Talk:James Bradley (former slave)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Bradley (former slave)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 04:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion in preparation for GA review

General comment to start: I would be very happy to review this article. There are a couple of things that need to be done first (so that I don't have to do the review twice): Citations need to be added to uncited content. There are far more quotations than should be in an article, but since this is partially about Bradley's narrative, I get it. Where there are quotes that aren't by Bradley, it would be far better to paraphrase the content and cite it. I added one clarification tag - I am not understanding how Bradley got from Charleston to live near the Choctaw mission. Did he live somewhere with the Bradleys before living in the Arkansas Territory? Did they move directly to the area of the mission after James was purchased? Did he ever live in Kentucky? I took a stab at pulling information out of the plaque text - so that quote isn't there. You have the link so that people can read the actual text if they wish, but the important content has been added where relevant. Here is an example where I incorporated/paraphrased content that was in quotes - that doesn't need to be. I made some edits for brevity and to remove external links from the body of the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC) He went from Charleston to Kentucky with his owner Bradley and lived there with him for some years. deisenbe (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC) It seems like he lived at the Arkansas plantation, because he was overseeing a plantation there at age 18. Did he move with the family and then get let out to work? Or, was he let out to work in Kentucky? Very interesting article, by the way! I recently wrote one about Edith Hern Fossett who was one of Thomas Jefferson's slaves and she learned to cook French cuisine at the White House.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC) He was let out to work in Arkansas, apparently, having moved there with the family. There is no direct evidence about why he didn't go to Beecher's house, do you want me to add my speculation? It's not clear to me what citations you find missing. deisenbe (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Ah, gotcha re: Arkansas. Is there a source that says that he went to Arkansas? If not, maybe the content just needs a few tweaks to show that everyone moved to Arkansas... If you don't have a source for that, I don't mind looking. You shouldn't speculate about why he didn't go to Beecher's house. I just wondered why it is said in the article that "James felt it wiser not to attend". I will add {{cn}} tags where citations are needed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC) If a citation tag is after several sentences that are uncited, it means that all the uncited content needs citations (versus me adding an cn tag at the sentence level.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC) I hope you don't mind, I worked on the Biography section and added citations, except for Sheffield losing its charter due to OH legislation. Do you have a source for that? I paraphrased quotes where possible and did a bit of editing. I was able to resolve the confusion about James and Arkansas and about why he didn't go to a meeting. See what you think.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Found a source for Sheffield. Struck out that issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments posted on my talk page

Discussion in preparation for GA review

"legal importation of slaves had ended in 1808." The link to the WP article is great, thanks. But what is accomplished by citing an Oberlin Web page as documentation that he was brought here illegally? He wasn't even born in 1808. And that Web page does not seem authoritative. I wrote "Hungry for education" and you took it out. I think this is an important and documented fact about him. I wrote "though he was not enrolled as a student" and you took it out. I think it should be in. He had an unusual status. "With the Lane Rebels he left Lane and moved to Oberlin, and studied a year in an affiliated preparatory school." Can be read as saying that all the Lane Rebels studied with him in an affiliated preparatory school. I wish you hadn't changed it from moving to Oberlin town to Oberlin College. If he had already moved to the college, then why say AND he studied in an affiliated school? This study in an affiliated school is in addition to what? Then I disagree with what you have done using the historical marker as a source. Bradley's own narration - " I think I was between two and three years old when the soul-destroyers tore me from my mother’s arms, somewhere in Africa," - that's the source. To replace it with a secondary source based on it is to weaken the article. We're not supposed to use primary sources? Yes, I know the policy, or think I do. But it's a bad policy, at least here. As I see it, using this source removes value from the qrticle. We're pretty far apart. I don't have confidence in your editing. I feel that now I must go through the article and check every one of your revisions, that's why I asked if more were coming. Does this mean I want you to withdraw as reviewer? i suppose so (and cancel the "Good Article" nomination), though it wouldn't seem to be my call. We're just not working together and we apparently have different standards or beliefs about what is best in an article. deisenbe (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I moved this from my talk page: I am so sorry that you are very disappointed. What a shame. It's a very good article. Since you put out the comments, I feel I should respond. You had the portion of the sentence "legal importation of slaves had ended in 1808." I just added the link. See this version before I made any edits. Re: Hungry for education. I was taught that when you right write you try to show rather than tell. So that people think for themselves... man he really wanted to read and write. The fact that he spent every free moment that he could trying to work with his spelling book and write.... and how much he wanted to read the Bible shows how much he wanted education. I think it's pretty clear, but go ahead and put it back. I don't remember removing "though he was not enrolled as a student". You're right, it should be there. I put it back. I did not change: "With the Lane Rebels he left Lane and moved to Oberlin, and studied a year in an affiliated preparatory school." It's in this version before I started editing. I agree that the historical marker source is not the best, I prefer to get it from a book. But you need a source for information. Where did you get the language for the marker? I didn't replace it as a source anywhere. And the historical marker is NOT used as a source for "the soul-destroyers tore me from my mother’s arms, somewhere in Africa". I added a source for the addition of him being between two and three. I agree that there are sometimes that primary sources are better, even though the policy is to use secondary sources. (Like when there is a discrepancy about a date for birth, marriage, death... The actual record solves the question.) It's funny because I have thought that if I wasn't the reviewer on the article, there's more than I would like to do. It's a very interesting article! I am so sorry that I crushed your toes with my editing. I did get carried away as a reviewer. There was just so much that needed to be done to get it ready to be reviewed and I thought I would help. I can see that was wrong. I should have started out slower. I hope that you consider my comment above, in any event.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Another comment you added to my talk page: Here's another example: you changed the text, which said the legislature refused to issue a charter, to "The integrated school lost its charter after the Ohio legislature said that schools with both black and white students was illegal." 1) It never had a charter to lose, 2) The legislature made no such statement. The mention of "charter" comes from your content. See this version: The school closed when "amalgamated" ("racially" integrated) schooling, as it was called then, was effectively made illegal in Ohio, since the Legislature refused to charter the school if it admitted "colored" students. In any event, it is absolutely right. It was about it losing its charter as it is mentioned in a number of sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Please don't post on my talk page. You lose the history that way.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Please take a deep breath. I see you are upset, but you are misreading what happened and thinking I made additions that you made and misconstruing the changes I made.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC) tweak above right-->write.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC) What source says that the Sheffield school ever had a charter? I'm not aware of any place this is said. I never said it myself. deisenbe (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Well, someone added charter before I started working on the article. Maybe that's the issue. Someone else has worked on the article and you think their edits were made by me. See this query for mentions of "charter" in association with Sheffield Manual Labor Institute.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Also, I don't think you are looking at sources when you make edits. For instance, you removed/changed the part about him being with another slaveholder first. He was with someone other than the Bradleys in Pendleton County for six months before he was sold to the Bradleys. So the sentence is wrong now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I am signing off on James Bradley. I don't need this kind of stress and I have other things to work on. Do whatever you want to. Some time in the future I'll look at it again. deisenbe (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC) I understand. I think, though, that I should be the one to step away. You put a lot of work into it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

General comment

There hasn't been any movement on this article, while other related articles are being worked on, so I went ahead and made some edits with the following in mind:

• The article is about James Bradley, so that should be the focus of most of the content, additional information about the Lane Seminary and the debates can be accessed via links.
• Since a good portion of the article contain quotes, they should be limited to quotes by James and all other quotes should be paraphrased. I am not certain whether the remaining quotes would be considered excessive or not, but it would be good to keep them for now, and see how it goes.
• I removed uncited content. I am going to do regular research next and if I find sources for more content about James to enhance the article, I will add it.
• I did some editing for brevity and encyclopedic tone / content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Deisenbe, If you are at all interested, I have nearly completed the edits, there are just a few outstanding issues:

• Whether Bradley was enrolled at Lane: I am seeing a lot of sources state that he was enrolled and I have not found one source that said he wasn't enrolled there. I am thinking that they admitted him to the seminary, but he did not take any classes there. (Of course, conjecture that won't be used in the article.) It is clear that he was part of the Lane Seminary community. Done This makes sense now, knowing that there was a preparatory school at Lane.
• I have found a couple of sources that state that he attended a preparatory school while in Walnut Hills, Cincinnati... but I have yet to find a good source for that... and the name of the school. Done Lane had a preparatory school, Walnut Hills School. I mentioned that the school existed in the article, but am not able to link Bradley directly to the school..
• I will replace the marker database sources with better sources. I switched out a few, but I will switch out the rest. Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• I reworded the sentence about the charter entirely and don't mention "charter" at all. Hopefully that works better for you.

