Talk:Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630–1850

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

I'm slightly dubious as to the notability of this topic. I'm not seeing the kind of coverage that would satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Statements consisting of evident original research, such as "The work also touches on issues of Patriarchy in a less usual sense", citing only the book itself, don't help the general impression of non-notability.

I've found a single scholarly review that might help with demonstrating non-trivial coverage of the topic; other suggestions are welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar shows the book being cited 233 times. Possibly the other works that cite it might add perspective to its notability. It was reviewed in American Historical Review (I haven't read the review yet), also in The William and Mary Quarterly. I agree that the call-out of it "touching" on patriarchy is odd and perhaps undue weight to something that isn't a primary focus of the book. Schazjmd (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the William and Mary Quarterly review above. However, I just noticed that Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, which is one of the book's publishers, also publishes W&M Quarterly, so I'm not sure this counts as an independent source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken about undue weight. I intend to slowly add to this article over the coming weeks and months, to expand it into something worthy of the popular and academic notability of the subject. In due course I believe the section on Patriarchy will take its naturally correct place within the larger article, once an appropriate expansion has taken place. I would ask for restraint during this period and for good faith to be assumed regarding intentions. Particularly thank you Schazjmd for your suggestions regarding citations. I will make every effort to read through these in full and find all appropriate citations for the work. Mrspaceowl (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research Tag Added to Direct Citation[edit]

The citation beyond doubt establishes that the quote does not appear in the book, because that citation is the book itself. If reading the book and finding that the quote does not appear within it isn't evidence then there would be no possible credible sources at all. The very suggestion that this could in any way violate WP:NOR is a complete impossibility:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist"

How would it be possible for there to be a more reliable source regarding the book's actual contents than the book itself? Mrspaceowl (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrspaceowl: you didn't just write that the quotation doesn't appear in the book. You wrote, "...the character Will Hunting claims ... In fact the passage [does] not appear in the book". That phrase "in fact" is implying something about the accuracy of the movie dialogue that is not in any of the sources. Therefore it's original research. Sources must support the material clearly and directly. Furthermore, the book itself is a primary source as to its contents. Articles should instead be based on reliable, secondary sources that evaluate and synthesize the contents of primary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm not being ridiculous in stating, yet again, that the quote doesn't exist in the book. Which it doesn't. I really don't know what you expect a secondary source to prove but that quote doesn't exist, which a cursory look at the book will prove. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Will Hunting reference[edit]

