Talk:Barton, Irlam and Higginson

Primary sources ?

Hi @Nikkimaria:. I see you've tagged the article as "relying excessively on primary sources" and that "some of the article's listed sources may not be reliable". From your previous diff it looks like it is the links to FamilySearch (FS) and to Find-a-Grave (FG) that are giving you concern. So let me set out why I think these links are useful and why I think they are appropriate in this case, in the hope that we can find common ground.

In particular, per WP:RS "Context matters" and "Context relates to specific facts, not just the source", it is important to take into account what aspects of the external reference are being used, how it is being used, and which facts it is being used to support.

The key concern, I presume, is that these are sites which contain some user-contributed content. FG for example can contain long user-contributed essays about particular individuals or particular family lineages. I fully agree that we would not consider those in themselves good support for particular biographical facts or family relationships. But FG also contains decent resolution photographs of memorial inscriptions (MIs) -- an entirely different kettle of fish. The text on the MI is not something that has been contributed by a user; and it has long been recognised that an MI is one of the strongest sources for someone's dates. (Not infallible -- the stonemason might have made a mistake; as might the family commissioning it. But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, enough in general (in the real world, as well as WP) to support a statement of somebody's dates -- especially when the source of the information is made clear, so readers can apply their own assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of dates from MIs).

You raise the issue of primary and secondary sources. But it seems to me that a good photograph of an MI (a source we might consider primary) is actually a rather better source for that MI than (say) a transcription of the MI in a history of a parish by some Victorian antiquarian (a source we might consider secondary). Did the antiquarian record the MI accurately? We might hope so. But with a photograph we can actually see the text. It's not appropriate just to think "secondary source good, primary source bad". Sometimes a good clear primary source may be better than the secondary source. (And better than giving either individually may be to give both -- so a reader can see the secondary source and judge where it came from).

It seems to me that the John Higginson case is an example of just this. The UCL LBS database gives his dates [1] -- but doesn't say where this information has come from. But with the FG link one can see that there is an MI, one can see that it has been transcribed correctly; so the reader can now know at least one source for where the information has ultimately come from; and they can know that it is at least as reliable (or not) as they consider MIs to be. Without the FG link they would not be in this position. Adding the FG source has added something of distinct value to the reader.

The George Irlam case raises the issue of collation. This is something WP articles do all the time (and is one of WP's greatest usefulnesses) -- we bring together in one article information from lots of different sources. This requires editorial judgments we make all the time: is the person being described by one source the same person that's being described by another source? Is the ship described by one issue of Lloyd's Register the same ship as the ship being described by another issue of LR (as opposed to a quite different ship that happens to have the same name -- a not uncommon occurrence). Most of our ship articles for the age of sail revolve around such a set of judgments.

In the case of George Irlam the evidence that this is indeed George Iram's gravestone EDIT: is beyond doubt, given it matches the date of death on his will (see below), as well as the children listed in it. is very strong (I would say, overwhelming). Consider: George Irlam was not a common name (even compared to a name like John Higginson, there were far fewer George Irlams). George Irlam lived his later years at Bootle Hall (per UCL LBS). Walton-on-the-Hill is the local parish church for Bootle Hall. A will was proved for "George Irlam of Bootle, merchant" with probate in October 1833 with a re-grant in 1840 ([the year his heir George Barton Irlam died]) [2]. This already makes it very probable that this is the stone of the 'right' George Irlam -- a relatively uncommon name, exactly the right place, and exactly the right time. But what takes the calculation to a whole other level are the names and dates for so many of Irlam's children: names and dates which match the baptisms in the Liverpool parish records where George is described first as a book-keeper (to 1799), then as a merchant [3]; that match the list in the will of William Barton made 1822 ("George Irlam, Thomas Irlam, Elizabeth Irlam, Ann Irlam, Ellen Irlam, Frances Irlam, Margaret Irlam, Maria Irlam sons and daughters of my said partner George Irlam") [4] (free reg required); and that match the list of residents of Barton Hall as per the 1841 census ("Ellen Barton (60), Elizabeth Irlam, Frances Irlam, Margaret Irlam, Maria Irlam, William Irlam") [5]). Given all that, there can be little doubt that this is the stone for 'our' George Irlam.

Finally, the FamilySearch links. These are not being used to support any fact 'above the line' in the article. Rather, they are there as courtesy links for readers who want to look further into the lives of the four principals. Readers are specifically pointed to the sources attached to the profiles. These are not user-submitted. They are the result of a centrally-directed transcription program, rigorously quality-controlled by the LDS, many many of them accompanied by photographic images of the original documents. It is (by several orders of magnitude) the best and largest free-as-in-dollars resource of this kind on the internet.

For somebody wanting to look further at our principals, it's a very good additional resource to point them to. For our four principals, there are copies and summaries of the wills for three`of them; there are parish register hits for when they got married, when they had their children -- including for example, the interesting description of George Irlam as a 'book-keeper' in the PRs up to 1799; the locations where William Barton and John Higginson had their children (answer: in Barbados, apart from the last few of Higginson's); the connection by marriage between William Barton and the influential Forte family on Barbados. Yes, this all depends on judgments as to whether those records have been matched to the right people (that matching-up is what has been done by user contribution). And for that reason not appropriate to include in the WP article. But as an external resource to be able direct readers to, very very useful. Yes, if one was being picky one might put these links under "External links", because that's why they're being offered, rather than to support any particular fact or facts in the article. But we're not going for Featured Article here, so there's no need to be that picky -- where they are, in with the footnotes, is handy for readers, keeping the relevant biographical links together in one place with each other.

So: six links. Two links which are being used to support facts in the article. Does that (out of 48 refs) really make this "an article which relies excessively on references to primary sources" ? -- Jheald (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

PS. (1) Sorry to be so long. But I thought it was worth setting out what these links are, why they're being used, and why I think they're appropriate in reasonable detail, as the best basis for presenting those beliefs for examination and discussion.

(2) I may not be able to respond much, or even at all, in the next few days. I've managed to smash my laptop's screen, so am reduced to when I can plug it into a big TV screen or borrow a computer. Tomorrow we're off to a wedding, then a day staying away; and after that I hope the repair shop will be mending my machine. So please accept my apologies if in the next few days I may not be able to get back to you as quickly as I would like to. Jheald (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jheald, thanks for explaining your viewpoint. However, a lot of what you're putting forward above falls under original research - you may well be correct that the grave in question is the right person, but the only way to arrive at that conclusion is through synthesis of primary sources. Additionally for the purposes of Wikipedia it is not correct to say that MIs are "one of the strongest sources for someone's dates", per WP:PRIMARY. We are meant to instead rely on what has been published in reliable secondary sources. It's also not our role to compile links to genealogical records, particularly in an article that is not biographical - in fact, I'd suggest that the dates should be omitted entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for your response. I do think it is useful to give the dates when we have them. The usual general reasons apply -- it is helpful for readers to be able to distinguish that it is <this person> that we are writing about, not any other person of s similar name that they may know of; and it helps readers to find the article (via search engines etc) if it is one of the principals here that they are looking for. (Also we might note that this is where redirects for each of the four principals point to, linked to from eg their wikidata items). In the context of this particular article, I think it is quite helpful for readers to see the relative ages of the four principals: the two brothers, separated by only three years; the two later partners, younger, not quite (but nearly) the next generation.

More fundamentally, as I indicated in an edit summary on the main article earlier, the nature of their business as merchants at this time very much was that they were the business; the business was their personal contacts. So it's a mistake to think that the biographical is in some way removed from the subject of the article.

I was disappointed that you did not respond to the point that sometimes a primary source and a secondary source together are better and more helpful than just a secondary source. Also that it really makes more sense to consider the FS links on the same basis as external links, given that this is how they are presented in the footnotes; and that they are not being used to support any particular facts in the article text. As between them these points cover five out of six of the links that seem to be of concern, I think it would be useful to consider them.

Thanks again for your response, and again my apologies in advance if I may be slow to respond in the next few days. Best, Jheald (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jheald, to clarify, regarding "sometimes a primary source and a secondary source together are better and more helpful than just a secondary source", I feel this is covered under my points above that we rely on secondary rather than primary sources, and that compiling genealogical records is not our role. Additionally, if we were to consider the FS links on the same basis as external links, we would need to remove them - links that require registration are not included as ELs per WP:ELNO. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria:. Update: here (from microfilm) is the official registered copy of the will of George Irlam. At the very end of the will, at the end of the official probate summary is the sentence "The testator died the 29 day of September 1832" (top of page 416; frame 219 of the scan). This matches the date on the gravestone, establishing beyond doubt that it is the stone for the George Irlam of Barton, Irlam and Higginson, with no jigsawing of different evidences.

WP:PRIMARY tells us to be cautious of interpreting primary sources. But no interpretation is being made here, just the direct statement of what the gravestone says.

