Talk:Joseph Henderson/Archive04

COI tag

The COI tag has been readded to the article due to what User:Graywalls claims is the article's "boastful tone". This is a request for Graywalls to list the exact sentences and words that are "boastful" so that they can be corrected. A generalized had wave without details is impossible to address. Therefore the tag is not being used appropriately but as a punishment, a tag of shame, that would impossible to remove due to one editor's vague and unspecific complaints. Specific words and sentences need to be listed. -- GreenC 15:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I support the re-add of the COI tag. The article was written by an editor who has sought to create articles for his antecedents and has not been materially altered. Most of the mentions of Henderson are routine non notable occurrences. Just looking at the sources already given in the article it is obvious that items have been cherry picked for their positive spin on Henderson - there is no mention that he was considered accident prone and reckless and continued working when he was too portly to climb a pilot ladder and had to be hoisted onboard. I have today removed the claim that he was specially selected to bring the Statue of Liberty bearing ship into harbour, the reference states that he was merely touting for trade on station when the ship appeared. The claim that he was an "expert witness" at the Brooklyn bridge committee is not supported by the reference, it states that he gave evidence as one of four witnesses testifying that morning all of whom were anti bridge and I suspect (but cannot prove) were paid by those who did not wish the bridge to be built. For the COI tag to be removed it needs someone to do a fully rounded article giving a warts and all picture, given that he really was an unexceptional individual I doubt if sources can be found for that Lyndaship (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a biography article not an AfD discussion, please put the AfD stick down. Notability has already been established per the AfD. We are including biographical life details, which for most people often include non-notable elements. Notability guidelines were never meant to control article content that is not how Wikipedia works. The first sentence of WP:NOTE reads "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article" (emphasis added). Quite honestly this looks like an attempt to punish and continually harass this editor with bad faith: "cherry picked for their positive spin". Yeah, another way of saying they found sources with notable material. OK so you removed a couple unsourced things, great. I repeat: what words and sentences are you claiming require at COI notice? This is not a lengthy article, you have read through it already. What is the problem? What will it take to remove the tag, an RfC? I would be happy to do that. -- GreenC 17:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Fluffing up with flowery language and arranging non-notable things in such a way that resonates with a positive and favorable tone rather than neutral combined with most of them having been added by a family member is what makes it COI. The presence of gratuitous contents like what was removed by Lyndaship in their most recent edit is a prime example. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:DUE still apply. Court cases which he was involved in that references court filings, or a ledger of court filings likely runs afoul of due weight consideration. You wouldn't go into someone's biography and write the dry cleaner's lost his suit and he filed a small claims case and reference the court filing. For that incident to be worthy of inclusion, it'd need to at least get a mention in a secondary source. Graywalls (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting how when asked to show specific words and sentences that are a COI problem you continue to hand wave.. all the while deleting everything in the article that demonstrates or emphasizes the topics notability. -- GreenC 19:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I think RfC would bring great external perspectives. Are you familiar with the COI discussion taking place regarding the numerous Henderson articles? Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Greghenderson2006 Graywalls (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pinging those who have partipated in some of the puff clean up. @Lyndaship, ThatMontrealIP, Netherzone, and Melcous: I personally think the general tone and the general overwhelming skew by the COI conributor to only present things in the favorable light still leaves plenty of non neutral presentation, including the editorial decision like large number of direct quotes to non-essential details. Can you all give it a look and see if COI tag should be removed? Graywalls (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: the article looks OK to me, and I think the COI tag can be removed as it ihas been extensively edited since the COI editor moved to the talk page. I have to say it probably does puff up his accomplishments a bit, due to that COI editor's single-minded pursuit of all extreme detail. But the article is more or less OK. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP:, I'd say some tag in reference to neutrality should remain in place until that's cleaned up. Graywalls (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Our readers don't come to Wikipedia to read shouty, opinionated banner tags. This talk page is the place for such editorial discussions and we have relevant tagging and activity here. There are no specifics supporting this tag and so it seems to be being used purely as a badge of shame. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no well founded basis for this tag. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the tag to NPOV since. The issue identified in this edit shows an example of over-inclusion of minute details that might not be even relevant. Almost all the contents came from the COI creator and it would take combing through everything thoroughly like Lyndaship to identify such issues. Graywalls (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Being mentioned in a SCOTUS case is not minutia because earlier in the article it is established he "was in more boat accidents than any other pilot". Granted he was not on board for this accident but he was involved enough SCOTUS brought him into it, perhaps to help establish the facts of the case (who was there, the sequence of events). He is involved. The article notability is not built around this incident so it doesn't need to be singularly amazing, but it is part of his career history which we are documenting. The only question is should it be included, the SCOTUS element is probably historically significant-enough. One can nit pick the article to death if the hammer is COI almost everything will look like a nail-head. -- GreenC 01:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Pet, No. 9

