User talk:The clan akins association

Please explain your reasoning on the talk page before making large-scale deletions to pages such as Clan Akins. Marnanel 15:54, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please don't remove things with which you disagree, particularly without justifying doing so or making a clear edit summary. I've restored the content you deleted on the scottish clans page. If you think it's wrong, you must discuss the matter on the corresponding talk page. I'm not taking a position on whether the information there is correct (I don't know) but this is how things are done on wikipedia. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk

The page has been edited repeatedly to its original context which is an unbiased presentation of facts based entirely upon historical records, rather than the POV of a biased personal opinion. It is not the place of an encyclopedia to engage in propaganda based on biased personal attitude or opinion, particularly when such opinions border on libel and slander. Therefore personal opinion should not be interjected into this (or any) articles and the contents presented should be limited only to verifiable facts of historic record. The Clan Akins Association 20 Aug 2004

When that is true, there is no disagreement over the page content and hence no repeated editing to its original content. Since there is editing in this case then there must be disagreement and therefore both versions must contain personal opinions or errors of fact. In fact I believe that both versions are deeply unsatisfactory, although for different reasons. I would suggest that it is not the place of an encyclopedia to engage in propaganda based on biased personal attitude or opinion, particularly when such opinions border on sycophancy, libel or slander. Therefore personal opinion should not be interjected into this (or any) articles and the contents presented should be limited only to verifiable facts of historic record. That is why we never write autobiographical articles. I'm sure that you agree with these principles and hope that you will work with us to create articles on which we can all agree whatever our individual points of view. Such articles are most likely to be truly encyclopaedic. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:44, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content policy specifically states: "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" The original version of the article submitted (as opposed to the version where libel content was interjected with the intention to instigate disrepute for the facts presented therein) abides by Wikipedia's submission policy, whereas the libel version violates it by plagiarizing the original. -- The Clan Akins Association 20 August, 2004


 * I think it's worth pointing out that there are two issues here. Firstly, there's the question of whether the original content (as found on electricscotland, etc.) was used on Wikipedia with permission of the copyright holder. Originally, some people were questioning this, but it seems to have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction now. Secondly, there's the question of whether the modified copy, which you call the libel version, violates Wikipedia's submission policy. Now, Wikipedia requires that all submitted text be released under the GNU Free Documentation License, which includes giving permission to all comers to change and delete parts of the text. Thus, there's no question of "plagiarising the original": if the original version was submitted according to Wikipedia's policy, the modified version must have been in accordance with policy too, unless the modifications were copied from yet another place without permission. Marnanel 02:14, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)