Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:09, 13 March 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Secret Societies (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Secret SocietiesWikipedia:WikiProject Secret SocietiesTemplate:WikiProject Secret SocietiesSecret Societies

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Manchester Unity in Australia - different wording needed ...

With an edit comment of: Noted that in Australia the Independent Order of Manchester Unity was demutualised and effectively wound up in 2008., User:TheDirtyDigger has posted:

The Australian Manchester Unity Order was demutualized in 2008 and its health insurance operations merged with health fund HCF, with the name Manchester Unity retained only as a brand name for aged care services. http://www.manchesterunity.com.au/site/about-us/

This is only part of the story. (More coming - Internet connection is playing up - sorry) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

One needs to distinguish between the businesses which were set up by the Orders, and the members and Lodges of the Orders.

Yes, the businesses of "The Australian Manchester Unity Order demutualized in 2008 and health insurance operations merged with health fund HCF, with the name Manchester Unity retained only as a brand name for aged care services."

However, the Order itself, and the Lodges, still remain.

(A similar thing has happened with the various Grand Lodges of the IOOF of the various Australian states. e.g. South Australia: The health insurance went to Mutual Hospital => Mutual Community => HCF/MBF or someone similar; The sick & funeral funds were demutualized and became KeyInvest; etc. But the IOOF Grand Lodge of South Australia still exists, and also, it has "a finger in the pie" of a number of "retirement homes".)

I'm not sure how to word this - particularly, how to word it concisely! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Overlinking?

User:Jayaguru-Shishya has removed a large number of links. Some of these removals are justified, but many provided useful links to explanatory information. (e.g.: mutual organization; Southwark, Hatton Garden and Smithfield areas of London; table (information); National Insurance Act; etc.)

Some of the edit summaries are puzzling; e.g. How is "In 1911, when Asquith's Liberal government was setting up the National Insurance Act in Britain" (Out of British context (National Insurance Act))?

However, the one that particularly puzzles me is the removal of the link to the Stuarts, with the edit summary (Linking to "House of Stuart", which is very different from any implied "Stuartism") - a) Why? b) What is "Stuartism"? c) What exactly do you think is implied?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Pdfpdf! I am sorry if my edit summaries were confusing; I have to admit that I was cutting corners under a heavy workload (not an excuse though!) Anyway, I'll try to explain some of my edits below. Hopefully it will help to clarify my edits.

] of the ]: "Exodus" itself means the "exile of the Israelites", so we should link to the more specific

Jewish: major religions

destruction of the temple at Jerusalem: I changed this one to a more specific link to the exact event

knights: IMHO, this is an everyday word that even kids get familiar with ever since fairytales. Moreover, the whole article does not even mention "Oddfellows", so I think it's very tangentially related to the topic.

inns: an everyday word too? Well, this is debatable though

Southwark, Hatton Garden: my apologies, this was purely my mistake. Instead of merely removing the links, I was meant to fix the linking per WP:LINKSTYLE. I fixed the linking now though.

Smithfield areas of London: the same as above; I fixed the linking now. Thanks for your notice.

tables: maybe I have understood wrongly, but how is this exactly related to the article? =P

Stuarts: oh, indeed... You are right, I am not sure what I was thinking. Apparently I've been considering "Stuarts" as some sort of political movement (?!?)

transportation: this one is an obvious mistake from my behalf too. The link is actually to "penal transportation", not to "transportation" in general.

National Insurance Act: This one too. Sorry for the hasty removal. After all, the linking is quite specific indeed, and stands for its place.

George Harrison; Ringo Starr; The Beatles: this is quite trivial though. The piece of text is about the fathers, so linking to their sons has nothing to do with the article. IMHO, it's the same as we'd make it The father of ]; It'd give no information ever so far about ] himself. Actually, I think the whole passage should be removed. A source about the actual "fathers", who they were, could be reasonable though.

Anyway, thanks for your kind notice, Pdfpdf. I hope this helped to clarify you my edits even a bit. Well, as I said above, I know that huge workload isn't an excuse for hasty edits (e.g. when I pertained to "link specificity" in my edit summaries, I used to just plainly remove the links instead of fixing them). Still many of the removals were justified in my opinion, even though might have been poorly communicated. Sorry for that. Cheers and happy beginning of 2015! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the lede

Greetings! I think the last paragraph in the lede is quite problematic. We shouldn't include in the lede, and for disambiguation purposes a hatnote on top of the article serves the purpose.

The current hatnote takes the reader to Odd Fellows which is a {{sia}} page. However, since we have only two other Odd fellows organizations (Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Independent Order of Odd Fellows) that have articles in Misplaced Pages, I think a neat and nice hatnote would be much more clear solution. I'l like to suggest the following hatnote for the article:

This is how we could avoid the in the lead, and place the disambiguation where it belongs - into the hatnote. If one still wants to include a piece of text about the diverse usage of the name "Oddfellows", I think this should be done by referring to a source. For example, "According to John Doe, there has been a number of different Orders of Oddfellows in the UK, and those can be easily confused. These orders include..."

Summa summarum, 1) we should not include into the lede, 2) when we say something, there should be a source to back it up, and 3) when we want to make a disambiguation notice, a hatnote is the right way to do it. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The above is this gentleman's opinion. I do not see any facts.

I do not wish to be either rude or offensive, so I will simply say that it is only his opinion that the lede is problematic, and/or that the lede contains WP:OR.

This gentleman and I have had numerous discussions. He knows I disagree with this aspect of his point-of-view. (There are many other sub-topics upon which we have achieved consensus to the benefit of Misplaced Pages.)

Some of the statements he makes above are, quite simply, inaccurate.

I wish neither to offend him, nor discourage him. I simply wish to point out that I see no merit in these proposals. (This proposal?)

Should some relevant facts, with supporting references, arise, I will take GREAT pleasure reading them. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

By simply citing a source that would verify the 3rd paragraph of the lede, would solve the problem. So far, it seems like {{OR}} of the editor.

I appreciate your expertise on the topic Pdfpdf, and I don't think this is a content dispute at all. Moreover, this is purely a matter of WP:MOS, and therefore I think it might be reasonable to ask for a neutral opinion there. As said above, the 3rd paragraph that has been made for disambiguation purposes is currently {{OR}} since no sources have been provided, and my only argument is that we should include the disambiguation entries to a hatnote (e.g. one suggested above). Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

By simply citing a source that would verify the 3rd paragraph of the lede, would solve the problem. - Done. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The 3rd paragraph in a whole goes as follows (emphasize added):

Note that there are, and have been, a number of different Orders of Oddfellows in the UK – refer to Societies using the name "Oddfellows" for a list. One of them, The Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society Limited, uses the trading name "The Oddfellows". Thus, there can be ambiguity when referring to "the Oddfellows".

The reference you added is at the very bottom of the front page of "Oddfellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society". That is hardly a proper source. Moreover, what the front page "verifies", is that "The Oddfellows" indeed is a trading name of "The Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society Limited". Does it deal with the ambiguity related to the term "Oddfellows"? No, not really.

The 3rd paragraph states itself that: "Thus, there can be ambiguity when referring to "the Oddfellows"". For disambiguation purposes, I'd like to suggest a nice and neat hatnote as suggested above:

This article is about the Oddfellows in the United Kingdom. For other countries, see Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Grand United Order of Odd Fellows in America.

I think that'd be a lot more clear and we don't have to force sources, such as referring to the bottom of one's front page. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked an opinion about the WP:MOS issue from a neutral experienced editor, Cullen328, here at his Talk Page: User talk:Cullen328#Means of disambiguation and reliable sources. Here's the reply:

Hello Jayaguru-Shishya. I agree completely regarding the proposed hat note. An independent source for the variety of UK groups with similar names would be best. Lacking that, references to the relevant web pages of several of the groups is preferable than to just the largest of the groups.

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

FFS! Make up your mind please, and be consistent. All you seem to be doing is complaining. I'm yet to see you add any value.

You said: By simply citing a source that would verify the 3rd paragraph of the lede, would solve the problem.

So I did.

And now you're complaining that I did what you asked!

There are MANY other articles on WP that I'm making improvements to. I'm MUCH more interested in improving them.

This article is, at WORST, "adequate". You just seem to be nit picking.

• If you have something useful (and accurate) to add, then add it.
• If someone else has an opinion, then get them to come here and express their opinion. (I'm not interested in your interpretation of their answer to your questions.)

As I've already said several times, your proposed changes to the hatnote are inadequate and inaccurate.

Quite simply, your grasp of the domain is inadequate, and your proposals are inadequate and inaccurate. (And, to me, annoying and time wasting.)

Now, as I've said, I am busily engaged in many other things. If you have nothing better to do, then at a minimum please do your homework on the subject matter, and please cease making inaccurate statements.

Yes, my above is harsh, maybe even rude, but I have been VERY patient and VERY polite, and you don't seem to have got the message. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Pdfpdf, if I wasn't clear enough, 1) the very front page of an organization is not a reliable source, 2) the front page does not really verify the 3rd paragraph, 3) a hat note is the proper way to handle disambiguation purposes.

This is hardly a content dispute. Moreover, this is a question about WP:MOS.

I agree that the article is a mess. That's not a reason to stop from trying to improve it, though. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jayaguru-Shishya that the hat note is a good way to disambiguate. I also agree that citing only the Manchester group's website is not a good solution to the lack of references. I encourage a collaborative approach to find consensus instead of complaining about anyone's good faith efforts. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I cam here via Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation#Disambigation discussion at Oddfellows. I think that the discussion to date show a misunderstanding of what a disambigation is for. See WP:DAB

• Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be. For example, the page Mercury is a disambiguation page—a non-article page which lists the various meanings of "Mercury" and links to the articles which cover them. (As discussed below, however, ambiguous terms do not always require a disambiguation page.)

My emphasis on "—a non-article page which lists the various meanings of "Mercury"". The page Odd Fellows (disambiguation) is not a dab page it is a redirect to an article page Odd Fellows that page is not a dab page it is a list page that does not have easy navigation to the set of Misplaced Pages pages.

The history Odd Fellows (disambiguation) has a telling history:

• 00:54, 13 January 2015‎ Jayaguru-Shishya (Undid revision 642002761 by Pdfpdf (talk) - My mistake: the already exists a {{sia}}, an taking into account the similarity of the articles, no disambiguation page is needed. Cheers!) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank)
• 12:05, 11 January 2015‎ Pdfpdf <-- NB no history comment but this edit created a dab page.
• 17:54, 29 March 2010‎ RussBot (Bot: adding redirect template)
• 13:29, 12 March 2010‎ Boleyn3 (per WP:INTDABLINK) (thank)

At the time that Boleyn3 created the dab page as a link to Odd Fellows she also made an edit to that page stating the the dab page needed cleaning up (see Revision as of 13:24, 12 March 2010)

The change was reverted by Pdfpdf (see Revision as of 14:02, 12 March 2010)

The edit to Odd Fellows (disambiguation) by Pdfpdf this year (12:05, 11 January 2015‎) shows that Pdfpdf no longer considers Odd Fellows to be a suitable dab page.

That Jayaguru-Shishya wishes to alter the hatnote not to indirectly link to the article Odd Fellows but to turn hatnote into a disambiguation shows that Jayaguru-Shishya too also does not consider Odd Fellows to be fit for the purpose as a dab page. Given that why did you Jayaguru-Shishya, revert Pdfpdf creation of a new dab page at 12:05, 11 January 2015‎?

The point of a dab page is not to list page on Misplaced Pages which may contain the word or phrase but to make navigation easy to title that might include it. See for example Waterloo. We only list on that page those articles that exist on subjects covered by Misplaced Pages. The roads named after the battle and the pubs named after the battle are not in the list unless Wikipeida has an article on it. There are so many train stations named after the battle, that rather than list them all on the main dab page they have their own dab page because most searches will be for "Waterloo station".

I am going to be bold and create a dab page because as far as I can tell all parties to this conversion seem to agree that disambiguation is needed. -- PBS (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your involvement PBS, that's highly appreciated! To answer your question in short, I must admit that I was a little bit baffled in the beginning. I reverted the creation of a new dab page because I realized that there are only two Misplaced Pages articles related to the article in question (Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Independent Order of Odd Fellows). That's why I considered that a neat hat note would do the trick. It also seemed to be consistent with WP:TWODABS, according to which:

If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.) If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that.

