Wikipedia

Talk:Johnny Eck/Archive 1

< Talk:Johnny Eck
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Moonriddengirl in topic General notes
Archive 1

I noticed that the "dwarf" link in this article goes to the page about the fantasy creature, not the human morph. Don't know how to fix this but I'm sure someone does! Hierophany 00:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks for noticing! In the future, you can change the link yourself via a simple pipe. If you look at the text now, I linked to the article dwarfism but make the link appear in the text to say only "dwarf." This is achieved by this markup: [[dwarfism|dwarf]]. The first portion points to the article; the portion after the pipe is what will be displayed to describe the link inside the article. — e. ripley\talk 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Health issues?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm curious as to how Johnny Eck dealt with not having his lower plumbing. Could be a good new section. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 02:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop deleting

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Excuse somebody actually bothering to more fully complete this biographical article by turning it from a stub to a much more ACCURATE and complete mini-biography. First off, his body wasn't "snapped off at the waist", which was part of the sideshow spiel (and certainly more flattering), but not quite the case. If that was so, he wouldn't have lived. For example, there is a picture of him where his vestigial legs are in fact shown. I've also added that he had Sacral agenesis. My version here fixes some of the wrong facts in the article and adds some of his other accomplishments and interests throughout his life. I've also added more specifics to some of the most important events during his life.

This version is simply a much better article. Could it be improved? Most certainly. But it needs more, not less. If it needs to be rewritten more or sourced, do that rather than just keep deleting important information. The edit warring would be much more useful if you could put that effort into making it acceptable, rather than reverts to incorrect and shortened information.

And could we get a few pictures in here? NileQT87 (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)NileQT87

Everything I took out was copyright violations. If you want to improve the article, go right ahead, but don't copy and paste text from other people's websites. Every time you edit a page, there's a notice that says Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted. Write your own material; don't copy someone else's. -Branddobbe (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And you actually took out a few things I did write or rewrite extensively, including the list of accomplishments (actually compare it--it's an augmented list). How about we try to leave in the same information, but rewrite it like I was doing. You'll note some changes and moving around of things to different sections. Let's try being useful in making this article acceptable (like helping to rewrite the information to make the sentences different enough) rather than edit-warring.NileQT87

Stop inserting copyrighted material. -Branddobbe (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tell me which ones I need to alter more, then. Because I've changed wording heavily and added things in my own writing to practically every paragraph and am working to rewrite sentences. Feel free to compare and tell me which ones need to be changed further to look 'different' while providing the same basic information. Biographical information can have the same facts written in different ways, and it would be more fair to work with me to change it, rather than attack a work in progress to infuse the facts into a proper new form.NileQT87 (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)NileQT87

If you would like to be useful, try to be helpful with what needs to be altered rather than calling 'copyright infringement!' on a work-in-progress that is slowly morphing into an original document (compare what I've done to the copyrighted text--it is very quickly becoming totally different while recognizing where the facts originated). Hopefully, with help rather than useless deletions of very basic information, it can become acceptable to you. Please check the sources again (I'm not just reverting to copied text--there have been significant changes--even with added facts not in those sources) and compare the writing. If you think you could rewrite it while keeping the basic facts, but making it entirely different, do so. That was what I was doing until you killed the article.

I have now created a temporary page with even further changes and personally-written additions. NileQT87 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)NileQT87

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://phreeque.tripod.com/johnny_eck.html and others. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The article now doesn't make any sense. What "soured by their experience"? You completely removed anything mentioning the robbery! Again, we have reverts without actually trying to fix the problem. It's NOT copied verbatim. Did you even compare? There are facts in the new version that weren't there in the sources. For example, some of the abilities put in his list of accomplishments are NOT there in partial list that was sourced. How many robbers were there is not in the supposedly 'copied verbatim' text, nor many of the other little pieces that are certainly sourced, but different to the sourced text because they actually go as far as to hold different pieces of information not found at the source.

Again, try to help keep information, but perhaps rewritten again, instead of reverts that actually stop it from making sense. As it stands, you just took out a defining moment in this persons life, rendering the article incomplete and boggling. I will change wording even more (which was not the same during the last edit), while containing the facts that keep getting deleted. The sourced materials aren't just copied! And I'm not just putting back previous reverts. Actually compare them. It's not always even the same facts. Many times it is a mishmash of facts within a sentence from all sorts of places (again, how many robbers, what they did, more abilities listed than were in the source you keep claiming to have been copied, etc...). Perhaps a piece about climbing the Washington monument and getting his picture in the newspaper for it will stick out as different enough from the source.

Neither of you are even attempting to work with the article.NileQT87 (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)NileQT87

You are welcome to improve the article as you see fit within the boundaries of neutrality and verifiability, but that doesn't including duplicating text from previously published sources, unless that text is public domain or licensed compatibly with GFDL. It's unfortunate if good faith additions of original text have also been lost in cleaning out the copyright infringement, but copyright is a legal issue and of utmost importance to the project. Please note at the bottom of every edit screen: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted." You must say it in your own words unless your limited use of quotations meets the non-free content criteria. (But you're right that I'm not working on the article; I'm only here in my capacity as an administrator to address the copyright infringement which was properly reported at the copyright problems board.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just added an entirely self-written piece about the production of Freaks. I hope this is okay. If you have problems with any of the new material, could you please single out specific sentences which are too close or need to be redone? I've also gone through and almost entirely rewritten several sections regarding his birth, abilities and the robbery.NileQT87 (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)NileQT87

It seems obvious that you are attempting to put this in a form that can be used, but unfortunately you are persisting in duplicating text from other sources. We can't publish material from other sources even temporarily. Take your paragraph beginning "Eck loved everything about show business." This is copied directly from http://www.phreeque.com/johnny_eck.html. There is another run of duplicated text beginning with "Robert was charged with looking after his brother...." You can't use language from any other source on Wikipedia--not even a few sentences. You must write all of it entirely from scratch, in your own words. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Those two sections are now completely gone and rewritten with entirely new facts and structure. You can see the changes on the temporary article page. Thank you so very much for understanding that there is an actual attempt here to create a better article and I'm not against having to change whatever needs it to be acceptable. Thank you for pointing out which parts are needed for change. It is very helpful. Please tell me if you see anything else.NileQT87 (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)NileQT87

I'm afraid that those are not only the problem areas. The first several paragraphs of the section called "Later life" are either entirely copied from or follow much too closely on http://peggy8_8.tripod.com/eck.html. This is one I missed on my last cleaning. (Even duplication of little phrases, like "He never let his lack of legs prevent him from attempting anything"--duplicated from http://www.showhistory.com/johnnyeck.html--are a problem. As I mentioned at your talk page, we cannot duplicate any text from external sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Your description of the robbery also follows too closely on http://www.phreeque.com/johnny_eck.html. You can't just change a few words, as if by using a dictionary or a thesaurus, you also have to change the structure. (See our copyright FAQ.) The source says, "Old and enfeebled, Johnny was unable to defend himself as a gang of thieves physically restrained him and walked off with his valuables." Your version says, "Old and no longer having the astonishing strength exhibited in his early life, Eck was unable to defend himself as two thieves physically restrained him (one sitting on him) and walked off with his belongings." This is the same structure as your source and aside from the "one sitting on him" offers no new, creative content at all. The rest of the paragraph also follows too closely on the original, with the same words in some places and the same structure throughout. The sentences phrased "On January 5, 1991..." is almost verbatim, while the one starting "Robert followed..." is entirely verbatim. Infringement remains extensive. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I found them all. I rewrote all the sections you mentioned. Especially the description of the robbery and the piece about costing the performers their livelihoods.NileQT87 (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)NileQT87

I'm sorry, but there's still infringement. I am restoring the article to its previous version as this is worked out in the temporary space, which I am going to userfy for easier discussion. If you can clean all of the infringement from the userfied article, we can merge it into this one, but all of the infringement must be removed before that happens. I will update you at your talk page as well as leaving a link to that new location here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The temporary version has been relocated User:NileQT87/Johnny Eck. I am going to duplicate the comments about to its talk page to facilitate discussion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrasing

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

As I noted above and as the copyright template that was on the article Johnny Eck notes, it is often better to rewrite from scratch than to simply try to modify material. This is because it can be difficult to avoid infringement that way, since you may still too closely paraphrase your source. Take for example the section later life that I mentioned before:

The source for this information says:

You have minimally rearranged the material, which is a good start, but you still contain phrases that are duplicated from it or vary from it too little to eradicate copyright concerns. Basically, if it would be obvious to anyone that you read and used that page, then you're probably following too close. Not that we're trying to hide our sources; on the contrary, it's a big part of Wikipedia to acknowledge them, since taking this person's information without acknowledging her would be plagiarism), but we still can't use their work directly unless we have permission or unless we use quotation marks and otherwise meet the non-free content criteria.

A better paraphrase of this material might be something like this:

You lose detail, but that's an unfortunate reality of paraphrasing. If you're not losing detail, you're probably simply creating a derivative work, which you can't do on Wikipedia. (Please note when citing that source that you would not cite it by linking to it, as it is itself a copyright violation and as our external link guidelines do not permit linking to copyright infringing sites. You would instead cite to the original: "The Second Life of Johnny Eck" by Stephanie Shapiro Sun Staff Originally published April 8, 2001. Obviously, all to the better if a legitimate online source can be found for it, say at the Shapiro Sun archives.

This userfied article could do with a good cleaning of that variety, revising from the ground up. The robbery incident also follows too closely still on [1]:

The source says:

The lead in, which I didn't quote, has been sufficiently revised, but this still contains literal duplication "unable to defend himself", "inspired his famous quote" "lost faith in his fellow man". You need to change this, and not by simply switching out a few words (for example "inspired his well-known quote" would not be a sufficient revision.)

