policy for more on what images can and cannot be used in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 19:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that policy dictates not just any photo can be used in WP, but there are already three other photos in the article, any one of which would be much better for the info box.--Fizbin (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess I was moving too fast. Sorry for the flip answer. Which image whould prefer in the infobox? -- Donald Albury 23:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Being a track and field guy I'd go with the Olympic one, but the Canton football photo is a better quality print.--Fizbin (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I always preferred the Olympic one. It makes him look like some kind of superhero, which suits his achievements quite well! But then again, with two football pictures and one Olympic one, it makes most sense to use one of the football ones as the lead image. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!  17:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Native Americans and Facial Hair
Sorry to disappoint the poster who ragged on about facial hair BUT as a Lakota myself we do have facial hair. I am a Lakota off the Rosebud Rez in South Dakota. It is just another stereotype that "Indians" don't have hair on there faces. I am so tired of reading once again this myth. Many, many tribes have men that have beards and are FBI, full blooded Indians, so get over it. So sad. 70.180.89.85 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Was he in a movie or not?
In the "later life" section, it says "Reportedly he had an uncredited cameo as an assistant sports coach in the Warner Brothers movie Jim Thorpe -- All-American (1951)," In the "legacy" section, it says "Thorpe was seen in some long shots in the film.". Which of these two is correct? If the second is right, shouldn't "reportedly" be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.162.174 (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the copncept of "cameo" includes the likely recognition of the person's face. If Thorpe only appeared in the background (and the fact that we're even debatinmg that much), it's definitely the wrong word to use. WHPratt (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

knocking the crap out of a future President
Future President Dwight Eisenhower injured his knee trying to tackle Thorpe during that game.

Eisenhower recalled of Thorpe in a 1961 speech. "Here and there, there are some people who are supremely endowed," "My memory goes back to Jim Thorpe. He never practiced in his life, and he could do anything better than any other football player I ever saw."


 * George Halas' NFL record 98-yard fumble return was off a Thorpe fumble. Halas explained that with a very angry Thorpe chasing him, he had a special incentive to run as fast as he ever did. WHPratt (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Poverty/Later career after sports
His poverty in later life is a bit over dramatized, like many in the depression he struggled to make a living but he did provide for his family. He was an extra in many Westerns, advocated and won equal pay for Native American extras in the industry. No mention at all is made of his lecture tours across the country, which he was quite well known for in the 30's and 40's. Some of his children are still living and should be consulted on this article which frankly has a lot of holes in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazran (talk • contribs) 03:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Correction to Thorpe article
I am an historian at the Army Military History Institute at Carlisle and also an expert on Army football history. This article incorrectly states that Dwight Eisenhower injured his kneee trying to tackle Thorpe in 1912. In fact Eisenhower hurt his knee in the next game against Tufts. - Conrad Crane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.99.8.10 (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ changed.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  00:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not quite correct, from what I've read. Ike injured his right knee in the Carlisle game, when he and Leland Hobbs collided while trying to tackle Thorpe.  Ike had to leave the game and did not return, and he wore a knee brace for the ensuing week.  He aggravated the injury the next week in the game against Tufts, in the third quarter, when a Tufts defender twisted his leg.  Even then he might have recovered except that the West Point riding master, who disliked him, made him participate in the "monkey drill" (jumping off a galloping horse.) That ripped up his knee so badly that Dr. Charles Keller, the WP surgeon, said later that he really should have medically discharged Ike, but didn't because he liked him.  67.176.61.216 (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Jim Thorpe's son Carl
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cpthorpe.htm - Carl Phillip Thorpe - Colonel Thorpe was the son of Jim Thorpe — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGlenwood (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. I've added a bit of information about him to the article. Graham 87 03:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Name in opening line
Seeing as no birth certificate exists, should we use his official christening name (Jacobus Franciscus Thorpe) or the Anglicised "James Francis Thorpe" for which there is not an official registry source? SFB 07:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I don't really mind one way or the other, as long as the article and cited source are in agreement. Graham 87 15:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Greatest
I've moved the following from the article page because it is an opinion, not a fact, and is unsourced.
 * Jim Thorpe is considered to be one the three greatest athletes of the 20th Century next to Muhammed Ali and Michael Jordan. And the greatest during the first half of the century.

--  Dalbury ( Talk )  23:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly common knowledge Thorpe is considered one of the greatest athletes of the century. Not every statement has to be referenced esp when its considered common knowledge. I'm sure I can dig up a source which is by necessity an opinion of itself which makes that claim. Is that necessary in this particular instance? Also in the following section there is personal communication which is considered even in scientific circles to be adequate documentation for a reference. Let's discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobberone (talk • contribs) 15:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not neutral and it's original research without a citation.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There will never ever ever be a statement like this which is not an opinion. Say you look at all the polls ever conducted for who is the greatest Presidents ever. Well you could get a 100 liberal historians and 100 conservative historians with the best credentials in the world to rate them. It could be published in a real book or seen on TV as a documentary. It is still an opinion and would not be really neutral despite efforts to make it so. Abraham Lincoln and George Washington are considered by most everyone as the greatest Presidents. Not fact but enough people believe it most consider it fact. Ali and Lewis are considered two of the greatest boxers. Unitas on of the best QBs ever. America is considered the greatest military power ever. On and on. Personal communication is considered a legit source. Or referencing unpublished data. This is unpublished data. Jobberone (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are published articles which note the "greatness" of these Presidents. Unless there are published articles which note the "fineness" of Thorpe as an athlete, it is not allowed to stay per WP:OR.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  00:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine I met your criteria. It's all still an opinion including which are the greatest presidents or greatest whatever whenever. It's all an opinion no matter whether its in media or not or what media its in. Jobberone (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPOV for why your statements are incorrect.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  03:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding yourself. Unless something can be repeated consistently and recorded 'accurately' then there is no fact involved. Considering something as great is in itself by definition arbitrary and an opinion. Although you can assemble all the facts you want to support your case, in these instances, you are making arbitrary opinions. You cannot compare Presidents across timelines and varying circumstances or sports figures in different eras especially from totally different sports and arrive at a calculated and accurate result based on facts. They cannot be neutral although certainly people can try to be unbiased as humanly possible. While I agree there must be general guidelines to follow let's not deceive ourselves into believing following the letter of the law automatically begats neutral and unbiased findings. And there is not necessarily any lack of neutrality in forming opinions. There are thousands of statements in Wikipedia based on references from very biased authors who have managed to get their opinions in media. I've read the rules and I see no problem with making statements based on personal communication or unpublished data either which is well accepted in the scientific community. Even anecdotal evidence is admissible when attributed as such. BTW, I have a doctorate with six years of formal post-doctoral training, years of experience and have published. We certainly need to police Wikipedia properly but we do not need to have censorship under the guise of playing by the rules. Who decides what is neutral? Jobberone (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * tl;dr. I gather, however, that you failed to read the first sentence of the policy I linked, which says "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."  Eagles   24/7  (C)  03:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No I read it carefully. Where we disagree is I believe you are hiding behind a set of rules thinking you are protecting neutrality when what you are doing is providing censorship in its name. You are failing to observe what is generally considered a consensus which is a great part of the concept of neutrality. I have provided the statement in the article in a way that is completely within the guideline but its still an opinion. The matter is resolved as far as I'm concerned. Peace. Jobberone (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I hated the Giants won the SB. Jobberone (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Same.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  03:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Jobberone, the citation you supplied only announced the contest to choose the greatest athlete of the 20th century. I have found and added a citation that actually gives the results of that contest. -- Donald Albury 12:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Xie xie! Jobberone (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Info removed in lieu of sources
I removed the following info in lieu of sources. As I found no references to it in either my extensive collection of football history books, The New York Times extensive archives, or online:
 * "In 1923 Thorpe kicked what would be a record 99 yard punt. However, at this point in the history of the NFL such records were not kept. That is why Steve O'Neal owns the record with his 98 yard punt." Google results: (four out of the fives are mirrors despite excluding Wikipedia and the third is a forum I believe) NYT archives: In case you're wondering the dash makes no difference. Quadzilla99 11:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "...while another poll elected him as the best football player over the same period." I removed this also, I have no idea who conducted this poll or what it was named. Quadzilla99 12:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC) re-inserted with source. Quadzilla99 13:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the exact wording but there was a sentence in there attributing his divorce from his wife to alcoholism. I removed it in lieu of a source. Quadzilla99 16:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "In lieu of" means "instead of". You mean "for lack of". --Thnidu (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Some accounts suggest that Hiram Thorpe had five different wives and produced a total of 19 children, of which no fewer than eleven were with Vieux." Ditto. Quadzilla99 16:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Thorpe scored 4041.530 points, 400 points more than runner-up Ferdinand Bie of Norway." Ditto. Quadzilla99 17:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Giants number
Pretty sure shows him. He wore 21 that year. Cake (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jim Thorpe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071114205622/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com:80/2004/olympics/2004/08/08/bc.olympics.athletics.thorpe/ to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/olympics/2004/08/08/bc.olympics.athletics.thorpe/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The use of the word Today
This article uses the word "today" to explain the difference in "today's value" of the dollar versus 100 years ago dollar. It should cite a year instead of the word "today." 100 years from now, the value will be very different, and "today" will be 100 years out of date. I'm not an economist, everything I know about economics, I read on Wikipedia, so I'll leave the correction up to someone who knows what they are talking about.

