Talk:Charles McKnight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792) American Revolutionary War task force WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Military work group. WikiProject United States United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Questia version of Washington's papers

Bill Thayer has removed the 'Primary sources' section twice, calling the source, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745–1799, "insignificant," incidental," and "trivial" because I used Questia's version of a book. I replied on my talk page, Bill Thayer's talk page, and I've crossposted part of my response here because it's relevant to the article. I also added a couple of other comments here.

I'm good at research, I'm as thorough as I can possibly be, and I like to do it. I love finding little gems like this article to expand and reference. I did several hours of research on Questia and elsewhere before I expanded this one. I added every reference in the article (to date) using Questia and other research tools. I have some more material for this article that I haven't had time to add, and I think it's from a source found at Questia too. On my long-term to-do list, I'd like to do a whole series on the Hospital Department of Washington's army – there's a lot of material available and it's practically ignored at Wikipedia. The books and papers I've found so far are fascinating.

The source in question here, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745–1799, edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, is used at Wikipedia in George Washington and Jonathan Plowman Jr., and it should be read and cited _more_ often, not less. The papers take up 39 volumes at the Library of Congress. They were edited by Fitzpatrick as part of the Washington Bicentennial, when the Library of Congress cooperated with Fitzpatrick to organize and publish them under the authority of Congress. It is a United States Government Printing Office document, it is available on microfilm at the Library of Congress, several hardcover volumes are available at Amazon.com, and it is available online here. I used the Questia version because that was the place I was working at the time. I was honest about the format I accessed, and there's nothing wrong with using an online database of works in the public domain.

I've added the reference back in its original form; I don't have the time or the inclination to find it at the UVA site, especially when my original work was sufficient. If someone wants to find it at the UVA site and change the URL accordingly, be my guest, but unless it can be demonstrated that this source is not a reliable one, it should remain in the article. - KrakatoaKatie 00:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

First, to dispose of whatever carryover you might have experienced with other Wikipedia contributors (who are frequently very rough on each other, not to say downright uncivil!) I am not impugning you personally, nor any question of honesty, good research, or anything of the kind — just the suitability of the item as an offsite link. I'm not suggesting, either, that the information is unreliable: just that what information there is, is so very scant as to constitute next to nothing at all.

Here is the entire passage dealing with McKnight available to non-subscribers:

"To DOCTOR CHARLES McKNIGHT80 Head Quarters, Morristown, December 6, 1779. Sir: I have directed the clothier General to deliver 200 blankets to your order. You will be pleased to take proper measures to have 80. sent up to the Director of the hospital at Albany and to see the remainder distributed proportionabl among the hospitals under your particular charge. As this article is so scarce you will use the utmost œconomy in the application. I am etc.81" (where the numbers refer to notes not available).

It may well be that the book is a wonderful source for McKnight (which I very much doubt, considering that the work in question is about all the multifarious dealings of George Washington, in which I can hardly imagine McKnight to be a central player) but we have no way of telling from this yes, trivial snippet; and the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia users do not have access to the full contents of it on this pay-to-read site. Bill 11:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And, looking at this again tonight, OK, the UVA reference was very easy to find, the matter of less than a minute (comes up first on Google) — a search across the entire 39 volumes returns a meager 14 instances of "McKnight" — didn't check to see if all were Dr. Charles — It's marginal, but 14 primary source refs to a relatively obscure figure is better than one, and available to everyone, not just Questia subscribers.

As for my saying that "the source, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745–1799, "insignificant," incidental," and "trivial" because I used Questia's version of a book, I said nothing of the sort; I did say that a brief paragraph about ordering blankets, in which almost nothing is learned about McKnight, is indeed I, I, and T. Bill 00:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)