This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Crusading movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Crusading movement was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page contains text copied from other articles | |||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Edge3 (
talk) 03:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Norfolkbigfish ( talk). Self-nominated at 15:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Crusading movement; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Onegreatjoke, many thanks. How about these?
I find it all interesting but have been in amongst it for too long to understand what they lay reader finds interesting. So guidance is welcome. I'll be away for a couple of weeks now, so please be patient with my replies. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 11:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Onegreatjoke, thanks. I think we are getting there. How about using Levant for the geography? Alternatives would be Near East or Eastern Mediterranean, all of which are pretty much synonyms. I have also wiki-linked what I can. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 06:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: @ Norfolkbigfish: Good article, but a much better hook could definitely be made for this nomination. So i'll wait for the new hook. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
During the article's FAC review, it became apparent that the article does not meet all GA criteria: 2c. it contains original research; 2d. it contains copyright violations and plagiarism; and 3a. it does not address the main aspects of the topic. Furthermore, its prose is not clear and concise as a consequence of copyright violations and plagiarism. Although the article could be delisted without further review because it is a long way from meeting criterium 3a, and contains copyright violations, I think giving a last chance for improvement is a better approach. Of course, the article should be cleaned of copyright violations and plagiarism as soon as possible, because copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues. Borsoka ( talk) 04:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
To begin the process, I copy my remarks from the FAC review page here:
specific FAC comments
|
---|
Specific remarks
|
there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety, and maybe revert to an earlier version), #2 of WP:QF is clear that if
It contains copyright violationsit will be discounted. Multiple editors have established these issues. So: if this was a new nomination, it would literally never get off the starting blocks. Revert to last version and let more recent stuff be revdel'd? ——Serial Number 54129 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
the article needs a complete source check ... Too many issues I found with things not matching what they were sourced to. Mind ye, that had been resolved to the point of promotion six months later (non obstante, though, that it never got the source-integrity spot-check Ian Rose asked for...) ——Serial Number 54129 15:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Although the article has underwent several reviews and edits, it is still filled with plagiarism and close paraphrasing. Many cases can be read here (under section "specific FAC comments"), but I listed other cases of plagiarism and close paraphrasing from a relatively short section of the article "12th century". The below list contain both the article's text and the text of its source Borsoka ( talk) 17:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I also remark that several sentences in the section are not verified by the allegedly cited source. Borsoka ( talk) 17:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I reviewed two further (very short) sections, and found the following examples of plagiarism:
What is especially alarming, that in two cases the text in the article was copied from a source (Maier's article from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia) that is not cited which makes the detection of copyvio extremly difficult. Norfolkbigfish already used this tactic to hide his plagiarism ( [9]). I think this article should be restored as soon as possible into the redirect page it used to be before Norfolkbigfish filled it with texts copied from copyrighted material. Borsoka ( talk) 02:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
If no editor does this irksome and risky work, the article should be reduced to the original redirect page: I will defer to those with more experience of copyvio cases, but it would seem bizarre to delete an article because of evidence we assume exists but which hasn't actually been presented. UndercoverClassicist T· C 11:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I may misunderstand your above remarks, but do you say I could copy texts from the cited sources without violating any copyright law because copyright folks prefer copying to plagiarism? This could ease my work because I am not a native English speaker. Borsoka ( talk) 04:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Sennecaster, my understanding was that close paraphrasing, such as examples which have been outlined on this page and at the GAR, can constitute both plagiarism, if done without proper attribution, and copyright violations, if done excessively. Is that incorrect? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Sennecaster: thank you for openning my eyes: I am a sinful editor who was hostile towards a co-editor who was diligently copying texts from copyrighted material, thus improving Wikipedia. I promise that in the future I will never compare texts in articles with the cited sources, because I do not want to prevent the publication of copyrighted material in FAs. I hope this masterpiece of WP editorship will soon be published on the main page as a TFA. Borsoka ( talk) 05:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
In consideration of the WP:Copyright concerns I commit to rewriting and copy editing this article to ensure that I have not introduced any copyright violations or close paraphrasing. I will take Isochrone's kind advice to understand WP:close paraphrasing. I am away on holiday today but will pick this up on my return. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 06:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The first four paragraphs of this section have been rewritten to avoid any suspicion of plagaraism or close paraphrasing. These act as as introduction and flow into the later sections, touching as they do on the various reform movements of the 11th-century. As Morris writes it is difficult to distinguish between them. Sourcing has been checked and ammended where required. Nothing contained here is contentious or would trouble academics working in the area. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 22:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 13:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 16:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 10:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 22:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 10:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The introduction to this section has been rewritten to remove any suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 15:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
his section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 14:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Started Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Or rather Historiography started Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 15:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 13:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
If you indeed want to clean the article, please compare your texts with your sources before publishing your edits. Your latest edits contain unverified statements, including two whole sentences (
[14]). If you do not reveal your actual sources, no one will be able to guarantee that your text remained free of plagiarism and copyvio.
