Talk:Oak Island

early history section

With regard to the early history of the money pit, it is important to note that there is no history or sources prior to the 1850s. Further, that many of the pre-1890's sources tell different or even conflicting stories. It is important, however it is done, that the voice of Wikipedia NOT be used to make authoritative statements with regard to the early history of the money pit. The article can say that the sources conflict with each other, the article can cite what specific sources have said in the past. But the article should be careful not to draw conclusions or to suggest that a particular statement is true. Its better to err on the side of neutrality rather than claiming that particular undocumented early accounts are true or false. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop adding disclaimers in the form of Original Research. What specific sentences do you find problematic? GigglesnortHotel (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Before tonight's edits the article stated the 1795 date as fact, which we shouldn't do. We can report what the sources say but obviously not go beyond them. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The entire section was problematic. The disclaimers were added because the entire section itself was somewhat Original Research constructed by cherry-picking from multiple different inconsistent accounts of events from different time periods. I've tried to address the problems in a new way by sticking strictly to what the early sources said and when they said them. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Fine. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Split

This article should be split into two seperate articles, one which talks about the Island in general, and one that focuses solely on the mystery/alleged treasure. If there are no objections, I plan on creating Oak Island mystery or Oak Island treasure to focus on this aspect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If the article is split, the oak island article is going to have about ten lines in it. I don't really care one way or the other but its worth thinking about how little is going to be left after a split. But I would strongly suggest not calling the split article by a title like "Oak Island Treasure". I think "Oak Island Treasure Hunt" or mystery or anything that didn't imply a conclusion about the island is better. 75.17.127.43 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Frederick G. Nolan

Fred is best known for hos role with Oak Island, beyond that there isn't really enough notability for a stand alone article. For this reason I am proposing that the article be merged here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• support doesn't really have his own notability -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Against If there is any merge, it makes more sense to merge and redirect to The Curse of Oak Island, not this article. Govvy (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Closing, due to the uncontested opposition. Klbrain (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

locations images in infobox

I think there needs to another image for the location, specifically of North America-Canada region to show readers exactly where in the world that the current image is located. Govvy (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Drain tunnels

The drains on Oak Islands were built by British engineers. The used the Chain which was 66 feet as the 1836 article mentioned. I was trained as a BC Land Surveyor and this unit was used all across Canada.

Ken Murray Silverton BC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.160.220.15 (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Your theory is interesting, but without a reliable source we cant state this in the article Oak Island mystery. There are also many other theories on Oak Island that involve constellations to the supernatural. We would go with the mainstream theories first while the secondary ones would be outside of the main text (example: "Other theories"). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)