GaryB127

May 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Gottschalk v. Benson, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

5/30/18 Cordless Larry, Thank you for your help identifying problems with my adding a note to an existing Wikipedia article. Two things seem clear: 1) My initial attempt stated opinions and other unsupported text. I can rewrite or delete these. 2) The Canadian patent is “tangential to the US Supreme Court case.” Yes, but so are other citings mentioned in Gottschalk v. Benson, such as Bilski v. Kappos and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. The subject matter in those citings is similar to those in Gottschalk v. Benson, whereas in the Canadian patent, the subject matter is identical. Finally, unless a new section would be more suitable, it seems that the Notes section is an appropriate section for mentioning the Canadian patent.

I propose the following rewrite to be included in the Note section of Gottschalk v. Benson:

• The Canadian Patent Office (now Canadian Intellectual Property Office) issued the Benson-Tabbot patent (patent document number 732763) on April 19, 1966. [1]

Would this be consistent with Wikipedia policy? GaryB127 (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

GaryB127, the real problem is that this is your original research, at east as you present it. It looks like you've researched what the equivalent Canadian patent was, and are publishing what you've discovered to Wikipedia. That's contrary to our no original research policy. Generally, things should not be published for the first time in Wikipedia; Wikipedia brings together material already published elsewhere.

Now, if there were a patent law textbook or a law review article that commented on the differences between US and Canadian patent law in this regard, and noted the existence of an equivalent Canadian patent, that would be good to source; and in that case, you may also want to include a link to the Canadian patent record itself as an additional reference, for the convenience of the reader who wants access to that original material. (You'll often see this in articles on legal topics; a statement of what a court held, supported by a news report, but also with a second link to the court document itself.)

But the gist of the policy is, if no one else has published the fact that Benson had an equivalent patent in Canada, Wikipedia is not where that observation should first appear. TJRC (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi GaryB127! You created a thread called Adding a Note to a Wikipedia Article at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by User:Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)