Jump to content

Talk:Victor Schnirelmann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revert

[edit]

This revert: [1] restored duplicate listings in bibliography, plus a dead link: [2], and a copyvio link: [3]. The book called Быть аланами. Интеллектуалы и политика на Северном Кавказе в XX веке. М.: НЛО, 2006. 690 стр. is the same as Шнирельман В. А. «Быть аланами. Интеллектуалы и политика на Северном Кавказе в XX веке». Why should the article have the same book listed twice, considering that the online link in the second listing is dead? And checking the dead link at waybackmachine, I can see that they posted the whole book online without any permission from the author: [4] As for the item Шнирельман В. А. Албанский миф, Войны памяти. Мифы, идентичность и политика в Закавказье, it is just a chapter from the book called Войны памяти: мифы, идентичность и политика в Закавказье. М.: ИКЦ Академкнига, 2003. 592 стр., which is already listed, and the chapter has never been published as a separate publication. The online link is also a copyvio, and should not be in the article, because it is placed online without an explicit permission from the author. I think restoring duplicate items is pointless, and inclusion of the links to the copyvio material is not acceptable per WP:ELNEVER. Grandmaster 20:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about copyvio. Publication of this passage has never been challenged by the author all this time. Vexi is free resource, they surely know about copyright issues. Zimmarod (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Challenged or not, I see no mention of any permission by the author there. I highly doubt that he would post a whole chapter from his book on a free resource, without making any explicit statement about that. The author does not have to challenge every copyright violation for us to be aware of the potential copyvio issues. Vehi is just a website where various texts are posted, and copyright status of some texts posted there is not clear. Grandmaster 21:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Links are just links - if the link works and the content at the end of the link is on-topic then the link is valid, regardless of whether there is some alleged and unproven copyright violation on the page the link directs us to. Meowy 20:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. See WP:ELNEVER: If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Grandmaster 05:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that is also a not really, because lack of a mention of permission by the author does not automatically mean that the website is in violation of the author's copyright, so I think it is not, on its own, enough to justify a "reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright". Since I can't read Russian, I'm not qualified to make any comments about the other issues (I had assumed the dead link article that I had found on waybackmachine was different because it had a different title). Meowy 12:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If copyright status is not clear, it is enough "reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright". It is obvious that the chapter was not placed there by the author, since the site makes no mention of it, and it seems quite unlikely that he would do that. The rule is clear. If there are doubts about copyright status, the link should not be included. You can only include links to the material which is placed online legally, and which has a clear and unambiguous copyright status. Grandmaster 14:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the Wikipedia advice does not say "doubts about copyright status". A "doubt" is not the same as a "reason to believe". If it were, it would just say "reason to be suspicious about" rather than "reason to believe". Meowy 01:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting interpretation. Reason to believe means a reason to doubt the copyright status. Why else would you have a reason to believe that the content of the website violates a copyright, if not for the reason that it provides no proof of the permission from the copyright holder to host it? What the rule actually says is that we are only allowed to link to the sites which host content with absolutely clear copyright status. It would be really good if we could get a third party opinion on this, but no one seems to be interested to comment. Grandmaster 06:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But a reason to believe is not the same as reason to doubt. Expressing doubt is not the same as an assertion based on a reasonable belief or assumption, it is much less strong than that. Meowy 22:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the link is compliant with the Fair Use principle as per WP:ELNEVER. The fair use principle says in the article on fair use: "In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders." This is especially true because the link is to only one chapter of the book. Otherwise, Google or Amazon.com would routinely violate copyright by publishing parts of books on their websites e.g. Google Books. Ok? Zimmarod (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books (rather arrogantly) takes the attitude that copying everything without first obtaining permission from authors is an acceptable practice - so Grandmaster's wish to not link to content with "no mention of any permission by the author" would, if applied to all cases, exclude almost all links to Google Books content. Maybe that's why no one else seems to be interested in commenting - the implications for Wikipedia would be too big if Grandmaster's opinion is right! Meowy 22:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at those links, and I see absolutely no reason to exclude them.--Galassi (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for taking the time to look into this. I just want to get a bit more detailed explanation of your position. Do you think that even the dead link should remain? And the second link, do you think that the chapter from Войны памяти was not posted online in violation of copyright? Grandmaster 18:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Victor Schnirelmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Victor Schnirelmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victor_Schnirelmann&oldid=1205216969"