User talk:Gavin.collins/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Some help

Hi Gavin, Was wondering if you can give me some explanation in regard to an accounting concept I am trying to get my head around since you are constantly updating that page. I am learning at school that sales can be made on both cash and credit, with credit being the most dominant form. Does cash sales include credit card sales? I am always confused about credit being the dominant form because I have not seen too many people buy goods and then pay later - credit, sign the invoice they check your history etc. Is this sort of credit sales something like nothing to pay until 2011, no interest etc. commercials I have seen on TV or something else? I asked my classmate and he told me that credit sales are normally made between businesses and not us ordinary consumers. Say for example a steel manufacturer seels its goods to a chair manufacturer - this would be a credit sale. Hopefully you can help me or guide me onto some websites because I am a tad confused about this basic topic. Thanks U8701 (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi U8701,

From the perspective of the seller, credit card sales are indeed a form of credit sale, because they don't get their cash imediately - they usually have to wait a short time before the credit card company remits the cash (less credit card fee) to them. The only difference between "credit card sales" and "credit sales" is that the credit card company pays the seller quickly because it takes on the the risk of bad debts, as it is acting as lender to the people who buy goods and then pay later.
Before the age of credit cards, most sellers (even small grocery stores) offered credit directly to their customers and had to take on the risk of bad debt themselves. Nowadays, only wholesalers and larger businesses offer credit directly to their customers, but they have try to mitigate the risk of bad debt by offering credit on legally enforceable credit terms, by paying for credit rating checks, by getting references from their customers, or even taking out insurance against non-payment. Have a look at this slide show for more details of the accounting relating to credit sales. I hope this helps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Amused.

I'm always amused when I agree strongly with something you say. Just feels odd :-) Best of luck to you! Hobit (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Now you have turned from poacher to gamekeeper, you will find yourself agreeing with me more and more. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:-) I'd say you've changed a fair bit too. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography page guideline proposal

Hi Gavin,

As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability RfC

Hi Gavin, please see my recent restoration of the consensus-supported version of WP:N. Regarding the recent discussion at WT:N, I agree that some sort of RfC is needed in order to establish a consensus regarding the information discussed. Would you be interested in setting it up? If so, how would you like it to be framed? Also crossposted at FT2's, Hiding's, and Masem's talk pages. ThemFromSpace 18:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Done --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ncircle deletion review

Since you were active on the Ncircle page deletion, you might be interested in a speedy delete review of more Ncircle pages created by that same (now banned) user: [1] Sfba (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I made a recomendation to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim D. Keanini and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim D. Keanini. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Accounting model creates value

Thank you very much for the reference. I responded on my talk page.

PennySeven (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. I responded on my talk page.

PennySeven (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for attempting to understand what I am trying to do. Unfortunately I was not able to explain financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power as authorized by the IASB in the Framework, Par. 104 (a) in 1989 to you.

Thank you for your help.

PennySeven (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette

I have filed a wikiquette report against you. Since you can not restrain yourself to post comments within the bounds of policy, I will use guidance to resolve the issue one way or another. As you have rejected every call for mediation, that leaves us with RFC's and arbitration. Best regards, Hiding T 16:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Here. Tan | 39 16:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Hiding, if I have annoyed you, then please accept my wholehearted applogy. I am a reasonable editor, and if you come to my talk page with a grievance, I am always happy to set matters to right. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Matter closed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, you have yet to strike every instance of stating I had not done something I patently had. Perhaps in this spirit of being "happy to set matters to right", you will amend all those statements and admit your error. Hiding T 23:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You will have to give me a clue as to what you are refering to in the first instance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 37. You could also correct the misleading RFC you have called at Wikipedia talk:Notability in the spirit of being "happy to set matters to right". Hiding T 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You will have to give me more specifics of what you are refering to, as Archive 37 is quite large. Is there a particular edit you can steer me to and explain what the problems is? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There's so many incidentson that page it would be rather tiresome to list them all. Maybe, in a demonstration of the spirit of being "happy to set matters to right", you'll show willing in identifying them. If not, we'll be aware of how dedicated you are to doing the right thing. Hiding T 14:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• I notice you haven't apologised for or retracted your disingenuous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability#RFC: Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity either, after my polite request above. Are you serious about being "happy to set matters to right"? Hiding T 14:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to play games with you, Hiding. You are going back up your complaints with details of the specific edits in support of your accusations. I can't guess what you mean, and I can't respond to vague and generalised accusations which may or may not be justified. If you have a complaint, meet me half way, make it explicit and spell it out. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not playing games. That you have failed to click the link and read my complaint is hardly my problem. This situation is now untenable. Hiding T 15:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me Hiding, but I am still not getting it. In what sense is the RFC disingenuous, and to whom? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused too. You've announced this prominently on the RfC and added what appear to be non-sensical replies to participants in the discussion stating the RfC is "disingenuous". What do you mean? Protonk (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Some serious advice and warning

Gavin, Please listen. You made a bad call proposing a merger between a long article and a long sub article believing it to be a POV fork. That it was a bad call should be clear to you now from the responses (I think 12-1 against last time I looked even though the article is contraversial and there are plenty of editors who disagree with each other on principle, they all united to disagree with you), even if you haven't got the logic. You are upset that the proposal was not taken seriously enough and that someone dismissed it out of hand and removed the tag at about 4-0 against I think under WP:SNOW. These are normal human reactions. Instead though, when you reflect your mindset should be apologetic for wasting editor time and also for disrupting the actual encyclopaedic content by the inclusion of an inappropriate tag in article space. You need to drop the outrage. In my view seeking mediation on this issue with the person who removed the tag amounts to disruptive wikidrama. Personally, I am quite prepared to block you for disruptive wikidrama because it distracts from things which matter. However I am prepared to discuss the issue with you personally some more if you like (here, I will watch your page although I am busy so perhaps only daily) and try to explain further anything which is unclear to you. If you feel this (friendly I hope) block warning is inappropriate you are welcome to take it to AN/I, clearly personally I could not block you for that but I cannot guarantee that another admin won't decide that continuing in that vein is also disruptive wikidrama and block you. Please do not take this the wrong way. I have been in a position of righteous indignation too and feeling disrepected is not pleasant. I am sure you are a well intentioned and reasonable kind of person, probably much like me. But please take time to reflect --BozMo talk 09:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have explained William M. Connolley, I would prefer to treat the process of RFC seperate from the issues which RFC address seperate. We have ample time to discuss the merger and its merits (or lack of), but in the meantime, I would very much like to see the merger templates restored for the duration of the RFC. I think this is a reasonable request. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As a (hopefully) friendly FYI, my initial reaction to the merger proposal was that you had not actually read the climate change article, and I was utterly baffled as to why you were proposing a merger in an RfC... a better and less-time-consuming-and-less-dramatic way to do it in the future would be through a standard "merge" tagging. I understand that you would like to treat the process separately from the content, but at least in my point of view you sort of jumped the gun on the RfC process, which is typically used to resolve stalemated debates. I don't mean to sound harsh: we all do slip up and wiki-rules are many and convoluted. But if you indeed haven't read the climate change and global warming articles, it might be a good time to skim them in order to have that in the back of your mind while discussing future changes. Thank you, Awickert (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your statement at Eusebeus' talk page

Regarding this edit, [2], perhaps you could explain why you have failed to assume good faith regarding my edits, and why you have disregarded the notion of collegiate and collaborative editing, and instead decided to make accusations? As to my intentions, they are to collaborate and reach consensus, per policy. Hiding T 15:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiding, I spoke honestly to you. The problem, as I see it, is that it is not clear to me why you effectively you have watered down the guideline, or at least, that is how I perceive your involvement. I admit assuming bad faith on my part, and the reason is I don't understand how the changes you have made to WP:FICT improve the guideline in any way I don't see them as having any consistency with existing policies and guidelines, and I perceive your actions as an attempt to construct an exemption for fictional topics from article inclusion criteria based on notability as set out in WP:GNG. I appologise wholeheartedly for my weakness, and my lack of good faith, and if there is anything I can do to make amends, let me know.
I have said this before, and I say it again: where every you wish to depart from existing policies and guidelines, I would be greatful if would be explicit where these departures are being made, why you think they will be of benefit, and provide examples where ever possible to illustrate the principles you wish to include in guideline. I don't claim to have all the answers, but in my defence I am clear and I set out my stall for all to see and understand, and I wish other editors like yourself would do the same, rather than just rubbishing my views and proposals for what ever undeclared reason are motivating them to do so. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Gavin.collins. You have new messages at Eusebeus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

3RR

Please be aware of WP:3RR, which you are in danger of violating on Scientific opinion on climate change William M. Connolley (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am aware, and I know you are too, so there is not point in the Pot calling the kettle black, if you see what you mean[3][4]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The edit you made here, far from being supported by consensus at the talkpage, was rejected in the section Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#What is to be done?. In accordance with Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Locked, I have blocked you for WP:edit warring for 24 hours. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gavin.collins (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Blocking an editor for adding reliable secondary sources to an article is unreasonable and runs against the principles and spirit of Wikipedia's content policies. There is no evidence that the addition of reliable secondary sources represents an edit war. Discussions have been conducted in a courteous and dignified fashion, without any breach of Wikipedia's behavioural policy. Whilst some editors have argued that it runs contrary to consensus, that does not mean or imply that the my edit was not carried out in good faith or that a block is justified in any way.

Decline reason:

The block looks quite valid, there was strong opposition expressed to this edit but you went ahead anyway. I think you are not listening to other people, and will keep running into trouble until you start considering the possibility you might be in the wrong. BozMo talk 19:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gavin.collins (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like an independent admin to review the block please

Decline reason:

I agree with BozMo (corrected, sorry, got names mixed up). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Gavin - I think there is some merit to your procedural claim, but you are certainly pushing uphill actively against a nearly unanimous agreement by others in the article and talk page. The article needs an actual RFC - to establish an enforceable consensus - and has not had one. But I think that it's reached the point that the burden of proof is on you.

You and the others are somewhat talking past each other, on topics such as whether non-scientific (political research, etc) secondary sources are "good sources" in the sense of appropriate and relevant for that particular article. Your basic point, that the source exists and is reliable - is not controvertable. But we do have guidelines beyond those, relative to fringe viewpoints, undue weight, etc.

A meta-examination of the consensus from outside is not irrelevant - but it's also different, and where and how it appears is a legitimate topic for consensus discussion.

I have recommended to 2/0 that a real RFC - with real, enforcable proposals etc - be done. The fake RFC and the poll attempts in the archives are not acceptable substitutes. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If I had seen at least one reasonable objection along those that the sources I added[5][6] where fringe viewpoints, or gave undue weight, I would agree with you. But unless I am mistaken, the sources are reasonably balanced and give due weight to different view points - in fact they are solid gold sources in my view, because they provide context to the reader, whereas nothing in the the current lead provides any context at all. I am not trying to push a particular view point about climate change here, but I do strongly object to Wikipedia's content policies being ignored, for without such reliable secondary sources, this article (and others like it) are little more than content forks, with only a title or a hat note based on orginal research to differentiate between each other. If I was pushing uphill, I felt the strength of Wikipedia's content policies behind me.
Sooner or later, someone will be brave enough to write a good lead for this article. I am just sorry that I am not allowed to do so. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Be aware that GWH's opinion that the RFC was fake is a minority view. Please don't rely on it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi,

I appreciate your help to bring in reliable sources for SOoCC and perhaps share your frustration with being blocked. I have faith that time will allow for a NPOV in the article. Sincerely, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Heroninos Archive

On December 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Heroninos Archive, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Dan Willis

Please refrain from making comments simply to prevent a discussion from being archived. Such edits may be considered disruptive. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your desire to archive the discussion about the article's notability is obviously very strong, so to keep you happy, I won't contest the issue. Just remember you do not own the article, and that I or any other edtor could restate the discussion at any time if they wish. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

fiction

Gavin, are you prepared to work for the acceptance of some compromise such as suggested in my remarks on NOT FICTION? (i.e, accept fuller content in exchange for fewer individual articles on fictional elements)  ? DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not and have responded at WT:FICT#Combinations and groups of articles about a fictional work. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I admit to complete puzzlement. MASEM & I have, from somewhat different positions, been trying to get some agreement on this. Whatever we may want, there are only a few possibilities for how this can go on.Leaving aside fighting , which I do not intend & I hope nobody else does either, and disengaging, which seems very unlikely, that leaves compromise, or argument. Argument has gotten us nowhere, and I do not see that it is likely to. That leaves compromise, which is the only way likely to get consensus. anyone who wants to develop these topics in any direction ought to want to compromise and do work, rather than argue. If you'd like to communicate off wiki, I'm always going to be available. DGG ( talk ) 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are igornoring the fact that the concept of notability is a set of inclusion criteria which allows compromise. If you suggesting that a watering down of the inclusion criteria that are generally accepted, then its not compromise, it is an attempt to construct an exemption for fictional topics from notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

check out this thread at the village pump?

I thought you'd be interested since it revives this discussion we had in July at Wikipedia Talk:Content forking. (I don't suggest you spend too much time re-reading the old thread, since I've clarified and re-stated the issues in the meantime.)

cheers, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 21:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have commented there and I will be putting forward a proposal regarding content forking at WT:NPOV shortly. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion of Playing to Win

Not that I actually created this article to begin with, but whatever the case I've redirected it to Little River Band. I suggest next time it might be a good idea to check the edit history of the article (i.e., who did what) before you start issuing SD warnings. TheRetroGuy (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Actually, as that article's been about for two or three years, it might have been better to have added a {{PROD}} to it or opened an AFD debate. This would give other Wikipedians a chance to review it and comment on the notability, etc. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that its too late to rescue Playing to Win from speedy delete. I thought notablity was established by virtue of it being an album by a notable band, Little River Band (LRB), with a notable lead singer, John Farnham. The article is certainly a stub but then so are many of LRB's later albums' articles: is this the first to be deleted? If I'd known it was going to be proposed for deletion then I would have voted against it.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 11:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not deleteted, merely redirected. If you can establish notability for this album in its own right, you can reinstate it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case consider WP:NALBUMS with In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Both Farnham (2003) and Little River Band (2004) are ARIA Hall of Fame inductees. That makes them highly notable in Australian music—please re-instate the article.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to the views expressed in WP:NALBUMS, which as a basis for the inclusion is too subjective to be credible. In the absence of any evidence that a topic has actually notable in accordance with WP:GNG, then there is no rationale for its inclusion as a standalone article. Clearly the WP:BURDEN to provide reliable secondary sources remains. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your continued objections: ARIA are fully independent from LRB & Farnham. I've re-instated the article.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 21:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you do, as I note you have added some sources, which is a big improvement. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see this article restored and expanded. I redirected it so it wouldn't get the chop and in the hope that someone would improve it. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Indaba Music - Your Comments

Please note the changes to Indaba Music. The press sources are both independent and reliable. Now they are also listed in a way that makes them easy to read and understand as such. They are in no way self-promotion as they are not connected to the business being discussed. Talkin bout chicken (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with this article is that its subject matter (the company) is not the subject of any significant coverage, and news sources, whilst they may be reliable sources, are little more than routine announcements in the form of content provided by the company itself (they all seem to feature comments from Daniel Zaccagnino, a director) that are not evidence of notability in accordance with WP:SPAM. It seems to me that this article that should be about a company is merely being used to promote the company's website and provide some publicity for its directors. Self-promotion does not to provide evidence that the company is notable in accordanc with WP:CORP; there has to be evidence that the company has been "noted" by sources outside the company. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting action Gavin.collins

I have raised a climate change probation request for enforcement citing you at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Gavin.collins Dmcq (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what a probation request is, or why it would be warranted. If it is something to do with discussing the status of the article Scientific opinion on climate change, then I have no concerns. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please just follow the link and have a look. I have asked for a topic ban on you for the business you've been going on about in that article's talk page. Dmcq (talk)

I think you will find that discussing the merits or demerits article on its talk page is considered to be acceptable most everywhere on Wikipedia, and for this reason, I think a topic ban would be over the top. If there is anything that has upset you in our discussions that have upset you at personal level, let me know, as perhaps I can address them here. You will find me an entirely reasonable editor. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Result of the abovelinked discussion: Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) is now pursuing dispute resolution in an appropriate venue beyond Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. He is cautioned to drop this particular issue at that talkpage at least until the escalated discussion reaches consensus.
I think that your participation at WP:OR/N indicates that you are leaving the disruptive pattern in favor of appropriately requesting additional input. While that discussion plays out, please do not raise, argue, or discuss the same issue at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change or make related edits to Scientific opinion on climate change. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive or not, the ban has the effect of sweeping my criticisms[7] under the rug, as nothing will come of discussing the problem of original research at another venue. Now that the criticisms are "out of sight, out of mind", you will not have burden yourself with my concerns again. However, the editor waring and editorial disputes will continue for a long as the article Scientific opinion on climate change is defined in terms of original research.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Can articles be written on an area of a subject by difficulty-level?

Dear Gavin,

Does an article on a portion of a topic, by difficulty level, require proof of notability?

No.

Can articles include difficulty-level indicators in their titles?

Yes.

In the case of basic topic lists, "basic" simply means "introductory-level".

Some other introductory-level articles, with the difficulty-level descriptor embedded in their titles, include:

• Introduction to eigenstates
• Introduction to entropy
• Introduction to evolution (featured article!)
• Introduction to gauge theory
• Introduction to general relativity
• Introduction to genetics
• Introduction to the Global Positioning System
• Introduction to Boolean algebra
• Introduction to M-theory
• Introduction to mathematics of general relativity
• Introduction to quantum mechanics
• Introduction to special relativity
• Introduction to systolic geometry
• Introduction to viruses - (featured article!)

Note: two of them are featured articles! That's a pretty good indicator of community acceptance.

Side note: Keep in mind that none of the authors sought (nor had to seek) permission or approval to write these articles. They just entered the titles and bingo! And once enough of them were written, they emerged as a new class of article: Introduction articles. The same concept of development applies to outline articles as a class.

The issue of having articles covering various difficulty levels has been discussed before:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to entropy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to M-theory
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to entropy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to genetics
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to genetics (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to genetics (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to viruses
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to viruses (2nd nomination)

You can provide an introduction to almost any subject. The idea of proving an introduction's notability is ludicrous and irrelevant, because the article isn't covering the nature of introductions of the subject but is actually presenting an introduction to the subject. The word in the title pertains to the nature of the article and not to the nature of the subject. Article type indicators are a growing trend on Wikipedia. Fighting innovation of this kind is futile, like taking a walk during a hurricane.

I hope the above explanation helps.

The Transhumanist 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My view is that these are all content forks, as there should only be one exposition of one particular subject. The key is the the title: "Introduction to..." is not the recognised name of any subject matter in accordance with WP:NAME. For instance Geography is a widely recognised article topic for which there is a substantial body of sources that indicate its name and subject matter are recognised by the world at large. However, you won't find any sources that show List of basic geography topics, Outline of geography or Introduction to geography are seperate, distinct and notable article topics in their own right, because their subject matter and their sources are the same as the article Geography. Just so that you know this is not my own particular view, read this:

I think this proposal would add much confusion to what is only a slightly confusing name for the policy. A "content fork" is mean to mean a split of identical content to two different articles, without attempting to sort out a valid difference between the one and the other. And specifically, because editor POV is not supposed to affect the article, that is not a valid difference. The policy is self-evident from the nature of Wikipedia: without setting meaningful distinctions between what articles cover, there would be one "Article" split into three million parts all covering everything at random. It also extends naturally to improperly segregated "Criticism" sections automatically, because sections of an article likewise should be distinguished by valid differences; so the article should be separated in terms of the major real-world activities/ideas/processes it addresses, not the opinions different groups of editors have about each individual detail. The bottom line is that when content is organized into articles or sections, it should be divided according to some rational, encyclopedic set of subdivisions. Wnt (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The key term to note here is "meaningful distinction". If the reasons for making a distiction are purely subjective, there is no meaningful distiction between topics, then one of them has to be content fork which was created for a reason known only to the editor who created it. For without verifiable evidence of notability, there is no rationale for inclusion other than subjective importance, which is not a basis for inclusion supported by any policy or guildeline in Wikipeia.
The fact is that "Introduction to.." type articles are catered for by Simple English Wikipedia, and fall outside the scope of en.Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Because I was quoted I just had to weigh in. I mostly agree with what is said above, but with the proviso that if a distinction can be drawn between introductory and advanced topics that is well established outside of Wikipedia, then you can have two different articles. To give an extreme case, special relativity is limited to a simplified case as an introduction, while general relativity deals with more complex topics. A little more debatably, college curricula may split "introductory organic chemistry" from "advanced organic chemistry", with different textbooks catering to each. The distinction is objective enough that an author's "advanced" textbook is meant to be used by second-year students regardless of what book they followed in the first year. We can organize content by difficulty in such cases, because there is a (somewhat) objective way to decide which article each thing should go in that won't change every time a few new editors enter the mix. Of course, it is still very possible that this is not the best way we can think of to organize the content - deciding how to split up the content of an ever-changing article is sometimes more of an art than almost anything else we do on Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the justification used for The Transhumanist's endoresement of outlines, indroductory and other types of Propædia/Micropædia/Macropædia type articles that are familiar features of paper based publications. However, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so it does not need to organise its content in such a pedantic fashion; there are several mechanisms, such as categories that are much more flexible, and are more beneficial because lend themselves to the creation of taxonomies automatically.
The second reason why I don't endorse the idea that complex topics should be split into simpler ones is that Wikipedia is already broken down between leading articles and sub-topics in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style, which means we don't have to over-ride WP:AVOIDSPLIT, WP:CFORK or WP:UNDUE to obtain balanced coverage of a particular subject matter.
As I see it, the decision to create barebone outlines that provide no context to the reader and introductory articles that are content forks has always been based on subjective editorial opinion. In paper based publications, the editorial decision to create them has been done to facilitate navigation, just like a table of contents or an index. Wikipedia does not need such mechanisms, and so the subjective editorial decisions to create the do not apply. The need for introductions, outlines, prefaces and tables of contents in electronic publications was made redundant by the advent of the wiki. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I mostly agree - even so, I have to sympathize with the desire of frustrated audiences to have an easier way into a topic. We have quite a few articles (especially in physics) that are darn near bulletproof. Usually this is a matter of bad editing, by which I mostly mean "not enough editing", and specifically not enough editing to add all of the introductory material that will get people up to speed. (Sometimes it is only bad writing/organization, which can easily be fixed - I worked on Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) a while back and I think I made it easier to understand without adding much to it) But when you try to summarize a whole field in a page there is also a fierce competition for space, almost like in a paper encyclopedia. I think it is true that any article split into introduction and deeper coverage can better be organized in another way - however, that other way may be hard to find and may take more work than the editors are up to.

Perhaps a different way would offer some compromise - properly Wikipedia should have articles about the teaching of each major field, explaining how teachers decide what topics should be taught in a semester, in what order, how textbooks are selected, and how progress is assessed - and perhaps we should have articles on how best to learn these topics as well.

The Wiki system is powerful, but I think we'll see more forms of indexing arise in the future. I've suggested before that Wikipedia should have at least 1 billion articles to offer what I see as a basic depth of coverage, and as it grows the ratio of "white matter" to "grey matter" is bound to increase. In time I think we'll have curated searches (i.e. when you search for a quoted phrase, someone has prepared the results of that search with related items in groups with a brief explanation of each), topic-specific redirects (i.e. if you've set a topic parameter as "biology", then a search for "development" gets you straight to a developmental biology page, whereas if you've set it as "economics" or "architecture" you get different results), and different options for how each article's content is divided up. Countless others will think of ideas much better than that. Wnt (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see why some editors would want simplified overview of complex topics, but that does alter my view that there is no "meaningful distinction" between the main article and introductory article, save only editorial opinion. If one group of editors think a topic should be written about one way, an another group of editors think it should be written another (say, in a simplified way), then that goes against the spirit of WP:NPOV. I think what you are trying to say is that a content fork is good if it is well intentioned, and bad if it is not. My view is that we can't externally validate editorial intention, so they are irrelevant. If the sources address the same topic directly and in detail, and there is no "meaningful distinction that can be externally validated" between articles, then a content fork exists. Thank you for your stimulating comments which have helped me clarify my views on this issue. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Hiding/RFC

Good morning. I declined your speedy request on this page; users are permitted to keep a list of diffs and similar materials in preparation for RFCs, Arbcom requests, and other filings. However, Hiding hasn't touched this page since December, so I've asked them to request its deletion. If it continues to sit, an MFD would be appropriate. FYI, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for informing me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Illegal logging in Madagascar: Article scope

I saw your interest in the topic of article scope and thought your interest may be piqued in this case - I picked up Illegal logging in Madagascar to review at GAN, and had some ideas about the scope of the article - i.e. wondered whether it should be broader, and if so to what degree - Madagascar is a world heritage area with a unique biodiversity and it sounds like a disaster of epic proportions in the last year, yet are we straying into soapbox territory? Just thought this would make a change from the usual tedium of trench warfare See Talk:Illegal logging in Madagascar/GA1 cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reponsed to your request[8]. If I can come up with some evidence that supports a particular article title, I will rejoin the discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input. I have asked a few people and will help the nominator how to proceed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your references to WP:Source list

Hi Gavin, I note you've made comments on a number of list AfDs to the effect that the lists don't meet the requirements at WP:Source list. I've responded at the Mallu Magalhães AfD but rather than copying that to each of the AfDs you participated in, could I just politely request that you revisit those AfDs and consider your position? WP:Source list applies to lists with contentious topics and no clearly defined criteria for inclusion (eg "List of people who are evil", "List of Catholics who should be excommunicated", "List of bad-tasting candy"). The lists you've commented on do have a lot of problems that you could validly pick up on, but their subjects are neither contentious nor poorly defined. I'd invite you to look back over your arguments (and the articles in question) and see whether that's really the argument you intended to make. Thanks! - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have responed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mallu Magalhães songs. All lists are are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies in accordance with WP:Source list, not just contentious ones. If a list has no verifiable defintion, then there is no rationale for incluison. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well, I disagree with you on the "all lists" point, in as much as it's specifically contradicted by WP:V and WP:RS, but more to the point, which of these lists do you say don't have verifiable definitions? What's the difficulty in determining whether a song by Mallu Magalhaes is officially released? How is it hard to determine whether a city in Turkey is "on the river"?" I accept the definitions could be clearer but they're not so unclear (or controversial) as to make the list unusable. And what's your answer to WP:Source list's claim that any such difficulties should be resolved by discussion on the talk page, not through AfD? Sorry, I'm not trying to have a go at you here, because you're an experienced editor arguing politely by reference to policy, which we need more of, but insasmuch as what you're saying seems directly contradicted by the policy you quote I'm feeling that one of us (possibly me!) is missing some essential point here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is actually quite difficult to determine whether a song by Mallu Magalhães is officially released if there are not any veriable sources cited. In fact, it is quite difficult to know if this list is not original research or not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you have a good faith objection to make, the appropriate way of proceeding is to fact-tag the song, or delete it as uncited, and put the onus on the person reinstating the material to provide sources. Or if you have the same objection to the entire content of the list, raise it on the talk page. I don't think either of us contends that there is no such thing as an "officially released song by Mallu Magalhaes", so it's not the list that's in dispute, just its content. Which makes it a matter resolved through normal editing, not AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I disupute the existence of the list, as without veriable definition, there is no evidence to show it has not been created and compiled as an exercise in original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you're disputing the content. To dispute the existence of the list, you would have to say that Mallu Magalhaes never released any songs, which would leave one wondering exactly what her verifiably released albums were filled with. What you're saying is that you can't be sure the songs currently listed actually belong on the list - but clearly there ARE some songs that should be there, whether or not they're any of the current ones. I'd direct your attention to WP:V, which reminds you that citations are only necessary "for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" (emphasis in original). If you have a good faith reason for believing that this content doesn't belong on the list, then raise it at the talk page and require sources, but if your objection doesn't rise any higher than "there are no sources" then you should be aware that for this kind of information there doesn't necessarily need to be. And, again, that it's a problem to be solved through normal editing, not at AfD- DustFormsWords (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am disuputing the list. Maybe it is the truth that Mallu Magalhães has released songs, but whether they are all her own can only be a matter of verifiable fact. Mybe the list is written in good faith, or maybe its not; either way, there needs to be a veriable definition to demonstrate it is not original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the Illegal logging in Madagascar GAC

Thank you for getting involved in what's turned out to be a very hairy GAC for Illegal logging in Madagascar. For me, the RfC was been very educational. I hope it hasn't give you too many headaches. Anyway, I've made a few comments on the GAC and would appreciate some feedback. In short, I initially recommended renaming to "Logging in Madagascar", but upon further inspection and reflection, I decided that it might be best to keep the existing title. Anyway, let me know what you think when you get a moment. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What ever title you choose, I recomend making it on the back of what the best reliable secondary source suggests the topic and the title to be, rather than personal preference. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You're my hero.

[9]. Takes balls of steel, man.--Kyorosuke | Talk 00:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there is barnstar awarded to editors for having B**** of steel. Probably just as well there is not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've made my points clear

Your comments in the discussion at WT:N have been astoundingly not constructive, to the point where the whole thing was derailed on a tangent fueled only by your fringe opinions and it's taken a whole week just to get back to the point that the discussion started off at. This behavior isn't new either, as the exact same thing that occurred at WT:FICT, where dozens of well-meaning editors got trapped into arguing with the generally unsupported, contradictory, and sometimes nonsensical things that you've posted instead of moving forward at all. For years, Gavin. I'm not trying to personally attack you, but I've personally grown a bit fatigued of what I've seen here. It's fully within your right to argue and discuss anything here, but I think it's best that you know that it's almost never done the project or its readers any sort of service. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to vent your opinions on my talk page, but your recent comments[10][11]are not appropriate nor are they relevant to WT:N and I won't hesitate bringing this issue to WP:WQA or WP:ANI in the future if you direct any comments towards me that are insulting or imply an insult.
Whether or not my opinions represent fringe views are debateable, but I am happy to accept this criticism. My own view is that the current position of list topics in terms of content policy is pretty clear: they are bound by them like every other mainspace page, so in theory they are no different from article topics. However, what is not clear is how my view could be applied in practise, and there is a complete lack of guidance and transparency of the inclusion criteria of list topics to use as a reference point. If flushing out these issues seems long winded and unproductive, then I can applogise now, as the level of detail that the discussions (we are right down at thebrass tacks level) can be wearisome, particularly where the participants do not share a common understanding of the issues.
Please be assured that I am not arguing the about the inclusion criteria for list topics just for the fun of it; this is an issue that comes up time and time again, and each time the lack of shared understanding is exposed each time. It is about time that this issue is thrashed out, and clear guidance given. I expect this to be a long debate, which may even go to RFC at the end. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion nomination of Death & Taxes

Replied on my talk. Cheers, Peter 16:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Asserting OR in AfDs – A Request

Gavin – As I’ve been closing quite a few AfDs lately, I’ve noticed that you’ve recommended deletion on a number of articles using essentially a boilerplate statement that in part asserts the article is WP:OR. Although OR is a legitimate rationale for deletion, merely asserting something is OR doesn’t necessarily make it so, no matter how many times its repeated. As a closing Admin, I look for one of three conditions to exist when trying to evaluate an assertion of OR. 1) Are the facts and conclusions in the article clearly unsupported by 3rd Party sources? For young articles, WP:BEFORE is a very important element here. 2) Are the facts and conclusions in the article only supported by self-published sources? Personal essays along these lines (1&2) are relative easy to identify and evaluate as OR. 3) Has the editor made conclusions by combining facts from different sources, but not supported the conclusion with independent 3rd party sources? In other words, has the editor synthesized a conclusion or POV on his own that isn’t independently verifiable by 3rd party sources? These kinds of synthesized conclusions are indeed OR, but can be difficult to see in an AfD unless specifically highlighted. Indeed, in many cases OR is asserted when an editor has compiled an article from a wide variety of sources and the article’s title may not be the most appropriate from a Notability standpoint. But unless, one of the conditions above predominate the article, it is still not OR merely a question of notability.

Because AfDs often have to deal with several unrelated rationale simultaneously, sorting out evidence to support different rationale in the discussion and article can be complex. I.E, Notability and OR are quite different issues and require different evaluations of the evidence. In the case of OR, it would be extremely useful when you are asserting OR in an AfD that you identify the specific content or conditions in the article that you believe makes the article OR. Where this would become valuable would be in terms of condition 3 above. If there are conclusions in the article that have been synthesized and unsupported by 3rd Party sources, it would be helpful if you pointed those out specifically. In other words, if you clearly pointed out the content in the article that supports the assertion of OR, it would make evaluation of the AfD from an OR standpoint much easier for a closing Admin. Hopefully these are helpful thoughts. Thanks for your support of and participation in the AfD process.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am not sure I understand you, because I think I made it clear in the AfD that it is the list topic itself that is original research. I think you may be confusing the article content with lists of elements, as your three conditions don't seem to apply to list topics which don't normally contain facts and conclusions. A list contains a number of elements, and it is seldom that that they include much in the way of content other than a definition. List topics should have a definition, although many don't, in which case the title is the definition. If the definition (or in its absence, the list title) has not been published elsewhere, then it is an novel and original topic created by its authors. Such creations are original research, because the list creators are creating an entirely new topic. A good example of editors creating entirely new topic is given at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Hopefully I have helped clarify my views. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are significantly in the minority when it comes to asserting a List title must have been published elsewhere or else it is OR. Given the navigational purposes (among others) of lists that is going to be a tough sell and doesn't even come close to the intent of the OR policy. That said, I appreciate your response and I now better understand the point of your OR assertions in AfDs. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk page watcher here, but I fully agree with Gavin on his interpretation of original research and I applaud him for his AfD participation. Mike, I pointed out in your RfA that your historical participation in list-related AfDs has been rather extreme (you oftentimes have only chosen to participate in list-related AfDs and I don't know if you have ever voiced deletion in any of these debates), so I'm rather suprised that you are not only closing list-related AfDs, but are also instructing policy-conscious editors who disagree with you. You seem to be pretty involved with this topic (as am I, admittedly, but I would never think of closing list-related AfDs were I given the power), so to make a long story short, I'm not sure you are the right admin to close these particular AfDs. ThemFromSpace 21:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Mike, if a topic (list or otherwise) does not exist outside Wikipedia as the subject of a reliable, third party sources, then where does the rationale for inclusion come from, when it has to comply with Wikipedia's content policies? If list topic is to exist as a standalone list article, then it must be no different in this regard from any other Wikipedia main-space page. I think you are you mixing up the content of list with the topic (or definition) of a list in some way.

If you look at the list edit history of List of LGBT Jews, you can see who created and augmented that particular list: Wikipedia editors. This is perfectly OK if you cite the source of the idea for the list, but if you don't, you are in contravention of WP:BURDEN. In the real world, original research is how people make an living in academia, book publishing and newpapers -writing orginal ideas down and getting recognition for their efforts (or not). When you are compiling a list for publication inside Wikipedia, compiling data without relying on previously published list topics (or list topic definitions) is to create an entirely new and novel list topic that has never been published anywhere else that is unique only to Wikipedia. Whilst this is acceptable in the real world, inside Wikipedia this process is a way of using main-space pages as a platform for original research.

At the very least, lets agree that there has to be some external validation for the inclusion of a list topic as a separate stand alone list article in Wikipedia, otherewise we will end up with lots of random stuff that has been WP:MADEUP or worse still, created for no other purpose but soap boxing or coatracking, such as List of LGBT Jews which you have mistakenly kept because, lets face it, you believe (but cannot prove or provide evidence) that it is a verifiable list topic, when in fact it is not. Admit it - that article is neither verfiable nor notable, yet you chose to keep it on the basis of WP:IKNOWIT. Personally, I don't think you have really thought this through, and whilst I respect you position as an administrator (its a difficult job to do), I don't think you understand Wikipedia's policy on verifiability from a deep field perspective.

In fairness to you, many other editors share your views that list topics don't have to be verifiable - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic geography topics or WP:VPP#List of controversial books to read opinions similar to yours being expressed. However I never heard a rational explanation as to where they get the idea that list topics can be included in Wikipedia if they don't exist outside Wikipedia. Maybe you can enlighten me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Gavin – I would never seek to enlighten you as that would be arrogance on my part. Instead, I will, within the confines of this discussion, explain my macro views on the subject at hand—what’s that? –OR and (from you) LISTs. The List in WP serves multiple purposes WP:CLN and unfortunately suffers from that multi-purpose existence. To complicate a list’s existence even further, there are Embedded Lists and Standalone Lists, both which are subject to the same style guideline WP:List. It is because Lists can serve multiple purposes, that I believe your rigid criteria that the list title must have been published elsewhere or else it is OR is flawed. Trust me, there are many lists which are not suitable for WP, but not because their topic hasn’t been published elsewhere. Using your criteria, the great majority of embedded and standalone lists in WP would not be suitable for the encyclopedia. I will cite an example that is literally close to home. In the Bozeman, Montana article there are two embedded lists (actually there are 3 but I am only going to discuss two)—Media and Notable Residents. Neither of those subjects—Media outlets of Bozeman (multiple embedded lists) and Notable Residents of Bozeman have been published elsewhere. They are purely compilations of data, organized under a logical heading and verified by 3rd party sources—yet they are without a doubt lists that comply with Wp:lists. Now if by chance there were 300 notable residents of Bozeman, Montana (god forbid), it might warrant a standalone list because it would be too big for the main article. Now as a standalone article, the same facts would be true—there would be no previously published list, only the compilations of WP editors supported by 3rd party sources. This idea applies to the great majority of lists within WP. The actual title of the list—whether embedded or standalone—has never really even been published somewhere else, it’s just a logical title to convey the general contents of the list.

I firmly believe that the general subject (not the title) of any List should be notable in its own right. And that the content of any list should be verifiable in light of the list’s inclusion criteria (something that should be solid and unequivocal). It’s the intersection of ideas (or organization of ideas) that become problematic in lists. My original request to you was written at 36K feet on my way home from a business trip. On that same flight I was finishing up reading a biography of a historic Glacier National Park (U.S.) personality and author, James Willard Schultz. The biographer (Hanna) noted that no comprehensive bibliography of Schultz has even been published. Yet would an embedded or standalone list of the works of Schultz be inappropriate. I think not, but by your standard it would if Hanna’s statement was true (it is).

This was not intended to be a lengthy debate on OR and Lists, merely a request on my part as to your boilerplate comments on a number of AfDs I reviewed. You answered that request to my satisfaction. If this needs further discussion, it should take place on WP:lists, not here. Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think you views on lists reflect perfectly the generally received wisdom on the inclusion of list topics, namely that list topics don't have to have external validation because they are not the same as conventional main-space articles. However, it appears to me that this is a misunderstanding, and if we were to look at your views in more depth, we would find that they are based on several fallacies, namely that that list topics don't have to have external validation if the following apply:

1. they serve some "higher" purpose, such as being navigational aids (WP:USEFUL);
2. they are about topics that are close to home (WP:ITSLOCAL);
3. they contain valuable or historic information (WP:VALINFO);
4. the general subject of any List should be notable in its own right (WP:INHERITED);
5. the list topic "truly" exists (WP:ITEXISTS)

My view is that these arguments are all more or less boil down same thing: they are ways of saying that an unverifable list topic should be included in Wikipedia if they are deemed to possess some form of "subjective importance" (WP:IKNOWIT). The problem with subjective importance is that is not supported by Wikipedia's content policies, which is reflected in some of the points you have made, namely:

1. At what point do multiple embedded list cease to be useful and become a nuisance? See WP:UNDUE;
2. What logical title should we choose for a list? e.g. Outline of geography or List of basic geography topics. See WP:TITLE.

The point I wish to make here is that once you exempt lists from content policy, it is impossible to resolve editorial disputes over these issues, because only external validation can determine whether a list is encyclopaedic or not, and if so, what weight it should be given to it, or what title should it have. Going back to your list of books by James Willard Schultz, you have ask, at what point is undue weight being given to the list of books, rather than to the man himself? If this article were a very long one (some articles about authors are very long), then there comes a point where it might be better to drop the list in favour of more notable coverage about the man.

Suffice it to say, I don't share you views on lists. I think your views are based on thinking that has been discredited by WP:ATA. These stock arguments are not supported by content policy, and for that reason, inclusion of list topics based upon them is not workable since when it comes to resolving editorial disputes about the appropriateness of lists, stock arguments can never be a substitute for external validation. But most amazingly for me, I don't understand why you thing that a topic that has been published nowhere else other than Wikipedia is not original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

C.C.Langdell

The contradiction is that Langdell did not insist on 'timeless principles' because he was a Darwinist/pragmatist in the manner of Karl Popper. In other words we cannot fix legal statute in stone because legal precedent is undergoing a constant process of evolution due to the contingencies of historical conditions. The statement 'It (the Case method) became less relevant as a swiftly changing polity required a new legal architecture and jurisprudential modality to develop rules more consonant with the reality of legal process.' is not only untrue, it is diametrically opposite to what Langdell taught. Langdell was an experienced Barrister who wished to bring the living actuality of jurisprudence out of the courtroom and into the university classroom. He taught the very opposite of eternal timeless truths that is the antithesis of pragmatism. Do you see? Furthermore, not only did his case method spread to all Law schools in the United States it is still the dominant method taught today. So Haider Ala Hamoudi has gotten the wrong end of the stick entirely. That's why the offending material should be removed.81.106.115.153 (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You will have to cite your sources to substantiate your views. I am not a specialist in this area, but I know that the sourced content[12] that I have added to the article Christopher Columbus Langdell is top quality, insightful and well written. In fact, I am prepared to stick my neck out and say that as reliable secondary sources go, its solid gold. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11