This article is within the scope of WikiProject Igbo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Igbo related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IgboWikipedia:WikiProject IgboTemplate:WikiProject IgboIgbo articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nigeria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nigeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NigeriaWikipedia:WikiProject NigeriaTemplate:WikiProject NigeriaNigeria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
It seems like some more research will be needed to sort that out. Right now, I'm afraid, the "Etymology" section is in a somewhat bad shape. William Baike's 1854 book is very old and it actually doesn't even say anything about the origin of the name; Meek's Law and Authority in a Nigerian Tribe is from 1937, so I have very serious doubts it reflects the latest insights into this matter. The Igala 'slave' theory is from a reliable and recent source – the library.bu.edu article also cited elsewhere in the section. However, having a more detailed and contemporary discussion of this topic would be even better. I'll check if I can find something. Gawaon (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now replaced the outdated information with a short summary of the discussion in a recent book on the name's possible origins. The Igala 'slave' theory is not mentioned there, hence it seems preferable not to include it. Gawaon (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They messed up a number of references and (inadvertently) converted quotes from the cited references into plain article text in wikipedia's voice, which would constitute plagiarism
They added a paragraph of their own analysis arguing that the findings of Macgregor from 1909 are superior to subsequent research because, as per CHI-Research, the former "shows photos, artefacts and evidences of origin of Nsibidi in subgroups of Igbo" and "no referenced papers on the origin of Nsibidi in Ejagham people provide photos, archeological artefacts, peer-reviewed evidences to back up their claims of Ejagham migration." This constitutes original research. in wikipedia's parlance, and is not allowed.
CHI-Research, I urge you to read WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:HISTRS on what type of sources are preferred for this type of content on wikipedia and read WP:OR for what kind of analysis is not permitted in article-space. Also, suggest that any proposed edits to this article regarding the Nsibidi origins be discussed on this talkpage, instead of being repeatedly added/removed from the article, so that consensus can be reached.
"Used as a ceremonial script by secret societies, the Igbo have an indigenous ideographic set of symbols called Nsibidi, whose origin is now generally attributed to the neighboring Ejagham people, though in the 1900s J. K. Macgregor recorded a "native tradition" attributing it to the Uguakima or Uyanga section of the Igbo."
TWO SUGGESTIONs:
1.
WE remove GAWAON's sentence on Macgregor [from ...though...] because it was omitted in the page in the first place and I wanted to add it. I will add a phrase for the agreed submission to read as follows:
"Used as a ceremonial script by secret societies, the Igbo have an indigenous ideographic set of symbols called Nsibidi, whose origin is now generally attributed to the neighboring Ejagham people, even as an archeological study in 1909 attribute the origin of Nsibidi to subgroups of Igbo people."
2.
GAWAON deletes sentences added to the Reference section Citations 82-85. If not, I will add more sources and add texts to those in the Reference section as well. CHI-Research (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CHI-Research, I'll let Gawaon respond to the first suggestion about the exact phrasing but as for (2): I don't see any reason to remove the quotes that unobtrusively provide useful information to the reader. You are welcome to present here on the talkpage other modern scholarly sources that argue a different POV and we can discuss if they should be added to the article (see WP:DUE). Abecedare (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.
I would like to inform you that am not treating this as a battleground, and apologize if it comes across that way.
I just feel like GAWAON does not want the source to be added, if you check the threads since June 19, 2024.
My response is to point out that the source is a relevant source, even though 'old,' which for a historical topic is preferred, per Wikipedia Reliable Source policy. Yet, it was missing.
ADDING TEXTS TO THE REFERENCE SECTION: Is it consistent with the policy?
If GAWAON would add useful information to the citations in the Reference section, may other users add too? I ask because I consider some information as useful for readers. GAWAON discusses/elaborates on the content of sources. If policy allows users to provide extra information for readers, what I am doing is pointing out why I should be able to do the same thing. Basically, I read what GAWAON and other users post and then try to do the same.
even though 'old,' which for a historical topic is preferred, per Wikipedia Reliable Source policy. This is not true! See WP:HISTRS . WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I guess that the confusion is arising from the last para of WP:AGEMATTERS but note that that is talking about (near) real-time coverage of events and is not relevant here. If this article were discussing specific details of Macgregor's findings than it could be argued that his own writings are a better source for those than later summaries. But here we are simply trying to summarize what current day scholars think about the origins of Nsibidi and the Macgregor bit of the sentence (if it is to be retained) is included only for its historiographical interest and not because Macgregor's theories outweigh research over the subsequent century.
Regarding the ...may other users add too? question: it is difficult to discuss this in terms of hypotheticals. Please present here the actual sources and content you wish to add and we can consider them per WP:RS and WP:DUE. Abecedare (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the Age Matters policy it states:
"With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing."
Discovering an ancient writing system is a historic event, as defined. But as you previously informed, it is not about truth. Therefore, one only needs to cite the paper. there are newspapers, blogs, videos that attribute the origin to Igbo people. My intention is not to add all those sources, because they make the same case as Macgregor. Similarly, there is no need adding 4 sources on Ejagham when they make the same case, either migration or colonial officers. So, let's ignore all that and agree to cite two citations to highlight migration and 'colonial officers for Ejagham people and Macgregor for Igbo people.
Then we word it as in my first suggestion. Let's agree to that.
Regarding adding texts to the Reference section, I suggest that if GAWAON keeps the texts as they are in the Reference section, I will structure sentences similarly to elaborate on my sources. It depends if GAWAON's texts stay as they or not. CHI-Research (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am stating that discovering an ancient writing system is a historic event and that the only way to change the story is by showing new information, backed up by evidences, artefacts and photos.
Still, if one finds new information by way of oral tradition or hearsay, it may be published.
I understand that, per Wikipedia policy, such publications can be cited.
Therefore, both sources can co-exist in the page.
How do we structure the sentence given the issue raised on this?
My first suggestion, in my opinion, on how the wordings may be is neutral on any personal (mis) interpretation, while still informing readers about both sources of the origin of Nsibidi. CHI-Research (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Fwiw, I would support removing the 1912 Talbot reference since it is both dated and redundant. But again this is not a "negotiation of the form "you do this or I'll do this". Instead of repeatedly "threatening" to structure sentences similarly to elaborate on my sources actually present those sources here. Abecedare (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am stating "similarly" is to ensure that I conform to existing rules. basically, I am informing you that I will create a sentence to conform to the rules. I can go to different pages to check for other elaborations as an example in creating my texts. That is what I mean. I just want to know what conforms or not. The post on photos and artefacts, I did not know that it was not allowed. Thus, I am saying that I need to check other texts in the reference, as an example. Is that not allowed? CHI-Research (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
