Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Isaac Hill

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The article continues to have a close paraphrasing template on it, rendering it ineligible for DYK, and the close paraphrasing has yet to be adequately addressed a month on, including the specific instance noted by Nikkimaria and a suggested rewording by theleekycauldron not implemented in the article. Closing as ineligible.

DYK toolbox

Isaac Hill

(
)
Isaac Hill
Isaac Hill

5x expanded by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 01:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC).

  • Reviewing. - Aoidh (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Expansion of the article began on Decemner 11. The article was 2037 characters of prose before the article was expanded, and was 10906 on December 18, which is slightly more than a 5x expansion of prose. No copyvio detected, hook is interesting and AGF on source. No concerns here; good to go. - Aoidh (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC) - Aoidh (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Article contains too-close paraphrasing. Compare for example "Hill became an active participant in the Dartmouth College case, involving Constitutional amendments which would effect corporate law lending his support to the action taken by the state, and did all he could to keep the controversy alive until it assumed proportions which would continued to effect local politics for nearly a half century" with "he became an active participant in the Dartmouth College case, supporting the action of the state and fanning the flames of controversy until it assumed proportions which affected local politics for almost half a century". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Oh no, thanks for catching that, I think I over-relied on Earwig here and didn't think to check the sources with that level of scrutiny. - Aoidh (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Aoidh and Nikkimaria: — Actually, while there are a couple of phrases that are similar, one involving only a general statement, much has been quoted here that doesn't involve close-paraphrasing,. Here is what was quoted, with the similar text in bold. All else does not involve close-paraphrasing.
"Hill became an active participant in the Dartmouth College case, involving Constitutional amendments which would effect corporate law lending his support to the action taken by the state, and did all he could to keep the controversy alive until it assumed proportions which would continued to effect local politics for nearly a half century".
It should be noted also that the source involved is in the public domain and offered as a free download from archive.org, so there are no copyright issues involved here. I double checked the article with Earwig's Copyvio Detector which shows no more issues. I will correct the couple of incidents involving close paraphrasing. Apologies, and thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The portion you've bolded is essentially identical, but close paraphrasing involves more than just identical text - see WP:CLOP more information. Keep in mind that Earwig will catch only identical text, and only for materials which it is able to index. Even material copied from public domain texts needs to be properly attributed, but what leads you to believe this source is PD? Multiple editions of the work appear to have had their copyright renewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Aoidh and Nikkimaria: — As I said, the portion I bolded, a couple short general phrases, was identical, all the other text quoted was not. In any case, the source is available for download at archive.org. There is nothing there that indicates that the particular source I used is copyrighted. If it still had a copyright archive.org would not offer it up for a free unrestricted download, or they would be facing legal issues. Is the text in question okay in your opinion now? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
IA is indeed facing legal issues, and even if it were not, being freely available on the web does not mean the text is suitably licensed for inclusion here. Thus it is necessary to ensure adequate paraphrasing, beyond the single example presented above. Here is an additional example: "a lengthy and energetic political commentary on the current trend of national affairs, and gave his support to a strict construction of state reforms, favored rotation in office, economy, and advocated democratic simplicity" vs "a lengthy and vigorous commentary on the trend of national affairs in support of strict construction, rotation in office, economy, and democratic simplicity". While this is not the word-for-word copying that would be caught by Earwig, it does constitute close paraphrasing per WP:CLOP. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: — Virtually every large institution faces legal issues at one time or another, including Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc, which by itself doesn't conclude anything in terms of whether a given publication is copyrighted. For any copyright issue to stand, the material in question has to have an appreciable amount of actual copying involved, not just a general phrase here or there. However, I appreciate your concern and will not contend matters any further, and will make efforts to remedy issues here. I'm only hoping that 'some' general phrases are allowed, esp when they involve simple points. Once again, thanks for your efforts in keeping Wikipedia above board. Happy New Year. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Close paraphrasing has been fixed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    Unfortunately it has not. Here is another example of closely paraphrased content: "but as a faithful supporter of Jackson he instead received a recess appointment as second comptroller of the treasury in 1829, serving until April 1830, when the Senate refused confirmation of his appointment, much to the disappointment of President Jackson, but to the satisfaction of former President Adams, who considered him to be a profligate libeler" vs "but as an ardent supporter of Jackson he received in 1829 a recess appointment as second comptroller of the treasury. Closing out his interests in the Patriot, he served until April 1830, when the Senate refused confirmation of his appointment, greatly to the indignation of President Jackson and the satisfaction of former President Adams, who classed him as a profligate libeler". But I want to emphasize that this is an example only: there is a need here for a more comprehensive revision to address issues throughout the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Then how would one say that Hill was a strong supporter of Jackson who received a recess appointment, and later the Senate refused confirmation of his appointment, which disappointed President Jackson? These are all simple yet important points that make the overall statement comprehensive. If there is anyway to mention Hill's strong/ardent/faithful support of Jackson, "recess appointment", "Jackson's subsequent disappointment", Senate refusal, etc, without "too close paraphrasing" I'd like to see it, to get a better idea of relating these basic points. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria and Gwillhickers: how would something like this go re: CLOP? "In 1829, Hill received a recess appointment to serve as comptroller of the treasury. He remained in the position until April 1830, leaving the position following the Senate's refusal to confirm him to the position when he was nominated. The decision not to confirm Hill, a strong supporter of Andrew Jackson, drew Jackson's ire." — Preceding unsigned comment added by theleekycauldron (talk • contribs)
@Theleekycauldron and Nikkimaria: — Theleekycauldron, thanks for your help. It looks okay to me, but we should also mention an important point of context, somewhere in your last sentence, that Hill was a strong/ardent/faithful/passionate (take your pick) supporter of Jackson. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I would imagine that the phrase "a strong supporter of Andrew Jackson" accomplishes that quite nicely :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: — As per the rest of the article, I'm seeing no issues that go beyond the usage of general phrases of basic points found in sources, used in the context of my own wording, and no copyright issues. Yours and other opinions on that note would be most welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Isaac_Hill&oldid=1138052036"