In respect of WP:ELNO, the restriction applies specifically to the EL section, not to material formatted within citations [its link]. (Where, per the section WP:WHYCITE on that page, the word "citations" arguably encompasses material to "help users find additional information on the subject" when presented within inline citations, as well as material to support particular facts.)

WP:IAR encourages us always to think what is the rationale for rules -- how do they help the reader (or help us to build the content to help the reader). Inline citations can include links to registration sites. "Further reading" can include papers behind paywalls; papers so difficult to track down and access that no editor has yet managed to read them; and monographs maybe costing hundreds of pounds, only accessible at a handful of specialist libraries -- all welcome at FR. So what is the concern at EL. According to WP:ELREG it is because such links "are of limited use to most readers". At first I found this hard to rationalise. Is it not like saying "Every candle casts a shadow. So we should all sit in the dark"? But turning it over some more, on second thoughts, in the very specific context of the EL section, perhaps it does make sense -- if we think of the EL section as a particular high-profile section of the article, which we aim to keep short, and of interest to "most [casual] readers" -- who would be disappointed if a link wasn't immediately accessible, or didn't render on their browser. Whereas the references and footnotes section are not under the same length constraint; and perhaps have a different audience - a more committed narrower group, interested in drilling down on a particular point, to whom chasing down an obscure reference or filling in a free registration is not such a big deal, compared to the value in having the breadcrumbs to open the door to let them dig deeper. So I think this restriction is more about the style of the EL section, rather than whether the link is directly supporting a fact in the article. And it probably indicates that having these links in the footnotes probably was the right call, as regards where to place them.

Per WP:IAR the ultimate bottom-line question is what will help the reader -- either directly, or indirectly by helping us build or maintain content that will help the reader. For readers who want to drill deeper and find out more about Barton, Irlam, and Higginson, these FS links are the breadcrumbs to connect them to information to do that. That seems to me a strong prima facie case that we should try to find some way to try to include them. If we start from that perspective, I'd like to think that the current footnote text introduces them quite well. Jheald (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're hitting a pretty fundamental disagreement about what we're here to do. You argue that anything that helps the reader in any way is a benefit; that is a noble view, but outside the scope of this website. Ultimately IAR, our various guidelines, etc, are all in the service of building an encyclopedia, which is a narrower scope than you propose. I also have a narrower view of CITE - that citations are specifically material intended to support particular facts, not additional reading. But this question would probably be better resolved at that page rather than here.

As for PRIMARY, as above, it may very well be that the gravestone in question is that of the person in question. But what you have confirming that is that the dates match up with a different primary source - that's a simpler jigsaw than previously, but a jigsaw still. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for your reply. Sorry to take so long to get back to you -- the repair shop managed to order the wrong part, so I'm still having to cope with a smashed screen.

You mis-take my position on IAR slightly, I think. It's anything but a low bar, and absolutely not "anything goes". Our rules have become very well-honed over the years, and they exist for good reasons, per what I wrote above: to help the reader -- either directly, or indirectly by helping us build or maintain content that will help the reader. I fully believe that all our rules reflect that purpose. Our rules reflect real concerns, and we need to be alive to those concerns, and if we ever don't see why a particular guidance is there, and what it's motivation is that is ultimately helpful to our readers, then, per Chesterton's Fence that's probably a sign that we need to turn over that rule again in our minds, and think on it some more, until we do understand the concern or concerns that is or are underlying it and driving it. We're here to build an encyclopedia, because that is the distinctive niche this project has carved out for itself, and maintaining that focus and delivering that form is how the project can be most helpful to the world. Which is what makes it worth doing. And when we consider the details of how we want the encyclopedia to be, the same ultimate principle applies, and should be the final bedrock for decisions: what choice, considering both direct and indirect effects, ultimately best helps our readers. This keeps us grounded and aligned, avoiding sterile and circular discussion about what one person or another may or may not consider "encyclopedic". Having this operational goal helps us to prioritise substance over forms or formality, and make sure that what we produce is as useful as it can be. All our rules can be motivatible in this way.

But this is a digression, at least as far as the FG links are concerned. The bottom line here is that they meet all six tests at WP:PRIMARY. Yes, FG links come up with a pink background at WP:RS/P, but that indicates "questionable" rather than outright forbidden. The six discussions attached clarify that the situation here corresponds to the exact situation when a link to FG is permissible: when the source we are citing is the gravestone itself so FG is effectively providing a convenience link, and when it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the stone is indeed the relevant stone for the article. Jheald (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

(For reference: the will of George Irlam provides that two of his executors should be "my friend and partner John Higginson of Liverpool, now in Barbados in the British West Indies" and "my son George Barton Irlam", and goes on to discuss a deed of co-partnership which has been entered into with the said George Barton Irlam. It goes on to list George Irlam's "dear wife" Ellen Irlam; his sons George Barton Irlam, Thomas Irlam, and William Irlam; and his daughters Elizabeth Cowley Irlam, Ann Irlam, Ellen Irlam, Frances Irlam, Margaret Irlam, and Maria Irlam. At the very end, in the record of the probate grant, it is noted that the testator died 29 September 1832. cf the stone [6]). Jheald (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

As above, I don't agree that the tests at PRIMARY are met, and I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on that by continued discussion, per your point re "circular". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria:

1. Which one (or is it more than one??) of the six tests at WP:PRIMARY do you think the FG links are not meeting?

2. I appreciate that it is not your usual starting point; but if you could sketch out what indirect or higher good serving the public you think removing these links would serve, that would be useful to me, I think. Thanks, Jheald (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

1. For the FG links specifically, 1 and 2/3/4. (2/3/4 to me seem to be intertwined)

2. In my view, it's essential for a Wikipedia article to remain focused on the encyclopedic treatment of the topic and not go down a rabbit hole of providing every tidbit, link, etc that relates - that way lies madness. Also in my view, citations should be limited to reliable sources directly supporting a specific claim, not quasi-further reading sections for genealogical exploration. I recognize that there are readers that might like to see something different from one or both of those, but that's not what this site is here to do. Finally, avoiding questionable sources and relying on secondary references goes to both credibility and reader/editor expectations. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thank you very much for your considered response. I think they do usefully illumninate where we agree and the precise points on which we are parting company.

In relation to WP:PRIMARY #1 ("reputably published"), it's maybe worth noting that WP:V at footnote f specifically highlights tombstones as things that should be considered 'verifiably published' for the purposes of Wikipedia. The question is therefore whether FG is an acceptable site for a WP:CONVENIENCE link. The consensus I get from the six discussions on FG linked from WP:RS/P is that in the limited case of that usage FG should be considered reliable -- which would also accord with common sense.

In relation to WP:PRIMARY #2/3/4 no analytic, interpretive, or synthetic claim is being made that goes beyond what is stated on the face of the stone.

Your concern, if I interpret it correctly, is that the identification of the stones as belonging to the individuals claimed is WP:OR, and therefore makes the use of them interpretative or synthetic. But it seems to me this is a paper argument. Given the dates on them, there really is no doubt that these are the stones for the individuals claimed. And it seems to me that the question of whether a source relates to the subject of the article or not is squarely within the competence of editorial judgment -- particularly in such a straightforward case: it is a question we essentially have to satisfy ourselves of before using any source.

Taken together this is why I believe I accuarately summarised the position regarding FG (and the position taken by those six discussions) when I wrote that FG links should be acceptable as source (only) "when the source we are citing is the gravestone itself so FG is effectively providing a convenience link, and when it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the stone is indeed the relevant stone for the article". I believe that that is an accurate expression of the situation for the two FG sources in this article.

I also note that, as far as I can see, none of the six discussions blanket-banned FG or held that it was unsuitable in all cases. I am curious as to whether you can instance any cases where you think FG links were more suitable than this. Jheald (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you also very much for your second paragraph, and taking the trouble to set your views out in this way. I really appreciate it, because I think it gives a basis on which we can talk to each other about these wider questions, and the ways they are anchored in fundamentals.

I don't believe that the footnotes in this article go against WP credibility or reader expectations of wikipedia, because I think they are used responsibly, carefully, and for limited worthwhile purposes. But I do agree that credibility and meeting reader/editor expectations are of fundamental importance, and I hope I was conscious of that when I worded the links as I did.

The general 'below the line' footnotes section will (and should) primarily contain material to support the 'above the line' claims of the article main-text. But I don't believe there is any guidance that that is all that such footnotes can contain, if page-editors think there is other material that may specifically be worth helping readers to be able to find -- because you're right, our articles do have to be selective, we can't include everything; yet breadcrumbs to material on who the principals were, where they were, who they were connected to, how they were being described may for some of our readers that want to dig deeper be exactly what will most benefit them. Information from genealogical sources can have more than just genealogical value. Jheald (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)