Talk:Joseph Henderson/Archive03

Joseph Henderson - Wikipedia's copyright policy

Graywalls, The The Joseph Henderson page has been updated with "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." I wish we could jus talk befor you place tags and complain about articles. --Greg Henderson (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, you put the CC-BY-SA notice only AFTER the tag was placed on the article. To be fair, you're already aware of how it works by now. I'm going over the articles that have been raised as articles of concerns in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Greghenderson2006, and I'm gradually noticing that more and more of the stuff are based on sectional copy-and-paste from your Family Tree stuff. While content reliability, accuracy, POV matters are something else, copyright issues can be avoided by making the ENTIRETY of your https://issuu.com/greghenderson/docs/hendersonfamilytree_v9c_greg_review and every page within http://www.hendersonfamilytree.com marked as CC-BY-SA. Graywalls (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent deletions

This section is for discussion of the recent BOLD deletions per WP:BRD. This article has been gone over with a fine tooth comb by many editors over many months and suddenly out of the blue you are making major deletions, with yet new reasons. Awesome! I look forward to continue working with you over the following days, weeks and months on this article. -- GreenC 14:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

A good example of a unnecessary deletion is in the section called "William Bell". The following paragraph was deleted on 4 August 2020:

"On February 17, 1883, Henderson, John Van Deusen, William Anderson, and James Callahan petitioned the United States, via the Alabama Claims award, for compensation of their loss of the pilot boat William Bell during the Civil War. Henderson and Callahan had to testify to their ownership and status as Sandy Hook pilots during the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims. On June 5, 1883, they were compensated for their loss in the William Bell (Henderson was compensated with $6,170.31, since he owned 5/16 shares)."

Without this context, the current paragraph that is now in the article has little if no connection to Henderson. Why was is it deleted and can someone put it back? I can't since I am the "COI editor"

Then, (on 4 September 2020‎) after the above deletion, an attempt was made to delete the entire "William Bell" section with the comment: "which isn't about Henderson".

Then on 4 September 2020, GreenC put the 4 September 2020 deletion back. Thanks, but not the 4 August 2020, which is necessary for full context.

I don't believe Graywalls should have done the deletions in the first place. --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe that some of the stuff should have been copied over from the Henderson Family Tree thing. Certain things maybe in the newspaper, but per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, copying and pasting everything in the way way it's presented in the website causes the article to excessively carry the perspectives of the website. @GreenC:, if you didn't agree with something, I disagree that you should have re-inserted everything.

For example, featuring the Brooklyn Bridge and Statue of Liberty prominently in lead was an editorial decision by a Wiki editor to decide it was important, but these weren't highlighted as some of the more important things the article subject has done by independent sources. "During his long career he was involved with a number of historical pilotages including bringing the Statue of Liberty safely into port after its trip from Europe, and was called upon as an expert seaman to determine the height of the water span of the Brooklyn Bridge, a new bridge from Brooklyn to New York City." WHO decides these things are more important than cause of death for that matter?

""He was one of the oldest and best known of the Sandy Hook crew. The flag on the New York Sandy Hook pilots' building, at 20 State Street, hung at half-mast this morning in respect to the memory of Capt. Joseph Henderson, one of the oldest pilots in the service, who died at his home, 633 Willoughby avenue, Brooklyn," this is a matter of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Just because it's in the paper does not mean it's encyclopedic to include unnecessary details like the freaking address he died at.

"In December 1869, Henderson offered his services to pilot the steam vessel Tybee out of the port of New York, leaving for San Domingo, Dominican Republic; but the shipmaster refused to employ him. The Tybee proceeded to sea without having any pilot of the port on board. In the trial, "Henderson v. Spofford," a judgment was made in the district court of New York City in favor of Joseph Henderson (plaintiff) for thirty-eight dollars and eighteen cents plus the costs for pilotage fees out of the Port of New York." This is like so-and-so got into an accident and filed lawsuit thing you would see in newspaper in smaller town even today and it is WP:ROUTINE stuff. @Lyndaship, Netherzone, Melcous, and ThatMontrealIP: as these editors have recently worked on this fairly recently.

"The pilot-boat William Bell was built in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, New York, in 1864 by Edward F. Williams for Joseph Henderson, William Anderson, John Van Dusen, and James Callahan, all Sandy Hook pilots. On August 11, 1864, the William Bell ventured too far out to sea and was captured and burned by the Confederate raiding steamer the CSS Tallahassee. Henderson was at sea at the time of the capture, acting as pilot for the Government on another vessel." This isn't about Henderson. If someone takes a boat that is fractionally owned by the article subject and wrecks it, that's not enough of relevance to include about it in the article about article subject's biography. Would you explain why it should be?

