Talk:Joseph Henderson (pilot)

COI tag
The COI tag has been readded to the article due to what User:Graywalls claims is the article's "boastful tone". This is a request for Graywalls to list the exact sentences and words that are "boastful" so that they can be corrected. A generalized had wave without details is impossible to address. Therefore the tag is not being used appropriately but as a punishment, a tag of shame, that would impossible to remove due to one editor's vague and unspecific complaints. Specific words and sentences need to be listed. -- Green  C  15:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I support the re-add of the COI tag. The article was written by an editor who has sought to create articles for his antecedents and has not been materially altered. Most of the mentions of Henderson are routine non notable occurrences. Just looking at the sources already given in the article it is obvious that items have been cherry picked for their positive spin on Henderson - there is no mention that he was considered accident prone and reckless and continued working when he was too portly to climb a pilot ladder and had to be hoisted onboard. I have today removed the claim that he was specially selected to bring the Statue of Liberty bearing ship into harbour, the reference states that he was merely touting for trade on station when the ship appeared. The claim that he was an "expert witness" at the Brooklyn bridge committee is not supported by the reference, it states that he gave evidence as one of four witnesses testifying that morning all of whom were anti bridge and I suspect (but cannot prove) were paid by those who did not wish the bridge to be built. For the COI tag to be removed it needs someone to do a fully rounded article giving a warts and all picture, given that he really was an unexceptional individual I doubt if sources can be found for that Lyndaship (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a biography article not an AfD discussion, please put the AfD stick down. Notability has already been established per the AfD. We are including biographical life details, which for most people often include non-notable elements. Notability guidelines were never meant to control article content that is not how Wikipedia works. The first sentence of WP:NOTE reads "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article" (emphasis added). Quite honestly this looks like an attempt to punish and continually harass this editor with bad faith: "cherry picked for their positive spin". Yeah, another way of saying they found sources with notable material. OK so you removed a couple unsourced things, great. I repeat: what words and sentences are you claiming require at COI notice? This is not a lengthy article, you have read through it already. What is the problem? What will it take to remove the tag, an RfC? I would be happy to do that. -- Green  C  17:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fluffing up with flowery language and arranging non-notable things in such a way that resonates with a positive and favorable tone rather than neutral combined with most of them having been added by a family member is what makes it COI. The presence of gratuitous contents like what was removed by in their most recent edit is a prime example. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:DUE still apply. Court cases which he was involved in that references court filings, or a ledger of court filings likely runs afoul of due weight consideration. You wouldn't go into someone's biography and write the dry cleaner's lost his suit and he filed a small claims case and reference the court filing. For that incident to be worthy of inclusion, it'd need to at least get a mention in a secondary source. Graywalls (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's interesting how when asked to show specific words and sentences that are a COI problem you continue to hand wave.. all the while deleting everything in the article that demonstrates or emphasizes the topics notability. -- Green  C  19:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think RfC would bring great external perspectives. Are you familiar with the COI discussion taking place regarding the numerous Henderson articles? Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Graywalls (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pinging those who have partipated in some of the puff clean up. I personally think the general tone and the general overwhelming skew by the COI conributor to only present things in the favorable light still leaves plenty of non neutral presentation, including the editorial decision like large number of direct quotes to non-essential details. Can you all give it a look and see if COI tag should be removed? Graywalls (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the article looks OK to me, and I think the COI tag can be removed as it ihas been extensively edited since the COI editor moved to the talk page. I have to say it probably does puff up his accomplishments a bit, due to that COI editor's single-minded pursuit of all extreme detail. But the article is more or less OK. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'd say some tag in reference to neutrality should remain in place until that's cleaned up. Graywalls (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Our readers don't come to Wikipedia to read shouty, opinionated banner tags. This talk page is the place for such editorial discussions and we have relevant tagging and activity here.  There are no specifics supporting this tag and so it seems to be being used purely as a badge of shame. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no well founded basis for this tag. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 00:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the tag to NPOV since. The issue identified in this edit shows an example of over-inclusion of minute details that might not be even relevant. Almost all the contents came from the COI creator and it would take combing through everything thoroughly like to identify such issues. Graywalls (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Being mentioned in a SCOTUS case is not minutia because earlier in the article it is established he "was in more boat accidents than any other pilot". Granted he was not on board for this accident but he was involved enough SCOTUS brought him into it, perhaps to help establish the facts of the case (who was there, the sequence of events). He is involved. The article notability is not built around this incident so it doesn't need to be singularly amazing, but it is part of his career history which we are documenting. The only question is should it be included, the SCOTUS element is probably historically significant-enough. One can nit pick the article to death if the hammer is COI almost everything will look like a nail-head. --  Green  C  01:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Pet, No. 9
So which source makes a positive, irrefutable identification that this boat is indeed the one corresponding to this particular late Henderson? A complete mix-up recently occurred with the GW Blunt boat where the incorrect ship was marked as "sank at sea" due to similarly named ships being incorrectly identified. The Mystics Sea table shows two boats named "Pet" and one of it listing the name "Jos. Henderson". Which source positively connects "Pet, No.9" with the Joseph Henderson that is the subject of this article? Graywalls (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "It was learned that pilot boat No. 9 had spoken the Isère at ten o'clock last night. Pilot Henderson was taken aboard".
 * "Capt. Joseph Henderson, of pilot-boat Pet No. 9, brought the Isère over the bar"
 * -- Green  C  02:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks GreenC. Graywalls, another source that positively connects "Pet, No.9" with the Joseph Henderson can be found in the Index to Ship Registers, from 1876 through 1885, which lists Jos. Henderson and the master of the Pet, e.g. Record of American and Foreign Shipping 1885. You will see two boats named Pet in these records, but only one is listed to Jos. Henderson as Master and N. Y. Pilots as owners. The other "Pet" is from San Francisco. --Greg Henderson (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * fair enough. But the source COI provided at PET, NO. 9 in their edit on its own which was a scan of primary source scan which only said "Jos. Henderson" and "Pet,", on its own failed to adequately support it. It makes it look like I declined a properly supported request, when in reality was that sources you provided did not. The mysticseareport, though still fails to properly show it's still talking about the same boat, so I would say over at Pet, No. 9, unless another source positively connect 1876-1885 reference, that be omitted. Such misidentification caused an incorrect ship to be marked as "sank at sea in 1875" Graywalls (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are no other Jos. Henderson's who owned a pilot boat named "Pet 9" in NY that was active 1885-1889. If there was, it would be documented because all boats are registered by law. The burden would be on you to demonstrate evidence there is another Jos. Henderson from NY with a boat named "Pet 9" active in 1885-89. If you found one, I agree it would be reasonable to question which Henderson is listed in that register. Otherwise it is a concern that isn't credible. The example you gave about similarly named ships being misidentified there is only 2 pieces of info the ship name and date and they got the date mixed up. Here we have the ship name, ship location, date active, and owner's name giving it a precise identification. The more metadata for an object the more reliable the ID< this is a known concept in computer science and even in bringing multiple forms of ID to get a drivers license. It's also a logical fallacy to say because there was a mistake made elsewhere it could be a mistake here. Doubt can be raised about anything, but there is a limit to reasonable doubt.  --  Green  C  23:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also suggest copy this discussion to that page so it's part of the record should there need to be a consensus discussion. -- Green  C  23:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * for the record, that primary source record does not identify "Pet 9". It just says Pet. The burden is on me to disprove? Where did that come from? Graywalls (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Graywalls, The name "Pet" is the name of the boat. Jos. Henderson was Master of the boat. The N.Y. Pilots as owners assigned No. 9 to this boat. I can provide three sources:
 * Spirit of the Times newspaper wrote about Henderson and the pilot-boat Pet.
 * For 14 years he was the commander of the boat "Pet".
 * Index to Ship Registers, from the dates 1876 through 1885, which lists Jos. Henderson as the master of the Pet, e.g. Record of American and Foreign Shipping 1885. --Greg Henderson (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable secondary source to make that connection, then we're set. Graywalls (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, The book by Russell From Sandy Hook to 62;̊ see reference below. --Greg Henderson (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am unable to find an online copy that is fully readable, but Google Books has a no-preview copy with search-inside. Searching on the word "pet" it shows a few-line snippit from page 151 (in the page range specified) with Henderson's name and off-screen the word pet so there is strong evidence the source supports the claim confirmed by Greg who has/had a copy of the book. Online sources are a courtesy other editors can follow their own verification methods such as library or used books but given the other evidence this appears to be a credible source.  --  Green  C  04:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * GreenC, thanks for your remarks and link to From Sandy Hook to 62! Graywalls, In his obiturary it says: "For fourteen years he was commander of the pilot boat Pet". This article and the Spirit Of The Times article, should be sufficient to tie the ship index dates to the pilot-boat Pet and captain Henderson. --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Request Edit
Can someone remove the WP:COI tag? It looks like a cleanup has been done to comply with Wikipedia's content policies WP:WTRMT. Thanks! --Greg Henderson (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Request Edit
Citation given states that he resides in Charleston but not that he was born there, nor does it give the date of birth. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I created a new request edit with more detailed citation about place of birth. --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Information to be added or removed: I would like to add a requested citation under Early life.
 * Explanation of issue: Editor wants citations for birth place.
 * References supporting change: Add the following citation: Joseph Henderson was born in Charleston, South Carolina on September 9, 1826. Sources: The Literary American Volume 2 --Greg Henderson (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Request Edit
--Greg Henderson (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Information to be added or removed: I would like to add a requested citation under Early life.
 * Explanation of issue: Editor wants citation for birth place.
 * References supporting change: Add the following citation: Joseph Henderson was born in Charleston, South Carolina on September 9, 1826. Source:


 * ✅ JBchrch   talk  16:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Request Edit
--Greg Henderson (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Information to be added or removed: Provide hyperlinks to USS Fulton (1837) and SS Arago (1855).
 * Explanation of issue: More information is provided about the American Civil War in connection with the Fulton and Arago.
 * References supporting change: Add text in section "Civil War": "...Henderson was a pilot on the transports Arago and Fulton, running..."
 * Done, thanks. I moved the request edit templates around since I think this is how you intended them to be placed: under the headers. Move around if I misunderstood. Urve (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Request Edit
In 1883, Henderson was friends with Captain Walter Brewer, Henry Seguine, William J. Barry, and Captain Josiah Johnson. On August 30, 1883, they started the Sandy Hook Pilot Boat Company to have ownership and control of vessels and equipment for the use of pilots in the New York Harbor and water ways of Sandy Hook. They received a certificate of incorporation from Albany, New York. The capital stock raised was $100,000, which was to be invested in pilot boats and other equipment. Their office was in Burling-slip in New York City. There was opposition to the project as it was seen as forming a union. The new Sandy Hook Pilot Boat company intended to influence legislation of a bill to reduce the pilot fees. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Information to be added or removed: Provide a new section about the Sandy Hook Pilot Boat company
 * Explanation of issue: Henderson was involved in a new boat company to have more say in pilotage rules and regulations
 * References supporting change: Add text in new section: "Sandy Hook Pilot Boat company"


 * Yes check.svg Done PK650 (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Request Edit

 * Information to be added or removed: Under section "Civil War" add reference to Joseph Henderson v. United States
 * Explanation of issue: Henderson petitioned the Alabama Claims for the loss of the pilot boat William Bell
 * References supporting change: Under section "Civil War", replace the last sentence in last paragraph with the following text: "In 1883, Henderson successfully petitioned, in Joseph Henderson v. United States, the Southern District of New York via the Alabama Claims award, for compensation of the loss of the pilot boat William Bell. --Greg Henderson (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done PK650 (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Request Edit

