Talk:Independent Order of Odd Fellows/June 2010

Linkfarm

I've removed the list of lodges per WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, you're quite right. I think I've addressed (started to address?) the issues you have raised. If not, please explain here rather than reverting. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointless, futile and frustrating lack of communication archived at Talk:Independent Order of Odd Fellows/June 2010 Pdfpdf (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not a fix, but borders on WP:REFSPAM. The links are available through the first two External links. That's enough. We're writing an encyclopedia article here after all. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"but borders on WP:REFSPAM" I wrote "borders" to express my viewpoint that you were working in good faith. Sorry for any confusion.

"The links are available through the first two External links." I believe this is enough. More than enough actually, since the second link is available from the first.

You've yet to join this discussion, while repeatedly requesting that I discuss my edits. I took your repeated lack of response as a lack of interest. Sorry I didn't note that you hadn't done any editing in the 24 hours between the time I make the comment above (16:01, 2 June 2010) and made my subsequent edit to the article (15:48, 3 June 2010) --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed in attempt to de-escalate situation

POV and destructive edits Citation spam ... Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia. I disagree with your point of view on a number of fronts. I disagree with your actions on another number of other fronts. The body of the table has NOTHING to do with your complaints. The body of the table is NOT a linkfarm. You have NO justification for removing the body of the table. So please stop doing so. You made a complaint. I agreed with you. I am now making efforts to address the issues you have raised. I have put an "Under Construction" template over the table, and am working towards the solution. Whilst I am showing good faith and trying to address your concerns, you have NO justification for removing the body of the table. So please stop doing so. We are discussing the matter. (Or at least, I am - I've yet to see anything useful, positive or constructive from you - only complaints and destruction.) Wikipedia convention and ettiquette is to avoid further reversion until a consenus is agreed. Consensus has not yet been agreed. Hence, you have NO justification for removing the body of the table. So please stop doing so. Etc. Do I need to enumerate EVERY issue? I think it grossly unjust that you are just complaining and reverting without contributing anything positive. Second-to-last, your POV is NOT WP policy, and is NOT concensus. It is just your POV. You have NO justification for removing the body of the table. So please stop doing so. Last, WP:AGF Looking forward to a useful and constructive discussion to resolving your complaints. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Please review WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLE, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"List of Grand Lodges and their founding dates"

Sorry I didn't note that you hadn't done any editing in the 24 hours between the time I make the comment above (16:01, 2 June 2010) and made my subsequent edit to the article (15:48, 3 June 2010) --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Other than your wish to clear up misunderstandings and return this to a useful and productive conversation, (both of which I endorse), I'm afraid I don't really understand just what it is you are complaining about. Yes, I understand what a linkfarm is, but my reading of the policy suggests to me that this is not a link farm, so I am quite confused by your responses.

It may not be clear to you that my intention with this table is to provide a list of Grand Lodges and their founding dates. This begs two questions / requests:

• Can you suggest how it can be presented / organised / re-organised / whatever to make it clear that it is a "List of Grand Lodges and their founding dates"?
• It's my understanding that each entry in such a list requires a supporting reference. Have I misunderstood the requirement?
  • If I have misunderstood, can you please explain to me your interpretation of the requirement?
  • If I have correctly interpreted the requirement, please can you explain to me the problem with what I am doing?

Also, could you have a look at List of Australian generals and brigadiers please? It is my impression that, except for the topic domains, the table there and this table are somewhat analogous. What do you think?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing the matter.

First, why does such a list belong in an encyclopedia article?

Second, what independent, reliable sources do we have for such material?

I think List of Australian generals and brigadiers should be trimmed to only include entries referenced by independent, reliable sources.

I think a more apt analogy would be a list of all offices for a specific company. --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"First, why does such a list belong in an encyclopedia article?" - The article is about a U.S. Lodge established in the early 19th century that had spread to most of the rest of the world by the end of the 19th century, and in the 20th and 21st centuries it has both continued to exist, and continued to spread. The table provides examples and evidence of the nature and extent of the spread, and of the international nature of the organisation.

"Second, what independent, reliable sources do we have for such material?" - Good question. I will have to think about it before I can give you a useful answer.

"I think List of Australian generals and brigadiers should be trimmed to only include entries referenced by independent, reliable sources." - Fortunately for this subject, independent, reliable sources abound, and the list uses them, so I'm a bit confused by your response. Are you referring to the red links, the {{cn}}, or the references quoted?

"I think a more apt analogy would be a list of all offices for a specific company." - Thanks.

