Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Extrapolation of information in source

As per this discussion here, 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.

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.

129.96.83.65 (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2014 (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? 121.45.16.201 (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to summarise the issue:

The article is about the Splashed White marking in horses. The disputed statement says "In the Gypsy horse, [the pattern Splashed White] 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".

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. 121.45.16.201 (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2014 (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) Montanabw^(talk) 05:38, 7 December 2014 (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. 14.2.24.179 (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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. Montanabw^(talk) 09:39, 7 December 2014 (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. 14.2.24.179 (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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? Montanabw^(talk) 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. Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

LOL. I'd say we've each made our case. Montanabw^(talk) 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. Jbhunley (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2014 (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 Splashed_white#Inheritance_and_prevalence. The controversial bit is in paragraph 4 but the little bit preceding it should give you the context. I think the concerns are addressed. Montanabw^(talk) 04:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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. JBH (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC) (JBH == jbhunley)

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. Montanabw^(talk) 00:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Can someone close this discussion? It's gone back to the article talk page and I think it is resolved there. Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Vani Hari

Resolved

 – OR removed, correct source supplied MLPainless (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has reversed (2x) my removal of SYN and OR here. 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. MLPainless (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm heading out for the night, but I'd encourage folks to read the talk page conversation[1], edit history, etc. There are other issues going on here, but in terms of original research it's pretty cut and dry under WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE 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. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You're "weighing what the appropriate sources are saying"? That is the very definition of OR. MLPainless (talk) 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. Kingofaces43 (talk) 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 WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE and especially WP:BLPFRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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? MLPainless (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:PSCI 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 WP:DR (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. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this looks like synthesis, but given that we can cite a source (entirely appropriate per WP:FRINGE) which gives the response of mainstream science to her claims regarding flu vaccination, such synthesis is unnecessary. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 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. Beach drifter (talk) 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. MLPainless (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Chronicles of Eri 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 Wikipedia 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,[10] 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. Dougweller, 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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk • contribs) 23:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia contributors couldn't conspire to make a cup of tea without splitting into at least three warring factions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to explain to the user on Dougweller's page about Wikipedia's principle of WP:NOR, but it doesn't seem to take. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age, you seem to be a better writer than reader. Please try to internalize our explanations of why Wikipedia isn't fit for your purpose. Bishonen | talk 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk • contribs) 06:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The version of the page most recently by you was edited because it violated Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, you will be obliged to do so in a way that complies with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 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.

"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. O'Connor, Roger

"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 (The 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. IrishBookofInvasons (talk) 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. IrishBookofInvasons (talk) 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. IrishBookofInvasons (talk) 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 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Chronicles_of_Eri 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' [linked by an earlier contributor] 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'. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no point whatsoever in you pursuing anything that does not involve compliance with the Wikipedia 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 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:

"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. IrishBookofInvasons (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. --Yaush (talk) 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. [The page now conceeds one of the six documented sources of the former page, but confuses it with another as is evident from the photographs on the former page, all others are simply written out of existence]. 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 here as someone later added a introductory paragraph claiming the chronicle was authentic- which appears to have largely provoked this problem. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

PS That link misses the second half of the origional which is here. 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. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Chief inspector, 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 Simple diff and link guide, it's short and easy. (Don't look at Help:Diff, whatever you do, it's long and baffling.) Bishonen | talk 15:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen, 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/w/index.php?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. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The only detailed study conducted into the chronicle was by a German LA Albert [nom de plumb] 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 Wikipedia 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 [a British Israelite] , 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. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia 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'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 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. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 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 Wikipedia reliability guidelines for assertions that the Chronicles of Eri are anything but a hoax perpetuated by Roger O'Connor' - are you still saying this? Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to 'elucidate' - it is a simple statement of fact. As is my statement that Wikipedia 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 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 page.

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. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
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? --Onefireuser (talk) 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 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? Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 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 Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for further explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 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! Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible for someone to move this to the talk page of 'chronicles of Eri'? Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't normal practice - I'll add a link to this discussion to the talk page though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 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 (National Library of Ireland) 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 (NLI). 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 this version, 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. Scolaire (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Albert Hermann may well be this man here, whose theories attracted Heinrich Himmler, and who corresponded with him. Not trying to prejudice the case, just thought I'd mention it. Scolaire (talk) 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 here 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.

Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 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 Wikipedia, 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 tendentious editing, with a view to getting you blocked from Wikipedia. The choice is entirely yours - you can comply with Wikipedia policy, like any other contributor, or you can take your 'persuasive evidence' and your silly conspiracy theories elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The terms what constitutes original research are set out: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia 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.

Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The key word in your quote from WP:NOR is "reliable". You said earlier that "the only detailed study conducted into the chronicle was by a German LA Albert [nom de plumb] 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, in the article, 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 Wikipedia 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. Scolaire (talk) 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.

Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it warrants academic re-evaluation, Wikipedia shouldn't reflect that but what the sources say. Dougweller (talk) 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. Scolaire (talk) 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. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 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. Scolaire (talk) 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? Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 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. Scolaire (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Watergate burglaries

Watergate burglaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Watergate burglaries was created on April 27, 2006 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 September 24, 2007. Any thoughts on where to begin? - Location (talk) 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: "The 'command post' room in the Watergate hotel had been rented by a person or persons unknown using counterfeit ID that the CIA had created and supplied to E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy about ten months earlier, on 23 July 1971 and 20 August 1971 respectively." This material reminds me of an unwritten book proposed by Ashton Gray to be called Watergate: The Hoax.

Huntley Troth had just experienced the deletion of another huge research project of his called Remote Viewing Timeline, which described how the CIA was using extra-sensory perception. Seeing that the article was about to be deleted, he added external links such as this to a handful of articles. The links brought the reader his own hosting of the material, archived here.

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. Binksternet (talk) 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 Watergate scandal 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! - Location (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I would delete per WP:BLOWITUP, 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. TFD (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the best fix. [3] Spumuq (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bastard Operator from Hell

In the article Bastard Operator from Hell 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. eeeeeta (η) (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The entire article raises issues of WP:OR and WP:NOTE. 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 (WP:NOTE) 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 WP:PRIMARY. --Onefireuser (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

And the sections were using same article tags, I have removed one of them from the section. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:03, 6 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. [4] After an original research series of edits it was a former political division in Syria. [5]. As in ended, former, now part of a new country (ISIL) and a new terrorist province gets an full article [6] 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 Wikipedia the first and only to recognize ISIL as a country with 2nd level divisions. What to do about this? Legacypac (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I checked the editions. The editor should be cautioned for his editions. Wikipedia is not a mean for propaganda and/or self promotion. Mhhossein (talk) 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 Wikipedia guidelines.GreyShark (dibra) 06:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, to put you in the picture I should say that based on your contributions unfortunately you seem a Single-purpose account who is not here to build an encyclopedia!! Mhhossein (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a single purpose account? Wow, you are certainly unaware whom you are talking to...GreyShark (dibra) 08:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

To whom? simply to an editor among millions of editors! Mhhossein (talk) 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.GreyShark (dibra) 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. Legacypac (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

What end of UN state? what country ran by terrorists are you talking about? Syrian Arab Republic?GreyShark (dibra) 08:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The article Wilayat al-Raqqa (ISIL) is a well sourced description of the self-proclaimed administrative division of a terrorist organization ISIL - this is sourced from

• Reuters "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."
• Al-Akhbar "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."
• The ISIS Threat: The Rise of the Islamic State and their Dangerous Potential "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 Wikipedia, 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.GreyShark (dibra) 08:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

[7] 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 Wikipedia 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 Scare quotes 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. Legacypac (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

See also this edit and related edits around it which say that that Syria and Iraq no longer have various provinces. Piping Iraq to Mesopotamia and Syria to Syria (region) when referring to the countries seems very POV and suggestive that the counties are no more and ISIL is a country. Legacypac (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

GreySharkI 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 Wikipedia 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 "... [[Mesopotamia|Iraq]] and [[Syria (region)|Syria]] ... 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. GregKaye 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 here). 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 Syria article is about the Syrian Arab Republic (controlling 40% of pre-2011 Syria) and Iraq 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.GreyShark (dibra) 19:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

GreyShark 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 Talk:Ansar Bait al-Maqdis? 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.

