Talk:Newcastle (clipper)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.environment.gov.au/shipwreck/public/wreck/wreck.do?key=2928. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Pam D  07:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * On the contrary Pam, I changed the (Stone) text enough to differentiate it, OK that's my opinion, what more could be done to transform it? I'm diffident about this (as it happens), Stone proclaims his view as fact, but I don't see immediate sources for it, whereas the alternative story of the ship's fate is heavily documented from multiple sources. So I think Stone is likely wrong, and we could ignore it's inclusion. I only included it because it was there! I would point out that the material on the source page in question is CC by 3.0 AU (a compatible licence); is that not enough to pass muster? Can it now be re-entered? Should it be? Interested in your thoughts? Another issue is that I included the date in the "Article title name", Newcastle is a common name in shipping (and a confusing search term on the net) and I thought it required further differentiation; were it not for the photo and the lithograph, it would have been impossible to link three separately given launch dates (on the net) as being in fact the same vessel. Best regards Broichmore (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)