Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Enslaved people on a Caribbean plantation

• ...Alt0... that Baker & Dawson was the biggest firm of slave traders in the late 18th-century (pictured, enslaved people on a Caribbean plantation)?

• Source The Captains in the British Slave Trade 1785-1807, author S. D. Behrendt, page 104 says: "Baker & Dawson used large slave ships" and "Baker and Dawson's Princess Royal" and "The Liverpool firm of Peter Baker and John Dawson was the largest firm in the slave trade from 1783 to 1792"

• ... Alt1 ... that Baker & Dawson was the biggest firm of slave traders in England during the late 18th-century (pictured, enslaved people on a Caribbean plantation)?

5 x expanded by Desertarun (talk). Self-nominated at 12:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC).

• Date and expansion fine. However @Desertarun:, the article doesn't say they were the largest slave trading firm in the world, only in the Spanish Caribbean. Also, the non-book sources need accessdates. Furthermore have you done a QPQ? The picture licence is fine otherwise and theres no close paraphrasing. Just needs those issues sorted before this can move forward. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• @The C of E: Hi, thanks for the review. I've checked sources, they were the largest firm of slave traders in England because of their Spanish contract. I updated the article to reflect this information and added Alt1. I've added retrieved dates to the online sources and no QPQ is required. Desertarun (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• That's better, you're right no QPQ is needed as you only have 1 credit. Issues sorted now but not sure whether to use that picture as it seems tenuously linked to the bold subject (unless these slaves were traded by him). Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've now passed the no QPQ limit and as this isn't yet promoted the QPQ is here: Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Bertie Prowse Desertarun (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Shipbuilding

Hi all, first a COI declaration: I should say I am apparently the gr gr gr gr gr gr great grandson of Peter Baker.

It is clear his legacy is that of the slave trade. I've just been to the Liverpool Maritime Museum and International Slavery Museum, where his family lineage is recorded in the archives. What I found interesting here is that Peter Baker is recorded in the archives and records of this museum dedicated to the slave trade first and foremost as a shipbuilder and first elected mayor of Liverpool; the latter part I am trying to pin down with confidence.

While the slave trade was abhorrent, and it is clear that Peter Baker, even for his time, was very likely on the wrong side of history... This wiki article seems to be more about the slave trade than it is about Peter Baker. The title of the article and first line acknowledges him solely and primarily as a slave trader. The reasons he is a famous character go far beyond that: founder of Baker and Dawson shipbuilding company, first elected mayor of Liverpool. For instance, in 1788, and while the article discusses how Dawson contacted the House of Lords in 1788, it also makes note of how Dawson went on to sail and slave trade without Baker, going bankrupt in 1793 while Baker went on to become mayor of Liverpool in 1795. So it's not really clear if this information is best placed in the present article, or might be better placed in an article on Dawson, or an article more generally on Liverpool's history with the slave trade. Similarly, there is this point on how the Corporation of Liverpool was rankled at the House of Lords' attempts to institute morality on Liverpool's slave trade enterprise. But this was in 1788, and Baker was not mayor, so while I imagine he had a large role in this, the article doesn't even establish his status in the Corporation of Liverpool, which had other historical figures of note such as George Holt.

It seems this article has WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS issues.

Due to my COI, which I freely acknowledge and take no pride in, I don't think I should be the one to sort this issue. But as outlined above, I do feel this article suffers greatly from WP:OFFTOPIC, even failing to acknowledge that Baker was a shipbuilder and that Baker and Dawson was a shipbuilding company first and foremost, and a major slave trading enterprise as an entangled part of that history. In the same vein as the ongoing debate on "Donald Trump (convicted felon)" use in the first sentence, the primary reason Trump is famous is not because he is a convicted felon. Likewise Peter Baker is not famous first and foremost as a slave trader, but as a figure of historical importance for the city of Liverpool, which is a city with a sordid history related to the slave trade.

I have an newspaper clipping from the Liverpool Echo from July 25th 1961 as well, which covers the perspective of Lord Peter Baker Esq. of Mosley Hill at the time, recounting the story of a failed shipbuilding contract that basically forced him to a life of piracy. It was this failed contract that led to the capture of the Carnatic (I believe?), as recounted in a 1961 newspaper clipping I have now which provides additional perspective on the Carnatic plundering. Will try to provide that here through Wikimedia Commons or something...

Major question: does anyone support the idea that the current article has issues with WP:OFFTOPIC? Or perhaps the issue is better summarised as WP:DUE, not for its covering of the slave trade (which clearly should be a prominent part of this article), but for the present omission and downplaying of, arguably, equally important facets of Peter Baker's historical significance. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The whole article is about Baker's exploits, its fully referenced and there isn't anything off topic. He is undoubtably responsible for the kidnap, murder and rape of many thousands of people. The article doesn't downplay his life away from the slave trade - some of it hasn't been written. Wikipedia is a work in progress and it may be many years before an editor updates the article with information about his shipbuilding. Slave trading is patently more notable than shipbuilding. Desertarun (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It does feel like that content is more about the slave trade than about Baker though? Like... This wikipedia page (sorry if you were the one to write it originally), but it seems to have invented the name "Baker and Dawson slave trading company." This is simply terminology in violation of WP:MADEUP, seemingly motivated by WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The company was the Baker and Dawson shipbuilding company/firm (e.g. https://catalogs.marinersmuseum.org/object/CL5678), which was run by Peter Baker, who was absolutely a slave trader. But the company wasn't a "slave trading company," in the same way "Trump University" wasn't a "scam" but rather a "real estate training program" - per its Wiki page. Now... that page does make explicit note, in its header, that it ceased operations amid multiple lawsuits in 2011, and that it was not in fact an accredited university. But WP:NEUTRAL requires that articles present the facts from a neutral point of view.

Peter Baker is notorious for being a slave trader. But it's a bizarre framing for a title to a Wiki page, particularly given the man is most notable because of his privateering success that allowed him to found a shipbuilding enterprise and ultimately gain sway and influence in Liverpool to the extent of becoming its mayor. And when all that is said and done, one can (rightly) say "and also Liverpool was the capital of the UK slave trade, and Baker was instrumental in this, with his company's voyages perhaps contributing more to the slave trade than any other."

But stuff like quotes from James Dawson, or from the Liverpool corporation itself, surely belong in an article dedicated to Liverpool and the slave trade, and not in the Peter Baker article? It's not that it's incorrect, it's just not the right place for it on Wikipedia. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll revise to say: looking at the disambiguation page for "Peter Baker", never mind. "Peter Baker (slave trader)" seems totally fair as the title here. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I adjusted the words to clarify he set up a company, but at that time it wasn't titled a slave trading company. I think the remark by Dawson regarding the regulation of the slave trade is OK in this article because of the dates, he made the remark in 1788, when the company Baker and Dawson was still in existence and he was speaking for the company - and Baker. Regarding the corporation of Liverpool, Baker was on the corporation in 1788 when they petitioned parliament against regulation of the slave trade. So the quote from Williams saying they were upholding the infamy of Liverpool is also fair comment. Desertarun (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Let me restart a bit here, because fundamentally I think you've done an excellent job to collect a lot of relevant and well-researched information. I thank you for it @Desertarun.