I added some content about the ramifications of the debates and a section for his Legacy.

Any insight or thoughts would be helpful, if you'd like. If not, that's ok, after these issues are addressed I will begin the review as if I am coming in new to the article... using the checklist / instructions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Bradley was definitely not admitted to the Seminary nor was he paying tuition. But find a source for that specific point? Did you see what he said himself that he was unprepared? He wouldn't have enrolled at the Shepherd school if he were studying at Lane.

Where did you find that he attended a preparatory school in Walnut Hills? I had missed that and thought I had seen everything relevant.

You might want to look at User:Deisenbe/sandbox/Lane Debates, ehich is far from finished. I am moving information there from the Lane article and will the day this goes live.

Oet me know when you're finished with the swaps. deisenbe (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Deisenbe Thanks for your response! I added an update about the Walnut Hills School, part of Lane, that was a preparatory school. That makes more sense now. Yes, I absolutely saw that he said he was not prepared.

Hmmm, he paid no tuition. Do you have a source for that?

I haven't run across the Shepherd school.

Here is the link to one source that mentioned he went to a preparatory school. I think the source is likely right, but the site looks a little to blog like to be considered a reliable source. I added the source to the article that states that Lane had a preparatory school here.

I will look at your Lane Debates article. What do you mean let you know when I am finished with the swaps? I have finished the items above until you have any issue with them. I added a comment about schooling. So, I am about ready to start the GA review process, unless you have something you'd like to do first.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the Lane Debates article will have a lot of good detail for readers to access from the James Bradley article. I like that it explains the format of the debates, questions, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit above is underlined.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Well I had a look at it, the beginning, and I want to delete the whole lede and put it back to the way I had it before you got involved. Seriously. You go way off topic - it's about Bradley, not Lane — and honestly I have to come out and say that I believe I am a better and more experienced writer as far as constructing sentences and paragraphs. I feel you have reduced the writing quality of the piece.

I have got to soak that up a bit. This does not make sense to me, it is like we're reading two different ledes. It sounds like you are saying that you don't want anything in the lede about how Bradley's speech affected others and led to downstream impacts. I am totally confused.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

There was one sentence about the impact of Bradley's speech. I absolutely see that as directly relevant to Bradley... but... Fine, if you don't want it in the lede and you want to remove content about his legacy, that is fine.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Where did you get Bradley's enrollment date of May 28, 1833? That date isn't on the page you cite. I put failed verification on it.

The date is in the very first sentence on page 56, there is even a penciled bracket in the left hand margin for that info. I removed the failed verification. Were you looking at page 56, the very top of the page?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I will go through the article, look at all of your emendations and correct as I see fit, if you'll let that pass and we don't get into an edit war. You've given me a lot of extra work, checking everything you've done. Also the time it takes to discuss emendations with you. As I see it, most, not all of your emendations are questionable, reduce quality of the English, or are just off the wall or show that you don't know the period and situation as well as I do. I honestly am sorry you have worked on it, and sorry thst I nominated it, a mistake I will not make again. I do want to thank you for the Sons & Daughters of Thunder article, which I found looking at your contributions. (I bought that movie and will lend it to you if you want.) ♭ deisenbe (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not understanding this paragraph either. Hmmmm. Do you know that's part of the GA Review to check everything?

