Talk:Border Police of New South Wales

Excessive reliance on primary sources.
I have reinstated the primary sources template on this article. This is because most of the article is supported by primary sources. User:Dippiljemmy states that there are 40 secondary sources. I think this number could be open to question, but, accepting 40, this is out of a total of 141 references (one of which is cited 4 times and another twice). That makes 72% of the references being primary. This is massively above a reasonable percentage for a Wikipedia article.

WP:RSPRIMARY states (bold added): "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Whilst there has been a huge amount of work put into this article, the content that is supported by contemporary newspaper reports has very little additional support provided by secondary sources. Some sources that are presumably claimed as being secondary are early 20th century historical society reports. I question the extent to which these would measure up against modern historiographical standards: arguments and evidence are needed to consider them reliable secondary sources.

I appreciate that opinions vary across the Wikipedia community about the use of primary sources, but I truly believe this article, as it stands, has some serious problems. If need be, the discussion should be broadened to a wider group of editors. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Non sequitur template in lead
I have reinstated the non sequitur template in the lead as I do not believe this tag has been understood. The sentence in question says (in part): "Due to the paramilitary nature of the Border Police, conflict with Aboriginals was inevitable..."

First, consider the meaning of the word "paramilitary". The Wikipedia article on the subject gives a good explanation of the meaning of the word. Modern usage tends towards using this word for terrorist organisations (though not to the exclusion of the older usage). At the time of the Border Police, it meant an official organisation that had characteristics of a military organisation, such as: armed with weapons used by the army, housed in barracks, military style discipline, etc.

Then transfer this concept (a government organisation with military aspects) into the statement in the article, there is no reason given, nor any WP:RS supporting the idea, why conflict was inevitable. It may have been the case that there was poor discipline or leadership, or perhaps some other defect in the force - but the simple fact that they were a paramilitary organisation does not, in itself, act as a cause of conflict. Sorry that I did not spell this out in the first instance. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)