Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
192.118.27.253 (talk)
→‎COI question rasied.: Add even more info.
Line 27: Line 27:


::Some possible information which might help understand the lawsuits section. IANAL, but I have heard from one that Israeli IP law is different from US IP law in that it also includes "plagiarism" (use of material, even fair use, without attribution) as a punishable offense. Interesting how just a change of jurisdiction can be so significant, which would seem to contradict the cognitive conflation of law and ethics as seen in most of the references. Even more interesting is the fact that, in general, Israeli '''copyright''' law is more lenient than US law, and also much less widely enforced. One wonders where the judicial vitriol in these cases came from. Just shows that the court system, while the best we have, is quite stochastic. (Oh, and as an aside, two of the three references from Cross-Currents, which are incidentally rather judgemental, were authored by [[Jonathan Rosenblum]], a Haredi Jew who might well have a slanted POV.) [[Special:Contributions/192.118.27.253|192.118.27.253]] ([[User talk:192.118.27.253|talk]]) 09:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
::Some possible information which might help understand the lawsuits section. IANAL, but I have heard from one that Israeli IP law is different from US IP law in that it also includes "plagiarism" (use of material, even fair use, without attribution) as a punishable offense. Interesting how just a change of jurisdiction can be so significant, which would seem to contradict the cognitive conflation of law and ethics as seen in most of the references. Even more interesting is the fact that, in general, Israeli '''copyright''' law is more lenient than US law, and also much less widely enforced. One wonders where the judicial vitriol in these cases came from. Just shows that the court system, while the best we have, is quite stochastic. (Oh, and as an aside, two of the three references from Cross-Currents, which are incidentally rather judgemental, were authored by [[Jonathan Rosenblum]], a Haredi Jew who might well have a slanted POV.) [[Special:Contributions/192.118.27.253|192.118.27.253]] ([[User talk:192.118.27.253|talk]]) 09:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

== English-language Wikipedia ==

What does " a total of 25 phases " mean? Perhaps notorious edit-warrior Debresser could clarify. &nbsp;[[User:Pablo X|<tt>pablo</tt>]] 20:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:16, 22 January 2016

COI question rasied.

I posted this on the editor's talkpage. The edit history of the article made me wonder about this.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said already in two edit summaries ([1] and [2]), I think there is too much detail about the court cases, which are added by User:Sarah Shapiro. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved most of it intact out of the lede, all of that certainly does not belong there.And agreed too much detail about legal issues, although it probably is notable and does not violate BLP except it does seem to give undue weight. I have concerns about possible COI, but also do not want to violate "outing" rules either. But if it is a COI, the editor would need to find other topics.TeeVeeed (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, I am not sure. I think that might depend on who the person is. If it were one of the parties, they would have a POV. If it were the judge, perhaps there is no real problem. Debresser (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TeeVeeed, you reverted the last edit by this editor, with the edit summary asking to react to the COI question. The edit also added a few thousand characters to the text, which already suffers from extensive detail IMHO. But if not for that latter argument, I would have reverted you. Not answering a question is not in itself reason for a revert yet on Wikipedia, and even a proven COI is not necessarily reason for a revert. Please keep this in mind. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, yeah I am not sure how to proceed there, but I am trying to work out that COI question and hoping the editor would notice. Also thinking either way that a big cut of the legal material would bring the article into better balance? I was unable to translate the refs that led to publications which were written in Hebrew language, and I can't quite figure-out the legal issues,especially since the author was explicitly charged, (in Israel), with "transformative"-use, (to disparage the original works),which, I thought was not considered plagiarism in the US at least...........I was trying to look for the author's side to try and sum it up. If you would like to change it back, have at it! But I remain convinced with your opinion that it is too weighty anyways.TeeVeeed (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some possible information which might help understand the lawsuits section. IANAL, but I have heard from one that Israeli IP law is different from US IP law in that it also includes "plagiarism" (use of material, even fair use, without attribution) as a punishable offense. Interesting how just a change of jurisdiction can be so significant, which would seem to contradict the cognitive conflation of law and ethics as seen in most of the references. Even more interesting is the fact that, in general, Israeli copyright law is more lenient than US law, and also much less widely enforced. One wonders where the judicial vitriol in these cases came from. Just shows that the court system, while the best we have, is quite stochastic. (Oh, and as an aside, two of the three references from Cross-Currents, which are incidentally rather judgemental, were authored by Jonathan Rosenblum, a Haredi Jew who might well have a slanted POV.) 192.118.27.253 (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English-language Wikipedia

What does " a total of 25 phases " mean? Perhaps notorious edit-warrior Debresser could clarify.  pablo 20:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply