Talk:William Wright Abbot
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | A fact from William Wright Abbot appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 October 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
New article
[edit]New Sources and content are always welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Baccalaureate degree
[edit]I took that out because it was confusing. The previous sentence said he graduated, so mention of degree seemed unnecessary. Likely he had a deferment and was then required to start military service on graduating. The sentence implies the degree was conditioned on naval service, which is unlikely. At any rate, baccalaureate should not be capitalized. Also want to mention that I began editing after noticing it was a QPQ for Gerda (I do some copy editing for her) and was interested to see who Abbot was. Jmar67 (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanx for taking an interest. The section indicated that Abbot was awarded the Baccalaureate degree upon (just before) joining the Navy, so he couldn't have achieved the degree in any manner associated with the Navy. I changed the wording a bit for better clarity. Also, 'Baccalaureate', like PH.d., Master's degree, etc, are official titles for degrees of education, and should be capitalized to indicate this idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Deletion of phrase
[edit]@Vanamonde93: Curious as to why you deleted "from or to Washington" from the lead. This is mentioned in the body and is worth noting. Jmar67 (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Jmar67: because a stickler (and we have plenty such watching the main page) would say that the source does not support that particular bit. Vanamonde (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: The Shapiro source does. Jmar67 (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Jmar67: No, it doesn't. The quote is
"Dr. Abbot worked on Washington's papers for more than 15 years, raised millions of dollars in funding, and read or edited more than 135,000 documents."
Vanamonde (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)- @Vanamonde93: Further down it states: "The project, a comprehensive perspective on the first president, tells "both sides of the story" and includes thousands of letters addressed to Washington, said former project editor Dorothy Twohig." This is discussed in the "Works" section. Jmar67 (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Jmar67: Right. So it says he read documents and letters from or to Washington. But at no point does the source say he read 135,000 of this kind of document. Now that's probably the fault of bad wording on part of the source; but we cannot make that jump. Vanamonde (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: 135,000 documents and letters, thousands of which were letters to Washington. What more does the source need to say? Jmar67 (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Jmar67: The source doesn't need to say anything more; the article needs to conform to the source. "135,000 documents and letters, thousands of which were letters to Washington" is not equivalent to "135,000 documents and letters, to and from Washington." I do not understand why you are unable to see that. Vanamonde (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: 135,000 documents and letters, thousands of which were letters to Washington. What more does the source need to say? Jmar67 (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Jmar67: Right. So it says he read documents and letters from or to Washington. But at no point does the source say he read 135,000 of this kind of document. Now that's probably the fault of bad wording on part of the source; but we cannot make that jump. Vanamonde (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: Further down it states: "The project, a comprehensive perspective on the first president, tells "both sides of the story" and includes thousands of letters addressed to Washington, said former project editor Dorothy Twohig." This is discussed in the "Works" section. Jmar67 (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Jmar67: No, it doesn't. The quote is
- @Vanamonde93: The Shapiro source does. Jmar67 (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: Note above discussion. Jmar67 (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Jmar67 and Vanamonde93: Yes, the source says "Washington's papers". i.e."Washington's". i.e.belonging to Washington. This would mean letters or documents "from or to Washington". The source doesn't say Washington's papers along with other letters or documents. The 135,000 figure clearly refers to "Washington's papers". No doubt other documents not directly belong to Washington were reviewed along the way, but we need to let the reader know that Abbot's work concentrated on "Washington's papers" overall, regardless of any exceptions to the rule. I haven't gone through Abbot's entire 50 volume work, but so far, after reviewing much of it, I haven't come across anything that wasn't either from or to Washington. To be fair to the discussion, without the "from and to" phrase the statement in question could easily be interpreted either way, so if there is more than a passing and marginal consensus to remove "from and to" I will of course abide by it. Appreciate your interest greatly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Gwillhickers and Jmar67: Look, as I said before, it's fairly likely that all of those papers were to and from Washington. If that is the case, the fault here is with the source; it should have been explicit. However, it's an exceptional claim, and is not explicit in the source; thus, it should be avoided. There's ways around it: you could say, for instance, that "he read 135,000 documents over the course of X years research into Washington's correspondence". That gets the point across, and doesn't stray from the source. Vanamonde (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- IMO, the source is explicit more than enough. i.e.Washington's papers. The phrase "from and to" does not "stray" from that basic idea. As I indicated, it can easily be assumed that correspondence not belonging to Washington was reviewed in one instance or another, but as concerns Abbot's actual work, the editing involved concentrated on correspondence from and to Washington. Abbot's published work does not contain correspondence that was not from or to Washington. The "from and to" statement is given in the context of Abbot's publication of Washington's papers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Gwillhickers and Jmar67: Look, as I said before, it's fairly likely that all of those papers were to and from Washington. If that is the case, the fault here is with the source; it should have been explicit. However, it's an exceptional claim, and is not explicit in the source; thus, it should be avoided. There's ways around it: you could say, for instance, that "he read 135,000 documents over the course of X years research into Washington's correspondence". That gets the point across, and doesn't stray from the source. Vanamonde (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Jmar67 and Vanamonde93: Yes, the source says "Washington's papers". i.e."Washington's". i.e.belonging to Washington. This would mean letters or documents "from or to Washington". The source doesn't say Washington's papers along with other letters or documents. The 135,000 figure clearly refers to "Washington's papers". No doubt other documents not directly belong to Washington were reviewed along the way, but we need to let the reader know that Abbot's work concentrated on "Washington's papers" overall, regardless of any exceptions to the rule. I haven't gone through Abbot's entire 50 volume work, but so far, after reviewing much of it, I haven't come across anything that wasn't either from or to Washington. To be fair to the discussion, without the "from and to" phrase the statement in question could easily be interpreted either way, so if there is more than a passing and marginal consensus to remove "from and to" I will of course abide by it. Appreciate your interest greatly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)