I realize the article has been extensively looked over, however when a series of those edits occurred, I was unaware of how closely it mirrored the form of expressions and editorial decision from Greghenderson2006's self-published website off Wiki which he has full and total editorial control. I am saying that this carries over the editorial bias, such as the decision to include such thing as the decision to include boat that is only sparsely relevant, as well as possible omission of unfavorable coverage about the subject by the virtue of simply not having been included in the SPS source in the first place. I am wondering if everyone involved was completely aware of how closely the content selection mimics their website for fairly evaluating principle of due weight Please see: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Joseph+Henderson+%28pilot%29&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fissuu.com%2Fgreghenderson%2Fdocs%2Fhendersonfamilytree_v9c_greg_review Graywalls (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vexations, GeneralNotability, and Unforgettableid: I also would like to request other participants from the COI/N discussion to have a look at the article which still contains an element of storytelling like contents Graywalls (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, Oh no, is this STILL ongoing? I had taken the whole series of articles on Henderson's family off my watchlist, because I couldn't stand these hagiographies anymore. For everybody's sake: Can Greg Henderson please find something else to write about than his family or go do it somewhere else? Vexations (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not a new article. It's just that I fairly recently discovered the very extensive copy and pasting from Henderson operated self published family memorial websites, which I wasn't aware of when much of the discussion in COI/N was taking place and this causes the articles to be presented through the website's perspectives. Even if the subject is notable, articles need to be adjusted to present it in encyclopedic tone rather than from Henderson's content selection. Graywalls (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vexations:, forgot that you don't have it on watchlist... Graywalls (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, OK, the article is still terribly biased. Greg is INCAPABLE of writing neutrally. The source that he uses to support "By 1845, he must have been well established as a New York pilot." leads with "The late Joseph Henderson's extraordinary record of disasters, accidents and lucky escapes" and the proceeds to describe Hendersons's record: "He had been in more accidents than any two other pilots in the service. In his early days he was always getting smashed up." But none of this is in the article. Vexations (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Not true. Read the citation 4 again. It says: "Some men on South street remember him in 1845 as a pilot of some standing even then." Listen to your tone above. It sounds a bit disruptive. I have done a considerable amount of research in writing about Joseph Henderson and compiled this into a Wikipedia article, which is the reason for duplication. I have provided WP:RS, have declared my COI and added the Documentation License to these works. It has already gone through WP:AFD and the results were to keep. So, if the article needs additional cleanup, please do so. --Greg Henderson (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Editorial bias comes in the content selection, placement, level of details and attention given to contents. I can't speak for everyone else, but originally, I was certainly unaware of how much of the context and presentation from the self-published website tainted the article and I wonder if everyone who participated in COI/N was fully aware of it. The due weight and WP:NPOV issues which are distinctively different from why @Þjarkur: nominated the article for deletion. It's a waste of time to groom the article that might get deleted and it's common to wait until the AfD is closed before investing substantial effort into it. I don't understand why you felt it was appropriate to include the most arduous details. So, I could say trees were harvested by (drop name) by brother of (drop name) who was the president of (drop name) from some (drop name) forest and made into furniture by (drop name), brother of (drop more name) of (drop name factory inc) which was financed by (name drop) and rhetoric. Even if everything said is verifiable, it would fail NPOV and due weight. Right now, there's way too much insignificant silly details like this and you objected to the removal of such contents. Graywalls (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I have also objected to content removal. What counts as "silly detail" is subjective, editorial bias goes both ways. There has been bias against Henderson which is coloring the editorial biases of this article. -- GreenC 02:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Given that this source was copy & paste of a self-published family biography on their own family members and imported by the same person, it carries a major editorial bias. Have a look at William Bell boat in this version. If we were talking about some D-list actor's page and someone put in a paragraph about another authorized user wrecking that boat that the D-list celebrity owns 5/16 share of it and cites a local ledger of civil cases about settlement, I'd push for removing that too. The inclusion of this boat in the D-list's article is undue even with local "towns happening blotter" story and lawsuit ledger as sources. Have you by now not noticed the extreme emphasis on COMPANY and PEOPLE NAME DROPPING throughout these articles? Graywalls (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about it's vague and impossible to follow in concrete terms. This recent deletion removing a source that directly asserts notability "He was one of the oldest and best known of the Sandy Hook crew" is editorial bias. -- GreenC 21:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The other thing, you don't have a sense of context of what the article is about. It was the same problem at Melville House Publishing where you were removing books and authors because you thought it was "advertising", but that is exactly the sort of content an article about a publisher would have. Likewise in an article about a boat pilot, we expect there to be incidents in his career as a pilot, which would include brushes with controversies (court cases) and historical events (Brooklyn Bridge etc).. what else is there to write about for a pilot? You spin legitimate converge into a negative under the guise of a COI conspiracy. -- GreenC 21:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

