Talk:Campaign in north-east France (1814)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wikia

I reverted part of this edit: because the Wikia licence, (Like the Wikipedia licence) makes it clear that attribution should be placed in the article:

Using Wikia content

Each wiki contains information on which license applies to your use of the text. It is your responsibility to understand and adhere to that license. Text from external sources may attach additional attribution requirements to the work beyond what is described on this page.

When re-using Wikia text that has been posted subject a Creative Commons license, you must provide attribution to the authors using one of the attribution methods described in the section above titled “Attribution.”

Attribution example when re-using Wikia content on your own website:

This article uses material from the "Endor" article on the Star Wars wiki at Wikia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License.

Off-wiki content (for example, emails, IRC chats, off-wiki forums, etc) should not be assumed to be released under this license if this is not explicitly stated.

The Wikipedia plagiarism guideline recommends that attribution is placed in the references section under a bold Attribution statement.

-- PBS (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I'm tagging this article for NPOV since at the moment the tone is clearly pro-Napoleon. I don't have time to rewrite the article entirely myself, especially since I'm not an expert on the material, but thought I'd tag it first. Banedon (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only pro-Napoleon but very narrative... more story than historical account. 203.217.150.76 (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Napoleonic hero-worship109.151.177.35 (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced text

• 19:40, 29 August 2014‎ Nikkimaria (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (5,431 bytes) (-3,281)‎ . . (again, better to rewrite from scratch - that's not a wikipedia-appropriate content source) (undo | thank)
• 19:43, 29 August 2014‎ Nikkimaria (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (5,614 bytes) (+183)‎ . . (ref) (undo | thank)
• 19:47, 29 August 2014‎ PBS (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (8,713 bytes) (+3,099)‎ . . (The content is accurate, does not contain a POV and fully sourced you have no reason to delete it. Take it to the talk page if you have a complaint and we can discuss it further.) (undo)
• 19:57, 29 August 2014‎ Nikkimaria (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (6,328 bytes) (-2,385)‎ . . (refs to reliable sources; wikia is not a reliable source. why not just write original content?) (undo | thank)
• 20:01, 29 August 2014‎ Nikkimaria (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (6,093 bytes) (-235)‎ . . (rm commanders for now - needs work for presentation) updated since my last visit (undo | thank)
• 20:03, 29 August 2014‎ Nikkimaria (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (6,104 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (tag) updated since my last visit (rollback: 3 edits | undo | thank)
• 20:08, 29 August 2014‎ PBS (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (8,489 bytes) (+2,385)‎ . . (The text is quite acceptable under copyleft. The text is fully cited and does not present a biased POV. see WP:PLAGIARISM copy-left sources under a compatible licence is acceptable as is PD source providing supported by reliable sources.) (rollback: 1 edit | undo)

• See WP:3RR

Nikkimaria please explain why you are deleting the text I have added. -- PBS (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the {{in use}} tag was added for a reason - I was in the process of trying to incorporate some of the content you wish to add, and you're actually making it far more difficult for me to do so. Second, WP:3RR cuts both ways, but WP:BRD and WP:CON both suggest that it's not "take it to the talk page if you have a complaint", as a revert indicates that there is one, but rather "let's discuss on talk first and see if we can come to an agreement before adding that material". Third, as I have already mentioned to you, the quality of the source you are copying from is so poor that content building from scratch is a far better approach than trying to put lipstick on a pig. Wikia is rarely a good source for Wikipedia, and that particular Wikia is so slanted in its presentation that even if individual phrasings are reworded we need to be concerned about more subtle forms of bias. Our standards should be far higher than "we can copy this source so let's do it". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for wanting to "incorporate some of the content you wish to add", but as I had already added it you do not need to. The section I have placed into the article is full sourced, as were the change I made to the other text.

Just like any other text in Wikipdia text imported from a compatible licence source or a PD source can be modified without needing to delete it. The section I added is modified from the original and fully cited. There is no reason why other text from the original import can not be similarly modified and improved. Your colourful metaphor of "lipstick on a pig" is true for a lot of text edited into Wikipedia. That is the Wikipeida way: incremental improvements.

