Talk:Thomas H. Chilton

The Tyranny of Published Error

Quote: Thomas H. Chilton was born with a small, extra head in his right armpit. It taught him to speak French, fluently. End Quote. We can hypothesize such a statement included in the biography compiled by the National Academy of Science - and by the rules of Wikipedia this would carry more verity than statements by Chilton family who saw Tom's right armpit thousands of times sans any spare head. But, you see, that's too damn bad: rules are rules. In 1910, Claudius L. Chilton, the father of THC, wrote and published a "Centenary Sketch of William Parish Chilton" and perpetuated a hundred years of faulty information. Thomas H. Chilton tried in vain to correct his father's printed error about his grandfather, but the errors persist these 97 years after CLC's death and 38 years after the death of Tom Chilton. THIS IS ABSURD and fills this Wikipedia sketch with irony, because it will be quoted as gospel about THC. It is not. The article mentions an amusing gift to Thomas H. Chilton at his retirement party from DuPont in 1959, a book printed without punctuation. I was a witness to the handing of this gift to my great-uncle, who thumbed the work, laughed and set it on a table covered with gifts. One of them was an animated mechanical model, a la Copernicus, of the orbit of Sputnik. The space race had just begun. THC had 8 siblings, because one brother died young. The 9 brilliant children created their own private language - lexicon syntax and grammar - and, as adults, sometimes spoke this tongue to sibs in the presence of Others. It is now a Dead Language. Edward M. Chilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.183.102 (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And exactly how am I supposed to know all this before being told or finding it somewhere online? Why come out scolding me when I meant no harm? There was no Wikipedia article on THC and I undertook to write it. Instead of insulting Wikipedia, assume good faith and make your corrections. Your sarcasm does nothing to advance your case. I did the best I could when writing the article. Why don't you write a book or publish your information online? Then someone else can use it to cite the information in the article, which, by the way, would be much enhanced with a photo, if you have one of THC. Please upload it to Wikimedia Commons so that other Wikpedia projects can use it too. Marrante (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Writer: The comment was about The Tyranny of Published Error, and included the case that Thomas H. Chilton was unsuccessful in correcting error published by HIS OWN FATHER regarding HIS OWN FATHER, William Parish Chilton. On Wikipedia I've attempted to make the corrections, but have been subjected to challenge. If I said the Ala Chief Justice peed out of doors Feb 29, 1860 some nut case would expect a photo of His Honor holding a dated newspaper rather than his dick.

Which brings up the dispute about what material belongs in Wikipedia thumbnail biography. I personally witnessed the retirement gift of the mechanical device showing the orbiting path of Sputnik. I did not witness the wedding of Tom's granddaughter, Eve Chilton, to MIRAMAX mogul Harvey Weinstein, though I know it happened. The Wikipeida sketch names Harvey's second wife, sans any mention of Eve Chilton, mother of three daughters by that fat toad.

The criticism was not aimed at you. It was aimed at Wikipedia. I have family photos of Thomas H. Chilton from the age of seven, to the last photo taken of him, in Bonn, a few days before he died. My favorite photo of Tom shows him at NY AIChE in 1967, lecturing my grinning father, also a chemical engineer and editor of the Chemical Engineer's Handbook. -- Edward M. Chilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.183.102 (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Notwithstanding myriad proof readings, page 8 of Tom Chilton,s 1967 genealogical opus repeats bottom material from page 7. "To err is human; to blame it upon someone else is even more human." --Edward M. Chilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.183.102 (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Gamesmanship of Citation Needed

This comment is an assertion of intellectual superiority and succeeds in putting weak people on the defensive. Screw that. The Hamilton name is also carried by my father -named for his uncle Tom - and the explanation came to me in personal correspondence circa 1976 with my paternal grandmother. I've no intention of publishing that letter from her in a book to please some Wikipedia Twit. Take it or leave it.

Tom Chilton and Enrico Fermi became colleagues and friends at Columbia University in 1939. Fermi did not send written invitations to see his Pile-1, with RSVP inserts. This event was two weeks following my birth, and Tom shared the circumstances of attendance at Chicago's Stagg Field with his new-father, chemical engineer nephew, living in Niagara Falls. Take it or leave it.

Tom Chilton did not join a brother in NYC. He joined the household of his eldest brother, which included a wife, a son, and a second son (my father) was born in 1918. If this seems a matter of over-information, then I direct you to the dumb comment about the years of prior acquaintance THC had with the married woman who became his second wife. So what?

A treasure of mine is a binder of hand written letters from Thomas H. Chilton to family, across the 1920s. Bart Chilton is welcome to them.

"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." This is a noble goal that may be true in some other Universe. This one has an infinity of facts, which would require a second infinity of fact verifications, which would require a third infinity of verification verifications - in an infinite regression. Encyclopedia becomes competition between arrogant persons who are appalled at the arrogance of other people. I have corrected scores of fact errors on Wikipedia and earned enmity almost each and every time. --Edward M. Chilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.183.102 (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to publish the letter. You just cite it, something like "Unpublished letter to X (date)" and maybe a location, if you have it. Look, I don't give two hoots about where the information comes from. I'm only saying that if you care enough to put it in the article, perhaps you care enough to give it some support so someone who doesn't know where it came from doesn't decide to delete it because it can't be proven. These are the standards at Wikipedia and they are established because otherwise, Wikipedia will have no credibility at all. It is taken as a minor source precisely because of the many things written by people who don't verify what they write and many times, leave information that is not correct. Citing is not gamesmanship, it's a matter of credibility. Marrante (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't lecture me. Citing is gamesmanship and often a matter of gullibility. IMO an example of the latter is "Vietnam - A History" by Stanley Karnow. Bogus citations have helped more than one writer of a doctoral thesis earn a degree. If a source is not available to others, there is no way to confirm a) the fact asserted, b) the reading comprehension of the writer. If a Wikipedia user has the freedom to delete a statement that cannot be proven, everything about God is toast. The existence of God cannot be proven. Citing sacred writ is either tautological or a shell game. Citing a reference is not proof of truth, see the Tyranny of Error problem above. Wikipedia is a =Real-time People's Encyclopedia= and offers information under the principle of caveat emptor. It should remain a minor source but a good starting point, like the door to a good library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.183.102 (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to understand the basic concept of Wikipedia, but not to respect the desire of those who put in a great deal of time, nearly all volunteer, to give Wikipedia a good reputation. Yes, an encyclopedia is merely a good starting point, but traditionally encyclopedias are printed in annual editions, unchanged once printed. That's a profound distinction. Wikipedia changes every day, numerous times by numerous people, some anonymous and some, malicious. The link at left, Recent changes, logs all edits. You don't have to agree with the consensus that established the standards and rules here, but what you write here is subject to them nonetheless and to the whims of other editors, as well. I have written to you to help you, but you have chosen to regard my help as "lecturing". Suit yourself. But truly, you can and should learn to sign your posts. And yes, that last bit was lecturing. Marrante (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)