Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 August 22

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

• Falkland Islands Wolf (history · last edit) from [1], diff [2], revert war report about the restoration of copyvio 3RR report. Note User:Medeis claims he has copy edited to remove the copyright violation but copyrighted text remained [3]. Note original poster has multiple copyvio [4]. Article has been cleaned of copyvio at present. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have copyedited the article and removed the copyvio, but left the notice. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Purged. Copyright problem removed from history. --Wee Curry Monster talk 09:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  

Victorian Aborigines (history · last edit) from [5] Note the sources listed in the article are mostly lifted from the above URL but the text is almsot word identical. NtheP (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I had already seen this article and the doubts raised about it before this report was filed, and, having investigated, I speedily deleted it as an unambiguous copyright infringement. Checking the article's history I had found that it had been virtually verbatim from the book right from the first version of the article. A straightforward speedy deletion. However, since meanwhile the article had been reported here, I came here to see about closing this case. I found that the instructions say "Pages should stay listed for a minimum of 5 days before they are checked and processed by copyright problems board clerks, 7 days before they are checked or processed by administrators". I assume that means that the listing here should stay for that long, rather than that the article should have stayed undeleted for that long, but if I am wrong then please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Female genital mutilation (history · last edit) from all sources.

• In the Terminology section.

Wikipedia text: "Support for the term female genital mutilation grew in the late 1970s. The word "mutilation" not only established a clear linguistic distinction from male circumcision, but also emphasized the putative gravity of the act. In 1990 the term was adopted at the third conference of the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children (IAC) in Addis Ababa. In 1991, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that the UN adopt this terminology, which it did."

Original Text: The expression “female genital mutilation” (FGM) gained growing support in the late 1970s. The word “mutilation” not only establishes a clear linguistic distinction with male circumcision, but also, due to its strong negative connotations, emphasizes the gravity of the act. In 1990, this term was adopted at the third conference of the Inter African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children (IAC) in Addis Ababa.4 In 1991, WHO recommended that the United Nations adopt this terminology and subsequently, it has been widely used in UN documents."

The article only cites it as a reference, and makes no move to mention these are direct quotes (with a word or two moved).

Wikipedia Text: "In 1999, the UN Special Rapporteur on Traditional Practices called for tact and patience regarding activities in this area and drew attention to the risk of "demonizing" certain cultures, religions, and communities. As a result, the term "cutting" has come to be used when trying to avoid alienating communities."

Original Text: In this spirit, in 1999, the UN Special Rapporteur on Traditional Practices called for tact and patience regarding activities in this area and drew attention to the risk of “demonizing” certain cultures, religions and communities. As a result, the term “cutting” has increasingly come to be used to avoid alienating communities."

Again the article only cites it as a reference, and makes no move to mention these are direct quotes.

Wikipedia Text:"The UN uses "FGM" in official documents, while some of its agencies, such as the UN Population Fund, use both the terms "FGM" and "FGC""

Original Text:"Official UN documents use FGM, the earlier term, while some UN agencies, such as the UN Population Fund, use both FGM and female genital cutting."

Source is cited, but plagiarized.

I was incorrect about the Shell-Duncan plagarism, but I was posting that in the morning when I had somewhere to go, and didn't have time to look at each instance.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the nature of this plagiarism, I believe that this whole article may have many instances of it, and all sources should be checked thoroughly. I corrected these issues, but editors claimed I changed POV and reverted, even though I noted plagiarism in the comments, so this must be corrected by someone who has a NPOV, in my opinion.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now another user decided on their own to remove the plagiarism notice. I have reverted edits back to where I fixed the plagiarism, but I believe this may start an edit war and hope another neutral user can become involved here. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor, I came upon this as AN/I and clicked to the page to find the notice removed by Santiago84 and again by Vietminh. If a third attempt is made to remove the copyvio, it might be necessary to implement page protection until a copyvio scan is completed. CycloneGU (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There'll be no need for that. The next person who removes that tag improperly will be blocked. In fact, if I'd seen this earlier, the editors who have already removed it would be blocked right now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That was posted three minutes before my post here and I hadn't seen it yet. It appears this is under control, so protection won't be necessary. CycloneGU (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting evening. I've closed the AN/I discussion and one discussion on the article's talk page that both proved rather unproductive. However, one user now understands copyvio better, and is keen on helping fix the problem, so this is a good sign. CycloneGU (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I overlooked the copyright issue and want to lead the attention to this part:

"However, material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure (this can also raise problems of plagiarism). Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues."