BTW: I'll note that I also asked you a number of other questions which you haven't yet addressed.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not addressing your questions one by one, I'm trying to address them while steering the discussion to the basic Wikipedia policies that apply here (WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV). --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see the relevance of WP:NOT & WP:V. However, I'm not sure why you mention WP:OR & WP:NPOV. I see no OR nor POV in the table. Can you clarify please? (P.S. It's past bedtime here - good night.) Pdfpdf (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

OR and NPOV because of their discussions on how to handle information not verified by independent sources (in WP:PSTS and WP:UNDUE). --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"While I'm not addressing your questions ... " - I await your replies with antici ... pation. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Fortunately for this subject, independent, reliable sources abound, and the list uses them" I don't see even one. Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect we might be talking at cross purposes. I was referring to the "Generals" article. I suspect you are referring to the IOOF article? Please confirm. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to IOOF. I'll try to be clear when I refer to another article. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What would you like me to respond to further? --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like you to respond to:

It may not be clear to you that my intention with this table is to provide a list of Grand Lodges and their founding dates. This begs two questions / requests:

• Can you suggest how it can be presented / organised / re-organised / whatever to make it clear that it is a "List of Grand Lodges and their founding dates"?
• It's my understanding that each entry in such a list requires a supporting reference. Have I misunderstood the requirement?
  • If I have misunderstood, can you please explain to me your interpretation of the requirement?
  • If I have correctly interpreted the requirement, please can you explain to me the problem with what I am doing?

Also: Are you referring to the red links, the , or the references quoted?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW:"I think a more apt analogy would be a list of all offices for a specific company." Yes, I agree. That is a more apt analogy. Again, thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How to present it? Start with independent, reliable sources. That way we know it's worth presenting, and we present it in a balanced way. Each entry needs to be verifiable. Ideally, the entire list would be referenced from a single, independent, reliable source. Instead, we have multiple, self-published sources on themselves that previously were mostly just links to official websites. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit tedious. As discussed, you have NO justification for removing the table. If you continue to be fussy about the links, then perhaps you have some justification for removing the links, but NOT the table. And given that there's an ongoing discussion on the matter, it's somewhat customary to discuss such an action on the talk page, and gain consensus, BEFORE making that sort of edit. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding that this exercise has become rather tedious. We have previously discussed many of these issues, and as you have not disagreed with, challenged or responded to many of my statements, I have assumed that you have tolerated them. (I hesitate to say "agreed with".)

One of these was discussion of the table vs the links in the table. I was under the impression that you had agreed that you have NO justification for removing the table. But you continue to do so. I find your behaviour on this inconsistent and confusing. Also, I was under the impression that we were discussing the matter, and it is my understanding of wiki-ettiquette that when there is an ongoing conversation on a matter, it's somewhat customary to discuss such an action on the talk page, and gain consensus, BEFORE making that sort of edit. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no ongoing discussion. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I see a discussion that ended 8 June. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to be pedantic, I will revise my reply:

This is getting a bit tedious. As discussed, you have NO justification for removing the table.

I'm finding that this exercise has become rather tedious. We have previously discussed many of these issues, and as you have not disagreed with, challenged or responded to many of my statements, I have assumed that you have tolerated them. (I hesitate to say "agreed with".) One of these was discussion of the table vs the links in the table. I was under the impression that you had agreed that you have NO justification for removing the table. But you continue to do so.

If you continue to be fussy about the links, then perhaps you have some justification for removing the links, but NOT the table. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I see little justification for keeping the table, certainly not enough to warrant ignoring the multiple policies already mentioned, especially not WP:BURDEN. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already answered ALL of your questions. You have answered very few of mine. The only thing I can see to do is repeat myself step by step and hope you engage in discussion. So let's take things one step at a time, and clarify things as we go, because we don't seem to be particularly good at communicating with each other, and I don't understand many of your statements. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Attempting to determine just what it is you are talking about

1) "First, why does such a list belong in an encyclopedia article?" --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

2) The article is about a U.S. Lodge established in the early 19th century that had spread to most of the rest of the world by the end of the 19th century, and in the 20th and 21st centuries it has both continued to exist, and continued to spread. The table provides examples and evidence of the nature and extent of the spread, and of the international nature of the organisation. This is why I think that such a list belongs in an encyclopaedia article. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we have independent sources with the same opinion? If so, how do they present the same information? If they don't use a table or list of lodges, our doing so would tend to violating WP:NPOV. If we have no such sources, then it's a worse NPOV vio. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Small steps, one at a time please. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

3) Do we have independent sources with the same opinion? --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

3a) With which same opinion? The only opinion I can see in para labelled 2 is "This is why I think that such a list belongs in an encyclopaedia article." Is that the opinion you are referring to? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

3aa) Do we have independent sources with the opinion: "This is why I think that such a list belongs in an encyclopaedia article." I don't. Why do you ask? Why would we want any?

3ab) Do we have independent sources with the opinion: "The article is about a U.S. Lodge established in the early 19th century that had spread to most of the rest of the world by the end of the 19th century, and in the 20th and 21st centuries it has both continued to exist, and continued to spread." - That's a fact, not an opinion.

3ac) Do we have independent sources with the opinion: "The table provides examples and evidence of the nature and extent of the spread, and of the international nature of the organisation." - Again, that's a fact, not opinion.

I suspect I'm missing your point. I certainly don't understand what point you may be trying to make.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that what in your opinion are "facts." I'm asking for sources that demonstrate that such a table is warranted per NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE. WP:NOTDIR #7 covers the same concerns, as does WP:Source list.

