Template:Did you know nominations/Indian People's Tribunal

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 no consensus to promote after 60 days due to continued close paraphrasing issues.

Article: "Chatterji alleged that Hindu nationalist activists threatened to rape tribunal members and to parade them naked in the streets."

Source: "The activists harassed tribunal members and threatened to rape them and parade them through the streets."

Close paraphrasing issues have been repeatedly raised by reviewers who have patiently worked with the nominator since 29 April 2012. After each issue has been raised, Aymatth2 (talk · contribs) has reworded or removed sentences that too closely paraphrased the sources. However, he has not proactively combed through the article to address the issues, instead reactively addressing new examples when raised. This is understandable because Aymatth2 has, as BlueMoonset (talk · contribs) stated, "previously stated that [he is] bad at identifying it".

Examples of close paraphrasing issues have been raised ad nauseam and have been a drain on valuable, limited reviewer resources. Consensus among the reviewers is that the close paraphrasing issues render this article unfit for promotion to the main page.

Because this DYK nomination has been controversial, I have posted a request at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Template:Did you know nominations/Indian People's Tribunal for further review. Cunard (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Indian People's Tribunal

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Hindu nationalists allegedly threatened to rape members of the Indian People's Tribunal and parade them naked through the streets?

• Reviewed: Sydney March, Elsie March

Created/expanded by Aymatth2 (talk). Self nom at 00:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Article size, no problem here. Hook 144 characters, again no problem being less than 200 characters. Interesting hook, good to go. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that phrasing in this article might be too close to that of its sources, particularly these two. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have tweaked the wording. Note that "public interest litigation" and "draconian laws" are both technical terms and not paraphrased. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The surface paraphrasing is improving; however, I remain uncomfortable with the level of phrasal similarity. For example, though the wording is not identical, "A panel of retired judges heads the tribunal" and "The tribunal is headed by a panel of retired judges" are fundamentally the same, particularly in context. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed to "Retired judges form a panel that heads the tribunal". Some possible variants:

1. "A panel heads the tribunal, and that panel is formed by judges who are now retired"
2. "There is a panel that heads the tribunal, and the members of the panel are judges who have retired"
3. "A number of retired judges form a panel, and it is this very panel that heads the tribunal"
4. "The tribunal is headed by a panel. The panel is formed of judges. The judges are retired"
5. "At the apex of the tribunal is a panel composed of justices who have doffed their wigs for the last time"

I think the last is best, but will defer to other editors. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the last is certainly the most colourful ;-). However, perhaps it would be more helpful to work on larger-scale rearrangements? For example, you could say something like "A group of retired judges, with direction from an expert council and support from grassroots organizations, lead the alternative court". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sticking a long clause into the middle of the sentence is very clumsy and masks but does not solve the problem. Take out the clause and we get "A group of retired judges lead the alternative court". Only "lead" is inaccurate - they "head" it. The HRLN executive leads the IPT. Also "alternative court" is wrong: it is a tribunal but not a court. It can hear and find but cannot pass sentence. And it is a panel, not just a group. The judges are impaneled as a jury in the tribunal. This is why the IPT literature always talks about "The Panel". So with those corrections we get: "A panel of retired judges heads the tribunal". Back to square one. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you call it a "people's court"; perhaps use that quote here instead of where it is now? You might also try blending this information with that supported by other sources - when done carefully (to avoid WP:SYNTH), this can be an effective way of paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Retired judges head the IPT." Simple is always best. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Still issues here. Compare for example "unrest on the Malenadu region was caused by conversion of forest inhabited by the tribals into the park" with "unrest in the Malnad region was the conversion of forest area inhabited by the tribals into the national park". I would suggest a careful comb-through of all sources is required here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sensing the DYK procedure is getting much too complicated now. Its better to recollect that this is not a GAN or a FA nomination. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, certainly - were it a GAN or FA nomination, it would have already been archived. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ofcos, coz its a newest content from Wikipedia. The article is hardly focused by a single editor, whereas in GA or FA, it includes quite a couple of editors (sometimes in triple figures too). All the comments here suits GAN or at at Peer review. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, these sorts of issues should be addressed by B-class. I'm not sure I understand your second sentence, though, so maybe you're saying something else. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This was sort of a quote. The source says "Briefing reporters about the contents of the report, Suresh said the genesis of all the troubles faced by the tribals and the unrest in the Mainad region was the conversion of forest area inhabited by the tribals into the national park." But I have rephrased. Anything else? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The hook is not WP:NEUTRAL. "Chatterji (a member of Indian People's Tribunal) alleged that Hindu nationalist activists threatened to rape tribunal members and to parade them naked in the streets." The same ref says that Bajrang Dal (Hindu nationalist activists) have refuted the claim. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. Several sources picked up the story, which seems to come from the two judges and not just Chatterji, but they all say "alleged", presumably because the tribunal members did not take it to court. And anyway, perhaps it is a bit too jarring. A blander alternative below:

ALT1 ... that the Indian People's Tribunal has conducted many public enquiries into human rights and environmental abuses?

ALT1 not at all interesting. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is decidedly bland. Maybe one of the ALTs below? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that the Indian People's Tribunal found that evicted slum children suffered "post-demolition trauma"?

ALT3 ... that the Indian People's Tribunal found that villages near SIPCOT in Cuddalore lie in a virtual "gas chamber"?

ALT4 ... that the Indian People's Tribunal found that troops in the Kashmir Valley committed acts of violence with impunity?

Good to go. I don't see any problem with the ALT3. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Article appears to have been promoted prematurely, as paraphrasing issues persist. Compare for example "indiscriminate arrests, beatings, confinements and prohibitory orders...He said that unless these abuses ceased the victims could take to arms" with "indiscriminate arrests, beatings, confinements and prohibitory orders did not cease, the victims may be tempted to take to arms". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• My mistake - I thought it was clear from the context ("he described" ... "he said that") that the source was being quoted, but have wrapped quotation marks round it to make it absolutely obvious. The book from which the quote was taken does not put it in quotation marks, just introducing it as "he concluded that, if indiscriminate arrests, beatings ...", but I managed to find the original report, and it is indeed a verbatim quote starting from "if indiscriminate...". In this case the book editor has lower standards than Wikipedia for identifying quotes. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary: any quotation, whether quoting a phrase from a source or a verbatim quote by someone given by the source, has to have quote marks around it. Without quote marks, the only assumption that can be made is that the wording is that of the author of the article (yours) summarizing what was "described" or "said". Without quotes, it cannot be in the words of the author of the source: if it's reproduced from the source without any quote marks, it's a WP:COPYVIO by definition. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. "He said, blah blah" is quite different from "He said, 'blah blah.'" My dislike of excessive punctuation and tendency to follow common usage tripped me up once again. The quotation marks have now been inserted where they belong. But this is just one example of the persistent paraphrasing issues in this submission. What is the next thing that needs fixing? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This was bugging me, so I did some quick research. It turns out that the use of quotation marks is irrelevant to copyright laws. A quotation may be reproduced with or without quotation marks as long as the use is fair. The author must of course be attributed to avoid charges of removal of copyright management information. A good source of information on copyright laws can be found here. Different book or magazine editors apply different styles with quotations. It is common to use quotation marks as in "Smith said, 'This is my original expression'", but some editors allow "Smith said, this is my original expression", as is the case with the book from which the quotation that caused this fuss was taken. (See first paragraph for the quotation style used in the source and in prior versions of the article.) When a quotation is set apart from the text, perhaps indented or boxed, it is common to omit quotation marks. In fact WP:MOS#Block quotations says, "Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks" and gives the example (the author is implied):(See third paragraph of the same source for another example of the block quotation style. This book, which shows more substantial quotes in the block style also without quotation marks, but presumably not enough to affect the value of the authors' works, is what renewed my curiosity about the subject.) Bottom line is that before the quotations marks were added the article violated MOS:QUOTE, but did not violate copyright - assuming of course that the use is fair, which I believe to be the case. Thanks are due to Nikkimaria for stimulating this exploration of the subject, which at least to me has been educational. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about short quotes, the most common form, which do require quote marks. (Longer ones don't tend to pop up in DYKs, since they aren't included in the final character count.) I didn't see any long ones in your article. Long, block quotations have their own form of "quote" in being set off, usually indented from the margins and set off from the material above and below; the actual quote marks are redundant while they're in the set-off block (though spoken dialogue might have its own quote marks within the block). However, if you reuse a part of that set-off quote and put it inline, then quotes are required for that reused material. It's two different forms of formatting that mean the same thing: what is inside is quoted material, and is a copy of the original. If you don't give some sort of quote formatting, the reader will not know that the material is someone else's just by looking at it, which is why MOS:QUOTE exists: the reader has the expectation that the article is in the author's own words, and the setting off of quoted material tells the reader that the author is incorporating someone else's words at this point. It's also an acknowledgment by the author that this phrase or sentence or paragraph is someone else's creation. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The MOS does indeed say that inline quotations should be included in quotation marks, and I made that change. However, the laws are not concerned with the trivia of formatting and punctuation. What counts is that the four fair use rules have been followed and that the quotation or close paraphrase has been attributed to the author. Legally, "He said, blah blah" is exactly the same as "He said, 'blah blah.'" Aymatth2 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia needs a bit more than the bare minimum of legal standards: the article ought to be free of plagiarism and overly close paraphrasing, not only egregious copyright violations. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The point here is that putting quotation marks around a quote does not make us any less vulnerable to charges of copyright violation. As long as the author is attributed and the use is fair there is no problem, but quotation marks are irrelevant. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I see the problem. I am slow, and the quotation mark issue was a red herring, but think I have it. Nikkimaria got tripped up by seeing a string of words that was the same in both the article and the source and was not included in quotation marks. To recapitulate, the source (first paragraph) discussing the IPT report on the Sardar Sarovar Dam project said:

