Talk:Edward John Hutchins

Copy vio and speedy deletion tags added a moment after article launched

I have removed the speedy, on more careful look he is notable based on his parlimental involvement. -Zeus-^u|c 23:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That was extremely trigger-happy of you! The Masonic webpage has copied much of its non-masonic biography from the Times obit (1876). I do not believe that a copyright violation case could be made.Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 23:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, when you slog through 50 new pages and 45 of them are stupid one-sentence csds, it gets to you :P. Sincerely sorry. -Zeus-^u|c 23:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for slogging. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 00:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status

The copyvio tag was added a bot, which automatically listed the article for additional copyright review. Comparison between the article shows substantial similarity to [1]. For example, some runs of text in the personal life section are identical, and under "Business interests" this duplication continues, beginning with "His early career involved him with his uncle...." I see indication above that this material, printed under claim of full copyright at that external site, may actually have been taken from a public domain original, but we need to review the public domain original in order to verify this. Since we are not able to publish material where uncertainty of copyright status exists, I have blanked the article pending some clarification. Can you provide a link to the public domain original so that the copyright status of this duplicated text can be confirmed? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Times Archives are behind a paywall. I can access them (as can almost anyone with a library card from a UK local authority), but not provide a direct link. DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. If you can access them, since you didn't place the content, it should be sufficient verification if you can confirm that the text is copied from the PD source (that said, a note attributing the literal duplication would be helpful in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism). However, I can also find another UK contributor with a library card, if you'd rather I ask somebody who has had no involvement with the article at all. Knowing how to verify is a good forward step either way. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you indicate precisely which passages are of concern? My internet is a bit droppy at the moment, but will do the best I can. DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem if you can't. I know several UK contributors whom I'm pretty sure will be able to help. It's easiest to see the troublesome areas picked up by the bot in these early edits: [2]. Under "Business interests", the whole first paragraph needs to be in the obituary. The second on "Personal Life" also draws too heavily on the tagged source if it is not also in that obituary. Other passages also need checking. For instance, the article says, As a Liberal, he was in favour of the secret ballot and opposed to all State endowments of religion. Having converted to Roman Catholicism at an early age, he was returned by the Roman Catholic vote as one of the members for Marylebone and Hampstead, in the first School Board for London." The site picked up by the bot says, "A Liberal, in favour of the ballot and opposed to all State endowments of religion, having converted to Roman Catholicism at an early age, he was returned by the Roman Catholic vote as one of the members for Marylebone and Hampstead, in the first School Board for London." This would be far too much of a close paraphrase if it is not also in the obituary. On reflection, it's fairly complex. :) I'll see if I can get a contributor who has access and a good connection. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In that last extract, everything from "was returned by" to "Board for London" is word for word from the notice in the Times, 19 Feb 1876. DuncanHill (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Good start. :) Thanks. If you can't manage to review it all, I've asked User:Tagishsimon to help. He's been very helpful with copyright matters in the past, and I feel pretty sure he'll have access. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to have given you all so much trouble. The subject of the article is notable, in a number of ways and would leave some unnecessary redlinks if deleted. My particular concern is that the normally excellent editor of Barclay Fox's journal failed to provide a footnote identifying the successful candidate in the 1840 election at Penryn & Falmouth. Fox gives a vivid eyewitness account of the electoral process. I am sure that this information is of value in understanding the emergence of the Liberal Party in Cornwall and the UK. I wonder whether the copyright holder might be willing to authorise the WP entry. It seems to me that his article seeks to glorify a forgotten hero of freemasonry. Why should he object to the WP article which acknowledges his article as the main source? Would it muddy the waters if I contacted them? Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 23:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It wouldn't muddy the waters at all! The procedure for requesting copyright clearance is at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Sometimes copyright holders are quite willing to license their text so that we can use it. If not, of course, and if some of the content is copied from that copyrighted source and not the PD one, the article can be rewritten. It's not a question at all of notability; it's just that we're not permitted to use or closely paraphrase copyrighted text without a proper license. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

←I found somebody who could hook me up with the original, and I see that the tagged source is quite liberal with the text from the PD, but not all of the text from that tagged source is taken from the obit. Hopefully, the author of the tagged source will be willing to license it so we can use it. In case not, I've provided a new base in the temporary transcribing almost word-for-word the obit, with an attribution note at the bottom to accord with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. If the author of the tagged source does not respond or is not willing, this can be expanded with new language and reorganized as appropriate for our use. I have not wikified it because it won't be needed if permission is forthcoming. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The deplagiarised version at Talk:Edward_John_Hutchins/Temp doesn't say anything about his role in freemasonry and I also I would like to add data on the 1841 Southampton election from reports in The Times and the succession boxes. Are you happy for me to wikify it and add this info (with references)? The process of seeking permission from an owner seems very cumbersome. What risk of litigation do you predict, if the alleged violation continued to be exposed as a WP article? Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 16:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you can add all the data you want and wikify away. I don't know what the risk of litigation would be; it depends on the litigiousness of the copyright holder. It's immaterial, though. WP:C is Foundation-mandated policy. We simply can't import text that is previously published unless it is properly licensed or public domain. The Wikimedia Foundation takes copyright concerns very seriously and takes steps to ensure that we exercise due diligence in preventing potential problems. (See also Wikimedia:Terms of Use, which is linked in every edit screen.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Revised version

The revised version of the article at Talk:Edward John Hutchins/Temp] no longer uses the source thought to be in copyright. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 00:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Implemented. Thanks. I'll mark this resolved at the copyright problems board. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)