Talk:Campbell River (Semiahmoo Bay)

Possible copy-paste issue
It appears the body of this article has been cut and pasted from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcgn-bin/bcg10?name=38520 and I have tagged the article due to this appearance. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcgn-bin/bcg10?name=38520 is a work of the Canadian government, and I am not familiar with the copyright laws of Canada, however this could also be copyright infringement. Rejectwater (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a copyright violation and it's not hte Canadian government, it's the Government of British Columbia. BCGNIS often quotes other historical works, in this case the British Columbia Historical Quarterly, with the material being cited as such despite it being BCGNIS that it's quoted on.  BCGNIS does not own copyright on BCHQ essays, and as is normal with historical and other academic journals direct quotation is very much the norm so long as the citation for the quote is provided.  If you'd feel better placing it in blockquotes or otherwise designating it as a direct quotation, go ahead; but don't assume the government own historical information; nobody owns historical information, and the government does not own material as written in an indepedent academic publication; as I recall with this item, as with otehrs like it, wording was adjusted somewhat; the information is the same - and information is NOT COPYRIGHTABLE (only wording is)....."the sky is blue", for example, is not a copyrightable phrase even if it appears on a goverment website....Skookum1 (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fine, but still looks like copy-paste to me, that's why I tagged it with the "copy-paste" template. See WP:COPYPASTE.  Rejectwater (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I did happen to use copy-paste but I could have just as easily hand-typed it. But it's not copyrighted material, or not material that can't be quoted so long as it's cited (which it was).Skookum1 (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your contribution. It is my understanding, from my reading of the policy at WP:COPYPASTE, that copying and pasting text is not appropriate, regardless of the source, and regardless of copyright.  Please write the article in your own words, when you get a chance.  Thank you.   Rejectwater (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "when I get a chance" I'm going to write a Wikipage on all the meaningless crap that rule-interpreters get people who actually do the contibuting to waste their time over. The rush to delete, to dispute, to wantonly challenge, in Wikipedia is increasingly become its bane; I'll bet there are more people enforcing rules (as they see/interpret them, typically wrongly) than there are people actually creating content....Here's teh ACTUAL copy-paste, with those segments that are on the page in bold:

"Campbell Creek (not Tahtaloo)" adopted in the 15th Report of the Geographic Board of Canada, 31 March 1917, as labelled on BC map 2B, 1914. Form of name changed to Campbell River 3 July 1952 on 92 G/2, as had been labelled on British Admiralty Chart 2627, 1864 et seq. Source: BC place name cards, or correspondence to/from BC's Chief Geographer or BC Geographical Names Office

[It was] Labelled Tahtaloo on International Boundary Survey sheet 2 (date not cited); variant spellings Tahla too, Tah-la-loo, Tah tu lo identified on BC name card. Source: BC place name cards, or correspondence to/from BC's Chief Geographer or BC Geographical Names Office

[It was]Probably after Archibald Campbell, US commissioner in the joint negotiations to locate the international boundary 1857-1862, who had his camp at the mouth of the creek (see BC Historical Quarterly V 219, and also Canadian Geographic Journal XXXI 120).''' Identified as Semiahmoo Creek in field notes of survey by Joseph Trutch, 1859; identified as Campbell River on British Admiralty Chart 2689 Source: Provincial Archives of BC "Place Names File" compiled 1945-1950 by A.G. Harvey from various sources, with subsequent additions

Now, clearly there's been some rewording, and other whole segments of the copy-paste left out. "how had his campsite at the outlet of the stream/river" is maybe all you can so with the phrase alluded to, but it's like "sky the blue is" to do s**t like that. And as it happens, if you did know anything about Crown copyright, anything over 50 years old is well outside of it. Also correspondence is not copyrightable, especially correspondence with the government; it's a matter of public record, which is what BCGNIS is. This has been gone over before in WP:CANTALK and other places and the consensus always is taht BCGNIS is in the public domain because that's expreslly where it's been put. The Crown does not and cannot own historical information or common turns of phrase. All I'm going to do further on this, since you were too lazy yourself to reword it as you have suggested that I "take the time to", is turn the credits into refs, so that each line is cited; if you want to reword them into some confabulation of another way to phrase something that's simply put, fine, go ahead, waste your time but don't waste any more of mine. Do you realize how many articles I could have made tonight if not for screwing with requests like yours, and those of other wikicops. Why don't you go create some articles yourself instead of hassling those who do???Skookum1 (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the personal attacks. That's awesome.   Rejectwater (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, it's obvious we have a difference of opinion on the matter, I think we should just leave it at that. I'm working up a note on your talk page about something else entirely, maybe we can work together a little bit.   Have a good day.  Rejectwater (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite. This morning I've written my contact at the Land and Resources Management Bureau, who run BCGNIS, and asked for a policy statement/permission that can be placed in Wikipedia to avoid this kind of nonsense in future....the government, quite simply, cannot copyright what it does not own.....and you can't own letters from individuals, or quotations from other works, and anything older than 50 years is not subject to copyright in Canada anyway....Skookum1 (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)