You are welcome for the film article. I also created an article for the sculptor that created the statue of Bradley.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

1. I also must acknowledge that you have come up with a variety of relevant materials that I didn't know of. Thank you.
2. https://archive.org/details/generalcatalogue00lane/page/8/mode/2up/search/Lit.+D contains all of Lane's students and Bradley is not there. Also nothing on a preparatory school. It mentions a short-lived "literary [non-religious] dept." but that's not the same thing. I think http://www.walnuthillsstories.org/stories/james-bradley/, which contains nothing new, has confused the preparatory school at Sheffield. It also says that Bradley studied "a few years" at Oberlin, but I consulted the Oberlin archivist (Original Research — boo, hiss) who confirmed that the year at Sheffield was his only link with Oberlin.
   1. Correction to the above - there was a school, which antedated the seminary. I have to refind the reference. I think they had no formal relationship. It would be logical for James to have studied there, but I haven't found evidence.
3. Are you OK with the lede? If so, I'll continue.
4. Please combine notes 1 and 7, which are citing differently the same item. Also, there's an error message at the end of references.
5. Specifically what needs to be done by me as part of the review? deisenbe (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

-Numbered items to more easily keep track of what is being answered.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

1. You are welcome.
2. I wondered, too, if it was Sheffield, but it was said that he attended the school while at Lane - I don't find anything that says he attended Sheffield while at Lane, which is in another part of Ohio. Regarding the source that gives his admission date, the footnote says the source is a list of Lane students. Perhaps there was a list by departments (preparatory, literary, and I forget the third department). I have a source for the Walnut Hills School. But, I don't think I have the part about the three departments at Lane. I will look for where I found that... it was a reliable source. Done - I added that info and put it into a note that he probably didn't join the Literary department, adding his quote about not being ready for a couple of years to attend college level courses.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Yes, I am ok with the lede by removing the sentence. It is a little slim, perhaps there is more than can be added to the lede. Not a big deal right now, though.
4. I will take care of the duplicate citations. Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
5. There is nothing that you need to do right now. As I go through the review, if something comes up, I will list it on this talk page. And, we can take it from there. If you have input when something arises, that would be great.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

• You removed "was an African child when he was enslaved and transported to the United States. As a child, he tried to learn to read and write, which was illegal for slaves and deemed unacceptable by his owner. In 1833, after eight years of foregoing sleep to earn and save money, he purchased his freedom and went to Cincinnati in the free state of Ohio." from the lede. Since the lede should summarize the article, I don't understand removing content that summarizes the first half of the article.

This would come up in the first section of the review... that the intro is too short and should summarize the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand removing that he was 18. There are other places that mention his age (14, 15), so it makes no sense to remove this one. I am guessing that he kept track of his age.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Review

Based on having already reviewed the article and made edits and additions, most of the issues have already been identified and addressed. I will still read through the article and note issues... and then add the GA template and go through each of those items.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Lede/Intro

• The intro is too short and seems to only capture information from a couple of years of his life.
• Of the stories about slaves, it is rare to find stories about someone that was born in Africa and has a story. It is also very rare to have a child taken so young. Both of those would be nice to mention and bring a bit of interest to the article in the intro. (For instance, it's nice to raise a number of questions in the reader's mind so that they want to read more.)
• There is no information about his life before 1833 and there is no mention of the efforts to help slaves gain their freedom.
• It would be nice to have some information about his legacy and perhaps that there is a statue of him in Covington, where Bradley and many slaves landed in Ohio.
• There are a lot of sources that say that he was enrolled or admitted as a student (See this query) - and no source that could be used as a source that I could find that said that he wasn't (See this query where the only references are the Wikipedia article or content copied from Wikipedia - no reliable source). I am not surprised that Bradley was not in the Lane catalog, because it listed students by their graduating classes. Bradley wasn't in a graduating class. Also, please note that Bradley said himself that he was accepted "I asked for admission into the Seminary. They pitied me, and granted my request" - as quoted in Lane Seminary section.
• I wonder if there is a better way to say "Hungry for education" like "Yearning for education", etc. so it's not a mixed metaphor.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Throughout

• I am noticing that he is referred to as "James" and "Bradley". Perhaps a solution is to alway refer to him as "Bradley" and refer to the owners as "Mr. Bradley" or "Mrs. Bradley" and/or his owner, master or mistress. James could be used throughout, but that goes against the guideline to use the surname.
• Fix at least one place where the citation numbers are out of order.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Both  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Childhood

• I see no reason not to return that he was 18 years old instead of the nebulous "young James" - since it is properly sourced and his age is often stated in other parts of the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • There is not one single scrap of evidence anywhere about his age or birth date. It's all conjecture, including by me. Perhaps a caution (a statement) needs to be introduced. And since the twentieth century and widespread high schooling the age of 18 took on meanings it hadn't had before. I'm going to reexamine all ages in the article. deisenbe (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Can you hold off until we get a second opinion? I am sensing a desire to remove a lot of the content and I disagree with your position, which seems to me to be largely WP:OR.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Plans to purchase his freedom

• I probably wrote "then pursued several endeavors to make money." but I think it would be better to say "then while others slept, he pursued several endeavors to make money." or "then in the middle of the night, he pursued several endeavors to make money."–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Lane Seminary debates

• I wonder if it would be better to change "and its project of sending free blacks to Africa" to "and its intended strategy to send free blacks to Africa"
• "Abolitionist students formed an anti-slavery group organized their efforts" needs a comma after "group" and before "organized.
• Show possession for "states" in "one third of the states blacks lived in Cincinnati."–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• • "Intended strategy" is wrong. It was a project well underway. deisenbe (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    • If that is the case, why are there black people in the United States now? I was trying to be clear that it wasn't something that came to fruition en masse. Is there another way that you think it could be worded that appropriately states the scenario?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Legacy

• Make "discussion" plural.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There is no evidence of copyright violations or plagiarism.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I am concerned that the article will not be stable. The major contributor to the article has already stated that they desire to undo the improvements.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	There are open issues regarding the lede/intro.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Deisenbe There are just a couple of issues remaining: 1) The intro and 2) the article stability. Would you please look at the Intro comments above and provide any thoughts you might have about article stability.

It is not necessary, but please feel free to look through the items I identified in the review and how I fixed them to see if you have any thoughts about that.–CaroleHenson (talk)

We could ask for a second opinion re: the intro/lede and any other questions you have so that we can ensure that the end result will be stable.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not know what "article stability" is and the term does not appear elsewhere else on this page. deisenbe (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

James did not write his own history

Even though it says "written by himself", it is very literary and educated. He knows well how to punctuate, how to structure a complicated sentence, how to use italic, he can use a learned word like "institution", he puts "short account" in quotation marks — it screams college or some other advanced education. Someone who says "I am so ignorant, that I suppose it will take me two years to get up with the lowest class in the institution", could not possibly have written this.

I haven't figured out what to do with this original insight. deisenbe (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely believe he had someone help him. If we knew who the person was (I tried searching and could not find out who it was), we would add them to the list of authors, or state that this person assisted him.

In the end, it doesn't matter. The point is that his story was was told, captured, and published.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

This article has a major problem re sources used on him pre-Lane. Unless I missed something, the only source is his own statement. Modern articles take that and turn it into various facts that the underlying primary source (boo! hiss!) does not support:

• "He moved with the Bradley family to Arkansas when he was fourteen years old." Oherlin's page has no independent or new information and is not valid documentation. He uses the age 14 in his statement, but not re that move.
• " He visited for a time in Northern Kentucky". The newspaper article has no new information and is not a valid source. Someone, probably from northern Kentucky where the statue is, made this fact up. I've changed Covington, Ohio, to Covington, Kentucky.

• I marked below an apparent misprint ("skins"). If you look at the (primary) original (https://archive.org/details/oasis00chilgoog/page/n141/mode/2up/search/Skin), and not Oberlin's (secondary) transcription of it, it says "skin". I should have used the original myself. deisenbe (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You are advocating using primary sources over secondary sources? It would be a problem if all the sources were primary sources... and there is information about Bradley that come from other sources than his personal statement.

Now, it seems that if something didn't come from Bradley, you question it.

In some ways I get your point, but newspapers are considered reliable sources. And, how do you know that what is published in newspapers, books, etc. did not come from other parties who talked to Bradley?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Newspapers are reliable sources for events they're reporting, not for historical essays.

If I don't know where it came from, you bet I question it.

There is information about Bradley, that didn't come from him, starting when he arrived at Lane. Pre-Lane, he's the only source. deisenbe (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

James' "admission" to Lane

• "I asked for admission into the Seminary. They pitied me, and granted my request, though I knew nothing of the studies which were required for admission. I am so ignorant, that I suppose it will take me two years to get up with the lowest class in the institution. But in all respects I am treated just as kindly, and as much like a brother by the students, as if my skins [sic?] as white, and my education as good as their own. Thanks to the Lord, prejudice against color does not exist in Lane Seminary."

