Talk:Hillary Rodham senior thesis

message: Wasted Time, I see that you've twice removed links to the thesis, stating that it is probably a copright-violation copy. I understand why you would not post material here that might violate a copyright, but does the same logic lead you not to link to a document that has been posted elsewhere? In other words, the availability of the thesis online is notable.KillerAsteroids 01:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works: "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work."  Many external links to YouTube have been removed under this rule, for example.  It applies in this case too.  Wasted Time R 01:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasted, thanks for your explanation. I should have found that on my own! Though you might consider noting in the article that copies have been posted on the Web in violation of copyright; you could note that fact without linking to them.KillerAsteroids 17:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Above is stated, ""If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright..."   Do we actually KNOW that the work is "in violation of the creator's copyright"?  Or are people merely guessing.  Did that document carry the "circle-C" marking that at one point denoted a claim for copyright?  The law may have been different in 1969 than today.  If somebody "knows" that the work is in violation, I'd say it's his burden to explain why.  Aardvark231 (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , maybe you can answer this specifically for the thesis--I have no idea whether her thesis might be copyrighted or not. Thanks. Aardvark231, I trust you understand why I undid your edit in the article. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Drmies, you sent me what I consider a rude note which stated, "Hello Aardvark231 and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Hillary Rodham senior thesis, do not conform to our policies."   Yet, you didn't even bother to explain why.  Worse, you actually ASKED me to leave a comment on your Talk page, yet somehow you've made it so that it is impossible to leave such a comment?  Are you making a joke, or are you just trying your very best to be hostile and rude?  Aardvark231 (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

text: I will add that according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_symbol   "Pre-1989 U.S. copyright notice", it was necessary to use the "circle-C" icon, the year, and the name of the copyright claimant, in order to obtain copyright protection.  If Hillary Clinton didn't apply such a notice to her thesis, she may be SOL.  I think we should consider the possibility that the real reason people have been trying to obscure the link to her thesis is to avoid the embarrassment of people learning what she wrote.     Aardvark231 (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

text:  Please refer to the Commons:Hirtle chart which shows that in order to enjoy copyright protection, documents published from 1924 through 1977 had to bear a copyright notice. The thesis title page as seen at :File:Cover sheet of Hillary Rodham's senior thesis.png shows that the paper does indeed have the © copyright symbol. The Hirtle Chart shows (for works published from 1964 through 1977) that it therefore enjoys copyright protection for 95 years after publication date. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works  , "Linking to copyrighted works", also states:  "In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site."  So, we should be able to post the website, at least, even if it isn't a full link to the thesis itself.  Further, how do we know that the websites which do include a copy of Hillary Clinton's senior thesis are not publishing it with her approval? If she was actively suing them for a copyright violation, we could take that as evidence of an alleged copyright violation, but in the absence of such a suit or allegation, it is presumptuous of us to assume that there is a copyright violation. Further, how do we know that the submission of that thesis to a Federally-funded university (Wellesley) does not automatically grant the public a right to read and/or copy that thesis?  Who actually owned the thesis?  Did Hillary Clinton receive any Federally-funded student aid?  Would that have affected her ability to make and enforce a copyright?  I think the burden of proof is on people who claim that WP cannot include this material even if there is no documented violation of copyright.   Aardvark231 (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Also, this 2010 document describes the ambiguity of the effect of the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) on Internet copyright issues.  http://www.ipinbrief.com/dmca-contributory-infringement-vicarious-liability/  "Accordingly, what evidence must a copyright holder now show to establish red-flag knowledge under the DMCA?  As Naomi cogently observes in the Outline, we seem to be back to the “I know it when I see it” standard created by Justice Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964), when the Supreme Court was struggling to define obscenity.".   Without an actual allegation of a copyright violation by an established copyright holder, it is unreasonable for WP to merely assume that a posting, whose ownership is unknown, onto a website, whose location is unknown, in a nation, whose laws are unknown, somehow is in violation of copyright laws.   Aardvark231 (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilary Clinton owns the copyright; we have no evidence to the contrary. Presenting her thesis at a federally-funded university has no impact on its copyright status. The policy says, "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." We don't make assumptions against copyright holders' rights; we protect them. That's our policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are simply guessing that she owns the copyright.  If you had proof, you'd publish it. Your claim that her essay rights are not affected by the federally-funded nature of the university is further guessing on your part.  There is no reason to believe that any website "has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright".  You have no evidence otherwise.  You falsely claimed " We don't make assumptions against copyright holders' rights; we protect them. That's our policy."  No, you are merely surmising that she has a copyright; you are merely surmising that publishers are publishing in violation of copyright.  You have no evidence. Hillary Clinton's supporters' guile is on display at:  http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17388394/ns/politics-decision_08/t/how-clintons-wrapped-hillarys-thesis/#.XVpJ4OhKiM8   As that article states:  "The document has copyright protection, though not because the front of the library's copy is marked "c 1969 Hillary D. Rodham." That note, in a different typeface than the manuscript itself, was added by the university's archivist, Wilma Slaight. "I added that in 1992," Slaight acknowledged. "That was my attempt to indicate that she might have copyright protection."" [end of quote from nbcnews.com].  SO!!!  This indicates that Hillary Clinton DID NOT ADD THE CIRCLE-C COPYRIGHT NOTICE TO HER ESSAY IN 1969!!!  Hillary Clinton missed the opportunity to claim copyright status.   Above, you said. "The thesis title page as seen at File:Cover sheet of Hillary Rodham's senior thesis.png shows that the paper does indeed have the © copyright symbol."   Added in 1992. By somebody else.  23 years too late.   However, the NBCnews article is still confused.  It continues:  "The attempt was unnecessary, said a copyright specialist, professor Laura N. Gasaway of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. With or without the mark, an unpublished work is protected as soon as it's written, and the protection extends until 70 years after the author's death, Gasaway said."   That statement would have been true, but only true based on documents controlled by post-1989 law.  In 1969, the law was different. Gasaway is described as a "Professor", and a "copyright specialist".  Such a person would surely have known that in 1992 American copyright law had changed in 1989.  Gasaway must have known that adding a "circle-c" to the document in 1992 would have been hopelessly ineffective to retrieve the opportunity to copyright the document which would have had to have been copyrighted in 1969 to be effective.   Aardvark231 (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

text:   With respect to your comment ,  when it comes to things Wikipedia, the "burden" pretty much always tends to fall on those wanting to add something rather than those trying to remove something; for example, if some editor adds unsourced content to an article which is subsequently removed by another editor,　:WP:BURDEN says that it's the responsibility of the editor wanting to add the content to provide a citation to a reliable source in support. Even then, the encyclopedic value of adding the content can still be challenged (for example by :WP:NOTEVERYTHING) and the burden then falls upon those wanting to add it to establish a :WP:CONSENSUS to do so. The same applies to external links per :WP:ELBURDEN; even if there were no copyright concerns, the burden would still be upon those wanting to add the link to establish a consensus to do so. The fact that there are copyright concerns means (per :WP:ELNEVER and :WP:COPYLINK) means (at least in my opinion) that the burden further falls upon those wanting to add the link to not only establish a consensus for its encyclopedic value, but also more importantly that it's not a copyright violation. If the link is questionable for copyright reasons, then it shouldn't be added as long as there's reasonable doubt as to whether it's a copyright violation. This is pretty much how image files are treated (see :c:COM:PCP and :WP:GOTLETTER) and is pretty much the reason why links to any audio or video dedicated websites are almost never allowed per :WP:YOUTUBE unless they are to official channels/sites controlled by the original copyright holder. So, if Hillary Clinton posted a link to her thesis on one of here official websites, then I don't think there would be any problem in linking to it; links to other websites (unconnected to her) hosting the content, however, is not so clear (at least in my opinion). The fact that neither she nore anyone connected with her has apparently yet to taken any legal action against these sites is not a good reason in and of itself to justify adding links to the content on Wikipedia. With respect to your comment , Wikipedia's role is not really to try and set the record straight and Wikipedia encourages to try and assume in good faith that other editors are :WP:HERE (at least until there's evidence found to the contrary). Trying to guess the motivations of those wanting to remove the link is pretty much just as bad as trying to guess the motivations of those wanting to include the link and discussion based upon such things often quickly deteriorate into :WP:USTHEM or :WP:POVFIGHTER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the edit conflict, you hadn't read what I wrote above.  We now know that Hillary Clinton (Rodham) DIDN'T add the circle-c copyright notice to her essay in 1969; it was actually added in a different typeface only in 1992, by a different person, and that was after the copyright laws were changed in 1989.  So, she permanently lost the opportunity to copyright it since that is what the law required in 1969.  Now, there is no doubt of this.  What happened is quite clear, once the proper research was done by me.    Aardvark231 (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if you're right on that point, the burden would still be upon you to establish a consensus to add a link to the article per :WP:ELBURDEN. Wikipedia works on consensus meaning that's what you should be trying to establish here. If others agree that not only (1) the link's not a copyvio and but also (2) the link has encyclopedic relevance, then it will be added; if not, it won't. I'm not trying to be rude by Wikipedia-splaining things to you, but that's pretty much how content disputes are resolved on Wikipedia. Finally, I meant to add this to my previous post but didn't do so before you responded; so, I'll add it here. The "note"  added to your user talk page was actually :Template:Welcome-unconstructive; the wording of some Wikipedia templates might seem a bit harsh, but the wording is almost always something which is almost always the result of community discussion and consensus, not an individual editor trying to be rude to someone. I don't think Drmies was trying to offend you in any way, but just to let you know that an edit like this is not really something considered acceptable per relevant policies and guidelines. The edit reads more like a personal comment that would be more suitable for the article's talk page than the article itself (see :Template:uw-talkinarticle for another reason why your edit could've been reverted). -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you,  and , for weighing in. This comment was indeed not acceptable in an article: it's a sort of meta-commentary, but besides, it's silly commentary. It says "this article about Clinton's thesis is an article about Clinton's thesis". That Aardvark231 is going around yelling at established editors and, in particular, trying to mansplain copyright to one of Wikipedia's experts, is not a good sign. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite clear now that Hillary Clinton did not claim, did not seek, a copyright on her 1969 thesis, apparently EVER.  The law in 1969 simply did not allow somebody to wait 23 years, and only then somebody else (who it isn't clear even consulted with Hillary Clinton) inserted a circle-c, along with the FALSE claim that this was claimed in 1969, rather than 1992. (This arguably constitutes forgery).  Further, I cited WP rules that merely pointing to a website, based on the assumption that it has some copyright violations, is not a WP violation.  Also, it's misleading to claim "WP works on consensus".   Not on violations of rules and laws, it doesn't!  Nor on your FALSE claims that her thesis was "copyrighted" when it is now obvious it never was. Further, it's foolish to question whether "the link has encyclopedic relevance".  I am typing to the Talk page for an article titled "Hillary Rodham senior thesis".  So, the fact of her senior thesis having 'encyclopedic relevance' has already been established.  I think it's clear that at least since 2007, and really since 1992, her supporters have been trying to conceal this thesis from the public, and have been willing to violate and completely misrepresent the law to do it.  No one has established that Hillary Clinton EVER attempted to copyright her thesis, and presumably she was a smart-enough lawyer to eventually realize that pre-1989 copyright law had required her to immediately claim copyright, with that circle-c notice, in 1969 when the thesis was written.  She knew she did not.  No doubt that's why she never brought a case in court.   Stop beating that dead horse.  The 1992 and 2007 fraud is over. I consider your statements above as clear evidence of bad faith in this matter.  Aardvark231 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who you are talking to. Three people here have told you that this is not going anywhere--just about every point you raise here is raised erroneously, and WP:NOTFORUM applies, esp. since you seem to be throwing in a couple of conspiracy theories. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking to the document

message: Please fix the citations links. #7 leads to a pornographic website.   [16:19, November 1, 2012‎ 24.47.28.212]
:I've switched it to an archive site.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I have nominated this article for deletion. It is a very niche article that is not notable enough for the encyclopedia. It can be merged elsewhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.182.11 (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be advocating a merge here, not deletion. My suggestion would be to start a merge discussion per WP:PM and not a deletion discussion, and to this end I have removed the deletion tag. ansh666 07:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither a deletion nor a merge is warranted here.  This thesis is already mentioned in the main biographical article but to include all of this material would give it excessive weight there.  And the relationship of Hillary with Saul Alinsky is something that continues to draw attention to this day.  Witness the flurry of attention – see here and here and here and here and so on – from just three months ago regarding some letters between the two being discovered.  This article should remain as it is.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

text:  Agree completely that this standalone article should remain as is. Way too much information to be absorbed into the main article, but it is needed here. Tvoz/talk 19:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for deletion 

message: (Please note: I have removed the merge template from here, as it is meant to appear on the article itself so that more people can see it. The IP has proposed merging this page into either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton. All discussion should be centralized at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Merge proposal) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, which is it? May I ask, is it your intention that fellow editors who might oppose merging visit, track and contribute to two merge discussions? Please withdraw one at this time. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: This article has been requested for deletion multiple times. The article itself has nothing noteworthy about it - an ex-presidents wife wrote an essay in university (which makes people suspicious of her, if they are of opposing political viewpoints) and this essay has no impact on life, it has not modified any policies, it has not triggered an international debate (or even a US debate or policy change).
This essay is unremarkable and this article is simply being used to point and say 'look this person said something i don't like and its a CONSPIRACY!!!11!'. Which pretty well violates more than one guideline (at least WP:NPOV and WP:Criticism for sure). All references are from journalists who cite a single orginal source, who is simply speculating about timelines. Seriously, there should be no debate. Either merge the information about the controversy or delete this page. I think it should be deleted. So...here we go. AGAIN. 158.169.150.8 (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete it already

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hillary Rodham senior thesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070304065006/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/002771.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does this really have lasting notability, re: WP:NOTNEWS/WP:N? I !voted delete in the AfD back in 2016, and I'm considering a re-nom. Jr8825 • Talk 02:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability