Talk:Jane Hogarth

For future reference

Although there have been claims that the article is a copyright violation of [1], this isn't true. I can provide the article via email if someone wants to double check the claim. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I ran it through Earwig, and it came up as unlikely to be a violation. See here. The material is sourced and cited, I don’t see a too-close paraphrase. Montanabw^(talk) 15:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

So, @Sam-2727: if you don’t see a too close paraphrase, and earwig is clean, can we remove the template? Montanabw^(talk) 15:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Montanabw, Sam-2727, I've looked briefly at this, and the complaint does seem to have some little merit (NB, Earwig does not have access to www.oxforddnb.com, but I do). As an example, if the source reads "in 1988, when the copyrights to Peter Pan were given in perpetuity to the Great Ormond Street Hospital", then our article certainly should not read "in 1988, when the copyrights to Peter Pan were given to the Great Ormond Street Hospital in perpetuity" – fiddling with the order of a couple of phrases does not constitute writing new content entirely in your own words, which is what we should be doing. But this is mostly a matter of close following rather than outright copyvio. Antiqueight, would you be prepared to rewrite the page to address these fairly minor problems? If so, I'll provide info on how and where to do that.

I've left a note for User:184.161.132.249 inviting comment, but I'd like to look at the OTRS ticket too. Sam-2727, would you be kind enough to leave a note of the ticket number here? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m not Sam, but looks like it’s otrs:11454772. Might be nighttime where Antiqueight is at, so may not hear back until tomorrow...we can all work together to fix this, perhaps. Can you create the page where we put in the text to revise it? My help will mostly be wordsmithing, as I don’t want to get into the sources. Montanabw^(talk) 20:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers I have no problem rewriting the page - I know sometimes when I'm working on various bios I get to the stage where I can't tell what I've rewritten and not rewritten, and sometimes I just can't think of another way to say it. I usually check with Earwig and didn't think about the fact that it might not have access. The Ticket is [2]. I'm not certain though how to go about rewriting the page when it's all taken over by the template. I didn't want to touch it til I knew what I was supposed to do about it. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 20:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Montanabw is correct about the ticket number. Antiqueight, perhaps create a userspace draft with a rewritten version. Looking at the document now, I can certainly see the similarities in structure. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you, Antiqueight and Montanabw. I've created this rewrite page. Please feel free to copy over any content from earlier revisions of the original page that is definitely not even remotely similar to the source page; anything that's at all reminiscent of the source should be rewritten from scratch using totally different words. The sequence of facts and ideas should not be the same as that of the source. In most cases, rewriting from more than one source, taking concepts from them in turn and expressing each idea in your own words, can lead to a better overall result (yes, I know of course that you know all this). Please let me know when the page is ready, and I'll move it into place. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers See what you think of the page now. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 09:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done, rewrite now in place, thanks to all involved. I would not normally have hidden the previous history of a page for such minor problems, but have done so here in deference to the OTRS correspondent. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Good teamwork, all! Montanabw^(talk) 15:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Redux, 2021

This article is a copyright violation. Antiqueigh apparently got an award for adding new entries including this one which appeared on July 10th, 2020, the day after the publication of the Jane Hogarth entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography written by Dr. Cristina Martinez, specialized in copyrights. Reformulation, paraphrazing and other forms of citation of ideas are copyright infringements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.186.170 (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm still not clear as to how paraphrased information that has been cited correctly constitutes copyright violation? The definition presented here would result in all academic research grinding to a halt if you can't paraphrase others work. Smirkybec (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Without proper recognition of the work of the reseacher, paraphrazing in stealing someone's ideas. Credit should be given to the academic researchers who are living from this work. It is basic research ethics and standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.186.170 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

But there are inline citations for all the information drawn from that source, so it is not plagiarism. Smirkybec (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The citation are not adequate and many corrections have been made. If you look at the historic of modification, they have been added to fill in the lack of proper sources, all around Dr. Martinez's work. Not much was written about Jane Hogarth before the publication of her entry, as the fact that there was no entry on Jane Hogarth in the Oxford Dictionaray of National Biography before June 2020 proves it. After years of peer reviewing, Martinez have so been recognized to be the most informed intellectual on Hogarth. If this article was to be submitted by a student at a university, the said student would be facing academic fraud and plagiarism accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.186.170 (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As defined simply here plagiarism "is taking another person’s words, ideas or statistics and passing them off as your own" (emphasis added), Dr Martinez has been fully credited as a source, and correctly cited and paraphrased. She has done the original research which has been adapted for use here, like every other Wikipedia article! I really don't understand what definitions you could possibly be working from to misunderstand this so incompletely. As a side note, I just ran this through a plagiarism tool comparing it to the ODNB entry and it came 12%. Smirkybec (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sam-2727, Montanabw, Justlettersandnumbers, and Antiqueight: from earlier discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"Reformulation, paraphrazing and other forms of citation of ideas are copyright infringements" is arrant nonsense. Furthermore, unless Martinez was living in the 1700s, that's exactly what her work does. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Pigsonthewing here. As I see it, "reformulation, paraphrazing [sic] and other forms of citation of ideas" do not constitute copyright infringements – the author cannot claim copyright in ideas expressed, only in the actual text used to express them. I see no sign in the article of content copied verbatim from the sources, nor of material that does not properly cite those sources. If there's any plagiarised content, please quote it here on this page, together with the text of the original source it is copied from. We take copyright infringement seriously, so it'll be dealt with at once. On the other hand, if there's no plagiarised content, please stop wasting everybody's time with baseless claims. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Coming to this "cold", having had this little-known publisher on watch since after the discussion I see higher up the page, I join in the puzzlement - the article cites Dr Martinez first of all, and their work is indeed used multiple times, marked as such. This constitutes not just recognition (better than often done in academic work) but, given Wikipedia's vastly greater reach vs the DNB, publicity for the academic. But there are no less than 30 other references used for what is a modest length article. I'm sure we'd all like to have specifics, but as it stands, these seem to be wild, academically imprecise, and prima facie unfair, allegations ("fraud" and "plagiarism" are hard words, and neither seems to fit, per dictionary definitions - paraphrasing is not wrong in academic work, it is in fact basic). SeoR (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is anything I can add. After the first assertion multiple people helped with ensuring the page had no plagiarism. Some of what we thought was the issue was a bug in the way the tools cited the ODNB. We fixed everything we could think of. Without specific example or detail, there is very little more that can be done. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 10:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Accurate date of birth needed

An accurate date of birth is needed. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)