Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 July 12

12 July 2016

 * Benjamin Murmelstein ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/dec/05/defense-jewish-collaborator/. Extremely close paraphrase intermixed with direct copying. See this more complete Duplicate Detector report. TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 02:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * . there is very little wrong here. Looking through the "Duplication Detector" reults:
 * "they were then sent off in second class train compartments well stocked with food and medicine only to disembark at the other end and be attacked by guards and dogs" - this sentence clearly should be paraphrased
 * "his divided and ambiguous nature turned him into a symbol of the jewish tragedy" - this is a direct quote, correctly attributed.
 * "murmelstein was born into an orthodox jewish family in" - debatable, but I don't see a strong case for changing it.
 * Everything else is either proper names, titles of books or films, or very short and common phrases that cannot possibly be construed as copyright violations
 * conclusion Only one, or possibly two, sentences need to be rewritten. Comparing the texts from the DD results makes clear that has actually made a considerable effort to accurately paraphrase the source, with only the exception(s) noted above. When the changes required are so simple, I suggest that in future you either make them yourself, or leave a short note on the author's talk page requesting him or her to make the changes. --NSH001 (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * murmelstein was born into an orthodox jewish family
 * 'born into an orthodox Jewish family' is a standard phrasing used in the biographies of thousands of Jews, and on wiki articles. The variants are ‘born into a secular Jewish family’ etc. No writer has a patent on these phrases
 * Terezin il ghetto modello di Eichmann is not a copyright violation since it is the title of one of Murmelstein’s books, which must be listed in the biography, and cannot be paraphrased.
 * on the unknown jewish soldiers of world war 1. 'Unknown soldiers' is a standard phrasing for all memorials to such, and they died in WW1. There is no way that 2 default terms like that can be in the possession of one of the hundreds of writers who would touch on that topic.
 * the rest consists of 44 words in two attributed quotations from an article with 4,542 words
 * (A) they were then sent off in second class train compartments well stocked with food and medicine only to disembark at the other end and be attacked by guards and dogs.
 * This was an attributed quotation. If one cannot quote 30 words from a 4,542 article, then it can be paraphrased easily as
 * 'They were entrained to Auschwitz in comfortably furnished compartments only to be assailed by guards and dogs on arrival.'
 * (B) his divided and ambiguous nature turned him into a symbol of the jewish tragedy
 * That is a quote attributed to Murmelstein and supplied by Lilla in his review and simply requires attribution.
 * Generally the German article, far more detailed, uses basically 2 book sources -Hájková's Der Judenälteste und seine SS-Männer, 2011a and Rabinovici,'s Benjamin Murmelstein, „der Letzte der Ungerechten“, 2011- each cited a dozen or more times. Have I misunderstood something about wiki editing basics?Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Nishidani, you're quite right, that was an attributed quote, and in context, does not need to be paraphrased. Dunno how I missed that (but was in a hurry to post my comment before going out). Duly crossed out. --NSH001 (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * With all respect, NSH001, you fail to address the larger close paraphrase issue and, moreover, you have no prior history of working here at this noticeboard. I'd prefer to wait until a regular contributor here with a history of proven judgment in copyright matters such as MER-C, Moonriddengirl (who I know to be particularly experienced in close paraphrase matters), or one of the other regulars here chooses to weigh in, and I specifically request a second opinion from such a contributor. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, quite wrong. You have made a very serious allegation against a long-standing and respected editor, and ruined the appearance of a perfectly decent article. To justify that you need to do more than just vague hand-waving. You are also wrong about my having no previous experience of handling and correcting copyright violations, although I can't recollect whether or not it involved posting on this particular board. From memory (it was several years ago) I had at least two intensive spells of fixing copyvios (looking at the subpages in my userspace will give you a clue - I have no intention of wasting my time scrolling through many thousands of my past edits), and I understand perfectly well the principles of copyright. But by all means seek the opinion of editors experienced in these matters (I have dealt with Moonriddengirl before, and respect her opinion). --NSH001 (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly comfortable with a third and fourth opinion. I would note that if my paraphrases from Lilla are COPYRIGHT violations, then all of articles I have edited should carry the same blanking tag, since, as opposed to the epidemic I encounter daily of loose spinning (see Leo Baeck I edited today (fixing the grammatical errors later !)), sheer invention and vague sourcing I try to correct, my principle has always been to hew to what the source is actually saying, not to embroider on it. I've never known User:Zero0000, who has commented on my page, to break his rule of firm neutrality, even in the POV-afflicted areas we edit. I can vouch too for NSH001's integrity in this regard as well. This is not a matter of collegial support: both have hauled me over the coals for slips. Still, all criticism is salutary, and I did not take that notification in any other than a positive sense, (even if I am somewhat bewildered). Cheers. By the way Lilla's review uses Ronny Loewy, Katharina Rauschenberger (eds.) "Der Letzte der Ungerechten": Der Judenälteste Benjamin Murmelstein in Filmen 1942-1975, Campus Verlag, 2011 pp.75-100, esp., and I guess that could bypass Lilla if any it is determined he shouldn't be a source. It's one of the basic texts used for the German wiki article where it is paraphrased a dozen times. Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nor did I mean it as an affront, Nishidani, just an expression of concern which I'm quite willing to let the experienced copyright folks here resolve, which is the purpose of this board. Close paraphrases can be difficult to judge for the best of us. I've dropped a note on Maggie's (Moonriddengirl's) talk page asking for her evaluation, but any of the other regulars here are welcome to opine as well or instead. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to look at this. I want to say that I don't think this is by any means a straightforward situation; I imagine it could inspire quite a bit of debate. I do believe the paraphrase is a bit close in places -- not through lack of effort but through the unfortunate difficulty of retaining all detail from a dominant source, which sometimes results in our taking more of the structure than we otherwise might. :/ In other places, it's quite fine. To illustrate the closeness, I'll quote a couple of passages from each.


 * In the first set of passages, we see some very close structural following. "After the camp was liberated by the Russians he was arrested by the Czech government and spent eighteen months in prison while a case was built against him as a collaborator." varies largely superficially from "After the liberation of the camp, Murmelstein was arrested by Czech government and detained for one and a half years pending the results of an investigation into his role as a collaborator." In the first half, some words are rearranged, but remain entirely the same (or same in root: liberation -> liberation), and an "of" appears. "by the Russians" is lost, and "he" is given his proper name). In the second half, there is substitution but, again, sustained duplication of structure: "and [spent time in prison] [while investigated as collaborator]." Duplication of structure happens when detailing the chronological events of a person's life. The degree to which it is a problem depends on how much of it happens and what other signs of taking there are around it. If it's an occasional lapse, it may not rise to the level of problem. If it's pervasive, it may. There is just no subjective test to determine when that line is crossed.


 * As a general rule of thumb, the best way to avoid these issues is to pay attention not only to changing language, but also to changing structure. (I could dig up a quote if needed, but the courts have stated that word substitution is not enough to avoid copyvio.) English being a word rich language, it is generally possible to make substantive change by taking the facts and stacking them differently. We don't have to lead with the liberation of the camp and the arrest. We could, for instance, lead with the Czech government. ("The Czech government tried and and failed to build a case against Murmelstein as a collaborator, detaining him for a year and a half after the camp's liberation before releasing him.") We could start with Murmelstein. "Murmelstein moved from one detention to another, held by the Czech government as a possible collaborator for a year and a half before he was released.") The shorter the passage you are dealing with, obviously, the harder that is to do. It is a real challenge to read a couple of sentences out of a single source and recast them in your own words and structure. In my experience, that's often how we get backed into this corner.


 * All that said, while I think this could use further separation from the source, if I were called upon as a witness in a courtroom judging for substantial similarity, I would be uneasy about calling it. Nevertheless, we are broadly called upon by policy to be careful about this kind of thing, so I am working on a rewrite. Which I must save to avoid disaster. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's very good of you, and deeply appreciated. I would note only that, having looked at further sources, anyone here who claimed copyright would have a problem. Reviewers we quote from in turn paraphrase, as often as not, several sources, and if a loose paraphrase of a review is seen to infringe copyright, the same argument could be thrown at the reviewer, as often as not, ending in a chicken and egg to-and-fro. This is particularly problematical in the googling world we now inhabit. I see it every day. Best regards. Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Maggie, for taking this on. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This article was rewritten. MER-C 12:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Stewie Speer ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from http://www.milesago.com/Obits/speers.htm. There's a claim of ownership on the talk-page, but this was apparently never substantiated. Content was removed, then ; the confirmation tag was removed with in 2007, but the content was left in place. Several other pages contain content copied from the same site (please see discussion at Talk:Split Enz); a CCI may be called for. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting question-blue.svg|20px]] OTRS pending but not yet verified, relisting under today's entry. 2016081910002945 -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 08:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting question-blue.svg|20px]] OTRS pending but not yet verified, relisting under today's entry. 2016081910002945 -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 08:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Ness of Brodgar ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) . I've just removed a paragraph from this article which appears similar to this page, but I don't know how to tell whether this is them copying us or us copying them; nor am I really sure to what extent the paragraph (which mostly consists of quotes) really infringes.  I'm listing it here for my own peace of mind rather than making any allegations.— S Marshall  T/C 19:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That paragraph was added in 2011 by an admin and multiple feature article contributor. They're copying us. MER-C 12:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Rlevse was an admin and multiple feature article contributor. But I'll happily accept your assurance and move on.  :)— S Marshall  T/C 13:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)