You don't value certain coverage over another. Of the various things, Henderson's role in the Statue of Liberty was trivial and the "historical event" emphasis is not something from the source. The other article in which you're talking about, that involves CLEAR undisclosed editing and sock puppetry Graywalls (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Trivial to you but it was not trivial in the world of harbor pilots. Context matters. -- GreenC 13:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It is trivial. The source I read said that he was cruising looking for any ship needing a pilot to enter New York and he spotted a big one which turned out to be the ship carrying the Statue of Liberty. Just another job. Initially the COI editor had stated that Henderson was specially chosen for this job which was simply not true and not supported by the sources. Lyndaship (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Being in the right place at the right time can lead to non-trivial involvements in larger historical events. The inaccuracies have been fixed, good. -- GreenC 14:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

William Bell

In this source from the William Bell, No. 24 article that for some reason has HENDERSON highlighted, it shows several other people high lighted, but over there too, emphasis is made on HENDERSON. From reading that article, I'm getting an impression that this source is a routine chatter and Henderson's only part is that he had ownership in the ship that was wrecked on which he was not on it. In other words, it's akin to a boat owned by several people that got wrecked and being on the biography page of one of those people. Is this not correct? Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, now on my watchlist. The site "fultonhistory.com/highlighter" has a "highlighter" feature to make finding it easier (imagine trying to find that passage without any highlight). I don't see anything wrong with the source, or the article. The article lists who owned the boat. Good. They come into play later in the article. It would be awkward to not list the boat owners, then later mention the boat owners in connection to their compensation of the loss of the boat. -- GreenC 21:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

So, you would put in Janet Jackson article (hypothetically..) that a chauffer wrecked her husband's car on which she is 50% owner on the registration, cite local paper, cite court filing, cite gov docs, because it can be shown that she was a part owner, therefore belongs in the article? While it might be truth and verifiable, this is rubbish. Graywalls (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Also that link was not my high-lighting. It was actually copied from William Bell, No. 24 article, exactly as it was included as a source by the COI editor. Graywalls (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

What does Janet Jackson have to do with a 19th century harbor boat? Context matters. The highlighting is inserted by the service based on a code in the URL. Whoever generated the search originally requested those words be highlighted which is now embedded in the URL. -- GreenC 13:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to give a best visualization to the level of connection to Henderson. It seems like the article subject Joseph Henderson was not on the boat. It was a boat on which he owned a partial ownership that was wrecked while being operated by someone else. Another example: How about putting "A shopping cart valued at $250 was stolen from Walmart store at street address" from a local police blotter source on the Walmart page? It's not the fact being challenged, it's due weight. As ridiculous as it is, I can see it being pulled for marginally notable existence trying to look notable. Graywalls (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

