This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Someone erroneously put a copyvio notice without seeing the article history says "New article with public domain text from NPS site". The title page[1] states it is authored by Soullière for the National Park Service, and in the nomination documentation[2] she identifies herself as an Architectural Historian, National Park Service -- Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Government document by a government employee. U.S. Government public domain. (SEWilco03:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
But you copied it word for word, even the Bibliography. None of it is put in your own words. If you are merely going to reproduce a government site as a Wikipedia article, why bother? Why not just provide a link to the government site, and not pretend it is a Wikipedia article? --Mattisse14:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a starting point for a Wikipedia article. Editing is expected. One reason for copying it is so editing can begin here. Another reason for copying it is in case it vanishes from the original location. And the material is informative about the topic. Nevertheless, you're discussing the material in the article and not your claim that it is a copyright violation. Do you still claim that it is a copyright violation to use material which is U.S. Government public domain? (SEWilco15:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
On the technical issue of whether this is a copyright violation, I gather it is not, as the material was written and the photos were taken by a US Government employee. The material certainly is informative. On copying it to preserve it in case the original source vanishes, I don't think it is likely that the original source will vanish. But upon further thought after comparing the original source and this article, however, I would prefer that the new article started as a stub that refers to the excellent source that SEWilco found, and that also uses the photos that he prepared and added. I created such a stub article as a proposed substitute, at Bathhouse Row/Temp. Following this approach would be consistent with practice within WP:NRHP, where I myself have created many stubs, some of which have since developed into better articles. I think that I and others would feel more comfortable adding information to what is an obvious stub, including drawing selected quotes from the excellent source identified. Hopefully this proposal will be satisfactory to both of you. If the original article is kept, on the other hand, I would prefer that each passage that is drawn from the source should be put into quotes (I myself would be willing to edit it to make that clear). Sincerely, doncram19:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further I meant to say thanks for calling attention to the National Park Service online book source about the architecture of many park structures, not just Bathhouse Row. I wasn't previously aware of the source. I just added mention of the source to Bryce Canyon Lodge article to which I had previously contributed, and to El Tovar. I will do same for other 20 or so sites covered by that source. doncram20:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to delete material just because one editor is confused about copyrights and usage. I suspect he's been helping deal with real copyvios and didn't notice this item does have a legal source and an optional but ethically proper recognition of the author. (SEWilco20:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It may not be a copyright violation but, presenting long passages from the source without quotes around them has the appearance of plagiarism. And, I am one WP:NRHP editor who would prefer not to have the long passages in place, but rather would prefer to develop new writing from scratch. As I said, I have proposed an alternative stub article at Bathhouse Row/Temp. Could we please use that and be done with this discussion sooner rather than later? Sincerely, doncram14:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All work produced by employees of the U.S. federal government as part of their work is public domain—thus, much of the content found on U.S. government websites (.gov and .mil) is public domain. However, the government frequently includes works on its websites which are copyrighted by someone else, and the U.S. government can even own copyright on works which are produced by others. In other words, some U.S. Federal websites can include works which are not in the public domain--check the copyright status before assuming something is public domain. Note also that this applies only to the U.S. Federal government. Most state governments retain the copyright on their work (California being a notable exception).
Did you check the copyright status of all the material you included? I looked on the site and could not find it. Originally, I was going to nominate the article for WP:DYK as I thought the information was interesting. But once I saw the questionable copyright status, plus DYK would never include a copy-paste rather than a written article, I dropped the idea of nominating it. --Mattisse16:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the first comment in the history where I state it is US Gov PD? That means I did check. Did you read the first paragraph on this page where I point out where the author is identified? You looked on what site? You could not find the title page of the electronic book? It's at the top of the index. It's the page with the title and author. (SEWilco21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Let the material in! Sounds like public domain to me. I would like to start editing it! And, I would like to add to the article, the following:
Bathhouse Row was designated a National Historic Landmark on May 28, 1987. [1],[2],[3]
References:
^"Bathhouse Row". National Historic Landmark summary listing. National Park Service. 2007-09-25.
Further, I believe all 20 photographs included in that link are public domain, and I would like to exerpt from that to illustrate the article.
