| Revision as of 06:37, 12 January 2015 view sourceAltenmann (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers218,979 edits →The Bastard Operator from Hell← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:29, 11 January 2025 view source Traumnovelle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,377 edits →Third opinion welcome on whether content is original research: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp- |
{{pp-sock|small=yes}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 52 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(28d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }}]] |
}}]] | ||
| ] | |||
| __TOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| {{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |index= /Archive index |bot= MiszaBot |age= 28 |collapsible=yes}} | |||
| == Edits to “Game Science” == | |||
| == Extrapolation of information in source == | |||
| Discussion regarding ] has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. I would appreciate your comment at ]. ] (]) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| As per ], I have concerns that a particular statement in the article is not clearly supported by the source. It seems to have originally been added by someone unfamiliar with the terminology who has misinterpreted the source's use of similar terms. I claim that as the source does not clearly state what is stated in the article then this is original research (and also probably factually incorrect). My main argument though is that as original research, it cannot be included. Another editor claims that it is possible (or even probable) that it is correct and should therefore be included. They don't appear to recognise that such a claim is original research, or that this is grounds for exclusion from an article. | |||
| == Jackal (character) == | |||
| I was wondering if someone could weigh in on the discussion and clarify if this is original research and therefore whether or not it should be removed. | |||
| The article ] seems to consist almost entirely of OR. As of the {{oldid2|1263622722|most recent edit as I'm writing this}}, of the 10 references, 8 are to the original text, 1 is to an article about the movie, and only 1 article actually has any coverage of the character separate from the film/book (though even there it's not even the primary topic). I considered nominating it for deletion, but I paused as the article has existed since 2006. It's hard to differentiate coverage of the character from the film so I'm not sure what the relevant guidelines here would be and would appreciate any advice on how to proceed. This is purely speculative, but it's also possible that there may be some COI editing from the TV network given there is a new series out now about this character. {{oldid2|1263534172|An edit}} I made removing some content that was unsourced and pure OR speculation about the character {{oldid2|1263602067|was reverted}} by an IP with zero edits before that, which came across as very odd to me and reminiscent of confirmed cases of COI editing from studios I've seen previously on other film/TV articles. ] (] • ]) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 04:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : There's a guideline for writing about novel plots: ]. I interpret that section to allow Wikipedians to forthrightly describe/state the plot of a novel without citing that out to external sources (other than the novel itself). In other words, it's not considered to be ] to do that. But you have to do it well (as described in that section). The plot summary in the ] could use improvement (and a lot of shortening) but that's a separate issue from whether it is ]. My two cents. ] (]) 22:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I still need some assistance with this. The other editor is firmly convinced original research is acceptable and nothing I can say can convince them otherwise. Can someone independent please weigh in on this debate? ] (]) 12:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It definitely shouldn't be written like this, but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of articles with sourcing this bad. If OR is removed, then it's the responsibility of the person restoring it to provide a reliable source with it, so you're in the right to challenge their restoration. ] (]) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Plot summaries are meant to be concise, at the moment this is anything but concise. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == SYNTH-edits at Team Seas == | |||
| Just to summarise the issue: | |||
| There's an ongoing thread ] on a contested edit to the article. The in question adds the reported amount of marine debris that enters the ocean from a 2015 study (years before Team Seas), and writes out the connection that {{tq|This means that during the entire duration of the fundraiser, at least approximately 18,562,500,000 pounds (8,419,808,368 kg) of debris had entered the ocean (or about 61,875% more than what the fundraiser ended up removing).}} There is clear consensus of a ] violation, as it's inferring a conclusion not explicitly mentioned by the source (that the fundraiser is futile in the grand scheme of things). However, the owning editor has repeatedly argued against the consensus that the others have not adequately shown that it falls under SYNTH, and is assuming bad-faith, stating others are ] any true discussion or being dishonest. Would someone mind reviewing the thread and giving their input? --] (]) 22:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The article is about the Splashed White marking in horses. The disputed statement says "In the Gypsy horse, is called blagdon". What the source actually says is: "The acceptable descriptive terms for the coat colors of the Gypsy Vanner horse are: Blagdon* – Solid color with white splashed up from underneath". | |||
| :See also ] ] (]) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I believe this is original research because Splashed White is not mentioned at all in the source. The source merely describes what the pattern 'blagdon' looks like. It does not state that 'blagdon' is the same as Splashed White. The disputed statement seems to "reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Furthermore, no other evidence to support this conclusion can be found, which is saying something as genetic tests exist for all three Splashed White genes, yet no gypsy vanner has tested positive for any of them. ] (]) 13:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Clearly SYNTH; also ] by this point. I've left ], which I hope will help resolve the situation. ] (]) 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) {{nacc}} | |||
| :::When challenged provide a direct quote from the source that supports the (amended) proposed edit, it was dismissed with "" They have completely failed to comply with verifiability policy. The discussion has gone endlessly with multiple editors it's SYNTH and the editor responding "I disagree" with increasing patronization. As shown with the above linked ANI, the editor will not ] on their own accord, so would another party kindly review and potentially close the thread? ] (]) 03:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| *I advise reviewers to look at the entire paragraph in context. I updated some sources. The pattern has been visually identified in Gypsy horses and this is verified in genetics textbooks and the article only states what can be verified. What probably has this anon IP editor upset is that the splash gene is occasionally linked to deafness in a few horses, and people get all panicky if their breed is in danger of carrying something bad. But deafness is rare even in splashed white horses (it's a complicated issue, but basically the pattern has to include the ears, and even then it doesn't always cause deafness) ]<sup>]</sup> 05:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Curious to hear opinions about this from editors who are more versed in what "synthesis" is and isn't on Misplaced Pages. I thought I knew but reading ] from top to bottom I'm not sure anymore. More details on article talk page.] (]) 11:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This is simply not correct. My issue is that no proof has been provided for any of these statements, and the article sometimes makes claims which are not actually stated in the given source. I have never mentioned deafness at all, and frankly consider it irrelevant to the argument. Please do not put words in my mouth. Your implication that I have a vested interest in the content of this article is simply incorrect and a distraction from the real issue: this is a matter of fact verification only. ] (]) 08:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership == | |||
| :I made a few changes in the wake of your original post and today reviewed the paragraph again, updating some material and updating sources. But the sentence you find so objectionable stands. Go read the whole paragraph and look at the sources, you may find your objections are no longer needed. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Editors are invited to comment at {{section link|WT:WA|Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership}} on item (2) as to whether the statement that "Merivale are on the traditional land of the Njunga" is synthesis. ] (]) 12:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I feel at this point I am just repeating myself. The source does not support the conclusions in the statement under debate. It is an extrapolation and a hypothesis, and I maintain this is therefore original research. We are unable to reach an agreement, and so I am asking for someone independent to look into it and make a judgement on whether this is original research, and therefore whether it needs to be removed. ] (]) 11:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Third opinion welcome on whether content is original research == | |||
| :I also agree we are repeating ourselves. You clearly haven't even re-read the section where the sentence occurs in its entirety. You started with a complaint about the lead, I removed the material in the lead. You claimed a color pattern was something called "Sabino 2", and I explained that it genetically does not exist (at least,not at present). Then you claim that the splash pattern doesn't exist in Gypsy horses, when one of the leading equine coat color geneticists in the world, one who specializes in white patterns associated with the KIT gene, says that it does. The article correctly notes that apparently the Gypsy horse has yet to be tested for the SW-1 gene, but the breed standard clearly says that "blagdon" is a pattern "splashed" up from underneath. The article only quotes the breed standard, there is no SYNTH. So, yes, yo just keep going on and on about OR and SYNTH, when I have clarified the issue for you over and over again, plus went out and did some updating of the article to reflect recent research. You are here seeking third party input. Frankly, so am I. Is anyone out there? ]<sup>]</sup> 21:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::We are here... but we tend to avoid commenting when all we see is a continuation of the debate from the talk page ... it is hard to get a word in edgewise when the original combatants are dominating the conversation. ] (]) 23:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::LOL. I'd say we've each made our case. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As I understand, from what is written on WP, "Splashed White" is a pattern linked to a specific genotype. Saying a horse is a "Splashed White" is to say it has a specific genotype that gives it a particular, defined, coat pattern. There is no source cited that says a Gypsy with "Blagdon" markings will have one of the recognized genotypes whose expression in another breed is called "Splashed White". A Gypsy Vanner may have a marking that looks as if "white is splashed on" but that does not mean that it has the specifically defined genotype that breeders call "Splashed White". To represent that the Gypsy Vanner has a particular arrangement of genes just because it *looks* like it does is OR. | |||
| TL;DR "Splashed White" is a phenotype of known and defined genotype. "Blagdon" is a phenotype of unknown genotype. To say one is the other is not only OR but factually unsupportable. ] (]) 05:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like a third opinion as to whether content added by this edit falls under original research. ] (]) 00:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello, I looked at it but did not see anything obvious, can you explain what makes you think it could be OR? '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Almost, but not quite. "Splashed white" as a concept existed long before the genetic test. You are right that "blagdon" is a mere phenotype. But read the article where it is defined by one of the breed associations, and note exactly how it is stated in the article. Please read just ]. The controversial bit is in paragraph 4 but the little bit preceding it should give you the context. I think the concerns are addressed. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The article has changed a bit but for example this passage: In 1844, that land was transferred to Robert Hunt, who primarily used it tp harvest kauri gum deposits. is sourced to: there is no mention of the specific land that Hunt bought, nor mention of the land in question being Bayswater. It also contains no references to Kauri gum. | |||
| :: I missed this comment and did an edit on the article page and left a note on the talk. I apologize for not responding here first. Anyway, I did read the section you mentioned. I also read the other related sources and picked up a horse genetics book to review. The issue is that there seem to be, by my reading, several genotypes that can give the 'Blagdon' patterned coat and that there exist many horses that are 'Blagdons' that do not have any SW genes. (This is from searching the web and finding discussions where people had tested their Blagdon marked Gypseys and and they were negative for SW). To say Blagdon == Splashed White. On the whole I would suggest looking at allow the breeds listed as "Color patterns describes as splashed white but not yet identified by genetic testing.." to make sure they are actually identified as 'Splashed White'. In the case of the Gypsy Vanner breed description "...white splashed up from underneath." describes a pattern that could easily be Sabino or something else. The American Paint Horse Guide to Color Coat Genetics describes 'Splashed White' as "usually makes the horse look as though it has been dipped in white paint. The legs are usually white, as are the bottom portions of the body. The head is also usually white and the eyes are frequently blue". Very different from what Blagdons look like. There might be something out there that says that some Blagdon Gypsy Vanners are may in fact be Splashed Whites but I have only seen that on discussion boards not in any RS. I would suggest for accuracy's sake that you take a look at the other "suspected" Splashed White breeds listed to make sure that the sources say "Splashed White". Inferring equality based upon common adjectives used in a description is OR on WP. You may or may not be right but it is for that very reason that it should not be in WP. ] (]) 17:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC) (JBH == jbhunley) | |||
| ::The claim of the first ferry departure is sourced to this: which makes no claim of it being first and it is an advertisement. | |||
| ::There are other examples but typically most of the claims go beyond what the source states and involve interpretation of them. ] (]) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I reverted that edit and have given a longer answer at article talk. If you read the sources (I made some changes to update the article since this has been raised), you will see that there are yet to be ANY Gypsy horses DNA tested for the Splash genes, we only have WP:RS scientific sources saying that the phenotype has been identified. The article does NOT state (now, nor did it really in the earlier version either) that "blagdon" IS splashed white, but merely that the definition of blagdon given in one of the Gypsy horse breed standards contains the "splashed" language. I was very careful in doing the article update to avoid OR or SYNTH. I have been involved in the writing of nearly all the equine coat color articles on WP, and am trying to keep them up to date. I am willing to discuss this further at the article talk page, as I think everyone here who wanted to comment has. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Can someone close this discussion? It's gone back to the article talk page and I think it is resolved there. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Vani Hari == | |||
| {{Resolved|OR removed, correct source supplied ] (]) 00:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| Editor {{User5|Kingofaces43}} has reversed (2x) my removal of SYN and OR . The OR is blatant: | |||