The Globe and Mail source for the Good Will Hunting reference doesn't state whether the quote in the movie is correct or not. For us to read the book ourselves and decide that it's incorrect would be improper synthesis. Statements in the article should be directly attributable to a published source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read page 98 of the book which it directly references which is a published source. The quote does not appear there and you can see that by reading the book yourself. There is literally no synthesis, it's just one source, which is impossible to argue with. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It literally makes no difference what's in the book. The statement is about what's in the movie. Without a source directly mentioning the movie line as an incorrect quote, it's original research and doesn't belong in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It quotes a line from a book that does not exist within the book. It doesn't matter who else says that, you can't deny the fact that the quote doesn't exist on page 98 of the book. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does matter "who else says that", because Wikipedia articles are based on previously published material. You are arguing about the validity of a personal observation, not a statement from a published source. Personal observations don't belong in Wikipedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How many editions of this book have been printed? How is that known? Sometimes a book is released somewhere and a somewhat different edition is released somewhere else. Reading one page of one edition cannot "prove" an inconsequential statement in a film is incorrect, even if such original research were a good idea (it's not). For one thing, the claim about the quote is WP:UNDUE unless a secondary source says otherwise. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The statement within the film is not inconsequential to my mind, but is pivotal to the entire scene, and if the character of Will is shown to be lying in context this reframes the entire scene and has significant implications for alternative understandings of the film which fall outside those commonly attributed, particularly regarding intellectually dishonest argument, and further complexifies the character. However, yours or any other Wikipedia editors' view on whether or not the statement is 'inconsequential' within the film or not are not relevant to due weight, original research or whether it needs a second source. As best I can tell when you cite these documents you are talking about the following passage in WP:NEUTRAL:
"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
You cite no secondary sources with contrary opinions. While it seems to be the case put forward that the book itself is not considered to be a credible source because of secondary source, this is directly contradicted by the source you yourself link to, which states:
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."
As such if you can find at least one secondary sources that states the quote does appear in the book, particularly that cites an alternative edition, then I would conceed that WP:UNDUE would at least be theoretically in play, but so far you have not presented any evidence of this. Further suggestions of original research, you seem to be referencing WP:OR, which states unambiguously in the second line of the article:
"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that attempts to imply or state a meaning which is not incontrovertably that of the source itself. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
By the three definitions outlined thus far it is beyond doubt that:
  • Primary sources are permitted on Wikipedia
  • Original research does not disallow use of primary sources as citation regarding their own content
  • It is not improper synthesis to state directly what a primary source does or does not say
Mrspaceowl (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the quote in the movie is actually in the book might be important to that scene in the movie, but this is an article about the book. That it was mentioned in a movie is trivia, although interesting trivia, but anything beyond stating it was mentioned in a well-known movie is really irrelevant to the book. Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Schazjmd. I feel this idea has grounding and you might well be right. Tbh I'd be a bit intimidated editing the page on Good Will Hunting itself any more than adding a footnote, due to its popularity and my relative newness to serious Wikipedia editing. I am certain though that I should consider the book's noteriety on its own terms, since the book doesn't talk about Good Will Hunting itself and seems to be a well researched and scholarly text in its own right, with lots to say about the world that don't require the context of Good Will Hunting but merely benefits from the exposure it brought. Very useful reply. Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrspaceowl: Wikipedia is a pretty simple place and there is no need to explain basics to experienced editors. This article is about a book. What happens in a film is not relevant unless a secondary source makes a clear case explaining the relevance for this book. My use of "inconsequential" was to say that the statement in the film is inconsequential regarding this book—it doesn't provide any consequential information or insight about the book. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrspaceowl: The text in question is not about what the book does or does not say. It's about the movie dialogue being correct or incorrect. Those are two different things. In the first case, the book is the subject. In the second case, the movie is. Using the book as a primary source to make a comment about a movie that mentions the book is the definition of improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am upset by this line of questioning given the facts: that the character in the film states the passage as being from a page of the book, and that the book's page does not contain the passage, do not seem to be refuted. It personally upsets me when I feel factual material is being suppressed using rules that are intended to prevent bias and inaccuracy, applied wrongly. I do not feel at all that I am being supported in making contributions but rather that the opposite is the case. I am happy at the moment that I have sufficient emotional strength to deal with these feelings, but would ask you to step back and consider whether, both approaching this in good faith, we can come to an understanding that aligns both facts and feeling with user edited rules in ways that achieve consensus and keep everybody happy. Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editors' personal feelings do not enter into the equation. See my latest reply on your talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have told you repeatedly to stop following me around Wikipedia. Mrspaceowl (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only too happy to. But please note that complaints about not feeling "supported" are unlikely to persuade anyone. Wikipedia is not therapy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine to include that ol' Good Will cites the book during the barroom disputation (since we have a source specifically mentioning that while discussing the book) but saying that Assertion X is not on page 98 [1] is classic OR/SYNTH. Aside from the pitfalls already mentioned in this thread re editions, I note that in the script here [2] Will cites, instead, "Page 421". This presents serious difficulties for the thesis that the correctness or incorrectness of Will's citation has significant implications for alternative understandings of the film which fall outside those commonly attributed, particularly regarding intellectually dishonest argument, and further complexifies the character, as a far more reasonable explanation (and I'm going out on a limb here) is that when the moment came, Damon just spit out whatever random page number popped into his head. So while this line of inquiry might make for a quite good undergraduate term paper, it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article (whether this one or -- I mention to head off trouble -- the article on the movie itself). EEng 11:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Using the Academic OneFile database through my local library, I found this source in which an economics professor describes his lesson that compares that scene from Good Will Hunting to the work by the historians mentioned in the scene, and the students are led to the conclusion that Vickers didn't say what the character claimed he did. The paper doesn't explicitly state that "the passage does not appear on that page", but does support "falsely claims" (I think). (However, I still think it's trivia.) Cite: Timm, Chad William. "Hunting for the market economy: using historiographical debates to critique the evolution of the market economy and capitalism." Radical Teacher, Summer 2007, p. 13+. Academic OneFile, https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A168432827/AONE?u=kcls_main&sid=AONE&xid=a2189dca. Accessed 2 Feb. 2019. Schazjmd (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Timm's saying "Vickers never specifically addresses Gordon Wood, as the scene implies" doesn't mean that Will Hunting's statement "You got that from Vickers" isn't supported by Vickers' work (on whatever page), just that it's not specifically addressed. It's nice to be able to say that this highfalutin academic tome was referenced in a pop film, but this additional "falsely claimed" factoid is (a) trivial and (b) not supported by appropriate sources. EEng 15:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And... now Mrs. Pace Owl is at it again as an IP. EEng 03:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That IP is blocked for a month due to your SPI report. This is likely to recur and if you can't get attention elsewhere, ping me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional book reviews[edit]

I don't have access to full text for the following:

  • O'Har, George. "Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850." Technology and Culture, vol. 37, no. 2, 1996, p. 353+. partial text version in ProQuest
  • Clark, Christopher. "Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850." Reviews in American History, vol. 23, no. 4, 1995, p. 600+.
  • Matson, Cathy. "Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massuchetts, 1630-1850." American Historical Review, vol. 102, no. 4, 1997, p. 1219+.
  • Salinger, Sharon V. "Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850." Journal of American History, vol. 82, no. 2, 1995, p. 682+.
  • Schlebecker, John T. "Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850." Agricultural History, vol. 69, no. 4, 1995, p. 634.
  • Baker, Emerson W. "Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850." Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 15, no. 4, 1995, p. 661+
  • Finamore, Daniel. "Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850." The New England Quarterly, vol. 68, no. 3, 1995, p. 487+. available on JSTOR
  • Main, Gloria L. "Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850." The Journal of Economic History, vol. 55, no. 3, 1995, p. 714+.
  • Bailey, Conner. "Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850." Rural Sociology, vol. 61, no. 4, 1996, p. 708+ partial text version in ProQuest
  • Arndt, J.C. "Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850." CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, Apr. 1995, p. 1369+

Just adding in case anyone else has the resources to view them and is interested. Schazjmd (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several more of these are available on JSTOR: Baker (1995), Clark (1995), Main (1995), and O'Har (1996), plus a couple others:
  • Burnard, Trevor (July 1995). "Reviewed Work: Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850 by Daniel Vickers". Australasian Journal of American Studies. 14 (1): 74–76. JSTOR 41053766.
  • Rawlyk, G. A. (August 1995). "Reviewed Work: Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850 by Daniel Vickers". The Economic History Review. 48 (3): 633. doi:10.2307/2598205. JSTOR 2598205.
Thanks to Coolabahapple for finding these. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source on Vickers[edit]

This source [4] (already in this article) likely could be used to turn the red link blue for Vickers himself. EEng 15:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Farmers_and_Fishermen:_Two_Centuries_of_Work_in_Essex_County,_Massachusetts,_1630–1850&oldid=1207184400"