Talk:James Wilkinson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	Kentucky Portal James Wilkinson is within the scope of WikiProject Kentucky, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Template Usage] [Watch Project Articles] [Project Talk]
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

[edit] Wilkinson not first Governor of Louisiana Territory (said BT to kick off this page....)

I don't have Vol. IV of Gayarré in front of me, since I'm still inputting Vol. III, but other standard works on my site confirm that Claiborne was the first Governor of Louisiana Territory:

• Kendall's History of New Orleans, p53
• Grace King's New Orleans, the Place and the People, p161

Mind you, in Gayarré Vol. III, pp619 ff. — not yet up on my site, I'll probably get there within the week though — it is Claiborne who receives the keys from the French Prefect, and it is Claiborne who makes the initial American proclamation. (The reason Vol. III doesn't go into the American governorship is that the Volume covers only, and is subtitled, "The Spanish Domination".)

But, just in case this should not be believable, the Secretary of State of Louisiana goes along for the ride as well; Wilkinson is not even mentioned on that page.

The source of the confusion is that Jefferson appointed Claiborne and Wilkinson as joint Commissioners to accept the province from France. Bill 18:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Be careful not to confuse Orleans Territory (which became the state of Louisiana) with the Louisiana Territory.

Both this and this agree that Wilkinson was appointed the governor of Louisiana Territory in 1805. I will look for other references this evening. older ≠ wiser 18:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're approaching a 50‑50 split: I didn't realize he'd been governor of the rump end starting in 1805. On the other hand, no confusion; Wikipedia's own article points out that the Territory only acquired the name "Orleans Territory" in late 1804. Before that, the entirety was called "Louisiana Territory", and Claiborne was definitely its first governor. Bill 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Civil government was organized under the name Orleans Territory; the Louisiana Territory was a separately organized civil government. Prior to that, there was no civil territorial government, only military governors. So Claiborne was not the first governor of the Louisiana Territory (except in a colloquial use of the term for the area). older ≠ wiser 19:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few additional links from Congressional Archives:

• October 31, 1803 Act of Congress authorizing Jefferson to accept the territory ceded by France and authorizing him to appoint military governors unless the Congress makes provisions for temporary government sooner.

• January 16, 1804 Letter from Jefferson read into the Senate Journal reporting successful exectuion by Governor Claiborne of the Mississippi territory and General Wilkinson, who were appointed commissioners to receive possession of Louisiana as ceded by France.

• March 26, 1804 Act of Congress organizing the Orleans Territory and designating the remainder as the "district of Louisiana", placed under control of the governor of the Indiana Territory, William Henry Harrison.

• Novermber 30, 1804 Senate Executive Journal receipt of letter from Jefferson appointing Claibourne as governor of Orleans Territory.

• March 2, 1805 Act of Congress authorizing Orleans Territory to proceed to the next level of territorial government and enabling it to form a state constitution upon reaching population of 60,000.

• March 3, 1805 Act of Congress organizing the district of Louisiana into the Louisiana Territory.

• December 20, 1805 Senate Executive Journal receipt of letter from Jefferson re-appointing Claibourne as governor of Orleans Territory and appointing Wilkinson as governor of Louisiana Territory.

I think it is clear that Claibourne was never governor of the organized Louisiana Territory and that by all apppearances Wilkinson was appointed the first governor (I could find nothing indicating that Jefferson had appointed anyone else in the interim between organization of the territory in March 1805 and the letter of appointment dated December 1805). older ≠ wiser 21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No question that

• (a) I was wrong about Wilkinson and the "Louisiana Territory": I didn't know that, now I do.
• (b) Claiborne never was governor of the "LT" rump.
• (c) Claiborne was indeed governor of the Orleans Territory.

The question I (still) have is what was the territory bought under the Louisiana Purchase called before it was divided into the LT and the OT. Surely, "Louisiana Territory"? What else could it possibly have been called?

