Talk:John Wormald Appleyard

Background section and primary sources tag
I believe that the primary sources tag in the background section is inappropriate according to the No original research page, for the following reasons.

(1) The WP:OR page says that a whole article should not depend entirely on primary sources, but the Background section is not a whole article.

(2) Primary sources are discouraged by WP where there is a fear of unsupported interpretation by an editor. However in this case there is no interpretation. All statements in the background section are supported by the references, most of which are linked for verification.

(3). Primary sources are discouraged by WP where they may be unreliable, however most of the sources in this section are UK government official documents, which are authoritative, therefore as reliable as any secondary or tertiary source.

(4). When we create a biography of a high-achieving or talented person, there is always the unspoken question of how the subject became so - by nature, nurture, luck, or even cheating. Sometimes we can find a partial answer in the background of the subject, especially in the case of 19th century artisans, because they often came from a family tradition or national culture of skills which were handed down through the generations. So the Background section explores this aspect, and any facts clearly established by government documents and other authoritative sources are written up for the reader to interpret should they wish to do so. There is no need of interpretation by the WP editor, and indeed there is no interpretation in the Background section. No citations - however much approved by WP - will ever give us the whole story about a long-dead person. We will always have limited information. All we can do is to present it exactly as given by authoritative sources, without editorial interpretation, and leave it up to the reader to make of it what they will. That is what has been done here.

(5). In the light of the above, I shall remove the tag, which was no doubt placed in good faith, but without full understanding that UK government sources are authoritative, and without full understanding that mentioning the statements within official UK government documents does not count as loose-cannon interpretation. Storye book (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * When we create a biography on Wikipedia, we base said biography on what reliable secondary sources have said about the person. If none have commented on his background, I don't agree that it's appropriate for us to insert a significant section based on primary sourcing, whether government or otherwise. Thus, I'm going to retag the section. If you continue to disagree with the tagging, I suggest either seeking a third opinion as to the extent to which the article relies on primary sourcing, or opening an RfC on the question. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining your actions. However to my understanding, it's the intention of the WP:OR page which counts, i.e. not just the "don't do that," but the explanation why. WP also requires that every paragraph has at least one acceptable third party reference. The Background section consists of only one paragraph, and ref no.12 from North Leeds Life magazine covers that requirement. So if there were no other references at all in the paragraph, a fair proportion of it would be covered by that ref, which is linked and verifiable. Similarly, there is a reference in the paragraph to the London Gazette, also linked and verifiable for free by any Brit who has a library ticket from a participating UK library. I have requested a third party opinion as you suggested. Storye book (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have been ask for a third opinion on this so have been looking at the paragraph in question.
 * The FreeBMD references are not actually original published information from the GRO but are re-typed copies of what may already be a re-typed copy of the original (depending on the quarter in question) but nevertheless as Identifying and using primary sources indicates "Copies and derivatives retain the same status as the original in the primary-secondary-tertiary classification" thus these retain the primary source classification for our purposes.
 * Some of the detail clearly does not come from the source mentioned, for example "Abraham Wormald (ca.1786–1847)" is referenced to a FreeBMD death entry but that does not give any indication of a birth year or how old he was. The new electronic index may give an age at death but that is not quoted. It could be that that was derived from the 1841 census which is given at the end of the sentence, but again there has to be some interpretation here as there are no relationships given in the 1841 census and ages are rounded.
 * Some exact dates are specified but there is no indication of where the exact date came from, as an example "wife Elizabeth (ca.1781 – Drighlington 20 February 1848)" the exact date is not given in either reference - the death index or on the 1841 census which pre-dates it.
 * So a tag of refimprove may be required but the killer, again from Identifying and using primary sources has to be "Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name." Though that could apply to many documents which are primary, secondary or even tertiary sources. So on balance I am having to go with the primary sources as being appropriate. Keith D (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, Keith D. At least we know where we are. I'll withdraw the article from DYK nomination then. Storye book (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)