Norfolkbigfish (talk | contribs) →Specific remarks: some replies Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
|||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
::*I think this is an extremly urgent task. For the time being, I cannot exclude that the whole article will be deleted for plagiarism. I think you know which texts were copied from the cited sources, so you are in the position to solve this problem. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
::*I think this is an extremly urgent task. For the time being, I cannot exclude that the whole article will be deleted for plagiarism. I think you know which texts were copied from the cited sources, so you are in the position to solve this problem. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
::**If you think the article is eligible for [[WP:G12]] speedy deletion or [[WP:AFD]], you should nominate it there '''at once''' {{u|Borsoka}}; as you have kindly pointed out, copyright is a serious issue, so playing around with GA reassessments is like passing the buck. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
::**If you think the article is eligible for [[WP:G12]] speedy deletion or [[WP:AFD]], you should nominate it there '''at once''' {{u|Borsoka}}; as you have kindly pointed out, copyright is a serious issue, so playing around with GA reassessments is like passing the buck. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
::***Yes, it is a serious issue. You may not remember but it was me who first raised it about a week ago during the FAC review. However, I have not reviewed the whole article, so I only assume that it will be deleted due to plagiarism. After reviewing about one third of the article (or rather collection of texts), I need some time for recovery to continue this exceptionally irksome work. Moreover, I would give a chance to the nominator to clear the article, because a version free of plagiarism could be kept. [[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] ([[User talk:Borsoka|talk]]) 13:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Secondary sources cited in the article dedicate several pages to the Muslim world and the influx of the Turks in the politics of the Middle East [Asbridge (pp. 17-29), Jotischky (pp. 40-47), Lock (pp. 3-19), Madden (pp. 1-5), Tyermann 2019 (pp. 33-45). Several other sources that follow the same path could be listed. Why does the article ignore this usual scholarly approach? |
*Secondary sources cited in the article dedicate several pages to the Muslim world and the influx of the Turks in the politics of the Middle East [Asbridge (pp. 17-29), Jotischky (pp. 40-47), Lock (pp. 3-19), Madden (pp. 1-5), Tyermann 2019 (pp. 33-45). Several other sources that follow the same path could be listed. Why does the article ignore this usual scholarly approach? |
||
:: This article is not about the crusades, it is about the crusade movement e.g. the ideology and institutions of crusading. For this reason there is no MILHIST is this article, as suggested by another editor. It is a [[Latin Church]] institution.[[User:Norfolkbigfish|Norfolkbigfish]] ([[User talk:Norfolkbigfish|talk]]) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
:: This article is not about the crusades, it is about the crusade movement e.g. the ideology and institutions of crusading. For this reason there is no MILHIST is this article, as suggested by another editor. It is a [[Latin Church]] institution.[[User:Norfolkbigfish|Norfolkbigfish]] ([[User talk:Norfolkbigfish|talk]]) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:46, 8 April 2024
Crusading movement
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
During the article's FAC review, it became apparent that the article does not meet all GA criteria: 2c. it contains original research; 2d. it contains copyright violations and plagiarism; and 3a. it does not address the main aspects of the topic. Furthermore, its prose is not clear and concise as a consequence of copyright violations and plagiarism. Although the article could be delisted without further review because it is a long way from meeting criterium 3a, and contains copyright violations, I think giving a last chance for improvement is a better approach. Of course, the article should be cleaned of copyright violations and plagiarism as soon as possible, because copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
To begin the process, I copy my remarks from the FAC review page here:
General remarks
- A general remark on sourcing: more than 30% of the article is verified by references to individual articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Our relevant policy says, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. ... Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." I think the use of a tertiary source goes beyond this boundary, and the rationale beyond the selection of individual encyclopedic articles is unclear. As a consequence of this approach, the article looks like an encyclopedia with individual articles following each other without much connection between them. I am not sure that this method can secure that the movement is presented in WP as it is presented in relevant scholarly literature. Could we write an article about "Humanity" based on arbitrarily selected articles from Encyclopædia Britannica?
- The Encyclopedia is WP:RS. Where particular facts are insufficient this can be addressed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the encyclopedia is a reliable source. I have never questioned its reliability. However, we need a coherent encyclopedic article about the crusading movement, not an abridged version of The Crusades: An Encyclopedia, with individual articles within it. Right now, this article could hardly be regarded more than a collection of individual articles on topics like "Penance and indulgence", "Knights and chivalry", etc. Even the seemingly chronologicaly organised "Evaluation" section is a mostly incoherent mixture of texts from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia (often with texts copied from its articles about indvidual popes). For the time being, the article does not introduce the crusading movement as it is presented in scholarly literature: arbitrarily selected articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia placed one after another can hardly be regarded as an encyclopedic article. Therefore, sourcing must be changed radically. Not only because the extensive use of tertiary sources contradicts our relevant policy, but also because editors' task is to present an article's subject as it is presented by scholars writing of the topic. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Encyclopedia is WP:RS. Where particular facts are insufficient this can be addressed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sudden changes in tone and vocabulary and redundant content suggests that significant texts may be closely paraphrased. Has the article been reviewed from this perspective? I have only reviewed about one fifth of the article, but I have found several cases of close paraphrasing and copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Can be dealt with on an incident by incident basis. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is an extremly urgent task. For the time being, I cannot exclude that the whole article will be deleted for plagiarism. I think you know which texts were copied from the cited sources, so you are in the position to solve this problem. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you think the article is eligible for WP:G12 speedy deletion or WP:AFD, you should nominate it there at once Borsoka; as you have kindly pointed out, copyright is a serious issue, so playing around with GA reassessments is like passing the buck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a serious issue. You may not remember but it was me who first raised it about a week ago during the FAC review. However, I have not reviewed the whole article, so I only assume that it will be deleted due to plagiarism. After reviewing about one third of the article (or rather collection of texts), I need some time for recovery to continue this exceptionally irksome work. Moreover, I would give a chance to the nominator to clear the article, because a version free of plagiarism could be kept. Borsoka (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you think the article is eligible for WP:G12 speedy deletion or WP:AFD, you should nominate it there at once Borsoka; as you have kindly pointed out, copyright is a serious issue, so playing around with GA reassessments is like passing the buck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is an extremly urgent task. For the time being, I cannot exclude that the whole article will be deleted for plagiarism. I think you know which texts were copied from the cited sources, so you are in the position to solve this problem. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Can be dealt with on an incident by incident basis. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Secondary sources cited in the article dedicate several pages to the Muslim world and the influx of the Turks in the politics of the Middle East [Asbridge (pp. 17-29), Jotischky (pp. 40-47), Lock (pp. 3-19), Madden (pp. 1-5), Tyermann 2019 (pp. 33-45). Several other sources that follow the same path could be listed. Why does the article ignore this usual scholarly approach?
- This article is not about the crusades, it is about the crusade movement e.g. the ideology and institutions of crusading. For this reason there is no MILHIST is this article, as suggested by another editor. It is a Latin Church institution.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did not suggest that MILHIST should be added. The development of the crusading movement should be presented as it is presented in reliable sources. Right now, readers who consult with this article will not understand why the crusading movement began. The presentation of one single scholar's PoV does not solve this problem (I refer to Latham). Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- This article is not about the crusades, it is about the crusade movement e.g. the ideology and institutions of crusading. For this reason there is no MILHIST is this article, as suggested by another editor. It is a Latin Church institution.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- The article's structure is diffuse, and seemingly lacks any detectable logic: several elements of the flourishing crusading movement are mentioned in section "Background". (For instance, why are the military orders or the development of the crusading ideology in the 13th century mentioned in this section?)
- These are cross topic themes, a narrative structure would mean that detailed commentary would be lost.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did not say that we should follow a narrative structure (even if the article, incoherently, follows it in section "Evolution"). I only said that background to the crusading movement should clearly be differentiated from its features, elements and consequences. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- The use of Background seems to cause some confusion, I will amend to Features as you suggest. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did not say that we should follow a narrative structure (even if the article, incoherently, follows it in section "Evolution"). I only said that background to the crusading movement should clearly be differentiated from its features, elements and consequences. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- These are cross topic themes, a narrative structure would mean that detailed commentary would be lost.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- In most cases, the article does not explain the events, but mentions facts or PoVs without making clear the connection between them, or providing our readers with a coherent (or incoherent) story: "Pope X said this, Pope Y told that, and Pope Z said another thing, etc".
- This article is about the ideology and institutions. As such PoVs are key, as are facts. The facts relate to changes to this. The events mentioned here are probably outside the scope of the topic.
- Yes, but ideologies and institutions rarely develop ex nihilio. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- This article is about the ideology and institutions. As such PoVs are key, as are facts. The facts relate to changes to this. The events mentioned here are probably outside the scope of the topic.
- The article contains original research and original synthesis. Several examples can be found in the "Specific remarks" section. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- If so, this is unintentional and can be remediated as part of the review. Nothing here is WP:OR, everything comes from academic writing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did not say you had intentionally filled the article with original research. I only referred to the fact that it (or at least its first major section) is filled with sentences that are not verified by the cited source or cobtradict it. Borsoka (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Everything in the article has come from WP:RS Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did not say you had intentionally filled the article with original research. I only referred to the fact that it (or at least its first major section) is filled with sentences that are not verified by the cited source or cobtradict it. Borsoka (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- If so, this is unintentional and can be remediated as part of the review. Nothing here is WP:OR, everything comes from academic writing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
specific FAC comments
|
---|
Specific remarks
|