AstroProfessor

James Guthrie

Thank you for your edits to James Guthrie (American politician). While I appreciate your information from a family Bible and the headstones of individuals mentioned in the article, both of these constitute primary sources. Wikipedia prefers secondary, and to a lesser extent tertiary, sources per WP:PRIMARY. While I do not want to dispute the information you have added, the sentences you changed are cited to a secondary source authored by Dr. John Kleber, one of Kentucky's foremost historians. Per Wikipedia policy, this source is to be preferred. I have included the information from your primary sources in a footnote. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so it has obviously been a while since my rewrite of this article. I have confirmed the variant "Eliza" in the Encyclopedia of Louisville. I also located my sources for the variant "Elizabeth", which were Encyclopedia of the American Civil War, p. 903 and Biographical Dictionary of the United States Secretaries of the Treasury, p. 183. (I knew I wouldn't have changed this without a reason.) Nevertheless, in looking back over the sources, it seems most of them use Eliza, so I have no problem with that. The variant "Anna Augusta" appears in The Kentucky Encyclopedia, p. 396. Is there a competing secondary source for the variant "Ann"? If not, I feel like the proper course of action is to revert this to "Anna". I have no reason not to concede your contention that Augusta was the preferred name; both the primary and secondary sources seem to indicate this. We can add quotation marks to indicate this if you wish (i.e. Anna "Augusta" Guthrie). As for the final issue, that of the nickname "Sallie", I haven't been able to find my source for that (albeit I've only been looking for ten minutes.) However, I have no problem omitting this detail altogether, as it is relatively trivial.

Regarding your concern about primary vs. secondary sources in Wikipedia, I can only point you to what the guidelines say. They were written and agreed upon long before I started editing here. I just try to go by them, hence my quick reversion of material based on primary sources. Hope this interchange hasn't colored your impression of me or Wikipedia. BTW, should you need to respond to me, I've moved your note under an appropriate heading on my talk page for the sake of organization. Just leave any additional comments under your original comments there. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional work on this. If nothing else, I'm happy to see the thesis is available online. When I did the rewrite some time ago, this was the one source I saw mentioned that I didn't have access to. I've added it to the Further Reading Section in case I or someone else decides to further expand the article. Honestly, someone as politically and publicly active as he was deserves a good or featured article. Not sure if I'll ever get back around to it or not.

This isn't the first time I've run into conflicting spelling variants. Probably the best thing to do is note them in a footnote. I've got a busy day shaping up, but I'll try to do that later on. BTW, you mentioned that you published an article with relevant information; as long as the publisher reviews and fact checks content (i.e. it isn't a vanity press or something) that is a valid citation on Wikipedia. However, you should probably identify yourself as the author of the article in any disputes regarding material in it, just to maintain good faith in accordance with WP:COI. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)