Talk:J. C. Watts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former good article nomineeJ. C. Watts was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 21, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
May 21, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

GA Review

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

Review by User:RayAYang

Hi -- this is just to let you know I've started the review. I'll fill in stuff as I go through it. Best, RayTalk 22:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply
]

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Parts of the article are too listlike -- facts come too quickly, without appropriate transitions, breaking the flow of the narrative. Remember that all facts in a paragraph should be related to each other, and that there's no need to make a single sentence say 3 or 4 different things by tacking clauses on to it, and that this sentence is a perfect example of what to avoid. Also, consider breaking the section on his political career into multiple subsections. There's a humongous amount of material in there, and it doesn't flow together well. It's a bit of a pain to read through.
    B. MoS compliance:
    WP:LAYOUT
    looks good, except that you may wish to move his autobiography into a "works" or "publications" section, since it doesn't appear to have been a source for this article. Otherwise, this is good.
  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:
    I am concerned that you often go into too much detail. The specifics of particular accusations raised in a campaign do not need to be recounted in their entirety. However, in general this is pretty good.
  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:
    Good luck with this -- the article is very good, but could use some touchup on the prose and the narrative style. RayTalk 20:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for the review. I improved the lead, put in subsections and broke up a few sentences. As for the detail in the reelection, I thought it useful to illustrate how bitter the campaign was. If you think I should change more and remove parts of the campaign and pull apart more sentences could you please give me some guidance on where you think it's necessary? Thanks again. Hekerui (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the new lead and stuff is useful, but I'm still doubtful about the prose. Since I'm new to this, I'm asking for a second opinion on it. Cheers, RayTalk 19:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion by Philcha (talk)

Hi,

WP:GAN
ofr a 2nd oopinion, here's mine.

I'll assume the referencing has already been checked and there are no serious issues. ---Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

  • Green tickYIMO, for what it's worth, there's too much about details of primary votes and opinion polls in election campaigns.
    I looked at other articles, such as Hillary Clinton's, Hilda Solis' etc. and they use voting results. He is a politician, I think his campaigns matter.
the other American pol articles you mentioned also go into great detail about elections including primaries, so I guess that's just the way Americans like their politics. --Philcha (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OTOH there are a few gaps:
    • How did he go from being a teenage unwed father by 2 girls to a Baptist minister?
      I don't understand, because I wrote what happened in between. Please clarify.
      • Was Watts a practising Christian when he became an unwed teenage father of 2 by different girls? If not, how did he become a Christian? --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW Date of the first 2 kids and of his marriage would help. Is he still married to Frankie Watts née Jones? --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        His wife and kids are in his infobox and why he is a Christian minister and had kids as a teenager is not explained but his father was a minister and the United States have a statistically significant number of teenage pregnancies. But I don't think speculations like that belong into the article. I haven't read his own account, but autobiographies tend to be soft-focus anyway.
        • this says Watts was preaching while he was college QB. I think you need to show a bit more determination in your research. This entry also says he went pro in Canada becuase he preferred their more open style of play - since you admit you know nothing of American football, ask me about anything you don't understand in this item.--Philcha (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like a bit more about his switch from Dem to Rep in 1989. As presented at the moment it looks like simple pique at not being supported strongly by the Dems. Was there more to it? Did no-one make an issue of it at the time, or in any of his later campaigns? - especially as he called himself a "devoted conservative". Any comments from active Dems in his family? --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      He was called a "devoted conservative" by the New York Times. I didn't find anyone making it an issue, just as his broken pledge was only mentioned incidentally. In the LA Times story his father says "A black man voting for the Republicans makes about as much sense as a chicken voting for Col. Sanders," but I'm not sure that needs to be in the article. I wrote his family was affiliated with the party and the older men worked for it and the NAACP.
      • To me this switch and the apparently muted reaction to it is more important than the voting stats in elections Watts contested. It may be a culture thing - I'ma Brit, and our sports commentators don't reduce everythings to %s. --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have not found/read any opinion pieces by insiders of his campaign. Hekerui (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • a source already cited explains the switch as a process that started while he was a student. Julius Caesar Watts Jr also helps, and commments, "There were many prominent blacks in the Democratic Party, but he was a novelty for the Republicans." (got it by googling for "Julius Caesar Watts") You might re-check them for answers to other points, e.g. wife and kids. I've reviewed other articles where editors missed some good stuff in sources they already had. --Philcha (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • this gives criticism from Watts' uncle Wade (? the same one who raised Watt's other out-of-marriage kid? compare w the other sources). You need to make friends w Google. It occurs to me since you're in Germany you may be getting a different selection from Google. If I type "www.google.com" into my browser, Google gives me www.google.co.uk. But if I type "www.google.de", I get German Google. Perhaps you should try asking for English language editions of Google, e.g. www.google.co.uk (UK) or www.google.ca (Canada; which I can also get if I specifically ask for it). I suggest you start here, as I've checked the previous search results. --Philcha (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY Nothing about his family life, e.g. any more kids? --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that he has six kids and his family stayed in Oklahoma while he was in Congress.
I see, the infobox says 6 kids. The cited source, Republicans slam Stark for war comments, also implies that all but one were by Frankie. You might like to slip in somewhere the fact that he had another 4 with Frankie after their marriage - religion and family issues seem to play an even bigger psrt in the USA than in UK, so I think it's significant that, despite his teenage escapades, he's now a model of respectability. --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I covered that his family was left in Oklahoma but I don't have any birthdates etc. so I'm not sure whether to include more than the information I have.
Fair enough. --Philcha (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

  • The titles of and allocations of topics to sub-sections of section "U.S. House of Representatives" looks odd to me. I'd make the sub-sections:
  • "Election campaigns" covering 1994, 1998
  • Record in office", covering policies and causes he supported, committee memberships & other posts, and any controversies arising from any of these.
  • Retirement from Congress" --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to go chronologically.
Sometimes one appproach is best, sometimes another. As far as I can see the article gives no hint that Watts make any significant changes in his policy statements. If he had, it would have been interesting to see whether they had any connection to any of his election campaigns, e.g. to position himself better against specific opponents - the impression Brits get is that a lot of US politicians pitch the primary campaigns to the party faithful and the main campaigns to the swing voters. My impression of Watts, if I've got it right, is of a consistent right-wing conservative except in his urging the Reps to reach out more to black voters - but against handouts that create dependency.--Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you read that correctly from the article.

Prose

  • Re section "Early life and career":
    •  Done looks like it was written by a different editor from the rest of the article, as its sentences are rather short. --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's now probably as good as it's going to get, since artificially combining sentences about different aspects of his life would be worse. --Philcha (talk)
    •  Done has a long run of "He did X" then a long run of "Watts did X". --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's mixed.
      • Look at the first half of the first para - I accept that the 2nd half is more mixed. --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to have fixed it pretty well - thanks. --Philcha (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • should it be "Eufaula High school" (cap H & S)? -Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes.
      • I see you've fixed it, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think several political terms should be explained for the benefit of non-US readers. --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm non-US myself lol but I'm not sure which ones you mean.
      • Any that are specific to USA.
      • BTW I assume from you user page that you're a German, correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, I would never have guessed it from your written English, you have my respect! Why's a German so interested in US politics? --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmmm I think I linked enough. BTW I am German! :) I've never been to America but I have some friends there.

Lead

Should be revised & reviewed when other issues are resolved, as the lead is meant to summarise the main text. -Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Reasonable number, and no obvious copyright problems. --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find any that are not people shots, e.g. the logo of his lobbying and consulting firm? Or
    I included his company logo.
    • Thanks, the FUR also looks fine. I can't think of any other non-headshot image that would be appropriate. --Philcha (talk)

Overall impression

I think this is just a whisker short of GA. The only issues I've raised that require research are Watts' becoming a Baptist minister, his switch of party, and his family life. The rest of the issues are just polishing up. I hope this will be a clear GA in about 2 weeks. --Philcha (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the suggestions, I responded. Hekerui (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

Nothing big, migh go in the bottom under "Further reading" / "External links": --Philcha (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another 2nd opinion by TonyTheTiger (talk)

Hi,

WP:GAN
for a 2nd opinion, I see one above, so I will make mine brief.

I am a big sports fan and have experience with athlete articles. I believe a good article could be written just about his athletic career and am quite disappointed in the relative brevity of the athletic career coverage. I would like to see greater detail of sports career coverage although I realize 1970s research is much harder than the 1990s and 2000s research that is covered in more sufficient breadth and depth for my taste. Currently only half of a paragraph covers athletics. Actually that paragraph should be split out. Since Watts was a quarterback, there should be a lot to write about. Since quarterbacks get a disproportionate amount of secondary source coverage.--

WP:LOTM) 02:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I've never seen an American football game, don't know the rules, have heard of "quarterbacks" but that's it - I just wrote together what I read about his sports career and would have a hard time writing together much more about that :( Hekerui (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result of review

The nominator has removed the nomination from

WP:GAN and added the "failed GA" template at the top of Talk:J. C. Watts
. The article would have failed if the following gaps in coverage were not resolved:

See several comments dated 15:15, 18 April 2009 - most give sources, one also gives a Google search. --Philcha (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the first reviewer removed his/her name from the review so I thought it failed and I finished it off. Hekerui (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove my name from the review; I put it up for a second opinion. I didn't remove my name from the page until after the nomination was withdrawn. That said, I agree with and thank Philcha for his points. I would add the following point:

  • The narrative style in the early life section is a little too disjointed and hurried to be considered good prose. That too would need to be corrected before this article is put up for GA again.

Best of luck; this is generally a fairly good article, but I think Hekerui was correct to withdraw the nomination, as these gaps are likely to take more than a week to correct. RayTalk 22:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I didn't withdraw anything. Hekerui (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gosh. I had left the nom open w/o further comments because I was expecting changes to the article. Well, no matter. Good luck with the article. RayTalk 10:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is
transcluded from Talk:J. C. Watts/GA2
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article is horribly incomplete. A good article could almost be written on his athletic career, IMO. At least a separate section with a few paragraphs should detail his collegiate career. I am failing the article summarily without further review for this fault. I mentioned this opinion on the first GA review. The response was that the writer does not know football. This biography can not be properly written without an understnding of football. I am not just being mean here. I am the primary editor for

WP:LOTM) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I lived in
WP:LOTM) 05:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Name

