Talk:XX Bomber Command

Copyright problem?

I have reversed the version of the text to one before the alleged copyright violation took place: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=XX_Bomber_Command&diff=36221787&oldid=35513386

But is it an illegal copy right violation? The text in question seems to come from this web site: http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps51153/airforcehistory/usaaf/ww2/hittinghome/hittinghomepg5.htm Which is a US Government one. The home page http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/ which homes to this one http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html. I could not find a copyright notice but I think it is in the public domain.

The link at the bottom of the wikipedia article http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/hittinghome/hittinghomepg5.htm seems to be a commercial copy of the US Government site. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the material seems to originate on the gpo.gov Web site, which doesn't claim copyright, I'd assume it is the work of a government employee and so in the public domain. (The usaaf.net site is not obviously government, which is why I copyvioed the first version.) ➥the Epopt 18:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Citations

From the history of the article 20:08, 14 January 2008 User:Doncram wrote "a tag already implies material in article is copied from a published source. Such material needs to be referenced properly: copied text needs quotation marks and in-line citations." AFAICT Wikipedia policy does not require that US Government articles be quoted see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works as the text is in the public domain and the article's paragraphs are cited --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not a matter of copyright violation, so the Copyrights policy does not address this. It is a matter of good referencing, that is addressed more in WP:REF. Even there the policy guidelines for wikipedia are not explicit on this. A discussion in its Talk page is ongoing. One point emerging in the discussion is that perhaps well-vetted public domain sources, such as the 1911 encyclopedia britannica and the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, are different than new uses of any old U.S. government website. Copied in material may seem factual and worthwhile to the copying editor, but not to others. Quoting is courteous to other editors who may not take the source as gospel truth, keeps it separate from other wikipedia editorship rewordings and new original research assertions, and avoids the appearance of plagiarism. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Call it my opinion, and the opinion of some others, then, that Wikipedia policy should be more explicit on this. And why sully the work of editors elsewhere in the article, to tag the article with generic disclaimer that the article incorporates text from the PD source, which just looks bad. doncram (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer has added more footnotes, so now there may be one at the end of each paragraph. That is better than before, giving more suggestion to the reader that it might all be copied material, which I am suspecting it is. However, that degree of referencing is appropriate for indicating that the article relies for content upon the stated source, it does not properly convey that some/all material is the actual wording of Daniel L. Haulman. Where it is his actual wording, that needs to be conveyed by quotes or block quoting. If the whole article is copied, then a) why? why not just provide one link to the source instead, and b) you can still use Block quoting. I retagged the article, now with "refimprove", which yields the following message "This article needs additional citations for verification." That's the closest tag I can find to indicate the problem, although yes the tag does not describe it exactly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs) 17:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The text is in the public domain (See Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works). It does not need to be in quotes (as that implies that it can not be changed). As it is in the public domain, there is no reason why like any other Wikipedia article the current text can not be altered and improved upon. It is cited so the {{refimprove}} tag is not appropriate, so I suggest that we add {{USGovernment}} (You will find a whole raft of these PD source templates at Category:Wikipedia sources) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am reinserting the text that was deleted for no good reason. See WP:PLAGARISM -- PBS (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)