Justice Daud visited the area at the request of the Indian People's Tribunal on Environment and Human rights. In the report, he concluded that, if indiscriminate arrests, beatings, confinements and prohibitory orders do not cease, the victims may be tempted to take to arms and add to the troubles faced by an already beleaguered nation.

The second part of the above, from "indiscriminate arrests..." is a direct quote from the IPT report. The source attributes it correctly, but does not follow the WP style of placing it in quotation marks. Now, suppose the WP article were about the dam and the impact on the local people, and included without attribution a statement like, "The local people are subject to indiscriminate arrests, beatings, confinements and prohibitory orders." This would be an egregious copyright violation. Even if the article on the dam correctly attributed the IPT report, if the article used an excessive amount of content from the report that could also be a copyright violation. However, the article is not about the dam. It is about the IPT, and this section is about the IPT report on the impact of the dam. The section that confused Nikkimaria, before quotation marks were added, read:

In 1994 S.M. Daud, a retired justice of the high court of Mumbai, visited the area and wrote a report for the IPT. He described the indiscriminate arrests, beatings, confinements and prohibitory orders to which local opponents of the project were being subjected. He said that unless these abuses ceased the victims could take to arms

The excerpts and close paraphrasing are clearly attributed to Daud's report. The article is commenting on the report, and is making legitimate use of short excerpts for the purpose of that commentary. This is completely in line with copyright law and with WP policy. Possibly Nikkimaria would not have perceived a problem if quotation marks had been present, as they are now, although legally they are irrelevant. The current version, with an expanded excerpt, is given below. I assume there is no further problem with this section. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

In 1994 S.M. Daud, a retired justice of the high court of Mumbai, visited the area and wrote a report for the IPT. He described the "indiscriminate arrests, beatings, confinements and prohibitory orders" to which local opponents of the project were being subjected. He said that unless these abuses ceased "the victims may be tempted to take to arms and add to the troubles faced by an already beleaguered nation."

Perhaps you missed it where I pointed it out above, but had that been a direct quote, there would not have been a problem with it - your original version was not illegal, but was contrary to Wikipedia policies. Perhaps this misunderstanding is the root of your problems with close paraphrasing. An example of a similar issue, from elsewhere in the article: "The report discussed the issues of massive displacement of people, rehabilitation, compliance with environmental laws and the overall cost-benefits of the projects" vs "its report on issues of massive displacement, rehabilitation, environmental compliance and overall cost-benefits of the big dam projects". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I did indeed miss that. I have put quotation marks around the above section. Any others? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• "extensive violations of the law and failures to comply with environmental guidelines" vs "sustained non-compliance of environmental guidelines and violation of law" and "rights-based campaigns against plans by municipalities to conduct mass evictions and relocations of slum dwellers" vs "rights-based campaigns to convince municipalities to rethink mass evictions and slum relocations" are further examples. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Rephrased. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you done the "careful comb-through of all sources" suggested by Nikkimaria above, to look for similarities yourself? Given the number of examples she's pointed out already, and your tendency to "follow common usage", I think that might be a good next step. After such an examination, she shouldn't find anything else of significance when she makes a confirming check. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked when writing and rechecked before submitting the article, but obviously did not catch the three items that Nikkimaria has pointed out so far: the "panel of retired judges" problem and the way in which the statements by Judges Suresh and Daud were presented. I just don't have the eye for these things that Nikkimaria has. Apparently there are yet more problems in this article, but I can't see them. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed the comment at the top - draconian certainly isn't a "technical term", unless death for cabbage-rustling is prescribed: comes from Athenian lawgiver Draco, so should be reworded also, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The term "Draconian law" is used by the legal community to describe an unreasonably harsh law that typically fails to comply with international human rights norms. The article contains the sentence: "Draconian laws are in place". The source report does not contain that sentence, but does have a section headed "Draconian laws". Use of the term "Draconian law" (with or without quotation marks) when describing the findings of the tribunal does not violate copyright. When the judge uses the term "Draconian law", which he does repeatedly, he is not being colorful. He is being precise. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Aymatth, "Draconian law(s)" is a very common term, especially in the legal profession. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A search on Draconian+Kashmir shows how common the usage is in this context. This source, last paragraph, is typical. The implication is that if the law is draconian it may violate India's international treaty obligations. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• This needs further review — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Still close paraphrasing here: "use of brutal and indiscriminate force against slum dwellers in Mumbai" vs "indiscriminate and brutal force used against the city's slum dwellers"; "accepted that in principle the demolitions were not legal" vs "accepted in principle that the demolitions were illegal". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a long time since I started this article, so I cannot recall my thinking but I was probably trying to avoid excessive use of quotation marks with snippets of text, which can give the impression of a negative comment. A reader may see an implied "so called" when a short word or phrase is placed in quotation marks. These two examples are attributed, so falls within the WP:PLAG guideline: "when quoting or paraphrasing very closely the careful use of in-text attribution may be required along with an inline citation". To give the complete context:

• The report documented the use of brutal and indiscriminate force against slum dwellers in Mumbai.^[16]
• ...delivered an interim report to the government, which accepted that in principle the demolitions were not legal.^[17]

Even the WP:PARAPHRASE essay says "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason ... so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text to avoid plagiarism – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph". What is the concern? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The concern is, as this demonstrates, that you have shown yourself tone-deaf to close paraphrasing and have previously stated that you are bad at identifying it. This means that your text stands a good chance of skirting the border of the acceptable, if not stepping over more often that it ought. In fact, the latter has been seen in the number of changes you've already been asked to make over the course of this review. As such, you should be bending over backward to eliminate every possible example when it's pointed out to you. The idea that "accepted that in principle the demolitions were not legal" vs "accepted in principle that the demolitions were illegal" is not a problem is absurd. Did you happen to look at the examples at WP:PARAPHRASE? What Nikkimaria has pointed out is more egregious than any of those bolded sentences. It isn't merely close paraphrasing: aside from the displaced "that" and the conversion of "not legal" to "illegal", the two are virtually identical. I see that you were worried about direct quotes giving a negative context, though it is the obvious solution for that phrase if you feel there is no less close way to reword it. Please be sure to fix the other one, too. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• This article discusses the IPT, and as part of that discussion quotes or closely paraphrases short excerpts from a number of IPT reports. It attributes these quotations or close paraphrases inline, as in "the report said" or "the report described", and provides citations to each source. There is no question of plagiarism and the use is fair, equivalent to that of a series of very short book reviews. The IPT reports are not sources but are subjects of the article. This is quite different from an article on social conditions in India, in which close paraphrasing would be wrong - and anyway the IPT may not be a particularly reliable and independent source for such an article. But this article tries to convey a sense of the findings and language of the IPT reports in readable prose that is not littered with quotation marks. I cannot see what policies are being violated. I find myself in the position of a tone-deaf pupil being badgered by their teacher to sing in tune. I do not own this article and would be glad to see any editor making improvements. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• ...But I did delete the two sentences Nikkimaria was concerned with. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've spotchecked the sources and haven't been able to find any blatant close paraphrasing. The closest case is:

  Source: "S.6 of the Act gives them full protection against any prosecution or legal proceedings in respect of anything done or 'purported to be done' in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act.

  Source: "The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, lets officers do whatever they feel is warranted with full protection against legal prosecution."

  If this does not violate Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Close paraphrasing, then I think this can be promoted. Nikkimaria and BlueMoonset, what do you think? Cunard (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have deleted that sentence. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)