The boldfaced part which says "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure" is related in the context of the first sentence "material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder...is likely to be a copyright violation". The real meaning of this text doesnt forbids to use word for word quotes of official documents, it forbidds to quote, copy or includes material from sources that are not public domain etc. It is not forbidden to copy an official WHO text word by word and use it in a wikipedia article. All the sources in FGM article are quotes of official documents or non-restricted websites. --Santiago84 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago, I see that Robert has given you a helpful guide to what constitutes a quote. I just want to quickly clear up a common misconception that "It is not forbidden to copy an official WHO text word by word and use it in a wikipedia article." I'm afraid it is. If you look at the bottom of the WHO website, you will see the following: "© WHO 2011" This is not required under the US law that governs us, as copyright is bestowed automatically without that notice, but it certainly does help to clarify that WHO does not intend to release their content into not public domain. To make that doubly clear, they have a specific page at their website indicating that their content is reserved: [6]. We are only able to use brief quotations of WHO documents in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline.

Many people believe that agencies such as WHO all release their content into public domain. They do not. Most content you will find on the internet is copyrighted. The document Wikipedia:Public domain can help determine the exceptions. Wikipedia:Copy-paste is also a helpful overview of various policies on this issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the average copyright text of an organisation which offers informations and statistics, [7] The WHO strictly allows the use of informations if they contain the WHO as a source.--Santiago84 (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop arguing about what you think is ok. Please. My summary instructions above are quite accurate. Nothing else is permitted. Multiple admins and other uninvolved editors have told you what you're being told is correct. Repeating your beliefs will not change anything. So, please, either help fix those two issues noted above and help look for others, or please, just let this subject drop and move on to another article that does not have copyright violation issues. Heck, just read the link you posted - you do realize that the WMF is a company (ie: commercial), regardless of not for profit status, correct? You do realize that they still are not properly cited (see my instructions above), correct? So, please drop this. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago, I'm afraid that you may not quite understand the copyright requirements of Wikipedia. The page which I linked above and which you linked again is very clear (emphasis added):

"Extracts of the information in the web site may be reviewed, reproduced or translated for research or private study but not for sale or for use in conjunction with commercial purposes. Any use of information in the web site should be accompanied by an acknowledgment of WHO as the source, citing the uniform resource locator (URL) of the article. Reproduction or translation of substantial portions of the web site, or any use other than for educational or other non-commercial purposes, require explicit, prior authorization in writing.

This is not a release into public domain. WHO allows the use of brief extracts for non-commercial purposes only for research or private study (Wikipedia does not accept non-commercial content) provided the source is acknowledged; extensive use of content or non-commercial use requires explicit authorization. While Wikipedia is itself non-commercial, we license content for commercial reuse; accordingly (except in brief, clearly marked quotes) we can only accept content that is licensed for commercial reuse. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello as i already wrote on the talk page of the FGM article, when will the template be removed? --Santiago84 (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listings are left open for at least seven days. While this one is due for closure, it is complex, and unless another administrator gets to it before then I doubt I will have time to evaluate it before the weekend. However, at a glance, it does not seem that a rewrite has been proposed. As the directions on the template notes, rewrites should be placed at Talk:Female genital mutilation/Temp. (I have not read the talk page conversation and probably won't have time to do so until Saturday, so I do not know if the copyright problem can be easily excised.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. The dispute on the talk page has not been solved yet. But none or less the article received edits to mark quotations to show which source the statement is based on, etc. If it is possible i would like to ask an admin to review the article if any major edits still need to be done. Iam one of the editors who spend a lot of time and effort on the article. I would appreciate it if the copyright template would be removed as long as no major issues are left. I have my doubts that a solution can be achieved over the talk page here.--Santiago84 (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Cleaned and removed by SlimVirgin. Please retag if other issues are discovered. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]