• It is inconceivable that Lane would have admitted a Black student, even one well prepared. Beecher and Stowe were no friends of Blacks. Except for Oneida, there was not one school anywhere in the U.S. that had black and white students studying together. Cincinnati, racially quite disturbed, was one of the last places you'd expect an integrated classroom.
  • Look at Oberlin College#The Lane Rebels. This institution, innovative as Lane was not, had a terrible time with James' admission. The head of the trustees had to break a tie, and that with the threat of major loss of funding and the loss of Oberlin's president (Mahan, and Shipherd as well) if they did not admit him.

• Bradley says that he was "ignorant" and unprepared for even the most basic classes. Lane would formally admit such a student? With no prior schooling anywhere? Taking pity on him?

• The source cited for Lane's preparatory department says it closed in 1834. This is apparently when James arrived, so he could not have studied in it. We don't have a firm year, but the debates were in Feb. 1835, and it seems to me --my conclusion-- that he is spoken of, and speaks of himself, as someone who had not been around for years.

• "They pitied me and granted my request." Who is "they"? The only possible explanation is the group of students who treated him warmly. I take James' statement to mean thst he showed up at the door, asked for admission, amd the students (some from integrated Oneida) let him in. The students treated him warmly. He himself says that the students treated him as a brother. Note that neither James nor anyone else says anything of his attending even one class or receiving any instruction at all. James was apparently unable to read a book - he would have mentioned the Bible if he had been able to read it.

Enough for now. deisenbe (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Bradley was admitted in 1833, according to the source.

It's not our place to question why something is done, it really gets down to what reliable sources say.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but the key word is reliable. deisenbe (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Key points for a second opinion

I am trying to sort out your key points for a second opinion:

• You believe, especially for the period before he goes to Lane, that "the only source is his own statement".
• If a source provides any information that is not in Bradley's statement, you find that to be false information.
• Regardless of whether a source would be considered a reliable source (newspapers, books) in other instances, if you find that they published something you don't agree with, they are not a reliable source.
• You question even his own statement about being admitted to Lane, because you don't think it's likely that it happened... although I have mentioned above that there are tons of sources including Bradley that say he enrolled there. (I would agree, though, that he wouldn't have been ready to attend the literary or theological departments.)
• The means to me that you think that Bradley's statement is always the right and true source, unless something does not make sense to you. Then, it (and all the other sources that state the same thing) should be ignored.

What you have not said, but I interpret: You removed anything from the lede/intro that did not come directly from Bradley... well, and also information that came from Bradley about his life before Lane.

Is this a good summary of your key points?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

No.

• You were right about his admission. Again, my apologies and I'm hanging my head.
• I do not believe that the only source is his own statement. However, before he arrived at Lane, his statement and the comments of his contemporaries (presumably repeating what he told them) are the only sources I know of. Something like his spending time in northern Kentucky on the way to Cincinnati, I don't believe there is a reliable source for that. deisenbe (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, Deisenbe, somehow I missed this comment.

I don't want you to be hanging your head.... just trying to figure out how to work this out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

My apology re Lane

You're right and I was wrong. Fletcher does say it and cites a ms. source. Very embarassing. Sorry. I thought I knew that backwards and forwards, and evidently I don't. deisenbe (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem, we're all human.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Newspapers have to come out

I have not read them all in detail, but unless they bring in new information, we should go back and cite the original sources and not the several modern rehashes of the sources.

I did see in https://www.wcpo.com/news/black-history-month/james-bradley-bought-his-freedom-from-slavery-came-to-cincinnati-and-influenced-history : "No one knows where he ended up, but he was doing two things: He was preaching and he was sharing skills when they last saw him at Oberlin," Westmoreland said. "He was sharing skills with young black people and young white people who wanted to read and write better, and wanted at the same time to improve their abilities to do hands-on things." This is from a knowledgeable person, but I'd write him and ask what his source was. The official Oberlin archivist didn't know of anything like this. He wanted to be a preacher, but this is the first I've heard of him actually doing it. Or teaching. And a black teaching white children, around 1834? I want a source. deisenbe (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I am having a problem, Deisenbe, because it seems like you are doing your own research and determining that secondary sources should not be used - both of which are against WP guidelines. We cannot even use information you get from a phone call or discussion with someone, it much be published somewhere. There's no way that I can pass an article as a Good Article that comes to conclusions based upon unpublished sources.

We are not getting anyone coming to give a second opinion, but given that there's a backlog, I am not surprised. I am wondering if the best thing to do is to fail the GA at this point. Because it goes everything I have learned as a WP editor to not use original research and to rely on secondary sources as the best sources (editorial control, research, etc.)

It is very likely that the best thing for you is to write books about what you know - or start a blog, if you haven't already done these things. But, while writing content for Wikipedia, that content should follow Wikipedia guidelines.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I haven't responded to the second paragraph because I am not sure what you are getting at or wanting. I think sometimes you are making conversation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Please take this page off your watchlist as well. Yes, I was making conversation. Sorry. As I said before, I regret the GA nomination and will never do that again. You were right to fail it. You should also fail any others I nominated, if I did; I don't remember.

"Wikipedia has no firm rules

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions" (linked from your user page) deisenbe (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

There are a couple of guidelines that aren't that flexible - copyvio, original research, and use of secondary sources. These issues can result in someone being blocked from contributing to WP and content being removed from articles. (See WP:WHYBLOCK, specifically about breaching the policies or guidelines, persistent Copyright violations, and Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia.

Why do so many people spend time writing guidelines if they are all to be ignored?

Other people have failed your other GA nominations. If you have others, I am unaware of them. And when I looked at the reasons why, it's pretty much because of the things that I have been saying to you.

• Excessive use of quotes - which becomes a copyright violation if they are long. See Quotation of non-free text
• What appears to be original research.
• Not citing all the content
• Need to rely more on secondary sources that are current

I had thought about reviewing the comments from the GA review for Union Literary Institute and fixing the article so that it would pass... and then renominating it. But, I am afraid that you would argue with me about what that reviewer said, too.

The saddest part is that you have the knowledge and skills to write GA and FA articles, but you prefer to write from what you know vs. what is in cited sources. It would be nice if you were here with the intention to Here to build an encyclopedia. If you want to write content without guidelines, please consider other ways... like writing a blog, writing articles for magazines or journals, or writing books. Those methods are perfectly suited to the way that you want to write.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed this section, Deisenbe. It is so great to be beyond this and you finished Trial of Reuben Crandall.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for third party

@CaroleHenson: I have posted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#James_Bradley_(former_slave)

a request for a third party to review our dispute re sources for this article. deisenbe (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

That noticeboard asked us to go to WP:3O. Deisenbe and I agreed to first start by adding back all primary source / slave narrative citations. I said that I think we should keep the secondary sources, too, for that information or risk being tagged for too many primary sources.

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

We are still not in agreement, though, on use of secondary sources for other bits of information. See here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Deisenbe, Do you have any thoughts about secondary sources now that I added back the slave narrative sources? Or, do you want to wait for the third opinion?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

(Sorry that I posted Bradley conversation on your talk page... trying to get back on track.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for putting back the original. But the articles cited along with them should go out, no reason for them to remain in. I've changed one as an example of what I'm talking about. deisenbe (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason to keep them in is that it is discouraged to use primary sources. I have seen articles that were deleted due to a reliance on primary sources. It doesn't hurt anything and provides backup that 1) the story was notable enough to have been published and 2) that a publisher with an editorial function printed the information.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. deisenbe (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding notability of a person, from WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like, Deisenbe, like we're still waiting for a third opinion to square away use of secondary sources. Right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm willing to give an opinion. Reliable secondary sources should always be included in an article, so it doesn't rely on a single, primary source, uninterpreted by anybody else. Where a newspaper has a reputation for fact-checking, it should be used regardless if it seems to parrot the primary source, or indeed if it seems to contradict it. (Please be good enough to judge my opinion on its merit, rather than the fact that it is offered by an IP.) 2001:BB6:4713:4858:8458:7FA8:68FF:52B7 (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

"Where a newspaper has a reputation for fact checking" - you can drive a tractor-trailor through that. The Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel - how can I know if they have a reputation for fact-checking? And that's my local paper. deisenbe (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A couple of things. A lot of local papers get their content from Associated Press, etc. A newspaper like the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel is not likely to create an initial article about someone in Ohio from scratch and then have that story syndicated. Additionally, publishers and newspapers have editorial functions and are more likely to fact-check issues that seem "off" somehow.

