User:Smalljim/Pages I have tagged with OR

I've created this temporary page to keep track of tagged pages per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#User will not understand original research (long page! – relevant part copypasted below for ease of reference). —SMALL JIM 12:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Tagged pages

These have been tagged with {{Original research}} to alert readers to likely problems. Maybe I'll get round to cleaning them up one day.

Pages now cleaned up

Most of these were cleaned up by User:CaroleHenson who was working through the articles.

Abbots Bickington - Annery, Monkleigh - Arthur Porter (MP) - Aust - Beam, Great Torrington - Bicton House, Devon - Dick Turpin (racehorse) - Heanton Satchville, Petrockstowe - House of Braose (thanks Dougatwiki!) - HMS Stevenstone (L16) - John Dennys - John Giffard (1602–1665) - John St. Leger - Joseph Watson, 1st Baron Manton - Mark Rolle - Mary Palmer - Monkleigh - Monumental brasses of Gloucestershire - Newport Castle - Petrockstowe - Robert Walpole - Siston - The Secrets of Angling - Thomas Denys - Treasurer of Calais -

Some later work

John Northcote (1570–1632) - Manor - Powderham Castle - Sir Arthur Northcote, 2nd Baronet -

Other pages to check

A decision is needed on these as to what is the best action to take (tag with {{Original research}}, immediate cleanup, or pass as OK).

Barons' Letter, 1301 - Boringdon Hall - Bradfield House - Brightley, Chittlehampton - Candleston Castle - Castle Hill, Filleigh - Denys family - Devon heraldry - Earl Tylney - Endsleigh Cottage - English feudal barony - Feudal barony of Barnstaple - Feudalism in England - Forde House - George Rolle - Gilbert Denys - Gorges family - Henry Dennis (sheriff) - Holcombe Burnell - Holcombe Court - Honour of Peverel - Hugh Boscawen - Hugh Courtenay (d.1471) - Hugh Denys - Hugh Fortescue - Huish, Devon - Irish feudal barony - James Boevey - Jessant-de-lys - John Chichester (d.1569) - John Rolle Walter - John Russell, 1st Earl of Bedford - John Russell (knight) - John Wyndham (knight) - Kingston Russell - List of licences to crenellate - Livery Dole - Manor of Berry Pomeroy - Manor of Combe Martin - Manor of King's Nympton - Manor of Monkleigh - Manor of North Molton - Manor of Siston - Margaret Rolle, 15th Baroness Clinton - Maurice Denys (Sheriff) - Maurice Russell, knight - Mulgrave Castle - New Shute House - North Cadbury - Pell Office - Peter Courtenay (d.1405) - Peter Rouw - Philip Courtenay - Plympton - Return of Owners of Land, 1873 - Rhys Mechyll - Richard Berkeley (died 1604) - Richard Child, 1st Earl Tylney - Richard Duke (d.1572) - Richard Fortescue - Robert Knight, 1st Earl of Catherlough - Robert Rolle (d.1710) - Rolle Canal - Rosemoor Garden - Samuel Rolle (1669–1735) - Sheen Priory - Sherfield on Loddon - Sir Amyas Pollard, 3rd Baronet - Sir Baynham Throckmorton, 2nd Baronet - Sir Francis Throckmorton, 2nd Baronet - Sir John Chichester, 4th Baronet - Sir Robert Throckmorton, 1st Baronet - Stowe, Kilkhampton - Tackley - Thomas Baynham - Thomas Canynges - Thomas de Courtenay, 5th Earl of Devon - Turstin FitzRolf - Twelve Knights of Glamorgan - Umberleigh Chapel - Warbelton v. Gorges - Weare Giffard - Whiteway House - William Courtenay (d.1535) - William de Botreaux, 1st Baron Botreaux - William de Botreaux, 2nd Baron Botreaux - William de Botreaux, 3rd Baron Botreaux - William de Falaise - William Denys - William Hankford - William Peverel - William Pole (d.1587) - William Russell (knight)

AN/I postings

(Copypasted from WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#User will not understand original research)

Archived AN/I postings

Lobsterthermidor has declared his retirement from WP as of 13:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC) —SMALL JIM 18:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Could we have some OR-experienced eyes over at Talk:Manor of Molland, please? Lobsterthermidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I have reached a clear impasse there, and one of us must be completely in the wrong. Either he has been adding original research to many articles for a year or more, or I am obsessing about nothing at all. I'm asking here, rather than taking the dispute resolution route, because if I'm right he ought to be stopped quickly before he can damage WP any further. That he does not understand the significance of OR is indicated by this statement he made on 3 July: "I am acutely aware of the problem of OR, which is why I have been studying the WP guidelines on how to make citations."[1]

The discussion that led up to the impasse is on CaroleHenson's talk page here, though that was just the latest round of discussions that have taken place on several talk pages from earlier in June. Other relevant messages were posted on his talk page, from this one of 21 June onwards.