| "This person says X is bad. But another source (that does not mention this person) says X is good." The implied conclusion is that the person is wrong. | |||
| Just blatant SYN. ] (]) 05:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm heading out for the night, but I'd encourage folks to read the talk page conversation, edit history, etc. There are other issues going on here, but in terms of original research it's pretty cut and dry under ] and ] that this is assigning due weight to the view expressed by the subject. That is not considered original research as we're weighing what the appropriate sources are saying about the specific claims and not the person making them. In this case, a specific response is not needed from a medical organization for each person who makes a claim that runs against the scientific consensus. The claims themselves are addressed instead when dealing with scientific/medical content. ] (]) 06:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're "weighing what the appropriate sources are saying"? That is the very definition of OR. ] (]) 06:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Probably best to let other folks respond as this point as the purpose of this board is to get input from other folks. I already mentioned on your talk page how NPOV meshes into OR, so I'd let other folks have a crack at it. ] (]) 07:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That content was not created by Kingofaces; it has been there content about this, and stating the scientific consensus on flu shots, since about July. IT has been reviewed by many others including admins, and is fine per ], ] and especially ]. ] (]) 12:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}What is happening to WP? This is a clear example of OR/SYN, and yet even when it's posted to the OR noticeboard there is no action. Is the project losing its integrity? I'm a little shocked. Can an experienced admin comment here please? ] (]) 18:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :] has been policy for a long, long time. and by the way it is my understanding that this board and others are places to get wider discussion from the community; they are not for admin action. ''Content'' disputes get worked out in the community via the methods described in ] (which include the use of boards like this one). ''Behavior'' issues are addressed at ANI and other admin board like AIV, AN etc and when they get very bad, Arbcom. This is a content dispute, as far as I can see - a dispute about how policy applies to some content. ] (]) 19:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, this looks like synthesis, but given that we can cite a source (entirely appropriate per ]) which gives the response of mainstream science to her claims regarding flu vaccination, such synthesis is unnecessary. ] (]) 19:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Additionally it has only been half a day since you posted here, and there has been more talk in the appropriate place, the talk page of the article. ] (]) 19:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Beach Drifter provided as source that allows the material to be added without OR. I've made the change. ] (]) 00:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] multiple issues == | |||
| An editor has added what appears to be in part an essay to this article about a literary hoax, attempting to show that it is not. It's one of those situations where a new editor doesn't understand our policies and adds OR written in an NPOV fashion, with what sources there are, eg a forum, failing our criteria for sources. I am rarely sure where to bring such problems. This article has several statements in it about Misplaced Pages itself, eg "Although this may appear persuasive evidence that in usual circumstances might elicit some to reconsider the chronicle, both it and its author had been so roundly calumniated (on spurious grounds) that there is no evidence of any public notice of this or any other point of hard evidence until this introduction here on wiki in midsummer 2014, (and earlier that year in a little visited related website)." "A factor in the general resistance to consider evidence with respect to the chronicle was the reports formally here on wiki and elsewhere claiming it to have been disproven. Wiki claims to follow the Darwinian principle of evolution, allowing all equal access to edit content with a view to enable an erosion of inaccuracies out of its pages. Skeptics of the chronicle are invited to add considered content to the section that follows." "The question of the chronicle’s placement here on wiki as a literary hoax is of some significance as the chronicle claims to double the course of Gaelic history." It also states "A claim is currently made in the academic press that the chronicle has been disproven, however an email request for further detail has proved unsuccessful,". I've reverted once and the author asked for protection of the page at the Teahouse. ], 15:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I am getting a little confused and frustrated at this sudden outburst of indignation from those who claim to represent wiki. I revived a demand earlier today suggesting I update citations, remove personal points of view, improve links and so on. OK- but that takes time. | |||
| :Now I am receiving further demands having suffered an outrageous attack on the free flow of information that my page seeks to transmit, simply deleted and replaced by the nonsense my page was written to defend against.- I am not sure, but have some reasons to suspect that these problems are flowing from some of those in wiki who are determined to perpetuate their allegation that the chronicle is a hoax as classed by wiki. A great example of what they describe as neutral point of view [NPOV}. Your evidence please? Throw what they may at my evidence- all I can promise is a record will be kept- the future can judge, and the past cannot be changed- good luck, I think you could be helping without intending to! {{unsigned|Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age|23:13, 22 December 2014}} | |||
| ::You appear to misunderstand the purpose of Misplaced Pages articles - they are not forums for "the free flow of information", they are encyclopaedic content, to be based on published reliable sources. If you wish to allege that there is some sort of conspiracy on Misplaced Pages to misrepresent the Chronicles, at least have the decency to do so on the article talk page - though frankly I doubt that you will get very far, given that irrefutable evidence demonstrates that Misplaced Pages contributors couldn't conspire to make a cup of tea without splitting into at least three warring factions... ] (]) 23:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have tried to explain to the user on Dougweller's page about Misplaced Pages's principle of ], but it doesn't seem to take. ], you seem to be a better writer than reader. Please try to internalize our explanations of why Misplaced Pages isn't fit for your purpose. ] | ] 01:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC). | |||
| Hi as I said I will go back to the page with revisions reflecting your NOR NOP and other general points raised. My concern is that the page my one was replaced with recently takes those problems to unprecedented levels. For example my page illustrated the source scrolls, their location and pedigree which are there for anyone to check and it was replaced by a page claiming there were no source scrolls. This project is of some weight as it alone potentially represents around half the history of the people of the British Isles. Should those intent on censoring public access to the facts surrounding it be allowed to knowingly mislead people on key questions such as this? {{unsigned|Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age|06:49, 23 December 2014}} | |||
| :The version of the page most recently by you was edited because it violated Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages articles are based on published reliable sources, and not on the original research of contributors. And cut out the crap about 'censorship' - this is a private website, and we are under no obligation whatsoever to provide a platform for your personal opinions. If you wish to contribute to Misplaced Pages, you will be obliged to do so in a way that complies with policy. ] (]) 14:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| It's a literary fraud, especially the title page, however Conner might have incorporated some Irish oral traditions into his work. So the whole thing might not be fiction. | |||
| {{Quote|"In 1822 O'Connor published ‘The Chronicles of Eri, being the History of the Gael, Sciot Iber, or Irish People: translated from the Original Manuscripts in the Phœnician dialect of the Scythian Language.’ The book is mainly, if not entirely, the fruit of O'Connor's imagination."}} '''Dictionary of National Biography''', 1885-1900, Volume 41. | |||
| {{Quote|"All we have then is O' Connor's translation into English of whatever material he had. It is possible he took down oral tradition." | |||
| "The question remains, however where did O' Conner get his material. Allowing for his pretentiousness, his foolish exaggerations, he could hardly have imagined the entire book. If one compares the silly claims of his Preface with the sober recital of the text, one finds it hard to believe that both came from the same author." | |||
| "Before closing, however, notice must be taken of Roger O' Conner's (Cier-Rige) book, ''Chronicles of Eri'', published in 1822. The text was re-issued in 1936 by L. Albert, editor, under the title ''Six Thousand Years of Celtic Grandeur Unearthed''. Albert was disappointed with the reception given the book and in 1938 issued extracts relating to the Milesian Invasion (T''he Buried Alive Chronicles of Ireland''). He also included a Roll of the Kings, a Commentary, and as an Appendix, certain 'Jewels of Ancient Wisdom' selected from the ''Chronicles of Eri''.}} Neary. M. (1973). "The True Origin of the Sons of Mil". Journal of the County Louth Archaeological and Historical Society. 18(1): 69-83. ] (]) 15:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Bizarrely "irish chief" seems to think he/she created the chronicles of eri page. No. It was added long before they arrived. They then removed the Macalister quote and uploaded their own personal essay from their website. So they were the actual vandal. They're now though calling the poster(s) who removed their essay the vandal. ] (]) 16:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: "For example my page illustrated the source scrolls, their location and pedigree which are there for anyone to check and it was replaced by a page claiming there were no source scrolls." there are no source scrolls. '''O'Connor never showed them'''. So are you saying you are his relative or something and have come into possession of them? Obviously not. So your essay doesn't count as any evidence. ] (]) 16:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The page 'chronicles of eri' has again been replaced by falsehoods regarding source scrolls for the second time in 24 hours. The former page illustrated the source scrolls, gave a full provenance of their location, condition and so on and yet their existence is still called into question here and again displaced by disinformation on them on the page 'chronicles of eri'. | |||
| The last contributor writes in bold O'Connor never showed them, yet this is easily shown in error -those interested can check out the page ] where this ridiculous argument is pursued with the person responsible for displacing the page containing evidence of them with a claim they do not exist. | |||
| Visitors will be able to see here how very simple points of provenance in the former page 'chronicles of eri' are treated. | |||
| In view of the evident determination of so many to deny such obvious and unequivocal evidence, there would seem little point in pursuing any more contentious points on the 'chronicles of eri'. | |||
| ] (]) 21:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :There is no point whatsoever in you pursuing anything that does not involve compliance with the Misplaced Pages policy that requires content to be verifiable according to published reliable sources. ''We aren't interested in your 'evidence', and won't be unless and until it receives recognition amongst qualified historians''. This isn't open to negotiation. ] (]) 21:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: You don't provide evidence or link to the scrolls/manuscripts. The preface or title page of the Chronicles of Eri states: | |||
| {{Quotebox|"CHRONICLES OF ERI; | |||
| BEING THE | |||
| HISTORY OF THE GAAL SCIOT IBER: | |||
| OR, | |||
| THE IRISH PEOPLE; | |||
| TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS IN THE | |||
| PHOENICIAN DIALECT OF THE SCYTHIAN LANGUAGE."}} | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| ::These "original manuscripts" were never produced by O'Connor. ] (]) 00:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : You're not getting it. ''It does not matter how much evidence you can present for your ideas. It does not even matter if your ideas are right.'' All that matters is whether they have been vetted by the scholarly community. That's what WP:NOR means, and it's a fundamental Misplaced Pages policy that is not going to be changed for your benefit. | |||
| : So continuing to show us your arguments will get you nowhere. Show us the published sources making your arguments. --] (]) 05:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your advice Yaush. The problem here is Wiki was itself having a negative effect on the process of securing consideration of this matter by published sources. When academics are approached with evidence concerning the chronicle the usual response is a quick google which invariably leads to wiki and of course they are put off by the claim that it is a hoax. Consequently the former page sought to show this question has never been formally investigated or resolved. | |||
| By replacing published documentation of source scrolls with claims they do not exist the current page is misleading. . Replacing the reviews on both sides of the question of the chronicles authenticity by only those on one side is biased. Even uncontentous parts of the former page such as the overview of content has been removed. Any specific point of concern upon the former page can be revisited, but most of it complies with wiki guidelines. I would direct you to the version in June as someone later added a introductory paragraph claiming the chronicle was authentic- which appears to have largely provoked this problem. | |||
| ] (]) 11:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| PS That link misses the second half of the origional which is . Your comments appear most relevant to the last section which can be deleted, but the remainder should be allowed the opportunity to be revised to better meet wiki standards rather than simply obliterated within hours of first being tagged. | |||
| ] (]) 12:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :], we can't find things from your links, at least I can't. Did you mean to make a "diff" in your PS? Please look at the ], it's short and easy. (Don't look at ], whatever you do, it's long and baffling.) ] | ] 15:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC). | |||
| :], Not sure whats going on here- both my above links work from my end. Here is the url of the intended page if that helps, if not its in the page 'chronicles of Eri > view history > 29th June | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chronicles_of_Eri&oldid=614822426 | |||
| Material relating to reviews is in the section 'contentions upon authenticity. Source scrolls are covered in the section of the same name. | |||
| ] (]) 16:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think we have established well enough in the scattered discussions relating to this issue that Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age has failed to cite a single source meeting Misplaced Pages reliability guidelines for assertions that the ''Chronicles of Eri'' are anything but a hoax perpetuated by Roger O'Connor. Accordingly, any claim to the contrary is original research, and this topic can be closed. ] (]) 18:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The only detailed study conducted into the chronicle was by a German LA Albert or Hermann - as detailed in the former page. He published the only two books dedicated to this matter. Why do you allege he and the others who concluded the chronicle was authentic do not meet Misplaced Pages reliability guidelines. | |||
| In addition I can post links to discussions on your kingpin MacAlister which show that he cannot be cited as a reliable source as he was writing with respect to a book by Perry , he does allude to the chronicle in passing but in making the same blunders as earlier critics regarding its content, authorship and even the language it is translated from start to finish shows he could not have read anything more of the chronicle than an earlier calumination. | |||
| These facts can be confirmed by anyone prepared to look at MacAlister's article. | |||
