Talk:Elsham Priory
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Paraphrasing
[edit]I agree it was too close before, but I'm not quite sure what the problem is now - obviously the "facts" are based on the source, but the surrounding text has been jiggled around now. The original public domain source has quite a lot of extra detail which has been condensed, so I'm not quite sure how this can be sufficiently changed in the absense of any other sources short of returning it to a stub saying "Elsham Priory was a monastery in Lincolnshire". Bob talk 10:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Even after you "jiggled" the text, there was still blatant plagiarism. The bit that I removed in this edit was clearly unacceptable; I've reproduced below your text and the source text, with overlapping wording in bold:
Few references to the Priory survive, although near the end of the twelfth century the Knights Hospitallers laid claim to the endowments of the canons, and obtained letters from Pope Alexander III to secure it for themselves. Several years later, the Pope changed his mind, giving the canons an assurance that they would not be subject to the jurisdiction of another house of religion.
All you did was chop out a few sentences in the middle; most of the wording is unchanged. No offense, but if you are the kind of editor who writes stuff like this and doesn't realize it's unacceptable, then you do not have the authority to make judgments about when the article is cleaned up and when it's ok to remove theNear the end of the twelfth century the knights hospitallers laid claim to the endowments of the canons of Elsham, and obtained letters from Pope Alexander III to secure it to themselves, by the help of Jocelyn d'Amundeville; but he afterwards repented of his share in the transaction, and wrote to a subsequent pope to explain the true rights of the case. He gave the canons at this time the confirmation charter above mentioned, and promised that they should never be subject to the jurisdiction of another house of religion. (fn. 3)
{{close paraphrase}}tag. Let someone who understands plagiarism better be the one to review it you. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)- Thanks for taking the time to point out the problems. It's a fair point, I suppose, although I'd always been under the impression that public domain text is allowed to be used how we want (hence the term) which is, after all what Wikisource is entirely; it's not like Wikipedia editors ever get any credit as authors. I'm guessing you're being a bit jumpy after that copyright blanking issue. I have to say I've never heard of a rule saying tags have to remain in place until somebody else deems it to be acceptable, though. Bob talk 18:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Again, this is not a copyright issue, it's a plagiarism issue. I never put a copyright tag on the article (notice that the tag I used said "close paraphrasing of an external source", nothing about copyright). Public domain text can still be plagiarized. Wikisource takes text exactly as is but makes it clear where that text came from; what you did in this article was took text exactly or nearly as is and passed it off as your own, without attributing the source properly. (Even if you don't feel like you were going around asking for credit, the action of making the edit, which is now in the edit history, constitutes a claim that the work was your own.) See WP:Plagiarism for more details about what constitutes plagiarism.
- As for tags, it's quite normal to ask that a controversial tag not be removed until there is consensus for doing so, and you yourself can't dictate what the consensus is (especially if you don't know the rules about plagiarism in the first place). rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to point out the problems. It's a fair point, I suppose, although I'd always been under the impression that public domain text is allowed to be used how we want (hence the term) which is, after all what Wikisource is entirely; it's not like Wikipedia editors ever get any credit as authors. I'm guessing you're being a bit jumpy after that copyright blanking issue. I have to say I've never heard of a rule saying tags have to remain in place until somebody else deems it to be acceptable, though. Bob talk 18:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Elsham Priory. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081121233500/http://www.northlincs.gov.uk/NorthLincs/Leisure/libraries/localstudies/localhistorypacks/Elsham.htm to http://www.northlincs.gov.uk/NorthLincs/Leisure/libraries/localstudies/localhistorypacks/Elsham.htm
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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)