Talk:Shrew's fiddle

Request for deletion as unoriginal text

This articles is just a rearrangement and clever rewording of one of its sources.[1] When you write an article, it should be a synthesis and compilation of knowledge from various sources, not just an expansion and twisting of a source with a few additions.

The Shrew's Fiddle

Original:L "This device was used as a punishment for women caught fighting or bickering."

Ours: "It was originally used in the 18th century as a way of punishing women who were caught arguing or fighting."

Original: "A woman could be restrained in a single fiddle. Using an attached chain, she would be led around the streets by the aggrieved husband or made to stand in public view. She could also be birched or flogged whilst in the restraint.

Ours: "Some versions of shrew's fiddles had a chain at the "Neck" of the fiddle which could be used to drag the victim from place to place.

It was first used to punish women who were caught fighting or arguing with other people. The husband of the woman would sometimes be birch or flog his wife as further punishment. "

Original: "A double fiddle was used to restrain argumentative and fighting women. They would be restrained face-to-face until they had resolved their differences."

Ours: "This forced the two people to talk to each other. They were not released until the argument had been resolved."

You can't just take all the text of another web page and expand and rearrange it a bit and call it an original article.

Would an admin also delete this page? --Blechnic (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

The text of the source is available under the GFDL. This means that it can be freely used without copyright problems anywhere, whether it be in print, television, or here on Wikipedia. In the future, I suggest that you review the licenses that contributions are released under before making such allegations. There's nothing wrong with having this text here, at least not in the sense of copyright. The article could do with some major expanding, but that's not the issue here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So the other author of both of the websites used, which are not "reliable" in any sense, has licensed it to be used by anyone anywhere? Doesn't Wikipedia usually note that in articles? --Blechnic (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please link here to their copyright releases. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the copyright on the second page: "All content and images, unless otherwise noted, is copyright Erik Rühling, and may not be reproduced or used without permission." This doesn't seem to say GFDL anywhere. --Blechnic (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What are these copyright violations you are accusing of having occured here? None of the text is directly copied from any location you are stating.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, birched and flogged are commonly used in English, both, one after the other. So, I guess you're right, it isn't copied, and this isn't an article that uses two primary sources which are stores that sell Shrew's fiddles, that found a clever way to get on Wikipedia's main page. That's an effective adversiting dollar. Now reliability and verifiability is so pointless on Wikipedia and especially the main page that you're adding sources you can't even read to support this article. --Blechnic (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There has clearly been some copy-pasting but the information is so generic and short, I find it hard to tag it as a copyvio. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite a bit of copy-pasting, and I don't think that "birch and flog" is all that generic. But, I will be sure to let copyright violations on Wikipedia stand, even though I find a lot more blatant and obvious than this. It's clear Wikipedia wants copyright violations, and doesn't want users to be nasty and point them out. --Blechnic (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You can find Wipipedia's license here. They clearly state that all contributions to the project are made under the GFDL`. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I can copy from the New York Times, paste it on Wikipedia, and it's covered by that license? I bet that's news to a lot of people, in addition to being wrong. --Blechnic (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, that's copyvio, since the New York Times is a non-free source. However, the contributions themselves are fair game under the GFDL. For example, I could go to a history wiki that is licensed under the GFDL, take the content and put it here without any problems, since the article is licensed under the GFDL. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually care needs to be taken when copying GFDL material. Unless I'm mistaken you need to ensure the names of the top 5 contributors are preserved Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Only if you change it. And even then, that's a relatively trivial matter of simply providing a link to the original article (which has already been done) where they can be easily found, or barring the existence of it on the web any longer, a template of the type "From whateverpedia, |author1 ... |authorN". Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Other sources

Found through Google news archives link. They're pay sites, but if anyone has access to Lexis-Nexis, or something similar, the 1st 3 at least, appear to contain some relevant info. R. Baley (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I do think this article can be sourced (not my line though). Please be wary of using sales sites for information, which they may embellish (or at times make up from whole cloth) to stir up an illusion of authenticity or whatever. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's the news archive, one of would be refs is the Sacramento Bee. . . R. Baley (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried looking in JSTOR, but that got me nowhere. However, normal Google searching afforded me the three sources that I have since introduced into the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Professor's personal blog

