Talk:Standing Commission of the Red Cross and Red Crescent

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 5 October 2014 by reviewer Timtrent (talk · contribs).

An email has been received at VRTS concerning some or all of the text on this page, and can be read as ticket:2014081410014623 by users with a VRTS account.

However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for the text. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published.

For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, someone else with a VRTS account, or the VRT noticeboard. If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by a VRT volunteer, the text will be deleted.

The above is insufficient attribution. The specific text copied must be identified. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The OTRS ticket does actually say that any text from www.standcom.org and www.rcrcconference.org can be used. I have a further concern about this statement of permission, though, that the grantor does not actually say "CC-BY-SA-3.0" and does say, "you have permission to make non-commercial use of it", which, of course, is not sufficient. Pinging @TLSuda: who handled the ticket, @Mdann52: who added the tag, and @Moonriddengirl: who handles a lot of article copyright issues. --B (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No comment from me - I meerly added this after a request on IRC when Wikipedia crashed for another user. Mdann52 (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read the email, was that the organization that owns both sites agreed to release the information from both sites. He was asked to release it specifically under that license using our templated message. The response: " I have reviewed the material you sent me and I should like to confirm that the Standing Commission of the Red Cross and Red Crescent will be delighted to see the material from its website employed in this manner." I took that to mean they agreed with what she had sent. I can see that its not the direct clear statement that we're used to, and I'm happy to request the submitter for clarification. Just ping me or take over the ticket if you wish. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They did not give proper permission. they released for use "on this website", meaning for use on wikipedia, and they also specified non-commercial use. The best thing to do is to write back to them any explain that our license requires permission for not just non-=-commercial use, but use by anyone for any purpose, commercial of non commercial This is a very frequent occurrence when NGOs are asked for permission. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- @TLSuda and DGG: I agree with DGG that this statement of permission is not sufficient. At best, they say two contradictory things: (a) you can use it as you described and (b) you can use it non-commercially. The fact that they said (b) probably means that their understanding of (a) is NOT what what we are looking for. --B (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ehhh, regardless of what each of us believe, whenever we are not 100% about something (which even I'm not) we need clarification. I've asked for that. For the time being, if you (plural) would like to remove any content from those websites, that might be advisable until we hear back. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have set the template back to {{OTRS received}} for now so that it will be added to our new dated categories for follow-up if we don't hear back. --B (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's another problem

Regardless of permisssion, thearticle reads like what it wascopied from -- a press release, full of bureaucratic jargon , for example " In preparing Councils of Delegates and International Conferences, the Commission focuses on the inclusion of and consultation with National Societies, in order to try to stay in touch with local needs and with external developments". that entire group o sections 1 through 3 needs to be rewritten and much abbreviated, which will remove the copyvio problem in any case. (This is oneof the reasons why there is usually no real point in obtainign permission for material of this sort--itn my experience it is very rarely usable.) I

Furthermore, the list of members of the standing committee is inappropriate content. I have simply removed it.

The List of Henry Dumont prize winners is another problem: at present, it seems that very few of them have articles on Wikipedia. A case could be made for saying that the price intrinsically confers notability. Perhaps an attempt should be made to show this by writing articles. If not, the appropriate course is to list those people who do have articles only. I'm deferring this for a little while. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a third problem

There are no third party sources. All of it is either their own documents, or materials they have themselves written. If they cannot be provided, the article cannot stand one its own, and will have to be combinedwith another article. See WP:CORPDEPTH. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]