 * Information to be added or removed: Under section "Civil War" add reference to US Civil War Draft Registration as: "Joseph Henderson appeared in the June 1863 US Civil War Draft registrations records. The record shows that his residence was on Myrtle Avenue and Tompkins Avenue in Brooklyn; he was 34 years old, a pilot, white, married and his place of birth was America."
 * Explanation of issue: The citation shows that Henderson was still eligible to serve in the military and was registered in the American Civil War draft registration record for 1863.
 * References supporting change: --Greg Henderson (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done PK650 (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Concerning significant contents influencing by an extended family member
(ThatMontrealIP omitted as he has passed) Relevant discussion Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_163. So here's the thing. While Request Edit is a step in the right direction, I see it as a tool to suggest exact wording and exact phrasing to essentially control the contents isn't in line with NPOV and due weight consideration. Perhaps PK650 isn't familiar with the pattern of editing by a descendent of the Henderson family related pages. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, I believe adding contents to the page using court cases (primary source) is appropriate inclusion per WP:DUE. Graywalls (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is plenty in the article as it stands that does not seem WP:DUE. I have added an "overly detailed" tag to the article for now. For example the section on the Pilot Boat Pet seems to just be a listing of every time it is mentioned/connected to something tangentially notable. Melcous (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

We've been through this a billion times, the articles is feeling persecuted over many years of constant attempts to delete material. I have read and defended most everything here and don't have a COI. It just comes down to what you think is important, if you start from the perspective of it being a COI, then very little will seem important, inmeed the entire article will seem unimportant because COI will seem like the more important factor to you. -- Green  C  04:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * , COI or not, I think you know better than that something that do not belong here are details saying so and so filed a lawsuit and so and so result came out citing the court filing. That is absolutely undue, just like you wouldn't add details of a vehicle of a person who has a Wikipedia entry being in a wreck and the disposition of a insurance litigation citing primary source court filing. Graywalls (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of any claims related to the article in question nor the requesting user, as my only involvement was a pretty straightforward request implementation. Having said that, perhaps the bit about obtaining compensation for a lost vessel could be considered irrelevant or undue (as the fact is appropriately sourced) but this would purely be a content discussion, and one which I wouldn't have much to say on, except maybe that for a shipowner and pilot this is probably relevant biographical information especially considering the substantial sum involved. Nothing more to say about it really...this to me looks like a typical inclusionist v deletionist debate, and these are usually not policy-based and end in tears for the person with less clout. Hope this is the exception and you all find common ground, which is something Wikipedia strongly needs! Best, PK650 (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your detailed response. No fault on you. Also . The dispute on hand as you commented comes to content dispute. The descendent of that family has been adding a whole lot of contents on about his family's legacy and has at one point put his Henderson related contents into the Statue of Liberty. The use of court cases is not suggested per WP:PRIMARYCARE. Additionally, the inclusion about the lawsuit citing the court case itself may fall under WP:NOTNEWS as well as WP:DUE. If such is to be considered ok for inclusion, then it opens up a gate to include bunch of everything citing primary source court cases, such as patent infringement claims where some barely notable company with Wikipedia page sued another company; with the court case itself as the source. Graywalls (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Brooklyn Bridge
Special:Diff/1150750716/1176053283: the Brooklyn Bridge is as important and iconic to American culture as the Statue of Liberty, they are peers, though for different reasons. Maybe this is not apparent to those who are not American? Anyway it really is lead-section worthy he played a part in its construction. -- Green  C  05:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The information is in the article. I don't believe it needs to be in the lede. That he testified to a committee. The importance of his testimony isn't even supported by a secondary source. Graywalls (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

the challenged material
Special:Diff/1176108131/1176128454 well to be honest I can't tell what was deleted. I thought it was more deleted than actually was and I support the conversion of the section from a list of topic into more narrative-like prose. But I'm still not sure where the -2,546 bytes came from. Many small cuts maybe. -- Green  C  18:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Overly detailed tag
No real justification given for this. This is a biography article. It's going to contain details about the life of a ship's pilot in NYC during the 19th century. If this subject area is not of interest to you, or unfamiliar, you may find it uninteresting and perhaps even "overly detailed". Fortunately this article is not required reading for all users of Wikipedia, nobody is required to read it. For those who are interested in this subject area, it's not overly detailed. -- Green  C  17:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)