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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

Citations

The citations for much of the information in this article- and, it bears observing, other articles by User:Storye book, are not in accordance with Wikipedia standards, at least those upheld in most articles. Why is it that he is able to get away with citing FreeBMD/ primary sources despite the guidelines at Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources on the basis that "one day a published source will no doubt turn up", when in virtually no other case is such permitted? Take for example the citation of Appleyard's probate record- "National Probate Calendar,index of wills and administration 1894." Not even a direct, detailed citation of the record source cited? The above is quite aside from the fact that far too much detail is given of article subjects' antecedents, in opposition to NOTGENEALOGY; take, in this article's case, a source such as https://www.thoresby.org.uk/content/people/appleyard.php - this supports much of the family detail without some of the tedious specificities, and does not necessitate reliance upon alleged b/m/d certificates. There is only Storye book's word/ self-confidence to justify he has located the correct records. It is for exactly this reason that the point made at Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources- "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" is mentioned there. It doesn't matter how distinctive an individual's name might be, the distinctiveness does not wholly preclude the possibility of another identically-named individual, particularly taking into account, for example, situations such as cousins born in the same year both named after a grandfather. The rationale given here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Storye_book/Archive_22 - "I have had chunks removed from C19 biographies that I've created, on the grounds of OR due to having to use bmd's and the like in the absence of secondary backup sources, when actually it would have been better to leave the article uncut and to wait for further sources to turn up" - amounts to articles sitting there for years on end "waiting" for "someone" to produce a reliable published source and make it available for him/ any other user to cite in support of the statements made in his articles. The sandbox is the only appropriate place for all this original research, which can then be inserted to the article when a reliable published source appears. It's always quite bewildering how some users here manage to carve out their own little territory where no rules seem to apply but their own. Another point worth mentioning- this article has too many images in it, probably another idiosyncrasy of the article creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.207.96 (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This matter re this article has already been dealt with in two previous discussions. A look at the family background of an artist or other achiever in a particular area is always worthwhile, because achievement always begs the question of whether they could have been aided or supported in their achievement, or whether, for example, they have achieved against all odds. Social class and family income also made a great difference in the likelihood of notable achievement in 19th century England. There is no deception here. References are given, and it is up to the reader to check them out and have their own opinion on the matter. All articles can be improved by adding more information, but pruning a biography just for the sake of it is not helpful per se. Storye book (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is all just self-justificatory waffle. What you're essentially saying is "because I want it to be so, and place a particular value on a particular thing, the rules are to be disregarded", which... isn't how the world works, I'm afraid. Someone who's been on Wikipedia for seventeen years or whatever your user page says really ought to know better, and the fact that you've been here that long, but STILL have "your own way of doing things" says a lot. A look at your article creations, unfortunately, clearly reveals this to be a persistent problem with you. Basically, your editing style is not that usually implemented in Wikipedia, and there are numerous examples- such as the above- of you making excuses for it. What it boils down to is that you're not falling in line with everyone else, and it seems that it will be necessary now to bring your habits to the attention of someone with the power to enforce adherence to the rules. Oh, and I apologise for referring to you as "he" previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.209.235 (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I would advise you to refrain from inaccurate/ deceptive edit summaries, your most recent being "Undo edit which removed perfectly valid ref by Thoresby Society, and which introduced material not covered by the sources"; my edit- trimming your overemphasis on primary sources not corroborated by reliable secondary sources, pertaining in the main to non-notable relatives- retained the Thoresby Society source (which I added to the article in the first place to replace much of your BMD stuff), and made reference only to specificities contained within. If we're entering the realms of "material not covered by the sources", that would refer to your synthesising and original research in BMD records. After so many years on Wikipedia, you ought to know- and conduct yourself- better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.209.235 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Rules are to be followed with common sense. They are not there to be used to make unilateral judgements on individual editors, or as an excuse to prune articles just for the sake of it. Secondary sources often contain errors, because it has long been a habit of some historians to repeat baseless assertions made by previous classic historians, and when you attempt to check out those classic historians' citations, those citations may be non-existent (I paraphrase a comment made by historian AJP Taylor on the radio just before he died). Thus, when checking the background of a biography subject, it is always worth providing at least two sources for each assertion. So if there is only one secondary source for e.g. the birth of the biography subject, it is worth checking the GRO index to see whether there is an entry consistent with that. Any serious researcher using this article as a first-stop piece of information can then check the secondary source and purchase the birth certificate, since I usually give the GRO volume and page reference for them to do that. I am certainly not alone in creating articles in this way. The number of editors doing this is increasing, and no doubt in due course the rules which worry you so much will be adjusted to allow more information of this kind to be given, to aid researchers in the biography field.

Please do not add material which does not match the sources.

Please do not make comments which to me are now beginning to look like trolling, bullying and hounding. You have no right to make Wikipedia into an unsafe place for me, or any other editor, to work in. This matter has been discussed and resolved in the past, anyway. There is no point in repeating it. Example of trolling: "where no rules seem to apply but their own"; "idiosyncracy"; "self-justificatory waffle"; "you're saying ... the rules are to be disregarded"; "ought to know better"; "a persistent problem with you". That is offensive, and reflects only your own opinion, bearing in mind that this article has already been discussed and the matter resolved on this subject. Example of bullying: you have started to pursue an edit war by reinstating your own controversial edit instead of discussing it here first. Example of hounding: You have made a point of clearly spending a lot of obsessive time going through all my talk page archives and all my created articles, in order to find something to criticise. That is extremely creepy and offensive. Having now discovered that I am a woman, I note that you have made your tone nastier, saying, "it seems that it will be necessary now to bring your habits to the attention of someone with the power to enforce adherence to the rules.". It is particularly creepy that you are clearly experienced in and familiar with the workings of Wikipedia, but you are editing as an unregistered user, not signing your comments, and perhaps hiding your normal Wikipedia identity. I am beginning to find your attitude frightening, and I ask you to stop this, now. Storye book (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Madam, you are welcome to feign playing the cowering victim however you may; the point remains, you have a lengthy history of manipulating this project to meet your own standards, which are not supported by guidelines. Your appeals to emotion and imposition of your own demands for what is required in a biographical article are irrelevant. You may throw around whatever words such as "trolling, bullying and hounding" as you like if it makes you feel better about having your idiosyncratic editing style challenged, the facts remain. The fact that you refuse to concede in any regard whatever about the nature of your edits is worrying given your tenure here, and I think amply indicates your shrewd, ruthless approach to getting your own way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.209.235 (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Appleyard on the The Secret Library Leeds blog

I have been informed that an edited version of this article has been uploaded, with acknowledgements, to The Secret Library Leeds blog, by a librarian, under the auspices of Leeds Central Library. It is always good to see our work shared and appreciated in this way, by those who might find it useful. Storye book (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)