Yes, the designation should be in the text rather than only in the NHL infobox. And if you click on the black and white pictures you'll find they come from the same source (the descriptions contain the information in the label for each picture), although from a raster-scanned format rather than the PDF format. I used the raster-scanned version because it should be of higher quality due to not being processed during PDF conversion. The Evince document viewer is able to save individual DjVu images (right click and Save As). (SEWilco15:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for that information on dealing with photos, it will help in many other articles on NHLs where there are similar photo sets available. On further thought about the article, as I mention above, if the material stays I would prefer that each separate passage taken from the source article be put in quotes. And as I mention above, I would prefer the article be started as the stub version at Bathhouse Row/Temp. doncram19:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never removed a template myself. When I put the template on the page I added to the Wikipedia list (as directed on the template) and whoever handles that makes the decision to remove it or not. Once it has been reported, I have never been involved in the outcome. If you want to edit, you can use the link suggested on the template. You could ask a question on the copyright questions page (Sorry, I don't have the link right now but there is one somewhere.) I'll try to think of someone to ask who could clarify this issue. --Mattisse20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, I can't determine whether it is O.K. to scarf up the entire contents of PD material and present it as if it were your own. When I was going to nominate your article for DYK I started reading the article thinking you had written it. It was only when I clicked on the external links and read those that I realized you had copied it wholesale. I think at the very least you have to attribute the material to the source, even if it is in the PD. And the PD notice on the site may not cover everything on it, I'm gathering from the above links. Regards, --Mattisse20:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing legal use of public domain material and the ethics involved in credit and plagiarism. Once something is in the public domain anyone can do anything with it; there is a benefit to society expressed in the U.S. Constitution on the subject. Ethically, or just out of courtesy to an individual and their career, it is nice to give credit where credit is due. I invite you to buy a new copy of Moby Dick and consider whether the author got a payment for that book. But this is a discussion for the Wikipedia namespace; the copyvio marking on this article is erroneous. (SEWilco03:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It may be that there is not a copyright violation but there is the appearance of plagiarism, which can be avoided by going to the alternative of the replacement article proposed or by putting each passage into quotes, which was not done in the original article. Without quotes, it had the appearance of being presented as original writing, which it was not, hence Mattisse's reaction.
The photographs included with the article have the attribution on them. While it is probably O.K. to use them, you cannot remove the attribution. The reason there are so many ongoing arguments about use of images, it that apparently it is very complicated legally.
--Mattisse20:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify what Mattisse apparently meant. He stated on the talk page for the proposed new article, which I copy entirely: "Perhaps you can claify (as I am unclear) whether it is O.K. to remove attribution from PD photographs. The photographs from the website contain the photographer's attribution (example:[3]). However, apparently it is possible to get the photos from the PDF document with the photographer's attribution removed as they appear in the article now without the photographer's attribution. --Mattisse 15:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)" In the example he gives, the photographer's attribution is included in the photographic image itself. Mattisse may not have noticed the attribution information that is attached to the images, if you click on them and look for the attribution. I suppose Mattisse thought that all attribution was lost by editing the photograph to remove the explicit attribution at the bottom of the image. I am actually not clear if SEWilco actually edited the photographs in that way, or if he took other complete images and labelled them, or if he found images that were already labelled. Perhaps I led Mattisse incorrectly in my statement on that talk page that SEWilco had prepared them. SEWilco, can you please clarify in what way you prepared the images, if you did? doncram19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I did click on the link provided on the image discription page. However, maybe because I only have the Adobe PDF plugin or whatever, there is nothing on my computer that would recognize that document so I could not read it and see if the attribution was on it or not. When I asked the question on the image question site, the answer I got back was that it would be a good idea if I added the information myself, so that others in the future would be able to find out. Plus, there is no reason to get an image from a PDF document that is not accessible to everyone when it is available to everyone on the Internet. Question and reply: [4] --Mattisse21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am unclear if SEWilco altered the images or not, as the link he provided does not work for me. I cannot see the PDF doc that he references. I do not know what he did. That is why I asked the question on the image question page. --Mattisse22:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For all practical purposes on Wikipedia, the public domain comprises copyright-free works: anyone can use them in any way and for whatever purpose. Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism.
I agree that there is a distinction between copyright violation and plagiarism. I agree with Matisse that one should avoid plagiarism or the appearance of plagiarism. This article as written has the appearance of plagiarism. Listing a reference at the end of the article is not the same as showing throughout that each passage is entirely a quote from another source; explicit quotation marks are needed. Repeating the same bibliography as appears in the source is itself misleading, implying that the new writer went to those sources and wrote the material, when in fact it was Laura Soulliere Harrison who did, and who should get the credit explicitly and entirely. Again, I suggest resolution of this discussion by using the proposed substitute article at Bathhouse Row/Temp. doncram14:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are footnotes throughout which show where the material came from. Quotation marks requires that the enclosed material not be edited, but editing of this material is encouraged. You're demanding throwing out the baby without even looking whether there is bathwater. You should be editing the text provided, which is legal for use, rather than deleting material from the encyclopedia. This is not a writing class where you are required to use your writing skills to produce every ink spot on the page. (SEWilco16:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Quotation marks don't require that the material not be changed. If you reword a part, you just take that part out of quotation marks, and state it differently. Still giving the source for the information. Quotation marks keep track of what passages are in the original writer's exact words, and are helpful. doncram19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Your footnotes are misleading. Footnotes are used to indicate the source of the material, so that a reader can verify that you have interpreted the source correctly. Footnotes are not to be used as a way to plagerize. --Mattisse21:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Arkansas NHL Article where long passages without quotation were added
Another Arkansas NHL article where long passages taken from a NPS website were added is Rohwer War Relocation Center. SEWilco added 3 paragraphs there, taken from the NPS summary webpage on the site, which he cites at the end of each of the paragraphs. I just noticed that and edited them to put quotes around the passages, a temporary solution. It is not entirely satisfactory, as more attribution is needed if you are going to quote, IMO. At a minimum it should show that it is a quote (now it does) and link to the source should be given (as it did). I am thinking this issue of what is fair use vs. what is plagiarism should be discussed over at the WP:NRHP talk page. doncram19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out that archived discussion, in which you argued against the need to put quotes around PD material although you feel it is appropriate to give credit to the original author for material. Just giving a reference at the end of a passage is not sufficient for giving credit however, IMO, as it appears you are giving credit for the ideas or facts, but not their expression in particular words. I feel you also have to give credit to Laura Soulliere Harrison for her wording, by putting it in quotes and giving clear indication that the material is quoted from the particular place it is taken from. It appears instead that the wikipedia project's collective editorship is taking credit for the particular wording. Also, your link could just indicate that there is some related material there, it is not clearly conveyed by the link that the material is the source and that the link should be preserved by later editors. doncram22:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, whatever admin gets around to reading this, this style discussion is not relevant to this being PD material and not a copyvio. (SEWilco20:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I don't like this to be characterized as merely a style discussion. Avoiding plagiarism or the appearance of plagiarism is bigger than that. As some point out in the archived discussion you mention, it can be viewed as a threat to wikipedia credibility, that material attributed to wikipedia should not turn out to be written somewhere else, in a similar way to the copyvio prohibition being to protect wikipedia. Keeping quotes in quotation marks unless and until they are rewritten in entirely new words is part of that. Putting a copyvio issue label on it is the closest available way to raise this issue on this article. About this article, why don't you respond to my proposal? doncram22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's public domain, then it shouldn't matter as long as there is some attribution at the bottom of the page, in the references. Plagarism strikes me as something that is more of a problem in the academic world, After all, this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, by its very nature all of the ideas come from somewhere else. It would be a tall order for someone writing an encyclopedia which prohibits original research to claim credit for the intellectual property of another. I think copyright violation is the problem here, not plagarism. If the material is public domain, there is no worry about copyright violation, attribution, then, is more an ethical choice than it is a legal one. My two cents.IvoShandor22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism discourages any one else from editing it. You are harming the article by your plagiarism, never mind the dishonesty involved. Why not work on the link above as an editor has offered? You are discouraging his participation also. --Mattisse22:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I received notice that Bathhouse Row/Temp was routinely scheduled for deletion, so was prompted to begin editing the main Bathhouse Row article again. My first step is to copy in the material in Bathhouse Row/Temp which contains all the value added by SEWilco in the form of wikilinks to usable photos, but which does not contain the long passages of text copied from Laura Harrison's on-line book. I want to edit each of those sections to create some discussion of each bathhouse, perhaps quoting from the online book but using shorter quotes with quote marks to give credit properly for actual words. I implemented the copy from Temp as one edit, then was working on a revision, but i get an edit conflict warning and I see that my first edit is immediately reverted and, in the edit label, is termed vandalism by SEWilco who happens to be on-line and alert to any change. May I please have permission to edit this article? I would like to proceed and edit. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you saw, I went ahead and put each long passage from Harrison's 1986 book into quotes, and began some editing to update the article. I see you reversed my putting the quotes into quotation marks. Without use of quotations, I don't see how readers can understand which is the text written by Harrison and to be credited to her, vs. which is new writing. It certainly makes it harder for wikipedia editors, not to know which is the quoted material vs. not. I don't recall whether you have acknowledged that a writer should be credited with writing the actual words, commonly done by putting the words into quotes. Do you disagree that she should be given credit for her eloquent wording? I think in fact that she should get a lot of credit; I think her eloquent wording got this and other sites designated National Historic Landmarks, while other sites of similar or greater merit but without such writing in their nominations did not become NHLs. The on-line book, as you know, is a reworking of material that she wrote first in the separate nomination document. As you must see, merely putting a footnote at the end of a long passage or paragraph does not convey that the wording is credit to that source, it only conveys that some content material from that source is being relied upon. I think that either the long passages have to go, or the article has to include an unusually large amount of crediting given in the form of quotations, since almost all the material is copied from the Harrison text. doncram (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She is being credited repeatedly for her work, and we don't mark the origin of every single word in an article (we do mark the origin in the editing history). Her text is being reused as being public domain words, and her eloquent wording will now be tinkered with by more editors. In this copy of her text there is nothing special about the strings of characters and her wording (and citation of her as source) will survive on its own merit, as long as her wording is better than what other editors produce. If it does all get rephrased then she goes away. Probably more source material has to be found so people have more material to add to the article. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article Wikipedia:Citing sources provides a link to a list of quotation templates. Somewhere i read (perhaps in that article) that in general, a quote that is longer than 4 lines should be set aside in some kind of block quote, rather than put into quotations. Since there are a number of block quotation types available, does anyone have an opinion on which are better? doncram (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text from the NPS is not being quoted as an authority or example, so does not need to be quoted. The text is simply being reused, as public domain text is intended to be reused for the benefit of society. Marking the text as somehow being special inhibits participation by editors and is already overly credited to the original author. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it seems that excessive credit is given to one author, then don't repeatedly quote from her. If it is a quote, it needs to be in quotations or set aside in block quotes. Would you please help try to edit the article into an acceptable format that sets aside the quotes in block quote formatting? doncram (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A semantic point is that you are quoting her when you copy her words. I recognize that you do not want to give her undue credit. I am gathering that perhaps it is your opinion that the facts about Bathhouse Row are public domain, and that no one deserves specific credit for stating them; is that a fair statement of your view? I am not sure whether I would agree with that view or not. It does not necessarily matter for purpose of our jointly editing this article, but it would be nice to understand better where you are coming from. doncram (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A point that I think we could agree on is that we do not want to have excessive quoting of Harrison reflected tediously in the article. I would like to edit the article to remove excessive quoting by rewriting each section so as not to use her words, except for perhaps some short quotes. If you prefer no quotes, I could agree to aim to have no quotes. However, to get to the goal of not quoting her, I would prefer to keep track during the rewriting process of which text is hers vs. which is written by wikipedia editors. It is an intermediate step to show clearly which is the text that is directly copied from her on-line book. doncram (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, it interferes with the kind of editing process that I would like to participate in, if you remove the quote marks or the block quoting that I put in. You have now removed quote marks or block quoting several times. The last time you did so with edit comment (rv excessive quoting). Could you please stop doing that for a while, and participate instead in editing the article with those quotation indications in place as long as the copied material is there, until the copied material has been reduced significantly. Of course, at some future point in time, you or we could evaluate the editing that has been done, and judge that big passages of Harrison's exact wording should be restored. If we got to that point, then we would at that time probably disagree about how to display her words, in quotes or not. However, I am hopeful that we would be more satisfied with new wording. doncram (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) I agree completely with the view of Doncram. The goal here is not just to put quotes around public domain material. It is to rewrite the article in our own words. If it is not clear what is copied from the public domain and what is reworded, then the article has problems. If if is not easy for another editor to interject material from other sources, the article will remain the rather intimidating clump of text blocks it is today. As the article is currently written and formatted, it is not inviting to read. It does not follow MoS style guidelines to make the article more attractive so people will want to read it. Also, there is a rule somewhere that text of a few lines that can fit comfortably in the context of the paragraph does not need to be blocked. Otherwise, it does. Mattisse21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By your last 2 sentences, I think you are restating what I also believe to be a general rule: use quote marks to indicate short passages fitting into a paragraph, otherwise set a longer passage aside using block quote formatting. Is that correct? doncram (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quotation has several meanings, only one of which is copying. I'm copying her words but not quoting her phrasing as an expert. I am giving her more credit than necessary by repeatedly citing her as a source. I'm not claiming the facts are PD, I'm claiming that the stuff that she wrote is PD and can be reused in any way. So we have a bunch of text which can be edited as necessary. Her excellent work has been credited, and we just have to ensure that at least one link to her work exists for future researchers. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to further mark up the Harrison text. Simply put your new text in separate paragraphs, and you can delete equivalent text from within a Harrison paragraph. The paragraphs marked with the Harrison citations will shrink if you do that. Other editors might edit inside the Harrison paragraphs or move text around, but so far there hasn't been much activity by others despite my leaving the article alone to invite participation by others. The article should remain usable and not be filled up with red pencil marks. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking you as nicely as I can, to allow us to mark up the article with red pencil marks for a while. I do want to write alternative text in one paragraph and delete Harrison material from another paragraph. However I feel that I need to keep track of which is the Harrison text while I go forward with this process. And, if I do delete some of a Harrison paragraph, then I want to indicate where that is done, for example by inserting ellipses to indicate that what was once a complete quote now has gaps relative to the original text. Is there some other way to do the red pencil marking, besides using quotation marks or block quotes, that you would prefer? I would be happy to consider marking the Harrison text in red or a different color, if that is possible, seriously. doncram (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're still thinking of this as a bunch of authoritative statements which require quotation marks. It's text which can be used in any way, including inserting it in an article with no attribution whatsoever. If we start an article with text from a PD encyclopedia we don't wrap it all in quotation marks, we just credit the source. I'm not aware of Harrison being such an authority that it is necessary to quote her architectural descriptions as if they are religious verses. If you need markers, I think you've done enough editing to know what an HTML comment is. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking of the passages as statements written by someone that appear in a published document, that require quotation marks. I am not saying Harrison is the only possible authority on the subject. In fact I want to reduce or eliminate Harrison's words.
About starting an article from a PD encyclopedia, I really don't want to go down that track of discussion. I understand that has been done in other cases, such as with ship articles based on the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. With such an approach, one has to always leave the tag in place that the article includes text from the given public domain source. I am trying to rewrite this article so that all the text is wikipedia editor-written, and no such tag is needed, which is different. I have seen discussion elsewhere on some botany article about flowers arguing that old PD material is unhelpful, for the reason that it muddies up the editing process, as well as that botany terminology has changed and so on. Besides the DANFS articles, I am not aware of other articles on historic sites that were created at first from public domain text. I am proposing a different process. And it is not necessary for our editing the Bathhouse Row article to go over what practice in using public domain material is elsewhere.
