Talk:Hindu–German Conspiracy Trial

Copyright
I don't think the quotes qualify as fair use (see WP:COPYVIO). Are they copy righted? If so they should probably be removed (although using them as references would be great, speaking of which a publication date is needed for the reference). I don't know enought about copyright, so I don't want to interfere. You could ask at the Village Pump?


 * I think Avoid Cpoyright Paranoia is quite interesting on this point. See also fair use "Brief, attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked as an elipsis ([...]) or insertion ([added text]) or change of emphasis (emphasis added). All copyrighted text must be attributed. Also United States copyright law informs us that "All works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain." I am trying to understand the difference between not wanting to intere and interfering!Harrypotter 17:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC

)
 * Interfering would be deleting the quotations because I believed them to be copyright violations :-) . The meta article you quote is a personal comment by one or more users rather than Wiki policy (see WP:COPYVIO).  Anyway, I'm not bothered.  I only looked at the article because I thought it might be POV, which it doesn't seem to be.  Hopefully you're right about short quotations being OK; it makes sense and is useful.   (I'd forgotten the public domain thing as well.)  I've redone the references slightly, using Footnotes.  I think they're better like that, but it's not mandatory so feel free to revert me if you prefer them how they were.  I'm taking these pages off my watchlist so let me know on my talk page if you post a comment you want me to reply to.  Captainj 19:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"It was part of a wave of repression "
From the lead... "It was part of a wave of repression "... that seems rather non neutral. Perhaps it doesn't belong in the lead? ++Lar: t/c 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

ambiguity
From the article:

The Indians, "students and revolutionists, several of them highly educated" were sentenced to serve from twenty-two months to sixty days."

Um, my guess is that the third quote mark is superfluous (as opposed to the second quote mark), and that it should be the more logically presented "sixty days to twenty-two months" rather than, say, "twenty-two months to sixty months," but I'll wait for someone with source access to clarify.