This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Hi @ Nikkimaria:. I see you've tagged the article as "relying excessively on primary sources" and that "some of the article's listed sources may not be reliable". From your previous diff it looks like it is the links to FamilySearch (FS) and to Find-a-Grave (FG) that are giving you concern. So let me set out why I think these links are useful and why I think they are appropriate in this case, in the hope that we can find common ground.
In particular, per WP:RS "Context matters" and "Context relates to specific facts, not just the source", it is important to take into account what aspects of the external reference are being used, how it is being used, and which facts it is being used to support.
The key concern, I presume, is that these are sites which contain some user-contributed content. FG for example can contain long user-contributed essays about particular individuals or particular family lineages. I fully agree that we would not consider those in themselves good support for particular biographical facts or family relationships. But FG also contains decent resolution photographs of memorial inscriptions (MIs) -- an entirely different kettle of fish. The text on the MI is not something that has been contributed by a user; and it has long been recognised that an MI is one of the strongest sources for someone's dates. (Not infallible -- the stonemason might have made a mistake; as might the family commissioning it. But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, enough in general (in the real world, as well as WP) to support a statement of somebody's dates -- especially when the source of the information is made clear, so readers can apply their own assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of dates from MIs).
You raise the issue of primary and secondary sources. But it seems to me that a good photograph of an MI (a source we might consider primary) is actually a rather better source for that MI than (say) a transcription of the MI in a history of a parish by some Victorian antiquarian (a source we might consider secondary). Did the antiquarian record the MI accurately? We might hope so. But with a photograph we can actually see the text. It's not appropriate just to think "secondary source good, primary source bad". Sometimes a good clear primary source may be better than the secondary source. (And better than giving either individually may be to give both -- so a reader can see the secondary source and judge where it came from).
It seems to me that the John Higginson case is an example of just this. The UCL LBS database gives his dates [1] -- but doesn't say where this information has come from. But with the FG link one can see that there is an MI, one can see that it has been transcribed correctly; so the reader can now know at least one source for where the information has ultimately come from; and they can know that it is at least as reliable (or not) as they consider MIs to be. Without the FG link they would not be in this position. Adding the FG source has added something of distinct value to the reader.
The George Irlam case raises the issue of collation. This is something WP articles do all the time (and is one of WP's greatest usefulnesses) -- we bring together in one article information from lots of different sources. This requires editorial judgments we make all the time: is the person being described by one source the same person that's being described by another source? Is the ship described by one issue of Lloyd's Register the same ship as the ship being described by another issue of LR (as opposed to a quite different ship that happens to have the same name -- a not uncommon occurrence). Most of our ship articles for the age of sail revolve around such a set of judgments.
In the case of George Irlam the evidence that this is indeed George Iram's gravestone EDIT: is beyond doubt, given it matches the date of death on his will (see below), as well as the children listed in it. is very strong (I would say, overwhelming). Consider: George Irlam was not a common name (even compared to a name like John Higginson, there were far fewer George Irlams). George Irlam lived his later years at Bootle Hall (per
UCL LBS). Walton-on-the-Hill is the local parish church for Bootle Hall. A will was proved for "George Irlam of Bootle, merchant" with probate in October 1833 with a re-grant in 1840 ([the year his heir George Barton Irlam died])
[2]. This already makes it very probable that this is the stone of the 'right' George Irlam -- a relatively uncommon name, exactly the right place, and exactly the right time. But what takes the calculation to a whole other level are the names and dates for so many of Irlam's children: names and dates which match the baptisms in the Liverpool parish records where George is described first as a book-keeper (to 1799), then as a merchant
[3]; that match the list in the will of William Barton made 1822 ("George Irlam, Thomas Irlam, Elizabeth Irlam, Ann Irlam, Ellen Irlam, Frances Irlam, Margaret Irlam, Maria Irlam sons and daughters of my said partner George Irlam")
[4] (free reg required); and that match the list of residents of Barton Hall as per the 1841 census ("Ellen Barton (60), Elizabeth Irlam, Frances Irlam, Margaret Irlam, Maria Irlam, William Irlam")
[5]). Given all that, there can be little doubt that this is the stone for 'our' George Irlam.
Finally, the FamilySearch links. These are not being used to support any fact 'above the line' in the article. Rather, they are there as courtesy links for readers who want to look further into the lives of the four principals. Readers are specifically pointed to the sources attached to the profiles. These are not user-submitted. They are the result of a centrally-directed transcription program, rigorously quality-controlled by the LDS, many many of them accompanied by photographic images of the original documents. It is (by several orders of magnitude) the best and largest free-as-in-dollars resource of this kind on the internet.
For somebody wanting to look further at our principals, it's a very good additional resource to point them to. For our four principals, there are copies and summaries of the wills for three`of them; there are parish register hits for when they got married, when they had their children -- including for example, the interesting description of George Irlam as a 'book-keeper' in the PRs up to 1799; the locations where William Barton and John Higginson had their children (answer: in Barbados, apart from the last few of Higginson's); the connection by marriage between William Barton and the influential Forte family on Barbados. Yes, this all depends on judgments as to whether those records have been matched to the right people (that matching-up is what has been done by user contribution). And for that reason not appropriate to include in the WP article. But as an external resource to be able direct readers to, very very useful. Yes, if one was being picky one might put these links under "External links", because that's why they're being offered, rather than to support any particular fact or facts in the article. But we're not going for Featured Article here, so there's no need to be that picky -- where they are, in with the footnotes, is handy for readers, keeping the relevant biographical links together in one place with each other.