| ] (]) 19:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages does not cite books published in 1830 as reliable sources. Though even if we did, we'd need to know a lot more about Albert/Hermann before we'd cite him. And for the umpteenth time, we aren't interested in the slightest in your opinions as to what is or isn't a 'blunder' or 'calumination'. ] (]) 19:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Aberts book dates from over a century after you claim, and in any event I don't understand why its date is relevant. What you allege are my opinions on MacAlister are in large part formed from reading discussions of the matter in forums and the like. These 'opinions' are not as you claim, they are self evident to those who spend short time investigating the question. O'Connor never claimed his Gaelic was the same Phoenician language that MacAlister complains he was misspelling. | |||
| ] (]) 22:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Apologies for the confusion over dates - I'd misread the article. The point remains however that we don't know who Albert/Hermann is, and accordingly are in no position to assess his validity as a source for anything. And please stop wasting our time with your endless pointless explanations of why you think your opinions are of any significance - '''WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT BASE ARTICLE CONTENT ON CONTRIBUTOR'S ORIGINAL RESEARCH'''. This is not in any shape or form open to negotiation. ] (]) 22:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your concession over the date. The fact remains that you proceed into allegations that simple demonstrable points raised concerning MacAlister are a matter of my opinion. I regard this as unfair for the reasons I pointed out before. If you are alluding to other opinions expressed on the former page, as I said I am happy to iron out whatever is deemed unfitting for purpose. You might elucidate your original allegation that I 'failed to cite a single source meeting Misplaced Pages reliability guidelines for assertions that the ''Chronicles of Eri'' are anything but a hoax perpetuated by Roger O'Connor' - are you still saying this? | |||
| ] (]) 00:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 00:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :There is nothing to 'elucidate' - it is a simple statement of fact. As is my statement that Misplaced Pages doesn't use contributors' original research to determine article content. And you have tried my patience more than enough. The article, like all others, will comply with policy - which means that content regarding your claims that the Chronicles are not a hoax will not be permitted. If you wish to publish your ideas on this topic, you will have to do so elsewhere. ] (]) 01:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| As I said before I do not expect to be treated any differently to anyone else regarding wiki protocols. Regarding reliable citations I can only direct you to the first 21 listed in the former . | |||
| The fact remains this is a peripheral source. None of the reliable sources for the claim that it is a hoax contains reasoned argument upon the question one way or the other- they are just a series of rants. Under these circumstances it is in nobody's interest to seek to predetermine 'content regarding your claims that the Chronicles are not a hoax will not be permitted' as you seek to do. A toned down page replacing suggestions that the chronicle is authentic with suggestions that it warrants reevaluation is proposed. | |||
| I understand you do not wish Wiki pages to appear as personal soap boxes and am prepared to reedit accordingly, however I would ask you not to employ wikis NOR protocol to seek to stifle reasonable presentation of the facts surrounding this matter. | |||
| ] (]) 10:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <br /> | |||
| Any chance that the ultimate issue here is lack of notability? The most recent reference is from 1941 and most of the article is based on sources from the 1800s. Are there any more recent secondary sources? If not, what makes this topic notable enough to belong in an encyclopedia? --] (]) 18:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :That is of course a valid question. I'd wondered myself, but held off raising the issue in case more recent sourcing could be found. At this point I think it is fairly safe to assume such sources don't exist. ] (]) 20:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| You are both largely correct in this assessment as far as I understand. The secondary sources are quite limited - nonetheless I had a look at wiki OR criteria and maintain that so long as I provide due citations for any claims made, they should be permitted to stand. I am not aware of what date is considered too old for citations- can you advise? | |||
| ] (]) 22:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :There is more to determining what constitutes a reliable source than simply age - the qualifications of the author in regard to the material being sourced is also a primary consideration - see ] for further explanation. ] (]) 22:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you Andy the Grump- it is now 5 minutes to midnight so maybe a good time to wish you a happy new year! | |||
| ] (]) 23:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Is it possible for someone to move this to the talk page of 'chronicles of Eri'? | |||
| ] (]) 09:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It isn't normal practice - I'll add a link to this discussion to the talk page though. ] (]) 18:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The works of L. Albert Hermann referred to here appear to consist of (1) his preface to the 1936 edition of O'Connor's ''Six thousand years of Gaelic grandeur-unearthed'' () and (2) a 1938 work entitled ''The buried-alive chronicles of Ireland: an open challenge to the "Celtic scholars" of Breo-tan and Er-I'' (). The latter has a catalogue number of P2292, suggesting it is a pamphlet. If somebody were to read those, and find anything pertinent to the Chronicles – and especially if they revealed anything about the identity and notability of L. Albert Herman – then that might be worth a brief mention in the article. But in , linked to above, all that is said is that they "argued passionately for the case", and the only quote – from which publication I can't tell – is, "''the war against the revelations of Eolus is not only a crime against truth, scientific honesty and the moral advancement of humanity, it must also be denounced as one of the most meaningless acts in the long history of human aberrations!''". I suppose, if that quote could be properly cited, i.e. publication, date and page number, then it could be added to the current version of the article as a kind of counterbalance to the equally hysterical (and older) negative criticisms that are there. But really, it would be better if the Chief Inspector could give us something of the meat of Hermann's work, insofar as it actually casts light on O'Connor's work. ] (]) 19:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. Albert Hermann may well be ], whose theories attracted Heinrich Himmler, and who corresponded with him. Not trying to prejudice the case, just thought I'd mention it. ] (]) 20:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :To Andy- cheers- I asked as another thread was moved there from this same type of general protocol page and it seems better to collect this debate on the related page as I was earlier having trouble finding this page. | |||
| :Scolaire - I hope this indentation works- not sure why you are fussed about it. | |||
| :Regarding Albert, I acquired a copy of his first book but personally found it a little disappointing. For me the problem was that he had done an in depth study of the chronicle, but most of his argument could only be understood by those who already had a good knowledge of the chronicle. He focused on internal or presentation evidence which is of little use in the case of those unfamiliar with it. He was adamant that the chronicle was authentic and his work flows from a series of German publications following the translation of the chronicle into German in the 1830's. A series of related works in German appeared in that decade which appear to approve of the chronicle as they extend lengthily upon it though I have not taken time to translate them- I keep finding new stuff, for example a book in French from a baron in Jersey I found today based his analysis of around 1000 Celtic coins found there on the chronicle. I have already collated much other more persuasive evidence suggesting the chronicle needs reevaluation and am now inclined to reject this along with other weaker recent stuff as I have found as there is peculiar and unexplainable universal outrage at my research which seeks to reevaluate the chronicle of Eri, which prompts me to believe there is something about this evidence that perhaps should not be known. | |||
| :Another series of German works appeared in the lead up to the second world war- Herman's arguments reflect wider German interest and publications at this time, though his own work was never given much consideration even in Germany despite approving articles reviewing it in the press there. | |||
| :] (]) 00:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::"I have found as there is peculiar and unexplainable universal outrage at my research which seeks to reevaluate the chronicle of Eri, which prompts me to believe there is something about this evidence that perhaps should not be known." No - no 'outrage' whatsoever. You are perfectly entitled to research the Chronicles', and you are perfectly free to publish the results of your research. Bur not on Misplaced Pages, since we do not permit contributors to use their own original research for article content. Your refusal to accept this elementary principle is getting beyond tedious, and at this point I can think of little reason why you shouldn't be reported for ], with a view to getting you blocked from Misplaced Pages. The choice is entirely yours - you can comply with Misplaced Pages policy, like any other contributor, or you can take your 'persuasive evidence' and your silly conspiracy theories elsewhere. ] (]) 02:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::The terms what constitutes original research are set out: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. I do not see what gives you the right to try to stop the facts of this case being made known so long as they conform to this requirement. There are plenty published sources on both sides of the question of authenticity as you well know as illustrated in the former page, however you chose to dismiss them. Material supporting the chronicle contains much reasoned argument while material hostile to it does not. In any event this OR question can hardly apply to more than the current consensus on the chronicle, not its content, documentation on source scrolls etc. and as I said I was revising to respect this. | |||
| :::] (]) 11:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The key word in your quote from WP:NOR is "reliable". You said that "the only detailed study conducted into the chronicle was by a German LA Albert or Hermann". The fact that you could not be sure what the man's name was immediately raises a flag as to how reliable that source is. You also said, '''', that "it seems possible his second work was never read by any of the scholars he was addressing as it currently is down to around 4 library copies worldwide." And now you're saying (I think) that you're "inclined to reject this along with other weaker recent stuff". Instead, you offer us a book "from a baron in Jersey". That doesn't sound awfully reliable either. Certainly, the mere fact that the author held a title does not make the book inherently reliable. On the other hand, the authors quoted in the current version of the article – and I'm not denying for a moment that it is one-sided – are all notable enough to have their own Misplaced Pages articles. Unfortunately for you, that's how it's got to be, unless and until you can come up with a ''demonstrably'' reliable source that supports O'Connor's theories. No reliable sources = original research; simple as that. ] (]) 12:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you Scolaire. As I already said my proposal is to replace suggestions that the chronicle is authentic with that it warrants academic reevaluation. I think this should obviate this problem to a large extent. | |||
| :::::I do not appreciate the grumps threats made at a time before he has even seen the first revision of a page that was a first edition of an author unexperianced in the tenacity of peoples views regarding protocols. | |||
| :::::] (]) 12:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's your opinion that it warrants academic re-evaluation, Misplaced Pages shouldn't reflect that but what the sources say. ] (]) 13:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I have suggested to Chief Inspector on his talk page that he do his revisions in his sandbox first, to make sure they are policy-compliant before adding them to the article. ] (]) 13:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I'll try the sandbox. I do not question the general rules concerning secondary sources. The reason for suggesting to replace the primary suggestion that the chronicle is authentic with a suggestion that it merits further research is that this cannot be considered contentious. Questions concerning reviews thus become secondary. | |||
| ::::::::Has anyone here found a single reasoned argument concerning the chronicle among what are deemed relliable sources? Is there is no allowance for your own assessments of this question, just blind faith the opinion of someone with the right letters after his name who shows he can't have read anything more than an earlier calumination by making the same errors? Who was reviewing another work and who had an axe to grind by virtue of his religously motivated work. ] (]) 14:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::If you're agreeable to using the sandbox, then the OR issue can be considered closed, except to repeat that no, there is no allowance for your own assessments of any question: that's the definition of OR. If you want to take issue with the negative assessments that are in the article, then I am willing to open a new section on the article talk page, and we can leave the good people on the NOR noticeboard in peace. ] (]) 17:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Allright Scolaire. Appreciate your suggestions regarding the sandbox and use of colons here. Just one last question- it seems from the page you found Albert Hermann was a qualified archaeologist with his own wiki page. Does this make him a reliable source? ] (]) 22:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I'm reluctant to give an opinion on what is a reliable source. I've got it wrong in the past. I suggest you take that up on the article page as well. It really is time to say goodbye to this forum. ] (]) 23:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Watergate burglaries == | |||
| {{la|Watergate burglaries}} | |||
| ] was created on with the following edit summary: "Created from six years of research as a detailed comparative compilation of testimony and accounts provided by the participants in the first Watergate break-in, however contradictory". It has had an OR tag since . Any thoughts on where to begin? - ] (]) 06:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow, what a rabbit-hole trip that was, reading the first few weeks of work by the first author. The article at that time was 100% pure original research and nothing but. The first author, going by "Huntley Troth", just about went berserk when another user came in and tried to anchor the material with published accounts from the Watergate literature. What Huntley Troth wanted was to show his thesis that the Watergate burglaries were not about Nixon spying on the Democrats but about something larger, but he keeps his surprise ending to himself, only hinting that the CIA was creating a hoax to cover up another project of Nixon's. Quoting from the article: This material reminds me of to be called ''Watergate: The Hoax''. | |||
| :Huntley Troth had just experienced the deletion of another huge research project of his called ], which described how the CIA was using extra-sensory perception. Seeing that the article was about to be deleted, he to a handful of articles. The links brought the reader his own hosting of the material, . | |||