• (isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND "ISIL" AND "Sinai" gets "About 1,970 results" in news
• (isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("Wilayat" OR "Wilayah") AND "Sinai" gets "About 340 results" in News

I am mainly compiling these stats to add ref to Talk:Ansar Bait al-Maqdis. GregKaye 12:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Canadians in British Columbia

At Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#On_sourcing 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 Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#POV_b.s._reinserted.2C_I_see, and in Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#annoyingly_POV_edit_comment. 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 WP:Third opinion but based on the last post I feel that I want feedback immediately. I believe that Wikipedia 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? WhisperToMe (talk) 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, Skookum1 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. --Onefireuser (talk) 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"

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. Canadian government source with a section on White attitudes against Chinese, page from Yee book ( "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 this book review ("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. 17 and in the Canadian government page) - this is the topic in "POV b.s. reinserted, I see" WhisperToMe (talk) 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 Arthur Bunster 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 Carnarvon Terms 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.Skookum1 (talk) 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 this page of that site 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.Skookum1 (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Skookum, do you have any of these books in your possession? What page numbers say these things? WP:V clearly demands specific citation information. In regards to Morton, since these White-run newspapers may count as "primary sources" in this instance (Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources 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. WhisperToMe (talk) 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. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW#2 the Canadian government page was specifically an official Library and Archives Canada page written by Paul Yee (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. WhisperToMe (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 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 false balance. --Onefireuser (talk) 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). Palgrave Macmillan, December 24, 2012. ISBN 0230250173, 9780230250178. p. 147. "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. WhisperToMe (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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.Skookum1 (talk) 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. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources that were cited were this Canadian government source, Yee p. 10/p. 11/p. 20, Lim p. 18, and also Worden book review of In the Sea of Sterile Mountains). 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." (Cited to the Worden review p. 347: "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? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Get a grip. I did own the book (sold it to MacLeod's Books 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 Wikipedia 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 instruction creep.Skookum1 (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations: "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. WhisperToMe (talk) 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 From China to Canada, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 WP:OWN 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, Chinese in Vancouver. Chinatown, Vancouver, Golden Village (Richmond, British Columbia and Metrotown 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 Wikipedia- including adding Chinese content to a host of town, geography, gold rush and other pages. And I provide online historical resources and other Wikipedia 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. @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 Wikipedia 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 morw about BC than tne 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 Bo Yang 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.Skookum1 (talk) 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".Skookum1 (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

1. You were informed. 2. This isn't ANI. WhisperToMe (talk) 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; @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.Skookum1 (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Did US Republicans and Democrats swing left in the 2014 elections?

At Talk:Politics of the United States#Did Republicans and Democrats veer left in 2014?, I contend that the sources at [8], [9], and [10] 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 Blue Dog Coalition 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 Politics of the United States? EllenCT (talk) 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 this WSJ article, which says "Democrats predicted the incoming class of Republicans would push the House GOP further to the right." --Onefireuser (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NPOV would require including that along with the former opinions, and neither in Wikipedia's voice, with author attribution by name and affiliation in the article text. EllenCT (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Are these topics encyclopedic?

I think some topics like the following are not encyclopedic per WP:NOT#OR:

• Media coverage of the Iraq War
• Media representation of Hugo Chávez
• Media coverage of the Gulf War
• Media coverage of the Virginia Tech shooting
• Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict

They can at most be used as sub-sections of related articles. Mhhossein (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: My point is that I think these are not free of wp:or. Mhhossein (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean the articles rather than the topics? TFD (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Dating Arba'een

If we are unable to find any reliable sources for dating the day of Arba'een in the Gregorian calendar, is it okay that we just add our own guesswork?[11]--Anders Feder (talk) 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 and any other occasions held by non-Muslims and even non-religious people, based on their culture. People are live calendars, although. Mhhossein (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)