Tothmetres (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)tothmetres

edit: I thought that it might help to quote the exact section of the article needing attention:

" reportedly as little as US$2 ($51 today)"
 * Thanks for pointing this out. However it's fine, because it uses the inflation template to generate the equivalent in today's money. Graham 87 16:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 19:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Medal restoration
While his family was given replicas, his name does not appear on any official documents and has not ever been reinstated that way. Smithosonian on Thorpe “The name of James Thorpe will be added to the list of athletes who were crowned Olympic champions at the 1912 Games.” What’s less commonly known is that the IOC appended this small, mean sentence: “However, the official report for these Games will not be modified.” 96.31.177.52 (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He is apparently considered a gold medalist again, so that is perhaps the most important thing in the end. However, you appear to be right about the records not being recognized. I added a sentence to clarify this decision on the IOC's part. Weird one, isn't it? Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Birth date
The article seems to base the May 22 birth date on a single source, yet most sources listed in this very article give May 28. www.notablebiographies.com/St-Tr/Thorpe-Jim.html Encyclopedia of World Biography, NFL.com, [ National Football Foundation], Baseball Reference, Pro Football Reference. Lizard (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about this subject, but the source cited for May 22 seems to be the most recent and perhaps the most scholarly. The article should be consistent, anyhow. Graham 87 03:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead could use fleshing out
Or at least find a way to combine or do away with the single-sentence paragraphs in the lead. Looks like this is a pretty old FA, but a lead like this would never pass for an FA today. Lizard (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Once the holiday season passes and I can devote the time required, I'll do my best to improve the lead. I have plenty of experience with the FA process and know what is expected of lead sections in modern FAs. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done my best to expand the lead by tying in some of the elements of the article that were not previously represented. I think it's a better summary than what was there before. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 19:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 👍 Lizard  (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Jersey numbers
While I don't doubt the Pro Football Hall of Fame's site, I'm a little skeptical of those jersey numbers. I was under the impression that numbers weren't used in football until some time in the 1930s. Are there photos of him in uniform with these numbers? Lizard (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a photo of Thorpe wearing number 1 in a 1924 game here. His team at the time, the Rock Island Independents, apparently did wear jersey numbers at one point; a number is visible on another player in the background of the photo above, and there's another image of an Independents player with a jersey number here. These Sports Illustrated articles indicate that Thorpe wore number 21 as well during his football career. Given these pieces of evidence, I'm inclined to believe the Hall of Fame here. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

College rushing yards
There are a few sources that give yardage totals for his college career, including this Sports Illustrated piece and this excerpt from a book. Both state he rushed for 1,869 yards in 1912; an astronomical number for any era, much less a hundred years ago. Of course, I'm not sure where or how they got these numbers, since reliable yardage statistics in college are hard to find until the 1950s. It's possible they just added up whatever they could find from newspaper accounts, which means that total is likely even higher. Do any offline sources discuss these stats? Lizard (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have Kate Buford's biography of Thorpe and will check it for any discussion of his 1912 statistics when I get a chance. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 13:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Buford says that surviving newspaper records indicate that he did rush for 1,869 yards in 1912, but in 12 of the 14 games he played; the others didn't have known records. I added a couple sentences on his 1912 stats, attributed to the person who did the research that is discussed in the Buford book. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

ETHNICITY UNKNOWN
The ethnicity of the subject is unknown and therefore he should not be listed in the category of 'Irish-Americans'. Indeed, his Christian name whilst it is one associated with Scotland (due to the fact 7 of our kings had this name) it is certainly NOT a name you would associate with the Irish; notwithstanding the fact that James is a universal biblical name, in the UK it is a name as common to Scotland as that other name that falls in to the same category, Andrew. The problem with the delusional ethnocentric Irish is that everybody of significance is Irish regardless of how slight or dubious the connection to their country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.80.32 (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I added two sources on his Irish grandfather. Nechemia Iron (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, the vast majority of editors are not here to push an ethnocentric agenda. In fact, most people don't care how many famous people they share an ethnicity with. Assume good faith. Lizard  (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"his first—and as it turned out, his only—Olympic decathlon"
Is that meant to mean the first and only time he competed in any decathlon? If so, it should be reworded (e.g. by removing the word "Olympic"). If not, it should be deleted, because it's not at all unusual for an athlete to only go to one Olympics. Adpete (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with the phrasing. It may not be unusual for a person to compete in one Olympics simply because they couldn't qualify for another, but that's not the case here. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Then why not say it for his other events as well, or at least the pentathlon? But after re-reading, I don't think that is what is meant. I notice that the US Decathlon had slightly different events to the Olympic decathlon, and I think what is meant is that this was the only time he competed in a decathlon comprising the same 10 events as the Olympics. If so, that is worth mentioning and it is also worth spelling out so it's not unclear. Adpete (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe you're correct. Olympic seems to be used here to describe the type of decathlon rather than where it took place. Lizard  (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh wait, no. It's more impressive. The US trials were cancelled and he was selected without ever having competed in a decathlon. The original edit - done back in 2004 (!) - reads "This meant that Jim Thorpe would contest his first - and, as it turned out, only - decathlon in Stockholm.". Now all we need to do is reference it. I assume it can be found in one of the references of that 2004 version of this page. Adpete (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 2004? That was like, before electricity was invented. Good luck finding a ref. Lizard  (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sports Reference states "He had never competed in a decathlon prior to Stockholm", while USA Track & Field is a tiny bit more ambiguous: "His track exploits won him a place on the 1912 Olympic team in two individual events (the high jump and long jump) and two multi-events (the pentathlon and decathlon). Thorpe took his challenge in stride, even though he had never competed in a decathlon ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've changed it using the USATF ref, because I think it's more reliable than sports-reference.com. Adpete (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Since the USATF page doesn't really verify that the 1912 Olympics was his only decathlon (just that it was his first), and my checks of Kate Buford's biography of Thorpe found nothing that would specifically support that part of the sentence, I went ahead and added a Sports Reference page that does contain the information. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * (unindent) Well reading on in the article, he competed in an "All-round championship" which as far as I can see was very similar to a decathlon - see Athletics at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Men's all-around for the sort of events this would have had. So maybe he didn't do the 10 decathlon events, but he did something very similar. Adpete (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There was a sentence at the start of the Olympic career section that referred to a decathlon event held in the U.S. since the 1880s. It seems like that was supposed to be about the all-around championship, but it wasn't that clear. I cleaned that up a bit so that things make more sense. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 03:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Texas Trail of Fame
Since this is a featured article and more and after I looked at the Honors section, I am not quite sure how it fits in, I'll let those familiar with the article add it in. In 2013, Jim Thorpe was inducted into the Texas Trail of Fame. It's a great article! dawnleelynn(talk) 19:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Jim Thorpe's father wasn't Irish....
That was just made up bullcrap information owing to the racism of the time period. Thorpe is in fact a descendant of Chief Joseph. The reason white ancestry was bullcrapped in there, was owing to his athletic prowess; in Thorpe's time there was much racism against the native americans, and owing to the poverty of most natives in this country, although in Thorpe's reservation there have been much protests regarding his ancestry, said reservation has been unable to retalliate legally. Regarding Thorpe's ancestry please revise it; certainly the man doesn't even look Irish. For god's sake he couldn't even grow a beard! Yes, that is important, because full blooded native americans can't grow beards, and the ability to grow a beard is something you inherit from your father. White father, native mother = boy who will grow a beard, however, native father + white mother = boy who will be beardless, or grow very little face hair. In a local reservation here where I reside, a lot of male descendants of native americans never have to shave; ever. As a race, the native americans are beardless (the males). The spanish had a term for the "condition;" in spanish, a man who can't grow a beard is referred to as a "lampiño," it literally means "bald face."

