Talk:Calappa calappa

Original research

I'm concerned, first, about the nature of the sources being used on this article. Several of them are simple links to videos, photos, and a gallery. They are the following:

• http://dk.reeflex.net/tiere/3202_Calappa_calappa.htm
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/77065031@N07/8172176148/
• http://www.liquidguru.com/spotted-box-crab-calappa-philargius/
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUqEZpi6hok

These are not reliable sources by their very nature because they require the observer to make original observations, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.

Let's take the example of the sentence that the flickr image is referencing. "The claws are large and flattened, also with a wavy line pattern, fitting snugly under the carapace and providing armoured protection for the crab's front." It may be clear to you that this is true from the image, but there is no accompanying text and the person who uploaded the photo is not necessarily an authority on the organism so how can we trust the identification of the species? It is simply not OK to describe an image like that and cite it as a source. That is the definition of original research in the Wikipedia sense.

How about the other example - the gallery. It is supporting the following sentence: "Except for the front, the carapace curves down on all sides, covering the eight ambulatory legs in a design similar to that of Horseshoe crabs." There are quite a few images in the gallery, but I can easily see how you would choose to describe the collection in this sentence in original observations, then attempt to cite the gallery as your source. Definitely not OK. Definitely WP:OR. Certainly more than "an unjustified assumption."

Please review WP:RS and WP:OR. If you can't find reliable sources that have the information you want to include on an article, other may be able to assist in locating the resources. But you should never get to the point where you are including personal observations from images and videos that you've seen. You should be paraphrasing text from reliable sources and citing them. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 15:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You are flogging a dead horse - you posted your concerns at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Calappa_calappa and were almost killed in the stampede that followed. I think it is quite clear that these are not issues generally troubling the community. Paul venter (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm missing the section you are trying to link to or if you are being sarcastic; I can not see any "stampede". I can't speak for the entire community, but both I and our guideline about using self-published works as references would question the inclusion of these sources. HaugenErik (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Questioning I can handle, especially if it's an invitation to a discussion - high-handed reverting based on assumption is more difficult to deal with. Paul venter (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC) PS - see comment here.

I only reverted because you didn't reply after a few days. I like your framing of the issue at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources, I'll reply there. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

However, please let's discuss the Youtube link in particular that I removed and you re-added. Even supposing we do want links to "visual material" as references, can you explain to me exactly what material the Youtube link is meant to verify? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The YouTube video doesn't 'verify' anything. Importantly, what it does do though, is to show a close-up of the pincers and how they fit together to produce a barricade. It also shows the locomotion of the animal and gives a good impression of its overall shape. These are all things that help to form a clear idea in the mind of a user of the type of creature being described. Paul venter (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The YouTube video doesn't 'verify' anything—Right, so it shouldn't be a <ref>. It's a great video, sure, but it's not a reference. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, semantics - the video verifies descriptions of pincers, locomotion and form. Paul venter (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Paul, I'd suggest you re-read the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_40#Visual_material. No one seems overly sympathetic to your cause. Those that responded seemed to take the question in a different direction entirely and ended up at a conclusion that visual material can provide simple information like that plants have leaves which need no references anyway. The point not really discussed at that talk page because it's really beyond their scope is the inferences and extrapolations you made from the visual material here in this article. Not only was the material you referenced WP:USERGENERATED (aside: I don't buy the argument advanced by one editor at the other discussion that user-generated visual material uploaded elsewhere is no different than our own - you'd still never find anyone using an image or video hosted on Commons as a reference or source of information on Wikipedia but just as an illustration to accompany the text) -- it was also lacking in any accompanying text describing the images or video. It required you, the viewer, to use your own personal knowledge to describe the animal and make, at one point, a comparison to the horseshoe crab. This requires prior knowledge! This information is not contained within the image and is the very definition of original research. It is completely unacceptable and, frankly, so is your behavior. The {{original research}} tag I placed on the article and replaced after you reverted several times is a banner that alerts other editors and readers know that there is a discussion on the talk page about a possible issue with the article. There are good reasons to remove them, but I'm confused by why you decided to. You continued to make the claim that ongoing discussions had not yet decided whether it was indeed original research - but that's the very point of the tag, to let others know that there might be some issue with the article! I tried another method by tagging the individual statements I find troubling with {{OR}}, an in-line tag. Please provide reliable sources for this information or reword those sentences and remove the visual material "references". That is, really, the best way forward. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 00:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Your addition to Calappa calappa has been removed or altered, as it appears to closely paraphrase a copyrighted source. Limited close paraphrasing or quotation is appropriate within reason, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. However, longer paraphrases which are not attributed to their source may constitute copyright violation or plagiarism, and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Such content cannot be hosted here for legal reasons; please do not upload it. You may use external websites or printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If you own the copyright to the text, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the copyright but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. --Rkitko ^(talk) 11:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Try telling me things in your own words instead of just copypasting paragraphs from the MoS - stuff I already know. The degree of similarity between my source and my contribution to the article, calls for some degree of judgement, a quality in which you have shown yourself to be lacking. Your propensity for issuing threats, on the other hand, has not diminished with the passing of years.Paul venter (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Paul, the message above is generated by {{uw-paraphrase}} and is not a threat. The following is an analysis of your contribution on this edit (parts in bold are exact):

Original source: And some predators have evolved structures that are specifically designed to deal with the more common dextral snails - they have essentially become right-handed. ... Here, one of the claws is enlarged and operates with a scissor-like action that facilitates peeling open the snail.

Your text: Calappa species have evolved claws shaped to deal with common dextral snails - they have essentially become right-handed. One of the claws is enlarged and functions with a scissor-like motion that allows a peeling open of the snail.

It's quite clear that, whether knowingly or not, you have simply replaced a few words, dropped one, and added some others -- the word more was dropped, operates became functions, action became motion, facilitates became "allows a", and you added the word of. It's not significantly different. I am sympathetic to the fact that proper paraphrasing might be difficult when vocabulary is limited (there is only one way to describe the morphology of a leaf blade), but the structure of the sentences here and the imagery used is copied from the source instead of using the source to support text written in your own words that conveys the same meaning. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ryan, then show me how you would rephrase the text you criticise (as I invited you to do after your initial revert) - being sympathetic to the problem of finding new words and phrases is not enough - lead by example and rewrite the offending text. The effort you have already expended on chastising me must be considerably less than correcting my transgression. Paul venter (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Paul, I'm not the one interested in including this information in that article. I saw a case of close paraphrasing and reverted. As I noted in my edit summary, the burden is on you to write in your own words if you think the article needs that information. The effort expended informing you that close paraphrasing is unnecessary and infringes on the copyright of other authors is just as valuable as writing article content. Hopefully you now know that close paraphrasing isn't permitted under most circumstances. This will prevent future problems. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ryan, your response is absolutely in line with what I expected......Paul venter (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Paul venter: - While the use of quotes (WP:QUOTE) in the most recent edit is technically better than close paraphrasing, it's an extremely lazy solution to avoiding copyright violations. There's nothing extraordinary about the specific way that source describes the attributes of Calappa species. It'd be so much easier if you wrote in your own words without copying sources. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rkitko: - Anything to get you off my back; as for being 'extremely lazy', I suppose you are the authority...... Paul venter (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)