Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:10, 29 July 2015

Greece C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek geography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islands C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

A fact from Zourafa appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 July 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that an icon of Saint Nicholas was installed on the new lighthouse at Zourafa, a Natura 2000-designated Greek rock in the northeastern Aegean Sea? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2015/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zourafa.

Not an interwiki

I've just removed a tag from this page claiming that the article is a copy of el:Ζουράφα. I've reviewed both articles and cannot find any evidence of content plagiarised from the Greek article. There is some overlap between sources (as would be expected), so some facts are cited in both articles. Many articles about Greek islands mention the etymology, the geography and any notable features, so it's not surprising that those topics are covered here. I feel that the burden rests with anyone claiming that plagiarism has taken place to substantiate such a claim. --RexxS (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The tag is not about plagiarism, but to give attribution to the original source in the spirit of CC-BY-SA-3. The en article is most certainly based on the Greek one, as not only it is a translation of most of it's parts, but uses the same sources as well, and it isn't an issue of some accidental overlap. As I wrote the original el article after doing a lot of research, I know it inside and out. If you do not agree with the above please discuss first. Gts-tg (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the article is "most certainly based on the Greek one" and that "it is a translation of most of it's parts". You need to adduce evidence of those claims because they are not substantiated by a comparison of the two articles. When two articles use a number of the same sources, it's obvious that they will contain a number of the same facts. That is the only overlap I can find between this article and the Greek one. Use of the same sources certainly does not require attribution, as the part of an editor's contribution that is copyrightable is the creative expression using in the wording. There is no evidence that any such creative wording has been taken from the Greek article and used here.

When you placed the tag, you made the claim that the original author passed off some else's work as their own by failing to attribute. That is the definition of plagiarism, and for you to make such a claim is a serious matter: it is sanctionable to make unsubstantiated allegations of that sort about another editor. Did you even bother to ask the original author of this article if they had taken someone else's material from the Greek article? I can see from your contributions that you did not. Why not?

So I will remove the tag and I expect you to provide clear evidence that the material was copied. And please don't rudely ask me to "discuss first" when I initiated this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexxS (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 July 2015‎

You removed the tag without talking first, so please be more frugal when using words like rudely and tone it down a bit. This is a translation of the el article, anybody that can read both languages, or even do an automated translation can see this. You can do all the wikilawyering in the world but it will not change this fact. The only way for the tag to be removed is to actually have the majority of the article have original content. Gts-tg (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not a translation of the Greek article. I was looking for good-quality articles in foreign languages that we're missing from en.wiki, and I did read the Greek article, but I did not translate any part of it. I was negligibly inspired by the Greek article. It is impossible for the "majority of the article to have original content", since they both cover the same bleeding topic. What would you like me to do, pretend that it lies in the Adriatic Sea? Alakzi (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi it does not need to be a 100% translation of the article in order to incorporate content from it. Why is this such a big trouble for you to accept? There are sources and sentences that have been taken verbatim from the el article. It's NOT a bad thing to have done so, but seriously don't you feel the need to provide attribution where it is due? I can see that you have incorporated some original content of your own as well, however this does not change the fact that there is content being included from the el article. Why is it so bad to have a tiny tag in the discussion page to indicate so? Also I will not reply further to user RexxS as he comes on way too aggressive and looks like he is looking for trouble. Gts-tg (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Which sentences have been lifted from the Greek article? Alakzi (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, (compare against revision oldid 670577191) the bits on the northeasternmost location in intro, Name section, and information on Geography. Also the first 4 sources (ones in Greek) are the ones that get reused the most and give the bulk of the info. We are a collaborative project and I really do not feel it is fitting to the nature of the project to go over pinpointing lines and sources being reused (I believe it is evident that content and info have been reused), as if we are deciding on whether a non-free license has been violated, instead of simply courteously acknowledging that yes, some parts were taken from the el article because it is free content, to share, adapt, change altogether, even for commercial purposes. I would like to note that I prefer to continue conversation with you rather than with RexxS who I find to be too quarrelsome to have a discussion with. If you feel I wronged you by placing the tag in question, I have explained my position above, which is that it is not a bad thing to adapt some content from free sources, on the contrary this is what free sources are about, and I am happy that someone else used a part of my work to further build on it. All I am asking is a simple acknowledgement that some content was incorporated from the el article, that's all and nothing more. Gts-tg (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

First off, sources are not content; we do not attribute reuse of sources. I've used the University of the Aegean overview - which, incidentally, is the second result on Google for "Ζουράφα" - as a primer. All of the similarities can easily be attributed to our use of this source. I have not copied any part of the Greek article. I do not understand why you insist that I have. Alakzi (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The intro:

• English: It is part of the Thracian Sporades archipelago and is the northeastern-most Greek possession in the Aegean.
• Greek: It is part of the protected areas of pan-European NATURA program , and is the northeastern edge of the Thracian Sporades and the Greek territorial seas.

