Talk:Grace Sherwood/Archive 1

content copied

It looks to me like the "cultural background" section was copied verbatim from the USA Today article http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-09-witch-pungo_x.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.113.16 (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

hardly, esp since there are a couple dozen refs in that section and that ref is only used twice in that section. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? I don't really see it... NW (Talk) 02:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Note, that IP has been blocked one week (not by me BTW) — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of sentences that fairly closely mirror what's said in the USA Today article, which is what I guess is what's being got at:

• From USA Today: "No one was executed for witchcraft in Virginia, although Katherine Grady was hanged in 1654 aboard an English ship bound for Virginia when passengers blamed her for causing a storm, Pollard said."
• From the article: "None of these Virginia cases resulted in execution, but Katherine Grady was hanged on board an English ship bound for Virginia in 1654 after passengers accused her of causing a storm."

• From USA Today: "The latest Virginia witchcraft case was in 1802 in Brooke County, now part of West Virginia. A couple accused a woman of being a witch and the court ruled that was slander. That was a frequent result in such cases, with people fined for bringing false charges, Pollard said."
• From the article: "The last Virginia witchcraft trial took place in 1802 in Brooke County, now part of West Virginia. A couple accused a woman of being a witch, which the court ruled was slander. This was a frequent outcome in such cases and fines were often imposed on those bringing the false charges."

They do look fairly close, but I'm not sure I'd say that three pretty closely structured sentences merits the description of plagiarism, and certainly not of that whole section. Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This level of similarity definitely merits a description as plagiarism, and in fact even as a copyvio. But it's even worse than that. This edit consisted of 8 sentences, all of which were plagiarised (some even copied verbatim) from 9 consecutive sentences in the source. Hans Adler 14:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the critical question is whether it constitutes a copyright violation or not. I don't think we have to worry about plagiarism, since WP has afaik no academic honor code. Our primary goal is provide free knowledge (obtained in a legal manner) and it is not to create original content. The latter is merely the most common and probably best method to schieve the former.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Also from USA today:

No drawings or paintings of Sherwood exist, but she was said to be a tall, good-looking, humorous, and unconventional woman who grew medicinal herbs, owned prime waterfront property, and wore trousers—taboo for women at that time—when she worked on the farm.

Please get on this now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is embarrassing. Today's featured article - the article that is supposed to showcase the best of Wikipedia's content - has a big notice on it saying part of it is a copyright violation. This is ridiculous, and makes Wikipedia look utterly incompetent. I haven't examined the plagiarism allegations myself, but regardless of how valid they are, we can't have this on the main page while it's under investigation. Someone put up a new featured article, post haste! Robofish (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I think the notice on the page itself looks bad enough - perhaps the section ought to just be blanked? Aiken (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to pull the article from the main page. Raul654 (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Raul. I've just seen the response from Rlevse to this and it's disappointing. We all make mistakes, and while I'm sure it's embarrassing for him, the best response is to fix the problem. Aiken (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Does anybody know what's happening to this and if people aren't allowed to edit the copyrighted section, why isn't it just protected? Christopher Connor (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I know — sort of. Moonriddengirl and I have found an old revision that troubles us. You can read more at User talk:Moonriddengirl, where there are diffs and side-by-side comparisons of the source text with the article prose. The difficulty is that since then, the article has been heavily edited. It went through Featured Article Review, after all! So opinions are welcomed as to the status. I think that we may at minimum have to throw this one right back into the FAR pot, with a note to all of the reviewers about the problem. If Raul654 hadn't already taken this off the main page, my advice would at this point have been to do so. This has turned out to be more than just the one sentence that I initially thought it to be, and something that I, for one, would like many eyes on. Please see User talk:Moonriddengirl and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page for more and muck in and help. Uncle G (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Hans Adler's edit explaining 8 consecutive sentences is somewhat revealing. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please note that the Pungo, Virginia has the same problem from the same source. When this article is cleaned up that one should get the same treatment. The summary there is probably too long anyway.   Will Beback  talk  08:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've reduced it and added in-text attribution. [1] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Source query

I've been thinking of helping to rewrite the cultural background section, but I'm finding it difficult to see which sources were used for which points. Can someone point out the key sources the text relies on for the details of her ducking? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I got some sources from Rlevse though email, I'll email them to you if you want. Secret ^account 02:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be great, Secret, many thanks -- slimvirgin at gmail dot com. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Had your email saved from prior conversations, i sent it. Secret ^account 02:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Secret. I'm trying to focus on just one point for now, which is what the best sources are for the details of her ducking. The article says:

Five women of Lynnhaven Parish Church (Sarah Norris, Margaret Watkins, Sarah Goodaerd, Mary Burgess, and Ursula Henley) examined Sherwood's naked body on the shoreline for any devices she might have to free herself and then covered her with a sack. Six of the eight-member jury (all Lynnhaven Parish vestrymen) rowed in one boat 200 yards (180 m) out in the river, and in another were the sheriff (Colonel Edward Mosely), the magistrate, and Sherwood. Just before she was pushed off the boat Sherwood spat out under clear skies, "Before this day be through you will all get a worse ducking than I." Bound across the body – her right thumb to her left big toe and her left thumb to her right big toe – she was cast into the river, and quickly floated to the surface. As she was pulled out of the water a downpour reportedly started, drenching the onlookers. The sheriff then tied a 13-pound (5.9 kg) Bible around her neck. Sinking to the river depths once again, Sherwood untied herself and swam to the surface, proof to the onlookers that she was a witch. Several women who subsequently examined her for additional proof found "two things like titts on her private parts of a black coller", and she was jailed.

Notes

The USA Today and the Washington Post reports (both written by the Associated Press) rely on a local woman, Belinda Nash, who does reenactments, and who was looking for donations to build a local statue, which is what triggered the Associated Press story. So that's footnotes 2 and 3 sourced to Nash. That seems to cover the text: "Just before she was pushed off the boat Sherwood spat out under clear skies, "Before this day be through you will all get a worse ducking than I." Bound across the body – her right thumb to her left big toe and her left thumb to her right big toe – she was cast into the river, and quickly floated to the surface. As she was pulled out of the water a downpour reportedly started, drenching the onlookers."

So, first question: can we find a primary source or an historian for these details? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested sources:

• http://www.jstor.org/pss/1833722
• http://www.jstor.org/pss/1914583
• http://www.jstor.org/pss/4246295
• http://books.google.com/books?id=0Y-MP5kfvo4C&dq=%22Grace+Sherwood%22&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s
• http://books.google.com/books?id=O4gbrE1sND4C&pg=PA80&dq=%22Grace+Sherwood%22&hl=en&ei=VCvQTKOsFpObnwfR2piOBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEwQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22Grace%20Sherwood%22&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=HVVyzopI6EgC&pg=PA45&dq=%22Grace+Sherwood%22&hl=en&ei=_SvQTNSIDMK8nAfs3NGPBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCDgy#v=onepage&q=%22Grace%20Sherwood%22&f=false

If someone can't find the JSTOR's, I will be up near my access to JSTOR on Friday and can get the pdfs. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, E. If you could make the JSTOR articles available that would be a great help. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

JSTOR articles are in hand. If anyone wants them, drop me an email through Wikipedia and I'll get them to you tomorrow sometime. (I just got home from an art fair and have an article I shepherded through FAC on the main page... whee!) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for doing this, E. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Whilst James' articles are worthwhile, seeing as how many others cite them, also of interest are:

• George Holbert Tucker's article on the folkloric Sherwood. I haven't used anywhere near all of it, in part because I don't have full access to it.
• The chapter in Johnson1969 that immediately precedes the chapter by Tucker. It's entitled "Grace Sherwood of Princess Anne in Virginia", but I have no access it at all. I don't even know the author.
• The source that Yarsinske2002 cites as xyr source, which I haven't yet been able to locate in a catalogue:
  • Syer, Katherine Fontaine (1959). "The County of Princess Anne". In Rogers Dey Wichard (ed.). The History of Lower Tidewater Virginia. Vol. 2. New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Co. Inc. pp. 53–69. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Uncle G (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• This one is interesting, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4244097. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Block of IP 205.175.113.16

Wrong venue. Please use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page#Block of IP 205.175.113.16. Uncle G (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)