As to the specific text I have added in the last few hours to this article what is it that you think is so inaccurate that you think it should be deleted. -- PBS (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, WP:CON urges me to: since I disagree with your addition, incorporating elements of it as appropriate helps to create a compromise position that might be mutually acceptable. This approach is considered preferable to simply reverting your addition in its entirety and becoming entrenched in keeping all of it out.

I recognize that we are permitted to incorporate text from appropriately licensed sources. My position, however, is that we should aim for a higher standard than simply doing anything we are permitted to do. "Incremental improvements" is one thing, but is more typically used to describe the approach I was taking: material added bit by bit, sourced and improved as necessary. This is indeed the Wikipedia way. However, the lipstick on a pig scenario is a different one: starting with a source that is fundamentally incompatible with our core content policies (far more so than our more typical sources of derivatives) and building on a rotten foundation. In that scenario, it is usually better to start from scratch, even if it means that the current article is not as comprehensive as it might be.

As to the specific text you have added, in addition to having been built on a rotten foundation, it is undue weight in the article as it stands. Furthermore, since it was derived from an exceedingly non-neutral source, its neutrality and balance must be questioned, even if you have removed the worst of the tone issues. I am quite willing to add additional information about the consequences and aftermath of the campaign. However, given that you would have needed to consult a number of sources to confirm the accuracy of the material in question, I find it curious that you did not simply write a few original lines on the topic yourself. Why is it so important to you that this article contain material derived from the Wikia source? It certainly does not seem to be one that a historian would want to promote. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

See the detailed comment below --PBS (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You and I disagree about the need to attribute the text as it was yesterday, but the fail-safe position is to include the attribution until such time as there is a consensus to remove it. As no such clear consensus has emerged why do you want to remove it? -- PBS (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You sought and received a third opinion on the matter of the attribution, and that opinion agrees that the attribution is not needed. Furthermore, it is potentially confusing given that the version of the article in which you were trying to add it contained no text taken from the attributed source. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not at all sure given the nature of wikis that simply zapping the text and leaving the history is an adequate solution. I removed an attribution some/many years ago from a Wikipedia article for wikinfo because there was no text left from the wikinfo article, it was reverted by Fred Bauder with the argument that the article was still a derivative work. I've had a quick look for it, but it was a long time ago and the stalker tool is not returning all of our edit histories going back any length of time.

Zapping the history is not what is usually done with copyrighted text incorporated into Wikiepdia that is in violation of copyright. Instead we either revert to a version before the text was put into the article or more often we simply zap the article. The difference of course is that copyright text does not have specific licensing rights for derivative works while copyleft does. It seems to me that the obvious way for you to arrange for the removal the attribution template is to rewrite the text from scratch in a sandbox subpage of the article talk page (rewrite) like editors do with an article under copyright review, zap the article, then move the rewritten text into article space. Given the amount of time we are wasting on this why not take that approach? -- PBS (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Because given that the text in the version at issue is not under the terms of the license considered a derivative work of the attributed source, and that versions of the article that do include derivative and copied text also include the attribution template, I don't think it's necessary or beneficial to take that approach. Furthermore, there is material in the version at issue that is retained from previous versions of the article but which did not come from Wikia, and zapping the history would remove the attribution for that material. Finally, even if I were to do so that would not solve the dispute about you inserting additional material derived from Wikia into the "clean" version of the article. If I were to take your suggested approach would you refrain from doing that? After all, the question "given the amount of time we are wasting on this why not take that approach?" would surely apply even better to your choice to extensively rework and source Wikia text rather than writing a few lines of your own, the choice that until now was the focus of discussion here and that I still do not understand. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"under the terms of the license considered a derivative work" I disagree. "there is material in the version at issue that is retained from previous versions of the article" then it is not a clean version and that text is a derivative of the Wikia text, because it was written a s supplement of the Wikia text. "the dispute about you inserting additional material derived from Wikia", if you take a clean version then I will not add text into the clean article from Wikia, but if it is not zapped then we may as well add more text from the Wikia article, with modifications it to meet Wipedia's 3 content policies, as I think that the licensing information must be kept for any derived version. -- PBS (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I am aware that you disagree, what remains unclear is why. You sought a third opinion about whether the new version was a derivative work and so required attribution, and the response that you received was that it was not. On what grounds do you claim that it is? As I explained, the material added after importation has naught to do with Wikia - its mere presence on the same page as copied text does not make it itself derivative, and does not make a page from which the copied text has been excised a derivative work of the site that was copied. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have now instated a clean and sourced version incorporating some additional (but appropriately weighted for the current size of the article) information about the aftermath, along with some of the sources proposed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are in such a hurry over this. There is no deadline and repeated changes to the version you prefer, entices me to respond by making changes I think are necessary, which if I make such changes will spark an edit war if you then respond by altering my changes. Why not leave it as a redirect until a consensus is reached?

One swallow does not make a summer. For issues such as this there needs to be a clear decision and three editors are not enough. I think that unless a new article is written from scratch in a sandbox, the the article remains a derivative. There potential for harm is excluding the attribution when it is required. No harm results in including it. You say it is a "clean version" but the history give a lie to that, also because of the nature of events and the need to write about them in a certain order it is difficult to write an article that is clearly not a derivative. Further when I add text, you delete it not AFAICT for any policy reason but because you object to the attribution. Under which policy or guideline object to my additions and the the attribution that I added? -- PBS (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You still have not explained why you will not copy your text into this this Talk:1814 campaign in France/Temp sandbox. What is your objection to that? I would do it myself but it is you who is stating that it is your original creation so you need to do it. If you do then I will zap the history of the article leaving the redirects before the import of the Wikia material. -- PBS (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have explained why I object to that, see my comment from 22:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC); furthermore, such an action would not meet the criteria for revision deletion. I have also explained why I deleted the text you added, see comments from 20:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC) and 20:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC). The rationale for including attribution on the current version is unconvincing: while the history does contain versions of the article that are derivatives of Wikia, those versions are appropriately attributed, and a simple comparison shows that this version is not recognizably derived from the Wikia source.

Perhaps the disagreement arises from a confusion around degree of originality in the presentation of historical facts: first, simple chronological order cannot be copyrighted, and indeed most texts on historical events are organized chronologically. As historical fact is reported not invented, the repetition of facts between sources reporting the same event(s) is to be expected and does not make one a derivative of the other. The legal definition of derivative work is more specific and does not apply to the version of the article being discussed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In your comment of "22:37, 29 August 2014" you state "there is material in the version at issue that is retained from previous versions of the article but which did not come from Wikia," that text is a derivative (as the only text prior to the import of the Wikia text were redirects) . Secondly the text I have included is a derivative. I think that your additional text is also a derivative, which is the contention we are discussing. But the most important point is behaviour, why do you insist in reinstating your text, deleting my additional text instead of leaving the article as a redirect while we discuss it? -- PBS (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"that text is a derivative" is untrue - for a simple analogy, if an article has a paragraph lifted wholesale from a copyrighted source and I add a brand new sentence to the end of it, that sentence can be retained when the copyvio is appropriately removed, as it is original and not taken or derived from the copyrighted source. It doesn't matter that it came after the insertion; mere presence on the same page in no way "contaminates" it.

Again, I am aware you feel my additional text is derivative. However, no reasoning thus far has supported this contention. For a text to be considered a derivative, it needs to be more closely related than simply describing the same historical facts. If the contention cannot be supported, there is no rationale to indefinitely exclude the relevant text. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please leave the redirect in place or one of the version with the notice at the bottom of the page until we have an agreement of a clear consensus appears over which one of our current positions is correct. The reason for this is that the redirect and the licence notice is a fail safe position. If I am wrong no harm occurs. If I am right then removing the licence notice causes harm because it is a breach of the copyright licence.

Your argument about not deleting is flawed because it is not suggested that revisions are deleted revision deletion, what is proposed is under the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and we can use a combination of copyright concerns and number 14 (text not suitable for an encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia).

This work even without my addition, given the way that Wikipedia uses history for copyright and its definitions of derived work in Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright meets the definition of a derived work. This US government paper on copyright makes the point "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must incorporate some or all of a preexisting work" it incorporates some (you have said so yourself "22:37, 29 August 2014"). Also the paper defines two other pertinent points "Common derivative works include ... and condensations of preexisting works" Your new text is a "condensations of preexisting work". While the history remains in tact it also meets this requirement "The following are examples of the many different types of derivative works: ... A revision on of a Website".

Also I think your repost "simple analogy," to my observation In your comment of "22:37, 29 August 2014" you state "there is material in the version at issue that is retained from previous versions of the article but which did not come from Wikia," because of what the US government paper states "The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. Protection does not extend to any preexisting material..."

I reject your reason "As to the specific text you have added, in addition to having been built on a rotten foundation, it is undue weight in the article as it stands." building on rotten foundations is no reason to delete the text providing it meets the three content requirements (which the text does) How is it undue weight in the article as it stands? WP:UNDUE is to do with presenting a minority view in the text which is not being done, it is not about content which would belong in a finished article (WP:PRESERVE "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies"). -- PBS (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not your intention, but so far it has seemed that restoring the text is the best way to get you to respond here.

You stated that you intended to "zap the history of the article leaving the redirects before the import of the Wikia material". As the deletion policy notes, "Deletion of a Wikipedia article removes the current version and all previous versions from public view" (my emphasis) - this would not allow the retention of the redirects. Revision deletion is the correct method for selective deletion of revisions. However, neither deletion nor revision deletion is supported by the situation we have here: previous iterations of the article are not in fact copyright violations, as the necessary attribution was given for the imported text. Further, that would remove the attribution for the non-infringing material that is retained (more on this later). I agree that the text from Wikia is not suitable for Wikipedia, and I am glad to see you make this point, as it partially explains why your addition is inappropriate. However, this particular concern can be dealt with by removal without full deletion.

Your point about the simple analogy is correct, but actually supports my argument: we (the Wikipedia contributors who added new material) hold copyright to that new material; since we have removed the preexisting material, the only copyright subsisting is our own.

I have said that the version under discussion incorporates material from a previous iteration of the article; however, as I have repeatedly emphasized, that material is not derived from Wikia and does not make this version a derivative work of the Wikia article. Nor is the new version a simple condensation of the Wikia article. The historic facts and chronological ordering thereof are not unique to Wikia or to any other source, and cannot be copyrighted by them; presenting some of the same facts does not make this version a derivative work any more than citing sources makes all Wikipedia articles derivative works - the requirement to be considered derivative is stricter than your argument suggests. The revisions of the article that are derivative works of Wikia are attributed in the history, as you note; this does not require the current version, which is not a derivative work, to include separate attribution.

Indeed, even if this version were a derivative work, since as you note Wikipedia uses history for copyright then the attribution requirement would already be satisfied by the edit summary note provided when you first imported the material - see WP:PATT. Wikia's licensing page, cited by you above, agrees that "attribution through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article" is sufficient; if, as is proper, the history containing that link is retained, then any possibility of concern in this domain is negated.

You stated above that you would refrain from adding Wikia-sourced text to a clean version - well, as explained above and supported by a third opinion elsewhere, the current version is a clean one. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"this would not allow the retention of the redirects" redirects get zapped all the time at RM so that is a non issue.

"The current version is a clean one." stating that the current version is a clean one does not make it so. -- PBS (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that it is a non-issue, as deletion of the history would not be appropriate whether or not the redirect was retained.

You are also correct that simply saying something does not make it so. Fortunately I have explained in detail above why it is so, and that statement has received support elsewhere, whereas the argument that it is not so appears to be based on a misunderstanding of both Wikipedia policy and copyright law. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your justification for previous deletion was "As to the specific text you have added, in addition to having been built on a rotten foundation, it is undue weight in the article as it stands." no longer stand as it no longer gives undue weight to anything. -- PBS (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"in addition to having been built on a rotten foundation" remains accurate. Per the above discussion, please do not re-add material taken from an obviously unreliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The text has been verified and fully sourced. -- PBS (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't change its problematic provenance, but it does raise a rather obvious question: if you have good sources to hand, why are you so determined to include content from such a poor one? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

From my initial edit summary:

• 19:47, 29 August 2014‎ PBS "The content is accurate, does not contain a POV and fully sourced you have no reason to delete it. Take it to the talk page if you have a complaint and we can discuss it further."
• 20:08, 29 August 2014‎ PBS "The text is quite acceptable under copyleft. The text is fully cited and does not present a biased POV. see WP:PLAGIARISM copy-left sources under a compatible licence is acceptable as is PD source providing supported by reliable sources."

I think for licensing reasons the attribution is needed as this is article is a derived from a copyleft source whether or not this section is kept. Keeping this section in the body of the article gives an unequivocal reason for doing so. You write in your most recent edit summary (16:27, 28 November 2014‎) "per talk page, please do not restore material taken from an unreliable source; feel free to discuss further instead" but on the contrary it is up to you not to delete the text which is fully sourced and so meets both the requirements of "burden" and preserve. You deleted the text and you have not shown that there is a consensus to do so, neither with a local census or with reference to a wider consensus based on policies and guidelines. Previously you justified you deletion on "it is undue weight in the article as it stands" -- which IMHO was a misreading of WP:UNDUE, (see WP:PRESERVE) -- and now that has been stripped away by the increase in the size of the article you have to date, not advanced one reason based on the policies or guidelines for removal. While I have explained it to you that I think the licensing requires it, and that the text I have kept should be kept under WP:PRESERVE. What are your policy and guideline reasons for wishing to delete this text? -- PBS (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

So you added that section in order to justify re-inserting the tag that we had previously disagreed about? That seems more than a little bit pointy. I explained in detail earlier why I don't think the tag should be there, and the second opinion that you sought agreed. WP:PRESERVE requires that appropriate content be preserved, but material copied from an unreliable source is not appropriate, as explained in detail above. Furthermore, the content remains undue here - this is an article about the specific campaign, and needs only a brief summary of the results/implications such that was present at the time of your most recent revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The argument about pointy could just as easily be reversed "deleting a section in order to justify deleting the tag that we had previously disagreed about? That seems more than a little bit pointy", but like the accusation of yours that involves an assumption of bad faith so I would not make it. "this is an article about the specific campaign, and needs only a brief summary". The text we are debating is copied from a compatibility licensed source, and is fully cited. This campaign and its outcome was critical for the understanding of what happened in the peace that followed the campaign. Far from being antiquate when the article is expanded into the detail that it needs the aftermath will be considerably larger. For example did you know that the British did not sign the peace treaty because to do so would have meant recognising Napoleon as emperor something they never did? -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That detail belongs in another article, per WP:SS. The text we are debating is copied from an unreliable source, and your arguments do not change that. Can you explain why this version of the Results section, which contains most of the information covered by the copied text, is unacceptable to you? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Most copyleft sources are unreliable, for example copying text from one Wikipeida article to another is not copying from a reliable source. That in itself is no reason not to do so. What matters is if the text is verifiable and if challenge in-line sources are provided. In-line sources have been provided. -- PBS (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not the only thing that matters, but could you please answer the question I asked at 14:41? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

(1) I think that the text I prefer is better, (2) I think the article has to have the copyleft notification because I think that this article is a derivative work and putting this specific section in makes the inclusion necessary without further debate. BTW you sate that the text from the copyleft source was rotten. Which part of that text do you think was factually inaccurate? -- PBS (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is against you on point 2; re point 1, how specifically is the text you prefer "better"? I pointed out above that the text you prefer is taken directly from an unreliable source, and that it is misplaced here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Two to one is hardly a consensus against, and my position is a fail safe one--If you are wrong then removing the attribution is a breach or the licence, leaving it in is not a breach of anything. Copying text from one Wikipedia source to another is text "taken directly from an unreliable source", so that is not an issue, because the text is suitably licensed and the text is fully supported with inline citations to reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It is an issue, and one that really need not exist, because the alternative text was fine - you haven't answered my question. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reverting you change. I do not agree with it, the text is fully cite, As I said including the attrition it is a fail safe position, and the text that is there is better than you r replacement. -- PBS (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with your change either, and you have yet to explain why your text is "better". On the other hand, as I have explained above, the previous version is appropriately scoped and weighted for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)