Talk:Stotfold (house)

COI tag
The contributor visited the IRC -en-help channel and implied that they were a part owner of this property.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The Builder quote
The quote attributed to The Builder apparently is taken from here. While that page cites The Builder as a source, I don't think the blockquote attributed to that magazine is from there: The piece in The Builder was published in 12 June 1909. That's within half a year of the building's completion. Yet the quote notes significant changes: "House, now flats", "former billiard hall", "former drawing and dining rooms", "Single storey service range substantially rebuilt". That would be a lot of changes to a brand-new building in half a year. We even have another source that confirms that the conversion into flats took place in the 1950s. What we're citing here is the listing, not The Builder. That might even raise copyright issues; to me it appears the listing is covered by Crown copyright (and thus clearly still protected where a 1909 article wouldn't be). Huon (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * After thinking some more about the copyright issue, I have removed that quote as a copyright violation. Huon (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

15th January 2019

Dear "Huon"

Thank you for your comment.

1.The Historic England website is clear that the "source" of its entry is the Builder of 1909. I have a copy of the original, having obtained it from the library at RIBA in London. "Now flats" and "former" are additions by it to the 1909 text, which is otherwise copied word for word from it. Would it help if I sent you a scan of the original? It also has some nice line drawings which would - as a happy coincidence - allow you to see how relatively unchanged the building still is (a statement which has been expunged from the text). Would that be possible?

2.Regarding your copyright point, whilst of course Wikipedia must be careful about copyright, in this case comfort might be drawn from Historic England's having considered it free from copyright, or perhaps we might at least be allowed a reference to or quote from the Historic England site? And of course one might look at what the law actually says. Section 12(2) and (3) ("Duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works") of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that " Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject as follows.  If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires (a) at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or (b) if during that period the work is made available to the public, at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available…". So, whilst of course you are right to think about copyright, I would hope you could agree that there is no copyright issue here since this period ended in 1979.

3.Your colleague "DGG" has suggested in the comment he has added at the head of this article that the text of the entry is not "neutral". I wonder if you might re-read the text and if you still consider this is a valid point? If you do, would you please let me know which sentence(s) you consider are not "neutral"? We are not talking about my personal views: it may be assumed that most Wikipedia authors are writing about a topic because they are enthusiastic about it and may often have some kind of interest in it. This comment - about neutrality - concerns the pixels on the screen and neither the original text nor - particularly - the eviscerated text which has been published, could be considered anything but neutral, do you not think?

4.Until I am told that the contrary is the case, I will continue to assume that Wikipedia's raison d'etre is the accumulation of dissemination of knowledge. If I am right, In this case there has self-evidently been a failure to further that ambition, which I find baffling. You are clearly intelligent and have no personal axe to grind, and yet whereas Wikipedia is full of articles that would presumably not pass your stringent tests (I have provided links to a couple) you have rather "taken it out" on mine as if you did have some animus - a dislike of Arts & Crafts style in general perhaps! I am not seriously suggesting this of course, but I have been taken aback at this process. As I say, I would be very grateful if you could please remove the unnecessary and embarrassing comment at the head of this article.

5.Meanwhile, having become worn out by the process and ready to give up, I am glad that we at least have made a start, and I have been able to make two or three reverse links to it from the pages to which it refers.

Best wishes

Mark Daley (Cotidianus) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotidianus (talk • contribs) 13:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please explain how neither Historic England nor the Crown owns the copyright to the text in question. The text in The Builder may now be in the public domain, but the quote we had is at best a derivative work that has been changed significantly from the original. As I said above, what we had was the listing, not The Builder, and that's likely subject to Crown copyright which expires in 2044 or so (50 years after the building was listed). Excessive quotes of copyrighted content are a copyright violation, too, so that won't help. The "evisceration" was entirely due to the copyright issue, not due to neutrality issues.
 * The "close connection" tag was added by, who explained the reason above, not by DGG. Articles written by people closely connected to the subject may be entirely factual and still not neutral, for example by giving undue weight to some facts and omitting others. That doesn't imply ill intent on the part of the author; having a close connection may make it more difficult to judge what sources are appropriate, how much weight each should be accorded, what use should be made of the sources, and so on. For example, one of the sources is the Borough of Bromley complaining how the building had been changed more than advised and approved - yet that's not mentioned, but that the report calls the building "substantial" gets mentioned. To me that seems like cherry-picking, particularly when you say above that little has changed - I don't think Bromley agreed with that assessment. The page would require significant work to check that all aspects are appropriately mentioned, with due weight for each. Since I don't have access to all sources and since I'm somewhat time-constrained, I cannot perform those checks at this time. Huon (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear "Huon"

Many thanks for your rapid reply. Would you be happy if this included the actual quotation from "The Builder" journal - you would be if you accepted that it was out of copyright. Historic England cannot claim copyright of it because they have simply copied it, and cannot claim coptright over something they have just copied rather than created. I cannot quote you chapter and verse on that other than to say that it is my understanding that to claim copyright there must be the creation of something original, and I do not think this is really in doubt, so you may agree. Alternatively, it does not sound as if you would object to a selective quotation from its website (even if - contrary to what has just been said - you thought Historic England did have copyright to the text that appeared on its website).

I do wish that Wikipedia could be less aggressive in its approach. I am not the enemy. To my mind, I really do not care what the entry says. I am glad we have one, and we can now connect it to and from relevant websites, and, once our own website is up and running (another story - we own it but cannot get it going for reasons that baffle me) we can link to that, and then say on it all the things we have been banned from saying on Wikipedia.

You did not answer my point that most people who write about a topic that interests them are biased in its favour and may well have an interest, and yet their web pages are not emblazoned with the warning notice that adorns "Stotfold (house)". I think readers will think Wikipedia is being silly in adding it.

As I say, I am not your enemy, and I am not going to engage in unarmed combat with you or Wikipedia's massed ranks of editors. You must do what you think is right, and I will just leave this with you in the hope that on reflection you will see my point of view with a little less hostility and more favour than you evidently do at moment.

Best wishes

Mark Daley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotidianus (talk • contribs) 22:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Quoting the original The Builder article would not pose a copyright issue. (Whether it would be appropriate for an encyclopedia article is a separate issue. Personally I don't see a problem there, and if the quote had actually been from The Builder itself, I would not have removed it.) Regarding Historic England's possible claim of copyright, let me give an analogy: Pride and Prejudice is long out of copyright, but Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, a derivative work, is clearly copyrightable and copyrighted. Is the listing sufficiently different from The Builder to allow a new claim of copyright? That seems eminently possible, and we should err on the side of caution, not on the side of copyright violations.
 * Regarding the warning, few editors on Wikipedia have a financial interest in the topics they write about. For example, I have created articles on a Bavarian rifle, an African-American physicist, an Indian sweet, a Russian children's book, and a German guest house. I don't own an arms factory, a gun shop or even a single one of those guns, am not related to the long-dead physicist nor selling memorabilia, am not a baker, not a bookseller or publisher, and the house is public property. Am I interested in those topics? Yes, obviously. But I don't have a conflict of interest regarding any of them. Huon (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)