Wikipedia

User:Roger Davies/Plagiarism evaluation

< User:Roger Davies

Roger Davies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This report covers contributions to 411 articles from timestamp 2005-09-17 07:14:29 UTC to timestamp 2010-02-21 06:21:13 UTC.

Articles 1 through 20

edit
  • I didn't find anything concerning from a copyright standpoint. Several of the links are dead, tho, so I could not check. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles 21 through 40

edit
  • Can't see the book source, but nothing found elsewhere. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • For info, I've expanded this slightly, tidied it up a bit, and reffed it much more closely.  Roger Davies talk 04:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Can't view the sources here, but otherwise the content seems okay. I've spot-checked google & google books. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Interesting example; without seeing the name "John McCrae", I knew immediately who the sentence was about, because this fact is something taught every year in Canadian schools. This is where it gets hard; you find an example on Googlebooks, but I can tell you honestly that nearly the identical wording of this sentence appears in dozens of books that talk about McCrae, including textbooks used in schools from coast to coast in Canada. That's because it is nearly impossible to reword a sentence containing simple and clear facts in a way that doesn't read like every other sentence that contains the same facts. From our policy: "Editors who claim that the phrasing at issue is plagiarism must show that there is an alternative phrasing that does not make the passage more difficult to read." What would be your suggestion here? Risker (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
McCrae's funeral procession was led by his horse, symbolically adorned as riderless Ironholds (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I suppose the issue here is whether there's any uniqueness or originality in the expression and whether any purpose is served by writing around it. Replacing "boots reversed in the stirrups" with "symbolically adorned as riderless" seems to me, with respect, to be such a convoluted way of saying it that even someone who was familiar with the notion of "reversed boots" would be hard pressed to guess its meaning. For what it's worth, my take is that "boots reversed in the stirrups" is a collocation, a widely-used logical and natural lexical unit with a specific meaning. It generates 37,000 ghits. Related lexical phrases "flags flying at half mast" (237,000 ghits) and "flag draped coffin" gets a stonking (1,900,000 ghits).  Roger Davies talk 05:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It was merely a suggestion, and one I'd rewrite anyway since it's rather clunky. "lots of people use it" does not make a good excuse when there are valid alternatives. Besides, "lots of people use it" is irrelevant; the source used it, and you copied it nearly verbatim. That is the problem here.Ironholds (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I didn't copy the text nearly verbatim from a book I've never seen. The problem here is you're assuming that the text was a lift from a source you've suggested. The reality is that there are limited numbers of ways of describing the horse and the funeral, and both have been widely described. For instance, I've just looked up what the Holts say in Poets of The Great War: "The funeral procession was led by his horse, Bonfire, his master's boots reversed in the stirrups." I cannot remember at this distance in time (three years) where the information came from but it is scarcely a state secret that his horse was called Bonfire and led the procession with boots reversed. Incidentally, photos of the funeral are widely available clearly showing the reversed boots. If it helps, I also spoke to the Guelph Museum at the time to try to get a copy of the funeral photograph but they wanted too much money for it (which is odd because they donated it the following year). Frankly, if I'd seen Prescott I'd have made much more of it: for instance, mentioning the presence of Sir Arthur Currie at the funeral, as he is far more notable than McCrae's equine companion.  Roger Davies talk 02:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
And the photographs matter how? Again, you now have (and would easily have found in the past) a valid alternative should you choose to use it. Ironholds (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
A valid alternative to what? I've not seen Prescott and an attempt I've just made on Amazon to buy it reveals that it's rare, with copies going for £80/120$ and upwards, which is far more than I'm prepared to buy for one. The photographs matter because I have a longstanding interest in McCrae; have seen them many times over the years; and they evidence the reversed boots.  Roger Davies talk 03:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I saw that line, and it did raise flags for me as well. Coincidental matches are entirely possible, though. When I find a single passage that seems close, I consider the degree of creativity in the content first. In my initial check, I realized that the bit about the boots reversed seems to be formulaic: see [5] and [6]). (Even in a google book search, the line that raised flags for you is 10th on my hits for that phrase.) Half of the sentence is evidently common expression. That leaves the horse leading the procession. The next thing I do is check to see if there is a pattern of content taken from the suspect text or evidence that the contributor has seen the text. That one worried me at first, since Roger seemed to have been quoting from that book in other content, but I soon realized that the source had actually been introduced here and just carried forward by Roger. I checked for similarity from other new content and failed to find anything I felt sufficient to substantiate an issue here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Talking of paraphrasing, I noticed that McCrae museum site has this: "McCrae's horse, Bonfire, wore his master's boots backwards in military tradition" :)))  Roger Davies talk 15:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
LOL! Poor horse! That sounds dreadfully uncomfortable. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
"A valid alternative to what?" - to your phrasing, maybe? my suggestion needs tweaking, but riderless horse as opposed to a phrase trotted out in sources? Ironholds (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
We discussed this sort of issue last year, when we drafted WP:Plagiarism. That is why we agreed to insert the phrase, "it should be borne in mind that an occasional sentence in an article that bears a recognizable similarity to a sentence in a cited source is not generally a cause for concern. Some facts and opinions can only be expressed in so many ways, and still be the same fact, or opinion. A plagiarism concern arises when there is evidence of systematic copying of the diction of one or more sources across multiple sentences or paragraphs." I wonder if that point should be made more prominent.
Google News alone, in its limited selection, shows nearly 200 news sources that have used the expression "boots reversed in the stirrups" over the past 130 years. Three books by three different authors use the expression in relation to Bonfire leading the procession at McCrae's funeral. WP:Plagiarism was never intended to stop an editor from using a widely used, idiomatic way of saying something, or from reporting precise facts as they are reported in sources. --JN466 11:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Afraid I can't even see a snippet view of the book used here. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I can only see snippet views of the book. I think the opening couple of lines would have benefited from additional sourcing to help separate it further from [7]. It's very basic information, but structurally pretty close. Is it just me, or does this man look like he's made from wax? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed lead and added another source.  Roger Davies talk 03:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Also moved the quote from italics to within rabbit ears (and copy-edited it). Incidentally, Maxse is one of these really frustrating subjects: everyone bangs on about what a great trainer he was but no one says how he did it. (And yes he does look waxwork-ish.)  Roger Davies talk 03:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles 41 through 60

edit
  • ? I'm afraid that only some of these subpages are viewable; I didn't see any problems in what I could access, but there were limits to where I could go. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't read all of this, but in the snippets I could find, I didn't find any issues - no more than a couple of words in sequence as above, with otherwise rewritten and restructured content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I've tweaked this article quite a lot as the text is fairly festooned with guards of honour of one sort or another as well as various other clumsinesses and repetitions.  Roger Davies talk 08:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll have to take your word for that. :D I wasn't reading for flow—though I often pick up some interesting information; I think it was in the Military article that I read about and was astonished by the whole concept of gay bombs. I actually had to go read the main article on that one, which is something I hardly ever do. When I scan for duplicated text, I'm usually focused. But, really, wow. In 1994, no less. Anyway, a "forming the guard of honour" or two does not a copyvio make, as such is pretty formulaic. So long as the text around it differs in language and structure, it's not a problem. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Guy Pedroncini: I don't think this is a problem. At creation, it would have benefited from another source, which would have helped to separate it from the one used. Mind you, my French is very rudimentary. But most of this is straightforward information. Probably, I would have recommended rephrasing the last sentence. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Emily Dickinson: (29 edits, 29 major, +1655) (+148)(+103)(+114)(+175)(+272)(+158)(+273)(+550)(+1655)(+451)(+156)(+280)(+534)(+104)(+198)(+489)(+120)(+758)(+233)(+650)(+102)(+946)(+960)(+130)(+723)(+373)(+681)(+948)(+648)
  • George Nathan: This one has already been discussed. I don't believe there are copyright or plagiarism issues in the article, but I can't see Monks and one passage did follow closely on Eby at one point. Content added here said, "Even though he had been turned down for Communist Party membership because of his sexual orientation, Comintern observers admired him for his "cool arrogance under fire"[1].” -- snippet view of source says: "His funeral drew a distinguished crowd, for he was admired by Soviet "observers" for his "cool arrogance under fire," even though he had been refused membershp in the Communist Party because of his sexual orientation. ...” (sic; 202) This is a bit close for my tastes, but it's a single borderline passage that was altered within days. If I found this passage (unaltered) in an article, I'd rewrite it with an edit summary that says, "rewriting to separate from source", which I tend to do when I think a passage falls on the safe side of the big gray area between "copyright infringing close paraphrase" and "complete rewrite" but could use a little nudge to get it out of the gray. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles 61 through 80

edit

Articles 81 through 100

edit

Articles 101 through 120

edit

Articles 121 through 140

edit

Articles 141 through 160

edit

Articles 161 through 180

edit

Articles 181 through 200

edit

This report generated by Contribution Surveyor at 2010-02-23T15:55:43+00:00 in 0.12 sec.

  1. ^ Eby, p 202
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Roger_Davies/Plagiarism_evaluation&oldid=1040906133"