Talk:Peter Dale Scott

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=b|blp=yes|listas=Scott, Peter Dale|

{{WikiProject Biography}}

{{WikiProject Poetry}}

}}

Untitled

The entry before I modified it contained unsourced POV and failed to mention major publications of the subject. I have modified it to correct those failings.

Document comparison

Oh, but I don't.

Oh, but you did. I did a simple comparison using Microsoft Word's Compare Documents feature, and the UC bio [http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/] and Brainhell's versions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Dale_Scott&diff=34391060&oldid=32565751] are essentially identical. The differences are:

BH:

  • added "emeritus" to the first sentence.
  • added the sentence "Scott is currently completing a book with the working title The Road To 9/11" at the end of the second graf.
  • changed "chief" to "most notable" in the third graf.
  • changed, in the fourth graf:

:"...Vietnam and Gulf Wars, he was a co-" to

:"...Vietnam War and the first Gulf War, he was a co"

  • added the sentence "His poetry can be thick with investigative detail, citing a mix of documents that Scott has obtained in his research, and often requires footnotes amid the stanzas."
  • deleted a couple of sentences, including one written in the first person.

Minor differences, so by any reasonable definition, it's a straight-up copy. Substantially different? Not even close. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

: Oh, but you compared the Revision as of 18:55, 8 January 2006, a mere draft, rather than my final on Jan 10 ... and you didn't bother to examine the version Rhobite blocked. Even the version you examined is very substantially different from Scott's page. Your 'comparison' is factually wrong. Why? Brainhell 14:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

::This is a comparison between your first January 8 edit and your last January 9 edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Dale_Scott&diff=34562487&oldid=34391060]. As you can see, all you did was add a single sentence and some wikilinks. That is not a significant change. And this is a comparison between your last January 9 version and the version preceding my copyvio notice: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Dale_Scott&diff=47970758&oldid=34562487]. Clearly there have been no substantial changes to the text since you copied Scott's page into Wikipedia. Rhobite 15:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

: And when you some day compare Scott's page and the version you blocked, you'll see vast differences. Give it a try. Brainhell 15:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

::I did compare Scott's page to the April 11 version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Dale_Scott&oldid=47970758], and all I found were minor differences such as the addition of "emeritus" and the addition of the single sentence "His poetry can be thick with investigative detail..." can you please explain how inserting a couple sentences constitutes a "vast difference"? And once again, I didn't 'block' any version of the article. Please get your terminology straight. Rhobite 20:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

::This is a sentence-by-sentence analysis of differences between Scott's official page and the April 11 version:

:::"Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a poet, writer, and researcher." Exact copy, except "emeritus" was added.

:::"His prose books include The War Conspiracy (1972), The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (in collaboration, 1976), Crime and Cover-Up: The CIA, the Mafia, and the Dallas-Watergate Connection (1977), The Iran-Contra Connection (in collaboration, 1987), Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (in collaboration, 1991, 1998), Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993, 1996), Deep Politics Two (from JFKLancer, 1995), and Drugs Oil and War (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, March 2003)" Exact copy from Scott's page, except for formatting.

:::"Scott is currently completing a book with the working title 'The Road To 9/11.'" This sentence was added to the Wikipedia article.

:::"His chief poetry books are the three volumes of his trilogy Seculum: Coming to Jakarta: A Poem About Terror (1989), Listening to the Candle: A Poem on Impulse (1992), and Minding the Darkness: A Poem for the Year 2000." Exact copy, except 'chief' is now 'most notable'.

:::"In November 2002 he was awarded the Lannan Poetry Award." Exact copy.

:::"An anti-war speaker during the Vietnam and Gulf Wars, he was a co-founder of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at UC Berkeley, and of the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA)." Exact copy except for minor sentence structure.

:::"His poetry has dealt with both his experience and his research, the latter of which has centered on U.S. covert operations, their impact on democracy at home and abroad, and their relations to the John F. Kennedy assassination and the global drug traffic." Exact copy, except "his" changed to "Scott's".

:::"The poet-critic Robert Hass has written (Agni, 31/32, p. 335) that "Coming to Jakarta is the most important political poem to appear in the English language in a very long time."" Exact copy.

::Please explain how changing a couple words around and deleting a couple sentences is a "vast difference". Rhobite 20:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually I was wrong: the version I compared WAS Brainhell's final, quote unquote -- which is almost identical (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Dale_Scott&diff=34562487&oldid=34391060 here]) with his plagarized "draft", where he began by stealing someone's work and tried to pass it off as his own. So, in fact, I "gave it a try" -- and the only way to assume good faith on his part is to assume that he's using a strange new meaning of the term "vast" I was previously unaware of.

:::It's plagiarism at the beginning and plagiarism at the end, with barely even a token attempt to disguise the theft, and Brainhell's assumption that enough arrogance and handwaving will paper over that inconvenient fact is breathtaking. All the energy he's spent defending his theft could have been put into actually writing an actual draft in his own words. Give it try. --Calton | Talk 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The subject has waived copyright on his page. Rhobite's issue was copyrigt. Issue gone. The attempt to transition to 'plagiarism' is not relevant. The Temp draft is unimpressive. Show me a way other than chronological to list an author's books. Is there a better way to describe his career than in the blocked draft? No. Again, 'plagiarism' is not the issue. The issue should be whether the blocked version is a good description of this person. I believe it is better than the Temp. That leaves Rhobite's only issue, copyright, which has been mooted. Please be advised that words like "stealing" and "arrogance" might violate Wikipedia's flame policy, and keep it to the issue at hand: copyright. Brainhell 03:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

::1) The subject has waived copyright on his page This has been explained to you -- more than once -- but let's try again: if Scott retains the "non-commercial" clause, then he has not, in fact, waived copyright, he has granted a limited -- and incompatible with GFPL - license. What part of that are you having trouble parsing?

::2) The issue should be whether the blocked version is a good description of this person. Not even wrong, as Wolfgang Pauli once famously said about a particularly bogus theory. You copied the material: that's called "plagiarism" -- or theft of intellectual property -- and no amount of self-righteous handwaving and weird non-sequitors changes that simple fact. Try to change the subject if you like, but "stealing" is a perfectly apt description of what you did, no matter how much you try to take refuge in "Wikipedia's flame policy". Would like to try a moral justification for your action, or will you continue with the pseudo-legalistic rationalizations? Or perhaps you might actually try, using you own words, to write an original biographic sketch. If you're incapable, let us know, so we can put out a call for someone who can.

::So congratulations, you've used up your allotment of WP:AGF, and can now be safely ignored. --Calton | Talk 08:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

:I came across this out of left field, as it were, but there does seem to be two related issues. It isn't obvious that Prof. Scott's disclaimer would be a copyright "waiver" - if it isn't copyrighted, does the restriction against use for "private gain" have any effective basis? If so, it might be possible that legal uses of Wikipedia material in general might fall afoul of this restriction for this text in particular. If the "private gain" clause is merely a rhetorical flourish and the text can be considered without copyright, then this may not be a problem, but it does seem to be a valid issue involving the GFDL and copyrights; presumably another admin or two with experience in this area could be found to weigh in if necessary.

:But setting that aside, the main issue seems to be whether copying large chunks of text directly from Prof. Scott's own material makes for a good Wikipedia article. I would argue that it doesn't (and presumably Prof. Scott would have frowned upon this in his own students' papers!). Surely the same information could be rewritten in other words, and hopefully additional information discovered and included. If nothing else, the family information (which for some reason was not copied with the rest of the text) indicates that Peter Dale Scott is the son of F.R. Scott, a notable Canadian with his own Wikipedia entry that should be linked to. David Oberst 06:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

::All that makes sense: unfortunately, User:Brainhell would rather expend the energy playing junior-league Perry Mason. Rhobite has taken the time to actually start the process, so perhaps, if you have an interest, you could take a stab at it? --Calton | Talk 08:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Disregarding the personal attacks, I note that the sole issue that blocks the content to date is copyright. A question for you, Rhobite: If the subject's page were to be licensed under GDFL, would you permit the most recent version of the article to be restored? Brainhell 21:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

:Once again, I have no power to permit or deny anything on Wikipedia. However if the home page was licensed under the GFDL, I would not object to using it as a starting point for this biography, with proper attribution. Rhobite 21:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Temp page move

I have looked at the article and agree with those above that it constitutes an excellent example of copyright violation. Therefore, I have decided to be bold and move the content developing at the temp page to the article. — Scm83x hook 'em 03:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not 100% sure about the procedure for closing WP:CP listings, but shouldn't the old revisions be deleted? Rhobite 03:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being bold Scm83x. I deleted the old revisions and moved it properly. I'll leave the talk page at Talk:Peter Dale Scott/Temp unless anyone can think of something better to do with it. Chick Bowen 04:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks, Chick. This was my first time doing this period, much less as an admin. I'll look over how you made the move to make sure I do it properly in the future. Thanks so much. — Scm83x hook 'em 04:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

> I have decided to be bold and move the content developing at the temp page to the article.

Good start, but it needs work. I'll be happy to contribute later. Brainhell 16:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the link to his father (F.R. Scott) and a couple of other lines. I deleted the phrase "Scott was a diplomat with the Canadian mission and gained first-hand knowledge of the conflict" - his [http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/cv.html CV] doesn't mention being in Indonesia during his Foreign Service days, and he was on the Berkeley faculty from 1961 (Sukarno fell in 1965), so I assume this was an assumption by the writer? David Oberst 17:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)