Talk:Amoz Gibson

AfC review notes

Reviewer Note

The subject appears to have held an office that is equivalent to the senior clergy of other documentations who are considered ipso facto notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the copyright issues, the source (http://bahai-library.com/?file=memoriam_bw_18) gives explicit permission for the use of all content for non-commercial use, see here: ,https://bahai-library.com/2001 and here: https://reference.bahai.org/en/terms.html.

According to these links, what is missing is the appropriate attribution as required here: https://www.bic.org/general/copyright-notice which I misunderstood but can edit once I am allowed to work on the page

Danthwaites (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not a compatible license, because Wikipedia's license allows all uses, including commercial use.— Diannaa (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to get in touch with the representative offices of the Bahai, but on closer inspection, the copyright notice itself makes no mention of commercial use being forbidden (https://www.bic.org/general/copyright-notice).

Also see here https://bahai-library.com/uhj_permission_electronic_texts , where the Bahai supreme religious organization writes : there are no copyright restrictions on publishing the Sacred Text, the works of the Guardian, books produced by World Centre Publications or the Bahá'í International Community.

Danthwaites (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The content on Amoz Gibson was written by Mary Gibson. She would be the copyright holder of the text.— Diannaa (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I just want to add a little more information. The website's copyright page (https://www.bic.org/general/copyright-notice) is a real mess because there's no way of knowing which material on the website they consider to be protected by copyright and which is released into the public domain. The fact is that under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So here on Wikipedia we take a pretty hard line: we always assume that all material online is copyright unless it's specifically released under license or into the public domain. So you have two choices: either get the copyright holder's permission for this specific segment of the webpage, or re-write all the overlapping content in your own words.— Diannaa (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

OK thanks for the clarification, is there any way of finding out exactly which content overlaps? Also am I not allowed to use any information from the source even if I cite the website?

Danthwaites (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You can view the overlap using this tool. It's okay to use the website as a source of information (cite your source). Finding sources and writing prose is how we create Wikipedia content. — Diannaa (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I will begin a rewrite on the temporary subpage

Thanks Danthwaites (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Status Request

User:Danthwaites - Is the temporary page ready for review? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Diannaa - Can the page that is now masked due to the copyright violation be deleted, and can the temporary page be moved into its place so that it can be accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The temporary page still needs some work - see Earwig's report. You can ignore the quotation at the bottom - the part that needs work is the rest of it. There will still be a lot of overlap when it's ready, as it contains a lot of names of colleges, names of degrees achieved, and things like that.— Diannaa (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Diannaa - Thank you. Can the questionable material be deleted, or should that wait until the review is finished? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have cleaned the draft.— Diannaa (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)