So: six links. Two links which are being used to support facts in the article. Does that (out of 48 refs) really make this "an article which relies excessively on references to primary sources" ? -- Jheald ( talk) 00:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Hi @ Nikkimaria:. I see you've tagged the article as "relying excessively on primary sources" and that "some of the article's listed sources may not be reliable". From your previous diff it looks like it is the links to FamilySearch (FS) and to Find-a-Grave (FG) that are giving you concern. So let me set out why I think these links are useful and why I think they are appropriate in this case, in the hope that we can find common ground.
In particular, per WP:RS "Context matters" and "Context relates to specific facts, not just the source", it is important to take into account what aspects of the external reference are being used, how it is being used, and which facts it is being used to support.
The key concern, I presume, is that these are sites which contain some user-contributed content. FG for example can contain long user-contributed essays about particular individuals or particular family lineages. I fully agree that we would not consider those in themselves good support for particular biographical facts or family relationships. But FG also contains decent resolution photographs of memorial inscriptions (MIs) -- an entirely different kettle of fish. The text on the MI is not something that has been contributed by a user; and it has long been recognised that an MI is one of the strongest sources for someone's dates. (Not infallible -- the stonemason might have made a mistake; as might the family commissioning it. But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, enough in general (in the real world, as well as WP) to support a statement of somebody's dates -- especially when the source of the information is made clear, so readers can apply their own assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of dates from MIs).
You raise the issue of primary and secondary sources. But it seems to me that a good photograph of an MI (a source we might consider primary) is actually a rather better source for that MI than (say) a transcription of the MI in a history of a parish by some Victorian antiquarian (a source we might consider secondary). Did the antiquarian record the MI accurately? We might hope so. But with a photograph we can actually see the text. It's not appropriate just to think "secondary source good, primary source bad". Sometimes a good clear primary source may be better than the secondary source. (And better than giving either individually may be to give both -- so a reader can see the secondary source and judge where it came from).
It seems to me that the John Higginson case is an example of just this. The UCL LBS database gives his dates [1] -- but doesn't say where this information has come from. But with the FG link one can see that there is an MI, one can see that it has been transcribed correctly; so the reader can now know at least one source for where the information has ultimately come from; and they can know that it is at least as reliable (or not) as they consider MIs to be. Without the FG link they would not be in this position. Adding the FG source has added something of distinct value to the reader.
The George Irlam case raises the issue of collation. This is something WP articles do all the time (and is one of WP's greatest usefulnesses) -- we bring together in one article information from lots of different sources. This requires editorial judgments we make all the time: is the person being described by one source the same person that's being described by another source? Is the ship described by one issue of Lloyd's Register the same ship as the ship being described by another issue of LR (as opposed to a quite different ship that happens to have the same name -- a not uncommon occurrence). Most of our ship articles for the age of sail revolve around such a set of judgments.
In the case of George Irlam the evidence that this is indeed George Iram's gravestone EDIT: is beyond doubt, given it matches the date of death on his will (see below), as well as the children listed in it. is very strong (I would say, overwhelming). Consider: George Irlam was not a common name (even compared to a name like John Higginson, there were far fewer George Irlams). George Irlam lived his later years at Bootle Hall (per
UCL LBS). Walton-on-the-Hill is the local parish church for Bootle Hall. A will was proved for "George Irlam of Bootle, merchant" with probate in October 1833 with a re-grant in 1840 ([the year his heir George Barton Irlam died])
[2]. This already makes it very probable that this is the stone of the 'right' George Irlam -- a relatively uncommon name, exactly the right place, and exactly the right time. But what takes the calculation to a whole other level are the names and dates for so many of Irlam's children: names and dates which match the baptisms in the Liverpool parish records where George is described first as a book-keeper (to 1799), then as a merchant
[3]; that match the list in the will of William Barton made 1822 ("George Irlam, Thomas Irlam, Elizabeth Irlam, Ann Irlam, Ellen Irlam, Frances Irlam, Margaret Irlam, Maria Irlam sons and daughters of my said partner George Irlam")
[4] (free reg required); and that match the list of residents of Barton Hall as per the 1841 census ("Ellen Barton (60), Elizabeth Irlam, Frances Irlam, Margaret Irlam, Maria Irlam, William Irlam")
[5]). Given all that, there can be little doubt that this is the stone for 'our' George Irlam.
Finally, the FamilySearch links. These are not being used to support any fact 'above the line' in the article. Rather, they are there as courtesy links for readers who want to look further into the lives of the four principals. Readers are specifically pointed to the sources attached to the profiles. These are not user-submitted. They are the result of a centrally-directed transcription program, rigorously quality-controlled by the LDS, many many of them accompanied by photographic images of the original documents. It is (by several orders of magnitude) the best and largest free-as-in-dollars resource of this kind on the internet.
For somebody wanting to look further at our principals, it's a very good additional resource to point them to. For our four principals, there are copies and summaries of the wills for three`of them; there are parish register hits for when they got married, when they had their children -- including for example, the interesting description of George Irlam as a 'book-keeper' in the PRs up to 1799; the locations where William Barton and John Higginson had their children (answer: in Barbados, apart from the last few of Higginson's); the connection by marriage between William Barton and the influential Forte family on Barbados. Yes, this all depends on judgments as to whether those records have been matched to the right people (that matching-up is what has been done by user contribution). And for that reason not appropriate to include in the WP article. But as an external resource to be able direct readers to, very very useful. Yes, if one was being picky one might put these links under "External links", because that's why they're being offered, rather than to support any particular fact or facts in the article. But we're not going for Featured Article here, so there's no need to be that picky -- where they are, in with the footnotes, is handy for readers, keeping the relevant biographical links together in one place with each other.
So: six links. Two links which are being used to support facts in the article. Does that (out of 48 refs) really make this "an article which relies excessively on references to primary sources" ? -- Jheald ( talk) 00:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)