This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Was hoping to find John Eaton (1829-1906), Civil War chaplain, brevet Brigadier General for a colored regiment, and commissioner of freedmen. He was also, I think the first, Commissioner of Education for the United States, and later president of Marietta College, and briefly the editor of the Memphis Post.
4.248.254.18011:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Why would one being "shorter and quicker to type" be relevant?
WP:CONCISE provides that brevity can be relevant but, "Exceptions exist for biographical articles. For example, neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness." That argument is in flagrant violation of this policy.
142.160.131.202 (
talk)
02:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Recent revisions
Hello
Billmckern. I noticed an am appreciative of your recent additions to this article. I do notice, however, that they are unsourced. This is never good. I'm also thinking of nominating this as a GAN at some point, so obviously any unsourced material would be a major problem. Would you please add sources for the information you have recently added? Thank you.
Display name 99 (
talk)
01:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
That's the plan. Watch this space, and you should start to see additional bio details and references. Please let me know if you have any questions once they're posted, or if you have ideas for additional additions, deletions, or corrections. I'll do my best not to step on any work that's already been done, or that you or anyone else is doing.
This is my first GA review, so if I mess up, or do something els wrong, please do tell me. I expect to have finished this review within a week and a half. Additional comments are welcome.
Eddie891TalkWork21:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)reply
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
You link to
Major (United States) in the lead and in the body. Is the second link necessary?
It's not uncommon to link things in the body even if they've already been linked in the lead or infobox. Generally, we don't link more than once in the body unless perhaps the two things are separated by a significant amount of text in a very long article. However, linking something once in the lead and again in the body doesn't seem to me like a big deal.
Display name 99 (
talk)
02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
"Eaton became active in the Tennessee militia, and attained the rank of
major." It might be nice if there was a year included in this sentence.
Yes, it would be. But unfortunately, I've been unable to locate it. He's referred to often as "Major Eaton," with no mention of when he attained the rank.
Display name 99 (
talk)
02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
There is no mention of what happened to the first wife in the marriages section.
I don't understand why Eaton was allowed to serve in the Senate if it is known that he was too young. The explanation you give "personal details including date of birth were not always well-documented" would be adequate, but for you make no mention of there being any doubt about his date of birth.
What you quoted really says about all there is to say. Today you can look up when and where a political candidate was born whenever you choose. You can demand that a candidate produce a copy of his birth certificate if you have doubts about whether or not he meets the qualifications for office. None of that existed in the early 19th century. More than likely, he just flew under the radar, along with the handful of others who managed to pull the same trick. McKellar (1942) mentions that a biographer of Eaton said that he was born not in 1790 but in 1787, without giving an exact date. This would have made Eaton 31 when he entered the Senate instead of 28. It's possible that Eaton told certain people that he was born in 1787 in order to cover for himself. But no source available has speculated that far, so we can't discuss it in the article without violating Wikipedia policy. It's a weird but interesting situation.
Display name 99 (
talk)
02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
A minor caveat. Is the only thing that Eaton did as Secretary of war manage Indian affairs and then resign? and no mention of what he did as ambassador to spain is mentioned. These two things may not be necessary, but it seems that if there is more, it might merit adding.
He was only in office for two years, most of which was consumed with the Petticoat affair. There wasn't much else to do besides manage Indian affairs. I haven't been able to find anything on what he did as Ambassador to Spain. I added that, per Meacham (2008), his time there was "undistinguished."
Display name 99 (
talk)
15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
"The obituary in Washington's Daily National Intelligencer spoke warmly of him, and noted that the chief justice had announced adjournment of the Supreme Court for the afternoon of the eighteenth in order that the justices, members of the bar, and officers of the Court might attend the funeral." This part I found in NCpedia, while it may not be reliable, could merit some mention of.
here it talks about Eaton as being much more involved in the Indian removal, doing a lot more, whereas our article speaks of jackson appointing Eaton, and Eaton just following what Jackson told him to do
From
Here "[Eaton] lost Jackson's friendship until just before the former president's death in 1845" Again, not sure how reliable, but this is in clear contradiction with our article.
