Talk:General average

Copyvio general average[edit]

I'm not entirely sure what you tagged is really a copyvio, it's permissible to copy some text verbatim without violating copyright law, and the source is referenced. But I changed the wording of the two sentences to remove any concerns. --Stbalbach 17:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some text may be permissible. But copying an entire work, pasting it, moving a few paragraphs around and changing a few words does not qualify. Ask yourself this: do you consider this article to be substantially your own work? See WP:Fair use for more information. Ewlyahoocom 17:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that characterization is not what happened, but I understand your concerns and have modified the second paragraph. -- Stbalbach 23:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you characterize it? I suggest that the best course of action may be to delete everything, then rewrite the entire article from scratch in your own words. By now you should be familiar enough with the subject do that, yes? Let me further add that I think Wikipedia needs this article. I don't remember exactly what led me to this page, but I think I remembered something about this coming up a few years back and I wanted to learn more. Ewlyahoocom 23:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the articles from the 1911 Britannica. It has fallen out of copyright and are freely copyable. Beware that they may have simply been scanned and not yet proofread for scanning errors. You may find some information about general averages here:

Ewlyahoocom 00:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

I suspect that you neither have personal or professional experience of general average and I wonder if either of you would mind if I modify the entry in its entirety? The Britannica is not an appropriate source and would benefit from a good edit too ! pmh 07:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free! I still have some copyright concerns about the current page, so instead of modifying this one in its entirety, I'd be even happier if you started with a blank page (i.e. deleting all the text before starting to write). If you'd like, you could even start the new page at e.g. General average/Clean version and we can have a sysop move it into place. Ewlyahoocom 10:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just edit the page as normal - there is no copyvio problem with the page. - Stbalbach 20:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you removed the tag doesn't mean you fixed the problem. Perhaps you missed this bit from {{copyvio}}: "Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright violation — it is best to write the article from scratch." Ewlyahoocom 00:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this is not a copyvio. I suggest you read up more carefuly on what constitutes a copyvio. --Stbalbach 16:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I really don't see what your issue is with this page. Your initial version of this page, from which all subsequent versions have derived, was clearly copied verbatim (see below) from http://www.marlegal.com/mlgen.html or another source. (Since that URL reports a creation date of "04/27/00 22:28:51" and certainly existed on the day the Wikipedia article was created, I would find it hard to believe that it was copied from Wikipedia. If there is an original, unrestricted source, please provide the reference.) Now we have an editor who wants to rewrite it ("modify the entry in its entirety") but rather than let them start with a blank slate you insist they edit the derivative work. I just don't understand this.

Steps to re-create the initial version of th article (omitting changes to whitespace, punctuation, and capitalization):

dump the text at http://www.marlegal.com/mlgen.html
delete the last 3 paragraphs
split the second paragraph between "A legal principle" and "which traces its origins in";
move the last paragraph up ("The first codification...");
insert the word "is", change "principle" to "principal", change "which" to "General average"; change ", general average" to "and";
The only original contribution to this initial version seems to be "of maritime law according to which all parties in a sea venture proportionally share any losses resulting from a voluntary sacrifice of part of the ship or fleet to save the whole in an emergency."

If I've left anything out I do apologise. So please tell me, how does this not "constitute a copyvio"? Ewlyahoocom 22:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands today is not a copyvio. There is no reason to blank it and ask for admin assistance for copyvio reasons. If the other author wants to edit it, including a total re-write, that's fine, but not because of a copyvio reasons. No one needs to ask permission on the talk page before they edit an article -- you've made a moutain out of nothing and probably scared the person off from editing the article. -- Stbalbach 04:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By unilaterally removing the copyvio tag you kept someone more experienced in copyright law than either of us from reviewing the matter. Your reassurances are hardly reassuring. If you must copy something, then copy http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/A/AV/AVERAGE.htm (as suggested above). There's a much better discussion of the matter and (best of all) it's freely copyable. Ewlyahoocom 10:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. It seems that at least three of us are interested in this entry and my enquiry was simply a matter of being polite as you had both put some thought into what is an obscure subject.

I agree with you both. It would be difficult, if not unnecessary, to write an originally worded article as there have been many authors and authorities on the subject. It has all been written before. Quotes from recognized authorities on the subject tend not to be modern so copyright is not an issue particularly if conventional attributions are included for the reader to review.

The hiatus has given me time to reflect on my draft that included inbuilt criticism of at least one modern published academic authority. Wikipedia is not about that so I will rewrite for fact. It may be a day or so before I get round to it and I look forward to your comments.

Incidentally, whilst your debate evidently has not scared me off, I hope you will seek to be less acrimonious with each other, and not at all with me, so we can all enjoy the fruits of our labour in eprint. I am also a general average adjuster, hence my interest. pmh 07:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your additions and help would be greatly appreciated! Sorry for the above it's unproductive. -- Stbalbach 15:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EB 1911[edit]

I really think that is not a good idea to text dump EB1911 material in here. Even the expert in this field above recommended against it. Unless you know what your doing and can verify that the EB1911 is up to date, modern and accurate it should not be included here. -- Stbalbach 03:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be the first to admit that the 1911 articles are not the best, and there's a load of scan/typos at the bottom, but at least they're copyright free. If you really dislike the 1911 articles I strongly recommend against you looking at this list. Ewlyahoocom 03:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know all about the problem, I wrote most of Encyclopedia_Britannica_Eleventh_Edition#1911_Britannica_in_the_21st_century and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#The_origins_of_bias (1911 bullet), as well as reverted more EB1911 articles than I care to remember. It's usually better to have a blank slate (or stub) than 1911 material, which is usually such a mess that no one bothers to spend the hours required to verify and clean it up -- it's a like a death sentence when an article gets EB'd. -- Stbalbach 00:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Article[edit]

I was prepared to offer a few hundred words to clarify general average and leave links to text books and relevant legal marine sites. I now see several thousand words that unsettlingly seem to be familiar website material. AAA USA etc

It may need pruning ! The wholesale text copying that includes the Y/A 2004 Rules verbatim [ surely a separate article ! ] and discussions of varied and miscellaneous examples of casualties that may not give the reader a clear understanding of general average. It seems overwhelming and sorry, but I lost patience parsing the statements.

Particular Average could handily reside elsewhere with a link.

The link to the American Association of Adjusters Law & GA; the document includes many elements that are not GA and might confuse the reader seeking examples of GA..

The text book reference appear rather old.

Now that Ewlyahoocom has the bit firmly between the teeth I’m happy enough to do something else for a while until the first few edits have been sorted, apart from those few concerns well done. pmh 22:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post your version? Since you have personal experience on the subject. The proposed version is mostly from a 1911 encyclopedia, and probably not accurate and.or relevant to the modern reader. -- Stbalbach 03:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to assist in the re-write if you'd be agreeable. I am a practising Average Adjuster and can spare a short period of time to place General Average in more user friendly/insurance context -- wizardofnoz 19:42, 7 July 2008 (GMT)

Seems this article could genuinely use a complete rewrite. I'll get around to very soon --BlueSeasAdj 10:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance[edit]

Should there be more about how law of general average has now spilled over into general insurance law (viz when the property is under insured, the owner is deemed to be co-insurer for the amount of the undervalue?). --Legis (talk - contributions) 11:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General average. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090923144615/http://www.usaverageadjusters.org:80/YAR.htm to http://www.usaverageadjusters.org/YAR.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]