Talk:Vijayanagara musicological nonet

Tags
Can those who are slapping those "non-RS" tags please care to elaborate? Sarvagnya 03:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I already did on your talk page. If you had perhaps read the comments there before you deleted them, you would already have the answer to your question. :) As it is possible you didn't read them before deleting them, I have restored them, with an additional comment or two. John Carter (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the tags. Since there is a dispute, users who have put those tags, need to explain here, arrive at a consensus and then put them. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 06:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that isn't even remotely how it works, and I think you might even know that yourself. In fact, such a gross misstatement of the Burden of evidence policy could be considered problematic on its own. The policy explicitly says one such "consider" placing comments on the talk page, but that is all it says. Nothing even remotely resembling the statement made above can be found there. Or, if it can, I would like to see it demonstrated, as the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, not the person requesting clarification. John Carter (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So how does it work, mate? That I go around adding tags everywhere without telling why I added them? If User:Ncmvocalist had mentioned in the talk page about why he added those tags, do you think that there would have been so much of edit-warring. You like to interpret the way you want, right? This is what WP:PROVEIT says: Use the edit summary to give an explanation of your edit. You may also leave a note on the talk page or an invisible HTML comment on the article page, none of which were done in this case. So what do you expect, that we start speculating on why the tags were placed??? I am sure that any user is well within his right to remove tags, which do not accompany any explanations... -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 14:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To a degree, although your last statement above isn't exactly what you said the first time, I agree with you. In this case, I didn't review the original posters own contributions as thoroughly as I should have, for which I apologize. However, considering that a fairly clear explanation has now been made for why I placed the tags on Sarvagnaya's talk page, which you apparently already read, I suggest we confine any future comments to the matter directly at hand now. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop twisting how it works. The editor who placed those tags there, or a neutral party (such as an administrator not involved in the dispute) would remove the tags if consensus has been reached. Placing such tags is not 'vandalism' as has been erroneously indicated, but ironically, removing them prior to consensus being reached does constitute vandalism. But that aside....


 * It isn't unreasonable to place a tag on the article, signalling that editors should add more citations for verification when only a measly 2 sources have been given. So this tag was very reasonable, yet we all know that a certain editor is incapable of being more careful in his/her edits to sift and take out what they consider 'unreasonable'. But anyway, he must obviously be claiming that the 2 sources that are used are reliable in themselves? Well, how so? The second source (on swaramelakalanidhi) isn't even (or doesn't seem to be) published in a reputed source, but self-published on the website it was taken from. So this leaves the first source (on its own), where some material has been completely copied and pasted, without any other citations for verification, meaning that the article is basing itself entirely on the word of the author of the first source - so what qualifications does he have? What formal recognition has he received? What can be shown to demonstrate that this author is notable? A Ph D that hasn't been noted in his biography? Maybe a Sangita Kalanidhi award for his research into the field? No? Well, at the very least, this work has been published in Sangeet Natak Journal. But then we come back to the fact that this is the only real source that can be used, and ironically, it has been blatantly plagiarised. So tell me, how are these 3 tags inappropriate? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * An article that talks of Svaramelakalanidhi written by N. Ramanathan appears in the book The Traditional Indian Theory and Practice of Music and Dance by Jonathan Katz and can be viewed here. The book goes on to say: N. Ramanathan is a Reader in the Department of Indian Music at the University of Madras. His research and publications have covered topics in the history and theory of Indian Music. R. Sathyanarayana is a well known authority on Indian Music and has written a set of books, some of which can be seen here. Further citation on R. Sathyanarayana can be seen here. Is this sufficient? -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 09:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's useful to indicate that the author is knowledgable about the subject. However, that doesn't establish that the article referenced itself is necessarily reliable, as it would be far from unique for a reputable scholar to advance one or more fringe theories, and for others to, perhaps mistakenly, then use those comments as the basis for making inaccurate claims here. Also, I note the almost total lack of citations in the article. On that basis, it could be, at least potentially, argued that most of the article could be removed as unverified, although I don't think that there is any particular reason to necessarily do so in this case yet. In response to the copyright violation claims made, those are very serious claims indeed. If specific evidence to substantiate those claims can be presented, it would be extremely useful to have such information. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do note how in several sentences the existing content of the article reads almost exactly like some of the sentences in the first cited source. Although there are obviously slight differences in punctuation and phrasing, they are in several cases only slight differences. While I am not in any way an expert on copyright matters, such sentences do raise several concerns in my eyes. I am not sufficiently familiar with our copyright regulations to know whether those sentences are sufficient to establish a case of copyright violation, but they are in my eyes at least a clear evidence of possible potential problems. At this point I am personally unsure how to proceed. I would welcome any advice. Should I not receive some comments regarding this within the next 24 hours or so, I will probably have to consult with our copyright people regarding how to proceed in this matter. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rest assured, if there are copyright problems, they will be dealt with -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 15:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Section break

 * R Satyanarayana (better known in music circles as Ra Satyanarayana) and N Ramanathan are well known musicologists and experts.
 * The site (musicresearch.in) belongs to N Ramanathan and hosts dozens of research papers authored by eminent musicologists.
 * The article in question is, but a paraphrase of the two papers mentioned in the refs section. Bulk of the article is from RaSatyanarayana's paper which deals explicitly with the subject.

