User talk:Gavin.collins

your message re list inclusion

I have responded to the message you left on my talk page. We can continue the conversation there if you wish. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I will bring it here, and that way I can read it later. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

List inclusion

I am suprised that you believe it to be OK to concoct lists simply because they are loosely assoicated or categorised with a notable topic in flagrant contradiction with WP:NOTINHERITED. You are an experienced editor, and should know that articles are written based on coverage that addresses a topic directly and in detail, not split again into lists with more minutiae of detail, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Where in the world did you get the idea that I "believe it is OK to concoct lists simply because they are loosely associated or categorized with a notable topic in flagrant contradiction with WP:NOTINHERITED"? I certainly do not believe that. I totally agree with you that lists need to be based on coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. However... I do believe is that it is possible to split overly long list articles into two or more sub-articles with the exact same topic. If you have an overly long list, I think it is absolutely OK to break that list into two sub-articles that are organized in logical and standard ways... say alphabetically... one sub-article listing the people who's names start with A-M, and another for N-Z.

Or to put this in terms of an actual topic that is currently considered notable ... NRHP buildings. A List of NRHP buildings would be overly long. In this case of buildings, it is logical and standard to organize the topic by location. So it is OK to split the list into sub-lists, each covering those buildings in a given State. We have not changed the topic of the sub-lists by doing this. I would agree that best practice would be to re-establish notability on all the resulting sub-pages... which, with a little editing, can be done by cutting and pasting the lede from the original overly long list into each of the split sub-lists... however I understand the argument that as long as notability is established at the main article, we are not required to do so on the sub-pages.

That said, we also need to recognize that lists can be split up inappropriately... in ways that do result in a change of topic. List of Masonic NRHP buildings would not be an appropriate way to subdivide List of NRHP buildings, as it adds a new, non-standard element that changes the topic away from being about just NRHP buildings. Adding the word "Masonic" adds a non-standard twist to the things that results in a new topic. So... to keep such an article, we would need to establish that there were sources that discuss (directly and in detail) the topic of an NRHP building that is Masonic.

Hope all this clarifies my take on all this. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I have much experience of compiling large lists, but in theory there is no need to split them, but if they are, I question why:

1. If there is a good reason to include the entire "List of NRHP buildings", I would suggest to you that it is because (a) it has been published by a reliable source, and (b) because it is a notable list refered to by commentators who are interested in it. I suspect the reason why it has not been transcribed into Wikipedia is it would be a copyright violation.
2. I put it to you that the creation of sub-lists based on the NRHP masterlist is highly questionable. The masterlist may well be notable, but it would be difficult to establish whether segments of it were notable in their own right.
3. Going back to my original point, I fail to see how splitting notable lists into sub-lists with more minutiae of detail, with each split normally lowering the level of notability is of any benefit. A good analogy would be to cut a map into smaller and smaller pieces, until the useful purpose of the original is entirely lost.
4. Adding the label "Masonic" to the sub-list is just a fig leaf used to hide the the fact that it is synthesis. You might argue that assembling components from various sources is not synthesis, but I would argue that unless the source is a published list, then there is no evidence that the sources should be assembled in the form of a list.

An analogy would be assembling a car out scrap parts and labeling it as a "new design", rather than building it out of new parts designed for the purpose. The problem with your apporach is that is difficult to prove that if a list is not original research, or that it has not been plagiarised. And I would have thought you would consider that to be an important issue. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"in theory there is no need to split them"... perhaps, but in practice there is. Take a look at the lists that have been compiled by the NRHP project. There are thousands of buildings that are NRHP designated. If they tried to list of all of the buildings that are NRHP designated in one list, it would be gigantic. It makes perfect sense to split the information up into sub-lists organized at the State (or even county) level. The topic (buildings with NRHP designation) is exactly the same for all of the sub-lists. The fact that one sub-list covers the topic for Ohio, while another covers the topic for Idaho does not change the topic... or its notability. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the inclusion of the NRHP list is a mistake, even in part. I can't see the evidence that a segment of the NRHP list is notable, but I can understand why a segment, for say Ohio, would fail WP:NOT#DIR. Rather than create lists that conflict with content policy, it would be better to use the NRHP as a basis for a much more useful category. Going back to my map analogy, I fail to see how spliting list into sub-lists with more minutiae of detail, with each split normally lowering the level of notability is useful, unless you think that using Wikipedia as a mirror site of the the NRHP is useful. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Hey, Gavin. I was thinking about ambiguity, and your relationship to it. It seems as if you are strongly motivated to eliminate ambiguity, possibly believing, as many do, that this is an unqualified good in itself. This led me to think of how the great rabbis, in arguing Talmud, would go to heroic lengths to preserve an ambiguity. A reason for this is that an ambiguity left space for judgment, for people of good will to decide for themselves whether a thing which may be good or bad to do, depending on circumstances, should be done this time. I found this fascinating, when I first learned about it, because I'd never thought of ambiguity as other than something to be eliminated. I don't know whether it's a new perspective to you, but perhaps you'll find it interesting. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with ambiguity. It is a scientific fact, after all. I have a problem with people claiming a topic in the absence of evidence, but that is not related ambiguity. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Going beyond just one article

Bewleys Hotel in Ballsbridge, Dublin used to be a Masonic school. You can just about make out the Masonic motif in the top left pediment.

Gavin, You may be able to make your point at the List inclusion RfC clearer if you broaden the example beyond just List of Masonic buildings... and including the other "buildings associated with fraternal organization X" (see: List of Elks buildings, List of Knights of Columbus buildings, List of Knights of Pythias buildings and List of Odd Fellows buildings). If you can point to the same problem(s) existing in a range of articles, it may be easier for others to identify what the problem is. The discussion stops being about one article, and can be shifted to a generalized discussion about "List of Ys connected to X", with multiple examples. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have taken this example from you. It is a good example of a topic that is neither verifiable, nor notable, because a Masonic building is almost a meaningless term: it can include a lodge, a temple, a hospital, a school or...even a hotel. It illustrates perfectly why the idea that "List of X" is notable because X is notable does not work for this list. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it is a good example of that. In the case of "Masonic buildings", (and these other lists of "buildings associated with fraternal order Y") we don't actually have a "List of X" is notable because X is notable situation... because we have not established that X is notable in the first place. We don't actually have a notable parent topic... there are no existing parent articles on "Masonic buildings" or "Elks buildings" or "Knights of Columbus buildings".

Furthermore, without such parent articles, we are not really talking about a simple "List of X" situation. The topics of these "buildings associated with fraternal order X" lists rest on combining two topics: "Notable buildings" and "Fraternal order X". Thus they take the more complex "List of Y associated with X" form, and not the simpler "List of X" form. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at List of Elks buildings, I can see that this list is more likely to have been published, because if I understand correctly, they are owned by one organisation (Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks) and hence such a list is likely to have been published, if only in self-published form, so my guess is that it is probably not a madeup list. That puts it in a slightly different category from "Masonic builings", which in the absence of a published defintion, is probably best described as a high-school essay topic. In the absence of any notability, the "List of Elks buildings" probably fails WP:NOT#DIR in the same way a "List of Walmart stores" would fail it too. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Gavin

PLEASE email me. And yes I am shouting. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have anything to say, say it here. Many thanks. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

New articles in TF Accounting

Hello, Gavin.collins. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business/Accountancy_task_force#I.27ll_start_four_FASBs.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Sulmues ^(talk) 15:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Still trying to understand your POV on lists

Gavin... take a look at User:Blueboar/drafts - Foobaria... for the sake of discussion assume that the sources are all reliable, and that Foobaria was a real kingdom. Would this article be acceptable under your view of notability, OR etc.?

It is not clear what the topic is, so I have changed it[1] to make it clear that it is not disimilar to Monarchy of the United Kingdom rather than List of British monarchs. Although it is made up of disparate sources, it is not OR. Each king is clearly a separate subtopic, and not a member of a list. The article looks list like, but that is just formatting, for the article topic is not about a list per se. This could be a perfectly reliable and notable topic for inclusion in Wikipedia as a standalone article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK... so basically, with a few tweeks, you think the article would be fine. Now... suppose it gets edited... so that it looks the way it does now (see the new version at the above drafts page). Same text that you approved... same references... only instead of each King being discussed in a separate section, it is in bullet point format. Is this version OK? Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The example you have created is trying to get around having to verify whether the kings are being presented as seperate sub-topics (as before) or as a single list topic. The key is the statement "There have been four Kings of Foobaria since the foundation of the Kingdom in 1900"[2]. If such a claim where to be made by a real world source, details of the four kings would normally follow - I can't imagine circumstances where they would not. I think you would agree it would be unlikely for a reliable source to say "There have been four Kings of Foobaria.." without actually naming them.

Once the source has declared there to be four kings, I would expect them to list them. From a Wikipedia persective, we could summarise the source as a list, or if the source is a list, copy it in full. This list or information set would then be cited as a single source in article, to demonstrate the infomation is complete and reliable. We would not dilute or bastardise such a list with other sources, as that would invalidate the integrity of the information set implicit in the source.

It sounds a little complex when deconstructed, but using one source for lists is really common sense. If one source says "There have been four Kings of Foobaria.." and names them, then it makes sense to stick with that source. If we were to "cut and shut" a second source onto the first source, and the second source only named three kings, then the reliability of both statemetns would be fatally compromised. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... Are you saying that the unsourced sentence OK before, but now isn't? Or did it need to be sourced in the previous version, and you just noticed it?

In any case... Let's say that the "Encyclopedia Foobaria" (2010 edition, so we know it is current) explicitly states that "There have been four Kings of Foobaria since the Kingdom's founding." But, contrary to your expectation, it does not list who they are. Is this still a "cut and shut" situation? Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not looking for evidence of a list int he first version, because the article treated the kings as seperate sub-topics. But in retrospect, it should have been sourced, as it is quite an important statement of fact.

It seems counter intuative to me that if a source went to the effort of counting the kings, but not nameing. In any case...assuming this to be the case, it is still starting to look like a cut and shut situation. If one source said there were 4 kings, and another source names 4 kings, you would not think there would be a problem (Fram's argument). But if the 4 kings named by the two different sources happen to be different, then you can see my point that a "cut and shut" list is just not reliable. Fram would argue that with 4 kings, that is unlikely, but for longer lists with inherent conflicts between sorurcs and defintion, this is not true.

The key assumption that the reader will make is that a list is a single information set that can be relied upon by default. For homemade lists such as List of Irish monarchs, there is actually a lot of POV disputes that renders them entirely unreliable. The only way to overcome POV disputes between editors about conflicting defintions and sources is to have one list source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

But if the 4 kings named by the two different sources happen to be different... in this case, we don't have that situation. The fact that there were 4 Kings is verified. Their names and biographical details are verified, and no sources claims that any other person was King, other than the one's we talk about. Given this... is the revised article acceptable? Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there were 4 Kings is not verified unless it is shown to be the case by the source, so my point is valid. If the "Encyclopedia Foobaria" did not say which 4 kings it was refering to, then we have a "cut and shut" list, because there is a risk that the two sources may be different, and for longer lists going back into the mists of time, this is likely to be the case. For instance, it is disputed whether Egbert of Wessex was the first king of England.

If the "Encyclopedia Foobaria" did list the kings, then we could use that list, but if the first king of Foobaria is disuputed by some sources then making up our own list is not a good idea. It is the role of editors to cite the source of a published, not make them up as a proxy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I could, somewhat, see your point when there actually is a disagreement among sources ... but in my example you are assuming a disagreement that does not exist. Assume that the facts as presented are completely uncontested.... that all reliable sources agree that there have been four (and only four) Kings, and that their names are as stated. Given this lack of dispute, is my article acceptable or not? Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to do, but your approach is still synthesis - you are trying to make up a list in the absence of a published source. You are relying on a trite generalisation ("the facts as presented are completely uncontested") that does not apply in every case to justify your actions. You trying to construct a list ("List of kings of Foobar") when the sources don't support this directly. As a result, the list is not verifiable.

Let me illustrate this with another trite example (mea culpa). I am an accountant, whose sad life involves adding up lists of numbers. The mortal sin of our profession is to assume, even with smallest list of numbers, that the content of the list adds up to the total. To avoid the category mistake of assuming that all totals add up to the content of the list, we create control totals to verify that total is correct and that the list is complete. What your "List of kings of Foobar" lacks is a published source (the equivalkent of a control total) to verify that the four kings who have been named should be in this list. Your assertion that this list "allegedly" does not need a published source because "that all reliable sources agree" is just your opinion (not truth), which is not verfiable from the sources cited in the article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

you are trying to make up a list in the absence of a published source."... not so... I have written an article based upon several published sources. This is what every article on Wikipedia does.

But I think we can stop my experiment now... My goal was not really to convince you that "you are wrong"... it was more to see where we agreed and disagreed. What I was trying to do take an article from full sentence/paragraph format (which you seemed to accept), and step by step re-write it, ending up in listified format. My goal was to see where you started to object. If you had found my current version acceptable, my next step would have been to start trimming the paragraphs... until all that remained was the name and dates. Then I would have introduced a name change to "List of Kings of Foobaria". Since you balk at the first step (simply shifting the format from having separate sections to having bullet pointed paragraphs) I know the answer to my question. Our views overlap in a lot of areas ... but they definitely do not agree completely.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me, and to go through this little experiment. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you do have lots of sources about a topic, then it is a waste of time trying to construct a list article around them, as the list format can act as a constraint, and hinders composition compared with prose. I don't see how taking them away proves anything, as it goes in the opposite direction to that which the compilation of articles goes: start small -> become bigger. In the real world, your example might start as list and end up as an article, not the other way around. I think Bus Stop's criticism has some merit, for you have tested my ideas regarding published lists with almost unbeleiveably complex and counter intuative examples. I think you just need to accept that published lists as both a source and a topic, and you will understand your own views better, and maybe understand why publication is needed to identify the existence of a list topic.

However, your tests have helped me too, in particular with my response to Reyk[3]. It is a shame that you cannot see the merit of my argument in full, because I can see no merit in the vicarious relationship between "List of X" and topic/cateory "X", as by this measure, List of Masonic buildings is a notable topic, even though I think we are agreed that Masonic building is not a recognised architectural term that exists in the real world. Masonic motifs, maybe, but Masonic buildings, no. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:Gavin.collins. Stonewalling, intimidation, misrepresentation of policies".Thank you. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such instances of this behaviour having been brought to my attention on this talk page. I think you know me to be an entirely reasonable, courteous and honest editor, so I am not sure why you would think these allegations to be true. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You were notified of the RFC/U which this action resulted from (and which you clearly said you would not participate as you considered it an attack on yourself). --MASEM (t) 13:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said to you before the RFC[4], if you have any genuine complaints about me, bring them to my attention directly and in detail (as I have done with regard to yourself et al.), don't beat around the bush. In my view, the fact that you did not bring any complaints to my attention before the RFC, nor that you could not be bothered to do so since, suggests to me that neither the RFC nor this new ANI thread was not started in good faith, but was started in order to "play to the crowd". So forgive me if I decline to attend the arena to watch the lions being fed, even though I am on the menu. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

People have brought their complaints about you to your talk page before to no avail. Only after that didn't work were you the subject of not one but three RfCs, exactly according to the rules of Wikipedia. The AN thread was started in good faith. That faith being that attempting to reach a consensus with you has not worked in the past therefore we have no reason to believe that it will be possible to reach one now. I would like to respectfully recommend that you state your case in the AN thread so that the Admin can consider it before making a decision. Seanr451 (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

When have you done that? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't been following the discussion at AN/I, it was just noticed that some of your recent contributions could be considered copyvios -- although you sourced the text, you took it almost directly from the source. This would be a very good time to get involved with the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, this would be a very good time not to get involved. Better to take such accusations with a Pinch of salt. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A pinch of salt is great when added to a bowl of soup... but you have to add it to the soup to get the benefit. In other words, an occasional comment by you would help your case... complete silence hurts it. You don't have to reply to each and every remark. Just the advice of a well wisher. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As above, I would prefer not to be in the soup that gets fed to the lions, despite the honour of being on the menu. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship offer

It's pretty clear to me that some pretty nasty editing restrictions are going to be placed on you unless someone intervenes. I'd like to offer my services as a mentor/parole officer to monitor some milder editing restrictions and see if we can't get the community to accept that as a trial. We can talk about details if you can bring yourself to accept the concept. In terms of finding an admin to mentor you that generally agrees with your basic philosophies, I don't think you can do better than me, and, based on our interactions in the past, you should know that you can trust me to be reasonable. Let me know what you think.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not worried about what other editors say about me, other than an expression of their concerns on my talk page, where I am quick to apologise if I have offended anyone. I am not afraid of any threat of editing restrictions, simply because I don't think there is a case to answer for. What one editor calls "behaviour", I would characterise as a disagreement over policies and guidelines, and that is natural where I come from. If you think there is a problem, spit it out, and maybe we can agree on a reasonable course of action, including mentoring as you suggest. Do you think there is a problem? I am not convinced myself, but I am open to a second opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Of the various charges made, the two that concern me are the accusations of copyright violations (and you should read over WP:AN#Many copyvios as well even if you don't want to respond there), and edit warring on policy pages. If we can come up with a concrete assurance that those behaviours will stop I think it will go a long way. Remember, WP:AN isn't like an RFC: if a consensus is reached there that editing restrictions are necessary, it has teeth. It won't matter whether you accept them or not, they are enforceable by editing blocks.—Kww(talk) 21:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than deal with vague generalisations, is there a particular instance you are concerned about? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if a wikilink to a discussion is somehow vague. How about this vs. this. Seems like a pretty clear copyright violation.—Kww(talk) 23:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, there are more, I just posted these to the AN discussion:

• this is a copyvio of the source
• this is pretty much directly lifted from the cited source
• this is, IMO, a particularly egregious example lifted from a thesis

I really think you need to consider Kww's offer and engage in discussion. These appear to be very serious instances of plagiarism of copyrighted material--if you can offer any explanation as to why these edits are appropriate, please do so. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As I have said before. There is no way I am going to join in with the bear batiting, nor am I will to stick my head in a bear trap.

On the matter of copyright violation, these examples don't qualify as such because (a) the source is clearly cited, and (b) the citations are very brief and relative to the source, i.e. they are an insignificant portion of part of a much larger text (usually a sentence, or paragraph has been cited). Wikipedia:Non-free content states that "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author".

I have been involved in similar discussions at Talk:Enron scandal#Recent changes. If I have cited a source, it is generally because the commentary, criticism and analysis it provides is worth including in this article, and the text itself is a summary of much longer discussion. There is no attempt reproduce these works per se, rather to make it clear that the statements of opinion are clearly attributable to their authors, whose own words cannot be bettered. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with this --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)