Other problems include incivility (some of which I summarised in para 2 here), and less importantly his failure to provide clear references (see 2nd collapsed list here, for example) and non-compliance with WP:MOS. I can provide more examples etc., if requested. Thanks, —SMALL JIM 21:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of removal or flagging of OR that was added by Lobsterthermidor: [2], [3], [4], [5] (see under Tardrew), [6] (removal by Lobsterthermidor), [7] (see bottom), [8], [9] (interpretation of primary source), [10]. —SMALL JIM 23:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"I am acutely aware of the problem of OR, which is why I have been studying the WP guidelines on how to make citations" the purpose of which was so that I could add proper in-line citations to provide sources for text tagged OR! The context of that comment was during a very recent whirlwind series of edits to an article created by me (Annery, Monkleigh) by a third editor (auto-confirmed user) who changed all my citation styles to one preferred by her and gave me the impression that I had to follow that style. That I was determined to do, relying on her experience and authority, hence I decided to make no more edits, including supplying sources to OR tags, until I had learned the new style. (See my talk page 29 June 2013: "Thanks Carole, I think you'll like my citations better in future. It was a bit of a rough lesson, but if that's how it's got to be done, I'm willing to do it"). During that self re-education process, I learned to my surprise that I was perfectly OK to use my existing cite style (which doesn't use cite templates) per WP:CITEVAR.

There is no question as to my great goodwill to every aspect of the WP project or of my total good faith. To read that I am accused of "damaging WP" is a great surprise to me and wholly inaccurate. I think the good quality of any article I have created will support that. I don't claim any is perfect or error free, but I'm proud of all my work contributed and believe it improves Wikipedia.

I would estimate that over 95% of all my challenges in 3 years editing have come from this one editor above, (as my archived talk page will evidence) whose demands for sources are becoming in my opinion increasingly unreasonable, obsessive and hysterical. My article contributed on Manor of Molland already had over 100 line-refs provided and is well sourced, albeit not perfect. I'm trying to improve it and my other articles all the time. Why is no one else demanding sources from me all the time? Where are the OR and cn tags on all my other articles contributed which this editor hasn't critically reviewed? I draw the conclusion from lack of cn tags elsewhere that the community and readers are generally happy with my work.

See the latest exchanges on Talk:Manor of Molland between this editor and myself. Even when I have supplied a clear-cut source, most recently for example the simple and totally non-controversial fact stated by me in Manor of Molland "that the estate of Wonwell was in the parish of Kingston, Devon", (I replied: "My source given was Risdon, p. 182, which under the paragraph heading "KINGSTON" (in capitals), states 8 lines below "In this parish is Wonwell") he continues to challenge this simple point to an absurd quasi-forensic level. I have expressed my opinion to him on that article's talk page - in the most civil terms - that his behaviour has become unreasonable and is in my opinion bordering on the obsessive and that I will not be drawn into endless argument about a challenge I have sourced to the standard required by a reasonable person. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC))

Staying on topic of original research: I have yet to see sources provided where there are questions of original research or uncited information.

There seems to be a new tactic to cover up original research / uncited information of Prust family members by putting in notes instead of true citations, which makes it look on the surface that there's a citation: fifth paragraph of the Coffin section. I had researched Hugh Prust for the Annery, Monkleigh article to address the original research tag and not found sources for Hugh Prust at [11]--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I am confident that the matter can be resolved by reference to the will of Hugh Prust, which should qualify as a source under publicly available archival material in WP:Verify (in footnote 6). This is a source I am aware of, thus not OR, but which is difficult to obtain. I will order it by credit card and share the results with you. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

Will now consulted [12] and does not support my text. I was in error to mention Hugh Prust (d.1651) as "of Annery", I should have mentioned instead his brother Joseph Prust (d.1677) of Annery, where this fact is clearly stated on a verifiable source, namely his ledger stone in the Annery Chapel of Monkleigh Church, which I have myself transcribed as follows: "Here lieth interred Joseph Prust of Annerie gent...obiit (he died) Oct 1677...". I am able and willing to supply a photograph of this ledger-stone with inscription in evidence if required. This was careless with regard to proper sourcing, and would thus qualify as OR. I regret this error of mine and any similar I might have made in not following with adequate care WP guidelines in this area. I undertake to continue my editing activity with much greater regard to meeting this OR guideline. I trust this matter may now be adjudicated. Many thanks, and my apologies to the wider Wikipedia community for any breaches I have made. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

At this late stage let me try a different tack, Lobsterthermidor, because I still can't see that you understand. I hope you'll listen to me in this venue, because if I'm wrong I will be quickly corrected.

As the OR policy (not guideline) states in its nutshell: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."