1. Papaïoannou, Sofia (19 June 2011). "Η Αγκυρα αμφισβητεί το... μισό Αιγαίο". I Kathimerini (in Greek). Retrieved 7 July 2015.
2. "Προστατευόμενες περιοχές NATURA - Περιφερειακή Ενότητα Έβρου / Περιφέρεια Ανατολικής Μακεδονίας και Θράκης".
3. Θ. Σ. Λιάτης (Ιούνιος 2013). "Οι έρευνες για κοιτάσματα υδρογονανθράκων στην Ελλάδα" (PDF). Χημικά Χρονικά-Ένωση Ελλήνων Χημικών: 21. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

• The source used in the English article states: Another important disputed island is Zourafa, 6 nautical miles from the island of Samothrace in the Thracian Sea, which forms the eastern boundary of the North Sea, the end of the Greek territory, and also of the EU.
• The corresponding source used in the Greek article states: ... we refer to the island of Zourafa, better known as Ladoxeras, known as the

most eastern border of the North Grecian Sea, which is the most north-eastern island of Thracian Sporades. Nobody, except Gts-tg, could possibly draw the conclusion that the former text was copied from the latter.

The Name section in English is clearly different from the Names and etymology section the Greek article: They cover much the same sources, but in a different order and with such different sentence construction that they are obviously different editors' interpretations of similar sources. Alakzi mentions the Piri Reis map; Gts-tg refers to the explorer, Piri Reis, and so on.

The Geography section in English describes the location and area, then the erosion, volcanic origin, navigation, and disputed ownership. The Greek article's section is Geography and geographic significance and discusses erosion first, next its importance as a marine boundary with Turkey and its disputed status, then its distance from other nearby landmarks, and finally the oil deposits.

Frankly, it is laughable to assert that the English article is copied from the Greek. Gts-tg needs to understand that he's not the only editor capable of reading sources and composing an article based on them. There is no doubt that Alakzi independently researched and wrote this article and Gts-tg's tendentious claims that it is his unattributed work are an attack on Alakzi's integrity and should not be tolerated. --RexxS (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gts-tg: Let me make this clear: you are completely wrong to claim that I removed the tag without talking first. My removal of the tag and my opening of this section were consecutive edits within minutes of each other. The rudeness is all on your part as you have accused another editor of plagiarism without evidence and insulted me by making nonsensical claims like "not talking first". What is true is that you placed the tag without talking first - either here or to the original author who has just confirmed that he did not copy the Greek article. This article is clearly not a translation by any stretch of the imagination - feel free to ask for a third opinion if you don't accept my word for it. --RexxS (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Before continuing here and on Dispute resolution (where I commented in more detail): can we please clarify what {{interwiki copy}} means, and how it compares to {{translated}}, and why any tag would be needed for two independently developed articles which cover the same topic and naturally have some content in common. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. To my understanding, the {{interwiki copy}} template as per the text it displays means that content has been incorporated from another source, in the particular case another source hosted in another Wikimedia Foundation project. The incorporated content needs not necessarily be translated, but incorporated one way or another, so it is not something that is tied to translation. Topics may naturally have some content in common, however I maintain that this is not the case here due to the novelty of the subject (literally a tiny rocky islet) where there are some very specific sources the el article has assembled and are being reused here, as well as some other information (i.e. facts and phrases) as pointed above. As I pointed out before, all I am asking is a simple acknowledgment that the el article provided a base for the en article to be built on, and incorporated some content from, which I believe is reasonable and straightforward thing to do. This is all the tag is being used for in here. Gts-tg (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen this tag ever. Looks to my that it's useful for copies (!) from another Wikimedia page, not simply translations from an article from a different language Wikipedia where "translated" would suffice IF translated. Here - nothing copied, nothing translated - the tag serves no reasonable purpose, imho, and the time spent arguing about almost nothing could have been put to better use in article improvement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Gts-tg: On the contrary, you are asking that this article acknowledges you as its the author of some of its content. That is simply untrue and the tag (which specifically refers to copying from another wiki) has a link to the list of other authors - i.e. you. This whole dispute is fuelled by your insistence that anybody who writes an article about one of your pet subjects must have copied it from you. --RexxS (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, Alakzi and RexxS, it is highly regrettable that the very simple task of providing a discrete attribution to the initial source that was used as a base for building the article, has evolved to scrutinizing the nuts and bolts of the article to see what has been used and what not, as if we are researching copyright infringement instead of one free work starting off from another. Or as if the el article was invisible to the original author of the en article, a fully free source to get information from, and he did not use any of it or translated anything, although there is information and sources taken from the el article. Or that I am requesting that attribution is provided personally to me (for one of my ...pet projects as Rexx mentions), where if this was the case I wouldn't even have opted to make it available under a free licence and a pseudonym via Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is a consensus based project, and as the consensus stands now it is in favour of not having the tag present. As such, I feel that I have presented the case to the best of my ability and information, but the community does not share the same view, and therefore I will not continue to maintain the tag. If anyone else joins the conversation and feels otherwise, or I am asked about further feedback, I will then resume. I feel disappointed by en wiki, in particular by Rexx who ignited the conversation by making personal remarks against me instead of attempting to reach an understanding; with regards to users Alaktzi and Gerda, I feel that they do not comprehend the purpose of the tag/attribution in the particular case and misunderstand it for something else. As I have not been able to convince them, and given the weight of their feedback as a group, this is the community we want to have, so this is the community we are getting. Thanks for your participation so far. Gts-tg (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• C-Class Greek articles
• Low-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece geography articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• C-Class Islands articles
• WikiProject Islands articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles