Talk:Zourafa: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
: The tag is not about plagiarism, but to give attribution to the original source in the spirit of CC-BY-SA-3. The en article is most certainly based on the Greek one, as not only it is a translation of most of it's parts, but uses the same sources as well, and it isn't an issue of some accidental overlap. As I wrote the original el article after doing a lot of research, I know it inside and out. If you do not agree with the above please discuss first. [[User:Gts-tg|Gts-tg]] ([[User talk:Gts-tg|talk]]) 12:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC) |
: The tag is not about plagiarism, but to give attribution to the original source in the spirit of CC-BY-SA-3. The en article is most certainly based on the Greek one, as not only it is a translation of most of it's parts, but uses the same sources as well, and it isn't an issue of some accidental overlap. As I wrote the original el article after doing a lot of research, I know it inside and out. If you do not agree with the above please discuss first. [[User:Gts-tg|Gts-tg]] ([[User talk:Gts-tg|talk]]) 12:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
:: |
:: |
||
:: I disagree that the article is "most certainly based on the Greek one" and that "it is a translation of most of it's [sic] parts". You need to adduce evidence of those claims because they are not substantiated by a comparison of the two articles. When two articles use a number of the same sources, it's obvious that they will contain a number of the same facts. That is the only overlap I can find between this article and the Greek one. Use of the same sources certainly does not require attribution, as the part of an editor's contribution that is copyrightable is the creative expression using in the wording. There is no evidence that any such creative wording has been taken from the Greek article and used here. |
:: I disagree that the article is "most certainly based on the Greek one" and that "it is a translation of most of it's [sic] parts". You need to adduce evidence of those claims because they are not substantiated by a comparison of the two articles. When two articles use a number of the same sources, it's obvious that they will contain a number of the same facts. That is the only overlap I can find between this article and the Greek one. Use of the same sources certainly does not require attribution, as the part of an editor's contribution that is copyrightable is the creative expression using in the wording. There is no evidence that any such creative wording has been taken from the Greek article and used here. |
||
:: When you placed the tag, you made the claim that the original author passed off some else's work as their own by failing to attribute. That is the definition of plagiarism, and for you to make such a claim is a serious matter: it is sanctionable to make unsubstantiated allegations of that sort about another editor. Did you even bother to ask the original author of this article if they had taken someone else's material from the Greek article? I can see from your contributions that you did not. Why not? |
:: When you placed the tag, you made the claim that the original author passed off some else's work as their own by failing to attribute. That is the definition of plagiarism, and for you to make such a claim is a serious matter: it is sanctionable to make unsubstantiated allegations of that sort about another editor. Did you even bother to ask the original author of this article if they had taken someone else's material from the Greek article? I can see from your contributions that you did not. Why not? |
||
:: So I will remove the tag and I expect you to provide clear evidence that the material was copied. And please don't rudely ask me to "discuss first" when I initiated this discussion. |
:: So I will remove the tag and I expect you to provide clear evidence that the material was copied. And please don't rudely ask me to "discuss first" when I initiated this discussion. |
||
:: You were the one that removed the tag without talking first, so be more frugal when using words like ''rudely'' please. This is a translation of the el article, anybody that can read both languages, or even do an automated translation can see this. You can do all the wikilawyering in the world but it will not change this fact. The only way for the tag to be removed is to actually have the majority of the article have original content. [[User:Gts-tg|Gts-tg]] ([[User talk:Gts-tg|talk]]) 17:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:08, 24 July 2015
This page incorporates content from Ζουράφα, a page hosted on another Wikimedia Foundation project. Please consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
Greece C‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Islands C‑class | |||||||
|
A fact from Zourafa appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 July 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Not an interwiki
I've just removed a tag from this page claiming that the article is a copy of gr:Ζουράφα. I've reviewed both articles and cannot find any evidence of content plagiarised from the Greek article. There is some overlap between sources (as would be expected), so some facts are cited in both articles. Many articles about Greek islands mention the etymology, the geography and any notable features, so it's not surprising that those topics are covered here. I feel that the burden rests with anyone claiming that plagiarism has taken place to substantiate such a claim. --RexxS (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- The tag is not about plagiarism, but to give attribution to the original source in the spirit of CC-BY-SA-3. The en article is most certainly based on the Greek one, as not only it is a translation of most of it's parts, but uses the same sources as well, and it isn't an issue of some accidental overlap. As I wrote the original el article after doing a lot of research, I know it inside and out. If you do not agree with the above please discuss first. Gts-tg (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree that the article is "most certainly based on the Greek one" and that "it is a translation of most of it's [sic] parts". You need to adduce evidence of those claims because they are not substantiated by a comparison of the two articles. When two articles use a number of the same sources, it's obvious that they will contain a number of the same facts. That is the only overlap I can find between this article and the Greek one. Use of the same sources certainly does not require attribution, as the part of an editor's contribution that is copyrightable is the creative expression using in the wording. There is no evidence that any such creative wording has been taken from the Greek article and used here.
- When you placed the tag, you made the claim that the original author passed off some else's work as their own by failing to attribute. That is the definition of plagiarism, and for you to make such a claim is a serious matter: it is sanctionable to make unsubstantiated allegations of that sort about another editor. Did you even bother to ask the original author of this article if they had taken someone else's material from the Greek article? I can see from your contributions that you did not. Why not?
- So I will remove the tag and I expect you to provide clear evidence that the material was copied. And please don't rudely ask me to "discuss first" when I initiated this discussion.
- You were the one that removed the tag without talking first, so be more frugal when using words like rudely please. This is a translation of the el article, anybody that can read both languages, or even do an automated translation can see this. You can do all the wikilawyering in the world but it will not change this fact. The only way for the tag to be removed is to actually have the majority of the article have original content. Gts-tg (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)