So the error you mention above regarding Hugh Prust is indeed technically OR, because there was no reliable, published source for it; but is of the very simplest sort – a mere mistake. OR goes far beyond this. It covers matters such as:

making comments on sources: [13] (in reference), [14]
personal observation: [15] (at bottom), [16]
drawing inferences that the source does not state: example 4 on Talk:Manor of Molland and here under Tardrew
interpretation of primary sources: [17]
the expansion of text in an inscription: [18]
and the addition of content that looks as if it's part of the source, but which is not: [19] (I've seen more examples of this, but can't locate at present).

This last example is potentially the worst because it also misrepresents the source and can mislead readers who don't (or can't) check.

Even if all of these additions are valid and correct, we cannot include them because WP does not publish material for which there is no reliable source.

Does that make it any clearer? —SMALL JIM 13:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have studied all your comments and the links given above and I fully understand the points you have made concerning OR. It does indeed make it very clear. I would like to confirm again that I regret these errors of mine I have made in not following with adequate care and attention the WP policy on OR. I undertake to continue my editing activity with very great regard to ensuring my full compliance with the OR policy. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

A quick comment. From what I've seen of Lobster's editing, I think he's making good faith edits. He clearly researches deeply into the topics concerned, cares passionately about the topics he edits and I'm strongly inclined to assume good faith in terms of any mistakes. I would urge him, though, to pay very close attention to the policies on OR, whether in terms of interpretation, speculation and use of primary sources; I can well understand the frustrations of others who are faced with checking the details of his edits! It would be a real shame to lose a committed and well-informed editor, but I can see that happening unless more care is taken on the OR front. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be great progress - and I've seen a bit of good work on resolving a couple of uncited sentences for Talk:Manor of Monkleigh. Since there's acknowledgement that WP is not a forum for original research, and the need for reliable published sources, does it make sense to identify a couple issues to start with to tackle open issues from the Talk:Manor of Molland#There are still problems page/section?--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, Carole. As I've pointed out, they are individually not very significant issues. I'll amend them and trust that Lt will agree with the (minor) changes. —SMALL JIM 19:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

Thanks for that, Lobsterthermidor. On the basis of what you say, and in agreement with Hchc2009's remarks, I'm happy to leave this section to be archived now, even though we've had no true third party input. After archiving, I'll tag the pages with {{Original research}} (per this), add a brief talk page message pointing here (as it provides a good summary) and for ease of reference, will keep a temporary list of the pages so tagged at User:Smalljim/Pages I have tagged with OR. I'm sure that when we bump into one another again (as we doubtless will do somewhere in Devon-space) we'll both have benefited from what we've learned here. By the way, I sat in the sun this afternoon with a printout of the latest version of Manor of Molland and can definitely say that it reads better on paper. —SMALL JIM 19:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If there's an interest, LT:

there's just a couple of minor things for Manor of Monkleigh - I've researched the best I could and there's just a little bit more information needed to create citations. See Talk:Manor of Monkleigh.
citation needed tags for Joseph Watson, 1st Baron Manton‎. I couldn't find good info for Joseph Watson, so I did all I could there, too.
Original research? tags and citation needed tags for Siston. This a work in progress.

There are other articles, too, but these are the ones needing the most work - or in one case, just needs a bit of info.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Or, should I just assume that content is original research - and remove it - if I'm unable to find sources for it?--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In general, yes. If there's no source in the article and you can't find one either, WP:OR is a good assumption. Don't get in over your head, though: if someone is looking at an article on particle physics and doesn't know a lot about particle physics, a lot of things can appear to be WP:OR when it's actually just a comprehension problem.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 21:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have benefitted greatly from all the points made by all the contributors above and my editing style will change to follow the OR policy, which I now fully understand, scrupulously. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

After all this conversation about uncited, original research information - there is continued attempts to add detailed and mostly uncited information to Annery, Monkleigh. See Talk:Annery, Monkleigh#Lots of biographical info duplicated in articles about towns, villages and manors.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Continuing incivility

I pointed out in the first post here that one of the other problems with Lobsterthermidor is his incivility, and that I've cautioned him several times about this [20], [21] and here (point 1 and last para). Yet he persists, today, in belittling CaroleHenson when she makes a mistake [22] (edit summary), [23]. Since my last message to him about this behaviour he has also been extremely rude to me - in terms which do not bother me, but which, I am certain, would upset others. e.g. [24] (last para in particular), [25], [26] and [27] (on this page). I note that he was blocked when he was a newbie on a related issue. Might it be time to apply the cluestick a little harder? I'm obviously well involved, so can't do anything. Thanks, —SMALL JIM 15:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am very sad today because I thought we had made progress - and then I found messages on my talk page. Please see Talk:Manor of Monkleigh#Recent comments (original at User talk:CaroleHenson#Attention to detail. One of which he blamed me for something he did.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

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