Talk:Letitia Youmans

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Ontario Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.

Independent reliable sources

I have removed the lengthy quotes from Youman's autobiography. The veracity of her own stories are called into question by sources such as Cook's book Through Sunshine and Shadow which states on p. 16 that "there is no way of knowing how true to time or place this story was" and "Youmans was not alone in knowing the value of a good story: much temperance literature was developed on the same model." Fortunately, a search shows that there are plenty of fine independent RS sources to build a biography here which can comply with policy on neutral point-of-view. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 07:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiographies as Reliable Sources

Autobiographies may be incorrect in some facts and those facts can be supported or shown to be wrong by other sources. I am okay with such corrections. But, unless the autobiography can be proven to be a lie, the personal accounts are valuable and worth literary citation. I think it is a terrible injustice to say Mrs. Youmans' own words cannot be used because some of her facts may be wrong. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the greatest treasures in the study of a person's life is to have their own writings, autobiographies, essays, etc.

The burden is on the "modern" historian to show that an autobiographical assertion is false. The Wikipedia rule about bias is not directed at the use of a person's autobiography. Rather, it is directed at individuals who do not attempt to be neutral and objective.

If I present something here regarding Mrs. Youmans which you, or someone else, considers to be false information, then present your counter argument.

May our discussion continue...

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that you cannot use the autobiography -- I am saying that we can only use it in a very limited manner. An article created almost entirely of copy-pasting from an autobiography fails our core policies on Neutral Point-of-View and verifiability. It is not encyclopedic. This is the very reason we strongly discourage autobiography (see Wikipedia:Autobiography) -- and this copy-pasted article began essentially as an autobiography by proxy.

Text should be based primarily on reliable secondary sources per our guidelines at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Fortunately, there are good scholarly secondary sources to be found -- for example, Sharon A. Cook (which I added to the lede), or this book and this journal paper, to cite a few. A good encyclopedic article can be constructed using them. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this dependence on secondary sources when primary sources are available. My work so far on the Letitia Youmans entry may seem like a cut and paste job, but I assure you that it is not. I do take Wikipedia's advice seriously where it is said to "just begin" and the entry becomes a work in progress.

I am quite new to Wikipedia but the work that I have done is dependent mainly on primary sources. I believe that rather than depending on other historians we should be doing original studies on the topics at hand. The secondary sources you cite depend on primary sources. The work that I present to wikipedia is carefully thought out information derived from mainly primary sources.

I am not sure how this Letitia Youmans entry will develop, but it will develop. I have no intention of simply restating what secondary sources have already said. I suggest that you patiently wait and discuss with me as this entry is developed.

As we read her autobiography and other biographical material, we will discover related material to her story. We should not be dependant on her own account, but, I suggest to you, that a really good study of Letitia Youmans will result from a study of her own story.

For example, where else can one learn that the students of Victoria College and two girls' schools gathered together for a Christmas eve where they met Professor Ryerson and other community leaders. Rather than shying away from an autobiography, we should use it, along with other less subjective sources and develop a powerful entry on the life of Letitia Youmans.

Consider the quote about her conversion. The one that you deleted. Youmans account adds depth to our understanding of schools intended to be non-sectarian. All the churches connected to the school worked together to provided non-mandatory Friday evening meetings. Remember, this happened in the middle 1800's. Here in the Cobourg area was a forward thinking Christian community not unlike our modern ministerial associations.

I view Wikipedia as a community effort. Your ideas are important even if I disagree with them. Sooner or later, as we examine our different approaches, the encyclopedic entry will be stronger because of our discussions.

I am DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DonaldRichardSands, I appreciate your desire to create good content. However, your statements indicate a complete misunderstanding of the function of Wikipedia (This is not unusual for new editors -- and after careful reading of our policies, most of them develop an understanding of how to contribute effectively).

Wikipedia exists as an accumulation of information from independent outside sources. We only compile information by outside authoritative voices -- not Wikipedia editors. (As I am sure that you can understand, editors here are anonymous -- anyone can be anyone --, therefore none of us is an authoritative voice and we cannot inject our own POV or interpretation into articles. Original research is not permitted. For example, as stated in our policy guideline at WP:No original research, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Your statements -- I believe that rather than depending on other historians we should be doing original studies on the topics at hand... The work that I present to wikipedia is carefully thought out information derived from mainly primary sources. and I have no intention of simply restating what secondary sources have already said. -- are the antithesis of Wikipedia and violate its core principles. If those statements reflect your true intentions, than you would be better off publishing your own book or website. I'm afraid that you may become frustrated by Wikipedia policies. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying. However, the very first entry which I worked on was the one on Graham Maxwell. If you have time, look over my work there. Most of the forty plus sources are primary sources. The information about Graham Maxwell did not exist in biography format before I collected the information. Are you telling me that I was not following wikipedia's policies by doing the Graham Maxwell bio? I am surprised at this. There are many people of importance who have not yet had any biographical work done about them. Are you saying that wikipedia cannot provide an entry for these people because someone, somewhere has not yet written about them? I am DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brief look at the Graham Maxwell article shows citations to multiple secondary sources -- obituaries, journals, etc. Because this is off-topic for this talk page, I will reply on your talk page after reading through the article. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Autobiography This policy is about a person who writes their own autobiography as a wikipedia entry. It is not about my identifying objective facts from a published autobiography such as Letitia Youmans. You seem to have misread the intentions of the Autobiographical guidelines. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not misread the autobiography guideline. As I wrote above, this article was created essentially as an autobiography by proxy. Your actions being her figurative proxy. Your initial edit here was a copy-paste of large blocks of her autobiography separated by short introductory sentences. This specifically fails the intention of our autobiography guideline. Autobiographies are rarely filled with "objective facts." In fact, autobiographies are the epitome of subjective material. As our guideline states, autobiographies are often biased, usually positively, ...and often present opinions as facts. The copied text should be reduced to the minimal usage needed to emphasize statements from the reliable secondary sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

WP:No original research

Once again, it seems that you have misread the Wikipedia guidelines. Here is what the guidelines say:

" If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is 'original research'. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."

My work for the Letitia Youmans entry is not what Wikipedia calls 'original research.' My sources are almost always cited. I do not submit original research. I know nothing about Letitia Youmans without source material.

Thus, in review, the guideline against autobiographies is related to one's own autobiography, not that of another. And the regulation against "original research" is directed against submitted material where the submitter is the authority without citation.

I am DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of Original Research was initiated because of your statements above -- that you wanted only to create an original study based on the primary sources and that you stated you had no intention of using secondary sources. The issue of autobiography I have reiterated above. Of course, it could very well be that I am not being clear here -- it wouldn't be the first time :) -- so I will invite some uninvolved editors from the NPOV notice board to provide us with their opinion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 08:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC) replies. I can understand how my statement could be misunderstood. Now when I write of primary sources I always try to include the word, 'published'. I agree with wikipedia's policy on providing proper citations. I think the issue of historically published autobiography needs further thought. Letitia Youmans autobiography is a powerful resource to understand Southern Ontario's history in the mid to late 1800's. Of course, we can expect her writing to favor her side of the temperance era. This should make us cautious but it should by no means discourage our appreciation of her story. I am DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Published Sources

If I include published primary sources, does this violate Wikipedia's policy? I have discussed this above. Is an encyclopedia opposed to published primary sources? Wikipedia is an information enterprise. If information is from a reliable published source other than my own, it is suitable for Wikipedia. I have read no stated policy saying otherwise.

There is a type of primary source which apparently is not acceptable, i.e. the personal interview. I have my students prepare historical studies on individuals. Occasionally, these individuals are in our local community. I encourage my students to personally interview these individuals and include their findings in their reports. If I understand Wikipedia's policy, the findings of these interviews would not be an acceptable primary source because it is unpublished. This probably is true for unpublished doctoral dissertations, as well. I am DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even some unpublished primary sources can be used -- judiciously, of course -- when published or described by a reliable secondary source. For example, in the second paragraph at Harriet Bosse#Marriage to August Strindberg, see how an unpublished quote is used there because it is found in Waal's book. Or check out Harriet Tubman, an article which incorporates many of Tubman's unpublished statements -- all cited to appropriate secondary sources. I think Emmeline Pankhurst may be a good example of what you should try to do -- notice the judicious use of quotes from her autobiography to add flavor, but the entire tone and analysis of fact established throughout by the good secondary sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a second opinion about this article from another editor. As suggested, I am going to tag it for reference improvement. I'll read through some reliable sources and then reduce the text to the biographical facts -- sometimes including Youmans' words for context or flavor. I'll try and get to this over the weekend. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Letitia Youmans. 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) 21:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]