Talk:Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Copyright violation?

Being busy with other things and seeing the wisdom of not becomming too much entangled in the debate about the article I decided to take a step back. I still take the ocasional look from time to time but that's it.

To my surpise I saw that the recent new paragraphs are very reasonable and even very good. So I decided to take a lock at the original source and noticed that the new paragraphs are a simple product of "cut and paste". This can be easily verified at [1].

Now if the text was free to be copied it would be fine by me (my problem is not about the article itself but about the quality of the material - and the new material is very good), however the original page has a clear "© 2008 W. W. Norton & Company. All rights reserved" at the bottom. I'm pretty sure that to simply copy it is against the Copyright laws in general and against the rules of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Copyrights in particular. Flamarande (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, the material is a summary of the book. The copyright applies to the book.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See wp: fair use:

"Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution."

I have already sent an email to see if the authors would permit wikipedia to use their material.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I intend to change the material so it is not copyright infringement.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your point flamarande, the text has already been changed so it does not infringe copyright.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm no lawyer but I'm not sure about that. The book is certainly copyrighted, but the page is probably also. If the page isn't copyrighted what's the point of having the © 2008 W. W. Norton & Company. All rights reserved at the bottom of the page in the first place?

They probably aren't brief selections as we are speaking about several entire paragraphs.

I strongly advise to read Wikipedia:Copyrights, especially the "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project. If in doubt, write it yourself." - part

Simply changing material and then using it is problably considered a copyright violation. Otherwise it would be all too easy to-> copy a text from a book, change the sentences somewhat, and then publish the changed text as your own <- in the real world. But as I said, I'm no lawyer. Flamarande (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've sent an email to the authors about whether their work is copyrighted, and if so, if they would grant permission to use it on wikipedia.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding copyright, it is brief selections of the text as most of the text has been changed; the sentences straight from the original are "brief selections". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeninvestor (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See fair use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_laws It only says in fair use policy page that "excessively long" excerpts were not allowed. The text in question is not excessively long.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Under fair use policy, we can copy small selections of text and facts; facts cannot be copyrighted. All we have to do is change the writing style which we are in process of doing.23:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeninvestor (talk • contribs)

From the fair use policy page: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We may be simply out of our league in this issue. It is probably better and safer if we request some help and assistance at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Flamarande (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do anything before we get a response from the copyright holders. After all, the nature of the material is that of a summary/preview of a textbook, and may not even be copyrighted. <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_between_Roman_and_Han_Empires&diff=260984939&oldid=260882019> See the changes I have made to the article so that it does not violate copyright. Also facts cannot be copyrighted; i can freely cite them. Teeninvestor (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't use an email to you to prove anything. dougweller (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, raised here [2]. It needs to be taken seriously, and now. dougweller (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw the notice on WP:MCQ. Before we even get into the text in question, let me just try to clear up a few things. First off: In America, under current copyright law, all text and creative content is copyrighted whether or not the author explicitly asserts it (which - incidentally, in this case - he/she does with the notice at the bottom of the webpage). The only time it is not is when the author explicitly releases the work into the public domain, or if it is likewise released by blanket policy, e.g. work by the federal government, or by age, etc. Secondly: even if the original authors were to give permission to use the text on Wikipedia, that would not be good enough. All the text on Wikipedia is explicitly released by its authors under a free license, the GFDL. (Look at the bottom of your edit window as you edit anything to notice where you are releasing your work as such. You are "irrevocably" doing so.) The reason permission to Wikipedia is not good enough is that following the terms of the GFDL (attribution, etc), anyone can reuse the work for any purpose - even commercial ventures that may have interests contrary to those of the original authors. That all said, (from the US Copyright Office's website [3]): it is true that copyright cannot protect "facts, ideas, system or methods of operation" - "although it may protect the way these things are expressed." Keep that in mind.

As for the text: after doing a few spot checks, I can safely say that the article is riddled with sections of text copied verbatim from the Norton page. This is simply unacceptable. Looking at the diff provided above the changes made are flat-out trivial. I would firmly say that even those sections still constitute a copyvio. There's really no reason for this. As we recall, the facts are free to use. Just write some text in your own words, and cite the Norton page as the source. That's all that needs to be done. A very simple litmus test for whether or not this is done properly is ask yourself: "In all seriousness, if I handed this in as a paper to a teacher who had a copy of the textbook, would I get in trouble for plagiarism?" And then, since - as was pointed out earlier here - copyright vios are very serious on WP, add in that you really need to get an A in this class, and can't risk being judged a plagiarist. So, just rewrite it. The Norton page looks pretty reliable to me. By the way, I should point out that you are citing the actual textbook as the source, while, in fact, you are using the publisher's summary web page. The citation should reflect that. Good luck with this page! -Seidenstud (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've checked up copyright law and I'm come to the following conclusions: Copyright protects intellectual property; e.g. It protects the way I write/design any thing. As such it protects the author's right to distribute material of his/her own creation. For example, If i write a book called "My book" no one can copy from it. However, SUMMARIES of such material is not copyrighted because they are not of my creation, its not a new creation; e.g. A summary of "My book" is not copyrighted. Therefore, if the summary is not part of the textbook itself, its not copyrighted. I have sent an email to see if that is true. If so, I requested permission to use the material on wikipeida. In the meantime, I'm doing a rewrite of the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The summary of the book was compiled by the editor and is also copyrighted text. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Teeninvestor does not seem to be listening to more experienced editors on this and other issues. Teeninvestor, you are failing the 'litmus test'. As a former academic, if you had submitted this to me I would definitely have failed it and almost certainly also referred it to the appropriate authorities to determine whether you should remain within the university where I taught. I'm not sure what to do about this right now. One option would be to strip out everything that may be copyvio and do a full protect until this can be sorted. dougweller (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please check this link before you talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_between_Roman_and_Han_Empires&diff=261100602&oldid=260882019. I have stripped out most of the writing style, retaining only the facts. As Seidenstud said, your main purpose is to rewrite it using your own words. Check WP:The house is not built in a day. I assume your students write their term essays in two days? Teeninvestor (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

To make the record clear here also, I am copying the following from [4]

Let's see one change you made. The copyright material (that you say isn't copyright) says
"Rome achieved a staggering transformation of scale in the production of agricultural, manufactured, and mined goods in the Mediterranean basin. The Romans also built an unprecedented number of roads and drew up complex land maps on which all major roads and the distances between towns were specified. They also coordinated the road network with sea routes to support the flow of commerce. Coinage was produced in massive quantities to facilitate the exchange of commodities and services. Large-scale commercial plantation agriculture emerged on estates called latifundia. Specializing in cash crops for urban markets, these estates required large numbers of slave laborers. These economic developments were supported by a firm belief in private property, which was codified into Roman law."
Your major rewrite says

"Rome achieved a revolution of production in the production of agricultural, manufactured, and mined goods in the Mediterranean sea. The Romans also built an extensive road system and drew up complex land maps on which all major roads and the distances between towns were specified. They built their road networks to coordinate with sea routes so to improve the flow of commerce. Coinage was produced by the Roman government in massive quantities to facilitate the exchange of commodities and services, and to support the growing economy. Large-scale commercial plantation agriculture emerged on estates called latifundia. Specializing in cash crops for the urban markets of the empire, these estates employed large numbers of slave laborers. These economic developments were supported by a firm belief in private property, which was codified into Roman law." They say essentially the same thing. Just paraphrasing isn't enough. dougweller (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it do you? The copyright protects the WAY the facts are expressed; they do not protect the facts themselves. If there was an accident, can the first person to witness an accident use copyright to stop others from reporting it? Did ford use his copyright to stop others from saying the car is made of steel? As long as you change the mode of expression and attribute your source which I have DONE, it is completely good. I suggest you read WP:SYNT and WP:Copyright, for i have read over them several times.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We do know those policies well. Of course you can take a fact from a source, but if you use any of that source's expressions (potentially even a combination of a couple of words) then you should use quotation marks. People have failed PhDs for neglecting this. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You are essentially correct that facts are not protected by copyright, but you seem to be misunderstanding some basic elements. Copyright not only governs precise words and phrases used, but also less tangible "original elements". As pointed out in our article on Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, also governed by copyright is an author's "choice of which facts to cover, his choice of which links to make among the bits of information, his order of presentation (unless it is something obvious like an alphabetical list), any evaluations he may have made about the quality of various pieces of information, or anything else that might be considered 'original creative work' of the author rather than mere facts." In other words, the structure of the work is also creative and protected. The United States courts look for "substantial taking"--not only phrases and sentences copied, but also essential structure. In doing so, they utilize a "comprehensive non-literal similarity" test to identify cases of copyright where no literal similarity or verbatim duplication exists, but where the pattern or sequence of work is duplicated. (see McCarthy) A very valuable resources here is this pdf, in which an attorney briefly sets out the principles of substantial similarity & how to distinguish "legitimate" paraphrase from infringement: at its beginning, it notes that "[i]f you paraphrase or quote more than a reasonable amount from a copyrighted source you infringe the owner's copyright even if you give full attribution." (Neill A. Levy, a California Copyright Lawyer, p. 2.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The "paraphrased work" does not compose more thant 30 percent of the article, and not all parts of the paragraphs mentioned above are from that source. Also, if you check the history, you can see that the paragraphs have been edited significantly as almost each sentence has been changed. Also, at this stage, we don't even know whether this summary of the page is copyrighted or not. Also, see WP: Fair use. Fair use can justify much of the work so far. In addition, as i said before and will again, I am in the PROCESS of rewriting it, not finishing. Those who feel that this copyright is illegitimate should assist in rewriting it. None of the work is copied verbatim. r u guys saying that wikipedia cannot use a copyright source? because if thats the case, at least 60% of the articles on wikipedia will be deleted.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We are saying that you do not understand either copyright or Wikipedia's attitude towards possible copyvios (I don't know why you think it would be ok to have almost a third of an article 'paraphrased work'). Please don't try to reinsert any of the material that has been removed without agreement. I also suggest that you look at WP:Plagiarism. It is not your article, and it will never be finished. Wikipedia articles are always in process. I have already pointed out that the entire article needs sources that compare both entities, not deal with them separately, and I doubt that any of us have sources that would allow us to edit. Please also respect the fact that you are dealing with editors with a lot more experience than you have now. dougweller (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have respected your experience, that is why i have taken your advice again and again, finding new sources, editing, expanding, etc... The current revision is a lot different from the old article. Also, if you didn't notice, the material has been removed and I am rewriting the paragraphs with my words based on the FACTS i gained from the article. Any constructive criticism or editing is appreciated. Also, note that I have been on wikipedia for a week; in this dispute, i have been forced to learn a ton of wikipedia policies, guidelines, citing sources, and other things on the fly. What I'm saying above is that I can cite the copyright source, which i'm sure you'll agree is a reliable source. The dispute is that I have copied the work, of which it has been reversed and i'm in the process of adding new paragraphs to the article based on the facts in that source.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your recent edits as you probably know by now, and have given you a formal warning, which I had tried to avoid doing but you replaced material that other editors had removed (maybe a few word changes, but still a serious problem). I suggest you bring future edits here first for discussion. dougweller (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Dougweller, you are allowed to cite it as a source!!!!! I was rewriting the paragraphs based on the facts in the article. Can you please check it before you speak. Teeninvestor (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand how to rewrite material in your own words. Take one of your recent rewritten sentences as an example. The source is 2/3rds of the way down this page. Compare these sentences: "The emperors were frequently cultivated as semidivine, yet they were careful to present themselves as civil rulers whose power depended on the consent of Roman citizens and the power of the army." (from source) Your revision: "The Roman emperors were frequently presentd as semidivine entities, yet they were careful to present themselves as just rulers whose power stemmed from the consent of the Roman citizenry and the power of the army." I have bolded the words that are unchanged. This is not rewriting in your own words. You have replaced a few words, added a few, altered one. The bulk remains exactly the same. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you are allowed to use the words in the original sentences! My point being that most of the words are quite changed. I invite you to take a look at the original source and my edits, which I believe to have been completely different. Location, language, meaning and other things. However, although I disagree with your contention, I respect your decision. As I have been banned by dougweller from editing the article and wikipedia in general(I think) i'm taking some time off and i would like to see you guys write something that is not a violation. Teeninvestor (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. You must rewrite in your own words, as our copyright policy says. The only time you can duplicate a substantial run of text from the original sentences without quotation marks and attribution from another source is when it is devoid of creative content, as for example with lists of ingredients or professional titles. I have closely compared the original source and your edits, and I am convinced they constitute copyright infringement under US law, which is what governs Wikipedia. I have also explained to you above that even if you changed every word, there may still be creative elements in the arrangement of facts that also require alteration to avoid infringement. I have also provided you a link to a book which explains this aspect of US copyright law. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So in rewriting that sentence, I cannot use Roman, emperor, citizenry, and other words. Brilliant. However, I respect your decision and I'm going to take time off wikipedia. Thank you for your input. In terms of "creative elements", take a look; the order of facts, the arrangement of sentences, all have been changed. I hope you can write sections of this article in a way that does not violate copyright. I have called on selstuden above who called on me to rewrite the article and I will respect his judgement. Can I present an example:

My text:

"Rome gained much of its military strength through a new system of conscription and a culture that encouraged men to go into the military. After 350 BCE, the Romans started to expand. As they conquered city after city on the Italian peninsula, they strengthened their armies by forcing the defeated city-states to provide manpower for the Roman military. Discipline and training were strict; the Romans punished minor infractions by death. The strength of this system was shown in the punic wars against Carthage, in which Rome defeated its opponent and gained control of the western Mediterranean. This showed that the Roman military system was of a qualitatively different character than the military systems of city-states like Carthage. Rome expanded its armies rapidly; at its peak, ten percent of the adult male population were in the army. "

Original text:

"Military Institutions and Conquests The Romans created unassailable military power by organizing the communities they conquered in Italy into a system that provided huge reservoirs of manpower for the army. Beginning in 340 BCE, Rome defeated its fellow Latin city-states and then continued on to defeat other communities in Italy. Rome demanded that defeated communities provide men for the Roman army every year. Thus, the Roman army grew as its victories accumulated. By 265 BCE, Rome controlled the entire Italian peninsula and launched a series of three wars against Carthage. Through these Punic Wars, Rome established a dominant position in the western Mediterranean. Most dramatically, the Roman defeat of Hannibal during the Second Punic War demonstrated that the resources in terms of manpower and material that the Roman army could draw upon were of a qualitatively different character than those of a city-state such as Carthage. Such resources provided the Romans a decisive advantage. The Romans also created a war ethos in which honor precluded Roman soldiers from ever accepting defeat, pushing themselves into battle again and again. Roman soldiers also faced fierce discipline in which minor infractions were punishable by death. The Romans drafted and trained a large number of men—at its peak about ten percent of the adult male population was drafted into military service. By 146 BCE the Romans had a monopoly of power over the entire Mediterranean basin. Military victory for generals brought not only glory and territory for the state but enormous personal rewards. Men of great talent and ambition were drawn into military service—and vast numbers died in Roman wars."

In which ways is this copyright enfringement? Please tell me, as i am genuinely confused here. Also, does US Copyright law forbids you to use the same words as the author? It seems to be what you are implying. Just because you used the same words does not mean you retain the same structure as the author.

Teeninvestor (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're finished this time, but I'll venture a reply. :) You can use the words, but you cannot use the words in the order that they have already been used. The person who first wrote those sentences "owns" that structure and combination of words. Accidental duplication is going to be inevitable; there are only so many ways to say something, after all. But if a court can look at their document and then look at yours and say, "Yes, no doubt about it: he read this and copied it," then the first test of copyright infringement has been met. When you are using a source as inspiration, you must be careful to avoid even accidentally duplication. It can be helpful to read it through completely, write your own version, and then compare the two to see if there is accidental duplication or if you have reproduced the text in too much detail.

As to your more recent question: in which ways the sample you offer is copyright infringement: this seems to be a good start (though I'm not sure about some facts; for example, why do you say it started to expand after 350 BCE when the article says "beginning in 340 BCE?). There are only a few phrases that I see that are directly lifted from the source or continue to follow very closely. I've bolded them: "Rome gained much of its military strength through a new system of conscription and a culture that encouraged men to go into the military. After 350 BCE, the Romans started to expand. As they conquered city after city on the Italian peninsula, they strengthened their armies by forcing the defeated city-states to provide manpower for the Roman military. Discipline and training were strict; the Romans punished minor infractions by death. The strength of this system was shown in the punic wars against Carthage, in which Rome defeated its opponent and gained control of the western Mediterranean. This showed that the Roman military system was of a qualitatively different character than the military systems of city-states like Carthage. Rome expanded its armies rapidly; at its peak, ten percent of the adult male population were in the army."

Revisiting the source and looking at what you have, I would consider revising the first passage something like this: "The advantages of their system and the superiority of their manpower were shown in the Second Punic War against Carthage, in which Rome defeated its opponent and gained control of the western Mediterranean." I've used the word "manpower." They used that word, too. But I didn't use it in combination with others of their words. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

How goes this revision: "Rome gained much of its military strength through a new system of conscription and a culture that encouraged men to go into the military. After 340 BCE, the Romans started to expand. As they conquered city after city on the Italian peninsula, they strengthened their armies by forcing the defeated city-states to provide manpower for the Roman military. Discipline and training were strict; the Romans punished minor infractions by death. The strength of this system was shown in the punic wars against Carthage, in which Rome defeated its opponent and gained control of the western Mediterranean. This demonstrated Rome had a superior military system to that of city states like Carthage. Large numbers of Romans were conscripted into the army- at one point ten percent of the adult male population."

Note: My above comments are a suggestion only. Please do not block me because of this.

As far as i can tell, dougweller has deemed me unfit to edit wikipedia; although I disagree with his contention, it is within his abilities as an administrator to prevent a user from making edits. Therefore, in order to save him the task fo banning me, I will stop my editing of "comparison between Roman and Han empires" and other articles I have been working on until such time as he feels that I should be able to edit wikipedia. Please inform me of your decision if you do feel that way, dougweller. Thank you.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Teeninvestor (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's redundancy now: "The strength of this system was shown in the punic wars against Carthage, in which Rome defeated its opponent and gained control of the western Mediterranean. The strength of this system was clearly shown in the punic wars, which demonstrated Rome had a superior military system to that of city states like Carthage." These two sentences are very similar. :) How about "The strength of this system by contrast to that of city states like Carthage was shown in the Second Punic War, in which Rome defeated Carthage and gained control of the western Mediterranean." I like the overall revision of the last sentence for the most part. There's not much creativity in text like "ten percent of the adult male population." But you could separate it further from the source if you wrote "Many people were conscripted into the army—at one point ten percent of Roman men." (This removes the "large numbers" duplication also.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I have been warned above editing the article (and perhaps other articles) with the threat of a ban , by dougweller, therefore I will not assert to add any content. I will restrict myself to comments.

Does anyone disagree with the bottom revision? "Rome gained much of its military strength through a new system of conscription and a culture that encouraged men to go into the military. After 340 BCE, the Romans started to expand. As they conquered city after city on the Italian peninsula, they strengthened their armies by forcing the defeated city-states to provide manpower for the Roman military. Discipline and training were strict; the Romans punished minor infractions by death. The strength of this system was shown in the punic wars against Carthage, in which Rome defeated its opponent and gained control of the western Mediterranean. This demonstrated Rome had a superior military system to that of city states like Carthage. Many people were conscripted into the army- at one point ten percent of the adult male population." Teeninvestor (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "ten percent of Roman men", to further separate from the author's words, but otherwise it looks fine to me in terms of copyright infringement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary subsection break

Also, what is the problem with the economic section? My text:

"The Roman economy produced agricultural, manufactured and mined goods on an hiherito unheard of scale in the Mediterrenean world; the Romans built a large number of roads and planned out their road network in advance, specifying the distances between towns. Sea commerce was also frequent, and many roads were built to facilitate the transfer of goods by sea and land. The Roman government also issued coinage and currency in large quantities to support the economy. Large, specialized plantations employing hundreds of slave laborers appeared, producing cash crops for the consumption of the cities of the Empire. Roman law showed a firm belief in private property."

Original text: "Rome achieved a staggering transformation of scale in the production of agricultural, manufactured, and mined goods in the Mediterranean basin. The Romans also built an unprecedented number of roads and drew up complex land maps on which all major roads and the distances between towns were specified. They also coordinated the road network with sea routes to support the flow of commerce. Coinage was produced in massive quantities to facilitate the exchange of commodities and services. Large-scale commercial plantation agriculture emerged on estates called latifundia. Specializing in cash crops for urban markets, these estates required large numbers of slave laborers. These economic developments were supported by a firm belief in private property, which was codified into Roman law." Teeninvestor (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to bed, but can someone else please look at the warning I left on Teeninvestor's talk page and explain it to him? It was a pretty standard one explaining what happens to people if they repeatedly reinsert copyvio, so far as I was concerned. And at that time needed, but I'm pleased to see that Teeninvestor has heeded it and hope this bodes well for the future. (And all of this should be only a sideshow to the issue of whether his sources need to be sources that actually compare the two empires). dougweller (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Teeninvestor, Dougweller didn't say you were unfit to edit Wikipedia. He warned you that continued copyright violation could lead to a block in your ability to edit--a necessary precaution for the protection of Wikipedia from potential legal trouble. He advised you to discuss your edits to this material on the talk page before implementing them to make sure that others agree that copyright concerns are addressed. By advising that you discuss before, he is implicitly not barring you from editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

With respect to copyright concerns in this passage, Teeninvestor, I'm afraid that the problem is a little bit harder to explain. Basically, this is where the business I was discussing above about other creative decisions come into play: "choice of which facts to cover." In the "comprehensive non-literal similarity" test, copyright courts look to see if you've mirrored the structure of the original. Helpful here would be locating and incorporating other sources that talk about Roman economic development, so that you aren't relying entirely on this one and so that you aren't simply duplicating this author's creative decisions to cover these specific factors. I believe this paraphrase follows the original too closely and in too much detail. In addition to the pdf I linked above (which I'm relinking here for convenience], you might want to read over this US university guide on paraphrasing and this one. I would recommend looking for another source or two and beginning this paragraph fresh from a new angle. With respect to Dougweller's note above, I'm only here about the copyright concerns, though; I'm not here for the main performance. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is better, but still problematic. Again, I recommend locating another source to incorporate to minimize the amount of borrowing from this one author. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I incorporated another source and now i propose this paragraph. As with other ancient economies, agriculture was the basis of Roman economy. However, the Romans organized their economy in a way that was hiherito unpredecented in the Mediterrenean. For once, agriculture became centered on large plantations called latifunda, who employed hundreds of slave laborers and producing various crops for urban markets. Crops were produced regionally; vineyards sprung up in gaul, olive oil was produced North Africa and Spain, and wheat was imported from Egypt. Although agriculture was important, so was trade: An extensive road network, along with massive amounts of coinage, were issued to faciliate trade. In order to make trade and travel easier, many maps were drawn, specifying distances before cities. Road networks were built to coordinate with trade at sea. and All of these innovations sparked a massive increase in the production of agriculutral, mined, and manufactured goods. Evidence of this prosperity was shown in an account of the Han official Gan Ying who stated about the Roman Empire(Da Qin)

"This country produces plenty of gold, silver, and precious jewels, luminous jade, bright moon pearls, fighting cocks, rhinoceroses, coral, yellow amber, opaque glass, whitish chalcedony,8 red cinnabar,green gemstones, drawn gold-threaded and multi-coloured embroideries, woven gold-threaded net,delicate polychrome silks painted with gold, and asbestos cloth.

They also have a fie cloth which some people say is made from the down of ‘water sheep,’ but which is made, in fact, from the cocoons of wild silkworms. They blend all sorts of fragrances, and by boiling the juice, make storax. They have all the precious and rare things that come from the various foreign kingdoms. They make gold and silver coins. Ten silver coins are worth one gold coin.They trade with Anxi (Parthia) and Tianzhu (Northwestern India) by sea. The profit margin is ten to one."

Does anyone have problems with the revised economic paragraph???? Teeninvestor (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If no one has issues with it, I'll put it up.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, proposed restored society paragraph:

Han society was divided into a number of classes, all played a role within this complex society. The basis of this society were free peasants, who formed the base of the tax revenues of the state and who produced most of the agriculutral crop. Governing them were the scholar-officials, educated men who were interpeters of the empire's official ideology, confucianism. These men also helped link the central government with local society. Merchants were also a class, but they were subject to controls by the state and often forced to partner with the state, who also took monopolies in salt, steel and wine, further restricting merchants. At the bottom of society were convicts, beggars and slaves, who formed a small part of the population. For wealthy families, life was good; they displayed their wealth in lavish meals, and lived in large homes in which women lived in the inner quarters. Poorer farmers and tenant laborers worked on their fields. Women in poorer families did not have such luxury and often worked in the fields with their husbands or acted as entertainers. Silk clothes were abundant and woren by all classes. Music and entertainment were seperated from rituals, with the exception of funeral rites which were taken very seriously.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed restored governance paragraphs:

The structure of Han government was that of a centralized monarchy. The emperor was supposed to have unlimited power; he would use this power to issue decrees, which would be interpeted by officials in the Han bureaucracy. In reality, however, a number of facts complicated this situation. At the beginning of Han rule, in order to reward his generals, Liu Bang, the founder, gave them several enclaves to govern. These enclaves were relatively independant with the central government. As such, they often clashed and several rebellions occured as a result. By Wu Di's reign, however, these enclaves were replaced by commandries governed by governors appointed by the emperor. These officials were appointed based on recommendations, and were usually scholars in confucianism. Each commandry had a military governor in charge of defence and a civillian governor in charge of collecting taxes and maintaing order. In order to teach confucius and his ideas as well as educate men about the natural world, schools were set up; some as large as 30,000."

Roman emperors were less powerful than their chinese counterparts; out of 22 emperors between Augustus and the third century, 15 died by murder or suicide. The emperors were careful to present themselves as just rulers who governed from the consent of the citizenry. The empire was divided into 40 provinces, each governed by a governor appointed by the emperor. Compared to the Han bureaucracy, the Roman empire was relatively underadministered.

The essence of Roman society was relationships governed by laws and courts. Many institutions were set up to settle legal disputes, and Roman law appeared in every town governed by the empire. The influence of Roman law would long outlast the empire. The basis of Roman society, as proclaimed by the laws, was the family, headed by a patriafamilia, who had power over his dependants. However, Roman women were quite free and had greater control over their wealth and property than preceding states in the Mediterreanean. One key difference from the Han was an extensive institution of slavery, in which slave laborers were used in large numbers to produce goods. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeninvestor (talk • contribs) 17:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC) 

Mutschler and Mittag (eds.) refs

When the above work is referred to we need the authors and titles of the essays, since it is an edited collection. We need the page numbers too of course. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The information is from a preview, so should we change it to google books preview? Teeninvestor (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the reference is to the book. Someone needs to check it against the printed version as soon as possible. That someone should be you, since you're the one who added the info. By the way, it's bad practice to add material just from a google books preview because if you can't access the whole book you can't be sure that you aren't quoting out of context. A general principle in scholarly work is that you shouldn't refer to documents that you haven't read in their entirety. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Citations need page numbers. Brief quotes (within the footnote) are good too. See WP:CIT for helpful templates. Cmadler (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army

Needs full bibliographic information, or we need to remove it. Last name and title is nowhere near sufficient. Cmadler (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft encyclopedia, "Roman Empire"

Preferable to remove it and replace citations with reliable secondary sources, per WP:RS. Cmadler (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"

What translation? Publication information, etc? Cmadler (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

See source it says the author and translation. Sun Tzu, "The Art of War", New Illustrated Edition, translated by Samuel B.Griffith published 1963. for Goldworthy, the complete Roman army, see this link. <http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Roman-Army-Adrian-Goldsworthy/dp/0500051240>Teeninvestor (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have rewritten several paragraphs completely by myself, please check if it is suitable. Contributive assistance like cmadler and moonright is what is needed to help this article.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The added sections still appear to be substantially similar to the cited source both in structure and content. Take a look at the diff .Making minor changes in the text is still a copyright violation. Cmadler (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that I can't use any of the facts in the source.... Fine. What do you think is the structure. I mean, almost every word has been changed. I doubt thats a minor change. Cmadler, you have to see that the material i added, and compare it to the original source. It is substantially different. The copyright protects the writing style; i don't think its the same writing style if every word has been changed and the sentences turned topsy-turvy. Please compare the the original text <http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/worlds2/contents/summary/ch7.asp> with the material I added: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_between_Roman_and_Han_Empires&diff=261145321&oldid=261143381 Teeninvestor (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at the diff I linked to above? If you did you will see the similarities, which are more than simply using the same facts. If a book says, "His unique, stylish voice has been beloved by generations of readers." (taken from the blurb of Tales of the Dying Earth by Jack Vance) and you say "He has a stylish, unique voice, which generations of readers have enjoyed." that is at least borderline plagiarism. You might be able to get away with substituting synonymous adjectives and flipping word order for a single sentence, but when you do that across an entire paragraph, which is clearly what has happened here, that is definitely plagiarism. There is a significant difference between using facts from a source and using the language, structure, etc. from that source.

The Bedford Handbook for Writers (4th Ed.) says on p 467, "You will discover that it is amazingly easy to borrow too much language from a source as you take notes. Do not allow this to happen. You are guilty of the academic offense known as plagiarism if you half-copy the author's sentences -- either by mixing the author's phrases with your own without using quotation marks or by plugging your synonyms into the author's sentence structure." That is exactly what you are doing here. Cmadler (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The solution is to take fact-based notes, then write your own paragraphs based on the notes (without consulting the source text), then go back through and add in citations for facts as needed. (If you need help with how to do this, ask. Whatever you do, DON'T add these paragraphs back in again.) I'm trying to help clean up this article, but it's definitely counterproductive for you to keep adding the copyright violation/plagiarised paragraphs back in. What needs to happen with this article is:

1. Remove ALL copyright violation material. If it's even questionable, cut it. This is the first priority.
2. Identify statements of fact that need better sourcing, and provide that.
3. See what's left, what's missing, and what can be added in at that point. Don't add anything new or restore any deleted paragraphs until we reach this point.Cmadler (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

OR concerns

Does anyone still have them??Teeninvestor (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the wp:lede should be improved to signify who has compared them as wikipedia is not a research institution. "Historians and scholars have noted several aspects comparing the two" might help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.39.189 (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you really need sources that actually compare the two empires. What you have now is almost a list (missing a lot of sources) which is not necessarily comparing like for like. The economics section, for instance, obviously needs a source from someone with expertise who is comparing the two economies. Ditto the 'governance' one, etc.

dougweller (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Right now we have four sources directly comparing the two empires:

Norton(though that is copyrighted and we have to be careful of it.). Schiedel's book(summary only so far). Frank Muffidel's book(preview so far though). China Institute(1 page so far, i will look for it).

What I think is helpful is to search for ancient accounts of the two empires. For example, Gan Xing(a han official)'s account of the Roman Empire. This is helpful because A. there has to be comparisons. and B. it cant be copyrighted. Other sources that compare the two is also helpful. Use of other sources that only describes one empire can be used to provide context and details to help the reader.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks interesting but of course can't be used as a source for facts about the Roman Empire, but I believe you may be wrong about copyright. The original is out of copyright, the translation may not be out of copyright. dougweller (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is in the public domain as It looks like a US government website.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I believe you allowed to use a "brief selection" of copyrighted text" which is what i want to use above.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As to governance and economics, I am in the processing of submitting paragraphs for approval from a reliable source(material that was previously deleted for copyvio). The article, I'm sure will be quite good once this material is restored.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4