Talk:Glory of the Seas (clipper)

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glory of the Seas (clipper) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lars Bruzelius as a self-published source edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

(1) the inadvisability of using Lars Bruzelius's website as a source for Wikipedia articles was discussed on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Lars_Bruzelius_-_inadequate_reference?. I take particular regard of the remarks by User:Parsecboy and User:Davidships - both of whom are editors of substantial experience. It is from this discussion that I realised my concerns with Bruzelius as a cited source translated into this being a self-published source.

(2) The rules and supplementary explanation are quite clear: to quote from the latter: "Examples of self-published sources: Almost all websites except for those published by traditional publishers....." The fact that Bruzelius cites sources is not material to whether or not it is a self-published source.

(3) Examination of the Bruzelius site makes clear that (a) the site author is simply an enthusiastic amateur, (b) much of the material on the site is simply copied from sources which are reliable sources for Wikipedia. Some of this copying summarises to a large degree, leaving out material that would be well suited for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.

It concerns me that if Wikipedia were to contain a lot of material from enthusiast sites like this, there is a risk of content cycling in and out of Wikipedia until it bears little resemblance to the original source. Whilst Bruzelius does cite sources, there are no in-line citations, so you cannot tell which fact comes from which source, or whether there is any interpretation by the site owner. The subject of clippers already has significant problems with the quality and accuracy of ordinary sources^[a], so adding an amateur enthusiast ~~with~~ without third party checking of the accuracy of his site is an unacceptable risk.

Based on the comments on the Wikiproject ships talk page and the arguments put forward above, I have reinstated my edits.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Notes

^ The subject has 2 main problems with source quality.
The first is Basil Lubbock. This prolific writer is often the only source and has a wealth of information - much of which we have to presume (and I do believe) is correct. However, he was not rigorous in his research (he does not use established historiographical methods) and occasionally comes up with real blunders. An example of his deficiencies is highlighted by David MacGregor in his Fast Sailing Ships, page 253. Here he explains how Lubbock has listed 25 ships built in 1869 as being extreme clippers, like Cutty Sark, Norman Court and The Caliph. Lubbock, it is reasoned, did this without sight of any plans or half models from which to assess the hull form (since these do not currently exist). MacGregor was able to access plans (which had presumably more recently been discovered) that definitively proved that 5 of Lubbock's list of 25 were definitely not what he had claimed. Clearly this calls into question the assessment of the rest of the list.
The second problem with references is the overall poor quality of books on the subject. Some of these books appear authoritative, but contain complete nonsense, or, at a minimum, basic errors. 2 examples: The first edition of Cutty Sark, Last of the Tea Clippers, by Eric Kentley contains some real howlers, including a brief account of the Great Tea Race of 1866 where the author talks about Ariel breaking her topmasts in an effort to overtake a rival. The actual event was the breaking of a stun's'l boom - a much more trivial event. Nor does Kentley seem to understand that the rate of freight paid was calculated on the "freight ton", a measure of volume. Another work, by historian Carl Trocki: Opium, Empire and the Global Political Economy completely confuses the Opium Clipper called Ariel (a barque) owned by Jardine Matheson with the Tea Clipper of the same name, a full rigged ship with an entirely different owner. Both were particularly notable vessels in their class.
Relevant to this subject is the concern that Bruzelius is not on top of his subject enough to spot errors, as is demonstrated in the example discussed on the Wikproject Ships talk page.

The tagging is correct. LB is serious and knowledgable compiler (his occasional lapses are fewer than those of some published authors) and I don't doubt his sourcing (nb: most of his pages are dated late-1990s). They are like those WP pages that were written with just a list of sources but no inline refs - there are hundreds of WP articles which are like that (many tagged accordingly). On Glory of the Seas, LB's bibliography is good, and I suspect that all the LB refs can sourced to the two Mjelde publications, plus another of his that missed LB's timescale. I would be very surprised if the sail plan could not be cited to McKay.

When the refs have been sorted, I would favour adding an archived version of the LB page as an External Link, as it meets WP:ELMAYBE #4. Davidships (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Ships Project discussion linked above is now here. Davidships (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

[1] The subject has 2 main problems with source quality.
The first is Basil Lubbock. This prolific writer is often the only source and has a wealth of information - much of which we have to presume (and I do believe) is correct. However, he was not rigorous in his research (he does not use established historiographical methods) and occasionally comes up with real blunders. An example of his deficiencies is highlighted by David MacGregor in his Fast Sailing Ships, page 253. Here he explains how Lubbock has listed 25 ships built in 1869 as being extreme clippers, like Cutty Sark, Norman Court and The Caliph. Lubbock, it is reasoned, did this without sight of any plans or half models from which to assess the hull form (since these do not currently exist). MacGregor was able to access plans (which had presumably more recently been discovered) that definitively proved that 5 of Lubbock's list of 25 were definitely not what he had claimed. Clearly this calls into question the assessment of the rest of the list.
The second problem with references is the overall poor quality of books on the subject. Some of these books appear authoritative, but contain complete nonsense, or, at a minimum, basic errors. 2 examples: The first edition of Cutty Sark, Last of the Tea Clippers, by Eric Kentley contains some real howlers, including a brief account of the Great Tea Race of 1866 where the author talks about Ariel breaking her topmasts in an effort to overtake a rival. The actual event was the breaking of a stun's'l boom - a much more trivial event. Nor does Kentley seem to understand that the rate of freight paid was calculated on the "freight ton", a measure of volume. Another work, by historian Carl Trocki: Opium, Empire and the Global Political Economy completely confuses the Opium Clipper called Ariel (a barque) owned by Jardine Matheson with the Tea Clipper of the same name, a full rigged ship with an entirely different owner. Both were particularly notable vessels in their class.
Relevant to this subject is the concern that Bruzelius is not on top of his subject enough to spot errors, as is demonstrated in the example discussed on the Wikproject Ships talk page.

[a]