I doubted it too, but his name really is Julius Caesar! See this link, for example, which is pretty definitive. There a couple other sources that use his full name too. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that source, but it's not definitive (check the entry for Al Franken, his actual name Alan Stuart is not used by the congressional biography). When I researched this issue I found a source that specifically discussed his name with background info, and the reason some people think his name is Julius Caesar is found quoted from the source in the note - his name is J.C. and it has no further meaning, as explained by said source. Hekerui (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, can you send me that source? See also this article, which uses Julius Caesar. Sorry for reverting you, I thought this was just a misunderstanding. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That some articles use Julius Caesar doesn't mean it has merit - it's a common misunderstanding and when we have an article that fact-checks it and explains how the misunderstanding originated, that should take precedent. As I said, I came across this apparent discrepancy when I researched for the wiki article and read all the stuff about him, and found a source specifically discussing why some people think his name is "Julius Caesar" and how this is false, because it's simply something blurted out by J.C.'s father when he was pressed for a name not consiting of initials. The online version of the "Black conservative looks at life" article is apparently gone from highbeam.com since I read it, but we have name of the publication, date, and author, so it can be found in newspaper archives. One can directly view it in the publisher archive of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel at http://www.newslibrary.com/sites/mwsb/ (search the article title), but it costs $2.95 to view. Regards Hekerui (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this book it talks about his father getting the nickname "Julius Caesar" in elementary school. So is it possibly that he actually gave his son that name officially? –CWenger (^ • @) 21:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the inside cover of that book (his autobiography) says "Watts, J. C. (Julius Caesar)". –CWenger (^ • @) 21:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On Amazon.com I can see the back cover and "About the authors" from the book and neither says "Julius Caesar", only J.C. "Julius Caesar" is only mentioned in the citation of the Library of Congress, which is in the same category as the Congressional biography for reliability. The copyright notice from the publisher mentions only J.C. As I cited, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote that Watt's father provided J.C.'s name as "Julius Caesar" at random when pressed for it, so whether his father "really" gave him the name is speculative and not substantiated by the account in the source. It would be great if you or anyone else had any insight on what if anything Watts himself says in this book about his name. If we have nothing else to go on, I suggest we go back to J.C., since there is at least a reliable source for that being correct and the other being false. The way it's now I regard as misinforming. Best Hekerui (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this link, and then click on the link to page iv. You will see it calls him Julius Caesar twice. This is his autobiography so I treat it as definitive. –CWenger (^ • @) 14:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it Watts calling himself "Julius Caesar" or is that the citation I mentioned? I can't watch this on google books, I get "No preview available". Hekerui (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a screenshot then. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the citation used by the Library of Congress, the same source for that name as the flawed bioguide. This is not authored by the book authors. All the other examples where the books authors are prominently displayed (book over, back cover, author description) use J.C. only. And we have a reliable source explaining Julius Caesar is not his name, but used sometimes by mistake, so is there any more discussion necessary before we go back to the verifiable actual name? Regards Hekerui (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you send me a screenshot of your source that explains that Julius Caesar is not his name? I see another place in his autobiography where he states: "I have always thought the Jets picked the two players with the most colorful names in the draft that year as their eighth round choices: Admiral Dewey Larry, Jr., and Julius Caesar Watts, Jr." –CWenger (^ • @) 00:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I cannot. $3 to reiterate what I already had paraphrased from the source when I worked on the article? No. The source specifically discussed that his initials have no meaning. That passage you mention could have all kinds of explanations, none of which deal directly with the name like the source I gave. I will restore the previous version. For those cases the citation templates have the "retrieved" parameter, to show this was not conjured out of thin air. Hekerui (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided your memory of a non-free reference. I have provided numerous web references and screenshots and quotes from his autobiography. It is pretty clear the evidence is for "Julius Caesar". What do you think he meant said "in an instant that would later determine my name", prior to describing his father being called "Julius Caesar" in school? What do you think he meant by saying "I have always thought the Jets picked the two players with the most colorful names in the draft that year as their eighth round choices: Admiral Dewey Larry, Jr., and Julius Caesar Watts, Jr."? Also keep in mind