| :What I'm getting at is that the Watergate burglaries article was founded on nutjob conspiracy theory, and as you imply, cannot be saved. I think it should be deleted altogether. The only salvageable material, sourced to reliable books, is already used as background in the main Watergate article. Everything else should be deleted. ] (]) 07:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the background. I had no idea that this originated as someone's conspiracy theory. I agree with the redirect to ] where relevant material about the actual burglaries can be added. I cannot see that a fork is warranted at this time. I'll try to clean up some of the redirects, too. Thanks again! - ] (]) 22:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I would delete per ], which is allowed. If someone wants to create a new article that's fine but it is much easier to write a reasonable article from scratch than to improve a bad one. ] (]) 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is the best fix. ] (]) 14:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == The Bastard Operator from Hell == | |||
| In the article ] the "Characteristics of the BOFH" section has been tagged as original research. However, I find this content to be mainly description of the cited (primary) sources. Any help with this would be most appreciated. ] (]) 09:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : The entire article raises issues of ] and ]. The only secondary source is ''The New Hacker's Dictionary'', which appears only to be used to define the term BOFH. Unless there are some other secondary sources, it seems like this topic lacks notability (]) and does not belong in an encyclopedia. If it is a notable topic, then most of the article needs to seriously be rewritten based on secondary sources. Currently, essentially the entire article is an interpretation of the primary source: Travaglia's BOFH stories. This is an inappropriate use of primary sources and constitutes original research. See ]. --] (]) 15:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::And the sections were using same article tags, I have removed one of them from the section. ] (]) 07:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::BOFH is a notable element of hacker's lore, as several secondary sources attest. However its literary merits were not scholarly analyzed; it is just one long running joke, IMO overexploited by the author today: IT professionals no longer have the power vested onto ] operators. -M.Altenmann ] 06:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Terminating a Syrian Governorate and starting a terrorist Wilayat == | |||
| I'm baffled by these actions taken: | |||
| Article before changes reflected that Ar-Raqqah Governorate was one of 14 2nd level divisions of Syria. After an original research series of edits it was a former political division in Syria. . As in ended, former, now part of a new country (ISIL) and a new terrorist province gets an full article as part of the "Islamic State Caliphate" | |||
| My tentative conclusion is that an otherwise good editor has been reading too much terrorist propaganda and decided to make Misplaced Pages the first and only to recognize ISIL as a country with 2nd level divisions. What to do about this? ] (]) 01:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Hey, I checked the editions. ] should be cautioned for his editions. Misplaced Pages is not a mean for propaganda and/or self promotion. ] (]) 03:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are welcome to caution me, but for what? What rule has been violated? You apparently have little clue over Misplaced Pages guidelines.] (]) 06:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, to put you in the picture I should say that based on unfortunately you seem a ] who ]! ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm a single purpose account? Wow, you are certainly unaware whom you are talking to...] (]) 08:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To whom? simply to an editor among millions of editors! ] (]) 18:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Nazi Germany was a terrorist state, but we still have articles about it. Wilayat al-Raqqa of ISIL is a terrorist province; what propaganda has to do with it? The fact is that the Syrian al-Raqqa Governorate was captured by terrorists, doesn't make it a memorial article.] (]) 06:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::who gave the right to declare the end of a UN State and the creation of a new country run by terrorists? Way beyond OR. ] (]) 07:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::What end of UN state? what country ran by terrorists are you talking about? Syrian Arab Republic?] (]) 08:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The article ] is a well sourced description of the self-proclaimed administrative division of a terrorist organization ISIL - this is sourced from | |||
| * "Syria's eastern province of Raqqa provides the best illustration of their methods. Members hold up the province as an example of life under the Islamic "caliphate" they hope will one day stretch from China to Europe." | |||
| * "ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) increased its grip on "Wilayat al-Raqqa", the capital of the Islamic State. It is setting the foundation of its rule through courts, resolving disputes between civilians, and social committees serving the "Muslims" inside the borders of the province." | |||
| * "In addition to the 7 Iraqi Wilayah, the Syrian divisions largely lying along existing provincial boundaries, are Al Barakah, Al Kheir, Al Raqqah, Al Badiya, Halab, Idlib, Hama, Damascus and the Coast." | |||
| The legality of ISIL and its structures like administrative divisions or military wing is not a parameter whether to include it in Misplaced Pages, and an experienced user should be familiar with the policy. ISIL is certainly a ''pariya'' and we can barely even call it an unrecognized state; its methods are terrible and its radical ideology is comparable with the Nazis. Nevertheless, we should have an article on ISIL and if relevant ISIL-related issues are covered by WP:RS and are notable, we can have articles on them as well.] (]) 08:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : where you ended the existence of Raqqa Gov. We have not even done that for the areas the Kurds took over and reorganized after the Govt walked away. An experienced editor should be aware that Misplaced Pages should not be the first to declare the existence of a new country. | |||
| :The three sources prove my point, not yours. Reuters refers to the country "Syria's eastern province of Raqqa" not "ISIL's Wilayah of Raqqa" al-Akhbar puts "Wilayat al-Raqqa" in ] meaning they don't accept the term, and the book is describing ISIL's claim, not legitimizing it. | |||
| :The creator of the article and inserter of extraordinary claims is the one that needs to source those extraordinary claims. You'll need a lot better sourcing for the extraordinary claim that a Syrian province ceased to exist and a new government in a new country now exists. | |||
| :I'm hoping for some admin or at least uninvolved user input here. ] (]) 17:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| See also and related edits around it which say that that Syria and Iraq no longer have various provinces. Piping Iraq to ] and Syria to ] when referring to the countries seems very POV and suggestive that the counties are no more and ISIL is a country. ] (]) 03:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :]I would also like to echo Legacypac's sentiments on an otherwise good editor who I have seen, amongst other things, make excellent and thought provoking contributions in forums such as WP:RM. I also do not see a necessary problem of an alleged use of a single purpose account on condition that the account is being used to present balanced NPOV content. I am concerned that, even though that you did not seem to provide cited reference your earlier mentioned additions; that, despite the fact the first reference you mentioned on this page referred to "province" and despite the preference in English Misplaced Pages to use English and despite the common use of words like province and governorate for Willayat, you still used Wilayat in your text and you still piped a nonsensical "<nowiki>... ] and ] ...</nowiki> With both the Tigris and the Euphrates running through Syria and with any level of attention being paid to water sheds it is clear that vast swathes of this country are firmly within the land of the two rivers. Daesh is a geopolitical organisation and should be considered in political terms in relation to the recognised political entities all around. ]] 10:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::It seems the issue here is not warrant for WP:OR noticeboard, but rather to general administrator's noticeboard - with Legacypac bullying against me for some personal reason (and also trying to break some wikirules on the way - like ). In addition, i don't see how putting information on wiki on the crimes of ISIL and their system of terror governance is problematic, if properly sourced. If anything, i'm among those who are downplaying the legality of ISIL - for example by moving "Province of Sinai" to "Wilayat of al-Sinai (ISIL)" to demonstrate it is an ISIL creation, not a valid "province" in the international view. Further, with the fracturing of Syria and Iraq, one has to remember that ] article is about the Syrian Arab Republic (controlling 40% of pre-2011 Syria) and ] article is about Iraqi Arab Republic, which is together with Kurdish autonomy controlling just 2/3 of pre-2011 Iraq. I'm not saying Syrian Arab Republic and Syrian Arab Republic are gone and that occupiers of their territories (ISIL, JAN, Islamic Front, Ahrar al-Sham and FSA) are "legalized", but notable sources talk about Assad regime in a much lesser extent than whole pre-2011 Syria and same with Iraq. Province of Raqqa, unfortunately to Syrian Arab Republic, is terminated by ISIL terrorists, whether we like it or not. I'm not going to comment here any more, Legacy's tone is insulting and he doesn't want to cooperate with me.] (]) 19:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| ] I did not agree with Legacypac's interpretation of a single purpose account but view various other issues raised as being valid. Even in regard to "Province of Sinai" and "Wilayat of al-Sinai (ISIL)", while I can see how the move can fit with good faith, it still seems like really tomayto, tomato to me. It still presents Sinai as being a province which is then attributed to ISIL in the title before readers even get to article content. I think that the other issues such as the piping of Mesopotamia are more relevant but were you familiar with related discussion at ]? One view presented "Best to wait and see if "Wilayat Sinai" will be picked up by enough sources" and Legacypac proposed (as was done at talk:ISIL) "ISIL in Sinai". I think that a move on as controversial a subject as this should, at the very least, have gone through WP:RM and don't see a justification for a unilateral move even when in good faith. | |||
| * gets "About 1,970 results" in news | |||
| * gets "About 340 results" in News | |||
| I am mainly compiling these stats to add ref to Talk:Ansar Bait al-Maqdis. ]] 12:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::to clarify, I never said Greyshark is a SPA. He does lots of good work, but is way outside consensus on this issue. Consider that all the related articles and redirects have been deleted now. There is no personal attack, just an effort to build consensus. ] (]) 19:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Chinese Canadians in British Columbia == | |||
| At ] there is a discussion over whether it is correct to change instances of | |||
| white" and say "other British Columbians" because of a belief that "ethno-focused" scholarship is being racist against Whites. I have not seen any specific page numbers/scans/actual source documentation saying that anti-Chinese sentiment was widespread among first Nations or blacks during the time period and the only sources I have available explicitly focus on anti-Chinese sentiments among Whites. I wrote an analysis of the edits which I ask you to read (if you wish I may re-post this analysis, along with the summary). | |||
| I would like to have feedback from editors familiar with the NOR policies. There are more details in the talk page section, in ], and in ]. Please read these pages for more details. In the "On sourcing" section I listed the edits and relevant sources. | |||
| Disclaimer: I have been in several disputes with the other editor. I was trying to use ] but based on the last post I feel that I want feedback immediately. I believe that Misplaced Pages ''demands'' page citations and specific information to back up what you say and that this needs to be clarified ASAP. I believe this is ''not optional'' and ''non-negotiable''. Am I correct in saying this? | |||
| ] (]) 11:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow: There's a lot of discussion on those talk pages, so I haven't had a chance to wade through all of it yet. Can you try to summarize a bit more exactly what the dispute and arguments are? On first glance, though, ] does seem to be admitting to committing Original Research: s/he wrote "How do I know they're biased? ''I'm from BC and know the scope of its history'' and have watched this trend in academia unfold in recent decades." That certainly sounds like OR to me. As far as your question if OR should be purged ASAP, yes it should be purged as soon as possible, but no, it does not need to be purged immediately (as long as it's not about a living person...). There's a ton of poorly sourced material that is allowed to stick around for a little bit while editors work out how to fix it. --] (]) 17:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::This particular dispute started after I noticed a series of edits that changed text related to discrimination against Chinese Canadians during the earlier years. A lot of the edits removed instances of "white" and replaced them with "British Columbians" and "European Canadian" and/or "non-Chinese" | |||
| {{collapsetop|relevant edits}} | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* | |||
| {{collapsebottom}} | |||
| ::He argues that "ethno-centered" academia is being biased against White persons and therefore it's unfair to highlight White persons having anti-Chinese sentiment. I argue that if the sources specifically mention attitudes held by White persons, the article text needs to reflect that White persons held that attitude. I will link you to the cited sources and other relevant sources. , ( "For years there had been strident calls from white British Columbians to restrict the entry and activities of the Chinese. They were accused of driving out white labour and pushing down wages because they worked at lower rates." and "The Chinese were seen to be disease-ridden and morally and physically inferior to whites.") and also ("it is evident from the nature of his source material that Dr. Morton did not set out to write a book about the Chinese in British Columbia, but only about white reactions to them." p. 136, or PDF p. 2/8.) - Even though the other party stated that First Nations and blacks held the same attitudes and had taken actions against the Chinese, there have been no specific page numbers/page scans/''specific'' citations presented in which I could use to verify this information. | |||
| ::I also forgot to mention in one part the other party wanted to state as fact that the Chinese had were taking from British Columbia without giving anything back, while the cited sources only said it as a ''perception'' (Lim p. and in the ) - this is the topic in "" ] (]) 18:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your ignorance about Canada is on full display here; Digital Collections is a government-funded website, its content is not official Canadian government content; it is hosted on a govenrment server but contains all kinds of community-written material; and that it's hosted by the government doesn't mean that it's ''right''. The CCNC version of the gold rush and railway construction was once on there; they revised it after complaints about its various exaggerations and gaffes. Politicized/PC content is also prevalent on DC pages; and the use of bad geography and discredited terms.....the cited sources saying "perception" say that to downplay the "white" (British Columbian-as-part-of-the-Empire) rationales; which are spelled out in Morton in point form, and discussed at length in relation to ] and other prominent colonials who wanted immigration from Britain and not from China as a settlement program; that was in fact one of the key provisions of the ] which overridden Sir John A when he finally got back to getting the promised railway built after getting back into office, into the Victoria riding....whose residents had been promised they would be the railhead, anotehr Carnarvon Terms provision, but never told them that he would turn around and hire an American to bring in Chiense labour contractors. If he'd only order and read that book ''himself'' he'd learn all kinds of things his chosen narrow field of sources never mention or don't know/care about; but instead he's here imperiously demanding page-cites and NPAing a long time editor ''ad nauseam''.] (]) 03:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::As an example of the fallibility and unreliability of the Digital Collections pages, ''"In the Gold Rush of 1858, hundreds of Chinese miners joined 30,000 gold-seekers heading to British Columbia."'' on is quite wrong; a third of the 30,000 were Chinese i.e. around 10,000; sources: | |||
| :::*Claiming the Land: Indians, Goldseekers and the Rush to British Columbia, Dan Marshall, University of British Columbia, Ph.D Thesis, 2002 (unpublished) | |||
| :::*McGowan's War, Donald J. Hauka, New Star Books, Vancouver (2000) ISBN 1-55420-001-6 | |||
| :::*British Columbia Chronicle,: Gold & Colonists, Helen and G.P.V. Akrigg, Discovery Press, Vancouver (1977) ISBN ISBN 0-919624-03-0 | |||
| :::Maybe WMT will actually read them; the PhD thesis may be out there on a webarchive somewhere; I have Dan's email address as he was the instructor of the fourth-year history course at SFU I took fall '03. But it's on fiche and can be obtained via interlibrary loan through university and some city libraries...even in Texas. | |||
| :::*This is also false/distorted ''"The Chinese feared similar violence in British Columbia so they did not compete directly with white miners. Instead, they reworked sites that white miners said were worthless. In these deserted claims, they found several dollars worth of gold each day."'' Chinese had full rights to stake and this was affirmed and mandated repeatedly by Governor Douglas; thte "did not compete directly white miners is unadulterated bullshit, RS or not.] (]) 03:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Your now properly-indented challenge/comment below you already know the answer to; I've told you ''ten times at LEAST'' that I'm in Asia and sold off my history books before I left Canada; I don't remember page-numbers of books I read, only their content, and your demands that I page-cite an ''explanation'' of what is in the books ''on a talkpage'' is out of line; and the bit above about Governor Douglas is in dozens of major BC histories and all over the source materials...and is rarely if ever mentioned by the school of invective-driven historiography so fashionable now; do they even know? Have they even read other histories of BC other than their own incestuously mutually-referenced claims? Seems not, or they'd acknowledge that Douglas and Begbie ordered and maintained equality for the chinese in the gold fields ''and'' in land ownership; DJ Hauka is coming up with a cite for Douglas' notion of a "commonwealth" of peoples in the new colony; he really doesn'st see where you're coming from btw (we know each other, I was a buddy of his eldest brother at Simon Fraser way back before you were even born). Again, WP:V does '''''NOT''''' apply to talkpage descriptions of what's in a source; you challenging me because I can't provixce you page numbers is uncalled-for and ''against guidelines'' as ongoing AGF ''of the very worst kind''. I've told you, again, on numerous occasions, that I do not have the book ''anymore''... you continue to treat me as if i am a liar and continue to show no signs of collaboration and cooperation; none at all.] (]) 18:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If it's true that you sold the books, you cannot truly cite from them. One's memory, no matter how good, is not sufficient. You need the book itself and you need the pages in front of you. (That's why I asked, to be triple sure). If you sold the books, you need to get them back as soon as possible so you can use them. While I am interested in reading them, I am limited by my own current circumstances. ] (]) 18:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Skookum, do you have any of these books in your possession? What page numbers say these things? ] clearly demands specific citation information. In regards to Morton, since these White-run newspapers may count as "primary sources" in this instance (] discusses how to use primary sources) it will require for ''Morton himself to say explicitly that Chinese were taking from the land without giving anything back and to say so as fact''. This is why page numbers are required: I actually need to know ''who said what'' and without page cites and the exact text it's impossible to establish whether something was said by the author or whether it was by one of the newspapers that the author quoted from. ] (]) 03:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: BTW I had said "this needs to be clarified ASAP" not necessarily that it needs to be purged ASAP. The question of whether this is original research needs to be clarified so all parties understand what original research is. ] (]) 10:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: BTW#2 the written by ] (same guy who wrote a book being used as a source). I say "government page" because Library and Archives Canada had sanctioned it to be a part of its collection, ''The Early Chinese Canadians, 1858–1947''. ] (]) 09:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It's OR to change "white people" to "non-Chinese" because we have no reason to believe that is what the writer meant. It could be that black people and aboriginals held the same views, but the writer does not say that. In any case, blacks were a small population with little political power, while aboriginals were not even allowed to vote. IOW whatever their views of the Chinese they were in no position to do anything, unlike the whites. ] (]) 19:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. It certainly looks like OR. However, if the sources that WTM cites does in fact only represent "ethno-centered" academia, then it might be helpful to also cite the secondary sources that talk about it being "ethno-centered" academia. Then both sides of the secondary sources would be represented, as long as we are careful to avoid creating ]. --] (]) 01:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::About sourcing, I don't know if this counts as "non-ethno-centered" but I have: Hogg, Robert. ''Men and Manliness on the Frontier: Queensland and British Columbia in the Mid-Nineteenth Century'' (Genders and Sexualities in History). ], December 24, 2012. ISBN 0230250173, 9780230250178. p. . "In the white imagination, Chinese men were barely human, let alone manly." and "Gilbert Sproat, whose interests were not confined to the Aht, penned views that were representative of white anti-Chinese sentiment in British Columbia, and typical of the contradictions in white views which saw the Chinese as simultaneously inferior and superior." - What I really want is a source explicitly saying that blacks and First Nations felt the same way. ] (]) 06:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, the "whites" thing gets used even though there were lots of non-whites in the goldfields and in BC in general other than "whites" and Chinese; that's why "non-Chinese" because Kanaka and black and Metis and others had the same reactions to seeing someone come along who'd bid for available work at 1/3 the pay. Chinese-biased accounts of the kind that WMT is ''only'' reading never get that; but then they're never read the actual histories of the time, and just don't know or realize about the true nature of non-Chinese BC, so put, and like WMT are very resistant to even being told about it. Taht so-called "reliable" sources' don't actually have reliability when compared to other evidence in the historical record is a syndrome in modern academia and media; accounts that are "in their way" they will deconstruct and criticize rather than address the actual material/events/people that t he author raises; which is exactly what the hostile reviews for ''In the Sea of Sterile Mountains'' are all about; yet that book has things in it that are either avoided or unknown to the body of scholarship now holding sway; as do other histories of BC and local histories that WMT doesn't want to research and would rather occupy his time, and ours and mine, waging battle to discredit me and the material I point out that his preciously biased sources don't know about or don't want to talk about; the massacre of the Camp 23 foreman near Lytton, the burning of one of their own who had leprosy, claim-jumping and quarrels with the native over placer mining on spawning streams; or any of the stories out t here about "white"-Chinese cooperation and mutual support, which are many. Good and bad, there's much more out there than in Googlebooks or on academic shelves and political diatribes; rather than go look for the resources I'm pointing to that he should read, he comes here and gets anal about page-cites and impugns my honesty as if I was lying about what I have read and what I know. It's not original research to correct a wrong usage used by an RS; and in Wiki standard "whites" should e "Europeans" now....if a source uses it it should be in quotes. Lord knows I couldn't put "the yellow man" and not see it changed to something less racial.....especially when "whites" is used in negative accounts, and others than whites and Chinese are involved, then it ''must'' be in quotes or as part of a quote. Funny how political correctness only works in one direction. If WMT had read about BC history before campaigning to rewrite it, he'd already know about the other non-"white" populations and he's also know about Camp 23, the reality that it was pressure from Imperial and Nationalist China and the UK that saw Ottawa pass the Head Tax increases, or that Chinese miners were protected by edict of the governor and had equal rights in the goldfields, and were an ongoing presence in teh Interior until mid-20th Century, all of those are what he is claiming I am ''lying'' about, without ever beginning to investigate. Same goes for your two opining that turning "whites" into "non-Chinese" is OR; you have no knowledge of the subject at all yet here you are on a discussion board kibbitzing about things you don't understand; and using faulty logic and suppositions; somewhere in a guideline it says "if you don't know the subject matter you should not take part in a discussion", that should be more heeded in Misplaced Pages big-time.....''he'' doesn't know the subject matter ''either'' and apparently and rather adamantly doesn't want to....to the point of denouncing a long-time | |||
| Wikipedian, the one responsible for contributing massive amount of BC history/geography/town/bio content, including Chinese content on various town and gold rush and other pages; I'm not a racist, I'm not a liar, and I'm not stupid. But I am frustrated and irritated that this pretentious and widespread-by-one-hand '''PERSONAL ATTACK'' is being conducted, and there are claquers out there, equally uninformed, who chime in as chorus; but who haven't the knowledge of readings in the subject area to be qualified to comment. This discussion and WMT's allegations and demands and the overt insinuation that I am dishonest are '''''RANK NPA''''' and should be shut down; and him t old to stop pontificating about what he doesn't know yet, adn ''start reading'' adn to respect other Wikipedians of long standing who are in the way of his narrow mind an learn from them. I'm tired of this bullshit; and rather than go look at the many sources online I've indicated to him to broaden his understanding of bC and its history, he'll probably be back here with yet ''more'' long-winded complaints and demands. Somebody give his head a shake.] (]) 02:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Skookum, do you have possession of any ''secondary sources'' whatsoever that can clarify these issues? If you are in possession of ''any'' of these sources, please give page numbers and start quoting from these sources (preferably take pictures of the pages with your phone and/or make scans). What is needed right now are ''additional secondary sources'' and in order for them to be used they need to be in somebody's possession so they can be analyzed/quoted from. ] (]) 03:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::The sources that were cited were , //, , and also '']''). I have made requests for exact page number citations of any sources that may help in the matter (i.e. those that explicitly say that First Nations/blacks/all other ethnic groups in British Columbia felt the same way about the Chinese, and those secondary sources that explicitly say that the Chinese were contributing nothing ''as fact'', etc.). Any sources that present a different view/have additional information also need ''exact page cites''. The other party says there are other sources, but has not provided page citations. I have made attempts to find information on First Nations/black attitudes towards Chinese in Google Books and haven't found anything. | |||
| ::*The Worden review sometimes attributes statements to "British Columbians" and sometimes to "Whites." and that may be seen on . 347. On p. 348 (visible with a JSTOR account or I can send the PDF to you): "white politicians continually pushed for a high head tax." and "The "problems" that the Chinese caused the British Columbians, and the white reactions to the Chinese" | |||
| ::I agree that one can say "British Columbians reacted" in the general sense if the source attributes the actions to "British Columbians". For example: text I wrote stated: "White persons were also afraid that the Chinese would someday have more people than the Whites." ( : "Morton tells of the early fears of British Columbians that the Chinese would someday outnumber whites, of their desire to") The article may say: "British Columbians were also afraid that the Chinese would someday have more people than the Whites." based on the source | |||
| ::Another thing: If any party has possession of the books then any party may be able to get the page cites and make scans. If somebody does not have possession of the books, should he/she be saying what is inside the books? Should someone be "citing" from a book he/she does not have possession of? ] (]) 01:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Get a grip. I ''did'' own the book (sold it to in Vancouver where you can order it from, he should have other copies) and ''unlike you'' I have ''read it''; if you are too lazy and cheap to order a copy, then presume to lecture about photocopying to prove something to ''you'' that you don't want to believe is true, or that you want as proof I'm not lying, as if I had any reason to, is b.s.; lots of pages on Misplaced Pages have only book cites, no page-cites, and those articles have stood for years; unlike you I've read more than just Chinese-oriented accounts of BC history; and remember what I read. Your implicit AGF here is really a covert but gross NPA; that Skookum1 is a liar, which I am not. Demanding 'give me page cites or I'm going to delete" is childish anality and ].] (]) 02:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]: "The '''burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material''', and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." and also "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." - If that's anal, you need to let the people who wrote WP:V know this. You are welcome to re-obtain the source at your leisure.I am interested in reading the sources, but as I stated before I have no responsibility in defending any of your claims. ] (]) 03:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Cute, I'm the subject of discussion on an ANI board and didn't receive a notification even though things are being said about me. I just saw this now incidentally by looking at WMT's usercontributions; I see he's got another book review ''sans'' full title as '']'', which given that it has a full name and is not a well-known book I'd say requires the subtitle. This discussion is out of order IMO, and is about the 30th such running-to-a-discussion board attempt by him to enlist support; I point him at sources other than his only-ethno-history pet selections, and he doesn't listen, instead demands I page-cite things already in other Misplaced Pages articles. | |||
| ::Other than the BC content I added to the article, and which he fought off or tried to on the recent RM to revert it to "of Vancouver" because of his stated userpage agenda of creating a global series of "ethnicity-by-city" articles, but he's wading into a subject that is not limited to the city, as it is impossible to separate Chinese history in BC from the rest of the place. Because of his obsessiveness about ethno-history ''academia'' and politically-driven viewpoints - and many of his sources are politically driven and use "whites" when in fact early non-native BC was multiracial (Hawaiians, Mexicans, West Indians, the governor was Guyanese and not white, and so on); these are things I ''KNOW'' from 50 years of readings that ''he hasn't had exposure to'' and apparently doesn't want to; his contributions are often TRIVIA, and/or UNDUE, and he only presents one side of the story...and to me, is very clearly hostile to anybody else's version of events, and I don't mean mine: I mean the books and other things, including Misplaced Pages articles, that he would rather demand line-cites for and lecture me as if I was a newbie...or a liar. | |||
