AirshipJungleman29 (talk | contribs) →General remarks: cmt on copyright |
Norfolkbigfish (talk | contribs) →Specific remarks: some replies Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
*{{xt|Although there are no specific references to crusading in the 11th century chanson de geste Chanson de Roland, the author, ''for propaganda purposes'', represented Muslims as monsters and idolators.}} The text in italics is not presented as a fact but as a possibility in the cited source. |
*{{xt|Although there are no specific references to crusading in the 11th century chanson de geste Chanson de Roland, the author, ''for propaganda purposes'', represented Muslims as monsters and idolators.}} The text in italics is not presented as a fact but as a possibility in the cited source. |
||
*{{xt|'''Visual cues''' were used to represent Muslims as evil, dehumanized, and monstrous aliens with black complexions and '''diabolical physiognomies'''.}} 1. Texts in bold represent copyvio. 2. The sentence does not summarize the main message of the cited author (Jubb). She says that a "black/white dichotomy" was used in medieval literature, especially in popular works, but it symbolised "religious and cultural difference, as much as race". She mentions "diabolical physiognomies" only when writing of the ''Song of Roland''. |
*{{xt|'''Visual cues''' were used to represent Muslims as evil, dehumanized, and monstrous aliens with black complexions and '''diabolical physiognomies'''.}} 1. Texts in bold represent copyvio. 2. The sentence does not summarize the main message of the cited author (Jubb). She says that a "black/white dichotomy" was used in medieval literature, especially in popular works, but it symbolised "religious and cultural difference, as much as race". She mentions "diabolical physiognomies" only when writing of the ''Song of Roland''. |
||
::{{mdash}}{{done}}[[User:Norfolkbigfish|Norfolkbigfish]] ([[User talk:Norfolkbigfish|talk]]) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*{{xt|This portrayal remained in western literature long after the territorial conflict of the crusades had faded into history.}} 1. The sentence is closely paraphrased. 2. The cited author (Jubb) specifically writes of the medieval period following the age of the crusades. |
*{{xt|This portrayal remained in western literature long after the territorial conflict of the crusades had faded into history.}} 1. The sentence is closely paraphrased. 2. The cited author (Jubb) specifically writes of the medieval period following the age of the crusades. |
||
*{{xt|The term "Saracen" '''designated a religious community''' rather than a racial group, while the word '''"Muslim" is absent from''' the chronicles.}} 1. Texts in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. 2. Which religious community? |
*{{xt|The term "Saracen" '''designated a religious community''' rather than a racial group, while the word '''"Muslim" is absent from''' the chronicles.}} 1. Texts in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. 2. Which religious community? |
||
::{{mdash}}{{done}}[[User:Norfolkbigfish|Norfolkbigfish]] ([[User talk:Norfolkbigfish|talk]]) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*{{xt|''The conflict'' was seen as a Manichean contest between good and evil.}} 1. The text in italics is not verified by Jubb. 2. Who saw "the conflict" as a Manichean contest? |
*{{xt|''The conflict'' was seen as a Manichean contest between good and evil.}} 1. The text in italics is not verified by Jubb. 2. Who saw "the conflict" as a Manichean contest? |
||
::{{mdash}}{{not done}} 1) it 2) Christian clergy [[User:Norfolkbigfish|Norfolkbigfish]] ([[User talk:Norfolkbigfish|talk]]) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*{{xt|Historians have been ''shocked'' by the ''inaccuracy and hostility'' involved in such representations, which included ''crude insults to Mohammad, caricatures of Islamic rituals,'' and the representation of Muslims as ''libidinous gluttons, blood-thirsty savages, and semi-human''.}} Texts in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. |
*{{xt|Historians have been ''shocked'' by the ''inaccuracy and hostility'' involved in such representations, which included ''crude insults to Mohammad, caricatures of Islamic rituals,'' and the representation of Muslims as ''libidinous gluttons, blood-thirsty savages, and semi-human''.}} Texts in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. |
||
::{{mdash}}{{done}}[[User:Norfolkbigfish|Norfolkbigfish]] ([[User talk:Norfolkbigfish|talk]]) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*{{xt|Historian Jean Flori argues that to self-justify Christianity's move from pacifism to warfare, their enemies needed to be ideologically destroyed.}} 1. The article does not refer to Christian pacifism in previous sentences. 2. Flori's work should be cited or at least mentioned in a footnote. |
*{{xt|Historian Jean Flori argues that to self-justify Christianity's move from pacifism to warfare, their enemies needed to be ideologically destroyed.}} 1. The article does not refer to Christian pacifism in previous sentences. 2. Flori's work should be cited or at least mentioned in a footnote. |
||
*{{xt|Poets often relied on the patronage of leading crusaders, ''so'' they extolled the values of the nobility, '''the feudal status quo''', chivalry, martial prowess, and the idea of the Holy Land being God's territory usurped and despoiled.}} 1. The text in italics contradicts the cited author (Routledge) who does not make connection between patronage and statements in the second part of the sentence. 2. Text in bold is not verified (actually, Routledge writes of the restoration of ''status quo ante''.) |
*{{xt|Poets often relied on the patronage of leading crusaders, ''so'' they extolled the values of the nobility, '''the feudal status quo''', chivalry, martial prowess, and the idea of the Holy Land being God's territory usurped and despoiled.}} 1. The text in italics contradicts the cited author (Routledge) who does not make connection between patronage and statements in the second part of the sentence. 2. Text in bold is not verified (actually, Routledge writes of the restoration of ''status quo ante''.) |
||
*{{xt|The reformist Church's '''identity-interest complex framed Islam as a particular form of heresy.'''}} The text in bold represents copyvio. |
*{{xt|The reformist Church's '''identity-interest complex framed Islam as a particular form of heresy.'''}} The text in bold represents copyvio. |
||
::{{mdash}}{{done}}[[User:Norfolkbigfish|Norfolkbigfish]] ([[User talk:Norfolkbigfish|talk]]) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*{{xt|''Muslim rule in formerly Christian territory was an "unjust" confiscation of Christian property,'' and '''this''' persecution of Christians required repayment.}} 1. The text in italics is closely paraphrased. 2. The text is bold is not verified by the cited author (Latham), since he does not define the persecution of Christians as the unjust confiscation of Christian property. |
*{{xt|''Muslim rule in formerly Christian territory was an "unjust" confiscation of Christian property,'' and '''this''' persecution of Christians required repayment.}} 1. The text in italics is closely paraphrased. 2. The text is bold is not verified by the cited author (Latham), since he does not define the persecution of Christians as the unjust confiscation of Christian property. |
||
::{{mdash}}{{done}}[[User:Norfolkbigfish|Norfolkbigfish]] ([[User talk:Norfolkbigfish|talk]]) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*{{xt|Islamic polities' '''own identity-interest complexes led them to be equally violently opposed to''' the restoration of '''Christian rule'''.}} Copyvio. |
*{{xt|Islamic polities' '''own identity-interest complexes led them to be equally violently opposed to''' the restoration of '''Christian rule'''.}} Copyvio. |
||
::{{mdash}}{{done}}[[User:Norfolkbigfish|Norfolkbigfish]] ([[User talk:Norfolkbigfish|talk]]) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
{{cob}} |
Revision as of 12:57, 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)
- 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
|