I made a post about it here: . Isi there a primary topic or not? That remains a million dollar question... Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As can be see with my edit to the dab page Odd Fellows (disambiguation) there are more than two other articles that have Odd-fellows in the name (eg Independent Order of Odd Fellows Sweden etc). As to what is the primary meaning that is not directly an issue for the dab page, but comes down to an issue involving the use of the WP:RM process once the name is/are determined then the dab page can be altered if need be to reflect the consensus. -- PBS (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I just noticed and struck my comments some minutes before your post.

After the disambiguation issue is solved, what would you say about the discussion concerning the lede, PBS? The third paragraph is currently used for disambiguation purposes, and is not really supported by any sources. IMHO, a hatnote to a disambiguation page would be sufficient, and there wouldn't be need for an extra paragraph. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not think it desirable to have a paragraph on disambiguation in the lead of the article. So I have moved it into the first footnote. I have also moved the note on the sources into a footnote but have also linked in a web address that contains an archived copy of the original source. I have no strong feelings on these placements and will leave it to the regulars who edit this page to decide if my edits are an improvement. -- PBS (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks a lot better now, both for the disambiguation page and for the very Oddfellows itself. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent additions

I removed what looked like promotional material and semi-protected the article. Can I remind people wishing to add stuff that WP:V applies here? --John (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The offending text was properly sourced and consistent with every other credit union article on Misplaced Pages. Which part looks like promotional material? 2.27.78.13 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The first thing that comes to mind to me is a question as to WP:WEIGHT. It would be helpful if someone here indicated the specific edit in question, and the specific sourcing for that edit, as well as some indication of similar content based on similar sourcing in similar articles. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Manchester Unity Credit Union Limited is a savings and loans co-operative established for members of the Independent Order of Oddfellows by Manchester Unity Friendly Society in 1991. It is a member of the Association of British Credit Unions Limited, authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the PRA. Ultimately, like the banks and building societies, members’ savings are protected against business failure by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

2.27.78.13 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's useful. I guess the primary question is what material in this particular article is considered for addition? Particularly considering that this article is about something much older and broader than an individual credit union, the questions of WEIGHT for this particular article and the placement of content, as well as, I suppose, whether the credit union in question is a single monolithic entity serving multiple areas or whether it is a comparatively small, perhaps local one in only a few locations. If it might be possible, indicating which specific prior edit contained the version being considered for restoration would be helpful. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's all in the edit history. It was a level three heading at the bottom of the Welfare State and modern Oddfellows section. The credit union operates throughout the United Kingdom. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Are there proper third-party sources for this material? Otherwise it looks like promotion to me. --John (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It is three lines about a legally incorporated body for goodness' sake. Anyway, here's another source that could be placed immediately after (1):

• Gibbons, Damon Local welfare provision, low-income households, and third sector financial services provision (p. 84) Centre for Responsible Credit, March 2013

163.167.125.215 (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! It seems that the text on Manchester Unity Credit Union was boldly added by IP 2.27.78.215 on 25th February. As I explained in Edit Summaries concerning the rephrasing of the section, the text was not supported by the source (the 1st paragraph), or it was left totally unsourced (the 2nd parahraph). More explicitly, I added the appropriate tags and once more explained the problem in my Edit Summaries.

I agree with John that WP:VERIFY applies here. If one wants to add something to the article, one must provide a source that directly supports the material. I also think that we'd need an independent third-party source. Anyway, during this process the same content has been edited by three different IP editors (2.27.78.251, 2.27.78.13, and 163.167.125.215). Fortunately, IP 2.27.78.13 has openly admitted to be behind those IPs. I hope that after the protection period has ended, there won't pop up a fourth IP editor to make similar edits since there is really no way to tell whether there is the same user in question or not. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The first source is merely to support the date. Not everything needs referencing. For the avoidance of doubt, the addition was made (by me) on 25 February, you boldly edited the text on 8 March and I reverted your edit. You should have then discussed the change you wanted to see here, but instead started an edit war and made a series of personal attacks against me. 163.167.125.215 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Credit Unions in the Oddfellows Manchester Unity Credit Union (retrieved 25 February 2015)
2. Credit unions in membership of ABCUL Association of British Credit Unions (retrieved 1 November 2014)