In 2001, someone wrecked a car owned by Missy Elliott. Following the inclusion logic. yet, you don't see https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/missy-elliotts-300k-lamborghini-was-wrecked-by-a-joyride.html/ https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/72624/man-sentenced-for-wrecking-elliotts-car drop name company's drop name dude wrecked drop name brand car, built at drop factory location name, valued at, cite payout details, municipal court quibble. What's the justification to include 1/3 ownership of a boat being wrecked inclusion worth? A boat he was NOT ON BOARD when it crashed. A big reason to not include such chatter is WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:VNOTSUFF. Graywalls (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The reason why the William Bell section is important in the Joseph Henderson article is that it is a good example of an owner of a boat that was captured by a Confederate ship and burned. The pilots had to petition the United States, via the Court Of Commissioners of Alabama Claims, for compensation of their loss. In the petition, Joseph Henderson answered questions about being a Sandy Hook pilot; how during this time he was a pilot for a year and a half in and out of New York by way of Sandy Hook, and the rest of the time was a permanent pilot in the U. S. transport service between New York, Port Royal, S.C. and New Orleans; owned a half dozen pilot boats; and was at sea during the destruction of the boat working as a pilot for the U. S. Government. These events were reported in WP:RS primary and secondary sources and show how some pilots had their boats used during the civil war and when lost, were compensated for their loses. --Greg Henderson (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources show how Missy Elliott had her Lambo wrecked by someone using it too and I am sure insurance related discussions, financial compensation discussions, etc. ensued. Secondary: https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/72624/man-sentenced-for-wrecking-elliotts-car primary: https://twitter.com/missyelliott/status/971805294610264064?lang=en But it was just the car. She was not in it and putting it into part of her biography would be undue. It's the same with this article. Graywalls (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Once again you are missing the context and larger picture of his involvement in the civil war. Restoring section there is no consensus for removal, an analogy about a random car accident is meaningless. -- GreenC 06:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Greg Henderson, was Henderson compensated for the loss of the Bell and which source says this? -- GreenC 06:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Found it, randomly deleted weeks ago by someone, impossible to keep all these deletions straight.. They were compensated by the Alabama Claims a significant part of US Maritime history. -- GreenC 06:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Re this removal: [1]. It's unclear why this is removed. He was an owner of the boat. If it was part owner or not is immaterial, he was an owner. It's not like there were dozens or 100s of other owners it was a significant ownership. If he was on the boat is also immaterial. This was his boat, he had a material loss. Henderson was involved in the Civil War, he suffered monetary loss due to the loss of the William Bell, but also monetary gain due to his compensation from the government for his work. These things build a better picture of his involvement in the war what it cost him and what he gained from it. It is not undue weight to explain what happened to him during the war, as any good biography would include. -- GreenC 05:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Source

Here's the source for "Some men on South street remember him in 1845 as a pilot of some standing even then.":

NEW YORK HERALD, SUNDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1890,–DECUPLE SHEET.

HALF A CENTURY OF PILOTING

THE LATE JOSEPH HENDERSON"S EXTRAORDINARY RECORD OF DISASTERS, ACCIDENTS AND LUCKY ESCAPES.

Joseph Henderson, the brave old salt who died last Wednesday, was the most remarkable man in the Sandy Hook pilot service as well as the oldest. His record as a pilot is set down as forty-five years, but some men on South street remember him in 1845 as a pilot of some standing even then, so it must have been nearly half a century that he was taking vessels in and out of the harbour.

He had been in more accidents than any two other pilots in the service. In is earlier days he was always getting smashed up. Pilots say he must have had most of the bones in his body broken at one time or another. When he was just beginning his career he was up at the masthead of the old George W. Blunt one day when he saw a ship. Up went both his hands as a he hailed the deck and down went Henderson from the masthead. It was a wonder he wasn't killed. He struck the stays and was sheared off from the anchor, which was just under him. He hit a yawl, had both legs broken and his front teeth knocked out. They carried him to New York, and about the time his brother pilots were going up to his house to see if he needed anything he appeared at the boat ready for duty.

A VIOLENT DEATH PREDICTED

One day not so lang after he was putting a ship into he berth at Brooklyn and running about the deck to direct the tug, go tangled up in the tow hawser.

The tug started up, the hawser straightened out and Henderson was slung overboard. A leg and some ribs were broken at that time. When he went over the side no one expected to see him come up alive, but in a few weeks he was at work again. He got into some such misfortune as this about once a year.

Pilots were always predicting his death in one of these accidents. He took the most amazing risks when he was out cruising for steamers. He would heave to in a gale and thick fog, and turn in and sleep like a rock while everybody else on board was expecting every minute to be sent to the bottom by an invisible steamer. He was an admirable seaman, as brave as a man could be and quick as thought in an emergency. Four or five times he just snatched his boat out of destruction by quick judgement and action. One time French steamer went by him in a fog so close she banged the pilot boat's main boom. It was Henderson's turn to take in a steamer and he made the French- man stop for him, although it was thick as mush with a tremendous sea on. Another time a steamer took the bowsprit out of his boat.

HAULED UP THE SIDE

Of recent years he had been so portly that he could not well climb up a vessel's side, so he made the vessel men rig a bow line and hoist him in with a snatch block.He took the bight under his shoulders, held the rope with his hands and was drawn on board like a barrel, usually to the great amusement of the passengers. One day last spring when he boarded a German steamer in this way the sailors hoisted him about six feet out of his boat and for some reason belayed him there. When ever the steamer rolled in the heavy sea about half of the pilot went under water. The more he yelled the more the more the sailors couldn't understand him , and he was only rescued from his plight when the men in his yawl made the cap- tain understand what was the matter.

His able services to the government during the war, when he served as a pilot in Southern waters, were well rewarded, and laid the foundation of a considerable fortune. For the last twenty years there was no reason why he should not live at ease. He insisted upon going out on every cruise, from pure love of work and the sea. No weather was ever too bad for him to stand his watch. Even when he was wrecked in the Pet, at the entrance to Newport Harbour, last fall, he went calmly to an- other boat and started out on her next cruise. He had been run down by steamers, hit by falling spars, tumbled overboard, dragged around by haw- sers, ridden out in historic gales and lain night after night in the utmost peril of foggy weather in steamer tracks off the banks, and lived to die in

his bed.

I think these sound like tall tales by fellow pilots, but don't think the content of this source is represented in an unbiased manner in the article. Cherry-picking to portray the subject in the most favorable light is a problem, and we see it here as well as in many other articles created by the same author. To be honest, I don't believe most of the above. It's a pity they're not reliable. Dubious as they are, these stories are at least entertaining. Vexations (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, having personal experience with this subject I worked on the docks in the 1870s.. .. I mean c'mon .. we report what the sources say and don't interject our own biases and beliefs. There is no objective reason to inject FUD (Fear Uncertain Doubt) about the source. It is not cherry picking any more than any other article, this is clearly showing he was a notable pilot. BTW I was the one who quoted this source, not anyone with a COI. The point of the quote is to demonstrate his notability, he wasn't just any old pilot. -- GreenC 13:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

GreenC, "He hit a yawl, had both legs broken and his front teeth knocked out. They carried him to New York, and about the time his brother pilots were going up to his house to see if he needed anything he appeared at the boat ready for duty." Let's read that again: He had both legs broken. And then he showed up for work? Of course not. "about the time his brother pilots were going up to his house" was likely not the next day. As far as I know it takes at least 4–6 months to heal for a femoral fracture and at least three for a tibia or fibula. Vexations (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no indication of the length of time in "about the time". Another way to say it is "around the time". To me it sounds like they had given him time to recover and when they were checking in on him to see when he would return he was already back on duty. Your explanation would indeed not make sense, a person can not break both legs and return to duty immediately. -- GreenC 13:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

GreenC, "I mean c'mon .. we report what the sources say and don't interject our own biases and beliefs." that has been done already by the COI editor, because this article is a substantial copy and paste from COI's own WEBSITE which he exclusively did the source selection, inclusion content selection, quotation selection and copy editing and only covering what he wants to be seen. You did see the copyright detector's scoring, did you not? This is 100% what encyclopedia is NOT about. Graywalls (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If I was to write this article myself, I would probably find and use the same sources and include much of the same things. I have a degree in history and this is a type of historical writing about people who are not Great Men (Presidents, Kings) but working people. Similar to microhistory. It's the kind of thing Wikipedia excels at. My concern is your zeal over COI issues has blinded you to the importance of the topic. -- GreenC 13:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

GreenC, That's an interesting twist. My concern is that a main contributor, due to his CoI is unable to write neutrally about the subject. It is not that the subject isn't notable. A complete rewrite by a neutral editor, even one based on the sources we currently have, would yield a very different article. Vexations (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Many of the neutrality concerns are overblown colored by bad faith towards the editor. -- GreenC 14:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

GreenC, that's rich. I think think you'll find if you go though the history of our interactions that I am not a bad faith editor. But I'll drop this article and everything else related to the Henderson family off my watchlist. Good luck, Vexations (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@GreenC:, What's the relevance about YOUR history degree that you brought it into discussion? thanks for showing that such contents are of limited interest. You may find it useful, just as water scientist would likely find it useful to have a long table of water analysis report in each city's article. It maybe useful to them, but it's of interest to a limited audience, and I would call that WP:UNDUE just as all the rambling about the minor silly Chronicles of Captain Henderson and his boats. Graywalls (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I note that the old George W. Blunt was only launched in 1856 while the article says that he fell from the mast when he was beginning his career which was over 10 years earlier in 1845 Lyndaship (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

His career is from 1847-1890. If the fall happened in 1857 it is early in his career. But we are not using the source for this incident in any case. -- GreenC 13:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

GreenC, "By 1845, he must have been well established as a New York pilot. " which is it: 1845 or 1847? Vexations (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That was a typo should be 1845. But it might even be 1848 which is when he was first documented as a seaman. Or could be 1845 when he "took out his papers", whatever that means. -- GreenC 14:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)