Speaking theoretically: If we decided to use content from primary sources that are not reviewed, how do we know if it's right or the author is trying to make a sensational, self-serving, etc. position? (i.e., It is better to have some editorial function than no editorial function.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: any notable newspaper that doesn't have a reputation for sensationalism or sheer fabrication (like the Daily Mail) can be assumed to have a reputation for fact-checking. It's how trustworthy papers operate. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:D4D7:AEEB:565F:76FE (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

2nd IP, who I assume is different since (s)he contradicts 1st IP, let's say for sake of argument YOU know which papers, like the Daily Mail, have a reputation for sensatiknalism. But I don't. List of scandals in British journalism What do I do? Is there a list of unreliable newspapers?

Newspaper factchecking is not as scrupulous when all the principals are dead, and the topic is not controversial. I havd had the experience of being reported on (as a union spokesperson) and even well-intentioned reporters make mistakes all the time. The New York Times has a regular corrections section. The Sun-Sentinel does not. Does this mean that a) there are many less errors than in the New York Times? No, it means that its errors go unnoticed.

Then, most Americans would think of National Enquirer as our biggest sleazy tabloid. But they have had a series of scoops that others have borne out and gave been nominated and seriously considered for a Pulitzer Prize.deisenbe (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I am the same person and I am not contradicting myself. I said in my first post that where a newspaper has a reputation for fact-checking, it should be used, and in my second post that any notable newspaper that doesn't have a reputation for sensationalism or sheer fabrication can be assumed to have a reputation for fact-checking; hence they should be used. Wikipedia:NEWSORG says that "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". That has been the guideline more or less since Wikipedia has been created. There has never been a requirement that people adding sourced content must prove that the standard of fact-checking in the source outlet is good enough for Wikipedia. Can you show (1) that the sources you are disputing are not well-established news outlets; (2) that they or any of them have a reputation for poor fact-checking; or (3) that there is good reason to believe that a given fact in any of them is wrong? If not, then per WP:RS any edits citing those sources should not be reverted. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:D4D7:AEEB:565F:76FE (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Deisenbe, I am sorry, I don't mean to "pile on", but I have a different tack. What would happen to Greenwood, New York, insurrection of 1882 if we removed all newspapers?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This is what Greenwood, New York, insurrection of 1882 looks like with no newspapers. I will stop now, because I don't want to pile on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You're missing my point, I thought I had been clear. I have no general quarrel with newspapers. It's just relative trustworthiness of sources, and the difference between a newspaper reporting on things first-hand as opposed to a historical article about things over 100 years previous. deisenbe (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I have put enough time into this. Do what you want to, I have nothing more to say. deisenbe (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a relief. Because I was just about to say I have no more time to put into this. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:CB5:5C5F:12F2:34D9 (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Deisenbe, I know this has been tedious. Just so that I am clear: You do not think that we need further discussion about the use of secondary sources (e.g., 1) discussions in "Newspapers have to come out" and 2) that secondary sources might legitimately have information that Bradley did not put in his four page narrative). Therefore, we can close out the WP:3O and dispute resolution issue as "Closed" with "Agreement to use reliable secondary sources in the article, along with use of the slave narrative, a primary source".

And, I can return the lede that I had before in this version? That all works for you?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the lede to a previous version that better summarizes the stages of his life.

I will await your feedback before requesting that the third opinion and dispute are closed... unless you'd like to do that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Deisenbe said, Do what you want to, I have nothing more to say. I think you should respect that, do what you see fit, and not keep pressing him/her to give feedback when they have specifically said they don't want to. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:B815:3ED9:313A:6837 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I will wait one more day. He has said that several times, but then comes back again. If he doesn't respond by tomorrow, I will close out the WP:3O and dispute issues. I just want to make sure that is what he really feels and that this is really a closed issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I closed out the 3O here and the dispute resolution request here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)