What I'm on about in the above concerns is largely more Wikipedia editorial standards, which I've been subject to on many articles over the years and pass those lessons on here. As @The C of E pointed out, the book didn't actually say that Baker and Dawson were the largest. You may be right that they were, but to interpret historical archives for yourself and assert them is the very definition of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Without getting into the weeds here, minor text changes throughout this article would help avoid the aforementioned issues of WP:NEUTRAL etc... by just toning down the rhetoric but leaving the facts as they are to speak for themselves. Some other points could use additional context, which you've provided here in the Talk, that help the reader see the direct relevance to Peter Baker rather than to the slave trade as a whole. So a lot of my issues are just these fiddly bits in the presentation that don't quite connect the content to the man. But you've now provided the logic for that, and I agree.

For instance, having the text read: "one of the largest" rather than "the largest" is a simple change that is sure to be 100% accurate, and avoids relying on WP:OR. Regarding the 1788 discussion, referencing that Peter Baker was a member of the Corporation of Liverpool in the sentence would link the text here to the man in a direct way. It's also useful because the concept of the Corporation of Liverpool (basically, the political body of the city of Liverpool before it was a proper city), is not something the naive reader is expected to know the context of.

Merseyside Maritime Museum historical archive Item SAS/25A/1/9 "Papers re Baker and Dawson family, shipbuilders, Liverpool. 1953" from the archives of National Museums Liverpool.

What I do have to say though, is that I think the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS issues persist. I am currently tracking this down still, but Peter Baker was a figure of such renown as Lord Mayor, that I think there's even his family tree displayed in the Liverpool Town Hall banquet hall from the 1700s all the way to the present day. This is how I got involved in all this. I was unable to visit the Town Hall due to a private function, but am in touch with their civics duty personnel and will get back with confirmed information when I have it. But his shipbuilding enterprise wasn't a small thing. His descendants, the Dawson family, expanded globally and built subsidiary shipbuilding enterprises around the world (right). In visiting the museum archives, I even met an employee there whose family history extends back to an Eliza Dawson of New Zealand, who owned a New Zealand Dawson shipbuilding enterprise in the 1840s. The shipbuilding legacy of Baker and Dawson reached far past the 1807 UK abolition of slavery, and yet this is entirely absent from the article.

So the header, and especially the first sentence, really ought to acknowledge other facets of Baker's life on top of the slave trade. Heck, the reference [1] that is cited currently as the source of "Peter Baker was a slave trader" explicitly reads: "Carnatic Hall was originally a country house built in the eighteenth century by shipbuilder Peter Baker." So of course it's not incorrect that he was a slave trader, but it is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS to ignore all other facets of Baker and highlight in the article title and first sentence that his only notable attribute is having been a slave trader. The title of the article remains a bit odd for Wikipedia standards... there is indeed a need for disambiguation. But I also notice you've written multiple articles titled "NAME (slave trader)", and I'd ask you to consider whether this naming convention is appropriate. It's a bit like naming articles "Adolph Hitler (nazi)" or "Benito Mussolini (fascist)". It's not a naming convention appropriate to Wikipedia editorial standard, and even if there were multiple Adolph Hitlers, you'd probably denote THE Hitler was "Adolph Hitler (german chancellor)" or something. Something like "Peter Baker (Mayor of Liverpool)" would be far more WP:NEUTRAL, and the header of the article could nonetheless read something like:

"Peter Baker (1731–1796) was a privateer, shipbuilder, Lord Mayor of Liverpool, and notable English slave trader. He formed the Liverpool shipbuilding company Baker and Dawson with his son-in-law John Dawson. Baker was a figure of political importance in Liverpool history at a time when Liverpool was the foremost slave trading hub of the UK. Baker was part of the Corporation of Liverpool, one of the UK's largest slave trading enterprises, at a time when the corporation was opposing the first meaningful actions taken by the UK House of Lords to abolish slavery. Baker and Dawson were most active between 1783-1792 as two of the largest slave trading figures in the Corporation of Liverpool, enslaving many thousands of people. In 1795, Baker became Lord Mayor of Liverpool, before passing away the next year."

I removed the Spanish government contract because it feels like it isn't something for the header, but rather the body - it's cited as justification for the claim of being the largest, but the header is strictly the summary, and ideally shouldn't contain sentences that justify each other. The header is justified based on the text in the body.

And maybe something for a separate thread... but I'd move the John Dawson text from this article to the John Dawson (slave trader) article, and many of the same comments here also apply to that article.

Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Newspaper clipping from the Liverpool Echo (1961) recounting the story of the capture of the Carnatic, held in the Liverpool Central Library archive.

Family tree extending 9 generations from Peter Baker to the mid 1950s, from Merseyside Maritime Museum historical archive Item SAS/25A/1/9.

Additional records of note for this page (right): Liverpool Echo (1961) biography of Peter Baker, privateer of Garston, recounting the capture of the Carnatic. Also the recorded family tree of three generations of shipbuilders Baker and Dawson. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I updated the lead per your suggestion above. The reference given in the article does say they were the largest slave trading firm, not one of the largest. The disambiguator is fine. We need to disambiguate according to how our readers would search for this person today. Not how he was known at the time, as a shipbuilder or Mayor. I'll have a look at the articles you've posted later. Desertarun (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

"The Liverpool firm of Peter Baker and John Dawson was the largest firm in the slave trade from 1783 to 1792"[ref] gotcha. Thanks.

I'm not convinced on the disambiguator... I'm not wholly opposed either, but it just feels very odd. Like... there were tons of slave traders in Liverpool in the late 1700s. But the reason we know about Peter Baker is not because he was a slave trader, but because he brought in the largest haul a privateer ever had, and founded a major shipbuilding company. Again, titles of articles especially of controversial persons) typically don't include disambiguators that present information coming from a WP:POV. Your point of view is that whoever is looking up this article wants to look up Peter Baker the slave trader, as if the information everyone knows about him prior to reading the article is that he was a slave trader. But his historical record includes many noteworthy events, such as being the privateer to bring in the largest haul on record at the time, or being lord mayor. So to pick one charged point to use as the disambiguator is fairly arguably not per WP:NEUTRAL:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

While being a slave trader is obviously a significant view, and in most historical circles the most important historical view, it is not the only significant view that represents the historical significance of Peter Baker. Thus why a more WP:NEUTRAL article title connecting Peter Baker to Liverpool might be more appropriate, as regardless of why you are searching for Peter Baker, Liverpool is the unifying factor for disambiguation purposes.

Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This is were your COI comes in. Of course you don't want an ancestor of yours given that disambiguator. Desertarun (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Totally. But I think there's a valid point here, which I'll ask you to consider. For instance, I think John Dawson (slave trader) is appropriate, even though he's also my ancestor. The distinction is that a first significant view of Baker was being the owner of Mentor at the time it captured the Carnatic, and he saw continued success throughout his time in Liverpool resulting in a second significant view being being his rise to Mayor of Liverpool, which affords him historical status in things like the Lord Mayor of Liverpool listings maintained to this day by the Liverpool museums. Dawson, on the other hand, was Captain of Mentor (a seignificant view), but after that his history is basically just that he split from the company he and his father in law co-founded off Baker's privateering (where Dawson served under him), then went bankrupt in his own business venture. Hardly a figure of note for his business exploits or matters politic. So very reasonably, Dawson is only really of note for being a slave trader. Baker, his father in law, is known for more than just that, including to this day in the active record of the Liverpool Town Hall.

Additional context to my COI: I have literally zero connection to this side of the family in lived experience - this side was disowned by my maternal side before I was born. If that helps. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

You really can't persuade me to favour changing the disambiguator. I am however interested to see his privateering career, I don't remember seeing much of that. I do remember there was a lot more on the capture of Carnatic that i didn't include. I looked for his shipbuilding and found nothing, very little of his mayoral stuff is online. Desertarun (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

In addition the newspaper clipping you pictured appears incorrect or incomplete to me. If I recall correctly all of the sources I read said Dawson captained Mentor when it captured Carnatic. Desertarun (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Probably better to leave the article title to a separate discussion. And indeed, the newspaper clipping is just that, a biography clipping written by "Janet." I haven't looked into the independence of info on the other source though, as one would need to check the citation trail to see if multiple descriptions of "Dawson is captain" actually stem back to a single description of such that is widely cited (the classic citogenesis problem: [1]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/citogenesis.png). I guess the other source says Baker was "owner" of The Mentor while Dawson was "captain." Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Re-reading the clipping, it just says "manning his ship." No conflicting information within, but it does suggest beyond the £135k of diamonds there was nearly £365k of other bullion and jewels. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Additional edits

To avoid sprawling conversation: thanks @Desertarun for implementing the suggested change to the header. Hopefully you can see I'm approaching this from good faith, and just looking to improve the article. To save you the work, would you mind if I proposed additional changes directly to the page? This would be easier than recording all this in the talk page, alongside supporting reasoning. Given my COI, I would cede any decision to return to a previous version to you. But like this, I can just directly input how I might tweak language etc... per WP:NEUTRAL and it would be easier on the both of us over explaining everything in painstaking detail to try to convince that my reasoning is objective. Hopefully the results would speak for themselves. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead. I don't think a COI would occur regarding his shipbuilding or mayoral activities, (perhaps on the slave trading). The article could do with info on his shipbuilding and mayor activities. Desertarun (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Article title disambiguations

Just going to tag a few folks from Wikipedia talk:Article titles here to get some perspective on a series of articles written by @Desertarun. Tagging: @BarrelProof, @ModernDayTrilobite, @Jruderman, @Howardcorn33. The articles themselves are of generally good quality, but Desertarun has taken the unusual tack of titling articles with the disambiguator "(slave trader)". Emphasized in conversation above, Desertarun occasionally invented phrasing or language not present in cited sources, representing a mild WP:POV and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS concern. But overall, these are articles present a wealth of good information on the slave trade, and these figures' key roles in it.

A full disclosure, as above, I'll acknowledge a possible COI of my own: I only got interested in this page after discovering that the long-estranged side of my family apparently traces back many generations to this specific Peter Baker. But I hope my concerns here can be taken as a good faith concern hoping to improve these articles.

Regarding the disambiguator "(slave trader)": I don't think this really adheres to WP:CRITERIAORDER principles for article titling, and doesn't align with WP:NEUTRAL. Articles should present all significant views on an individual, and per WP:POV, they shouldn't be biased in that presentation. The title of an article is the most significant immediate info a reader gets, and should really avoid presenting just one aspect of the article/topic. It's very remeniscent of the hot debate around whether the first line of Donald Trump should include "convicted felon", where the consensus was "no, not in the 1st sentence."

It's worth saying most articles not written by Desertarun on Lord Mayors of Liverpool of this era do not dismabiguate with "(slave trader)", and this is Desertarun's unique style. Examples:

List of articles of Liverpool "merchants" (i.e. slavers) from the late 1700s

• James Clemens (lord mayor)
• John Parr (merchant)
• Thomas Leyland
• Thomas Smyth (merchant)
• Thomas Staniforth - this one is written by a user with "Staniforth" in their name, so...
• George Case (slave trader) - written by Desertarun
• John Shaw (slave trader) - written by Desertarun
• Peter Baker (slave trader) - written by Desertarun
• John Dawson (slave trader) - written by Desertarun

Per WP:NEUTRAL significant views relevant here, these articles are not optimized for WP:CRITERIAORDER of 1) recognizability, 3) precision, and 5) consistency.

I'd propose alternate titles to this and other articles (including the gross ones like "(merchant)" along the lines of:

"Peter Baker (Mayor of Liverpool)"

or

"Peter Baker (Liverpool)"

depending on individual-level defining traits. The reason being the slave trade content of this and other articles is inexorably linked to the history of Liverpool. By using the WP:NEUTRAL "Liverpool" as the key identifier, anyone interested in Peter Baker of The Mentor, or Peter Baker Lord Mayor of Liverpool, or Peter Baker the slave trader, will find a common thread given the sordid history of Liverpool.

It may also be worth combining some of these articles on individuals in Liverpools history into a page on "Slave traders of Liverpool" or something of that nature, which I'd happily invite @Desertarun to lead given their clear expertise. This might be better than having multiple article stubs on specific individuals, and may avoid some redundant content copied across these pages. But that's for another conversation.

Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This user has a declared WP:COI in the subject. The correct venue for this discussion is WP:Requested moves. I hope this user hasn't wp:canvassed in the selection of people to discuss this matter here. Desertarun (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The users I tagged are simply those users who were most recently active in the Wikipedia talk:Article titles Talk page, who I assumed would be active in appropriate naming conventions. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Chiming in here since I've been pinged. The relevant naming convention here would be WP:NCBIO#Disambiguating (also anchored at WP:NCPDAB), which guides us to use prioritize disambiguating with simple nouns or noun phrases that indicate the primary basis of the person's notability. To that end, I don't think the proposal of "(Liverpool)" is suitable, but nothing else that's been discussed seems to be obviously better or worse than the other options. (The list of other articles in this topic area also suggests that a range of disambiguators are used, so WP:CONSISTENT isn't likely to be useful for decision-making here either.) Because looking just at the policies doesn't point us in any specific direction, I think we'll need to review the article itself to come to a specific conclusion about titling.

