User talk:Jfmarichal

Race Rebels: Culture, Politics, and the Black Working Class
Hello. I don't know if you are the same user who has logged in as User talk:Group05, though it seems very likely since you have placed the same text in the article above. If you are, I left you a note at that user talk page several days ago explaining some concerns with that material. It was tagged as a copyright violation and brought up for investigation at the copyright problems board. On investigation, I do see some literal duplication of previously published content, which we cannot do, unless the original authors release the material into public domain or in accordance with GFDL. As one example, your article says, "Author Robin D.G. Kelley's basic thesis is to show that the black working class has participated in, changed, and affected politics and struggle with their actions of resistance." This source says "...Kelley's basic thesis is to show that the black working class has participated in, changed, and affected politics and struggle..."

A more comprehensive issue with the material is the tone and style, which reads very much like an essay. Wikipedia's purpose in our book articles is not to publish original critical reviews of literature, but to report matter-of-factly on the existence of books, to briefly describe them, and to alert our readers to what others may have said about them. We are a tertiary source, a compendium of previously published information. Wikipedia articles should not include language such as "It was realeased at possibly the worst time possible", which is personal opinion, unless it is attributed to a reliable source.

Another issues is that the summary is likely too extensive unless we have permission to summarize with that level of detail. Summary for the sake of critical commentary is generally regarded as acceptable, but abridgement is consider a "derivative work" in US copyright law, and the only person who has the right to create derivative work is the original copyright holder. An abbreviated summary would help avoid that concern.

I have removed the text from the article again to allow some of these concerns to be addressed. The literal duplication of text from other sources cannot be restored to the article, as it is a matter of US law. A summary of the book is very welcome, but please don't copy phrases or sentences from any other source onto Wikipedia unless the material follows our non-free content guidelines (all duplicated text must be marked by quotation marks with a note as to its source; extensive quotation is prohibited). Primarily, we must use your own language, but not our own opinions; if you wish to draw conclusions about the impact of the time of release, for example, you will need to identify a published source that has done so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)