Does not qualify as a reliable source. It's a bit tiresome how many administrators and bullies it takes to go after one editor. --Blechnic (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wrong source. This is the City of Vienna's advertising bureau? And you're granting it credibility for research in torture devices how? I'm open to persuasion on this one. --Blechnic (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with a history prof's personal vacation blog on an edu site for a blurb about an obscure but verifiable variation on the stocks. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You're starting to become disruptive and have already broken the 3RR rule!, I see nothing wrong with the source. Bidgee (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, after all, he's a noted expert on torture devices this computer science professor. No, he's not, and it's not sourced, or referenced or anything. It's clearly just an essay and meant as such. --Blechnic (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm disruptive? I've been personally attacked by multiple users because I disgreed with the sources which have all now been removed? Since everyone agreed and removed them, how does that qualify as disruption? --Blechnic (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No one has personally attacked you! Your edit warring was disruption not questioning sources. Bidgee (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Have I attacked you? Anyway, even if he's a computer science prof the page looks credible and helpful enough to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you attacked my view on WP/AN/I. However, one does not establish credibility by what "looks credible," one offers arguments and supporting evidence as to why it's credible. You agree it's a professor's vacation blog. Blogs are not considered credible sources on Wikipedia.[2] See WP:Verifiable:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]"

--Blechnic (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's more, just in case you want to debate the site because he is a professor:"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

It's been thought out and rejected by the community. --Blechnic (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Largely not acceptable. Meanwhile it's not a blog, not quite self-published, it's a professor's pages on an edu site. For this insignificant topic, I find his credibility and his account acceptable when combined with other sources. Let it go. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to Amazon, this is what else is being advertised on the Vienna cc website, at the very top of the page people will click on when they click on your source: ExpediaGuides.com, RingtonesFinder.net, hotel-austria.com, NexTag.com, booking.com, DateHookup.com. You called it a blog above, are you changing your mind now? "I'm ok with a history prof's personal vacation blog Bold texton an edu site for a blurb about an obscure but verifiable variation on the stocks." What other sources are you combining it with? I invite you to let it go, with all the respect you've offered me in inviting me to let it go. --Blechnic (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The credibility of these sources is not in any way, under any policy on Wikipedia, verified, and the tag belongs. --Blechnic (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

These are things that I looked up by typing "Halsgeige", "neck violin", "Rothenburg" and "Rothenburg Crime Museum" into Google. These are decent sources that mention the item in question, and its use. They do not sell anything, and the only thing that they may be advertising are whatever they need to do to pay for their webhosting. There is no reason to attack the credibility of a college professor, despite his area of expertise. The "blog" as you put it even includes a photograph of the subject of this article, and a short blurb about what he learned while visiting the museum.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not defending the way Blechnic has handled the situation, I'm not so sure the personal page of a professor describing something he learnt from a museum really counts as a reliable source. I'm not saying I think he/she's lying simply that it's not a reliable source. I would personally hope there are much better sources available. Whether on the web or not and whether English or not is not so important as to the fact that there are reliable sources. If not then I would suggest delete or merge Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that this thing clearly existed and was apparently used historically in parts of Germany and Austria (at least) as described in the article, I think this topic is lacking in notability and would be more helpfully merged into pillory. As for the professor's page, as Ryulong noted, there is a picture and a narrative describing what he learned while in the museum. The source is on the edge of reliability but is independent and verifiable with no hint that it's a hoax or swayed by any conflict of interest (such as selling modern copies) and it is bolstered by two others. This said, if stronger sources do show up, the prof's page would make a nifty external link if nothing else. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But one of the reasons why we want reliable sources is because without fact checking, they could easily be wrong. We have no idea how much the professor remembers from his/her visit, how well he/she record the details or even how accurate the details were (the details provided in a museum are often greatly simplified and don't necessarily have a great detail of fact checking particularly if it's an aside). The bit entirely supported by the professors page (on the use of double fiddles) is probably the greatest problem. Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We now have four wholly separate sources which more or less overlap upon the short narrative along with photographs of the double fiddles and a drawing of one in use on a Wien government page. As I said above, the prof's page is borderline reliable but taken with the others, there is not a hint he got anything wrong. Please rm it if you like, though, I didn't put it there: If I hadn't found this on ANI (linked to the main page) I might have skived it down to a stub for lack of reliable sources (this would have been when the only two sources pointed to sites selling modern copies, wholly unreliable because they'll tend to be sloppy and even make up stuff to say in order to get sales). Also, I still don't think the topic is notable enough for an article since a paragraph would cover it in pillory. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Blechnic has indicated on his/her talk page and to me personally via e-mail that he/she isn't coming back into the discussion and would appreciate it if other editors would refrain from further commenting on his/her behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dead URL

windzug.de/html/halsgeige.html is dead; now just a spam website placeholder. Do what needs to be done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Time period

This article claims that the halsgeige was a medieval device, but its verifiable usage is confined to Early Modern Europe (it may have evolved out of earlier punishments, but that is debatable), and the source cited at the end of the paragraph which calls it a medieval punishment actually identifies it *as early modern* 2600:1700:4A5D:5210:ED44:81A2:A1B7:B094 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)