Now, musicologists arent exactly rock stars and it is understandable and excusable if one wasnt aware of the authors. What is not excusable however, and infact, downright despicable is that editors who confess to knowing squat about the subject also have the gall to take it upon themselves to slap tags on the article. And that an admin can stoop to such miserable levels is deplorable. And Carter's shoddy work in evaluating the situation before taking it upon himself to lend mercenary support to Ncmv in his revert warring is pathetic.

Would the admin have the grace to apologize or would it be too much to ask of someone who seems to revel in these 'hit and run' cases? Sarvagnya 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would the editor above care to address the copyright violation and other questions asked above rather than indulge in off-topic demonstrations of failure to AGF if not outright personal attacks? And I note that the questions regarding the reliability of the site in question, for all the clear violations of WP:CIVILITY evidenced above, have yet to be answered. I wonder why? And what the above editor calls a paraphrase could well cross the line into copyright violation, if the paraphrase is too close, as it seems to be in some cases. I will still request review in 24 hours, based on my own admitted lack of familiarity with how close a paraphrase is acceptable, unless I see those concerns addressed. And, it should be noted, that the concerns about the reliability of the site are in no way addressed by simply saying certain parties own it, so the questions of the reliability of the site are still present and yet unanswered. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah.. I knew an apology was too much to expect.. anyway.. now, you're atleast talking. Thats an improvement and I'll take it.  Just next time, make sure you come to the discussion table before you choose to parade your ignorance or be a mercenary in a revert war and blindly revert an editor who's authored a dozen FAs.
 * So here goes - first of all, I do not think that there are glaring cpvio issues. There may be some sentences here and there (particularly the second section, i think) which got through the cracks un-paraphrased or semi-paraphrased, but overall, the article is far from a cut-paste job.  Also there's the minor fact that the article conspicuously and explicitly acknowledges the source, with the complete text being available for anyone to read at the click of a button -- so there is no question of trying to get away with anything hanky-panky (unlike in the case of the infamous bollyblog images, which you tried your darndest best to defend after they'd been discredited).  I will give the article few more rounds of 'paraphrasing' cpedits and that should take care of it.  In the meanwhile, if you want to bring in the copyright experts (whoever they are), please go ahead.  I am interested in cpright issues too and we may all learn some esoteric stuff we wouldnt have known unless a situation like this presented itself.  And if it can make you feel better, I'll put up a {{underconstruction} tag until the 'paraphrasing' is done.
 * As for the sources, I dont know what to say of your ignorance.. anybody who knows anything about Indian classical music will tell you that R Satyanarayana is one of the foremost experts in the field. N Ramanathan too is an eminent musicologist and if I remember correctly was the Dean/Principal of the Madras Music College (University of Madras).
 * And if it is just that you want to nitpick and claim that the entire site and all its dozens of articles (which read scholarly even to the untrained/semi-trained eye) is an elaborate hoax; that it is owned/run by just an imposter and not by N Ramanathan at all as the site claims, that every research paper on that site attributed to a host of scholars is a farce, I can only ask you to take your parnoia somewhere else.. perhaps to RSN or even ANI - which your 'cabal' has anyway reduced to a sulkboard to be used against me at the first opportunity. Sarvagnya 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I had earlier taken comments regarding this page directly to you, when I added the templates, so what are very apparently your attempts to obfuscate things are noted. Also, please cease indulging in your unwarranted, and in some cases unsubstantiated, personal attacks. It is nice to see that you acknowledged that there probably are apparent violations of copyright. I could probably change them before the protection of the page ends, but it is incumbent on you to indicate where they are, not me.
 * In any event, I very strongly urge you to read, as you apparently haven't, WP:RS, which I in fact already linked to, if you noticed, which indicates that such self-published sources as this one are far less than acceptable by wikipedia standards. Believe me, I've seen religion related websites which looked a great deal more authoritative than this one which contained material which was both at best poorly sourced and clearly POV pushing. I acknowledge that the source seems to be reliable, but there is a big difference between something seeming to be reliable and actually being reliable, as per WP:RS.
 * And, once again, your repeated attacks on others hardly endear you to anyone. If you could be bothered to actually talk about the article yourself primarily, rather than continuing your clearly disallowed personal attacks, you might not encounter as many problems with others as you so regularly do.
 * Also, please note that it is incumbent upon those who seek to use the source to not only be able to insult others who ask for proof that it is verifiable, but to actually demonstrate that they are reliable, which you have yet to do. I look forward to seeing that evidence. Yes, it could be seen as "paranoic" as per your attack above, to question it, but, like I've said, the web is far from a reliable source in general, and there are many apparently reliable websites which have been demonstrated to be anything but reliable. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)"I had earlier taken comments regarding this page directly to you, when I added the templates" No. You did NOT discuss your concerns on my page or this page BEFORE you jumped in with your revert. You only came to me with gratuitous advice and thinly veiled warnings AFTER your frivolous and ill-informed tagging of the article. That is what happened. You dont simply jump out of the blue to revert and tag an article, follow it up with crap on the editor's talk page and expect him/her to AGF. That isnt how WP:AGF works. Go read it and understand it before you memorize it.