My impression from the article is that Baker is most notable for his role in Baker & Dawson, and secondarily for his political career in Liverpool. I also note that the article sources mainly pertain to the slave trade. If the article content isn't missing anything significant, my inclination would be to stick with "(slave trader)" as the disambiguator. A business-related DAB feels more relevant than a political one, in my view, and I'm concerned that something like "(businessman)" could be euphemistic given that the company seems to have been most notable for its trade in enslaved humans. This is just one editor's opinion, of course, but that's where I stand at the moment. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

More or less everybody on the Corporation of Liverpool at this time was a slave trader, so even Baker's politics was slave trading related. The mayoral title was merely ceremonial, the corporation elected someone themselves, each for a year. So its not like Baker had a popular vote to be mayor. Desertarun (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input @ModernDayTrilobite, including note for disambiguating. I've just digitized and uploaded the full document of "3 generations of Liverpool shipbuilders" from the Liverpool Museums archives, which may provide relevant context for this conversation (see section below).

I suppose my curio is whether other "significant views" (per WP:NEUTRAL definition) are significant enough to warrant an alternate article disambiguator for Baker specifically, as his significance in history is tied to more than just slave trading. For instance, the capture of The Carnatic was a significant event, with a prize translated into modern-day value of ~£80-100 million pound sterling during the English-French war. While less significant, there is a near-century of Liverpool shipbuilding history connected to Baker that is presently absent from the page. He was also appointed Lord Mayor, which at the time was not merely a ceremonial title, but the highest position of political power in Liverpool, but fell ill and died in 1796 before finishing his term - note, Lord Mayor of Liverpool is most certainly a ceremonial title in the present day.

I'm definitely opposed to anything like "(businessman)" or "(merchant)" as used for e.g. Thomas Smyth, as these are euphamisms for merchants that are most notorious for their actions in the slave trade. I'd much rather see those articles disambiguated with (slave trader) than see Peter Baker disambiguated as "(merchant)". I genuinely just think some consistency is warranted here. As @Desertarun invented this disambiguator across a series of articles they wrote, it felt like an outside opinion was warranted, in particular for Baker given other significant views connected to him - the article on his ship The Mentor is nearly as long as this one, and suprisingly that article makes no mention of the slave trade - honestly, it could use one.

Will let any further conversation play out from there. think I've contributed all I've learned of this in my stint learning about this part of Liverpool history in the above and below sections.

Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This move discussion appears to have been listed prematurely; no prejudice against future RMs once editors have had a chance to discuss sourcing and make relevant edits to the article. asilvering (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Peter Baker (slave trader) → Peter Baker (Liverpool) – The artcle is mostly about slave trading but Baker was also Mayor and lived in Liverpool. This move is controversial, and has been suggested by a conflict of interest user (Crawdaunt), who has also canvassed the talk page for users. Desertarun (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't. I opened a discussion on what a consensus should be. I have not proposed a specific move yet, and please do not say I did. I'd like to hear external perspectives before proposing a formal move. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You're wp:canvassing, in the hope of removing the disambiguator from a relative of yours. Desertarun (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASSING:

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

I am not WP:CANVASSING. As declared, and you're free to verify this by visiting the Wikipedia talk:Article titles page, I simply tagged individuals who actively engage in determining appropriate article titling. Again, I have not proposed this change which you have tagged to me. I listed two possible changes, and requested feedback from others how best to handle this situation.

Please consider that my declaring of a very very loose COI is not disqualifying, but rather a principle of honesty and attempt to engage in good faith?

Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

And seriously, please close this. I have not requested a formal move. I don't know what the right proposal is. Once we've had a reasoned discussion with some external perspective, it would be good to propose a formal move. Given the sensitive nature of this content, I don't want to rush to anything formal here. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The external voices we need here are from requested moves, not from whoever you canvassed. Clearly you don't care what the disambiguator is for your relative - as long as its not slave trader. The facts don't change - he was co-owner of the biggest firm of slave traders in the UK. He was responsible for the kidnap, murder and rape of thousands of people. Desertarun (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You're free to propose in the above conversation that all articles regarding Liverpool politicians of this time be amended to have the disambiguation "(slave trader)". I hope we can at least agree there is a consistency issue here (which is an issue per WP:CRITERIAORDER.

And please recognise "canvassing" is not the act of tagging individuals, it is the act of tagging biased individuals. You're leveraging a bad-faith charge against me I haven't committed, and it carries a significant weight in such conversations. I've opened a dispute resolution and you're free to add your side here. I'll refrain from any further comments until others have chimed in.

Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

As a conflict of interest editor you really shouldn't be involved in this discussion - indeed its wp:disruptive. Desertarun (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Hi, I just saw this case on WP:DRN, read this section, glanced at some of the other discussion. You've put considerable work into this article. There's a fine degree of cooperation, restraint, patience, and courtesy in your conversation. (Granted, you might each feel disrespected by things that don't ring loudly to me.) It might be helpful to see if, as an outsider to your discussion, I can figure out your disagreements. Let me see if I get some of these right and please correct me on this initial attempt:

1. The article title is disputed due to the disambiguator. Also, were "slave trader" not suitable here, then WP might need clarity on the term for other articles.
2. COI was self-disclosed and there is disagreement about its implications, e.g., for role in content discussions.
3. Canvassing has been raised as a concern. There's disagreement about whether it was done here and, if so, how to adjust.
4. The Requested Move template was used in an uncommon way, nominated to generate a decision, but not out of support for the proposed move.
5. WP:DUE was raised about article content, i.e., besides main topic slave trade, how should other bio info be handled.

Are these fair descriptions of the disagreements? What other key points have I missed? If I'm on the right track, then I might share my recommendations or maybe it'd be better to first clarify the pro/con arguments for each disagreement. ProfGray (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ProfGray, thanks for coming in. I think that's a good summary, and sorry I can't seem to write a short response here... I might add the following:

===

• My primary request for dispute resolution is to close this formal request to rename/move the page, which was opened in my name but which I did not propose. I would prefer a conversation on naming conventions prior to any formal proposal. For instance, by tagging @ModernDayTrilobite, the WP:NCPDAB page was raised, which is information I was lacking (thanks!).
• My secondary request is for external mediation just to help monitor this conversation and keep it productive. Accusations of WP:CANVASSING, bolstered by the COI conversation, denoted a clear impasse. Your involvement is very much appreciated.
• 1/5) Specifically, the concern re: disambiguation (DAB) pertains to this and other article titles by Desertarun that include the DAB (slave trader). It's a fairly uncommon one, and most all articles I can find that use it stem from Desertarun. Thus, there is a concern re:WP:CONSISTENCY regarding Desertarun-written articles. Baker in particular seems a good opportunity for discussion, as there are other significant views (per WP:NEUTRAL) that Baker is known for. Some of these are absent or less-covered on this page, but most of which have full-fledged Wikipedia pages of their own: i) shipbuilding career founding a near-century running Liverpool company (absent here), ii) capture of The Carnatic, iii) mercantile role in the slave trade, iv) Lord mayor of Liverpool, v) impact on Liverpool history (e.g. historic building Carnatic Hall. There is a clear need for discussion here given the sensitive content, and regardless of my COI, the weight of this DAB is something that warrants an external opinion. When other significant views are present, WP:NEUTRAL DABs might instead use date (ex: "(1731-1796)").
• re: 5) On WP:DUE, there's also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS to consider in how one approaches a page like this (and clearly there is a great wrong here). But it's worth saying that when I came to the page, it included invented language (e.g. "Baker and Dawson slave trading company", citing a source from 2020 that itself called it "Baker and Dawson shipbuilding company").
• re: 5) I also have a concern about citogenesis. It's not so much the quality of the sources, but their account on Wikipedia that may be of concern. For instance, issues like the phrasing "The Carnatic was worth £135000." This was repeated here, on the article for The Carnatic, The Mentor, John Dawson (slave trader), etc... This value stems from the prize of just the box of diamonds on that ship, but the total bullion and jewels on the ship itself was worth 2-3x this much. The original sources being cited make the distinction that the £135000 was just from diamonds alone. So there is a minor concern of accuracy; consider "Baker & Dawson shipbuilding company" earlier, or how in my discussion with Desertarun above, I never actually formally proposed a specific DAB, but they moved forward with one in my name. In this page, repeatedly and in defiance of information presented, @Desertarun continues to claim lord mayor was purely ceremonial, when this is simply not true of the position circa 1795. It is ceremonial now, but it was the height of political power in the burrough of Liverpool. These are selective readings, and so some scrutiny to these (otherwise well-written) articles would help to ensure WP:NEUTRAL.
• A last point per citogenesis: almost all content on these articles has been collected from sources primarily written for their importance to the slave trade, so they contain a historical slant and do not contain details relevant beyond the slave trade. This may reflect an information gap for other significant views relevant to the page. Below, I've digitized a historical record of "A Liverpool Family: Three Generations of Old Liverpool Shipbuilders" and made it available through Wikimedia Commons. This book presents a great deal more information on Baker collected from the Picton library and family historical records (including early life, absent from page), his shipbuilding company legacy (1761-1849 under different names), a detailed historical account of the capture of The Carnatic, and extensive history of the Carnatic mansion and Liverpool historic building Carnatic Hall. How much of that is Wiki-worthy is for the Talk page, but it's new information to the page that doesn't approach Baker solely from the perspective of his slave trading, and can help flesh out this article from its C-class into a better-rounded account of Baker.

For a full disclosure of my COI, so one can appreciate my degrees of separation from this and come to an informed conclusion on the degree of my COI: my mother and aunt disowned this side of the family because her parents were generationally abusive and dysfunctional, including stories of my grandfather on this side holding my grandmother at gunpoint for hours - they were not nice people. I've never met them and know little about them beyond surface details of such stories. Still, I recognise my COI as I became interested in Baker only after learning my estranged family was apparently 10 generations connected to Peter Baker. Thus why I'm not making edits to this page directly, but instead am sharing my findings of previously-inaccessible documents held in the Liverpool Library and Museum archives here.

Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I placed the COI tag on this talk page, so other users would know you have a conflict of interest. Desertarun (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with a COI tag being added here to address concerns of WP:NEUTRAL for this article. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Peter Baker (slave trader) → Peter Baker (lord mayor). It would seem that various merchants of that era were slave traders, while a relatively small number held the position of lord mayor which appears to be each such individual's key point of notability. The parenthetical qualifier "(lord mayor)" is a fairly common one as exemplified by Thomas Bennett (lord mayor), Francis Brewster (lord mayor), David Brooks (lord mayor), James Clemens (lord mayor), Thomas Curtis (lord mayor), Michael Dormer (lord mayor), William Gregory (lord mayor), Edward McDonnell (lord mayor), Henry Rowe (lord mayor) or Thomas Wright (lord mayor), to name but ten. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Did any of those lord mayors slave trade 20,000 people? Desertarun (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose move to Peter Baker (Liverpool) or Peter Baker (lord mayor). The title lord mayor was a given title, for just a year, not a voted one. The title was given by the other members of the council, all of whom were slave traders. It was also a purely ceremonial title. Desertarun (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Circa 1795, the title of Lord Mayor of Liverpool was not ceremonial, but was the height of political power in the Burrough of Liverpool. This is why the Town Hall website distinguishes Lord Mayors before and after 1892: https://www.liverpooltownhall.co.uk/former-mayors-lord-mayors-city-liverpool/. You are correct that the present day title is ceremonial. Robert Durning Holt was the last Lord Mayor before it became a ceremonial role. Prior to that, it was seemingly just "Mayor" (see refs in Robert Durning Holt's page). Crawdaunt (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  There was no popular vote for this position. The title was given by the other members of the council, all of whom were slave traders. The 20,000 people he slave traded outweighs a given title. And without doubt he would not have been given the title if it hadn't been for his profits from the slave trade. Desertarun (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, keep current title. Looking at the article, slave trading seems to be primary reason for Baker's notability, which is also borne out by the sourcing. It could be that the sources are not representative of what exists about Baker, but for now, the title should stay as-is per WP:NCPDAB. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per my comment in the previous section, I think "slave trader" is the most apt disambiguator for this figure. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Abstain. This formal vote was opened in my name, against my wishes. I was seeking a conversation about the article DAB and WP:DUE, not yet proposing a formal name change (since I don't know what I'd even propose changing it to). Given this vote hasn't been closed, and others like @Roman Spinner, @Theleekycauldron and @ModernDayTrilobite have since chimed in, I guess I'll record my view as of discussion up to Sept 18th.

I appreciate the careful phrasing used by @Theleekycauldron and @ModernDayTrilobite who made part of their response: "it could be that sources are not representative..." and "If the article content isn't missing anything significant..." That is the conversation I was hoping to have, and you've both put it better than I did. @ProfGray also noted well that one of the issues here is "WP:DUE was raised about article content, i.e., besides main topic slave trade, how should other bio info be handled." And I continue to note: I have a clear COI (detailed above in response to ProfGray), so please do consider that.

At the heart of my questions is not whether Baker should be remembered as a slave trader or not - he was, a prominent one at that. A major core of the article will always be about his slave-trading. But as an indication of the extent of WP:DUE concern, for example: according to information on the present page, one would assume Baker's fortune was primarily made from slavery. This isn't true: his fortune was first and foremost from the capture of The Carnatic (note: neither The Mentor nor The Carnatic Wikis are currently linked on first appearance in the text of Baker's main page), which carried a total prize of bullion and jewels in the £400k-500k range[2][3] (modern day equivalent of £80-100m), not to mention the seizure of the ship itself - the current page lists just a £135k box of diamonds as the spoils. So, I ask others to consider WP:DUE in this light, and others I've highlighted extensively on this Talk page.

