Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:56, 4 January 2015

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. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcuts WP:NORN WP:NOR/N WP:ORN WP:OR/N 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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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 Misplaced Pages. 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Vani Hari

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, 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. 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 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. 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

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... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to explain to the user on Dougweller's page about Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 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. 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' 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 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. 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 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. --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. . 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/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. 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 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 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. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 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'. 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 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? 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 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. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 tendentious editing, 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. 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 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.

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 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 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. 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, Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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? Legacypac (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I checked the editions. The editor should be cautioned for his editions. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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.GreyShark (dibra) 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 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 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 "... ] and ] ... 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages demands page citations and specific information to back up what you say and that this needs to be clarified ASAP. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution