Template:Did you know nominations/New Zealand Parole Board
- The following discussion 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) 15:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
New Zealand Parole Board
[edit]- ... that Stewart Murray Wilson has the strictest parole conditions ever imposed by the New Zealand Parole Board?
- Comment: A new article (6 days old) that I have just come across. Pretty substantial work, but it's got a conflict of interest tag on it. Is this acceptable at DYK?
Created/expanded by Offender9000 (talk), Schwede66 (talk). Nominated by Schwede66 (talk) at 18:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Needs a full review now that article is back and seems stable. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
New enough when nominated, large, COI issue resolved. Hook is okay, though it may be preferable to be a bit more concrete... – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that the New Zealand Parole Board imposed 17 restrictions on Stewart Murray Wilson's parole, considered the strictest they ever imposed?
- Very close paraphrasing of multiple sources. Compare for example:
- "Corrections claimed it had improved its parole management following its disastrous mishandling of Graeme Burton's case" vs "Corrections claimed it had improved its parole management following its disastrous mishandling of Graeme Burton's parole"
- "parole was still the best tool available to reintegrate criminals into society but it was important that for high risk offenders, moving out of prison was a gradual process so as to reduce the risk of reoffending" vs "Parole was still the best tool available to reintegrate criminals into society, but it was important that move out of prison was gradual, so as to reduce the risk of reoffending."
- "did not blame Bell for the breaches of his release conditions. Instead it blamed his probation officer who did not set up required appointments" vs "does not blame Bell for the breaches, but more his probation officer, who did not set up required appointments"
- "keep the worst criminals at high risk of re-offending behind bars, even after they have finished their sentences. Prime Minister John Key said the offenders would remain at a secure facility under a new "civil detention order" until the Parole Board was convinced they were safe for release" vs "keep the worst criminals at high risk of re-offending behind bars, even after they've finished their sentences...Prime Minister John Key said the offenders would remain at a secure facility under a new "civil detention order" until the Parole Board was convinced they were safe for release."
- "the "standard" minimum non-parole period was 10 years and the court could only impose a longer minimum non-parole period in exceptional circumstances....Nowadays judges must impose a minimum non-parole period of at least 17 years if aggravating factors are present. The 30-year non-parole period given to William Bell who murdered three people at the Mt Wellington-Panmure RSA in 2001, is the longest non-parole period handed down. Graeme Burton, who murdered Paul Anderson in May 1992 and then went on to murder Karl Kuchenbecker in January 2007, has a 26-year non-parole period." vs "the "standard" minimum non-parole period was 10 years and the court could only impose a longer minimum non-parole period in exceptional circumstances. Nowadays judges must impose a minimum non-parole period of at least 17 years if aggravating factors are present. The 30-year non-parole period given to William Bell who murdered three people at the Mt Wellington-Panmure RSA in 2001, is the longest non-parole period handed down so far. Graeme Burton, who murdered Paul Anderson in May 1992, was released on parole in July 2006, and then went on to murder Karl Kuchenbecker in January 2007, has a 26-year non-parole period." This is just egregious. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's a discussion on whether or not the material is copyrighted in the first place on the article's talk page. Can I please suggest you have a look there? And if the material is not copyrighted, can it be used or is there still a problem with it? Schwede66 06:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I did. If that discussion determines that the Parole Board material is free to use, that would need to be properly attributed to indicate that it is copied directly. However, none of the material referred to above is affected by that discussion. All examples given are from newspaper sites, which are definitively copyrighted. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Material taken from the Parole Board website is attributed in the citations. And no permission is required to use it.Offender9000 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but per the DYK rules, direct copying of sources with Wikipedia-combatible licensing needs to be attributed as outlined at Wikipedia:PLAGIARISM#Attributing_text_copied_from_other_sources; in this case, attribution is a separate requirement from citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- WP:Close paraphrasing says: "Depending on the context and extent of the paraphrasing, limited close paraphrase may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use; close paraphrase of a single sentence is not as much of a concern as an entire section or article." Each of the examples you have provided are single sentences...so I don't see any problem. Also "Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship." Wikipedia is both commentary and scholarship and the sentences above are all examples of news reporting. No problem once again. Offender9000 (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no: three of the examples provided are longer than a single sentence, the usage in this case does not really fall under fair use (which is more helpful in justifying brief quotation of a copyrighted source), and quite frankly most of the examples here are outright copyvio, not paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
These statements all come from newspaper articles - and the news cannot copyrighted. WP: Public domain states "Bare facts are in the public domain. Works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible to copyright at all. A second category of works that in general cannot be copyright protected are those that have no (or no significant) creative content: they do not pass the threshold of originality." For a court case on this issue see News Texts not Subject to Copyright Offender9000 (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- One, law in one country and another can be different. Two, how you phrase the facts can be copyrighted. I believe it's noted elsewhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Beliefs are not much help - unless you're religious. Offender9000 (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your battleground behaviour was raised in your RFC. I'm not sure we want this on the front page. Secretlondon (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Beliefs are not much help - unless you're religious. Offender9000 (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- The text of newspapers are certainly copyrighted. Secretlondon (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)