verifiability, not truth. Not that I am saying Julius Caesar is not true, but it is certainly verifiable. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: I have advertised this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism#J. C. Watts. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my memory, it's what I wrote down from looking at the source text in 2009. I saw the context of the source and how unambiguous it was, but this autobio context has not been fully available to either of us. Your web reference was not reliable (the congressional bio, which has gotten Al Franken's actual name wrong too, the stuff relying on it, including the book listing), but it's verified by a reporter that "Julius Caesar" is actually false and the result of an arbitrary statement by Watts' father - evidence that this seeped into popular usage one time or another doesn't makes the case stronger, especially without proper context. This looks POINTy to me by now, as this was cleared up so long ago. Hekerui (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing members of Congress write their own biography, and Al Franken simply chose to not use his full name. In addition to the Library of Congress catalog, which I showed earlier, here are screenshots from his autobiography of the story of his Dad's nickname (note the phrase "in an instant that would later determine my name"), and his mention of the Jets' draft. The latter seems definitive to me. I think his own words in his autobiography are a reliable source for his own name. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good, this exactly proves that the name "J.C." has no actual meaning and that Watts' father simply made a long-form up one day when he noticed that the Roman emperor Julius Caesar had the same initials. Case finally closed. The second image is merely the result of the Library of Congress using the wrong name as it uses the stats from the Congressional biography. His autobio on the other hand doesn't use "Julius Caesar" in the credits given by the author(s) and/or publisher, that much we already discovered (I with Amazon, you with Google books). Hekerui (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're not being serious. He said "in an instant that would later determine my name". It is pretty obvious it was only a nickname for his father in school but became his son's official birth name. How do you explain his comment about the Jets' draft? –CWenger (^ • @) 22:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Obvious? Have you had a look at his birth certificate lately? The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel stated that the intials do not have a meaning. J.C. probably uses the longer form coloquially like his father did. That is speculation but it is no more speculation than you got with "pretty obvious it [...] became his son's official birth name", with the difference that I cited a reliable source that specifically talked about the meaninglessness of the initials. Hekerui (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty clear that we are not going to resolve this ourselves. I have post a neutrally worded link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#J. C. Watts, as you suggested. Though I am still waiting for your explanation of his comment about the Jets' draft. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears Milwaukee is WP:V and CWenger's sources are WP:V. At this point we can't determine which is "true." It doesn't matter anyway, as we're not interested in truth. Both points of view should be reflected in the article. Lionel (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with you, except the link for reference 2 currently in the article doesn't show the intended source, and therefore I would consider it not verifiable. On the other hand, a search of that site for "Julius Caesar Watts" turns up numerous hits. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That the link is not available anymore doesn't mean the story doesn't exist - as I said, I found the story easily in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel archive where one can retrieve it for a fee. I retrieved it when it was still available. If you cite a newspaper it's still reliable even if you can't access it online. I adressed your Jets point with my outdent comment above, he may use it coloquially, but that doesn't mean it's the name. Hekerui (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel archives are available for free here. Unfortunately that day is not available (even for pay). Do you have a link you can post? A Google search of the title turns up virtually nothing. I am not doubting you read this, but the problem is you are the only person that can confirm it. And the current reference is not properly formatted, it is just a search of HighBeam, which currently does not retrieve the correct article. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it when I go to http://www.newslibrary.com/sites/mwsb/, enter "Black conservative looks at life" and choose year 2002. Perhaps this link works. Hekerui (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. I know some people in Wisconsin so I'll see if any of them have access to this article. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any success so far? Hekerui (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes, I managed to get the article and took a screenshot of it which you can view here. To be honest I have been debating what to do with it because it doesn't definitively answer the question. It does say the initials didn't stand for anything for his father (at least initially). It implies his son's name is actually Julius Caesar, but then calls it a "moniker", which tends to means nickname. Ultimately I don't put a huge amount of credibility in the article because it is just a review of Watts' book. It doesn't look like he he interviewed Watts personally as there are no quotes in the article. I put about as much stock in it as the other reliable sources we have.
I suppose the thing to do would be to just add footnotes after his birth name tag in the infobox and the first time his full name is used in the article saying it is unclear whether or not his full name is Julius Caesar. Would you be amenable to that? –CWenger (^ • @) 22:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I'm not sure how to accomplish it, perhaps you should make an edit in the article (or in a sandbox for testing). One could also make this a proper distinguished note as, for example, done here (that's used in existing articles too, but I best remembered this application). Hekerui (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a good way to accomplish it. I suggest text along the following lines:

Julius Caesar "J. C." Watts, Jr.N-[1]

Notes

n-[1] a It is unclear if his official name is Julius Caesar or simply J. C. Many sources[1][2][3] use "Julius Caesar" but others suggest it is simply a nickname handed down from his father[4].

–CWenger (^ • @) 22:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply in a new section because of the note formatting

To be safe from misinforming, I think it should be done the other way around, at least with J. C. we have a name he always uses, so "J. C. Watts, Jr." should be given a note that some sources use "Julius Caesar" but others suggest this is a mere nickname. Hekerui (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was proposing the other way since we have several sources that say "Julius Caesar" (including this one that I just found; if you can't access it says "He was born with the name Julius Caesar Watts...") and only one that hints it is a nickname. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The author wrote Julius Caesar to use a figure of speech, verifiability not truth does not extend to such things, no? Can we expect this was throroughly investigated by the author of a college football encyclopedia when the sources much closer to Watts talk about this as a made-up name? We should go with the name on the front of his book and in the author section of his autobio and mention the possible name of Julius Caesar in the note - this uncertainty is precisely why we want the note in the first place, no? Regards Hekerui (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't put a lot of stock in the college football encyclopedia, which is why I'm not suggesting it is definitive even though it clearly says it was his birth name. But neither do I put a lot of stock in the MJS piece, which was basically just a book review, and even then, the only hint that the author didn't think "Julius Caesar" was his real name was the use of the term "moniker". Since so many sources say "Julius Caesar" it makes sense to use that but note the exception rather than vice versa. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't know with certitude whether the full "Julius Caesar" is his birth certificate name, but we know he doesn't use it on his book and there are doubts, the note should give it not the main text. We don't first imply something and then put the doubts in a note, which would be unencyclopedic, no? Hekerui (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason we have to doubt that his full name includes "Julius Caesar" is a vague use of the term "moniker" in a single Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article written by somebody who simply read Watts' book and didn't appear to interview anybody for his story. We are balancing that against major sources like his autobiography, his Congressional biography, the Oklahoma Historical Society, and Black Americans in Congress, just to name a few.
Verifiability, not truth says we report what reliable sources say and if we happen to be wrong people at least know where we got the inaccurate information. I think the note explaining the potential confusion about his birth name is more than sufficient. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
J.C. is much more easily verifiable, it's on the cover of his autobiography, while Julius Caesar is in a story in it that leaves lots of questions. Putting the Julius Caesar in the lead is creating confusion, not dispelling it. Your characterization of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, which states that his initials have no meaning as not trustworthy is based on your interpretation, not something verifiable, is that not so? Hekerui (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common names are always more verifiable than birth names—that doesn't mean we don't put them in articles. We have a note that explains the potential confusion so I don't see what the problem is. Also, can you point to the line in the MJS article that says his initials have no meaning? It very clearly says "For the future congressman's father..." (my emphasis added). –CWenger (^ • @) 17:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Previously you were fine with using both names, we just quibbled about the order. Have you had a change of heart? –CWenger (^ • @) 17:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I supported mentioning the uncertainty in the note, but I very much dislike potentially misinforming the readers by using this supposed full name for all the reasons mentioned on this talk page. At this point, I'd love to contact that man to put this to rest. J.C. and Julius Caesar. What's wrong with John? Hekerui (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I would love to know the truth. If you are right I owe you a drink. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsment of Rand Paul?

I think his father changed his name.

I verified in Watts' autobiography that his father's given name was J.C. not Julius Caesar. However, I see sources suggesting that somewhere down the line, his dad changed his name formally to "Julius Caesar". Examples:

Furthermore, several articles about his son Trey Watts, who's now in the NFL, report his full name as "Julius Caesar Watts III". Like The Oklahoman in 2013 and Charleston (WV) Gazette in 2011. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers. —

Talk to my owner:Online 16:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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.

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).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 02:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on J. C. Watts. 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:

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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. C. Watts. 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:

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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on J. C. Watts. 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:

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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ source 1
  2. ^ source 2
  3. ^ source 3
  4. ^ MJS source
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._C._Watts&oldid=1210923484"