Talk:Cave de Sueth

Wrong title

Wrong title (modern French, not English/medieval French) @Zero0000: Hi Zero! To the rescue, my friend. Max Goepp, who is French, has a huge merit in popularising Crusader-period castles, but his use of modern French names, such as "Cave de Suète", should have no bearing on the English Wikipedia. In English academic literature the medieval French or Latin names are mostly in use. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Arminden: Right, what name for the article do you think would be best? Zero^talk 17:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Cave de Sueth! Following Nicolle, Google and all the rest :) French was still medieval, didn't know much about accent grave, were still close to Latin. Arminden (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Arminden: Done. You might need to refresh the browser to see the change. Now, what about Terre de Suète? Zero^talk 19:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Good question :) I'm googeling now, combining the term between quotation marks with Crusader or Baldwin. There are SO few, no matter for which version. The French have dealt with it most often, and they have naturally pushed the modern French name. There is a Canadian doctoral thesis using "Land of Sueth", so it's not wrong; but it is only ONE case. An Israeli paper [1] is interestingly using Cave of Sueth and Terre de Suète right next to each other - the Israeli easy-going, don't fight reality attitude, which might be a good starting point here, too, except that WP article names tend to multiply and become trend-setters. So we have:

• Terre de Suète (modern French)
• Terre de Suite (medieval French) - see below, Mayer
• Terre de Suete (medieval Latin/French) see Hugh Kennedy [2] and Alan Walmsley [3] (top of left column, next to Sawad)
• Terre de Suet (English from medieval Latin/French) - a few academic sources incl. Ronnie Ellenblum in Crusader Castles and Modern Histories, Cambridge UP [4]
• Terre de Sueth (medieval French-cum-Latin) see Pringle [5], next to Latin in terra Sueti, where Sueti is probably some non-nominative declination (genitive, ablative, locative, who knows, I don't) of whatever nominative form it might have - Suete? Sueta? Suet?
• in terra Sueti (medieval Latin), see above for occurrence and grammar problem: we only have it as "in terra Sueti", nowhere in the nominative, w/o in
• terra de Suete (medieval Latin) [6] (is it in the nominative?), and map [7] (but "Terre de Suète" in the text)
• in terra Sueth, in terra de Soeth (medieval Latin) - H. E Mayer, see below
• Land of Sueth (English with medieval Latin)
• Land of Sawad (English with Arabic); mind there's one also in Iraq! Sawad (disambiguation). Some write it Sawād.
  

The only ACADEMIC DISCUSSION of the correct term I could find is here: Hans Eberhard Mayer, Die Kreuzfahrerherrschaft Montréal (Šōbak): Jordanien im 12. Jahrhundert [8]. It is in German (no surprise there), it gives additional options, decides to keep the modern French orthography for the sake of convenience, but states that the most common medieval French version is "Suite".
I suggest we leave it as it is, and set autolinks for all or the most common alternatives.
PS: does it change automatically everywhere on WP once you do a move? See for instance Sawad (disambiguation). Arminden (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Link removal

Why were the links in this article removed?

@VarmtheHawk: The work in question - The Crusades - An Encycopedia is in copyright (it came out in 2006). Those links are to a copy of the book on a (Ukrainian) website and I removed them as my edit summary said "[to] remove reference to copyvio site".

Per WP:ELNEVER Wikipedia policy is that "material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation." and "If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors" GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett: How do you know that this is a copyright violation? The entire encyclopedia is available from a number of legitimate sites, including one based in San Diego. Shouldn't these decisions be made by an administrator? These links are used in hundreds if not thousands articles. If I'm not mistaken, there is a template for it using this website and so there it seems like there is tacit approval to use them. Please stop deleting them until this is resolved. VarmtheHawk (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no indication on the Erenow website that it has permission to host a copy of the work, they don't credit the author nor the publisher. You can see this here - where you would expect to see the credits. These are red flags. I would say that once this is brought up, the onus is on others to show the link is legitimate before linking to it. If you want to seek others involvment then Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard might be a place to start. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem to have created this issue that no one else has. If you are claiming that it is a copyright violation, you need to provide some basis for that claim and have that verified by Wikipedia Administration. VarmtheHawk (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with GraemeLeggett, Erenow appears to be removing the copyright info from many of the books it is posting which is always suspicious. General random internet consensus (I know) seems to be that they are indeed hosting books without permission. Looking through their site and at the books in question it appears to be quite a reasonable conclusion that they are violating WP:COPYLINK and they don't hold that copyright. All our policies require to remove a copyright infringing link is a reasonable suspicion, and we always err on the side of removal as we treat copyright very seriously. Canterbury Tail talk 12:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett: hi. I guess there must be some rule against such websites. Since the material is out there, at least the editors should know where to reach it when they check the contents (SO often the alleged citation is not confirmed by the source! Plus the source might contain essential info missed by the previous editor, also a common occurrence.) How can that be kept? It takes unnecessary, repetitive effort each time an editor approaches the article, which makes absolutely no sense. Ignoring information which is out there because it's (possibly) posted illegally is a joke. I'm saying that as a content author who's been pirated; I confront the cheating party if I can, that does make more sense, even if it's endless and stands litle chance of success, even with established publishing houses. But whatever.

However, please, don't bulk-remove my edit and accept the compromise. I left out the erenow.net links, adopted the details you offered, but not the structure: you repeat identical details twice, which is superfluous. Like this, with the 4-volume work cited as such, and the 2 relevant entries with double-asterisk underneath, it's easier to understand, AND less repetitive. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

These are the removed links, for the exclusive benefit of editors

Murray's The Crusades: An Encyclopedia (2006) can be accessed via a website suspected of infringing on copyright laws. Since the info is in the edit history already, but rather hidden there, I'm re-posting the links here on the talk-page for the benefit of editors only. Google Books seems to offer only a very limited "snippet" view, which does not cover the information used in the article! Using the information, but not indicating the actual source "because it's not nice" is hypocrisy. Don't tell me the editor who put it in bought the 4-volume encyclopedia and has it at home. Even if that were indeed the case: it's allowed, but never great, since users & editors have to accept the material on trust, which is never a good idea, as all of Wiki work is proving.

I hope this is an acceptable solution for everyone. Acknowledging reality (1. the article uses this info; 2. the material is easily available online), while keeping the visible face of Wiki clean. Arminden (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Erenow.net and also note that the site is now blacklisted MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Erenow.net. You should not even hint at the links. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Should, would... They are already there. Unless you go ahead and remove all the content from the article based on them, it's an exercise in hypocrisy. Not attacking you, just stating the obvious. You want to clean up the Wiki act? Give up on the material obtained from such websites. Good luck. I'm a bit of a Don Quixote and Sisyphus myself, only trying to give it a veneer of rationality. Pushing it to the extreme limit to help illustrate the idea: if one uses the Mengele data, it doesn't help not mentioning his name in the paper. Arminden (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I am removing these links, you know that they're inviolation of WP:COPYLINK and are links to copyrighted works posted without the copyright holder's permission. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and continuing to post links to copyrighted works will result in action. Do not post links to illegally hosting copyrighted works again. They have been removed from the history, the site has officially been blacklisted on Wikipedia. Don't try and circumvent copylink policies again. Canterbury Tail talk 15:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, take it easy. I pointed out to the incongruence of

• having the links in the edit history
• using the material so gained in the article
  

but not allowing the link to be seen. If you are addressing all the issues, explain in a civilised manner and I'm happy with it. You say you expunged it from edit history, which I wasn't aware can be done (my bad, I guess), and from the talk-page. 2 down, 1 to go. The article material is more questionable. Let's just ask the editor: hi Dr. Grampinator, do you have The Crusades: An Encyclopedia at home? Being you, it's quite possible. As you see, Mr. Canterbury Tail, there are ways to go about an issue w/o playing out all the mighty powers of a Wiki Great Wizard. A mere mortal, Arminden (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)