Jump to content

Talk:Chick Webb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 March 2020 and 16 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Scdsounds.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Webbs B-date

[edit]

Chick Webb was born in 1909! Why do people keep changing that date? MichaelMoore 21:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's your proof that 1909 is correct. The Internet Movie Database says 1905 as does a new article on the issue. The New York times at the time of his death has it down as 1907! What is your proof that it is 1909 and not 1905? Dwain 14:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Dwain, I believe you are right. I checked out the census' myself and it looks like this new date is correct. MichaelMoore 19:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the date back because the same criteria, that of census records, was used to prove Nat King Cole's true age. MichaelMoore 15:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone else besides Borgman seen the census record? The NKC census research was documented. Should we take Borgman on his word? --SeanO 22:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


A poll is being conducted at JazzHouse.org on Chick Webb's actual birth year.

Don't rely on censuses as primary sources of birth dates. They're based on information that the census takers collected, and they did not always talk to someone who actually knew the facts. A birth certificate or similar document (like passport application) should be preferred. However, in the absence of primary sources ... a census may have to do. But is that the case? 81.226.177.175 (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no birth certificate for William Henry Webb born in any of the years it was claimed he was born. The census records checked actually match up amazingly well for two records that are ten years apart. What they show is that Chick Webb was not only born in 1905, but that February 10th is probably the right month. There was a question as to whether the William Webb found in these two census' was indeed Chick Webb. This was resolved by discovering that the sisters listed were listed in newspaper articles as being sisters of Chick Webb. Friuli (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research?!?

[edit]

I am writing in response to Sean O's comment, "I consider this original research," in regards to the discovery of Chick Webb's actual birthdate and his reason for deleting the information from the article page.

The original research that is not allowed is research done by a Wikipedian and is added to an article. I am not the person who discovered the actual date of birth. Dwain 14:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I'm sorry I didn't make it clearer before. I thought the Borgman article appeared to be original research [1]. I read the article and didn't feel it proved the point. Unless someone can verify his research, I'm hesitant to take _just_ his word for it. I'm not against correcting the date: If you check out the history of Nat King Cole and Coleman Hawkins articles you will see I was involved in determining correct birthdates. I just want more evidence than Borgman's sayso.

That being said, I think the article is much much better with all the work you've done in documenting birthdate descrepencies. Thank you. -- SeanO 23:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