The slave trade was abhorrent, and Wikipedia has policies and standards in place for doin justice to controversial topics while avoiding WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS issues. Baker's influence in Liverpool comes from i) his time as master shipwright (1761-1778) fulfilling multiple English military contracts,[4] then ii) as Liverpool's most successful privateer ever, then iii) as one of its most prominent slave traders, and finally iv) his appointment as Lord Mayor. Post-shipwright era, his fortune and influence was built first and foremost off his privateering success, bringing in the largest ever haul of a Privateersmen brought in to Liverpool. This haul is comparable to what is described on Henry Every's article as "All told, it may have been the richest ship ever taken by pirates," which was a total estimate of £200k-600k in Every's year of 1693; a quick online conversion suggests this would be ~£241k-725k in 1778, while the total prize of The Carnatic was £400k-500k (with the bonus of taking the ship itself).

Given my COI, all I care to do is present those facts and raise those concerns. What I'd really like others to consider is whether this article and the others written by @Desertarun that use the unusual DAB "(slave trader)" are WP:DUE, considering the content Desertarun included (both coverage and section lengths).

I'll wait for @ProfGray or another to help settle dispute above before commenting further.

Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. To clarify, I don't have a formal role to ''settle'' any dispute, so I'm here to support you and others (or possibly edit). While the RM was unconventional, it will likely close to keep (slave trader) in the title.

FWIW, I think the relevant policy is not WP:DUE (about viewpoints) but rather WP:Proportion (about aspects of the topic). In this regard, Desertarun (talk) has already encouraged you to contribute on aspects outside of slave trading, such as shipbuilding, privateering, and using the digitized historical record. This will improve the article content and reduce proportionality concerns. Let's discuss that content in other sections of the Talk page, esp if you already wrote about proposed content and sources, so as to avoid repetitious info in this Talk page. If you don't want to edit directly on shipbuilding etc., you can use Template:COI edit request and I or other editors can respond. Thanks again for your caution with COI and finding info to improve the article. ProfGray (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I'd like to log here though that I'd like to propose a Requested move after those edits are made. As far as I'm concerned, this Requested move is requested by @Desertarun, not by me, and he didn't even want it to happen. I don't want the outcome of this premature Requested move to impact the potential for another Requested move in the near future. I'll make minor edits directly, and major edit nominations with Template:COI edit request. Thanks -- Crawdaunt (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. My above support vote for the alternative option Peter Baker (slave trader) → Peter Baker (lord mayor) was based upon a perception of what seemed to be the key point of his notability. If, indeed, his key points of notability are [as listed in the comment of 07:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)], "i) his time as master shipwright (1761-1778) fulfilling multiple English military contracts, then ii) as Liverpool's most successful privateer ever, then iii) as one of its most prominent slave traders, and finally iv) his appointment as Lord Mayor", I would like to revise my vote to Peter Baker (slave trader) → Peter Baker (shipwright), per entries listed under Category:English shipwrights or to Peter Baker (slave trader) → Peter Baker (privateer), per selected entries under Category:English privateers and would support whichever of these two parenthetical qualifiers can achieve consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I have changed my vote from "abstain" to "support" as it seems this vote will persist. I do believe Peter Baker has more significant views than just his involvement in the slave trade, which is evidenced by the wealth of Wiki pages related to Baker that were not previously linked to this page (but now are). This includes i) shipbuilding career including multiple (1,2,3,4) HMS naval ships he built, ii) a corrected valuing and significance of the capture of Carnatic, which was previously undervalued based on a misreading of the cited source, and iii) his title as mayor of Liverpool, which was an appointed position (like all pre-democracy positions were), but reflected his status as the highest political authority in Liverpool. He was also a major slave trader, like all "merchants" (gross DAB) and politicians of Liverpool at the time, and this must remain a prominent feature. But "(slave trader)" is a poor DAB as it makes it difficult to find this Peter Baker for linking out to his other significant views, of which many are already written about on Wikipedia. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Theleekycauldron and ModernDayTrilobite. We should stick with a disambiguator that best describes what he is most known for, and the slave trading angle seems to be borne out by sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3 Generations of Old Liverpool Shipbuilders - digitized historical record of interest to this page and others

A historical record of the Liverpool Baker and Dawson family lineage held in the Merseyside Maritime Museum and International Slavery Museum of Liverpool.

I've just digitized Liverpool Maritime Museum and International Slavery Museum archive item SAS-25A-1-9, and it is now available online here, which may be of interest to this page and others: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Item_SAS-25A-1-9_-_3_Generations_of_Old_Liverpool_Shipbuilders.pdf (see right).

It recounts Baker's early life, a personal telling of the story of the capture of The Carnatic from H.S. Phillips in 1953, and many other details about his family including into later generations. Some interesting notes include that Baker originally founded the company as Baker & Co. as a shipbuilding company in 1761, and apparently saw some success for years before taking on multiple major contracts including military contracts until 1778 when The Mentor was refused by the buyer -- the booklet provides some interesting colour here, suggesting The Mentor was more than seaworthy, and the buyer refused for other reasons. Given The Mentor went on to sail as a privateers ship for years after, that seems reasonable.

Following this, Baker became a privateer by necessity, and took the largest ever prize of a Privateersmen, The Carnatic, again the booklet provides some interesting colour. The booklet actively suggests information in other sources available at the time (such as Williams 1897, cited on this page), might be mistyped. It suggests Baker & Dawson was only the name of the company post-capturing The Carnatic, which reading between the lines, likely is because Dawson claimed part ownership of the company and marriage to Baker's daughter as rewards for captaining The Mentor for a then-nearly-bankrupt Baker -- a sign of the times.

It also seems like this booklet disagrees with some info on the page, as it suggests Dawson did not have a failed business, but in fact merged the company to become Dawson and Pearson after the death of Baker. It later became J. Dawson and Co. (1802-1849) primarily invested in shipbuilding. His grandson John Dawson (1799-1871) took over the business in 1819 and ran it up until the onset of the iron-built steam ships, retiring in 1849.

Newspaper clipping from the Liverpool Echo (1961) recounting the story of the capture of the Carnatic, held in the Liverpool Central Library archive.

Whether any of that is noteworthy is not mine to say. It does speak to the fact that Baker & Co. founded in 1761 first and foremost as a shipbuilding company (pg6 of the booklet), and persisted in Liverpool military and privateering history as a shipbuilding company in one form or another for nearly a century, closing in 1849 (pg41 of the booklet). In that intermediate time, Baker himself as a "merchant" of Liverpool was engaged in the slave trade, and in the time he was active in the slave trade he was most certainly among the most notorious.

Good colour on the capture of The Carnatic pg10-24, which agrees with a £135k prize of pearls and diamonds but also has an upper mark of £400k for the total capture. By my calculations, that would be ~£80 million pound sterling, and an article by the Liverpool Echo in 1961 gave another estimate of £500k, which would be more like £100 million pound sterling stolen from the French East indiamen.

Cheers -- Crawdaunt (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: slave trading: page 31 of this booklet provides a different account of the number of affected persons, slaves traded, by Baker and Dawson. It cites Gomez Williams' Liverpool Privateersmen thusly: "If it is safe to rely on the annotations in Wallace's General History of Liverpool, 1795_B.D. initials there printed in a list of Slavetraders, must represent the firm of Baker and Dawson, and if so, they are credited with being one of the largest exporters of slaves to the West Indies, shipping upwards of 20,000 in the periods 1783 to 1789."

This account is of note, as the current citation in the present article is much lower, being 11,000. While second-hand information, the individual compiling this research (H.S. Phillips) had access to numerous records that we no longer have after their destruction in WWII. So this account and estimate might be relevant to the page.

If any of the information in this booklet is cited, here or elsewhere, please cite "Liverpool Maritime Museum and International Slavery Museum archive item SAS-25A-1-9. A Liverpool Family: 3 Generations of Old Liverpool Ship Builders", and one can link out to the .pdf as a record available to the internet for perusal.

Cheers,

-- Crawdaunt (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Baker and Dawson vs. Baker & Dawson

I ran an n-gram and it looks like "and" is more common: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Baker+and+Dawson%2C+Baker+%26+Dawson&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3

Similar results with Google Scholar. So, I will make an edit for consistency. ProfGray (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments on added content (Sept 2024)

Looking at the substantive edits by Crawdaunt (talk), which look mostly fine at first glance. Some concerns:

• This edit seems to downplay Baker's importance as a slave trader -- saying he was largest in Liverpool rather than all of England. https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Peter_Baker_(slave_trader)&diff=prev&oldid=1246693563 so in COI context, this should not be labelled a minor edit. Please undo this edit (self-revert).
• "This was said to be the richest prize ever taken and brought safely into port by a Liverpool" privateer -- a direct quote from Williams. Needs to be paraphrased or put in quotation marks. Please check if there are other sentences like that.
• HS Philips (1953) source -- It's great that the document is uploaded to Wikimedia. It needs a full citation in the article, presumably in sources list
• "Baker and Dawson has already sailed" -- Was Baker on board, per Phillips? Not described that way in Williams (?)

Baker wasn't on board, and no contemporary sources say he was on board. Desertarun (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Phillips is not a primary source. A primary source would be an account from say... Baker. Agreed it is not fully independent of the subject, but this is the case with most historical records that persist into the modern day. It is not disqualifying, but you are correct it should be treated with care and scrutiny, which I have explicitly requested you and others do. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• "In 1779, Baker used his privateering fortune..." The modifier "privaterring" might come across as COI downplaying slave trade in his fortune, which played at least some role even in 1779, which is fairly mentioned in a note. So, I would delete "privateering" here (as with the prior version).
• Legacy -- some sentences seem mostly about Dawson, who has his own article, so maybe should be placed there instead. Also, the details about Carnatic Hall might be a bit overdone, e.g., whether they'll demolish the 3rd version of the building.

Overall, I'd again appreciate Crawdaunt's research and writing on this article and COI self-disclosure. ProfGray (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I just added the reference to HS Phillips. The author seems almost certainly to be the Howard Stanley (b.1876) shown on the family tree, p4. I will add the full name as author, let me know if this is a mistake. ProfGray (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes this is correct re: Phillips (1953). Perhaps it's best to reference this document from Liverpool museum: https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/artifact/papers-re-baker-and-dawson-family-shipbuilders-liverpool. This is the officially logged source for Phillips HS (1953), accession: SAS/25A/1/9. My uploading it to Wikimedia was primarily to allow scrutiny of the source, since this was not available online previously, and it contained a lot of detail on this fragmented bit of Liverpool shipbuilding and slave trading history. For instance, it even provides a much higher estimate of the number of slaves traded (20,000) that may stem from including both slaves traded under Baker and Co. as well as Baker and Dawson (just my hunch) - existing estimate (11,000) may just come from the years of "Baker and Dawson". This is also why I'm not a fan of "the largest" claims, because it seems information on this time period is fragmented. In general, and this is also true of scientific literature, "one of the largest" still carries the sentiment, but ensures accuracy. If "the largest" framing is desired, it might be better to qualify with "known".

Thanks for the notes, and all implemented. Quick responses to questions.

Re: was Baker on board: In the newspaper clipping (Liverpool Echo 1961), it says Baker was manning the ship (ref4). Stanley provides no confirmation in either direction. I haven't read Williams (1897) enough to know (750 pages), but couldn't find anything to confirm in trying to scour seemingly relevant chapters.

Re: Legacy: indeed, and other info (including in The Corporation of Liverpool section) may fit better on Dawson's page. In general, and this may be my COI, but it feels like information on George Case (slave trader), Peter Baker (slave trader), John Dawson, etc... is more due to these men, even in the late 1700s, being a product of their time when slave trading was common business. To that point...

Of their time point: I honestly wonder whether this DAB debate could be avoided in large part by just collating an article on the Liverpool slave trade that could include an (incomplete) list-like format of major slave traders. This could close a number of stub articles and redirect them to a page that gives a broader context to the whole of Liverpool. It would also avoid DAB WP:CONSISTENCY issues with e.g. Mayors of Liverpool like James Clemens (lord mayor), Peter Baker (slave trader), John Parr (merchant), George Case (slave trader), Thomas Smyth (merchant), etc... As @Roman Spinner points out, the DAB (lord mayor) is much more common. But say... the first line of the header could directly link out to this new article on slave traders of Liverpool, uniting everyone under this banner (lord mayor or not), while allowing that these individuals are absolutely known as slave traders, but some also for other reasons. After all, basically all prominent figures in Liverpool of these decades were slave traders. So either we should clean all Wikipedia articles on Liverpool "merchants" and "lord mayors" to use the (slave trader) DAB, or we should find a way to avoid applying this fairly uncommon DAB while ensuring we don't diminish their key roles in propagating the injustice of the slave trade.

Cheers -- Crawdaunt (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually a note re: "unpublished" @ProfGray: just confirming if this is an accurate description of HS Phillips' document? Just clarifying this is item SAS/25A/1/9 of the National Museums Liverpool permanent collection. (see: https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/artifact/papers-re-baker-and-dawson-family-shipbuilders-liverpool). Not published by a book publisher, but also this isn't just a personal document?

Thanks for all your help with this. Very much appreciated.

Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@ProfGray I guess this source is "published." It is a museum archive available to the public: From WP:RS: "Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form." All I did was make it more accessible - you no longer have to visit the Liverpool museum archive to view it. Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It's "published" only for the purpose of figuring out Wikipedia policy. It's unpublished in ordinary use for citations.

