Talk:Hanbury, Worcestershire

Untitled

Needs infobox. --Kudpung (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

COPYVIO?

This article is unreferenced and reads like something sraight out of a travel brochure or a book. This siggests a possible blatant WP:COPYVIO and the unsourced parts (all of it) may be removed, leaving a stub in accordance with the de facto notability of settlements.--Kudpung (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe it was written by someone who just didn't bother to add references? Most of the history section was written by one anon editor, in one sitting. I've searched around a bit and didn't find to source, so if it is copyvio I don't think it's online. I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and start trimming and referencing as needed. GyroMagician (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Although here is a potential source: Hanbury: Settlement and Society in a Woodland Landscape (Leicester, 1991) GyroMagician (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Doh - I was too stupid to find the sources - they're listed in the later paragraph! This looks like a carefully researched piece GyroMagician (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the article:

• (cur) (prev) 14:41, 18 February 2010 Salsin (talk | contribs | block) m (7,239 bytes) (→History) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 14:31, 30 November 2009 68.56.180.58 (talk | block) (7,239 bytes) (→History: minor edit to Vernon history) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 02:40, 29 November 2009 Andrewharris (talk | contribs | block) m (7,244 bytes) (→History) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 00:49, 29 November 2009 68.56.180.58 (talk | block) (7,244 bytes) (→History: Major re-write) (undo)

It seems to me looking at the contribution history of these editors, that it is likely they are one and the same person. We can not keep the text unless we can verify it is not a copy or that it is a copy from a source from copyright expired. That goes for all the articles that this person has edited. -- PBS (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should check that this isn't a copyvio, but as sources were given, I don't think this is any more likely to be copied than any other piece of text. We should be careful not to delete something that may be a carefully researched piece of prose, because we don't think anyone would do that for Wikipedia. Maybe someone has an interest in local history? So long as it's not OR, that's okay, wouldn't you say? GyroMagician (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Having a quick look through the article history, I'd agree that 68.56.180.58 and Andrewharris are probably the source of the history section, and similar at Hanbury Hall. I'd guess Salsin is somebody else. Why not try contacting Andrewharris and asking where the text came from (assuming good faith)? Alternatively, somebody should get hold of a copy of the texts, and try to put references inline. GyroMagician (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

All three accounts have been notified of this discussion. The first edit that Andrewharris made had this at the bottom of the edit "Sources: Vernon family archives at Worcester Record Office BA7335; article in Dictionary of National Biography; Information supplied by the Honorable Society of the Middle Temple". Now I've checked that one and yes it is from the DNB, but I've checked that from a published source. AFAICT most of what is held in record offices are not published sources and so fail the WP:SOURCES test "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (my emphasis). As the text does not carry in line citations it is impossible to know what is and is not OR. The sources for the edit to this article were given as:

• Prof Christopher Dyer: Hanbury: Settlement and Society in a Woodland Landscape 1991;
• Vernon family archives at Worcestershire Record Office BA 7995;
• Bearcroft family archives at Worcestershire Record Office BA 3664;
• Bob Meeson & Nat Alcock - 'Mere Hall & the Bearcroft family', privately produced for Mr Dean Butler; Victoria County History: Worcestershire

It seems to me a that at least two of these are unpublished sources and possible more of them. So AFAICT we are faced with either this is a well written original piece in which case the use of an archives makes it WP:OR or it is a copy from somewhere in which case it may or may not be a copyright violation depending on the age of the source from which it is copied. -- PBS (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

GyroMagician at your suggestion of additional contact I have emailed Andrewharris with a link to this section. -- PBS (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added a link to VCH (which will enable some one to check information, ut this is a 1913 publication, and Dyer is to be preferred. I would guess that the core of the history section is based on Dyer. The statement about archaeological work around the church may depend on an unpublished report, but is likely to be reliable. Meeson and Alcock is likely to be reputable: the authors are two of the leading architectural historians (for timber-framed buildings) in the Midlands. The Worcestershire Record Office sources are archives, which should not normally be cited in WP, only if it is for matter not available elsewhere, in which case the reference should be much more specific. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have had a reply to my email to Andrewharris and his reply had convinced me, (along with an investigation I m ade using the link Peter provided) that this text was not a copyright violation. He seems to be a little confused as to what talk pages are for and what we are doing here. So I have replied to his email and hope to give him some useful pointer on his talk page. -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good news! Well done for getting to the bottom of this, and I'm glad we don't have to delete the text. Do you think you could convince the mysterious Andrewharris to join the conversation here? He clearly knows his local history and how to research the history of a place, and could be a valuable editor for the area, (or, if we're lucky, the whole of Worcestershire!). GyroMagician (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes he is a valuable asset for the project, but I won't to say more as we do not disclose personal information about editors on Wikipedia. I have already replied to his email in it I explained what talk pages are, offered to chat on his talk page about inline citing his work, and given him the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire.

To explain a little more about what my worries here were. If you look at this link you will see the sorts of problems we can have on this project. I am currently also looking into another problem: "see this" which I suspect is a copy from "here" and a published work has claimed "it is ours". Now it may turn out that "here" was copied from us in which case it is not a problem, but I came here because the initial Wikipedia editor of "see this" was invited to to take part in this section. The criticism of Wikipedia 5 year ago was it was not reliable. Thanks to inline citations one hears this far less now, but copyright violations are potentially much more damaging to the project. Not only from a PR point of view, its an easy target for a journalist to write a story about, but with the ambulance chasing lawyers who live in the States potentially very costly. We now have a good guide on what to do with copyright violations, and since the end of last year a useful plagiarism guideline which explains how to attribute copyleft and copyright expired texts which are copied into Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, that's a mess. It gets really hard when you have to start talking about single sentences as plagiarism. Good luck cleaning it up! And yes, I agree, copyright violations have the potential to be a real problem on Wikipedia, so it is worth the effort of clarifying potential conflicts. Let's hope we see a bit more of Andrewharris around here after your efforts ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When I first tagged this article for possible Copyvio, I didn't realise it was going to be so much detective work and such an interesting story. Well done everyone, and let's hope that we will eventually be able to welcome Andrewharris to the WP:WORCS. --Kudpung (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I had always understood that short quotations from published works were not copyright violations. The quotation from a Webster work referred to by PBS is so brief that I would have thought it came into fair dealing, but perhaps the WP article was so short that this was an issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter you have misunderstood, Webster is quoting WP (us), so in this case we have website-?->WP-->Webster So a published source Webster has in good faith attributed a quote that may well be a false attribution. (and of course Webster could have copied the whole of the Wikipedia page usually without a copyright infringement as our licence allows them to do that, it is only only a problem if the text is a copyright violation by us). This is only a historic example as the actual page is vastly expanded, but it is an example of why we needed to check well written large expansions to page such as this for copyright violations.-- PBS (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

User:Jeni (now retired) added the current image in July 2009, and there is still not much else to choose from at Commons. In lieu of something more resembling a focal point, I'm adding another one of the church. But very open to more suggestions. Surely there's something better out there? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)