I'll watch this page so we can discuss it further if you like. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have redone both of these paraphrasings, taking the bulk of the information out of the one and adding the piece about his height next to his length at birth. The other is also rewritten. Thank you for your patience and willingness to help. The Baltimore Sun doesn't appear to have its articles online. Perhaps one should just source the newspaper and the author, then.NileQT87 (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)NileQT87

That would probably be best. I don't know if you've read it, possibly you have, but I have found a reliable source that can replace some of those that does not meet our verifiability policy: [2]. Google books is a friend to researchers. I'll take a look at the material and see what further input I can offer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Great! Another usable source! We may be able to get read of the that stuff that doesn't meet policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

General notes

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I've made some alterations directly to the proposed reversion. I'll explain some of my reasons here. Those that are not related to copyright are particularly open to discussion, so please let me know if you disagree. :) I'm going to add to this list as I go, so I'm signing up here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • This sentence, "Clothed as he always was in his iconic tuxedo jacket and perched upon his tasseled stool, Johnny appeared to be a perfect half-man.", continued to infringe on http://www.phreeque.com/johnny_eck.html. I've removed it. The fact that performed in a tuxedo on a tasseled stool may be relevant to his performance section later and could be sourced to the book I mention above. That he appeared to be a perfect half-man is the opinion of phreeque.com, and it would require attribution, but the site does not meet WP:V.
  • I have addressed infringement on Unbelievably Bad and moved the quote taken from them to the article body, since it is in inappropriately detailed for the lead. (see Wikipedia:Lead.) Note that it may be challenged and removed, since as a fanzine Unbelievably Bad is also not a WP:RS. I can't find the date of that publication. (Looks like a pretty decent fanzine, but that doesn't necessarily make it usable. :/)
  • That he could have been "anything he cared to be" is opinion and unverifiable, so I have removed it. (That kind of "color" writing makes magazine articles entertaining to read, but Wikipedia's goal is to produce an encyclopedia, so we stick to dry fact, unless we are quoting somebody else.)
  • I've yanked "He was one of the few "freaks" who had a positive experience while making the film." from the article. It should not be there without a reliable source, since it is speculating on the experiences of a great many people. It needs a strong source to meet WP:V.
  • I've removed speculation about the location of the body cast. It's hard to source lack of knowledge.
  • This is why revising from the ground up is advised. Your article said, "When not performing in the sideshows, he and Robert had their own Baltimore-based orchestra." [3] said, "When not performing as a circus freak, he and Robert conducted their own Baltimore-based orchestra." There are only a few words difference here, and such close similarity is not usable.
  • You still had the following: "After this traumatizing incident, he would go on to say, "If I want to see freaks, I can just look out the window."" We need a reliable citation for this phrase. I have found one, but I have not found any reliable citation to indicate that it was said after this event. Hornberg uses it as an example of his confidence, not his bitterness: [4]. Unless we get a reliable source, it should not be used in this context, as it is speculation.
  • "survived by Robert and his Chihuahua, Major." is copied directly from http://peggy8_8.tripod.com/eck.html.
  • "The song Table Top Joe by Tom Waits is based loosely on the life of Johnny Eck." This is unsourced and it's trivia. I've removed it. If it's to be included, I needs support and probably also some additional details. It would be helpful if Eck had inspired other popular culture.

I believe at this point that this version is workable, although I have not updated all of the unusable sources with the identified books. If you are comfortable with this version, I will merge it into the existing article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You can put the Tom Waits piece back in. Straight from the artist:

http://www.tomwaitslibrary.com/interviews/02-junejuly-blackandwhite.html - "Table Top Joe is a nickname that I gave a real life character. His name is Johnny Eck."

NileQT87 (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)NileQT87

I'll let you put it back with the source for attribution reasons. Does it otherwise meet your approval? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"If I want to see freaks, I can just look out the window." is easily his most well-known quote, so I don't think you can leave it out. It's attributed on most pages to be after the robbery (Phreeque, for example).

Here are a few relevant quotes that could really add to the Freaks section and his relationships with people on set: http://www.missinglinkclassichorror.co.uk/freaksnattxt.htm

"Browning wanted me to stay as close to him as possible. He told me whenever I have an empty seat or chair, you are to sit alongside me while we shoot." - Johnny Eck

"When we finished the picture he came and gave me a present. He had made a circus ring made from matches. He said he had made it in my honor." - Olga Baclanova

The Olga Baclanova (who played Cleopatra) quote would add to a positive experience he had on set. And the previous quote shows the relationship between Browning and "Mr. Johnny".

The only things that are wrong on that page is that Robert played the piano, not him (he conducted) and that John McAslan was the one who found him.

The fact that it was a twelve-piece orchestra is also a good piece to add.

Otherwise, I like this version very much.NileQT87 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)NileQT87

You seem to be actively editing. When you're done I will merge it. Please supply a reliable source to indicate that Eck was walking on his hands before his brother could walk on his feet. The source I found (I'm afraid you separated it by putting a period in the middle of the revised sentence) only mentions that Eck was a year old; it doesn't mention his brother's mobility in comparison. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johnny_Eck/Archive_1&oldid=270301042"