Jump to content

Talk:Jane Hogarth: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 8: Line 8:


== For future reference ==
== For future reference ==
'''This article is a copyright violation. Antiqueigh apparently got an award for adding new entries including this one which appeared on July 10th, 2020, the day after the publication of the Jane Hogarth entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography written by Dr. Cristina Martinez, specialized in copyrights. Reformulation, paraphrazing and other forms of citation of ideas is a copyright infringement.''' <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.82.186.170|70.82.186.170]] ([[User talk:70.82.186.170#top|talk]]) 20:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
'''This article is a copyright violation. Antiqueigh apparently got an award for adding new entries including this one which appeared on July 10th, 2020, the day after the publication of the Jane Hogarth entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography written by Dr. Cristina Martinez, specialized in copyrights. Reformulation, paraphrazing and other forms of citation of ideas are copyright infringements.''' <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.82.186.170|70.82.186.170]] ([[User talk:70.82.186.170#top|talk]]) 20:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Although there have been claims that the article is a copyright violation of [https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-310187], this isn't true. I can provide the article via email if someone wants to double check the claim. [[User:Sam-2727|Sam-2727]] ([[User talk:Sam-2727|talk]]) 05:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Although there have been claims that the article is a copyright violation of [https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-310187], this isn't true. I can provide the article via email if someone wants to double check the claim. [[User:Sam-2727|Sam-2727]] ([[User talk:Sam-2727|talk]]) 05:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:37, 8 February 2021

For future reference

This article is a copyright violation. Antiqueigh apparently got an award for adding new entries including this one which appeared on July 10th, 2020, the day after the publication of the Jane Hogarth entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography written by Dr. Cristina Martinez, specialized in copyrights. Reformulation, paraphrazing and other forms of citation of ideas are copyright infringements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.186.170 (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although there have been claims that the article is a copyright violation of [1], this isn't true. I can provide the article via email if someone wants to double check the claim. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ran it through Earwig, and it came up as unlikely to be a violation. See here. The material is sourced and cited, I don’t see a too-close paraphrase. Montanabw(talk) 15:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, @Sam-2727: if you don’t see a too close paraphrase, and earwig is clean, can we remove the template? Montanabw(talk) 15:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, Sam-2727, I've looked briefly at this, and the complaint does seem to have some little merit (NB, Earwig does not have access to www.oxforddnb.com, but I do). As an example, if the source reads "in 1988, when the copyrights to Peter Pan were given in perpetuity to the Great Ormond Street Hospital", then our article certainly should not read "in 1988, when the copyrights to Peter Pan were given to the Great Ormond Street Hospital in perpetuity" – fiddling with the order of a couple of phrases does not constitute writing new content entirely in your own words, which is what we should be doing. But this is mostly a matter of close following rather than outright copyvio. Antiqueight, would you be prepared to rewrite the page to address these fairly minor problems? If so, I'll provide info on how and where to do that.
I've left a note for User:184.161.132.249 inviting comment, but I'd like to look at the OTRS ticket too. Sam-2727, would you be kind enough to leave a note of the ticket number here? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not Sam, but looks like it’s otrs:11454772. Might be nighttime where Antiqueight is at, so may not hear back until tomorrow...we can all work together to fix this, perhaps. Can you create the page where we put in the text to revise it? My help will mostly be wordsmithing, as I don’t want to get into the sources. Montanabw(talk) 20:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers I have no problem rewriting the page - I know sometimes when I'm working on various bios I get to the stage where I can't tell what I've rewritten and not rewritten, and sometimes I just can't think of another way to say it. I usually check with Earwig and didn't think about the fact that it might not have access. The Ticket is [2]. I'm not certain though how to go about rewriting the page when it's all taken over by the template. I didn't want to touch it til I knew what I was supposed to do about it. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 20:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw is correct about the ticket number. Antiqueight, perhaps create a userspace draft with a rewritten version. Looking at the document now, I can certainly see the similarities in structure. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thank you, Antiqueight and Montanabw. I've created this rewrite page. Please feel free to copy over any content from earlier revisions of the original page that is definitely not even remotely similar to the source page; anything that's at all reminiscent of the source should be rewritten from scratch using totally different words. The sequence of facts and ideas should not be the same as that of the source. In most cases, rewriting from more than one source, taking concepts from them in turn and expressing each idea in your own words, can lead to a better overall result (yes, I know of course that you know all this). Please let me know when the page is ready, and I'll move it into place. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers See what you think of the page now. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 09:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, rewrite now in place, thanks to all involved. I would not normally have hidden the previous history of a page for such minor problems, but have done so here in deference to the OTRS correspondent. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good teamwork, all! Montanabw(talk) 15:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]