Can you be more specific on a suggestion on how this editing could proceed with use of HTML comments. Perhaps you could mark the first few passages to demonstrate how that would work? Would it be possible to do it in such a way that it is visible to me reading the article. If it is invisible comments, then that doesn't help in the editing process as much as coloring the text differently or using quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs) 22:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a personal judgment to assess that author of the Plymouth Plantation quote is one that deserves to get credit, while the author of the on-line book does not deserve credit. Or equivalently it is your personal judgment that one passage is "notable" in some sense to be set aside, while the other passage is not. This is WP:POV entering into WP:REF or something, like the Alien - Predator comic book series. I think the aliens should be kept separate from the predators, or there will be endless trouble. :) doncram (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No personal judgement about quality. The reason the PD text was put in the article was to reuse the free text, just as we reuse text from another Wikipedia article when appropriate. The Plymouth text is intended to reflect the source and not be changed. The PD text in his article is article text from the specified source. In this article the contributions melt together. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that is your vision, that letting contributions melt together yields something worthwhile. I don't think that is worthwhile, it can yield only an article that has a PD tag and is effectively self-describing as semi-plagiarized. The PD text is just material that is one good source, and it is available on-line. Actually we don't need to include the PD text in the article, we can just refer to it on-line at any time. The NPS server is as reliable as the wikipedia server. If you want to use entire passages from the PD source, just like any other source, you need to put it in quotes. If you don't want to credit the one source excessively, then use less text from it. I propose that we write an article that does not require a PD tag, and that does not have the appearance of plagiarism. If an article is written by the process of cutting and pasting text, then it is probably in violation of WP:REF, and it is probably plagiarized. You can alleviate the seriousness of the plagiarism somewhat by including a PD tag that gives warning to an informed reader, but it still is not something for WP:NRHP editors to be proud of. I am proposing that we follow what I think is the more normal process in WP:NRHP, that is understandable to more people, and that I and others would be comfortable participating in. I ask you for permission to follow this process. I don't see what if anything it would cost you to play out the process described, or allow it to be played out with little involvement by yourself, of keeping the Harrison text in quotes until it is reduced and eliminated. You wouldn't even have to do anything, although I would prefer if you would participate in developing the article, but humoring me by "playing by these rules". I actually think it would be fun to work somewhat cooperatively together, perhaps being a bit combative over new edits and new sources to allow in and so on. Sincerely, why not? doncram (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an alternative to arguing how to proceed within this article: develop two versions of the article, with neither being primary. Agree in advance on some process for deciding which version shows at all times, or from some future time onwards, to regular wikipedia readers.
A PD text-based approach would be in one version of the article, which would carry a tag indicating PD material is used.
Alternative version would be either starting with a nearly blank slate, like Bathhouse Row/Temp is now, or it would start with Harrison text set aside in quotation marks and/or block quotes.
Perhaps the decision on which to show as the main article, at some specified future date, could be made by some agreed-upon third parties.
This would perhaps run like a horse race, with the two versions competing for other wikipedia editors to help in developing each one.
You seem to not understand that there is nothing special about public domain text. We can use it verbatim with no attribution. WP:V only requires that the information be verifiable, so a single citation of the source is sufficient. If anything, the text which remains unaltered helps make it easier to confirm where the information came from, but change the text if you can improve it. Just edit the article instead of trying to isolate some imaginary contamination with CAUTION tape. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have demonstrated plenty of understanding about what is public domain text, and what are some limitations of using it, such as forever including a tag. Also, it has been noted by another here, that having the unmarked long passages in place makes the article less attractive for other editors to be involved with. It is unattractive to me also to work on an article that would forever show a Public domain tag on it. I have been very clear, I think. WP:REF covers how to properly quote sources, including suggesting alternative block quote methods. This is not about WP:V. doncram (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other editor could have broken up the blocks of text, as I did following the suggestion. If you don't like the PD tag you can remove it, it is not mandatory. The source of the text is cited. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are refering to, about breaking up blocks of text. If you mean cutting up the Harrison text and moving it around, then each section cut up needs to be set aside as a separate quote. I would prefer to keep the Harrison text set aside, whole, and create new text. doncram (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the PD tag would convert the status of the article to being plagiarized. It would not be a copyright violation, but there would exist long passages without indication that the text is copied verbatim from somewhere else, which is one form of plagiarism. The PD tag at least provides an indication to the reader that the material is not all original wording by wikipedia writers, adjusting the reader's expectation on the originality. Assertion or implication or reasonable expectation of originality is one element of plagiarism. I don't want to contribute to an article that has the appearance of plagiarism. doncram (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just undid several edits of SEWilco that may well have been useful on their own, but which mixed up new wording into Harrison wording, which I would prefer to keep separate. I reverted it back to the last place that had kept Harrison wording in separate paragraphs, although which is which paragraph is not marked by quotes or block quotes.
Note, SEWilco's last reversion of an edit that I made struck out some new text that I wrote, in addition to unmarking Harrison passages. I have now struck out some new text that SEWilco added. Please don't take offense.
Instead of adding new text and/or engaging in an edit war, could we discuss here how to proceed?
I couldn't find your new text amongst the paragraph-sized external link markup which you had created. My new text was minor adjustments while moving related text next to each other. No offence taken at edits, offence only taken at spray painting article with blue paint and making it unusable for readers. Reinsert your new material wherever it was. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You take offense at my testing out an alternative way to mark up which is the copied text. Okay, instead of "spray painting article with blue paint" to mark the copied text, would you please permit use of quotation marks or block quotes to mark the copied text. Again, my goal in going forward would be to reduce or eliminated the blocks of copied text. I am making a request to you as another editor to work in a way that would allow me to feel comfortable contributing to the article, while reaching the same goal. Why not accept that? doncram (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you need markers for yourself then pick out a section which you'll be editing. Put HTML comments such as <!-- Start NPS PD text --> before the Harrison text which you want to keep track of. Edit the section. There's no need to mess up the appearance of the article during editing. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, but perhaps we could do something with this idea. Would you agree to keep the Harrison text blocks marked that way intact? doncram (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or if the only thing you don't like is the NPS PD template you can remove it. There's no need to rewrite useful text just to have different text. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See mention above about how deleting the PD template creates effective plagiarism. It is not helpful to just delete the tag and pretend there is no problem. doncram (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be constructive to identify the alternative sources and images that could be drawn upon, in rewriting the article. These should include the following images and new references that SEWilco located, but which get dropped when the article is reverted back to the last version clearly setting aside the Harrison text. These images and references can at least be used in text outside the Harrison blocks:
Map of Bathhouse Row was an image that SEWilco identified.
SEWilco located.
SEWilco had also added: "The Row was added to the National Trust for Historic Preservation's list of "11 Most Endangered Places" in 2003. It was removed in May 2007 because the National Park Service was rehabilitating the buildings.[1]
SEWilco also had added: "The Hale, Maurice, and Superior Bathhouses are being offered for lease when renovation is complete in 2008.[2]"
SEWilco also had added:
"The Row was added to the National Trust for Historic Preservation's list of "11 Most Endangered Places" in 2003. It was removed in May 2007 because the National Park Service was rehabilitating the buildings.[3]"
I am not sure if I got it all or if I missed any other additions of new material. Can we identify other sources of entirely new material to draw from? doncram (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The material here had been effectively deleted from the article only incidentally, in reverting the massive unquoting of carefully quoted Harrison text. The material here represents valid additions that could/should be added back to the article. However, there is an outstanding disagreement about copying the Harrison text with or without attribution to the extent of showing what are Harrison words by use of quotations. So it seems possible adding new material could get lost again, if that disagreement is not resolved. It is not in my view fair to "add back" this material by reverting which would simultaneously lose all the carefully constructed attributions of quotations. doncram (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you do not claim that it is unacceptable to use quotations, carefully constructed, for attribution. As ever, I accept that the copying without quotation is not copyright violation, it is just bad referencing. The removal of quotation attributions is what was not accepted, in my view. doncram (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isolating reused public domain text was not accepted. See the end of the discussion:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That's already been covered in the above discussion. Having blockquoted text discourages people from editing it. From what I've read so far, your main worry is that people don't judge the validity/quality of the text they're copying and that they're just blindly pasting it in. Well, then that's what {{citation needed}}, {{dubious}}, {{update needed}} etc. tags are for. I don't think Wikipedia has ever cared about plagiarism, just copyright violations. The quality of the writing and source of the writing are two different issues. If I paste in PD content that's poorly written and POV and whatnot, it should be challenged by other editors. PD material certainly may be out of date, in which case it can be improved upon, but PD text should be treated the same as prose written by Wikipedians -- edited mercilessly. howcheng {chat} 05:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That has been the practice up until now. Some people here seem to want to get rid of that practice, but I will say again - such a change is far beyond the scope of this guideline, or indeed any part of the manual of style. —Random832 08:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) The problem I have with using blockquotes or quotation marks to show what part of an article was lifted from a PD source is that if most of the article is unchanged from the PD source, it will be so ugly it will be difficult to read. I suspect that's why no one who prepares a revised edition of a book ever does that. The one technique I have seen used when it is important to keep track of revisions is that a vertical line is placed in the margin next to lines that have changed since the previous version. I'm sure Wikipedia is neither equipped nor inclined to do that. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SEWilco, you raised a big discussion at the talk page of Citing Sources, in which it was abundantly discussed that your style of deleting the quotation marks fails to sufficiently credit Harrison for her wording and represents poor referencing. You and some others expressed other opinions on various subjects, but you did not obtain a consensus that it would be wrong to quote Harrison directly. Please stop reverting this work. We could discuss here what would be some process to move forward with this page. doncram (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, a way forward would be for you to write a new passage about one of the bathhouses, and insert that before or after Harrison's quote. If your passage is in fact new writing and not just plagiarized, and you could explain your sources, I expect we could agree to eliminate Harrison's quote. I suggest testing some approach to make small changes like that for awhile, rather than investing in making multiple edits which have the appearance of being a mask to executing a big revert. Your previous edits, although they may include some other changes, effectively constitute a big revert of the page back to a state where Harrison is not credited by quotation marks. doncram (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is too bad that the major editor is not willing to rewrite the article as happens to most other articles that are based on a PD source. Lake Baikal comes to mind, which had no sources when I first came across it over a year ago or more. But because the article was accessible and legible, and there was no editor guarding the article, lots of other editors joined in on improving the writing and gathering numerous citations. That included me, even though I knew nothing about the subject. A article has to be interesting enough to draw other editors to help, or you will never get anywhere in trying to improve it. It has been sitting there for months in the same awful state. Big blocks of text look like copy/paste (with or without quotes) say to other editors, "Go away!" Mattisse (Talk) 19:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first edit is labeled a reversion which incorporates the improvements, there was nothing "effectively" about it. But Harrison's text needs improvement too. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SEWilco, I just reverted your newest big revert to a state where Harrison's wording is unquoted. Would you please not start by such a big revert. Please consider what I suggested above, that you write in your own words a small section, and make a small change rather than a gross revert. Also, and please take this lightly as it is meant: While I do not have the only say on what is correct referencing either, I don't believe you are the one to say what "We" do or not in wikipedia, the way you say that comes across as if you are quite royal. :) doncram (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I again reverted your imposed quotation format which freezes Harrison's wording. Wikipedia custom is to not impose the original text's quirks on readers and editors. You said earlier you were rewriting, and instead reverted and froze the article's text. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know when you are speaking of, when I said "earlier" that I was rewriting. It seems a long time ago, that I was trying to do actual writing in this article, but as I recall it you reverted what I did, so my constructive efforts were undermined. If you are suggesting that you would back off a bit and allow some editing, that would be refreshing. It may be that I wanted to start by deleting a chunk or all of the Harrison text, and you were then insisting that the whole Harrison text stay. I also do not understand your accusations that I impose the Harrison text blocks upon the reader. I would prefer to remove them entirely. Please comment further. doncram (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now with a few edits Matisse does some rewriting. SEWilco, in what amounts to a big revert, accepts those changes but implements his point of view that nothing can be quoted. However I will revert SEWilco's edit now. Note, a small amount of "progress" has been made: there is less of the hated PD text, the area under dispute is smaller. Hooray. :) doncram (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are in error. I did not "start by such a big revert". You started by changing the article's format and have tried to keep much of it locked away from editing, including with repeated reversions. And you are being redundant in referring to "what amounts to a big revert" when I labeled it as being a reversion.[7] Stop forcing text in articles into quotations. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to suspect that your comment here is for the record, for you to refer to in arguments you will raise elsewhere, and not to actually further any discussion here. I note that you have done another big revert just now, and posted an "INUSE" sign, presumably to implement various further edits, disrespecting the process suggested for a way forward. Perhaps I prejudge this time, but it does not augur well that you start by doing the big revert. doncram (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because you damaged the existing and customary format of the article, of course restoring the lost work requires a reversion. Why would starting with a reversion not augur well? The article is improved by restoring the improved version from the weaker original text. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it is helpful to understand the Harrison on-line book as a primary source (Wikipedia:PSTS). Harrison visited, studied the facility, took copious notes and photographs, and then wrote up an original description of the buildings. She used her professional training and judgment in doing so, and created what is primary, original research. This is different than, say Encyclopedia Britannica or other secondary or tertiary material. Harrison's writing is so detailed and primary that it is unlikely that there is any other source for the same material. I saw guidelines in wikipedia somewhere (do not have the discussion bookmarked, can't find right at the moment) for treatment of primary sources, which were strong on quoting and citing the source, would not be approving of cutting and pasting in the primary source material. Perhaps the difference between tertiary sources like encyclopedia vs. primary sources is worth considering here. doncram (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right. If a researcher publishes the results of his experiment, survey or whatever, in a journal, even a peer-reviewed journal, his research results are considered a primary source. He was the one that was there, collected and analyzed the results. To make a claim based on his results on Wikiepedia, you would need a source that meets WP:V to support his findings. Is Harrison of sufficient status that her accuracy is assured to be unbiased and that she made no mistakes in measurements, etc.? Was she an objective observer, or was she overly involved in the topic? That can happen even to professionals. (That is why only one professional source is not enough.) Does she have expertise in historical architecture? Mattisse (Talk) 17:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're claiming that attributing the text to her should be removed? The public domain text can still be used, as most of it is obvious from photos and the building floor plans. But removing the attribution wouldn't be right. -- SEWilco (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matisse, thank you for making the edits you have done. Could we perhaps discuss them somewhat, before investing too much more effort for now? I think SEWilco should be allowed to comment, and I have some comments. I question some changes.
For example, The article has been revised to show "The cream-colored brick building is neoclassical in style with the base, spandrels, friezes, cornices and the parapet finished in white stucco. The entrance is divided into seven bays by engaged columns, with a pavillion on each end.[3]"
That rephrases from Harrison direct quote:"Exterior walls are cream-colored brick, with white stucco finishes at the base, spandrels, friezes, cornices, and parapet. Engaged columns divide the entrance into seven bays, flanked by pavilions at the north and south ends."
I am not sure how helpful is the paraphrasing here. For one thing, it is not a summary, as it is as long as the quote. Also if it is left as a quote, then it is clear that it was Harrison's judgment that the building is "cream-colored". We don't know if the building is still cream-colored or not, I believe that is Harrison's judgement more than 20 years ago. Also, i don't know what an "engaged column" is. If we aren't conversant ourselves with the terms used by an expert, it is probably not helpful to rearrange them, as we will introduce errors. This problem was discussed in the wikipedia discussions (which I still cannot find yet) about why it is not good to mix in primary source material.
