- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Baalshillem II
The Baalshillem Temple Boy votive statue.
- ... that the coins issued by Baalshillem II, the Phoenician king of Sidon, were the first Sidonian coins to bear minting dates corresponding to the king's year of reign? Source: Elayi 2006, p.9
- ALT1:... that Baalshillem II was the first king of Sidon to engrave his coins with minting dates corresponding to his regnal year? Source: Elayi 2006, p.9
- ALT2:... that Baalshillem II, the Phoenician king of Sidon, dedicated an inscribed marble statue of crown prince Abdashtart I to the temple of Eshmun? Source: Elayi 2018, p.249
- ALT3:... that the inscriptions on the Baalshillem Temple Boy statue, dedicated by Phoenician king Baalshillem II to the temple of Eshmun, allowed scholars to identify three of the king's predecessors? Source: Elayi 2018, p.249
- Comment: qpq done
Created by Elias Ziade (talk). Self-nominated at 11:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC).
This is a copyright violation. Earwig's copyvio detector shows a contiguous block of about 390 words in an exact copy/paste of http://www.digitorient.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/2Updated%20Chronology1.pdf , together with the phrase justifying the hook, in Antiquity, based on the years of reign of the Sidonian kings
. And this is the source used for the hook! For a user claiming 14 years of experience in Wikipedia, this is difficult to understand. You cannot start with copyrighted material, modify it, and then claim that the new version has changed sufficiently that it is no longer a copyright violation.The particular copy/paste for the hook shows, once again, the reason why plagiarism is a bad idea: dropping the comma from the source makes the phrase ambiguous - without the comma, it's unclear if this is claimed to be the first event of dated coins in "Antiquity", or the first coins whose dates were based on the reigns of Sidonian kings. And why say "Antiquity"? If there were no earlier known dated coins, why not just make the simpler (stronger) claim that they were the first known coins to be dated? Is this a reference to ancient Western civilisations only? Do we know which of the three Wikipedia Antiquity#Eras definitions are being referred to?
- The first coin bearing what could be interpreted as minting date was from Sicily; it was struck almost a century earlier. Current documentation only proves that said king was the first among the Sidonian kings to include the minting date. This is why I left out the "antiquity" part as Elayi clearly specifies that Baalshillem's were the first coins to bear dates based on the regnal years of the Kings of Sidon. el.ziade (talkallam) 08:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@Elias Ziade: Since you are an experienced user, I'll leave it to you to ask for the article to be deleted and to recreate it as a fresh article. I didn't check if the 390-word section remained after edits, but it's part of the edit history, so it and any other copyright violations, such as in antiquity based on the years of reign of the Sidonian kings
, have to be deleted from the edit history unless the article is deleted in full and recreated fresh, it seems to me. Deletion and creation of a fresh article would reduce the amount of work required by copyvio volunteers ("clerks"). Boud (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Boud This is a major mishap! I am on it, please bear with me. el.ziade (talkallam) 06:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- The article was deleted and re-published. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. el.ziade (talkallam) 07:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Elias Ziade: Thanks for fixing that! New: yes; long enough: yes; hook inline referenced: yes (my comment above was about text in the Wikipedia article, not in the hook, sorry for the confusion; I've reworded the Wikipedia text by dropping the Antiquity part); generally follows Wikipedia policy (the images have survived in Commons for a long time so are unlikely to be copyvios; quite a few of the references are paywalled, but that's an annoying realpolitik necessity in Wikipedia, it's not against policy); QPQ: yes. Good to go! Boud (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- The article was deleted and re-published. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. el.ziade (talkallam) 07:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