| ::Yet I'm one of the main, if not ''the'' main, history/geographer contributors/editors in Misplaced Pages and "know my shit"; lecturing me and treating me as if I am dishonest, and seeking official recourse against me 20x odd times this last few months, amounts to very bad NPA. He could learn a lot from me, and broaden his understanding of BC/Chinese-in-BC history considerably; instead he demands page-cites even for talkpage mentions of "things out there" that the very biased drift of modern academia doesn't know about, or just doesn't want to acknowledge. The 'Chinese people's sufferings at the hands of whites' drift of so much of it, plus various statements given as if the general way of things, when stories/cites abound ''for those who have read broadly in BC history'' that put the lie to those very claims, which I have discussed on the talkpage. | |||
| ::'''''I'm not conducting original research'''''. ''He's'' the one doing that doing a massive SYNTH, just as he tried to do on the RM, stitching together sources of a certain kind, very selectively and IMO with a bit even worse than his sources, and the result is POV and SOAP and a mass of TRIVIA and UNDUE bits, not even put together cogently, but as if it were his own sandbox and he was working on a treatise; this is part of his ] behaviour on all article I've found him creating/working on. Fact of the matter, this article is a POV fork especially under its original title, ]. ], ] and ] etc. | |||
| Talking bad about "white" people but never bad about Chinese people, as so common in those sources, that stories like Chinese crime activity and Chinese opposition to living next to hospices (because they bought their condos without knowing they overlooked a home for the dying) or Chinese who commit family-suicide because of bankruptcy......or not advertising real estate in Vancouver, but only in Hong Kong, and only in Chinese. The exclusion/discrimination felt by other Asians as well a whites in Richmond shopping malls, the driver's licensing bribery matter, the use of "culture" as a rationale for things like the hospice matter, or the indifference towards learning English; that's not on the agenda of the po-mo "new history: class, ethnicity, gender" school of so-called historiography (preaching, really) that typifies the kind of sources he's immersing in and finding snippets of and throwing them onto the article like darts on a board, with bad writing of a very "bald" kind. | |||
| ::All that is citable, the other issues re "Chinese in BC" and he'd know about it - ''if he knew the material before he started the article'' or was at least open to being told about it, instead of being so arduously resistant, and ardently disrespectful to somebody who knows more than he does about BC....and he full well knows I'm nowhere near the books in question (I'm in Asia and have been for most of hte last 2.5 years) but he's also behaving as if I'm lying or making it up; which is AGF and NPA and also just damned rude, given how much I've contributed to Misplaced Pages- including adding Chinese content to a host of town, geography, gold rush and other pages. And I provide online historical resources and other Misplaced Pages articles for him to read and pointers on which regional histories and town histories have material on the Chinese (all ignored by the ivory tower, unless looking for something to slam or misrepresent), and more. | |||
| ::And what does he do? Start an ANI without telling me? - after being imperious and AGF once ''again'' (for the 40th time) and demanding page-cites for talkpage statemetns; anal beyond belief IMO. {{ping|Themightyquill}} has told him, despite my point-blank "tone", that I so know my stuff, as would many others. I'm not a liar or fabricator, which is the gist of his responses to me on so many pages, and is also implicit in this OR-ANI, and re that I commented that he's getting ''so bad'' about this that it was getting to be ANI-time and this isn't the board I mean. In fact, ''this whole discussion is an NPA attack'' impugning my honesty, my knowledge of the field (widely respected by many in Misplaced Pages and on news/zine forums aplenty), and waging procedural war on me is all personal attack, and then some. He doesn't OWN this article, he'a a neophyte in BC history and ''doesn't know the field'' and he's presuming to claim OR ''even for talkpage mentions'' when he hasn't even got his own feet wet in much more about BC than the narrow and biased lens of ethno-history and ''nothing else''. | |||
| ::It's hot, I've gotta get out of my room; I've spent another hour responding to this,and really should tot up the number of hours in the last few months dealing with WMT' insulting stubborn-ness. He should read, not lecture somebody has - even lecturing me on how to deal with photocopies of copyrighted material - and learn to respect those who know more than him; and instead of that, demand footnotes, as per the bit from ] about ''exactly his behaviour/attitude'', and in so many words. | |||
| ::This ANI is out of order, and is part of a broader AGF/NPA towards me that I think should get disciplinary treatment against him....but I've spent too many hours on all this already. I know the material; he doesn't...and apparently would rather wiki-war than learn.] (]) 08:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' '' I want feedback immediately''. Your lack of patience and demanding nature are in every discussion you've launched; the world does not revolve around you; you are are hasty and rude - yet seem to revel in wasting the time of others...on demand and "I want it NOW".] (]) 08:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::1. . 2. This isn't ANI. ] (]) 08:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **I never saw it, and gee, could it be that you tucked it in between posts from December 27 and December 30, and not at the bottom of the page where it's supposed to go? Could that be why hm? And did you or did you not notice that I was in a life-crisis as I'd told you on repeated posts (eviction and destitution in a foreign country, you've never been there, so don't judge)? I really don't think you wanted me to know or you would have put it at the bottom of the page per normal usertalkpage conduct; I got other "you have messages" that same day, your hidden notice was far up the page, out of sight of the newer posts I ''did'' see; I found out about it indirectly only by looking at your usercontributions; my, you're a busy boy, huh? You're so anal about cites and guidelines, why so sloppy with an important notification of this kind? Never mind, your lack of AGF towards me is rank and continues to be; and you don't pay attention....'''''how many times have I told you I DID own Morton?''''' and sold it before leaving BC in '07, and I've told you where you can order it from so you can look up the friggin' page numbers ''yourself'' - though for things I say on the talkpage about what's in it, I sneer at those '''''demands''''' which aren't in any guideline; nor is your claim that cites without page numbers will be deleted; that's just control freakery and it's not collaborative; {{ping|User:Moonriddengirl}} I see there's been yet more speculative interpretations/interpolations here since I last logged in; my internet has been off the last day and a half, and power all day yesterday. the imperiousness and impatience of this individual, and his ongoing attacks on my credibility and honesty, are beyond the pale of acceptable conduct. Until he is told to respect me and ''believe me'' when I tell him something is in a given source, or given events happen, he will continue to snot his nose at me as he continues to do; that bit with the notification is very snakey, it's not normal practice to hide such a notification like that? How can somebody so particular about the nit-pickieset things re guidelines and cites be so ''sloppy''? Deliberately, IMO, is how.] (]) 08:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' {{ping|User:Moonriddengirl}} in your exegesis above you interpret/assert that me calling him "ill-informed" is an NPA. ''THAT'' is yet more ]; NPA is for things like calling someone a turkey or bozo or stupid; "ill-informed" is a statement of FACT: "he doesn't know the material".....but man he likes to posit ORs about it and denounces me for telling him about things he doesn't know about yet, or just doesn't want to give credence to because it flies in the face of what he thinks he knows from his choice of sources. Tell him to go buy Morton and get teh page cites; dammit he should read it, he might learn something about what he doesn't know; god forbid. This OR/ANI continues to be, imo, a personal attack and against good faith ''in extremis'' and he continues to use this as yet another discussion-board platform to post his arguments, over and over and over, as he has done in 20 other places. He seems to have all t he time in the world to write thse manifestos and commentaries. I don't have time to reply to all the bullshit he's posted above since I last logged in; as a matter of fact I won't read it, he's talking into his own megaphone and I have, yes, a life-crisis underway. I tell him where sources are, what's in them, what else he could investigate, provided links of all kinds to other kinds of content his sino-biased modernist sources say and what they don't say; or what tyhey say that's WRONG> "Unreliable sources" is a big problem in history, likewise in news/events coverage; he's wallowing in them, IMO, and being openly hostile to anything that differs from what they say; his comment rationalizing Digital Collections as a "government site" is just more ill-informedness; Digital Collections' content is not "sanctioned" by the federal government and is ''not'' "patrolled" or fact-checked; only funded and hosted, that's it. Same with Living Lansdscapes and similar govermment-funded sites; there is no political/editorial control of Digital collections...more's the pity, because they get their facts wrong quite regularly...as does the Canadian Encyclopedia (see above about "unreliable sources"). | |||
| :As for the ] matter, folks I'm in contact with in Lillooet have copies of the local histories (Harris, Edwards, Green, Cunningham) with passages about him, and likewise about the Chinese; I'll ask my friend who is the curator of the Lillooet Museum to look page-numbers up for me; my own digital copies are on a portable hard drive that crashed Xmas Eve; ''SHE'' knows I know what I'm talking about; in Lillooet I'm a respected local historian and geogrpahic commentator; to this ] in Texas I'm not to be believed, and am conducting "original research" as if I'm a liar. ''''''WHICH I AM *N*O*T*'''''. No doubt he'll go to that article next and put his obsessive page-cite tags on it; nobody else has had a problem with book cites there or on dozens of other pages; a book cite is valid, his extrapolation of what he claims WP:V/WP:RS say is just more SYNTH on his part, as analyzed previously above.As with many things he says in response, despite his BA and native-speaker status he seems to have comprehension problems and oh yeah logical shortcomings and then some. Somebody dress him down, I'm tired of this ongoing bullshit; he is not contributing to the article with this conduct, or this OR; he is being destructive/obstructionist and ''not constructive'' and seems intent on attacking me and anything I say. I wasted all day the other day replying to his ongoing b.s. and personal attacks/insinuations; more will come no doubt, but I have an income to find so I can see a doctor and pay my rent/eat; not everybody lives in dorms or with their parents. I can't believe he's an admin, frankly, and IMO has taken that petty badge of minor authority to presume to Supreme Judge and Executioner and Head Wiki-Honcho. {{ping:User:DocumentError}} I'll write you privately to lay out what i see is wrong with teh article, as there's no point in doing it "in front of him" as he'll write ''another'' "100 page treatise, with footnotes, telling me why I am wrong" (paraphrasing ]). If you can't win with simple discussion, baffle 'em with bullshit; it's the oldest game in the book - in academia even more than in politics or bureaucracy. | |||
| :The article's drift under his direction is pointedly POV and he's hostile to anything in the way of that, that's very clear by now. I did briefly note some comment about Morton above; and yet another query about "do I own the book?" when I've told him ''six times'' I haven't though I did; I also dont' own ''Early Vancouver'' (Maj. Mathews) or ''Vancouver:From Milltown to Metropolis'' (Alan Morley) and a whole bunch of other things I once had anymore; all things he should have read ''before'' presuming to take charge of a very important side of BC history/society; instead of being a complete ] about someone telling him about things in other sources; see ] which is about someone else, but fits him, like the Bo Yang quote, to a 't'. He's not an authority on BC history, nor even on its historiography. It's ''so ironic'' that HE brought this to this board, as his ongoing behaviour is ''building a thesis'' based on his spotty and selective readings of biased sources; anything in teh way of that thesis/SYNTH (which for now happens to be me) he's clearly hostile to and suspicious of; credulous on hte one hand about nearly any piece of bunk from his ethno-sources, and suspicious and hostile towards any possible source or person that might dispute that bunk and/or bias. Enough already. If this kind of behaviour is what comes out of colleges these days - maniacal on cites and formats and rules, but parroting content without any COMMONSENSE.... or any courtesy towards those who dispute what he ''thinks'' he knows. Again, I'm not the problem here; his original research and imperious AGF/NPA toward me ''are''. And again, he's spent time here working on his attacks against me, instead of using the sources I linked for use on the article which I compiled while y'all were here talking about me.....that hidden-notification business stinks, something's rotten there IMO. Not normal; but then none of his behaviour is, even by wikipedia standards; I'm really quite nonplussed that you give him the kid-glove treatment about his AGF/NPA towards me....especially considering you're so sensitive about NPA as to describe "ill-informed" as a "personal attack". I'm going to de-watchlist this now, he's just going to keep on fluffing it on his ongoing ego-trip and his interpretations of sources= on going SYNTH. If there are no edits by him using the online resources I provided before he posts his next huge post/OR ramble here or on another page, you have your answer; he's more interested/active in being a talkpage/discussion board prof-pontificator than in actually learning about the subject or being collaborative in any way or, in fact, even using available sources to improve the article when provided by me...instead continuing his attacks/SYNTHing; actions speak louder than words, and I don't see any constructive action from him here, or on the article. Get it?] (]) 09:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::], I have no exegesis on this page. You should be careful to keep these conversations separate. This is ], not ]. I will not address the behavioral issues I have here, but ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::As explained on my talkpage, I had the two discussions confused; I thought that bit was in your exegesis that led this discussion off; this whole discussion continues to have behavioural problems coming from him; other than t hat, this is really a NPOV board issue, as his agenda is clearly POV and he's clearly hostile to any input which disputes his soapboxing and POVitis.] (]) 05:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : {{comment}} Let's look at this edit: "." | |||
| :* It replaces "anyway but they were chased away from the polls by '''Whites'''." with "anyway but they were chased away from the polls by '''supporters of ], a rival candidate who was to become the city's second mayor.'''" | |||
| :* The references were not changed. No new references were introduced. That means that is still the cited source. | |||
| :* I took a look at . The name "Oppenheimer" is not mentioned. The page's title is "Our First Civic Election for Whites Only". The page recollection states "The white men shouted at the Chinamen and the Chinamen turned and ran." The name Oppenheimer does ''not '' appear and the page does not identify those men as supporters of David Oppenheimer. | |||
| :* . is still cited. '' does not directly support the cited sentence''. ] says: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that ''directly supports the material''." (my emphasis added) If a new source was added to support the new material, this would be okay. | |||
| : This is why I wanted clarification through the OR board as soon as possible. I believing editing needs to reflect what the sources actually say and if this is important to Misplaced Pages (and I believe it is) it needs to be made clear by the whole community. | |||
