Talk:James Vorenberg

Comment

I've sourced this short article to ten different sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of text

Hi. The problem is that the bot detected literal duplication of a previously published source. I ran the final article through a mechanical copyright detector, too, and it probably picked up the same problem. Referring back to the article's foundation:

Vorenberg received the A.B. magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1948, and J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1951, where he received the Sears Prize for the highest grades in his first year class and served as president of the Harvard Law Review.

...is just almost word-for-word copied from [1]:

Vorenberg received the A.B. degree magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1948 and the J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1951, where he received the Sears Prize for the highest grades in his first year class and served as president of the Harvard Law Review.

There's no way that such minimal taking would rise to the level of copyright violation in the US court's that govern Wikipedia, but Wikipedia's policies on reusing previously published text are pretty clear that in order to copy non-free content (such as this), we must clearly note it with quotation marks or block quote as well as citing the source. Of course, quotations must be brief and used for good purpose.

I've removed this text for now. Please feel to restore it with different language. It's a pain, I know, but it's required by policy. I don't see any other issues at all, but if you happen to have copied even such small bits of content from elsewhere, please be sure to just properly do so under the guidelines at WP:NFC.

I'll mark this one resolved at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. While I think the above is a misinterpretation of the whether it is violation of Wikipedida's policies given the sourcing to other sources in the text that was deleted, since the article and the project are better served by the language being reinserted in quotes than by it being deleted, and since we are better served by not belaboring this mild issue, I've reinserted it with quotes as silly as that appears to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to quote, from Wikipedia:Copyrights: "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. Generally, Wikipedia must have permission to use copyrighted works. There are some circumstances under which copyrighted works may be legally utilized without permission; see Wikipedia:Non-free content for specific details on when and how to utilize such material." WP:NFCC says the following about text: "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author." WP:NFC says, "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."

It is a problem under Wikipedia's policies to incorporate non-free text, unless it is clearly marked. Moreover, as I said above, it must be used for good purpose. You can't just put quotation marks around somebody else's words and use them because you want to, even if it's the easiest way to convey the information from your source. Quotations need to serve a function, such as illustrating a point, establishing context, or attributing a point of view or idea. Please feel free to restore the text with different language or to introduce it in such a way that it's clear why you must incorporate this non-free text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't typically have time to revise the issues tagged as copyright concerns these days, but this is only one small amount of text. I've rewritten it for you. We can retain the information in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's policies on reuse of copyrighted content. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Tx, but isn't it synth to say it was successful? Aren't we just supposed to say what the RS says?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I added "academically", as I think that should be pretty clear. You're right that there are other forms of success, and we don't know that he achieved those. :) If you still have concerns, changing "as" to "in that" ought to eliminate any potential confusion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll avoid discussion as to how his failing to qualify for the law school's Moot Court Competition that year was the biggest disappointment of his academic career, and a close second was his failure as a 1L to impress his professors in academic classroom discussion, at which he was regularly embarassed by the Socratic method ... thank god for anonymous grading at HLS.  :-) --Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)