Talk:W. Claude Jones

Sources

Is this article based entirely on three sources? I would think that we would want a lot more references to keep the article from containing the bias or point of view of just these authors.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There are other sources with biographical information on Jones (as opposed to passing mentions to Jones that relate little or no information about the man). For a small sample I suggest you search the Library of Congress newspaper archives. There is, however, a problem with these newspaper stories. Many of them contain contradictory information. Jones himself is the primary reason for this issue as he appears to have changed important details about his life story every time he moved. The Finch article served as this article's primary source because in addition to pulling various newspaper articles, personal letters, and official correspondence into one location, Finch performed the fact checking needed to determine which claims could be independently confirmed (if you have read the journal article then you are aware of how many details about Jones' life are either unconformable or provably false). Given the choice between trusting information in a peer reviewed scholarly journal or trying to divine which newspaper editor was given the full story, I placed my faith in the peer reviewed journal. I should also note that since I wrote the initial article, two other editors have worked on this article. One of those editors claims to be one of Jones' Hawaiian descendants. --Allen3 ^talk 19:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Newspapers are RS, but when information conflicts we simply find the common information and seek to compromise if needed when some information seems inaccurate and we can use both sources to cite a claim from them with a notation on the conflicting info.

The article is pretty young and surely can be further sourced, but I am very concerned about the bias of a journal being used so heavily for so much information and only two other sources. That is a legitimate concern. The Journal appears to be a peer reviewed paper but I think we shouldn't be using it in this manner myself. Not to source a majority of the article. I really don't know if using the journal as an over arching source is appropriate yet. Don't know that it isn't, but I feel the article, with it's size and lack of references should at least be tagged for additional sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Article title

Why W. Claude Jones? Why not Use this figures full name. the current sources being used would suggest the use of the initial and the full middle and last name is not adequate information for a search and hampers this article appearing properly in a Google search. Also, JSTR turns up nothing under that and that seems another good reason to move the article to William Claude Jones.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is the reason why that article is titled "W. Claude Jones". There are a variety of newspaper reports and published correspondences either by or about Jones (e.g. [1] and [2]). Additionally, as he was a member of multiple legislative bodies, his name is included in a variety of official lists. A quick perusal of documents produced by individuals who were personally acquainted to him makes it fairly clear that Jones went primarily by his middle name and signed his letters using either "W. Claude Jones" or "Wm. Claude Jones". Of the two options "W. Claude Jones" is by far the more commonly used variation. --Allen3 ^talk 19:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Uhm...Allen, those articles form 100 years ago cannot be used to show common name today. The sources you should be showing to support such use would be those you currently use in the article. That supports use of the full name. If you are not inclined to support a move at this point I think we should start a move discussion. My reasoning-You are using primary source information from the signature of the figure who died long ago and who's notability may not be most commonly known by his own self identification. That is true of many historic figures, while some retain the abbreviations, acronyms or initials. I don't think that the case here and it doesn't actually help either a Google search result for the man or an internet or Library search of the figure to use the less common reference today.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh!!! If it is "modern" counting games you wish to play then lets play. In addition to the title, the Finch article that you appear to be basing your argument upon uses the name "William Claude" once in the text (in the very first sentence of the article) and once as a caption to a portrait. In comparison the name "W. Claude" is used 42 time in the text of the article. The Finch article also indicates that "W. Claude" is the name that people used to refer to him. A similar pattern is found in this 1998 newspaper article (reprint courtesy of the Sharlot Hall Museum), with Jones full name being used once and all subsequent mentions being to "W. Claude", "W. Jones", of "Speaker Jones".

Other sources I have immediate access to are:

• Wagoner, Jay J. (1970). Arizona Territory 1863-1912: A Political history. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. pp. 43, 44, 495, 505. ISBN 0-8165-0176-9.
• Sonnichsen, C. L. (1987) [1982]. Tucson: The Life and Times of an American City. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. p. 70. ISBN 0-8061-2042-8.

Wagoner uses the name "W. Claude Jones" for all four mentions. Sonnichsen likewise uses "W. Claude" the one time he discusses Jones. The references published during the last 50 years to which I have available follow the same pattern as the older texts which you are looking to ignore. Do you have any modern sources that follow a different pattern or is this just a case of argumentum ad ignorantiam combined with FUTON bias? --Allen3 ^talk 01:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get snippy. I am not looking to ignore anything. This is a discussion. I have concerns. I am not ignoring anything. I could counter with sources that show the name otherwise, but what I would like is some demonstration that it is indeed the most common name. Can you demonstrate that and save us time of me starting a move discussion or would you like us to just start such for a larger consensus and present our arguments then?--Mark Miller (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow...in looking further at your last post I can't help but say, for an admin you really suck at this collaboration thing.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I took your information and I did my own further looking and I feel that there is more that refer to the subject as W. Claude Jones, but only just a slight amount. Google search numbers are not accurate as they are showing mostly current individuals with that name. If there were other editors that felt a move discussion was needed I would start one. But this has remained between two editors. It is also clear that you have made accusations based on my questioning certain parts of the article. If your reaction to me is a sample of how you work on Wikipedia, it is best if we did not correspond further.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)