| : ] (]) 03:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::What I think needs making clear to YOU is that your AGF behaviour and board warring about things you haven't any clue about is disruptive and not collaborative in any way; And as for you little incantation of WP:V there, that's for ''QUOTES'' and not general mentions of sourced books; it's also ''NOT RELEVANT'' for talkpage discussions. You are extrapolating and rule-mongering/instruction-creeping ''in extremis'', and have spent vast efforts here trying to quibble on points, making claims about guidelines by distorting them as you have just done here. I have showed your diatribes to a well-known author, in fact a source, who happens also to hav a Misplaced Pages account; he's compiling some sources relevant to all this, and for my part I'm writing people in Lillooet who have various books; and will get someone in Vancouver or thereabouts to go to the local library and get your page-cites for Morton; but I'm not ''QUOTING'' Morton, I'm only explaining in the talkpages what is in the book; which your negative-reviewers you have found ''don't do''. Your imperious and deletionist attitude is more than tiresome; it is un-Wikipedian. And gee, for all your efforts here, you have ignored all the cites I located on nosracines.ca and Living Landscapes for ''you to read and use''. You are more interested in defaming me and censoring the article to fit your POV than you are in actually working on the article, that much is very clear by now; all you've done is applaud someone else on that talkpage for mis-stating my position; which is fine with you, because that's what you do, TOO. That your article is POV fork whose contents are at odds with a dozen or so other articles with related content you are oblivious too, or just don't give a damn about huh? Why are you spending so much effort here and not on using sources presented for you to ''LEARN FROM AND USE''?? Never mind, I know the answer; you are sole author of that article, or trying to be, and want to get rid of me and will ignore and challenge everything I say so you can use it as a ethno-politics soapbox. There are two or more sides to one story; you want to muzzle and delete the other side. Time for you to take a modesty pill, ''apologize'' for being such a %@Q%@% about this business about page-cites and '''''STOP''''' claiming guidelines say what they don't say, but you'd like them to. page-cites are, per t he quote you just gave, are when '''QUOTES''' might be challenged; I have made no quotes from Morton or Harris or Green or anyone else, neither on the article ''NOR'' on teh talkpage. Get a grip on your ego and your POV; you are not furthering consensus or collaboration at all with this ongoing conduct. Have you looked at ''even one'' of the many source-cites I came up with while you were ranting ''and repeating yourself here''? I highly doubt it, you have clear biases in terms of what you will accept as sources; pretty arrogant for a guy who didn't know anything about BC at all a few months ago.....] (]) 05:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::" And as for you little incantation of WP:V there, that's for ''QUOTES'' and not general mentions of sourced books;" - That is ''not correct''. That applies to ''anything likely to be challenged'' and that includes non-quotes. | |||
| :::*]: Attribute all quotations '''and any material challenged or likely to be challenged''' to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." - As you can see, the edit in question did not reflect the source. I am challenging it. Anything not obvious is very likely to be challenged. | |||
| :::Misplaced Pages's job is to serve the readers. Readers may be skeptical of what we editors put in. Our job is to help the readers ''verify'' what we write, and it's important to show them where we get our information. If we didn't put in specific citations and just said "Oh we heard it from our neighbor" I don't think our readers will be satisfied. Our readers won't accept ''because I know the material'' when they say "I can't find it in the book". They will accept "see this material in the book." | |||
| :::Even if we don't consider what the policy says, I think it's clear that ''having exact page cites is the best practice'' and I don't think it's helpful to challenge that. | |||
| :::] (]) 05:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In ideal circumstances, yes, but challenging everything a long-time editor known for his historical expertise inside and outside Misplaced Pages because you ] so persistently and obstinately, and frankly, very rudely, is not helpful nor constructive ''in any way''. That you have never heard of something but someone else tells you about it is no reason to come crying to a discussion board to seek redress and make ''yet more lengthy and repetitive posts with bad logic'' and your claims about what a guideline says (when it doesn't) is disruptive and pointless; you are impatient, and behaving ignorantly; and readers don't read talkpages discussions. Your notion that "I don't think it's helpful to challenge that" is just more rule-mongering and instruction creep; the ''guideline'' (that's not a "policy", another of your ongoing distortions) is ''ONLY ABOUT QUOTES''. Native speaker or not, I think your reading comprehension skills are even worse than your manners, and even worse than your faulty logics/claims. You are not the boss, and what ''you'' think the guidelines ''should mean'' when they don't say what you want is completely irrelevant; in fact, it's OR about the guidelines, which makes you bringing this here all the more bitterly ironic.] (]) 05:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Every editor, new or longtime, should be held to the same standards and uphold the same standards. Also, on those talk page discussions were trying to determine article ''scope'' and ''content'' and in those cases it's necessary to consult sources. When there is a challenge to material within the article, and this challenge is occurring on the talk page, it's necessary to bring up sources and what they say. Curious article readers can and do read talk pages. They are an open book. So do researchers, politicians, and who knows who else. ] (]) 05:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You mean maybe the author who's watching all this and thinks you'er full of it huh? Again, to repeat what you do not wish to acknowledge, as with so much else, the guideline (which is ''NOT'' a "policy") says ''nothing about talkpage discussions'' and does ''NOT'' apply to anything other than QUOTES. If you want to rewrite the guideline, you're gonna have to do it via consensus; and you will be opposed, and not just by me; go work with those cites I came up with, and start ''reading'' instead of pontificating about what YOU think the guidelines mean. You are not the boss, but you sure are behaving as if you were Supreme Inquisitor. Your hostility towards anything that doesn't match your POV/thesis is very obvious, and you spend more time arguing your non-case than you do reading sources provided; "who knows who else" might read the talkpage is a good point; and your obstinacy and hostility are on full display and on the public record; you are not being contructive, you are being obstructive and contrarian and ''disruptive'', and THAT ''is'' a policy, not a guideline.] (]) 05:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' re your comment ''"he wrote "How do I know they're biased? I'm from BC and know the scope of its history and have watched this trend in academia unfold in recent decades." That certainly sounds like OR to me. "'', OR applies to articles only, does it not? Or are all talkpage discussions governed by this much-abused guideline? Commenting on the bias of sources based on my considerable experience of them is fair game on a talkpage in my books, and IMO <s>]</s> ] needs to be written for "unreliable sources" ("bad sources") that contain wrong information or which are POVB/bias-driven; all too often they're academic, and at odds with the facts of ''real history''.] (]) 05:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Oh, that acronym is taken to, seems like that passage about questionable sources needs amending re opinion/POV-flavoured academic papers and not a few newspapers and media outlets.] (]) 06:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{comment}} Again, using page cites to back up evidence and prove your point is the best practice. Please stop fighting me on that matter. I have two pieces of evidence. | |||
| *1. ] - A Chinese editor interested in translating ] into Mandarin found chapter cites instead of page cites made it clear that the Chinese Misplaced Pages wanted page cites: "They also prefer to have the exact page number for the footnotes on the Chinese site, and I do not have full access to Crouch's chapters, so WhisperToMe you may need to do it for me :P." - I used Google books and gave them their page cites. | |||
| *2. ] - It was a very long, strenuous effort, but thanks to ''page cites'' a bunch of Wikipedians all over the globe (Mexico, Colombia, Japan, USA, etc.) saved this article ] from deletion. When an editor asked me to hunt down a master's thesis to help prove the notability, I went on ] and a student at the ] gave me the relevant pages of the master's thesis and that one thing ''rescued'' the article (I shared copies with the other editors). I thanked him by giving him ''Reddit Gold'' and he deserved it 1000 times over! Saying "I am an expert in Japan and I know my stuff" would have been ''completely ineffective''. I needed hard evidence, and it's the hard evidence that saved the article and it's the hard evidence that is now the heart of this beautiful article on Japanese culture and society in Mexico. | |||
| ] (]) 16:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Reply''' why don't you get a grip on your ego and backtrack from setting yourself up as Supreme Inquisitor and Executioner and stop being so goddamned arrogant about ''you'' "saving an article. Your demanding page-cites for ''talkpage'' mentions of events and issues you don't know anything about and are behaving extremely pushily and arrogant about; ''that's not called for by the guideline you are claiming is a "policy"'' even though you clearly want every item anywhere to page-cited ''even though you have no intention of ever seeing the book yourself''. In fact, once I get someone from back home who has the book(s) and provide the page-cites, your AGF behaviour/attitude towards me will no doubt cause you to claim that I'm making up the page-cites. '''''BACK OFF''''' Not everybody in the world operates on your time-frame and this is a ''consensus'' environment, ''not one where you are the boss'' like you are presuming yourself to be. Give it a rest on this supposed OR campaign, which to me is just procedural warfare on your part, as you don't like the message that I carry and have ''tried to educate you about''. Get using those nosracines.ca site and the Living Landscapes bit; you'll find more on community histories on the many community museum/archive/history pages out there, which from what I can tell you haven't done piffle to try to find; ] is sending me Dan Marshall's Thesis ''Claiming the Land'', which he has access too, and is researching various sources and books to rebut various things you have thrown up baldly and without content and with much disputability on the article; and folks in Lillooet who have the local histories don't operate on WhisperToMe's imperious and haughty timeline ''either''. Your behaviour and sophistry just gets deeper and deeper and uglier and uglier, and you haven't lifted a finger to use all the cites I compiled while you were busy making your over-long and off-base complaints/distortions about me. ''Do you understand the meaning of cooperation''? No, apparently not, as Bo Yang also observed about your kind of behaviour. You have much to learn about BC history; and also abotu dealing with people in a manner other than a freshlyminted junior professsor with something to prove. Who cares if you've "saved" another article by using Reddit? I mean, really ''who cares''? It's just a brag, and has nothing to do with your ongiong ugly AGFness towards me. Either be patient or ''shut up and work with the cites/resources I've come up with while you're conducting procedural war against me. | |||
| :Intellectual flatulence, sophistry, and rule-happy wiki-copping arrogance and deletionism is all I see from you; did you even look at ''one'' f the nosracines pages? The City Directory pages? No, you were here shooting your mouth off about how great you are and how I can't be believed, despite being 59 years old and more educated about BC history and geography ''than you will ever be''. I'm also suffering frmo ill-health, your harassment and pressure are ''not helpful'' and you are supposing yourself some kind of 9th Dan Wiki-ninja with undeserved power over others. If you are not patient it's a syndrome of those who prefer to judge than to '''ACCEPT GOOD FAITH'''. You clearly have ''no respect for others'' or would never have behaved as you have towards me this last couple of months. Your aggressive demands for page-cites on ''talkpage mentions of sources that I recommend that you read'' are so off-base that it's beyong silliness; it's insanity. OCD or whatever. I repeat, the world, and the rest of Misplaced Pages, are ''not'' your subjects or employees, and your impatience with an older contributor who has told you he is in ill-health is really disturbing to see coming from someone who presumes to some kind of higher moral wiki-authority.] (]) 17:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|User:DocumentError}}, {{ping|User:Moonriddengirl}} you have both offered to mediate or arrange mediation; but this is impossible so long as he continues his unrelenting attacks and patronizing AGFs and shows no sign ''whatever'' of respect for anything I say, or for the real world beyond his bubble where people have bills to pay and time is in limited supply. He seems to have lots of money behind him to be able to spend so much time writing attacks against me, and making impatient time-demands for page-cites for talkpage mentions of books he's never heard of nor ever intends to read; if he starts deleting my talkpage commentaries because they're not page-cited that's beyond the pale of acceptable conduct; my time is not his to waste on his intellectual vanity and ongoing sophistries and specious logics and false claims of what guidelines demand. They do not; even not taking into account the Fifth Pillar ("there are no rules"). | |||
| ::He is not a cop, he is not a judge, and ''not'' a historian of BC, and ''doesn't know the material'' but sure as hell is being vicious about being demanding about it. This topic remains controversial in modern BC; it's a POV minefield and all sides of the story must be present, not just those of the modern-era "historians" bent on criticizing 'white' history in | |||
| BC and playing up the "victim" role for the Chinese; there's a lot of positive stuff about Chinese history in BC his sources don't even cover, probably don't even know or care about; this has taken up too much of my recent days, and the ANI plus this farce of an OR board onslaught is completely out of line; AGF is a central principle of wiki-etiquette; his behaviour is the opposite of that, unrelentingly and has always been an NPA campaign against me; mediation....mediation huh? How is that possibel when he continues writign and posting his diatribes against me and his endless impatient demands. | |||
| ::Tell him to back off and behave like a civilized person and realize that he doesn't own Misplaced Pages, he doesn't pay for my time or the time of those I've written to get those page cites, and he's not behaving ''according to guidelines''. Baiting me through ongoing condescension and patronizing sophistries like the most recent above is a fun game for him, no doubt; he's certainly avid about it ''and STILL hasn't looked at ''ANY'' of the mass of cites/sources I compiled for the article''. If he's able to spend all day slamming me about page-cites, he has the resources to be able to order the books; they're available online; he says he can't get interlibrary loan and ''why is that?''. Even as a non-student I can do tht from a Canadian public library or university library, for that matter. If it matters so much to him ''let him read the book for himself'' isntead of being such a @#%@#%# about what it says that he just doesn't want to admit belongs in the article; it does, I've read the book, he hasn't. That's not original research, that's a statement of fact.] (]) 18:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|User:AndyTheGrump}} Sorry to steal you from some other threads, but I notice you often comment on sourcing and reliability. | |||
| : If someone had read a book before, but sold it awhile ago and now doesn't have it and has no way of accessing it (and has not taken any photographs of the pages - in other words he/she does not know what content is on what page), is it okay for that person to then just remember what he/she had read and then cite the book without page numbers? | |||
| : If there is a content dispute or an article scope dispute, do you feel that it should come down to the texts in the sources (what the reliable sources say)? Or should it come down to personal knowledge/experiences? | |||
| : Would you say ] ''requires'' exact page cites when you are dealing with large books? | |||
