Talk:Gas Works Park

Pollution
I think we should include information on the pollution of the industrial activities that took place on this site, and its fill history. Hank chapot 03:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rights problem? Missing references, in any case
A lot of the content here came in via these edits by User:Msjohnson22 who has no other Wikipedia edits and is not reachable by email. They contain citations to references that are not listed in the article. The first of the pair of edits is summarized as "Added text from Landmark Nomination prepared for the Friends of Gas Works Park". Is that landmark nomination in the public domain? If not, what is the basis for using this material? - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Coming from your post at the village pump. Per this site the document the editor was referring to is overseen by the "Landmark's Office within the Department of Neighborhoods", which I assume is a local agency in Seattle and can be looked up and called by telephone. Barring doing so, I don't know of any way to check whether the text is in the public domain. Certainly that large quantity of polished and unwikified text has all the hallmarks of a copy and paste (or maybe in this case, hand-typed, but nevertheless verbatim) text dump. It's a shame but I think we must remove it unless and until you get a response from the author or we learn the stated source is in the public domain (and then we can, of course, cite it). blanking and sending this to copyright problems as you referred to is unnecessary. That only needs to be done if there is no non-infringing version to revert to.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Two things -
 * One - Per CopyrightsAll works are copyrighted unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed.
 * Two - References in the text that Jmabel is questioning are of the nature of "(Bass 1947, p33)" without any indication of what work is being cited. A goggle search  for works by Bass in 1947 brings back 15 possible works, the most likely being "When Seattle was a Village; By Sophie Frye Bass", but I don't know that is the intended reference!  I therefor suggest that all the questionable text be removed per WP:V, pending verification of by reliable sources using proper and complete citations; The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
 * I deffer to Jmabel to remove the text, unless the user has concerns in which case I I would be happy to remove it. Normally I would remove the text to the talk page for discussion, but based on the edit history of the author, no discussion is likely to occur so complete removal may be more appropriate in this case. Jeepday (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove; I'm pretty busy.

I don't think, though, that the question is the Department of Neighborhoods' intention. It's whether a Landmark Nomination submission like this has a status akin to court testimony, and is therefore not copyrightable. That can only be resolved by someone who knows a lot more than I do about this area of copyright law. - Jmabel | Talk 16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical significance POV dispute
The historical significance section needs to be more objective. It overflowing with praise, and that's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --KJRehberg (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)