Yes, I know what an engaged column is and have provided a link in the article. As you say, this is just a listing of items and provides little of interest. Linking is a good way of educating persons not knowledgeable about architecture, but, obviously the whole article cannot be linked. Since I know what the architectural words mean I can picture now what the front of that building looks like. But, to me, the article is a boring list of items for each bathhouse, rather like an insurance company might do. Little in the article gives any information on the historical setting or background; there is no human feel to it. The interaction between the town and the park is not described. Nothing is said about the present situation. A picture of a glass window is the lead image, instead of the aerial image of historical area. I've done as much as I am going to do. Sorry if I upset you. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 21:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate what you are doing here, and what you are trying to do. I am not upset, i just am concerned about you that I don't want you to put in too much effort all at once, and on my part i am a little dizzied by the pace of change. :) Also I'm sorry, when i wrote that I had pasted from the article and lost the wikilink to engaged column. I've gone to that article, and okay, now I guess i think i understand what that is, pretty much. The particular sentence is very dense, using multiple specialized terms that you have wikilinked. To understand the sentence would be a game for the average reader, to go and look up each one, then try to picture it all together. I guess it underlines for me that this is technical / primary / expert description, and that even with rephrasing somewhat, it is not a sentence that I or any other average wikipedia editor would say or write. One test of writing is to read it aloud to another person. I think i would get a big "huh?" response from the average person. I see what you mean about it coming across as an insurance company inventory. So what do you think about including it or not? Another option would be to say something like: A detailed description of the bathhouse's architecture and appearance in 1985 is provided by Harrison in 1985, here, with a wikilink, from this statement in the main text or with this statement in a footnote. Or, if the Harrison description is dense but interesting, put it down in a footnote, with wikilinks added. doncram (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that article is written for the general reader. It is written for someone fascinated with a detailed description of period architecture. It is an article on a National Park and a National Historic Landmark but it reads like an architectural article or worse. See Hoysala architecture. Even the Hoysala article ties the architecture into the context historically and culturally. The Bathhouse article has little information in it except the lists of architectural details. My opinion is that either the small part of the article that is relevant be merged with the National Park article, or the article be rewritten to include the historical and cultural angles. Isn't that where President Bill Clinton's mother used to go regularly when he was a kid? It was supposed to be a swinging place back then, risqué even. Or get more into the geological aspects of hot springs. Mattisse (Talk) 23:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean community interaction like this [8] which has been cluttering up my browser for months while waiting for this article to again become editable? -- SEWilco (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the depth of coverage about architecture (very light) vs. geology and social topics in the ChicagoTribune article much better than the too-detailed current article, too. Basically it mentions there are 8 bathhouses, and that only 1 is open. I don't know, are we three close to agreeing that the detailed descriptive text could best be deleted from the article? It would sure be a lot less painful than going through all the detailed rephrasing that Mattisse kindly began implementing for the first bath. I do think some very summary description for each of the 8 separate baths could be useful. Perhaps just make a simple table, with the name, photo, date of construction, short description for each one? doncram (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Sounds way more interesting, and kind of a 21 century version of of the 1940s. Also sounds like you would have a great deal more fun writing it. Geology is always interesting, I think. I'm wondering why the private company that runs the one open bathhouse gets the money to restore it and why the hot springs have no sulfur if most do. And Al Capone? I think the person who wrote the architectural article did so because you have to have to document all that to apply for the National Historic Landmark designation. Mattisse (Talk) 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of details about the focus of the article, the bathhouses, doesn't seem like improvement. If the Park article's description of the geology needs a summary that the water is heated due to depth rather than nearby magma, that article is the place for that info. I don't know how much geology we need here, although probably not that odd 8,000 mile description (maybe they're counting all the zigzagging through cracks). Al Capone is only mentioned for the hotel and speakeasy, which belongs in the Park article. The hotel uses spring water and hotel customers might not have used the bathhouses. -- SEWilco (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't link to engaged column and other terms because I don't want to link overly common words. If you think a term is not common, link it. -- SEWilco (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, for the record, I perceive you, SEWilco, to be attempting to be snide and rude. And that you are successful. I am inclined (although i don't absolutely promise) to give up on this article, which is also what I perceive to be your goal. To one or two others who have attempted to edit here, or to others who may take their places, god rest your souls. :) Actually, I don't really take too much offense. doncram (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Yes, you are right. It is so blatant that I don't know if it qualifies for "snide". It is hard to get upset about it because it is just so ridiculous. My mistake is to assume he is an adult. He is rude other places where he posts also. Most people just don't respond. You must be enjoying it on some level to continue with the article for so long! I have just been an observer wondering how long such a (pardon me) idiotic discussion can continue. I think he just is stalling and doesn't want the article to be written. It's amusing. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 23:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all snide. Look at what I had linked and you'll see they were mostly links to directly related articles or broad topics such as classes of architecture. I left the more common phrases for linking as needed, particularly because a lot of editing was likely and the first-occurrence linking rule gets entangled with that kind of thing. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And on the topic of the gangsters, you might want to mention them in the Park article along with a mention of the new gangster museum which is in the town (I think that was mentioned in one of the last two refs in this article). Maybe a visitor will get more info for the article. I haven't read through all my stuff so don't know if the gangsters are associated with the Row, but the museum in town seems more relevant to the park in general than to the Row. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Bathhouse Row. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 4 external links on Bathhouse Row. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 4 external links on Bathhouse Row. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
SEWilco located.
![[3]](http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/harrison/images/harrison2a.jpg){kind=link}