It's reliable because it was written by John F. Marszalek, a professional historian who wrote a major book on the Petticoat affair. It makes for an interesting contradiction. We have a 21st century historian claiming that they did reconcile. The source used in the article that explicitly says that they did not is Volume 3 of James Parton's biography of Jackson, published in 1860. According to Remini, "factual errors occasionally interlude" in his work. This seems to make Marszalek's version more reliable. However, after doing some more research, I failed to find any mention of a reconciliation in Marszalek's book on the Petticoat affair. Remini and Meacham say nothing of it, though both mention Eaton's betrayal of Van Buren and Jackson's subsequent anger. I also tried to find any letters between the two men in the Jackson papers dating from after 1840, and was unsuccessful. I did come across a mention from Remini in an endnote that Jackson accidentally ran into Eaton while campaigning for Van Buren in 1840, and that "both men behaved properly." That hardly counts as a reconciliation, but I added it anyway. I found it safer to mention in the article that, while Parton claims that they never reconciled, Marszalek claims that they did.
Display name 99 (
talk)
15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
The Legacy section seems to have only negative things to say about eaton.
From
here "[Eaton] became a speculator in Florida land...advocated compensation upon discharge for soldiers who served honorably; made the Topographical Engineers a separate bureau"
From the JSTOR article "The Eaton Affair Reconsidered" "
Duff Green was angry because Eaton had tried to force him into a partnership with
Amos Kendall" it should probably be made clear that his maritial status was not the only reason he had critics.
I've gotten some more stuff done. Much of my time was sidetracked following up on leads that I had gotten while researching other things. Thank you for providing all these links and encouraging me to look deeper into certain areas. It has significantly helped expand the article.
Display name 99 (
talk)
15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Was hoping to find John Eaton (1829-1906), Civil War chaplain, brevet Brigadier General for a colored regiment, and commissioner of freedmen. He was also, I think the first, Commissioner of Education for the United States, and later president of Marietta College, and briefly the editor of the Memphis Post.
4.248.254.18011:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Why would one being "shorter and quicker to type" be relevant?
WP:CONCISE provides that brevity can be relevant but, "Exceptions exist for biographical articles. For example, neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness." That argument is in flagrant violation of this policy.
142.160.131.202 (
talk)
02:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Recent revisions
Hello
Billmckern. I noticed an am appreciative of your recent additions to this article. I do notice, however, that they are unsourced. This is never good. I'm also thinking of nominating this as a GAN at some point, so obviously any unsourced material would be a major problem. Would you please add sources for the information you have recently added? Thank you.
Display name 99 (
talk)
01:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)reply
That's the plan. Watch this space, and you should start to see additional bio details and references. Please let me know if you have any questions once they're posted, or if you have ideas for additional additions, deletions, or corrections. I'll do my best not to step on any work that's already been done, or that you or anyone else is doing.
This is my first GA review, so if I mess up, or do something els wrong, please do tell me. I expect to have finished this review within a week and a half. Additional comments are welcome.
Eddie891TalkWork21:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)reply
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
You link to
Major (United States) in the lead and in the body. Is the second link necessary?
It's not uncommon to link things in the body even if they've already been linked in the lead or infobox. Generally, we don't link more than once in the body unless perhaps the two things are separated by a significant amount of text in a very long article. However, linking something once in the lead and again in the body doesn't seem to me like a big deal.
Display name 99 (
talk)
02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
"Eaton became active in the Tennessee militia, and attained the rank of
major." It might be nice if there was a year included in this sentence.
Yes, it would be. But unfortunately, I've been unable to locate it. He's referred to often as "Major Eaton," with no mention of when he attained the rank.
