Talk:Mario Bachand

The article "Mario Bachand" will relate the story of the Bachand affair, his assassination in the Paris suburb or St. Ouen, 29 March 1971, and the five-year investigation that resolved the affair. It will combine material from "Last Stop, Paris: the assassination of Mario Bachand and the death of the FLQ" (Toronto: Viking, 1998)with additional information about the investigation, interpretation of evidence, and documentation. This discussion will provide a forum for those who wish further clarification of the Bachand murder, and for those who can add to our knowledge about this most significant event in Canada's history.

Copyright Violation
This is almost certainly a copyright violation, and borrows so heavily from copyrighted work that it might have to be totally deleted. I'm not sure what can be slavaged from it. I informed Mishkax28 of this on his talk page, but he is continuing to add what appears to be copyright material from Last stop, Paris: The assassination of Mario Bachand and the death of the FLQ, ISBN 0670881961, which he apparently wrote. This violates the No original research policy and would also be a copyright violation as the book hasn't been released under GFDL. I'm torn between making massive deletions or just listing it AfD. --Descendall 07:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Believe No Violation
"This is almost certainly a copyright violation".

"I informed Mishkax28 of this on his talk page, but he is continuing to add what appears to be copyright material from Last stop, Paris: The assassination of Mario Bachand and the death of the FLQ, ISBN 0670881961, which he apparently wrote."

I "continue to add" because I believe there is no violation of copyright, for the following reasons.

First, by virtue of the following section of the Canada Copyright Act:

"Exceptions

Fair Dealing

29. Fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study does not infringe copyright.

"R.S., 1985, c. C-42, s. 29; R.S., 1985, c. 10 (4th Supp.), s. 7; 1994, c. 47, s. 61; 1997, c. 24, s. 18.

29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:

(a) the source; and

(b) if given in the source, the name of the

(i) author, in the case of a work,

(ii) performer, in the case of a performer's performance,

(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or

(iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.

1997, c. 24, s. 18.

29.2 Fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:

(a) the source; and

(b) if given in the source, the name of the

(i) author, in the case of a work,

(ii) performer, in the case of a performer's performance,

(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or

(iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.

Second, copyright applies to the expression of the literary work, not to the information content. The remark "borrows so heavily from copyrighted work" is meaningless outside of this restrictive context; the Act makes no reference to "borrowing". With respect to the article in question, information and ideas from "Last Stop, Paris" is written - "expressed" - differently. If informed observers and the community insist, I could express more differently.

Third, there is no copyright violation until and unless a court decides a violation exists. That of course presupposes that the owner of the copyright has laid a complaint against a defendant. Since I am the owner of the copyright to "Last Stop,Paris", that would be absurd.

Fourthly, by writing the article, I am implicitly granting GFDL copyright for the text. Perhaps, too, if I were to quote from a document the copyright of which belongs to me, I would be granting GFDL licence by so doing.

Finally, any directly quoted passages will come from public sources, for which no copyright applies.

Well, that is my view. I welcome comment from persons familiar with the Canada Copyright Act.

"This violates the No original research policy"

As for the "No original research policy", let me refer to the following Wikipedia comment:

"Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.

In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources."

Since the article is based upon clearly identified and publicly available source material, including "Last Stop, Paris", published by a "legitimate authority" (Viking Press), I don't believe it to be "original research" in the above sense. Further, if "no agreement" could be reached, the article could "provide and account of the controversy."

Michael McLoughlin


 * It's original research because you wrote the book. And while you personally may not plan on filing a court case over this now, this copyright is eventually going to go to someone else after you die.  Furthermore, as I pointed out on your talk page, there are a number of webpages that directly copy wikipedia information.  You may be okay with your article on wikipedia, but it will be distributed all over the place.  Finally, the information you are putting in the article is written as a narrative.  This is an encyclopedia, not a novel.  You just aren't presenting the information correctly. Also, please wikify the article.  It needs this to be done, and that's why I put the cleanup tag on it, which you took off. --Descendall 01:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Editor's further comments
'It's original research because you wrote the book.'

That is nonsense, a confusion the author of "Last Stop, Paris", a legal entity, with the writer (Editor) of the article, a distinction that a lawyer or literary critic could explain. In any case, I cannot find anything in the Wikipedia policy statements about original research to support your view. If there is, please refer me to it.

"this copyright". I repeat, in my view, based upon the Canada Copyright Act, such does not exist. In any case, Editor submissions include "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL".

"the information you are putting in the article is written as a narrative. This is an encyclopedia, not a novel.  You just aren't presenting the information correctly."

This is a new criticism, but perhaps it is your main concern. Let me say that writing in narrative form does not a novel make. The article presents some events as they in fact occured, which encyclopedia do at times. Future text in the article will not be narrative, it seems appropriate for the murder itself. I will review the Wikipedia policy statements on style and rewrite if necessary.

Wikified
I have eliminated all but the first paragraph, Which gives an entirely adequate overview of this rather minor Felquiste's life. In the event additional material is added back, it should conform to encyclopedic standards, rather than appear to be lengthy extracts from a novelesque treatment of his life. Eusebeus 22:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing wikify tag
Since the outcome of this talk page seems to be that the article is O.K. to release, I wikified it some more and removed the wikify tag. KarenAnn 21:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

hijacking
actually Mario fled to Havana with Pierre-Paul Geoffroy and Raymond Villeneuve hijacking a flight to Miami with logistic support by Sam Melville and Jane Alpert. see: http://artvoice.com/issues/v6n23/mad_bomber_melville_part_one --147.162.48.1 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)