Thorpe, was never known to have worn a beard, so his paternal Irish ancestry is highly suspect. Part of the reason Islam, and even Judaism, have been accused of being false religions, is native american beardlessness; both Islam and Judaism, talk about the sacredness of the beard yeah well, what happens when a man can't even grow one? See, full blooded native americans, pose a problem; if Islam truly came from "God" you would think "God" would know that a race of men can't even grow beards wouldn't you? If there are any anti-muslims out there, the very existence of full blooded native americans, presents a powerful counter argument; how the hell can a man be like Mohamed, the prophet of Islam, if he can't grow a beard? The author of this article, please take the time to visit Thorpe's actual tribe, and not rely on white scholars. His paternal Irish ancestry is highly suspect, and the sources can not be trusted. The article needs revision. 67.148.120.105 (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)stardingo747
 * It's because only the Irish settled the US; English, Germans, etc... not a single one has ever set foot on US soil. All people claim to be "Irish." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wōdenhelm (talk • contribs) 03:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't even know how to respond to this but I'll start with - your facial hair genes have nothing to do with which parent was which race. A white mother+native father will have an equal chance of passing down their genetic beard/mustache tendencies as a white father+native mother. You don't get your beard from your dad, bud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.9.254 (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Errors
This edit by Graham87 reintroduced a lot of errors apart from fixing my mistake with whom. He is Native American as noted in the second sentence and discussed throughout the article. Why are we identifying him as American in the first sentence? Why would we say he was portrayed by an actor in a film about him before noting he had an acting career (chronology). Frustrating to see an editor insist on a knee jerk revert of a long series of carefully considered edits. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * All Native Americans born in the United States have been citizens of the United States since 1924 (see Indian Citizenship Act). Many Native Americans were U.S. citizens before that date (less than half of people identified as "Indian" at the time were not yet U.S. citizens). As Jim Thorpe's grandfathers were white, his father and mother and he would almost certainly have been citizens before 1924. How, then, was Jim Thorpe not an American? - Donald Albury 17:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * He was a Native American born in the Oklahoma Territory on Native American land to Native American parents many years before 1924. He was sent to a school for Native Americans. Compare to other articles about indigenous persons. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I am not the editor who reverted you, and no one else seems interested in this issue, I'll defer to you. Happy editing! - Donald Albury 23:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Organization
Why does his film career come at the very end of the entry after the legacy sections? I am happy to fix but I fear being reverted. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't write the article but it makes sense to me, seeing as his film career is of very minor importance compared to his athletic achievements, and all the information about his relationship to film is in one place. Also, please don't try to ram your edits in that have already been reverted, along with overemphasising his public-speaking and film career in the first sentence, as you did in these edits. Graham 87 06:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're saying it makes sense to cover his film career after the sections on events that happened after he was dead? That chronology does not make sense.
 * And as it's an entire section on a notable aspect of his career it makes sense to note it in the lead section. He isn't only known as an athlete. He was a public figure and in movies. A speaker and celebrity. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, to answer the question about why" we ended up with this arrangement, the revision history search feature coughs up this revision by Clarityfiend where the "In Popular culture" section was renamed to "Film" and then this revision where info about his films was added. I think we've managed to sort that one out. Graham 87 16:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)