But that's not so important. What matters is that it's hardly (or not) a reliable source, which is clear from how he explains how he wrote it. Now that I've looked at it, I'd be inclined to remove any content that relies solely on Phillips, except author's name and maybe a few very selective things. ProfGray (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC) ProfGray (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Primary source

The reference "HS Phillips" is a WP:Primary source - it was written by a family member of Baker. Neither is it WP:independant of the subject. The article and content needs tagging, and some of it deleting - too much content is relying on this source. Desertarun (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Request external view. @ProfGray could you confirm if a researched account written by a many-times descendant born a century after the death of the character in question is a primary or secondary source? It's certainly not an independent source, but I believe it is secondary per WP:PRIMARY. Thanks -- Crawdaunt (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It is also Wp:self published. Desertarun (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

This source has been used for a Wp: bad faith request move nomination of John Dawson (slave trader). Desertarun (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

My take: It's not a primary source for circa 1800s, but it is an unreliable (not WP:RS) source for most purposes. I think the family tree could be used, with caution.

It's "published" only for the purpose of figuring out Wikipedia policy. It's unpublished in ordinary use for citations. It is not even self-published, it's a pre-publication or unpublished mss IMO. ProfGray (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

James Dawson - John Dawson confusion

Liverpool National Museums accession SAS/25A/1/9 Papers re Baker and Dawson family, shipbuilders, Liverpool. Phillips HS. 1953.

I've just realized a systemic confusion that I'm also guilty of. 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, including the page John Dawson (slave trader), should be corrected to James Dawson. Just putting the book front of Phillips (1953) to the right so this is clear as day. As above, we should be wary of citogenesis issues affecting the accuracy of some of these pages.

Cheers -- Crawdaunt (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

TL;DR: there was a John Dawson that was a slave trader that died in 1812, but that is not Peter Baker's son-in-law. James Dawson is Peter Baker's son-in-law, and the Dawson of Baker and Dawson who was also a slave trader. James Dawson died in 1824.

===

Long version:

A review and update to understand this 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. This is a secondary source (it's not an account of Baker's, or Dawson's), but it is not fully independent. In disambiguating people's names, one would probably go to their family, not independently assemble facts about someone from ship registers. So in this case, given we are talking about biographical information, this document not being independent is of benefit.

• Howard Stanley Phillips. 1953. Papers re Baker and Dawson family, shipbuilders, Liverpool. National Museums Liverpool permanent collection, document accession: SAS/25A/1/9 [5].

• 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 some of the content on this page is written about the wrong J. 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.

So what may have happened here is a citogenesis/circular reporting error, where Behrendt confused the John Dawson (?-1812) with the Dawson of Baker and Dawson (James Dawson, 1754-1824). Regardless, it is pretty reasonable that the most primal source is Phillips (1953), and this is also a source most connected to the subject matter and least likely to get basic things wrong like the names of people.

Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Where does Phillips give his name as James? It's not James on the family tree or in the pages that I glanced through. Which page did I miss? I only see James of the front page, if so, isn't that odd? ProfGray (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC) ProfGray (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Huh, indeed. Phillips has typically used the honorific "Captain Dawson" throughout, even on first use on pg2. The only mention of James Dawson is on the cover. It is worth saying there is no mention of his name being John Dawson either, and the fact that there was a slave trader John Dawson alive at the same time (b?-d1812) per Pope (2007) suggests a confusion with this J. Dawson that is reported 1752-1824. A John Dawson also went bankrupt in 1793, and this does not make sense for Capt. J. Dawson co-owner of Baker and Dawson up until Baker's death.

Fascinating find: I could find on pg 228 here that Capt Dawson of Delight, the privateersman Dawson previously captained named in (Phillips, 1953), in ["Williams, 1897"]. Similarly, Williams only mentions his name as "John Dawson" once on pg239, and otherwise refers to him as "Capt. Dawson" throughout. However, Williams gets this name from an undated newspaper cutting (undated) that called him "John Baker." Williams corrected this to Dawson on Williams (1897, pg240). On pg241, Williams goes on to say the newspaper cutting was inaccurate. So the name "John Baker" became "John Dawson" because Williams identified this as incorrect at the time, but likely only knew "J. Dawson" and presumed "John Baker" at least had the first name right. And now this misnomer has confused Capt Dawson (1752-1824) with John Dawson (?-1812) (Phillips, 1953; Pope 2007), and the Wikipedia articles have conflated the two in terms of John Dawson (?-1812)'s bankruptcy etc...

Again, as a descendant and genealogist calls him James Dawson and only James Dawson, even if only once, I do believe this merits primalcy per WP:SELFSOURCE logic (even if this is not a WP:SPS).

Best -- Crawdaunt (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No, this is not Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE, which is specifically and only for people as a source for themselves. Like organizations for themselves.

I highly recommend that you withdraw the Requested Move to James D. As you acknowledge above, "James" is only on the cover and not even in the family tree. Further, your other conjectures will be seen as Wikipedia:Original research. See also the responses about Phillips (1953) that you are getting at AN/I, which IMO was unnecessary. I assume you mean well and are trying to improve the biography here, which I'm afraid means letting go of the family history document as a WP source. ProfGray (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is not WP:SELFSOURCE. I said using the "logic" of WP:SELFSOURCE, even though it is not.

I also agree this is somewhat WP:OR, although I am raising contradictions between Williams (1897) and Pope (2007) that (Phillips, 1953) helps support and resolve inconsistencies. That is why I'm doing this on a talk page, and collecting external views, rather than directly making edits for such major disagreements as the name of a page. I've just found the WP:RFC and this seems a much better forum for these discussions than these Requested moves. I will adjust this Requested move to a RFC.

I do disagree with the AN/I being unnecessary. I will leave that to the AN/I, because it is relevant to a specific incident and not the entirety of this debate.

I absolutely request that Phillips (1953) be treated as a WP:SECONDARY source that is published by National Museums Liverpool because it is. Its author has a WP:COI, and that should be considered when using information from Phillips (1953). In historical documents, COIs are common, because history is often recorded by those with an interest in recording it. So to discard it for having a COI would be immensely silly when it has been vetted by an independent body (NML) and interred into museum archives for its legitimacy, and when it clarifies some serious issues with these pages. If nothing more, it draws attention to the fact that John Dawson (?-1812) from Pope (2007) is not the same "John Baker Dawson" from Williams (1897), and Williams even self-acknowledges its source of information was incorrect and they made the correction. And again, a family record from a genealogist really feels like a more reliable source of someone's name than a document like Williams (1897) or Behrendt (1990).

I will recuse myself from the pages of Baker and Dawson until further notice as requested. I will remain active in the AN/I until that specific incident is resolved. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you've overplaying the CoI angle. Yes it's a concern but frankly it's a very minor one. The big problem is it's clearly not a reliable secondary source and hasn't even been published. This would be the same even if it was written by some random amateur genealogist with zero connection to anyone written about. You insisting it should be a reliable secondary source doesn't change that it isn't by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as attested but AFAICT, anyone besides you who has looked in to it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)