| ] (]) 19:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Morton's not a large book. But you're even demanding page cites for local histories, and {{ping|User:AndyTheGrump}}, WMT is constantly trying to recruit support for his OR-type arguments about what WP:V means; he very pointedly didn't add "in talkpage discussions" about this little page-cite obsession/demandingness of his; where I just ''mention'' what's in sources he hasn't read and he "goes off" about page-cites and, to me, the reason is a POV and decidedly OWN agenda about "what he doesn't want in the article", which are events and stories that don't "fit" his own personal wiki-wide agenda of "ethnicity-by-city" articles on the one hand, and which confound the many gaffes and biased generalizations in his preferred type of post-modern academic references; he wants to keep material disputing what they say out of "his" articles. | |||
| ::I've tried to raise issues and information relevant to the article, and instead of listening and looking them up or acting in good faith towards me, he launches procedural warfare against me here (more than once); in the POV-fork situation re ] vs ], he uses OR arguments based on ''his'' selection of sources to assert that there is some kind of separation between the province-wide context and the "ethnicity-by-city" agenda of the latter; have a look at the ] by I don't know how many thousands of words; yet there is necessary overlap between the two; on the BC one he mentions three current MPs being in the House of Commons but doesn't name them, which I added last night; gee, they're all in "Greater Vancouver", how about that? Those need merging, but the other merge discussion was derailed by his voluminous OR/SYNTH arguments to the point where even the RfCs he recruited to try and find support against my COMMONSENSE couldn't figure out what was going on because of the massive tirades and cite-walls he spends massive amounts of energy on ''while not even trying to find the sources I mention'' and continues an ongoing procedural war against me here, and now at ANI. | |||
| ::]ing discussions, which he is doing here also, he spends more time on ''than working on the articles or treating another editor with expertise in the topic area with good faith as to what he raises as issues and sources''. His arguments that WP:V apply to talkpage comments and in fact to more than quoted passages, which is ''all'' WP:V calls for re page-cites, ''not'' book-titles for non-quotes, ''which it does not''. WP:V calls for page-cites ''only'' on quoted material that ''might'' be challenged; he challenges anything I say, would probably ask for a page-cite for a comment about the weather, in fact; that's not Good Faith, that's picayune info-war in defence of his castle; there are things he just doesn't want to know, it seems, and has threatened to delete things that don't have page-cites; by that he must mean my talkpage descriptions of events and sources that are not yet in "his" articles; which means he's talking about deleting my talkpage posts; and any even most general mention of some issue he rewords and conflates and challenges, as per ], a ] chief who drove off Chiense (and Italians) from his own personal gold-domain in the ] in teh 1870s; he's demanding a page-cite for a non-quote; there are four sources about that (I didn't name them all) and possibly more; but he turns around and demands citations that "First Nations had policies about the Chinese", without getting it that Hunter Jack was a one-man policy. | |||
| ::He also demands page-cites ''NOW'' and gets all heated about it, including bringing this here and going on about it for days and days and days, and researches people who have a history of AGF/NPA towards me to seek support; while ignoring advice from {{ping|Themightyquill}} that while my "tone" is not sufficiently passive, the points I raise I'm generally right about and should be listened to. Instead he continues this tirade about page-cites to the point of it constituting harassing me, and claims his reading of WP:V is "policy" (not a guideline); {{ping|User:Callanec}} I've been pondering pinging you as the latest phase of several weeks of NPA/AGF towards me by this user has now turned an attempt to Moonriddengirl to try and mediate or arrange mediation into an anti-Skookum1 slagfast at ANI, even going so far as to research others who have made NPA campaigns against me (and lost). This discussion-warring is all too reminiscent of the protracted problem re ] where you stepped in; his behaviour is not improving the encylopaedia in the slightest; his writing is awful, quite frankly, and pointillistically masses of bits of TRIVIA and UNDUE he finds to throw onto the pages bolster his very narrow-minded POV and ongoing SYNTH/OR arguments/agenda. The page-cite demands and false claims about what WP:V are hostile and contrarian and completely, completely, completely AGF, his behaviour utterly ] and his chosen content/sources POV. Yet he's an admin, for all of his constantly violating guidelines himself, and behaves as though that makes him a ''boss'' or some kind of authority empowered to reinterpret and extrapolate guidelines to suit himself, as here with WP:V. While advancing his own arguments as if factual and not ideologically selected and driven, he claims that me saying t hat I'm from BC and know of more events and sources that he should read is 'original research' (that was the focus of his last attack on me in another discussion here a month or so ago). | |||
| ::Informed expertise and local input is a norm in Misplaced Pages and always has been; he maintains me saying "I'm from BC and know what I'm talking about" is "original research"; he himself has never been there, and can't even get the geography right, much less realize when one of his preferred sources is ''wrong'' about somethign, which they often are. He is presuming to editorial authority on a very important aspect of BC history and society that has many difficult angles that needs discretion and ''informed input'' to winnow through the mass of academic diatribes and media distortions to make sure the article is NPOV and ''fair''. he's interested in neither, only in shaming me and demanding page-cites for things that ''don't require them''. Moonriddengirl calls our relationship/interaction "battlefield behaviour" = but he's the one conducting the battle and not putting down his weapons. Instead he goes trying to recruit others to assist him in attacking me.....] (]) 23:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have no intention whatsoever of wading through that wall of text. Please don't ping me again. ] (]) 23:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::He pinged you first, I just broke up my just-now post with paragraphs for readability; his walls of text have been going on for weeks here and on various other talkpges and discussion boards. Deluging discussion with lengthy OR arguments is par for the course for ''his'' behaviour, so it's ironic if that comment is only directed at me.] (]) 23:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Did US Republicans and Democrats swing left in the 2014 elections? == | |||
| At ], I contend that the sources at , , and indicate that both US Republicans and Democrats ran on a substantially further-left platform than they have in recent decades. Only one other editor responded, saying that the right-wing Democratic ] has shrunk from 54 congresspeople in 2008, to 26 in 2010, to 14 in 2012, to 9 in 2014. Would you please share your opinion as to whether the general assertion that both parties ran on more liberal platforms is reasonable to include in ]? ] (]) 00:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It might be okay to state it as an ''opinion'' of ''some'' commentators. However, it would probably run afoul of NPOV to state it as a ''fact''. For example, see , which says "Democrats predicted the incoming class of Republicans would push the House GOP further to the right." --] (]) 03:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that WP:NPOV would require including that along with the former opinions, and neither in Misplaced Pages's voice, with author attribution by name and affiliation in the article text. ] (]) 02:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Are these topics encyclopedic? == | |||
| I think some topics like the following are not encyclopedic per ]: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| They can at most be used as sub-sections of related articles. ] (]) 18:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :They all could be if you establish that there are secondary sources that write about them. You cannot for example put together an article based on Fox, CNN etc. reports about the war in Iraq and how you compare and contrast them, but if you have articles or books about the coverage then it could be used to prepare an article. ] (]) 03:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|The Four Deuces}} My point is that I think these are not free of ]. ] (]) 07:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you mean the articles rather than the topics? ] (]) 16:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I think we have to discuss them case by case. ] (]) 11:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I may easily be wrong but on a quick look though I think they all seem to have significant secondary sources discussing the media coverage, so if there are OR issues they would be within the articles themselves rather than just the topics. ] (]) 13:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's some context behind this question. The issue originally came up in discussion of a recently created article on ]. The discussion can be found at ] (the issue has also been raised at ]). ] (]) 16:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::They should be merged to original pages.(e.g. ] to ]). ] (]) 09:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In some cases there may be a size issue. For instance, the articles on the ] and the ] are both fairly lengthy. Splitting out subarticles on ] and ] helps control the length of the primary articles. ] (]) 20:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Dating Arba'een == | |||
| If we are unable to find any reliable sources for dating the day of ] in the Gregorian calendar, is it okay that we just add our own guesswork?--] (]) 21:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''': It is not "our own guess work" at all. What source are you seeking more reliable than people of the world. They hold the occasions in it's due time. Same is correct for any other occasions held by non-Muslims and even non-religious people, based on their culture. People are live calendars. ] (]) 00:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages bases content on published reliable sources. This is policy. ] (]) 16:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:29, 11 January 2025
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
| Welcome to the no original research noticeboard | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
|
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
| To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
| ||||||||||
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Edits to “Game Science”
Discussion regarding Game Science has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. I would appreciate your comment at Talk:Game Science#Interview-based edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Jackal (character)
The article Jackal (The Day of the Jackal) seems to consist almost entirely of OR. As of the most recent edit as I'm writing this, of the 10 references, 8 are to the original text, 1 is to an article about the movie, and only 1 article actually has any coverage of the character separate from the film/book (though even there it's not even the primary topic). I considered nominating it for deletion, but I paused as the article has existed since 2006. It's hard to differentiate coverage of the character from the film so I'm not sure what the relevant guidelines here would be and would appreciate any advice on how to proceed. This is purely speculative, but it's also possible that there may be some COI editing from the TV network given there is a new series out now about this character. An edit I made removing some content that was unsourced and pure OR speculation about the character was reverted by an IP with zero edits before that, which came across as very odd to me and reminiscent of confirmed cases of COI editing from studios I've seen previously on other film/TV articles. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's a guideline for writing about novel plots: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Novels#Plot. I interpret that section to allow Wikipedians to forthrightly describe/state the plot of a novel without citing that out to external sources (other than the novel itself). In other words, it's not considered to be WP:OR to do that. But you have to do it well (as described in that section). The plot summary in the Jackal (The Day of the Jackal) could use improvement (and a lot of shortening) but that's a separate issue from whether it is WP:OR. My two cents. Novellasyes (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- It definitely shouldn't be written like this, but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of articles with sourcing this bad. If OR is removed, then it's the responsibility of the person restoring it to provide a reliable source with it, so you're in the right to challenge their restoration. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Plot summaries are meant to be concise, at the moment this is anything but concise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
SYNTH-edits at Team Seas
There's an ongoing thread Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions on a contested edit to the article. The edit in question adds the reported amount of marine debris that enters the ocean from a 2015 study (years before Team Seas), and writes out the connection that This means that during the entire duration of the fundraiser, at least approximately 18,562,500,000 pounds (8,419,808,368 kg) of debris had entered the ocean (or about 61,875% more than what the fundraiser ended up removing).
There is clear consensus of a WP:SYNTH violation, as it's inferring a conclusion not explicitly mentioned by the source (that the fundraiser is futile in the grand scheme of things). However, the owning editor has repeatedly argued against the consensus that the others have not adequately shown that it falls under SYNTH, and is assuming bad-faith, stating others are WP:STONEWALLING any true discussion or being dishonest. Would someone mind reviewing the thread and giving their input? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- See also this recent discussion at ANI. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly SYNTH; also bludgeoning by this point. I've left this edit, which I hope will help resolve the situation. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
- When challenged provide a direct quote from the source that supports the (amended) proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I linked it, you can read it yourself." They have completely failed to comply with verifiability policy. The discussion has gone endlessly with multiple editors it's SYNTH and the editor responding "I disagree" with increasing patronization. As shown with the above linked ANI, the editor will not WP:DROPIT on their own accord, so would another party kindly review and potentially close the thread? ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly SYNTH; also bludgeoning by this point. I've left this edit, which I hope will help resolve the situation. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
Marxism–Leninism–Maoism
Curious to hear opinions about this from editors who are more versed in what "synthesis" is and isn't on Misplaced Pages. I thought I knew but reading WP:NOR from top to bottom I'm not sure anymore. More details on article talk page.Prezbo (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership
Editors are invited to comment at WT:WA § Excessive out-of-scope information and SYN on Esperance articles re traditional ownership on item (2) as to whether the statement that "Merivale are on the traditional land of the Njunga" is synthesis. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Third opinion welcome on whether content is original research
I'd like a third opinion as to whether content added by this edit falls under original research. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, I looked at it but did not see anything obvious, can you explain what makes you think it could be OR? Choucas Bleu 🐦⬛ 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article has changed a bit but for example this passage: In 1844, that land was transferred to Robert Hunt, who primarily used it tp harvest kauri gum deposits. is sourced to: there is no mention of the specific land that Hunt bought, nor mention of the land in question being Bayswater. It also contains no references to Kauri gum.
- The claim of the first ferry departure is sourced to this: which makes no claim of it being first and it is an advertisement.
- There are other examples but typically most of the claims go beyond what the source states and involve interpretation of them. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)