15 years later, I agree that we should not give such prominence to Borgman's theory. At the end of his own research note he says that he thinks he is correct because it hasn't been challenged bur in fact he notes that alternate dates do exist & as recently as this weekend the BBC in the UK broadcast a documentary on Ella Fitzgerald that says he died aged 30. It could just be that people haven't picked up on Borgman or see no need to respond to him. In any event, we don't use WP:SPS blog entries in this way and really should not use them at all. It has to go, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the article accordingly and still think Borgman has no place as a source. We certainly cannot assert that he is correct, as the article said prior to my amendment. If you don't like this then please ping me and I will join you in discussion, perhaps at WP:NPOVN. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 1910 census gives his age as 5, and the 1920 census as 14. Although his 1940 draft card stated that he was born in 1909, the earlier census returns are more likely to be accurate. (Anyone with a subscription to a site like Ancestry can see these records. Or use a library - they are in the public domain.) So the correct answer is 1905. But that's not important here. What's more important is that Allmusic - which is regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes although obviously it is far from error-free - also (in this case correctly) states 1905. I'm unclear why this is such an issue on this article - it is extremely commonplace for different birth dates to be given in different sources for musicians, actors, etc., and where they have been reported in reliable sources (and are not clearly errors) we report them - though I personally edge readers towards the correct date when it is known. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is an issue because sources disagree. And now you have brought in original research using your ancestry.com subscription etc to back yourself up. We don't do that, and while Allmusic may be generally reliable for our purposes it is wrong to promote that above other reliable sources, which is what you seem to have done. - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, there are reliable sources that indicate 1909, but they don't seem to be cited in the article at present. We should include them in the opening sentence, as alternatives, and have two dates - 1905 (sourced) or 1909 (sourced) - rather than baldly stating "unknown", as your edits did. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Unknown" is a standard formulation; we even have a category for it. Call it "disputed" if you want, or "uncertain". I am really not fussed what word we use but we do not state as a certainty something regarding which reliable sources disagree and we do not use our own research of primary sources to promote one variant. This is WP 101. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the years seem to be 1905, 1907 or 1909. I have never seen a lead mention three alternate years in the dob/dod parentheticals, nor an infobox. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "unknown" in the opening sentence, rather than giving reliably sourced alternatives in either a footnote or with a {{disputed}} tag, is a cop-out that gives no information to readers. I'd favour stating "1905/09", with a footnote explaining the uncertainty - rather than including an unduly lengthy explanation of the uncertainty in the main text, which would be the alternative. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: (And then there's 1902)... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are several books that say 1902; there is at least one that says 1917, although perhaps that is a misprint for 1907? It is not a cop-out to say that we cannot say. - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Britannica makes explicit reference to the uncertainties but confirms that "census records suggest that he was born in 1905", I think it's reasonable to use that, supported by Allmusic, as the date - with other sourced possibilities mentioned in the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that other reliable sources give other years and the lead is supposed to reflect the body, why are you cherrypicking those two? NPOV.- Sitush (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are not "cherry-picked". They are recognised reliable secondary sources, which in Britannica's case has explicitly looked at the alternative dates and concluded that 1905 is most likely to be correct. Sources published in his lifetime and which are more likely to have been based on information from him or his publicist, as well as sources from his family (his grave marker) are less independent. No other reliable sources are cited in the article relating to his birth year. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, and you have implicitly acknowledged awareness of, there are plenty of reliable sources for alternate years. We should not be passing our own judgment regarding degrees of reliability. It is tricky for me to give a whole series of links while on mobile but a search for "chick webb" combined with "1902" or any of the other years mentioned gives plenty of RS hits. For similar reasons, it is tricky to find past discussions about EB but they do exist and it has been noted in the past that even the "EBChecked" string in urls for their articles is no longer a guarantee that the article in question has in fact been scrutinised by an EB editorial board. It's unfortunate that he was born in the first decade of the 20th century rather than the one before or after(we could have compromised on "1890s" or "1910s" but "1900s" is ambiguous). This isn't a matter for the WP:RSN but I think we're heading towards referral to the WP:NPOVN here. Your recent change of my changes imposed a statement that is not only dubious in fact but also contradicted a consensus about that fact which existed prior to my own changes - whereas I muddied the waters of that consensus, you seem completely to have overturned it from the 1909 date discussed years ago above to one of 1905. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that are set out in the article justify a clear statement of the birth date, with an explanation in the text that some - less reliable, or entirely unreliable - sources give different dates. I have not removed any sources from the text, but I added one. My issue with your edits here and here is that you made the article less informative to readers, by entirely removing any mention of a birth date or year in the opening sentence or infobox. The casual reader - those who do not read beyond the opening paragraph, of whom there are potentially millions, and whom it is our duty as editors to serve - would be given no clue whether he had been born in the 1900s, the 1910s, or indeed the 1880s or 1850s - all of which could be plausible. So, we need some indications of when he was born, in the opening section and infobox, that reflect the information set out in the text. The information in the text has various dates, but of those the 1909 date was poorly sourced, and the 1905 date was presented in two cited reliable sources (and, incidentally but not conclusively, can be checked from primary sources to be almost certainly correct). Stating the most reliably sourced (and, incidentally, correct) date is the best option; stating a range of dates, from various sources and with explanations, could be acceptable; stating no date at all, when dates are provided in all reliable sources, is unacceptable. If you want to expand the text by adding further sources giving different dates, with additional explanations, that is up to you, but in my view it should not disrupt the flow of the text or take up undue space in the article. I'd be quite happy with an explanatory footnote. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't true that omitting a dob and instead stating uncertainty is a dis-service to the reader. Loads of articles do that & better to be vague than possibly wrong. We're going round in circles now: I am following policy & you are following what appears to be a gut instinct. I will raise it at NPOVN later as best I can using mobile. Your POV is evident from your comment that your preferred date is correct; which from the outset has been based on your OR of primary sources. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's untrue. What happened to WP:AGF? I have no particular interest in when he was born. But I repeat - there are no high quality sources in the article that give a date other than 1905. The 1909 sources - explained in the text - are less reliable, and - while it's fair to summarise them in the main text - should be given less weight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have AGF'd - don't start that nonsense wit me. You say above Stating the most reliably sourced (and, incidentally, correct) date... - your assertion that it is correct is 100% POV because there are a range of reliable sources and you have decided one date is right. We can't do that & I do not fall for bully tactics. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised this thread at NPOVN.- Sitush (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that I have a POV is a breach of good faith. You seem to be claiming that my edits are not neutral, on the basis that I place greater weight on reliable sources than on unreliable ones. Is that right? As I showed by putting "(and, incidentally, correct)" in parentheses, the correctness of the sources is incidental (though obviously important), and not the key consideration. It is the reliability of the sources that is the key consideration. I have offered a clear way out of this disagreement by suggesting that, if you insist on adding other, different reliable sources giving different dates, the whole issue can be neatly summarised in a footnote, with the opening sentence giving the range of dates (i.e. 1902/09, or even 1900/10 if you prefer). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are being selective in paraphrasing me. I have specifically stated that you are preferring some reliable sources over other reliable sources and that prima facie your rationale for that is based on your own assesment of primary census data which, right near the top of this thread in 2005, was rightly explained not to be a sound decision for a contributor here to make. Nothing has changed regarding the community's attitude to interpretation of primary sources in the nearly as many years I have been here.
Your edit is non-neutral and misleading. You are far from being an inexperienced editor & so must realise this. - Sitush (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could claim the same about you. Where, in the article, are the reliable sources claiming 1909? I can only see sources published during his lifetime (and in some cases offline) which are inherently less likely to be reliable than those claiming 1905. There is not a hard fixed line between "reliable" and "unreliable" sources. There is a gradation, and where possible we use the most reliable (and most readily verifiable) sources in preference to those that are less reliable. At no point have I based my assessment on the census information, which in my initial post I explicitly stated is "not important here". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said 1905 was "the correct answer" based on your original research: that research is contrary to our methods yet you felt it worthwhile planting the idea & then doubling down on it in a later comment. That is POV.
Nowhere to my knowledge have our policies or guidelines ever stipulated that we prefer sources that are "readily available"; in fact, we go out of our way to recognise that, for example, offline sources are fine. The test is reliability, not availability. Similarly, whilst it is true that HISTRS exist as an essay, I am not aware of any consensus that, for example, The New York Times of the 1930s is any less reliable than the present-day publication that we definitely consider to be reliable. It is true that, for example, we have a pretty much blanket objection to the reliability of British Raj publications of that time relating to India but that is a definite consensus relating to systemic bias & irrelevant to the present issue.
I have explained that mobile is a pain for providing links & even reading some sources but I have also indicated a simple way to do the research & noted that there seem to be a fair few sources saying 1902, 1905, 1907, 1909, and at least one saying 1917. I would drop the 1917 as being a real outlier & likely misprint but for the other years there seem to be multiple items in support. I have already explained why Britannica can be a problem & you have a knowledged that AllMusic is also not infallible, so I don't see where your concept of "most reliable" fits in. I am also pretty sure we do not grade sources by degrees of reliability: they either are or are not.
I don't know what you mean by "I could claim the same about you" - I am not stating a preference for a date, not engaging in OR and not bringing up silly charges like AGF - you're a big boy here and don't need to seek the protection of a false flag. Nor should we present the reader with a false summary of the article in our lead section. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you willing and able to come up with a form of words - other than "unknown" - that reflects your perception of how the conflicting sources should be summarised in the opening sentence? As I've said repeatedly, I'm perfectly open to considering a range of alternatives, but my strong view remains that "unknown" is a very poor reflection of the information that is set out in the sources, and, very simply, does not adequately summarise the article text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have already suggested alternate wordings. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've no wish to prolong this, but - for the benefit of other editors - the above statement is untrue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chick Webb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chick Webb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chick_Webb&oldid=1195374918"