"...It is nice to see that you acknowledged that there probably are apparent violations of copyright. I could probably change them before the protection of the page ends, but it is incumbent on you to indicate where they are, not me..." Like I said, imo, the cpvios if any, are few and far between. I'd rather give the whole article a cpedit than go back and forth between the article and the source multiple times control+effing for cpvios. And I can only do it after the article has been unlocked. If you're in a damn hurry go ahead and give it a couple of rounds of cpedit yourself. Better still, if you so choose, go ahead and comment out the whole article and I'll re-paraphrase and restore section by section after the protection is over.

"...In any event, I very strongly urge you to read, as you apparently haven't, WP:RS,..." Will you ever stop your patronizing? Do your for a moment realize that you arent dealing with novices here?

"...Believe me, I've seen religion related websites which looked a great deal more authoritative than this one which contained material which was both at best poorly sourced and clearly POV pushing...." Look.. this is N Ramanathan's website. And who is N Ramanathan? You'll find the answers if you googled for a few mins on google scholar and jstor and google books and even sundry indian sites. He has authored books and is a well known scholar in the field. Like I said, short of you claiming that the site is an elaborate hoax and isnt owned by N Ramanathan at all or that each one of those dozens of carefully referenced and annotated articles are concocted, the site is clean. Infact, many of the research papers hosted on the site are extracted from reputed peer reviewed journals. As for POV concerns, if you find any piece by another acknowledged scholar in the field who disagrees with these scholars, feel free to bring them to the table.. we'll work them into the article too. But you cant simply conclude that the source is fringe or POV simply because you dont have other sources at hand to compare them with.

"...And, once again, your repeated attacks on others hardly endear you to anyone." My repeated attacks? Well.. I dont remember the last time I tried to character assasinate someone on ANI simply because they were persistent in tagging a bunch of cpvio images as cpvio or the last time I made completely baseless and fantastic allegations that somebody had committed WP:LEGAL vios with no evidence to back it up.. or attempted to defend completely discredited images from deletion or jumped into a revert war on an article I had no clue about to lend mercenary support to 'an enemy of my enemy = my friend'. I dont remember the last time I insulted another editor's good faith intentions by blindly supporting my friends even when they were wrong as you did in the case of the bollyblog images.. when you kept feeding Blofeld's paranoia and kept stonewalling me for months before what were infact, blatant cpvios could be deleted. I dont remember the last time I coaxed or spurred someone to draft ill-thought RfCs against another editor... And you have the gall to expect that that people AGF with you?! "my repeated attacks". huh. Sarvagnya 22:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have recently added tags to the article indicating that more citations are needed and that additional references are required for verification. While I agree with the comments below, to a degree, the sources are still at best marginally adequate. John Carter (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted the tags. You asked for footnotes and you will get them.  You made the point on the talk page and you dont have to disrupt the article to 'rub it in'.  And wrt to cpright violations, if any, I'm waiting to hear from the experts you promised/warned that you will bring in.. "in 24 hours!!!".  So if you could address that instead of rambling away about my supposed incivility (may i add, in the face of some of the most graceful behaviour wikipedia has had the good fortune of witnessing). Sarvagnya 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the whole point of adding reference tags when the article is under construction? Just curious. Gnanapiti (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"...the sources are still at best marginally adequate..." -- Well.. good luck with that line. From what we've seen until now, atleast four editors - myself, Amarrg, Dinesh and Arvind seem to disagree with you. Sarvagnya 17:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliability
Folks, could we please keep conduct-related disputes off this page and take them instead to the talk pages of individual users (or RFC, or wherever)? It'll make it easier to focus on resolving issues related to the article.

Now, on the question of RS: If we look at WP:V, it says this:


 * "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

musicresearch.in does seem to be a self-published source, as the site doesn't give any indication that its content goes through a process of peer-review. The extract from WP:V which I've reproduced above does, however, seem to suggest that it'd be citable, as long as N. Ramanathan, R. Sathyanarayana, and others whose works are being relied upon are "established experts" who've published works on the topic of Carnatic music in "reliable third-party publications." A google books search shows that both N. Ramanathan and R. Sathyanarayana are frequently cited in academic literature. To me, this seems to be a fairly clear indication that they're established experts on Carnatic music, and that WP:V would permit us to cite self-published works by them, as long as we exercise some caution. It's probably worth pointing out that if N. Ramanathan is actually exercising editorial control over what appears on the site, it's arguably an expert-edited source which'd place it on par with certain types of academic journals, but the site doesn't seem to say either way.

That having been said, I do think that having only two footnotes in an article this length is a source of concern, but it might perhaps be helpful if Ncmvocalist could flag up the specific facts that he thinks need citation with cite. I've had similar content templates simply slapped on articles I've worked on with little indication of what exactly the problem is, and it can be quite a frustrating experience. It does tend to happen a bit on articles related to South India, and the process of editing wikipedia would be a lot more pleasant if all concerned took the time to explain their concerns on talk pages when tagging articles. I'm not pointing fingers at any particular editor(s) here (no really, I'm not - I've been guilty of this in the past myself when my temper's started to fray), I'm just making a general observation. -- Arvind (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The questions there are, actually whether that party is exercising editorial control (I'm not sure that can be asserted clearly) and whether these "circumstances" are among those which are included in the quotes above. Also, even with the sentences altered, they are possibly still copyright violation concerns. I am in the process of reviewing how much the existing content parrots that of the original source. If it is too clearly directly copying, then the copyright violation concerns may still be in place. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I've always read "circumstances" as referring to something broader than the nature of the source. For example, if we're dealing with an area on which reams of articles have been written, quoting the self-published opinion of an expert is a little less justified than when we're dealing with a situation where there's very little in the peer-reviewed literature.  Similarly, where the claims are contentious (in the sense that differing views are documented to exist), quoting self-published material may be less of a good idea than a situation where differing views aren't documented to exist.
 * On copyright, a close paraphrase can indeed be as much of a copyvio as a direct quote. It's usually easy enough to rephrase the section so that it conveys the facts in different words, though. -- Arvind (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The circumstances alluded to in the above WP:V extract do not refer to the circumstances under which "self-pub sources by experts" may be used.. they in fact, refer to the circumstances under which "self-published sources" (per se) may be used. To break it up.. what it means is  -- "Self published sources are a strict no-no on wikipedia unless they are from people who are acknowledged experts in the field.. and have published previously in peer-reviewed sources."  Its amazing that this can be so hard to understand.  As for cpright issues, Arvind!.. when I spoke of that 'threshold of originality" issue on my talk page.. I was trying my hardest to remember who had spoken to me about it.. so i could ping them.  Now I remember, it was you.  Thanks for chiming in.  I would have given this article a few more rounds of cpediting, cpright vios or not.  But can you still take a look at the article and say if it qualifies as cpright violation.  And just to make your task a little harder, can you factor in the fact that the source itself is cprighted in India (I'm assuming that because they're indian authors).  Since wp servers are in Florida, I believe we follow American cpright laws.  But do American cpright laws about paraphrased stuff protect stuff that isnt cprighted in the US in the first place?  I'm not trying to nitpick.. but I'm asking because I am interested to know.  Would greatly appreciate it if you could shed some light on it.  I will cpedit and further paraphrase the article regardless of what your reply may be. Sarvagnya 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add that.. many of the papers hosted on the site are extracted from reputed journals (as indicated by the article headers in such cases). Sarvagnya 16:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And those papers are probably fine, although it would probably be best to get them from the journal itself if possible, not from the site which is clearly owned by a single party, and thus, at least for that party, not an independent, third-party source. The others are the ones that are really questionable. Concerns include whether, unfortunately, they may have been suggested for a reputable journal and turned down for some reason and/or the authors maybe knowing that they'd never be accepted in the first place. Articles of the former type might be slightly problematic, articles of the latter would definitely be problematic. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I had just read your suggestion Arvind. Will add the tags when I am back after a while. Also, there are a few issues I have with how you have ascertained that an author is an established expert in the wide field of Carnatic music, but will elaborate these concerns at the same time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine - take your time. And just to clarify, I've long regarded N. Ramanathan as an expert, so the Google books results were just an attempt to show that the his works are frequently cited in an academic context.  I'm always open to being convinced that I'm wrong, so I'm happy to hear your views about why he isn't an expert. -- Arvind (talk) 15:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright
So far, the following sections are all, fairly clearly, copyright violations, although I'm not finished yet:


 * Article - "The reign of Vijayanagara empire was a watershed period in the cultural history of South India, particularly the history of Carnatic music. By virtue of the geo-political influence it exerted, Vijayanagara had became the confluence of many religions, art forms and cultures."
 * Source - "The age of Vijayanagar was crucial to the development of the culture of South India in general and of its music in particular" and "Vijayanagar became the confluence of many religions, art forms, and cultures.".


 * Article - "These cultural trends and objectives were sustained, fostered and cherished even after the fall of the empire by several several feudatory states such as Anegundi, Penukonda, Tanjore, Mysore Kingdom, Madurai, Ikkeri etc.,."
 * Source - "These cultural trends and objectives were sustained, fostered and cherished even after the fall of the empire by AneguÄÎi, PenukoÄÎa, Tanjore, Mysore, Madurai, Ikkeri and several other feudatory states".


 * Article - "A wide range of experiments and innovations were carried out in the field of instruments too."
 * Source - "A wide range of experiments and innovations were carried out on V¶Ä-keyboards in respect of accordatura, tonal range, and instrumental parameters.".


 * Article - "The mela replaced the grama and its the theoretical possibilities were fully explored through mathematical schemes of tabulation; new classificatory models emerged for ragas; through psychoacoustical principles of temperament.svayambhusvara (upper partials), paryaya-svara (alternative svara denomination), and pratinidhi-svara (representative note) scales and intervals were rationalized to be in alignement with contemporary musical practice."
 * Source - "Grma yielded place to the mela, the theoretical possibilities of which were fully explored and exactly determined through mathematical schemes of tabulation; new classificatory criteria emerged for ragas; scales and intervals were rationalized and aligned to contemporary musical practice through psychoacoustical principles of temperamentsvyambµu-svara (upper partials), paryya-svara (alternative svara denomination), and pratinidhi-svara (representative note)."


 * Article - "The desi talas, which had grown arbitrary, archaic and prolific, made way for the suladi talas engendered by the Haridasas. These were made comprehensive and versatile through ten vital elements called tladasaprana. Theoretical and pedagogical scalar standards, as well as propaedeutic exercises (abhyasagana) which are relevant even today, were the contributions of Vijayanagara."
 * Source - "The numerous de½si tlas, which had grown arbitrary and prolific, were replaced with sµuldi tlas; these were made comprehensive and versatile through ten vital elements called tlada½saprÄa. Theoretical and pedagogical scalar standards, as well as propaedeutic exercises (abhysagna) which are relevant even today, were the contributions of Vijayanagar."

And, like I've said, I'm not finished yet. Personally, I think the most reasonable thing to do at this point would be to move the article into userspace and work on it there, if you have to, given the amount of material which is fairly clearly at best dubious. However, as I have found four fairly clear copyright violations so far today, in only the first section and subsequent paragraph, I've felt that policy demands that I report my suspicions at Copyright problems. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not see any "fairly clear" cpright violations. I have myself said 12 or 15 hours ago that there may be parts that are 'un(der)-paraphrased' (Which I have also said that I will work to fix).  But I do not see any ctrl C-ctrl V stuff there.  If you do find any such ctrl C ctrl V stuff.. comment them out or remove them.  But dont remove anything else until we hear from the experts you promised you would bring in... coz .. if its just your word against mine.. I'd go with mine.  imo, the "reasonable" thing to do would be for you to get off this article and give people the breathing space they need to work on an article. Sarvagnya 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * An "underparaphrase" is a copyright violation. If you substantially "borrow" the language of another work, and each of these bears very remarkable similarities in sentence structure and language, that's a copyright violation by at least US law. And, like I said, now that it is reported, it is somewhat incumbent on me to demonstrate as many as possible of the sentences and sections which are fairly clearly copied from somewhere else as possible. And, although I wouldn't use the "combative" language that it's just one person's word against another, I have linked to this page and it is reasonable that I indicate exactly what material is suspicious for whoever responds to the notice. And, until it is cleaned up, we would still, at least potentially, have an extant copyright violataion, which is something we try to eliminate as fast as possible under any circumstances. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * An "underparaphrase" is a copyright violation. If you substantially "borrow" the language of another work, and each of these bears very remarkable similarities in sentence structure and language, that's a copyright violation by at least US law. -- is that your empty word or do you have a link to a guideline/policy/RS to back that up. And how may under-paraphrased sentences does it take to brand an entire article cpvio?  Coz if it is just one or two or a few.. I'd imagine we'd find atleast one under-paraphrased sentence in every second article on wikipedia.
 * which is something we try to eliminate as fast as possible under any circumstances -- oh.. like the 4 months you and your friends stonewalled before you'd give up and let those blatant copyvios be deleted? In any case, the fastest way to eliminating under-paraphrasing is to either work yourself or let others work on the article.  Not by taking an ego trip on the talk page. Sarvagnya 18:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please actually address the issue at hand, and not continue to raise your own more than a bit erroneous opinions about other matters, which is at best irrelevant and at worst gives the impression that you're trying to obfuscate the current issue. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Add
 * Article - "Throughout the Vijayanagara period, theory and musical practice kept pace with each other closely. Great musicologists like Vidyaranya, Salva Gopa Tippendra, Kallinatha, Kumbhakarna, Ramamatya, Laksmanarayana, Pandarika Vittala, Somanatha, Locana Jha and Hrdayanarayanadeva contributed to musical theory of both North and South India during this period. Tanappacharya, Govinda Dikshita and Venkatamakhin made foundational contributions from Tanjore about a century later".
 * Source - "Theory kept pace with musical practice closely throughout the Vijayanagar period, maintaining a remarkable spatio-temporal continuity through the theoretical works" and "Great musicological luminaries like ^Sr¶ VidyraÄya, Süva Gopa-tippendra, Kallintha, KumbhakarÄa, Rmmtya, Lak¦m¶nryaÄa, PaÄÎar¶ka Vi¢¢hala, Somantha, Locana Jh and H¾dayanryaÄadeva buttressed the theoretical foundations of music both in South and North India during this period while Tnappch¡rya, Govinda D¶k½sita and VeÆka¢amakhin laid the foundations of modern Carnatic music from Tanjore about a century later." John Carter (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost literally verbatim,
 * Article - "The first of the navaratnas is Vidyaranya's Sangitasara, composed in the second half of the fourteenth century. Parts of this work which dealt with the fifteen melas and their fifty janya ragas, as well as certain types of singers, were paraphrased by Govinda Dikshita in his Sangitasudha (nidhi) in the early seventeenth century."
 * Source - "The first of these is the sage VidyraÄyas SaÆg¶tasra composed in the second half of the fourteenth century A.D. Parts of this work, dealing with the fifteen melas and their fifty janya rgas, as well as certain types of singers, were paraphrased by Govinda D¶k¤sita in his SaÆg¶tasudh(nidhi) in the early seventeenth century." John Carter (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Article - "The second of the nonet (chronologically) is the Taladipika belonging to the mid-fifteenth century. It was authored by Salva Gopa-Tippendra, brother-in-law of King Praudha Devaraya II and viceroy of Mulbagal. In the work, he describes over a hundred desi talas (even invents quite a few) and elucidates the taladasapranaa (ten vital elements of tala) for the first time. Following this innovation, all temporal activities in music and dance came to be organized and consolidated under these elements."
 * Source:"The second of the Nonet is, chronologically, Süva Gopa-tippendras Tlad¶pik. The author was the brother-in-law of PrauÎha Devarya II, and a viceroy under the Vijayanagar empire who ruled from Mulb¡gal (near Modern Kolar) in the mid-fifteenth century. Besides describing more than a hundred de½si tlas (and inventing quite a few of them), he mentions the tlada½saprÄa (ten vital elements of tla) for the first time; all temporal activities in music and dancing came to be organized, collocated and collimated under these elements." John Carter (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Article: "To the same period brlongs the third work of the Nonet, Kallinatha's Sangitakalanidhi, a versatile commentary on Sharngadeva's Sangitaratnakara, the encyclopaedic magnum opus on Indian music. It was about dancing and aesthetics of the thirteenth century. In the work, Kallinatha meticulously annotated, explicated, criticised and emphasesed all the central issues of the Ratnakara; he also illumined it through comparison with contemporary practices, theories and norms of music and dance. He anticipated many developments in these arts.".
 * Source: "To the same period belongs the third work of the Nonet, Kallinthas SaÆg¶takalnidhi, the great versatile commentary on ^SrÆgadevas SaÆg¶taratnkara, an encyclopaedic magnum opus on Indian music, dancing and aesthetics of the thirteenth century. Besides annotating, explicating, criticizing and emphasizing all the central issues of the Ratnkara, Kallintha illumines the text through comparison with contemporary practices, theories and norms of music and dance. He anticipates many developments in these arts." John Carter (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Article: "A Telugu commentary by Bhandaru (-ri?) Vittaleshwara on the Sangitaratnakara in the last quarter of the fifteenth century forms the fourth of the navaratnas."
 * Source:"BhaÄÎru (-ri?) Vi¢¢hale½svara composed a Telugu commentary on the SaÆg¶taratnkara in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. This work is the fourth of the Nonet.".

Section break

 * And pray, how is that cpvio? Because the order of all the names is the same?!
 * The source reads -


 * ''"Great musicological luminaries like Sri Vidyaranya, Salva Gopa Tippendra, Kallinatha, Kumbhakarna, Ramamatya, Laksmanarayana, Pandarika Vittala, Somanatha, Locana Jha and Hrdayanarayanadeva buttressed the theoretical foundations of music both

in South and North India during this period while Tanappacharya, Govinda Dikshita and Venkataamakhin laid the foundations of modern Carnatic music from Tanjore about a century later.

Theory kept pace with musical practice closely throughout the Vijayanagar period, maintaining a remarkable spatio-temporal continuity through the theoretical works."''


 * I paraphrased it as -


 * "Throughout the Vijayanagara period, theory and musical practice kept pace with each other closely. Great musicologists like Vidyaranya, Salva Gopa Tippendra, Kallinatha, Kumbhakarna, Ramamatya, Laksmanarayana, Pandarika Vittala, Somanatha, Locana Jha and Hrdayanarayanadeva contributed to musical theory of both North and South India during this period. Tanappacharya, Govinda Dikshita and Venkatamakhin made foundational contributions from Tanjore about a century later"."


 * Now, how is that a cpvio?! Would you mind pointing me to some wikipedia policy or guideline which tells us how much paraphrasing is enough paraphrasing? 18:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Sarvagnya
 * By our guidelines at Copyrights, "It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia". However, considering how much of the language is still in fact the original source's words, it at the very least at least in my eyes is at least dubious. I acknowledge that the editors who review the Copyright problems page know more about this than I do, but as per the reply I got at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, "If only minor changes are made, it isn't paraphrasing its plagarism and a COPYVIO violation". John Carter (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And this article is certainly more than just "minor changes". Yes, some of the sentences you picked need more paraphrasing (which is something I said myself yesterday) but it is nothing that is remotely as blatant as would merit a discussion of this length.  Also couple of examples you've thrown like the one I've pointed out above are themselves dubious.  I have replied on that page and now if you will get off from here and let me work on the article, it'd be greatly appreciated. Sarvagnya 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't finished looking over the entire source, as I've already noted. However, there are at least several sections which are clearly as sections copyright violations. And, actually, I think that, barring moving it to userspace, I think we should both wait for judgement of others before coming to conclusions regarding whether the content constitutes plagarism, which is not permitted by the rules of wikipedia. And at this point all that's happening is that I am pointing out which sections could be considered problematic, thus, among other things, allowing you to know which sections need the most work. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you mind numbering your examples so I can refer to them when I acknowledge or rebut them here? More than a couple of your examples do NOT qualify as "almost verbatim" and I'd like to point them out without interspersing my comments between yours.  and fwiw, I've given two sections a round of cpedit and it should have taken care of most of the issues - real and imagined. Sarvagnya 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't misquote me, like you did above. I never said that they had to be "almost verbatim", only that a few were. All that is required as per the quote we were given is "If only minor changes are made, it its plagarism and a COPYVIO violation". And there really wouldn't be any purpose to "rebutting" any of them, as I don't think either of us will necessarily be making the decision or involved in the decision anyway. You certainly could strike through those quotes which you've substantially altered, or number them yourself, though. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well.. my point was - some of the examples you quoted are not examples of "..if only minor changes are made, its plagiarism.." either. Anyway, you sure have come a long way in defending your knee jerk revert and tag teaming with ncmv.  Good going. Sarvagnya 21:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In all the examples I pointed out, I believe, although I haven't taken the time to review them, the same content was almost always presented in basically the same order, often using pretty much the same words. As per the Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin cases as I remember them, that is sufficient by US law, which has to be considered in this case, as plagarism. Moving or separating out a clause into a separate sentence probably would still qualify if the content within that clause or sentence itself remained substantially unchanged. And, as I remember, the DKG case and the content of the Doris Kearns Goodwin section, use of "almost identical phrases" (the phrase used there) is sufficient for plagarism. I have noted above that several of the phrases used, and in other cases words if in slightly different order, can be found in both, which is probably enough to meet the threshold established in that case. Having said that, if the content can be substantially rewritten such that those phrases and combinations of words do not appear as frequently, that would probably be sufficient to invalidate the appearance of plagarism. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The plagiarism(!!) pitch is misplaced and Stephen Ambrose and Doris Goodwin are quite irrelevant here. For starters, this article makes no attempt whatsoever to hide its source.  The source(s) are mentioned in the references section quite conspicuously and the source in its entirety is available for anybody at the click of a button.  