Talk:George Caunter

Original Research

This article seems to consist entirely of original research by the user Jefferyseow. Clearly George Caunter is notable enough to warrant an article, so I am not proposing deletion. But I think it will need to be edited heavily (and probably cut down to just a paragraph or two) to rely on secondary sources appropriate to Wikipedia (as opposed to a history journal). --Dowcet (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It really, really upsets when someone makes a sweeping statement. Please specify the original research that is being alleged. Marcus Langdon's Penang The Fourth Presidency of India 1805-1803 contains an almost complete bio of Penang's 6th Governor. Justics James William Norton Kyshe's Cases Heard and Determined in Her Majesty's Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements 1808-1884 Vol I Civil Cases also contains substantial information about Caunter. To these I have added the info found in 19th century dailies (mostly Singapore newspapers) and periodicals (especially James Richardson Logan's Journal of the Indian Archipelago, &c. &c.). Per Wikipedia:No_original_research 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. Please therefore point out which material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas— have no reliable, published sources. If you cannot do that, please remove your tag which, in the absence of you being able to support your Wikipedia:No_original_research allegation, would be untrue. Thank you. jefferyseow (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that they these are very clearly primary sources. I refer again to Wikipedia:No_original_research (emphasis in the original): "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."

So then, statements which can only be supported using primary sources should be removed. But that is no reason to butcher all the hard work that has been done here and I do not intend to make any edits to this article unless and until I have the chance to review the relevant secondary literature. The ideal secondary sources in this context would be peer-reviewed articles and books by professional historians and the like. In the meantime, I think the original research tag is appropriate. Dowcet (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Dowcet I disagree. With exception of "Information on Caunter, and other pioneers of Pulo Peenang or Prince of Wales' Isle, is difficult to come by. However, historian Langdon (2013), has, through careful and painstaking study of India Office and Straits Settlements Factory Records and other equally difficult-to-access archival material, put together, comprehensive information on Caunter, probably the first person to do so, as well all the other important people connected Penang, at that time" which is actually a fact, if you bothered to attempt a search yourself, and which I am happy to remove, please name me one other part of the entry that is an interpretation.

"But it is not only for that expansion, as important and enduring as it is, that Penang is indebted to George Caunter. He also played an important role in encouraging planting of spices, particularly nutmeg, on the island." for example, is NOT an interpretation but a summary of the succeeding parts from "In 1798, Caunter, the Acting Superintendent of Prince of Wales Island, wrote, "A very large quantity of nutmeg and" through to "Jalan P. Ramlee. Lengkok Caunter (Caunter Crescent), a smaller road, still exists" and if summarising is not allowed, then 99% of wikipedia entries would have their opening summaries removed.

Wikipedia guidelines, clearly, say that referencing print sources is allowed. Therefore, please out of the list of references used, name me a single primary source used.

George Caunter was a late 18th to 19th century administrator of Penang, then called Prince of Wales Island. He was no author. He had no publications. It would therefore be very interesting for you to find articles by Caunter's peers reviewing publications that Caunter never had. If you manage to find any - doubtful - I should very much love to read them myself.

I have used no archival materials.

You have still NOT answered my original question, which was, to remind you, "Please therefore point out which material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas— have no reliable, published sources. If you cannot do that, please remove your tag which, in the absence of you being able to support your Wikipedia:No_original_research allegation, would be untrue. Thank you." I'm waiting. jefferyseow (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources can be reliable and published, but still primary. Your point is well taken that Langdon and others here should be considered secondary sources. Newspapers published later on aren't really primary either. But some of clearest examples of primary sources here include the various notices and letters from The Journal of The Indian Archipelago. Yes, they are published. Yes, in my totally inexpert opinion they probably contain factually accurate information. But they are still primary sources. They do not show that the information is important / relevant / notable enough to be included.

I will make a note on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard so that perhaps we can get a third opinion. Dowcet (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Logan's Notices - yes they were written by Logan who was publisher, author and editor not just of his Journal of East India but also of the Pinang Gazette - is a primary source? The Journal written in the 1840s-1850s reporting on events happening in the 1700s and early 1800s is a primary source? Logan republished excerpts from official documents and reports. He was a Barrister and highly knowledgeable in the history of Penang. If not for Logan and his unimportant/irrelevant/unnotable Journal of East India - often used by academics and history writers like C. D. Cowan, C. N. Parkinson et al, much of Penang's history would be lost, especially after the wanton destruction of documents by the Japanese during their occupation in World War II. I give up. You do whatever you want to do with this. jefferyseow (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The basic facts in the first half of the article are safe uses of primary sources. The "intangible heritage" section does the type of contextualization that requires secondary sourcing. I have not myself evaluated the sources in the section as to whether or not they are primary. Rhoark (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Just at a brief glimpse of the page I would say there really is no issue here. If these sources are coming from Logan's Notices are reportings on official documents then I think we are overall ok. Even if these journals and articles are particularly old that does not necessarily mean they are not reliable or secondary. That said, jefferyseow, could you provide more links or further descriptions of some of these sources? DaltonCastle (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:DaltonCastle I never used links. Will be happy to provide you with the address for and directions on how to get to Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia (National Library of Malaysia), the library of Arkib Negara Malaysia (National Archives of Malaysia) and the library of University Malaya. Happy to provide further descriptions of those sources if you let me know which sources, and what further descriptions you require. Otherwise this gets into the old argument about the use of print sources. jefferyseow (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)