Talk:Fred D. Shepard

Close Paraphrasing

This article may be a problem under our copyright policies, since the text seems very closely paraphrased from the sources. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following:

"Dr. Fred Shepard of the American hospital at Aintab submitted to Morgenthau and the secretary of state a similar report. The residents of Zeitun and neighboring villages, nearly 26,500 people, were deported, 5,000 of whom were sent to Konya, 5,500 to Aleppo"

The article says:

"Shepard reported to Henry Morgenthau, the American Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, that in Zeitun and neighboring villages alone, 26,500 Armenians were deported with many of them being sent to Aleppo."

There may be other passages that similarly follow quite closely.

As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch.

As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. So that we can be sure it does not constitute a derivative work, this article should be revised to separate it further from its source. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". --AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

AbtrastIllusions (talk · contribs), didn't find that much of an issue. There's only about 4-5 words that are similar. Nevertheless, I edited it just to be safe. As for the rest of the article, the sources are all in PD anyways. I will remove the tag if there are no objections. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Do what you want. I'm just doing a little bit to try and improve the project, but trying to clean up your mess is by far the least fun thing I do in life, and I'm sick of that. So I'm not going to follow this up or comb over every sentence. I'm going to get back to my editing. The first sentence I checked came up as close paraphrased (if you don't see how it is derivative, that is my whole point) after I had tried to work with you. But whatever. AbstractIllusions (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

AbstractIllusions (talk · contribs), I have been really appreciative of your time and effort you have taken to help improve my articles and assist me in becoming a better editor. This has truly helped me a lot. I'm not denying there are problems that exist with my edits either. You told me that "A good rule of thumb I try to use is 4 words: if you have 4 words the exact same as the source that is either plagiarism or close paraphrasing." This is advice I've been carrying with me since you gave it to me. We've worked well together, I'm sure we can continue to do so. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As for this article, I have once again gone through every non-PD source. It is pretty much clear of any paraphrasing issues. I will remove the tag if there are no objections. I will give at least 12 hours for a reply. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)