Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish inventions and discoveries

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish inventions and discoveries

This is the first part of a few nominations to remove a couple of the pages similar to this in Category:Lists of inventions or discoveries. The basis for these lists is inherently flawed. Countries do not invent things. People do. It is sheer nationalism to pretend otherwise IMO, and hence WP:FRINGE. Quite apart from this, it is extremely difficult to establish good criteria for these lists, making maintenance tricky. Is inclusion restricted to X people? Or are people working in X allowed? What if they mostly worked in X, where of X nationality, but made their invention elsewhere? And the nature of inventions themselves is very tricky. Edison is commonly credited with the lightbulb. But many predecessors of different nationalities made less well-publicised inventions shortly before that were indeed rather similar. See also discussion at FTN.

All this leads me to believe that these lists suffer fundamental problems with Wikipedia:neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability that are unlikely ever to be resolved. Moreschi (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the nomination is overly nitpicky. I count about five separate concerns that I don't find worrisome. The only problem that I see is that this could use some better sourcing. You are right, "countries do not invent things", but the point of the list is that these are inventions made by people from Scotland. Take List of African-American inventors, for instance. During Black History Month, the contributions of African-Americans are celebrated in United States schools, not because all black people in America collaborated to invent peanut butter, but to point out something that might otherwise go unnoticed. I recognize that this may seem redundant to List of British inventions, but Scots, Welsh, Irish, Anglo-Saxon, etc. are all groups that have a separate identity secondary to their citizenship in the United Kingdom. Mandsford (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've only half addressed the issues raised at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#inventions by nation. The part that you haven't yet addressed is what the definition of "people from Scotland" is. As this article itself tells us, its definition of "Scottishness" extends to people who are not Scots who just happened to be in Scotland at the time that they invented something.
  And on the point of secondary identity, I refer you to list of Indian inventions and discoveries. If it weren't for systemic bias, you'd be seeing a lot of secondary identity arguments there. It may appear, from the outside, that "Everything comes from India", but within India itself there is controversy on whether inventions, buildings, and so forth are of Muslim or Hindu origin, as exemplified by the works of Purushottam Nagesh Oak and others.
  I suggest a comparison of the ideas of P. N. Oak with the idea propounded here that everything even remotely related to Scotland ("They were in Scotland when they did it.") is Scottish, to see where the difficulty, and the underlying problem, lies. It is not merely a sourcing problem. It's a scope definition and an agenda-pushing problem.
  Can a NPOV scope for such articles even be defined in the first place? This is the question that you have yet to address. Uncle G (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair questions; I'll throw some back to you. Hypothetically speaking, if this were a "List of Scottish inventors", comprised of natives of Scotland (like Alexander Fleming) and Alexander Graham Bell, would you still say that this was a POV problem? Do you believe that Wikipedia should not have lists that refer to a particular nationality or ethnic group? My answer to the first question would be that if someone was born in Edinburgh, the question of whether they were born in Scotland is not a matter of opinion. With regard to the second, I think that people who are interested in the history and geography of a particular nation are also interested in achievements made by persons within that nation. Regardless, it is fairly common in encyclopedias, almanacs and other reference works to see famous persons grouped together by nationality; it would be difficult, under those circumstances, to persuade someone that such lists were "unencyclopedic". When it comes to keeping a neutral point of view, the articles should be polished; by no means should they be sterile. Mandsford (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - List of Scottish inventors (with the things that they invented) does alter the scope, doesn't it? The question is whether it would satisfy Dbachmann's and Moreschi's concerns. Certainly it addresses the "Countries do not invent things." argument, by focussing on the inventors rather than on the inventions. Countries do not invent things, and inventions don't have nationalities; but inventors invent things, and do have nationalities.
      Note that we, too, have people grouped together by nationality. We even have them grouped together by a combination of nationality and the fact that they are inventors. We have that at Category:Scottish inventors. Uncle G (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Countries don't invent things, but isn't "inventions by Scottish inventors" a reasonable definition of "Scottish inventions"? Given that the former is unwieldy it seems reasonable to have an article called the latter which contains the former (and explains that in the lede). Of course that's of no help to those who think even list of Scottish inventors is too hard to define inclusion criteria for / NPOV / etc. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Remember what is written in this article's introduction:
        […] in some cases, the invention's Scottishness is determined by the fact that they were brought into existence in Scotland […] by non-Scots working in the country.
        This has been the scope of the article since its very first revision. And it isn't the scope that we're talking about. Maybe such a scope would satisfy the concerns of the editors who are objecting to this article. But none have spoken up since Dahn and Mandsford both made the suggestion. And even Dahn hasn't argued in favour of a simple rename and refactoring of the introduction (although that outcome does accord with xyr actual rationale and fully satisfy the concerns that xe expresses). Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mandsford. Edward321 (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re. the lightbulb thing and similar contested inventions, couldn't we just say something like "Invention of the lightbulb is commonly attributed to Edison though there are competing claims" when mentioning it in a "list of American inventions"? Anyone interested in the whole story can follow the link to lightbulb and read the in-depth treatment there, and so there's no problem with POV. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is evidence of nationalist POV and manifest WP:SYNTH. Inventions are not attributable to a people, they are attributable to the inventors. If you want to highlight their origin in a neutral way, listify as List of Scottish inventors (which I notice is a redirect). But even in that case, the question remains as to "who is Scottish?" - and I see nobody leaning on the side of caution in such cases. Dahn (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "the question remains as to "who is Scottish?"" -> that is not for us to judge. We must rely on reliable external references, per official Wikipedia policy, to determine what nationality the real world ascribes to notable people. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I obviously mean the question in general. And, no, reliable sources do not agree on: a) the meaning of nationality in general, outside general cases; b) the case of who exactly is Scottish (as either a regional or ethnic identity). Of course it is not for us to judge, and I view the assumption of such a thing as a gross misinterpretation of my point - the issue here is that the broadest definition is applied in defining who and what is Scottish, and applied whimsically to inanimate objects (which don't have an ethnicity or a regional identity), using WP:SYNTH to obtain the largest possible result, or relying on no sources at all. What's more, the article does not even bother to follow as a principle "Scottish inventor = Scottish invention", as absurd as that principle is in the long run. What it does instead, as others have pointed out, is to attribute "Scottish identity" to some objects and concepts only vaguely related to a Scottish geographical location, let alone to the Scottish ethnicity. It is simply fancruft, structured not what is needed by readers, but what is believed by some editors. Dahn (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of Scottish inventors would have some redeeming value, but that article is full of POV nationalism, is almost totally unsourced, and can never have a reliable source define its scope. Let alone the fact that there aren't (and never can be) any criteria for inclusion and that the list includes items such as "the mail-van service" (a redirect to just Van) and the very first entry (which I can only conclude to be some kind of hoax/vandalism), this article simply can't hang on any longer. Heck, the second paragraph alone has been unsourced for three years... ninety:one 22:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have only looked at three entries in detail so far, and all of them were inaccurate. Something tells me it's not going to get much better. ninety:one 15:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dahm above Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If people from Scotland make notable inventions, its reasonable to have a list of them. DGG (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not, however, the scope of this article. See above. Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is not for Wikipedia to make subjective judgements about what is notable or not; nor to judge why a topic is notable. Eg. saying it is nationalistic is irrelevant: it may or may not be nationalistic, which may or may not be a good or a bad thing. But that is none of Wikipedias business: we must maintain NPOV at all times and in all respects. Just look at the publications and reliable ext refs on this topic: it is not an "invented" topic -> it exists out there in the real, wide world. Our job is to report the world as it really is, not as we would like it to be. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the world have the scope that this article does? Are inventions "Scottish" even when non-Scots invented them? You're not addressing the scope question. Have you checked to see whether this article is not subtly misrepresenting the sources, by using a scope that they themselves do not? Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - To Mais oui: Mais non. "Scottish inventors" is not an invented topic, though it is likely a superfluous topic. "Scottish inventions" (like "American inventions", "Albanian inventions", "Central African inventions" and what have you) are not a valid topic. The topic was created through synthesis and logical fallacy. Dahn (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case the article should have been nominated for re-naming, not for deletion. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Dahn. --Folantin (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of inventions and discoveries associated with Scotland and Scottish People that are worth listing. I agree the list needs much work, especially sources. Finavon (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not the place of Wikipedia to forbid people considering articles relevant because "it's nationalism". The page does have problems in defining exactly what counts as a "Scotish invention", but that's something that can be discussed and fixed on the talk page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be abundant sources for this including several books. The rest is a matter of content editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are references, they do not provide notability for this article as they only talk about specific people not the actual topic of the article. So they count for V but not N. Also, this looks like WP:LISTCRUFT. Spiesr (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden and Chris Neville-Smith. The list has issues that need addressing but there is a difference between a dispassionate search for neutrality and a disregard for the interests of historians and students of particular nations and countries. Of course we should be avoiding bombastic nationalism for its own sake but to describe a list of this nature as "sheer nationalism" is wide of the mark. "This is the first part of a few nominations to remove a couple of the pages similar to this". It would be interesting to know which other countries are involved and the neutral criteria used in selecting them. Ben Mac Dui 08:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of the keep votes seem to be based on WP:OTHERCRAP. Obviously a list of African-American inventors will suffer from the same problems as a list of Scottish ones. If these lists are kept, at least be ruthless about blanking every entry without a reference. It would seem obvious that at least the straight parallels English inventions and discoveries and Welsh inventions and discoveries should be grouped with this AfD. Note that List of Chinese discoveries is different because it deals with Ancient China, i.e. discoveries made by a pre-modern civilization, not by people holding a certain passport. Needless to say, discoveries made by modern researchers who happen to be Chinese would be out of place in a list of discoveries attributed to Ancient Chinese civilization. --dab (𒁳) 18:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or listify. I wouldn't have a problem with a List of Scottish inventors, but a 'list of Scottish inventions' is rather more problematic - what makes an invention Scottish? (Particularly since, as the article itself notes, it's often vague what counts as a genuine 'invention', and who should be given the credit for inventing something.) I agree with the concerns about a nationalistic POV here, and think the article should either be reworked or deleted entirely. That goes for many of the other articles in Category:Lists of inventions or discoveries, as well. Robofish (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.