Talk:Charles McKnight

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)

A few challenges

I have a few questions:

• Why are there Early Life and Later Life sections for McKnight, who died rather young?

• If there needs to be an Early Life section, maybe it needn't review his Revolutionary War service and death, but instead just talk about his childhood and early education?

• Middletown Point eventually became Mount Pleasant, which is in Aberdeen Township. You'll see references to the point being part of Matawan, but that refers to Matawan Township, not Matawan Borough; the township changed its name to Aberdeen not very long ago. Seems to me that the internal link to Middletown Township is inappropriate.

McKnight's father is discussed in "Presbyterians Pioneer at Matawan: 1682-1959", The Price of Freedom:Charles McKnight, and Potter's American Monthly.

For those interested in history, the Aberdeen and Matawan articles lack decent coverage of 17th and 18th century events, which is one of the reasons that Middletown Point isn't clear in Wiki. Matawan's big history item at the moment deals with the famous shark attacks of 1916 that prompted the making of the movie Jaws. The Aberdeen article talks about late 19th century post offices and provides only the most basic facts about the Presbyterian and Quaker influences in the area. There is much to do. --Pat (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles McKnight/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Ref 19 and 20 need page numbers.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Link pneumonia.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'll review this tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Issues fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles McKnight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101022004602/http://www.ushistory.org:80/valleyforge/served/surgeons.html to http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/surgeons.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)