Template:Did you know nominations/Bradish Johnson

The following is an archived discussion of Bradish Johnson's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 10:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC).

Bradish Johnson

(

)

... that American industrialist Bradish Johnson (pictured) was involved in the "swill milk" scandal, in which tons of organic distillery waste was fed to sick old cows and their milk sold as "farm-fresh"?

Created by Wildcatman99 (talk). Nominated by Ukexpat (talk) at 15:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC).

Reviewed: Bark bread.

I'm concerned with the potential conflict of interest (the creator apparently being a relative of this guy) and also, there are a few uncited lines and bits of apparent original research. I.e. "Other short biographies claim that Johnson freed his slaves before the Emancipation Proclamation, which is clearly untrue)." Uncited and reads like a non-neutral point of view. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I will ask User:Wildcatman99 to comment. Any apparent COI should be a non-issue - this user has had a couple of other DYKs about ancestors accepted without a problem.--ukexpat (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a descendant of Johnson's, which is what led me to research his life and career. I believe the article is well researched, and it would be hard to argue that I have glorified the subject. I will try to cite one of the various places where friendly writers claimed that he generously freed his slaves before Emancipation. It is "clearly untrue" because of the report by the US Army cited in the same paragraph, which shows that the slaves were on the plantation and being abused in 1863. I felt the contemporary US Army was a more authoritative source than The Louisiana Planter and Sugar Manufacturer in, say, 1892 or 1911. I also thought it was valid to address these specious claims in an encyclopedia article. --Wildcatman99 (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have altered the end of the "Woodland" section, removing the "clearly untrue" remark and adding a second citation. --Wildcatman99 (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Full review needed, including an examination of above-mentioned issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This article was moved into mainspace on 4th March. It is new enough and long enough and the hook fact is sourced. I find the article to have a neutral point of view and saw no signs of original research or bias. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)