Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of North American birds/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept 14:38, 27 April 2008.

List of North American birds[edit]

This article has no in-line citations, and for such a massive list that is very not good. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as FL The entire list is based on the ABA list as stated in the introduction, and ABA is referenced at the end. You are surely not suggesting that every one of the nearly 900 species should have an in-line reference to that source? I agree that the intro could do with a couple more refs, but that's no reason to declassify a clearly notable and useful list Jimfbleak (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right I am not, but there should be some...do some and I'll take a look. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is FL, not FA Jimfbleak. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to support it's removal as a featured list. The list is as misleading and at the very least ambiguous for the uninformed reader. It only includes species from the US and Canada. It does not include species from Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean which are included in most references to North America. It is true the list does make mention as referencing the list as the ABA list, which it is, but even the ABA does not consider this to be a North American list, it is the ABA's list. I know there has been very involved discussions in past communications concerning this issue. For me, although the text does mention this is a list of North American birds recorded north of Mexico, it is not a true North American list which the title suggests...........Pmeleski (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you are describing is a blatant WP:COPYVIO. Lists must be supported by independent research, not simply lifted from a copyrighted source. So, yes, you will need independent sourcing for the entries. Dhaluza (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mere list of birds falls clearly within the realm of Feist v. Rural. The list of bird species seen in North America is not copyrighted to anybody, no matter who compiles it. Circeus (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. The raw data is not copyrightable, but a particular list may be if it contains creative expression in the format or choice of entries. It's not so clear to me that this list is the same as a telephone directory, which is much more cut and dried. Also the case you cite applies only to U.S. law. Regardless, copying a single (non public-domain) source is clearly plagarism, which is not acceptable either. The list needs more diverse sourcing, and should be delisted and tagged until improved. Dhaluza (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list may be copyrighted if it contains creative expression, but a list of public domain information in a rationally obvious order is not a creative expression. The order of this list is in taxonomic order, which for lists of organisms is a rationally obvious order. Both this list and the ABA follow the taxonomic order established by the AOU. The ABA does not "own" that order. It is also the order followed by most field guides. This list also contains birds that the ABA list does not. The ABA and the AOU drops introduced birds that have become extirpated, it was decided not to do that with this list. It only affects a few birds, but is "creative decision" that is different from the one made by the ABA. The AOU and ABA are clearly cited as being sources for this list, so it is not plagiarism. I'm not sure why Feist v. Rural being applicable to US law only is mentioned. The wikimedia servers are in the US, the ABA and AOU are located in the US. Most of the major contributors to the article are located in the US. What law other than US law would apply? Dsmdgold (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is only strictly accountable to U.S. law for its hosted content, but one of the stated goals of the project is commercial re-usability, which implies a more general standard should be used whenever possible. Your reference to public domain is not applicable here, as the ABA claims a copyright on the list. That copyright may not be enforcable in the U.S. but it probably is enforcable in Europe and elsewhere. Nobody owns the information (which may be what you meant) but the expression of that information is not necessarily public. Altough the ABA is cited, this list is still plagarism since it is essentially a duplicate copy with some minor changes. So ABA is not one of many sources, it apparently the principle source. I think this is really a case where we need to start over to develop an independent list that will look very similar, but will come from a different process. Dhaluza (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be incorrect here Dhaluza; ABA has a copyright on its checklist, which is not the same as a list of birds. Its checklist includes (among other things) codes which indicate the likelihood of seeing a species in the US or Canada, something our list clearly doesn't have. Their list also doesn't include the headings that ours has for each family of birds (the bits that contain brief information about the group of birds that immediately follow). I will send an email to the ABA today, to see if they can help us to resolve this. MeegsC | Talk 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dhaluza, by "Public Domain" I meant that the fact that each bird on this list has been seen in North America is a fact in public domain. My understanding of public domain is the body of information that no one owns. Perhaps there is more technical definition that I am unaware of. In my understanding of the term "plagiarism", the copyright status of the plagiarized work is immaterial, since plagiarism is the unacknowledged use of another's work. We are not doing that here. We say that we are using the ABA list. As MeegsC, points out we do not have all of the information on the ABA checklist but do include information not on the ABA list. As to your other point, I don't think it is possible for Wikipedia to concern itself with every copyright scheme on the planet. We use fair use images, even though the idea of fair use does not exist in some other countries. Dsmdgold (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have received an email back from ABA saying that they do not feel the current List of North American birds violates their copyright. (They also had their attorney check this.) I can forward a copy of the email to whomever is appropriate in the Wikipedia hierarchy so that this issue doesn't raise its head again. MeegsC | Talk 21:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as FL. I have addressed copyright complaints above. The title reflects the practice within the birding community. Field guides for "North American" birds all restrict themselves to birds north of Mexico. The ABA list reflects this. There is a certain reality on the ground to this division. The bird population of Mexico is significantly different from the bird population of the United States, and the border, by historical accident, is quite close to the transition zone. Dsmdgold (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the nominating concern, which is a total lack of inline citation. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are nine hundred or so discrete facts, all sourced to the same source, I don't think the software will perform well with that many pointers to the same footnote. I note that when multiple footnotes point to the same source, the footnote appears with a superscript letter. If someone clicks on the letter it takes him to the point in the text with the footnote. Assuming that the software will double that reference letter when the 27th footnote points at the source, by the time you get to the 900th bird the system will be on its 35th loop through the alphabet. This does not seem practical to me. Other than the individual items in the list, what specifically should have inline citations? Dsmdgold (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for some, not 900, as that would be ridiculous. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But which ones? Should we pick twenty or so random birds and put in footnotes, all pointing to the same source? Dsmdgold (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. If there are any controversial ones, or fine distinctions, those would probably be best to reference. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a neat way to avoid that problem - readers could be referred to the page (e.g. AOU, p.123) or section (e.g. AOU, Emberizidae) of the source in the footnotes, and then AOU could be listed in a Bibliography section. That's what's been done at List of animals displaying homosexual behaviour SP-KP (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list of birds is adequately sourced to a single reference. There is no need for inline citations for the birds. Asking for some to be cited doesn't make sense. Whether the prose in the lead and in each section is adequately sourced is another matter. Those checklists don't contain that information. Colin°Talk 11:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't argue with me about it, it's in the Featured list criteria, inline citations. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find the words "where appropriate" in front. Colin°Talk 16:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Wikipedia:Citing sources article, citations should be provided for material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged", for quotations and for "checking content added by another editor" (also when adding info to articles on living persons or uploading images—not applicable in this context). There aren't really any controversial elements to this list (either a bird has been documented as occuring in the region, or it hasn't), and there are no quotations. Which sections are of the list are causing you to question the information, Judgesurreal777, so we know what you want cited? MeegsC | Talk 14:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it quite extraordinary that User:Judgesurreal777 nominated this article a full 10 days ago, and didn't even bother to contact the WikiProject which oversees it to mention that it was being reviewed with an eye to removal. I only happened to stumble across this today, and have notified WP:BIRD—which should, in fairness, have been notified immediately. MeegsC | Talk 13:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A list of species found is definitely mere information without creativity. Copyright does not apply here. You may argue that "database/compilation protection" is applicable, but I doubt a plain list that is readily available from the index of any recent field guide or Audubon club checklist could qualify under that clause. By that token we would even produce copyright violation in the category pages. I think the main list can have a single source - most of these have evolved over more than a 100 years. I would however at best expect inline cites for vagrants (for instance Palearctic species). Cannot see any valid reason for delisting. Shyamal (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Field guides for "North American" birds all restrict themselves to birds north of Mexico." Perhaps so, but there is no reason for us to copy an error. Is there any reason why the list should not be renamed to List of birds of Canada and the USA or similar? Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 16:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above responses. I'm not convinced that in-line citations are necessary for such a non-controversial subject. If a name change is in order, I suggest using the title List of Northern American birds. I do not think though that this name issue is cause for delisting the article, merely discussion. --Bardin (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. I agree with Bardin and others that the citations are in order. I'm quite happy with the 'Northern America' idea or indeed any other sensible name that describes the territory involved accurately. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 09:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per criterion 1c of the Featured list criteria, which says; ""Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations". I'd like to know what citations Ben MacDui feels "are in order", as the article does not have any. This list hasn't kept up with current standards, and certainly would not pass FLC now. Trying to rename the list changes nothing, and is a blatant attempt to divert conversation away from the real issue. It's about time FLRC enforces the 1c criterion - frankly, I'm fed up of lazy people who can't be bothered to add citations to their old FAs and FLs. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LuciferMorgan can you please provide an example of where you'd like to see citations? (I asked this earlier of another editor but have still received no response from him.) This list is cited, and to a reliable source. The main cite is the American Birding Association webite: ABA is the recognized North American body in charge of examining all documentation for bird species reported in North America, and judging whether that documentation is acceptable or not. As I said earlier, there are no "contentious" elements to this list, because contentious elements are not accepted! Or are you saying you don't feel that the ABA is a WP:RS, which is another issue altogether... MeegsC | Talk 16:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear me. The references I think are order are the ones provided. I am very much in favour of in-line citations where required, but it is by no means uncommon for lists to have a small number of general references backed up by in-line notes where needed. In short I am in agreement with MeegsC. (I am assuming the text is verified by the references of course). As for a 'blatant attempt to divert' - for the record I have never edited this list and have no particular reason to offer it support other than that of a sympathetic passer-by. You may wish to avoid ad hominen arguments in future lest someone should interpret your enthusiasm as incivility. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 17:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is not "enthusiasm". I am a writer of four featured articles, so do not treat me like some inexperienced editor. I frankly don't care whether you think I was being incivil or not, and don't even attempt to try to stray me from my opinions with statements beginning with "You may wish..". No, I do not wish to change my opinion Ben MacDui. For the record, I do think this is an example of a case where nobody can be bothered to provide citations. I call the situation how I see it, and don't sugarcoat - if you don't like it, tough luck. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasoning that it is cited. I understand that there are many situations when inline citations are good, or great, but this list is adequately cited. However I agree with the sentiment that the list could be either renamed or have its scope widened to include all of North America. The ABA list is a product of dumb rule obsessed tickers and twitchers; and the AOU list is preferable. North America does not end at the border with Mexico. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Even the ABA says, "The ABA area (sometimes referred to as the ABA Checklist Area) is essentially North America north of Mexico." [1] (On the other hand, they sometimes use "North America" to mean "the ABA area", as, "The ABA Checklist includes native North American breeding species, regular visitors, casuals and accidentals from other regions that are believed to have strayed here without direct human aid, and well-established introduced species that are now part of our avifauna." [2])

The "list of North American birds" should, as Sabine's Sunbird suggests, be based on the AOU's North American Check-list—"The geographic area covered includes North and Central America from the North Pole to the boundary of Panama and Colombia, including the adjacent islands under the jurisdiction of the included nations..." [3] By the way, when I was a member of the ABA (and a smart rule-obsessed ticker and twitcher, TYVM), they published North American list totals (the AOU's North America) as well as ABA Area totals.

On the subject of procedure, not only would a note at WP:Bird have been welcome, but so would an attempt to raise the issue of sources at the talk page before nominating the article for deletion. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've already voted to keep (at least once), but I would support a move. There still has been no indication of what data is being challenged, or is not covered by the existing refs, so current situation adequate. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've voted keep as well. I think that there is a consensus to move. I think that a strong case can be made for the existence of two lists. The north of Mexico region represented by this list is used by most field guides, the ABA, and most tickers (who whether they are smart or dumb, represent a large body of people). As a widely used region we should have this list. A list of birds north of Panama could the exist at this title, if someone wanted to assemble it. I will note that last time I looked, the AOU list includes the Hawaiian islands, which doesn't meet most people's definition of North America. Dsmdgold (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is true that most of the field guides I've seen also exhibit birds north of Mexico. My guess is that is because of the relative popularity of the hobby in those nations, for expediency, and to a lesser degree that those 2 nations are the only major English speaking nations in North America (the province of Quebec notwithstanding), which is the language most guides are printed in for those 2 nations. Adding about another 1000 birds (or more) would also make the guidebook too bulky and expensive for the field. The reason I suggested a name change is because this site is visited internationally, or we are encouraging international use. We can always make smaller (or larger) lists to accomodate the geography, which is not financially cost effective for the field guide publishers. Regarding keeping the name as the US and Canada list, I'd like to know how our Canadian bretheren like the idea of being lumped together (or vice-versa for that matter), since we are seperate nations, and I don't believe there is a similar collaborative list for any other continent. Just my 2 cents why this list should be presented differently.......Pmeleski (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no quarrel with sourcing the list to a single source. I also think it is acceptable to define the scope of the list based on one authority's definition of "North American birds." However, (1) standard citations to the sources should be presented in the introductory section of the article (it is not sufficient to refer vaguely to "a checklist used by the ABA"), (2) there undoubtedly are a few points in the body of the list that should have specific citations, and (3) I find several specific statements and passages in the intro section that should be supported by inline source citations, including:

  • North American birds most closely resemble those of Eurasia
  • ...which was connected to the continent as part of the supercontinent Laurasia until around 60 million years ago. Done
  • One species, the Cattle Egret, was historically an African bird. In the 20th century this bird colonized North America and is now found throughout the lower 48 states of the United States. Done
  • The Cattle Egret is the only Old World bird to establish itself in North America in historical times without being introduced by man.
  • ...the Glossy Ibis, which probably had a similar history. Done
  • The status of one bird on this list, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, is controversial. Until 2005 this bird was widely considered to be extinct. In April of that year it was reported that ar least one adult male bird had been sighted in the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge in Arkansas. This report however, has not been universally accepted, and the American Birding Association still lists the Ivory-billed Woodpecker as extinct. Done
  • The original list published by the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) in 1886 covered...
  • In 1983, the area was expanded to include...
  • Other organizations, such as the American Birding Association (ABA), use a smaller area... Done
  • ...two introduced species that are not on the ABA checklist, but which are recognized by the AOU as having established populations. Done

--Orlady (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Orlady for taking the time to provide some examples of what you feel should be cited. It's been very frustrating to have several editors complain about a lack of citations, but not provide any indication of where they felt such citations were needed! We'll work on getting those facts sourced to your satisfaction. MeegsC | Talk 21:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_North_American_birds/archive1&oldid=1048282635"