I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Book sources are good but if you can, please do add more easy to verify online sources. Thanks for creating!.
Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
James Dawson - John Dawson confusion
Liverpool National Museums accession SAS/25A/1/9Papers re Baker and Dawson family, shipbuilders, Liverpool. Phillips HS. 1953.
This article appears to have been titled and written in error about the wrong J. Dawson. The Captain J. Dawson that sailed on Mentor is captain James Dawson (Phillips 1953). John Dawson was James Dawson's grandson. So for instance John Dawson (slave trader) isn't correct. John Dawson, best I can tell, was just a Dawson shipbuilder (3rd generation) who wasn't of special note. The many references to "John" Dawson here and in other wiki pages should be corrected to James Dawson. Just putting the book front of Phillips (1953) to the right so this is clear as day.[1]
Cheers -- Crawdaunt (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC) Crawdaunt (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A review and update to understand the citogenesis / circular reporting concern in full detail:
There are numerous secondary sources referring to a John Dawson slave trader that are independent of the subject. For instance:
Stephen D. Behrendt. 1990. https://www.hslc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/140-5-Behrendt.pdf bottom of page 91
José Luis Belmonte Postigo. 2019. https://cultureandhistory.revistas.csic.es/index.php/cultureandhistory/article/view/163/539 page 4 top left paragraph
David Pope. 2007. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1gn6bxx.12 page 198 (pdf page 34). Also see pdf page 17.
Yet we now have a family descendant and genealogist that suggests Peter Baker's son-in-law was James Dawson.
Howard Stanley Phillips. 1953. Papers re Baker and Dawson family, shipbuilders, Liverpool. National Museums Liverpool permanent collection, document accession: SAS/25A/1/9 [1].
I have digitized this document and uploaded it to wikicommons to make it available here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki//File:Item_SAS-25A-1-9_-_3_Generations_of_Old_Liverpool_Shipbuilders.pdf
On this newly-digitized document, which was written in 1953 (before Behrendt, Postigo, and Pope), it is clearly written that James Dawson was Baker's son-in-law, and lived from 1752-1824.
There are conflicting accounts here. In Pope 2007, it suggests John Dawson the slave trader died in 1812, with year of birth unknown (page 34 of pdf above). On Pope pg17, it also lists a son named Frederik Akers Dawson of a man named John, who invested in 50 slave trade vessels alongside others (note d on that document). Yet in Peter Baker's genealogy, there is no Frederik Dawson as a son of James Dawson. Moreover, the John Dawson that was noted in Pope 2007 apparently died in 1812 (per pg34), but James Dawson of Baker and Dawson lived until 1824.
So with this deeper dive, I think what has happened here is: there was a John Dawson connected to the slave trade, but this is not the J. Dawson of Baker and Dawson, and it is not the Captain James Dawson, son-in-law of Peter Baker, who captured The Carnatic. So much of the content on this page is written about the wrong Dawson.
This also makes sense of some confusing accounts about these men. John Dawson apparently went bankrupt in 1793. However, at this time James Dawson (1752-1824) was still of Baker and Dawson, which was still operating. On Baker's death, James Dawson inherited the company and partnered with a man named Pearson to form Dawson and Pearson, where the Dawson side was shipbuilding and the Pearson side was slave trading (no question James Dawson was a slave trader though). That company in 1802 split and Dawson focused on the shipbuilding side forming J. Dawson and co. shipbuilding company, which operated until 1849 (this all comes from Phillips, 1953). So while John Dawson did go bankrupt, James Dawson of Baker and Dawson did not.
@Desertarun I hope this helps to clarify why I have requested the move below.
Best -- 14:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC) Crawdaunt (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RS. Brunton (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brunton I am aware of WP:RS and this is a secondary, but dependent, source of the account of Baker and Dawson's family lineages. This museum document, which is researched and cites additional sources within for its information, and was written before the others, corrects a misconception and clarifies conflicting information in Behrendt, Pope, and Postigo.
This source is published: it is a museum archive available to the public (which is how I obtained digital versions of it):
WP:RS: "Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form."
This document better fits the definition of secondary source, not primary:
WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved."
WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event."
I would say a distant relative that was born ~150 years after James Dawson died is "at least one step removed" from the event. It is not an independent source, we agree. But here, that is of benefit, as it helps give confidence in the names of the individuals at play, which would benefit from disambiguation.
Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The document doesn't even remotely meet WP:RS, which requires reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump, it is absolutely not independent, we agree. For this point, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."
In the debate specific to this page, we are discussing whether two J. Dawsons have been conflated. This page is primarily written about Capt James Dawson, son-in-law of Peter Baker (Phillips, 1953). The page is titled "John Dawson" not James Dawson, which is a confusion that's arisen and been propagated as part of a circular reporting/citogenesis concern.
In this case, the not independent source is the more reliable one. Surely we can agree on this basic point? Are we really saying that a family genealogist can't speak to the names of their family members because they're related to them? -- Crawdaunt (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess WP:SELFSOURCE is another key comment here:"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met...".
But again, this isn't a WP:SPS. This document wasn't written by Peter Baker or James Dawson. It was written by a relative born 150 years after their time, and was published by National Museums Liverpool[2]. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS requires that the source (i.e. the author) has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Such a reputation would have to be demonstrated through reviews, citations etc of works in the same field. And no, the museum hasn't provided that by accepting the document for its collection. Museums host all sorts of documents, and it isn't in any shape or form a part of their job to verify such documents. Regardless of whether the author is considered independent or not, and even if one accepts the frankly dubious proposition that the museum has 'published' the document, it doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria as a source for the claim being made. Wikipedia doesn't base content on the works of amateur genealogists recounting 'family traditions'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the matter of what is their own family member's name? Really?
@ProfGray has requested I recuse myself, and I agree. But please consider what this information is being used for, and whether it is a reliable source of that information. I do thank you for your involvement and hope you might consider @Liz's point that even primary sources can be used on Wikipedia, they just require increased scrutiny. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify -- @Crawdaunt, I advised that you withdraw your requested move, below. (I did not say "recuse" from any discussion. You can withdraw with a comment at the bottom, then I or another editor can close it.
No, this manuscript does not fit SELFSOURCE because that exception is for the author themselves, not their ancestors. Yes, there are some exceptions for primary sources -- but Phillips 1953 is not a primary source for the 18th C. There are also exceptions to the RS guidelines. However, "James" is only on the cover page, not even corroborated by the family tree or the narrative of manuscript. ProfGray (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
John Dawson (slave trader) → James Dawson (slave trader). As above in section "James Dawson - John Dawson confusion", this article is titled after the wrong Dawson. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are 14 references that call this person John Dawson. This is a Wp:Bad faith nomination due to a dispute at Talk: Peter Baker (slave trader). The nominee is a self declared relative of both this person and Baker and has a blatant wp:coi. The source being referred to is self published and wp: primary, and was written by a family member, it is neither wp: independent nor wp:reliable. Desertarun (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think the key question is not whether the source is reliable in general, but whether it is reliable for his name. FWIW, I'd say it is a secondary (for the 18th C.) source and for most purposes not reliable. I'd be inclined to accept the family tree, but doesn't that only give the initial J? ProfGray (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC) ProfGray (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The user is correct I have a self-declared COI as I am apparently many-generations since related to these people, which is really irrelevant to this name change since I never knew any of them. However, this name change is strictly a family record written by John Dawson's grandson that is here to correct what appears to be a systemic misnomer (likely an example of citogenesis). It is a bit bizarre to suggest this is somehow bad faith. The source this is based on is not primary, it is secondary, (per WP:PRIMARY/WP:SECONDARY), and comes from the permanent collection of the National Museums Liverpool (archive document as it was written by HS Phillips, whose grandfather was John Dawson (1799-1871). John Dawson's grandfather, James Dawson (1752-1824) is the only Captain J. Dawson alive in 1770s-80s, which is the period of time this article was written about. I really think the family of Dawson probably knew their own ancestor's names... The source (Phillips HS, 1953) is not independent, it's true. In this case, that is of clear benefit to realising this systemic error and possible citogenesis issue. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck out the above vote. As the nominator you don't need to !vote again, but comments are of course welcome. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Is it normal that the proposer does not vote? Sorta new to this. There's a somewhat related requested move at Peter Baker (slave trader). @Jähmefyysikko, would you mind watching this page also to help sort a controversial Requested move? Thanks! -- Crawdaunt (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's normal that the proposer doesn't vote. Creating the proposal is itself a vote. Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
