Talk:New Zealand Parole Board

DYK nomination
Link to failed DYK nomination.  Schwede 66  07:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

NZPB Copyright issues
Material moved here from Schwede66's talk page

On Sept 19 when reimposing the maintenance tags for copyright and paraphrasing, you wrote that the issues are not resolved. Paraphrasing is a different issue from copyright (although potentially it may impinge on copyright - but not if no copyright exists). The original concern about copyright had to do with the material taken from the official website of the NZ Parole Board. The "offending" material was removed - even though the Board has given permission for its information to be used without consent anyway. Issue resolved? Then concerns were raised about close paraphrasing of news items. I believe I have put forward a good case that no copyright exists on the news. No one has challenged that with any evidence to the contrary. One person presented 'beliefs'. What are your concerns about copyright that lead you to reimpose the tag? (I'll get to close paraphrasing later).Offender9000 (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I will have to read up on policy before I reply.  Schwede 66  19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You say that news articles are not copyrighted. When I look on the Fairfax website, they certainly believe that their writing is covered by copyright. In order to keep things in one place, can you please state why you believe that news articles don't fall under copyright? Where text is copyrighted, the official policy of Wikipedia requires that it be given in quotation marks, with references back to the source, amongst other requirements.  Schwede  66  21:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said in the DYK nomination, "believing" has no place on wikipedia. Information has to be verifiable. WP: Public domain states "Bare facts are in the public domain. Works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible to copyright at all. A second category of works that in general cannot be copyright protected are those that have no (or no significant) creative content: they do not pass the threshold of originality." The news is basically bare facts and has no creative content - so it cannot copyrighted. For a court case on this issue see News Texts not Subject to Copyright Offender9000 20:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I moved the item here and then promptly forgot about it. Sorry for that. You simply cannot copy verbatim from other sources and not follow WP:COPYOTHERS. I note, though, that you believe that news reports are public domain. To that end, I have posted a question on the media copyright questions page.  Schwede 66  18:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The link you provided says: "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain." As far as I can see, the information of concern is in the public domain - but it will be interesting to see the outcome of the discussion. Offender9000 23:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As an uninvolved administrator visiting this discussion belatedly, let me note please that Germany's copyright law has no bearing on the issue of what we may post on Wikipedia. We are located in the United States and subject to U.S. law, where news stories are indeed copyrightable. See, for instance,, for a recent lawsuit on the question. The Board of New Zealand's permission is - unfortunately - also not usable. It is dependent on content "being reproduced accurately", whereas our license requires that modification be permitted - no such restrictions are allowed. If there is still content in this article copied from other sources - except for brief and clearly marked quotations - it needs to be removed or revised. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that there is. For instance, this source says, "In 2002, the Sentencing Act changed the law, meaning the court had to set a minimum non-parole period of at least 10 years for murder. Previously the "standard" minimum non-parole period was 10 years and the court could only impose a longer minimum non-parole period in exceptional circumstances. Nowadays judges must impose a minimum non-parole period of at least 17 years if aggravating factors are present." The article says, " As from 2002, the Sentencing Act required sentencing judges to set a non-parole period when a life sentence is imposed. Nowadays judges must impose a minimum non-parole period of at least 17 years if aggravating factors are present". This closely paraphrases and copies verbatim from that source. Content such as this is in direct conflict with our copyright and non-free content policy and guideline. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have amended the sentence you believe was in breach. Can I suggest that if you find any other material that needs rewording in order to avoid paraphrasing issues, just go ahead do so. Anyone is able to edit the page. Offender9000 17:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent re-write
I notice that there has been a recent rewrite. While much of it is good, there is an over-dependence on primary sources (particularly by the board itself, but also scoop). We need more refs from scholarly sources, international reviews, judicial opinions, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I take your point. I intend to move on to more scholarly sources etc once the basics about the Board are in place. When I started, this article didn't even have that - and scholarly articles do not usually contain the basics. They tend to be about more esoteric issues - such as whether parole has been effective at reducing re-offending in NZ. Hanukan (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that even such things as what the board is for are contested. As you may have noticed by the history of the article, it's currently in the state it is because someone was attempting to use it to show that the board was the tool of right-wing popularist politicians. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Justice Gendall
Is anyone interested in uploading a photo of current Board chaiirman, Justice Warwick Gendall. Beyond my capabilities I'm afraid. Hanukan (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If you have a photo that you've taken, it's easy to go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard I agree that we need to get more photos of senior wellington figures. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)