Talk:James Bradley (former slave)

Request for third party
I have posted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#James_Bradley_(former_slave)

a request for a third party to review our dispute re sources for this article. deisenbe (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * That noticeboard asked us to go to WP:3O. and I agreed to first start by adding back all primary source / slave narrative citations. I said that I think we should keep the secondary sources, too, for that information or risk being tagged for too many primary sources.
 * ✅–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We are still not in agreement, though, on use of secondary sources for other bits of information. See here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , Do you have any thoughts about secondary sources now that I added back the slave narrative sources? Or, do you want to wait for the third opinion?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (Sorry that I posted Bradley conversation on your talk page... trying to get back on track.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for putting back the original. But the articles cited along with them should go out, no reason for them to remain in. I've changed one as an example of what I'm talking about. deisenbe (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The reason to keep them in is that it is discouraged to use primary sources. I have seen articles that were deleted due to a reliance on primary sources. It doesn't hurt anything and provides backup that 1) the story was notable enough to have been published and 2) that a publisher with an editorial function printed the information.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. deisenbe (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding notability of a person, from WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It sounds like,, like we're still waiting for a third opinion to square away use of secondary sources. Right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm willing to give an opinion. Reliable secondary sources should always be included in an article, so it doesn't rely on a single, primary source, uninterpreted by anybody else. Where a newspaper has a reputation for fact-checking, it should be used regardless if it seems to parrot the primary source, or indeed if it seems to contradict it. (Please be good enough to judge my opinion on its merit, rather than the fact that it is offered by an IP.) 2001:BB6:4713:4858:8458:7FA8:68FF:52B7 (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "Where a newspaper has a reputation for fact checking" - you can drive a tractor-trailor through that. The Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel - how can I know if they have a reputation for fact-checking? And that's my local paper. deisenbe (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * A couple of things. A lot of local papers get their content from Associated Press, etc. A newspaper like the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel is not likely to create an initial article about someone in Ohio from scratch and then have that story syndicated. Additionally, publishers and newspapers have editorial functions and are more likely to fact-check issues that seem "off" somehow.


 * Speaking theoretically: If we decided to use content from primary sources that are not reviewed, how do we know if it's right or the author is trying to make a sensational, self-serving, etc. position? (i.e., It is better to have some editorial function than no editorial function.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * any notable newspaper that doesn't have a reputation for sensationalism or sheer fabrication (like the Daily Mail) can be assumed to have a reputation for fact-checking. It's how trustworthy papers operate. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:D4D7:AEEB:565F:76FE (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 2nd IP, who I assume is different since (s)he contradicts 1st IP, let's say for sake of argument YOU know which papers, like the Daily Mail, have a reputation for sensatiknalism. But I don't. List of scandals in British journalism What do I do? Is there a list of unreliable newspapers?


 * Newspaper factchecking is not as scrupulous when all the principals are dead, and the topic is not controversial. I havd had the experience of being reported on (as a union spokesperson) and even well-intentioned reporters make mistakes all the time. The New York Times has a regular corrections section. The Sun-Sentinel does not. Does this mean that a) there are many less errors than in the New York Times? No, it means that its errors go unnoticed.


 * Then, most Americans would think of National Enquirer as our biggest sleazy tabloid. But they have had a series of scoops that others have borne out and gave been nominated and seriously considered for a Pulitzer Prize.deisenbe (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am the same person and I am not contradicting myself. I said in my first post that where a newspaper has a reputation for fact-checking, it should be used, and in my second post that any notable newspaper that doesn't have a reputation for sensationalism or sheer fabrication can be assumed to have a reputation for fact-checking; hence they should be used. NEWSORG says that "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". That has been the guideline more or less since Wikipedia has been created. There has never been a requirement that people adding sourced content must prove that the standard of fact-checking in the source outlet is good enough for Wikipedia. Can you show (1) that the sources you are disputing are not well-established news outlets; (2) that they or any of them have a reputation for poor fact-checking; or (3) that there is good reason to believe that a given fact in any of them is wrong? If not, then per WP:RS any edits citing those sources should not be reverted. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:D4D7:AEEB:565F:76FE (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , I am sorry, I don't mean to "pile on", but I have a different tack. What would happen to Greenwood, New York, insurrection of 1882 if we removed all newspapers?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is what Greenwood, New York, insurrection of 1882 looks like with no newspapers. I will stop now, because I don't want to pile on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You're missing my point, I thought I had been clear. I have no general quarrel with newspapers. It's just relative trustworthiness of sources, and the difference between a newspaper reporting on things first-hand as opposed to a historical article about things over 100 years previous. deisenbe (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have put enough time into this. Do what you want to, I have nothing more to say. deisenbe (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * That's a relief. Because I was just about to say I have no more time to put into this. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:CB5:5C5F:12F2:34D9 (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , I know this has been tedious. Just so that I am clear: You do not think that we need further discussion about the use of secondary sources (e.g., 1) discussions in "Newspapers have to come out" and 2) that secondary sources might legitimately have information that Bradley did not put in his four page narrative). Therefore, we can close out the WP:3O and dispute resolution issue as "Closed" with "Agreement to use reliable secondary sources in the article, along with use of the slave narrative, a primary source".


 * And, I can return the lede that I had before in this version? That all works for you?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the lede to a previous version that better summarizes the stages of his life.

I will await your feedback before requesting that the third opinion and dispute are closed... unless you'd like to do that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Deisenbe said, Do what you want to, I have nothing more to say. I think you should respect that, do what you see fit, and not keep pressing him/her to give feedback when they have specifically said they don't want to. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:B815:3ED9:313A:6837 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I will wait one more day. He has said that several times, but then comes back again. If he doesn't respond by tomorrow, I will close out the WP:3O and dispute issues. I just want to make sure that is what he really feels and that this is really a closed issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I closed out the 3O here and the dispute resolution request here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)