On a different note altogether, a great big thank-you for introducing me to http://memory.loc.gov/, a resource I was completely unaware of. And on a final note, I'm adding a Wilkinson page of my own — masking about 150 pages of print — to the Links.... Even if right this second, one of the index pages is a bit sketchy; it'll be shipshape in an hour or so. Best, Bill 22:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Confusingly, it was often called "Louisiana" (which in itself, even under French and Spanish rule, encompassed a rather vaguely defined area). When described in official documents, it was often accompanied by some mention of the land or territory ceded by France. References to district of L or territory of L (at least in federal documents) generally references to officially designated entities.

http://memory.loc.gov/ is a great resource -- I wish they would make more Congressional documentation available online. older ≠ wiser 23:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wilkinson County, Georgia

Roswell native (talk • contribs) has added this category to the article twice now and I've removed it twice. Neither this article nor the Wilkinson County, Georgia article mention that Wilkinson had any significant connection to the county. Simply because a place is named after a person is not a good reason to include the person in the category for that place. That is a misapplication of categories, IMO. older ≠ wiser 12:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Bkonrad, I would like to politely disagree. For example, Monroe County is listed in Category:James Monroe. If Monroe did not have his own category, this would obviously be listed as a category on his individual entry even though he did not have anything to do with most of those seventeen counties - it's part of Monroe's legacy. In addition, adding back Category:Wilkinson County, Georgia will also help in attracting those interested in or from that area that may be able to expand the article with respect to Wilkinson County, Georgia. In fact, I think we should also add Category:Wilkinson County, Mississippi for the same reason. Finally, both of these county categories should be present if Category:Confidence tricksters remains IMHO. -- Roswell native 02:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, on both points. Monroe County was incorrectly categorized -- disambiguation pages in general should not be categorized. From Wikipedia:Categorization, the section on "When to use categories" has this guidance:

Questions to ask to determine whether it is appropriate to add an article to a category:

• If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?
• If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?

If the answer to either of these questions is no, then the category is probably inappropriate.

I don't think it at all is obviouswhy the article was put in the category. The category subject "Wilkinson County, Georgia" is not so much as mentioned in the article, let alone prominently discussed. I don't see how the inclusion of Category:Confidence tricksters has any bearing on the others. Wilkinson was certainly involved in several high-profile scandals that had some similarities to confidence scams and which are discussed in some detail in his article. But whether it is appropriate to describe him as a "confidence trickster" is somewhat debatable -- I'm not really sure exactly how well he fits into that category. But that is a rather completely different matter from including him in the county articles. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to Wikipedia:Categorization, I have been looking for that page and never finding it for some reason. As for Monroe County being incorrectly categorized, I'm not sure I agree there. Another case in point, Category:Places named for Benjamin Franklin is in Category: Benjamin Franklin - if Franklin did not have his own category, this would be listed on Benjamin Franklin's entry instead (similar to JW and Wil. Co. category discussion we are having). The more I look, the more this appears to be an accepted practice with respect to Bio entries and the places named after those people. Not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out what I am observing as I peruse Wikipedia.

• If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?

• You've lost me on this point. We are talking about a category that does exist, or did I misunderstand the category to which you are referring?

• If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?

• If I go to Category:Wilkinson County, Georgia, I see Gordon, Georgia : Irwinton, Georgia : Ivey, Georgia : McIntyre, Georgia : Toomsboro, Georgia. If I also saw James Wilkinson, I would honestly assume without hesitation that this is the person for whom the county is named strictly based on his last name. Sounds like you completely disagree?

If the answer to either of these questions is no, then the category is probably inappropriate.

Passing on the first question, definite yes IMO on the second.

As for Category:Confidence tricksters, this seems to grossly understate his actions. Category:American fraudsters perhaps instead? He was involved in the Yazoo land scandal as well although that is not currently documented in either the Yazoo or JW entries. His historical actions are open to much more development, and it would be good to attract those that are local to the place of his actions to expand upon his article and related articles (which is why I inserted the cat. in the first place to be honest). -- Roswell native 05:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A category is not (or at least IMO should not be) just a collection of things that are tangentially related to a topic. It is not really completely obvious why the article on the man James Wilkinson would be in the county category. Being named for a person is not a very significant factor so far as that individual is concerned. That is, generally, a category represents a significant attribute pertaining to the subject of the article. As I've said several times now, the county is not even so much as mentioned in Wilkinson's article and the last time I checked he was not even mentioned in the county article. I'm probably not presenting the rationales about categorization very well -- you might want to try bringing this up on Wikipedia talk:Categorization to get some other perspectives. I could be all wet, and if so, I'll withdraw my objections. But from what I recall of past discussions there, I don't think there will be a lot of support for including the man in the county category merely on the basis of name. The Franklin example you mention is significantly different. The places are included in a subcategory for the person and not the person in a category for the place. If that subcategory, Category:Places named for Benjamin Franklin, did not exist, you would not add Ben Franklin to the categories for the places, such as Category:Franklin County, Illinois. The categories are describing an attribute of the places, not an attribute of the person. older ≠ wiser 12:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)