I do not see any evidence of this article breaking any American law or even wikipedia law!  btw, may I know what the law had to say in Ambrose and Goodwin's case, as opposed to what their detractors had to say?  Finally, in spite of your exaggerated alarmist pitch you've employed over the course of the day, the evidence you present doesnt add up to anything alarming or even remotely alarming.  It adds up to about '15 minutes of cpediting required'.  I must say I am totally impressed at how you've handled the 'situation'.  You sure went to a very good admin coaching school. Sarvagnya 23:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * At least I primarily address the topic at hand, rather than continue to insult those who are honestly raising what they consider relevant points. I wish you would pay a bit more attention to even "general editor school", perhaps including, most importantly, WP:CIVILITY. At least once in a while try to discuss the article without putting in your completely gratuitous, off-topic, desparagement of others, if you actually are capable of doing so. I regret to say that I haven't seen any evidence of that to date. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break
Every article must be handled on its own merit. How many ways can one write "poet X authored writing Y" OR "poets X, Y and Z wrote the musical treatises A,B & C". Going by this discussion, not many articles on wikipedia would pass this so called plagarism rule. Sorry to say this, but this has not been a very meaningful and productive discussion.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It started with some ill-informed tagging and questioning of the sources.  Once, that non-issue was sorted out.. what we have here is Carter clutching at straws and disrupting to make a point.  I must admit, I am in the wrong for having dignified with responses what is rank nitpicking bordering on trolling.  Sarvagnya 17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was only, so far as I can tell, by my starting the discussion that the article was improved at all. And Sarvagnya's explicit failure to AGF and actually even almost engage in an uncivil attack above is, I think, simply a continuation of his efforts to say that everything he did, from the beginning, was correct, and that this was somehow a vendetta on my part. Without my action, however, I cannot believe that the problems would have been addressed at all. Regarding the similar phrasing, that basically paraphrases an e-mail which I sent Sarvagnya earlier, which seems to have been what prompted him to place the additional footnotes, as I indicated in that e-mail that might be sufficient. However, if the phrasing is not the most clearly "natural" phrasing of certain points possible, as I indicated in that e-mail, then there can be and often is a question as to whether it constitutes a copyright violation, and the exact formulation of the sentences in the instances described is, at least to my eyes, based on the quotations I provided above, both very clearly directly copying that of the source and, at least in some cases, far from being the only "natural" phrasing of the subjects. It is nice to see that Sarvagnya has actually made the adjustments I told him were indicated, though. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can assure you, your email played no role whatsoever in me adding the footnotes. The footnotes were coming anyway.  I was just holding off on it until I finished some cpediting because I didnt want to be tripping over the <ref tags in the course of my cpedit.  More footnotes from more sources and more information may well come into the article in the future.  Dont for a moment delude yourself to think that you had any contstructive role to play in the development of this article.  The article when you dug into it was just the 'first cut'.  I had put it up late last year and then gone on a two month break and hadnt even worked on it for a few months now.  More cpedit and more paraphrasing and more footnotes and more refs would have been added Carter or no Carter.
 * And as for all your chatter about "natural phrasing" etc., your time (and mine) may be better served if you would take all that chatter to WP:PUMP and the legal eagles at the Foundation and came up with a WP:PARAPHRASE policy which you could then use to throw at lesser mortals like us when the opportunity presented itself. Until then, like I said, if its your honourable word against mine, I'll go with mine.  ciao.  Sarvagnya 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I once again urge the editor above to perhaps, at least on occasion, actually directly address matters made to him rather than engaging in such clearly off-topic matters as he so regularly does. I know from previous experience that this editor has a regular habit of insulting anyone who disagrees with him, seeming perhaps to indicate that the name he has taken applies to him more directly than he acknowledges. However, if he were himself able to perhaps even occasionally adhere to the standards of the extant WP:CIVILITY guideline than he has to date, I believe he wouldn't find that others treat him in response the way he seems to insist on treating anybody who raises what he has himself admitted were valid points about his own work. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Oh, just out of curiosity, were you honestly saying that you would trust the judgement of an editor who has admitted to basically violating copyright and failing to adequately reference an article for four months, and then getting angry that someone saw fit to point that out, over someone who has pointed out how such content is unacceptable? Would anyone else trust the judgement of such an individual, I wonder? John Carter (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Review copyvio
This article is posted at Copyright problems/2008 February 28. I have posted a onesource tag on the article and posted my review Diff. Jeepday (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)