Borsoka (
talk) 02:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I have at least four times indicited that the allegedly cited sources do not verify the two tagged statements. You have always deleted my tags without addressing the problem. I must say that reviewing your articles is an especially irksome task although I have reviewed dozens of articles, including some about much more controversial subjects. Borsoka ( talk) 09:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
This was flagged failed verification with the rationale Bull writes of the mutationist modell on the cited pages. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 13:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
This was flagged with failed verification with the rationale Bull writes of the mutationist modell on the cited pages. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
This was flagged as failed verification with the rationale No similar statement can be found on the cited page Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
This was flagged as clarification required with the rationale The chronology of the events is unclear Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Despite being WP:RS, the use of this as a source has provoked some criticism. In addition the use of a concisely written source has raised the risk of copyvio and close paraphrasing. All usage of this has therefore been removed from the article, the text supported either removed or rewritten and cited to a different source. Hopefully this removes any contention. If not, all feedback is welcome. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 17:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Crusading movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Crusading movement was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page contains text copied from other articles | |||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Edge3 (
talk) 03:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Norfolkbigfish ( talk). Self-nominated at 15:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Crusading movement; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Onegreatjoke, many thanks. How about these?
I find it all interesting but have been in amongst it for too long to understand what they lay reader finds interesting. So guidance is welcome. I'll be away for a couple of weeks now, so please be patient with my replies. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 11:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Onegreatjoke, thanks. I think we are getting there. How about using Levant for the geography? Alternatives would be Near East or Eastern Mediterranean, all of which are pretty much synonyms. I have also wiki-linked what I can. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 06:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: @ Norfolkbigfish: Good article, but a much better hook could definitely be made for this nomination. So i'll wait for the new hook. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
During the article's FAC review, it became apparent that the article does not meet all GA criteria: 2c. it contains original research; 2d. it contains copyright violations and plagiarism; and 3a. it does not address the main aspects of the topic. Furthermore, its prose is not clear and concise as a consequence of copyright violations and plagiarism. Although the article could be delisted without further review because it is a long way from meeting criterium 3a, and contains copyright violations, I think giving a last chance for improvement is a better approach. Of course, the article should be cleaned of copyright violations and plagiarism as soon as possible, because copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues. Borsoka ( talk) 04:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
To begin the process, I copy my remarks from the FAC review page here:
specific FAC comments
|
---|
Specific remarks
|
there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety, and maybe revert to an earlier version), #2 of WP:QF is clear that if
It contains copyright violationsit will be discounted. Multiple editors have established these issues. So: if this was a new nomination, it would literally never get off the starting blocks. Revert to last version and let more recent stuff be revdel'd? ——Serial Number 54129 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
the article needs a complete source check ... Too many issues I found with things not matching what they were sourced to. Mind ye, that had been resolved to the point of promotion six months later (non obstante, though, that it never got the source-integrity spot-check Ian Rose asked for...) ——Serial Number 54129 15:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Although the article has underwent several reviews and edits, it is still filled with plagiarism and close paraphrasing. Many cases can be read here (under section "specific FAC comments"), but I listed other cases of plagiarism and close paraphrasing from a relatively short section of the article "12th century". The below list contain both the article's text and the text of its source Borsoka ( talk) 17:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I also remark that several sentences in the section are not verified by the allegedly cited source. Borsoka ( talk) 17:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I reviewed two further (very short) sections, and found the following examples of plagiarism:
What is especially alarming, that in two cases the text in the article was copied from a source (Maier's article from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia) that is not cited which makes the detection of copyvio extremly difficult. Norfolkbigfish already used this tactic to hide his plagiarism ( [9]). I think this article should be restored as soon as possible into the redirect page it used to be before Norfolkbigfish filled it with texts copied from copyrighted material. Borsoka ( talk) 02:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
If no editor does this irksome and risky work, the article should be reduced to the original redirect page: I will defer to those with more experience of copyvio cases, but it would seem bizarre to delete an article because of evidence we assume exists but which hasn't actually been presented. UndercoverClassicist T· C 11:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I may misunderstand your above remarks, but do you say I could copy texts from the cited sources without violating any copyright law because copyright folks prefer copying to plagiarism? This could ease my work because I am not a native English speaker. Borsoka ( talk) 04:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Sennecaster, my understanding was that close paraphrasing, such as examples which have been outlined on this page and at the GAR, can constitute both plagiarism, if done without proper attribution, and copyright violations, if done excessively. Is that incorrect? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Sennecaster: thank you for openning my eyes: I am a sinful editor who was hostile towards a co-editor who was diligently copying texts from copyrighted material, thus improving Wikipedia. I promise that in the future I will never compare texts in articles with the cited sources, because I do not want to prevent the publication of copyrighted material in FAs. I hope this masterpiece of WP editorship will soon be published on the main page as a TFA. Borsoka ( talk) 05:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
In consideration of the WP:Copyright concerns I commit to rewriting and copy editing this article to ensure that I have not introduced any copyright violations or close paraphrasing. I will take Isochrone's kind advice to understand WP:close paraphrasing. I am away on holiday today but will pick this up on my return. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 06:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The first four paragraphs of this section have been rewritten to avoid any suspicion of plagaraism or close paraphrasing. These act as as introduction and flow into the later sections, touching as they do on the various reform movements of the 11th-century. As Morris writes it is difficult to distinguish between them. Sourcing has been checked and ammended where required. Nothing contained here is contentious or would trouble academics working in the area. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 22:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 13:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 16:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 10:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 22:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
This section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 10:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The introduction to this section has been rewritten to remove any suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 15:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
his section has been rewritten to remove suspicion of copyvio. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 14:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Started Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Or rather Historiography started Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 15:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 13:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
If you indeed want to clean the article, please compare your texts with your sources before publishing your edits. Your latest edits contain unverified statements, including two whole sentences (
[14]). If you do not reveal your actual sources, no one will be able to guarantee that your text remained free of plagiarism and copyvio.
Borsoka (
talk) 02:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I have at least four times indicited that the allegedly cited sources do not verify the two tagged statements. You have always deleted my tags without addressing the problem. I must say that reviewing your articles is an especially irksome task although I have reviewed dozens of articles, including some about much more controversial subjects. Borsoka ( talk) 09:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
This was flagged failed verification with the rationale Bull writes of the mutationist modell on the cited pages. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 13:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
This was flagged with failed verification with the rationale Bull writes of the mutationist modell on the cited pages. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
This was flagged as failed verification with the rationale No similar statement can be found on the cited page Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
This was flagged as clarification required with the rationale The chronology of the events is unclear Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Despite being WP:RS, the use of this as a source has provoked some criticism. In addition the use of a concisely written source has raised the risk of copyvio and close paraphrasing. All usage of this has therefore been removed from the article, the text supported either removed or rewritten and cited to a different source. Hopefully this removes any contention. If not, all feedback is welcome. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 17:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)