Template:Did you know nominations/Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Nova N 176
- The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Nova N 176 edit
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that the only known complete manuscript written in the extinct Khitan language was identified in the collection of the Saint Petersburg Institute of Oriental Manuscripts (pictured), in 2010?
Created/expanded by BabelStone (talk). Self nom at 23:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
2 new articles, sufficient length, well-referenced, no close paraphrasing noticed (including the parts referenced with Russian sources), interesting, hook size is within limits. Very good and beautiful work. Image added to the nomination. GreyHood Talk 23:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that some of the phrasing used in this article might be too close to that of this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- In the current climate of fear and paranoia over plagiarism and close paraphrasing at DYK I tried to be especially careful to summarize the sources in my own words, but I would of course be happy to rewrite any parts of the article that I have inadvertently paraphrased too closely. However, I've just put the article and the source you mention into the Duplicate Detector, and I cannot see any examples in the results that could be construed as plagiarism or which I would consider to be too close paraphrasing. Could you please list any specific examples of over-close phrasing that concern you? BabelStone (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly. Please be aware that tools such as Duplication Detector are extremely limited in their capabilities as they don't have the intelligence to catch problems beyond verbatim copying. Compare for example "the Russian Academy of Sciences decided to purchase a collection of about 700 Arabic manuscripts from Jean-Baptiste Louis-Jacques Rousseau (1780–1831), French consul at Aleppo and Tripoli" with "the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) decided to buy a collection of 700 Muslim manuscripts from the French consul in Aleppo and Tripoli, J.L. Rousseau" - slight re-arrangement and synonym substitution but still very close, coupled with a confusion of Arabic vs Muslim. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that there is any problem whatsoever with the example you give. As editors, we seem to often end up in the Catch-22 situation that all facts must be sourced but if the stated facts in the Wikipedia article actually match the facts given in the sources we are accused of copying. The Wikipedia text is necessarily close to its source because it presents the same factual details that are given in the source, and titles such as "Russian Academy of Sciences" and "French consul in Aleppo and Tripoli" cannot be arbitrarily changed to something else; nor can essential facts such as there being about 700 Muslim manuscripts written in the Arabic script (not a confusion, but a deliberate change in perspective from the source) be sensibly changed to anything else. The "slight re-arrangement and synonym substitution" which you disparagingly mention are the tools of paraphrasing required to accurately present the factual details given in the source, and I have no qualms about using the same sentence structure as the source when that gives the most natural and readable English. In my opinion, to suggest that the Wikipedia text as written by myself somehow infringes copyright or is morally or ethically substandard defies common sense and shows a lack of sense of proportion. I maintain that there is nothing wrong with paraphrasing "In November 1818, the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) decided to buy a collection of 700 Muslim manuscripts from the French consul in Aleppo and Tripoli, J.L. Rousseau, a relative of the famous philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau." as "The origins of the IOM date back to 1818, when the Russian Academy of Sciences decided to purchase a collection of about 700 Arabic manuscripts from Jean-Baptiste Louis-Jacques Rousseau (1780–1831), French consul at Aleppo and Tripoli (then both part of the Ottoman Empire)." (notice how the Wikipedia text diverges significantly from the source when you give the complete sentences), but this is Wikipedia, so if you have issues with it you are of course welcome to copy edit the article as you see fit. BabelStone (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I still maintain that close paraphrasing is not a problem with this article, but to satisfy doubt I have copy edited the article to remove any close phrasing that I could find, including the example given by Nikkimaria above. BabelStone (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that there is any problem whatsoever with the example you give. As editors, we seem to often end up in the Catch-22 situation that all facts must be sourced but if the stated facts in the Wikipedia article actually match the facts given in the sources we are accused of copying. The Wikipedia text is necessarily close to its source because it presents the same factual details that are given in the source, and titles such as "Russian Academy of Sciences" and "French consul in Aleppo and Tripoli" cannot be arbitrarily changed to something else; nor can essential facts such as there being about 700 Muslim manuscripts written in the Arabic script (not a confusion, but a deliberate change in perspective from the source) be sensibly changed to anything else. The "slight re-arrangement and synonym substitution" which you disparagingly mention are the tools of paraphrasing required to accurately present the factual details given in the source, and I have no qualms about using the same sentence structure as the source when that gives the most natural and readable English. In my opinion, to suggest that the Wikipedia text as written by myself somehow infringes copyright or is morally or ethically substandard defies common sense and shows a lack of sense of proportion. I maintain that there is nothing wrong with paraphrasing "In November 1818, the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) decided to buy a collection of 700 Muslim manuscripts from the French consul in Aleppo and Tripoli, J.L. Rousseau, a relative of the famous philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau." as "The origins of the IOM date back to 1818, when the Russian Academy of Sciences decided to purchase a collection of about 700 Arabic manuscripts from Jean-Baptiste Louis-Jacques Rousseau (1780–1831), French consul at Aleppo and Tripoli (then both part of the Ottoman Empire)." (notice how the Wikipedia text diverges significantly from the source when you give the complete sentences), but this is Wikipedia, so if you have issues with it you are of course welcome to copy edit the article as you see fit. BabelStone (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly. Please be aware that tools such as Duplication Detector are extremely limited in their capabilities as they don't have the intelligence to catch problems beyond verbatim copying. Compare for example "the Russian Academy of Sciences decided to purchase a collection of about 700 Arabic manuscripts from Jean-Baptiste Louis-Jacques Rousseau (1780–1831), French consul at Aleppo and Tripoli" with "the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) decided to buy a collection of 700 Muslim manuscripts from the French consul in Aleppo and Tripoli, J.L. Rousseau" - slight re-arrangement and synonym substitution but still very close, coupled with a confusion of Arabic vs Muslim. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by this. Zaytsev 2011 is given in the "References" section of Nova N 176 and cited numerous times in that article, as indicated in the "Footnotes" section of that article. BabelStone (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Click on one ref. References 3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,18 don't point to an citation. Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 11:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)