Talk:Mason Locke Weems/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name?

Was Mason L. Weems in fact a parson, in which case this page probably should be moved to Mason Weems or Mason L. Weems? Or was Parson in fact his given name? Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My history textbook claims that his name was Mason Locke Weems who was "Formerly Rector of Mount Vernon Parish"

Marcus, Robert "American Voices: A historical Reader" Brandywine Press: St. James, New York. 1992.

other myths

It seems peculiar that left out of this article were the myths of Washington praying at Valley Forge and a fabricated death bed scene (one which contradicted the account recorded by Washington's secretary), both of which I am under the impression were invented by Weems. --Sparkhurst 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Life of Washington publication date

It seems odd that the only one of Weems's books whose publication date isn't given is Life of Washington. Binabik80 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the content of that cherry tree myth?

For the benefit of non-US readers who might never have heard of it (such as me), it would be nice to include in a few words the essence of that "famous tale of the cherry tree". Thank you. -- 85.179.125.250 05:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Cherry Tree Story and Better Parenting

This article interpets the Cherry Tree story as an attempt by Weems to comment on the parenting of the elder Washington. I challenge the readers to actually read The Life of Washington--the book clearly is an attempt to turn Washington's life into a series of parables that teach moral lessons to the reader.

Jdshrock 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Avon L. Press

It's not irony, the source is a no-name small paper, and that Weems claimed a "lady" as his source is already in the article. I'm deleting the word "fictional" if that's a POV irritant. What's the reason why not? 71.133.92.32 10:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Observations

• What we have been witnessing here is essentially an edit war, even if the period is longer than the de jure WP:3RR twenty-four hours. "Edit warring is the underlying behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time."

• The insertion seems to violate the WP:Verifiability rule, in that no other editor is able to view the yellowed copy of The Press asserted to be lying in the lap of one of the competing editors. The publishers of the Avon/Avon Lake Press do not seem to have made their archives publicly available. If they are available anywhere, a usable reference should be provided.

• It is hard to imagine what information the newspaper article might possibly contain which would trump Weems' own report of the historicity of the incident as already cited in the Wikipedia article. Unless new facts are presented, it may be deemed irrelevant and trivial clutter: the only new information involved is about neither Washington nor Weems, but only about the Avon Press.

• Since the insertion it is unverifiable, it cannot be examined and evaluated for relevance or accuracy, or even for any imputed irony of fact or report.

• The most ironic thing about the insertion seems to be the tenacity with which it is defended. One wishes to assume WP:Good faith, but it is difficult to avoid speculating that the motivation might involve some sort of vested interest, such as rescuing a hobby article from oblivion.

• The competing editors would do well to consider registering with Wikipedia if they wish to be long-term contributors. This improves credibility and facilitates the assumption of good faith. Why create an account?

---- Ziusudra (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Rector

There is no reason to doubt that Dr. Binder (if that is indeed the identity of User:68.100.34.220) knows what he is talking about when it comes to the history of his rectorship.

However, with all due respect, I wonder if the Wikipedia verifiability criterion covers anonymous testimony...? (Suppose I say, "I live in Dendera, Egypt, and I can testify from personal experience that the Nile runs from east to west.") In any case it now seems like the Pohick Church article is out of step with this one. Oh, well. --Ziusudra (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect / content change

Content was imported from Parson Weems to this former redirect page and a redirected added to that article as 'Mason Weems' is the more common name and is used in Weems' books and other accounts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mason Locke Weems. 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/20141203141518/http://www.historicprincewilliam.org/archist.html to http://www.historicprincewilliam.org/archist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)