As I pointed out earlier, "I think a more apt analogy would be a list of all offices for a specific company." Note that we don't include such lists in articles about companies. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that what in your opinion are "facts." - I'm sorry, but no matter how many times I read it, that sentence doesn't make any sense. Please redraft it. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I disagree with what in your opinion are "facts" or that designating them as "facts" serves any purpose. Some of your statements may be well-sourced material suitable for inclusion in an article. Some may not be. Claiming that they're fact appears to be an attempt to get around the relevant policies.

My concerns center around WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTDIR and WP:Source list. I've explained why, and am happy to elaborate further. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with what in your opinion are "facts" or that designating them as "facts" serves any purpose. Some of your statements may be well-sourced material suitable for inclusion in an article. Some may not be. Claiming that they're fact appears to be an attempt to get around the relevant policies.

4.1) Do you mean: "I disagree that what you are stating to be facts, are indeed facts."?

If so, I'm puzzled. (If not, please have another go at explaining yourself.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

4.2) If so, please explain which of the following are opinion, and why you feel they are opinion:

4.2a) "The article is about a U.S. Lodge established in the early 19th century."

4.2b) "The article is about a U.S. Lodge that had spread to most of the rest of the world by the end of the 19th century."

4.2c) "The article is about a U.S. Lodge that, in the 20th and 21st centuries, has both continued to exist, and continued to spread."

4.2d) "The table provides examples and evidence of the nature and extent of the spread."

4.2e) "The table provides examples and evidence of the international nature of the organisation."

Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

4.3) "Some of your statements may be well-sourced material suitable for inclusion in an article."

Do you have any problems, doubts, disgreements or other opinions, that 4.2a, 4.2b and 4.2c are "Statements that may be well-sourced material suitable for inclusion in an article."?

(In case it is not clear to you, that is a question to which I am seeking a Yes/No answer.)

(If your answer is "Yes", please list what those problems, doubts, disgreements or other opinions are.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

4.4) Do you have any problems, doubts, disgreements or other opinions regarding 4.2d and 4.2e? (Yes/No)

(If your answer is "Yes", please list what those problems, doubts, disgreements or other opinions are.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

4.5) My concerns are that I don't understand what you are talking about. Despite my repeated requests for clarification, your replies provide no clarity. Perhaps when I understand what you are talking about, then I will be able to consider some of your subsequent statements in the light of that understanding, and perhaps then we will be able to start communicating. I have no doubt that you know what you are talking about. However, that's not the point. The point is that to communicate, you need to ensure that the recipient of your statements understands them.

I'm afraid that, at this point in time, I don't. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

4.6) To build a structure, one needs a foundation. It seems to me that you are very keen to build the structure, but you don't seem to be explaining the foundation on which you wish to build. Hence, I am unaware of many of the assumptions behind your statements, and hence I have no frame of reference by which to interpret your statements. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

4.7) I'm still awaiting a Yes/No answer to the second question in 3a). Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

4.8) I'm still awaiting answers to the two questions in 3aa). Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

5) "I'm asking for sources that demonstrate that such a table is warranted per WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE."

5.1) I really don't understand what WP:UNDUE has to do with presenting a table of data. Please explain.

5.2) I really don't understand how ANY sources would demonstrate whether or not a table of data is "warranted". Surely "warranted" is an opinion resulting from a point-of-view? (Yes/No?)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion.

A table presents a high level of detailed information. I think it would be best to have independent sources to justify presenting all this information in the article. Otherwise we risk violating WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR.

The confusion appears to be with WP:NPOV.

WP:NOTDIR #7 specifically refers to WP:UNDUE. WP:SOAPBOX refers to WP:NPOV twice, as does WP:Source list.

(I'll continue when I have time later, but at least I hope this makes clear why NPOV applies. I expect we'll still need to discuss how it applies.) --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

6.1) "I'm sorry for the confusion." - Really? As hard as I try to WP:AGF, I feel that if you really were sorry, you might attempt to do something about it. I see no evidence of you doing anything other than spouting irrelevant comments.

6.2) "A table presents a high level of detailed information." - Well thank you for the compliment. But so what?
6.3) I think it would be best to have independent sources to justify presenting all this information in the article. - Yes, I thought we had agreed that ages ago, but you keep making ambiguous and conflicting statements. I asked a relevant and related question above. Why haven't you answered it?
6.4) "Otherwise we risk violating WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR." - Pure noise. Ignored.
6.5) The confusion appears to be with WP:NPOV. - I disagree. The confusion appears to be with your inability to express yourself.
6.6) "WP:NOTDIR #7 specifically refers to WP:UNDUE. WP:SOAPBOX refers to WP:NPOV twice, as does WP:Source list." - So what? What's your point? More noise. Ignored.
6.7) Yes, I know I'm about to start shouting: YOU HAVE NOT EVEN ADDRESSED, MUCH LESS ATTEMPTED TO ANSWER, EVEN ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED YOU. Yet you expect me to WP:AGF. Your expectations are unreasonable.
Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)