So which source makes a positive, irrefutable identification that this boat is indeed the one corresponding to this particular late Henderson? A complete mix-up recently occurred with the GW Blunt boat where the incorrect ship was marked as "sank at sea" due to similarly named ships being incorrectly identified. The Mystics Sea table shows two boats named "Pet" and one of it listing the name "Jos. Henderson". Which source positively connects "Pet, No.9" with the Joseph Henderson that is the subject of this article? Graywalls (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• "It was learned that pilot boat No. 9 had spoken the Isère at ten o'clock last night. Pilot Henderson was taken aboard".[1]
• "Capt. Joseph Henderson, of pilot-boat Pet No. 9, brought the Isère over the bar"[2]

-- GreenC 02:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks GreenC. Graywalls, another source that positively connects "Pet, No.9" with the Joseph Henderson can be found in the Index to Ship Registers, from 1876 through 1885, which lists Jos. Henderson and the master of the Pet, e.g. Record of American and Foreign Shipping 1885. You will see two boats named Pet in these records, but only one is listed to Jos. Henderson as Master and N. Y. Pilots as owners. The other "Pet" is from San Francisco. --Greg Henderson (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

fair enough. But the source COI provided at PET, NO. 9 in their edit on its own which was a scan of primary source scan which only said "Jos. Henderson" and "Pet,", on its own failed to adequately support it. It makes it look like I declined a properly supported request, when in reality was that sources you provided did not. The mysticseareport, though still fails to properly show it's still talking about the same boat, so I would say over at Pet, No. 9, unless another source positively connect 1876-1885 reference, that be omitted. Such misidentification caused an incorrect ship to be marked as "sank at sea in 1875" Graywalls (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There are no other Jos. Henderson's who owned a pilot boat named "Pet 9" in NY that was active 1885-1889. If there was, it would be documented because all boats are registered by law. The burden would be on you to demonstrate evidence there is another Jos. Henderson from NY with a boat named "Pet 9" active in 1885-89. If you found one, I agree it would be reasonable to question which Henderson is listed in that register. Otherwise it is a concern that isn't credible. The example you gave about similarly named ships being misidentified there is only 2 pieces of info the ship name and date and they got the date mixed up. Here we have the ship name, ship location, date active, and owner's name giving it a precise identification. The more metadata for an object the more reliable the ID< this is a known concept in computer science and even in bringing multiple forms of ID to get a drivers license. It's also a logical fallacy to say because there was a mistake made elsewhere it could be a mistake here. Doubt can be raised about anything, but there is a limit to reasonable doubt. -- GreenC 23:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Also suggest copy this discussion to that page so it's part of the record should there need to be a consensus discussion. -- GreenC 23:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

for the record, that primary source record does not identify "Pet 9". It just says Pet. The burden is on me to disprove? Where did that come from? Graywalls (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Graywalls, The name "Pet" is the name of the boat. Jos. Henderson was Master of the boat. The N.Y. Pilots as owners assigned No. 9 to this boat. I can provide three sources:

1. Spirit of the Times newspaper wrote about Henderson and the pilot-boat Pet.
2. For 14 years he was the commander of the boat "Pet".
3. Index to Ship Registers, from the dates 1876 through 1885, which lists Jos. Henderson as the master of the Pet, e.g. Record of American and Foreign Shipping 1885. --Greg Henderson (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable secondary source to make that connection, then we're set. Graywalls (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, The book by Russell From Sandy Hook to 62;̊ see reference below. --Greg Henderson (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

References

I am unable to find an online copy that is fully readable, but Google Books has a no-preview copy with search-inside. Searching on the word "pet" it shows a few-line snippit from page 151 (in the page range specified) with Henderson's name and off-screen the word pet so there is strong evidence the source supports the claim confirmed by Greg who has/had a copy of the book. Online sources are a courtesy other editors can follow their own verification methods such as library or used books but given the other evidence this appears to be a credible source. -- GreenC 04:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

GreenC, thanks for your remarks and link to From Sandy Hook to 62! Graywalls, In his obiturary it says: "For fourteen years he was commander of the pilot boat Pet". This article and the Spirit Of The Times article, should be sufficient to tie the ship index dates to the pilot-boat Pet and captain Henderson. --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)