Display name 99 (
talk)
02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
There is no mention of what happened to the first wife in the marriages section.
I don't understand why Eaton was allowed to serve in the Senate if it is known that he was too young. The explanation you give "personal details including date of birth were not always well-documented" would be adequate, but for you make no mention of there being any doubt about his date of birth.
What you quoted really says about all there is to say. Today you can look up when and where a political candidate was born whenever you choose. You can demand that a candidate produce a copy of his birth certificate if you have doubts about whether or not he meets the qualifications for office. None of that existed in the early 19th century. More than likely, he just flew under the radar, along with the handful of others who managed to pull the same trick. McKellar (1942) mentions that a biographer of Eaton said that he was born not in 1790 but in 1787, without giving an exact date. This would have made Eaton 31 when he entered the Senate instead of 28. It's possible that Eaton told certain people that he was born in 1787 in order to cover for himself. But no source available has speculated that far, so we can't discuss it in the article without violating Wikipedia policy. It's a weird but interesting situation.
Display name 99 (
talk)
02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
A minor caveat. Is the only thing that Eaton did as Secretary of war manage Indian affairs and then resign? and no mention of what he did as ambassador to spain is mentioned. These two things may not be necessary, but it seems that if there is more, it might merit adding.
He was only in office for two years, most of which was consumed with the Petticoat affair. There wasn't much else to do besides manage Indian affairs. I haven't been able to find anything on what he did as Ambassador to Spain. I added that, per Meacham (2008), his time there was "undistinguished."
Display name 99 (
talk)
15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
"The obituary in Washington's Daily National Intelligencer spoke warmly of him, and noted that the chief justice had announced adjournment of the Supreme Court for the afternoon of the eighteenth in order that the justices, members of the bar, and officers of the Court might attend the funeral." This part I found in NCpedia, while it may not be reliable, could merit some mention of.
here it talks about Eaton as being much more involved in the Indian removal, doing a lot more, whereas our article speaks of jackson appointing Eaton, and Eaton just following what Jackson told him to do
From
Here "[Eaton] lost Jackson's friendship until just before the former president's death in 1845" Again, not sure how reliable, but this is in clear contradiction with our article.
It's reliable because it was written by John F. Marszalek, a professional historian who wrote a major book on the Petticoat affair. It makes for an interesting contradiction. We have a 21st century historian claiming that they did reconcile. The source used in the article that explicitly says that they did not is Volume 3 of James Parton's biography of Jackson, published in 1860. According to Remini, "factual errors occasionally interlude" in his work. This seems to make Marszalek's version more reliable. However, after doing some more research, I failed to find any mention of a reconciliation in Marszalek's book on the Petticoat affair. Remini and Meacham say nothing of it, though both mention Eaton's betrayal of Van Buren and Jackson's subsequent anger. I also tried to find any letters between the two men in the Jackson papers dating from after 1840, and was unsuccessful. I did come across a mention from Remini in an endnote that Jackson accidentally ran into Eaton while campaigning for Van Buren in 1840, and that "both men behaved properly." That hardly counts as a reconciliation, but I added it anyway. I found it safer to mention in the article that, while Parton claims that they never reconciled, Marszalek claims that they did.
Display name 99 (
talk)
15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
The Legacy section seems to have only negative things to say about eaton.
From
here "[Eaton] became a speculator in Florida land...advocated compensation upon discharge for soldiers who served honorably; made the Topographical Engineers a separate bureau"
From the JSTOR article "The Eaton Affair Reconsidered" "
Duff Green was angry because Eaton had tried to force him into a partnership with
Amos Kendall" it should probably be made clear that his maritial status was not the only reason he had critics.
I've gotten some more stuff done. Much of my time was sidetracked following up on leads that I had gotten while researching other things. Thank you for providing all these links and encouraging me to look deeper into certain areas. It has significantly helped expand the article.
Display name 99 (
talk)
15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply