Talk:The Tale of Peter Rabbit

message: The article has been checked and close paraphrasing removed as per the following edits:
* Close paraphrase converted to direct quote with in-text attribution: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
*Close paraphrase converted to direct quote: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close paraphrasing check 

message: The article says "45 million copies sold", but this source http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3014176.stm says "sold more than 150 million copies". That's quite a gap between 45 and 150 million!!  An another difference: The article says "translated into 36 languages" and the above-mentioned source says "in 35 languages".
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.253.104 (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  copies? 

message: The first two sections have no names attributed to them. Perhaps, the first should be called "Synopsis" and the subsequent section "Background". Additionally, the "Contents" do not coincide with how the article is really structured.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by John M. DiNucci (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, missed that. I've fixed it. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of Section Names

message: Recommend that editors consider whether or not this section should be removed. It serves little to supplement the article, and reads very much like not particularly good undergraduate-writing, which makes somewhat spurious judgments about the books.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.98.148 (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Critical Commentaries" 

message: , I'm massively impressed by the work you've been doing on the ILT CCI. Given what she's done, I'm not terribly bothered to see material go, but I did scrub this article with sources at hand in in these edits. In other words, the material I reworked shouldn't be labled as copyvio. Fwiw. Victoria (tk) 02:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Victoria, I've managed to rescue a couple of bits of your text; if you have Lear and other sources to hand, you might like to rescue or redo some more on merchandising, initial production, sales, the copyright saga, and so on? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

text: If you're absolutely sure that the text is ok then you can restore what you're sure of; the diffs above only show a couple words changed here or there so I didn't think twice about it admittedly. Wizardman 22:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  what was done here is the same as what Ruhrfish and I did on The Story of Miss Moppet. We checked sources, removed sentences or phrases that were direct copies and rewrote. The edit history there is more interesting than here. Here, I wrapped phrases that were copied directly from books in quotations marks and attributed - thus it doesn't look like a lot was done, when in fact it was checked sentence-by-sentence. But I didn't and still don't have access to at least one of the sources, so it wasn't a complete job. The point is that a bunch of edits (around 30 or so, all with descriptive edit summaries vis-a-vis CP) were made to rewrite in 2010, at the time, when working under a lot of harassment; work which has now been labeled as copyvio. All that said, I think I'm in favor of stubifying; just a little annoyed at having wasted time and then being labeled a copyvio offender. Thanks to  for trying to salvage - Lear is now available on archives.org, but I really am not opposed to having it stubified after thinking about it. I spent lots of time cleaning the ILT mess article by article, (didn't understand how CCI worked at the time, or it may even not have been set up yet) and she harrassed relentlessly for that work, so it's maybe best to move on and unwatch these articles, all these years later. Victoria (tk) 23:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand that side; if there was work noted somewhere where there were articles that were worked on and given a clean bill of health then that was without my knowledge, so apologies for missing that. I don't know if waiting so long to finally "tackle the remaining issues" (for lack of a better term as it's basically me hacksawing what's left) made it better or worse (better since the socking/harassment is as far as I can tell a non-issue now, worse for the reasons you noted above). As an aside though, if there's any other articles you or others remember going through and giving a clean bill of health like Moppet above then I'll at least make a note not to mess with those. Wizardman 23:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

text: I have now since re-checked the history and read through your modifications via the edit summaries and I do have a lot more confidence that this article is ok after doing so, so if you want to restore was hasn't already been then that's ok by me. Wizardman 00:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We were working from the lists on User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Susanne2009NYC. See for instance, User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Susanne2009NYC #Articles with copyvios identified/removed where this one shows up (I had a different user name then). Basically everything is plagiarized and the actual books have to be found and consulted, which is why it took so much work. Ruhrfisch and I completely reworked The Story of Miss Moppet, at some point it went through FAR so that people know not to run it for TFA, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Story of Miss Moppet/archive1, and the ILT edits were rev-deleted. As for this article, since Chiswick Chap seems to have rewritten again today, let's just leave it as it is. As far as the GA is concerned, I have no objections to delisting. Victoria (tk) 01:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

text:  Victoria, I do have objections to delisting! Given that you have painstakingly checked and reworked the old text, and it's far better than mine, and Wizardman is happy with that, we are completely free to put it back in (and use any bits of mine that yours doesn't cover). I'd be very happy for you to reinsert whatever you like and rearrange the article however you like, if you can bring yourself to do so after all this time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi , that's kind of you to say! I can't get to it immediately, but when I'm more active again will take a shot at it. Victoria (tk) 22:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio checks

message: I cannot find in the article the current situation of copyright. According to project Gutenberg, the book is "in public domain in the US", but it does not say "only US". Then, the Wikimedia Commons pages (like this image) says more generally that the book is in public domain in those countries where "the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years." - but then, there is a website where the publisher Frederick Warne & Co. claims they have the copyright on everything. — Now what? A clarification would be useful. -- Lieven (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  All Potter's works are (in 2023) out of copyright. She died in 1943, so on 1 January 2014 all her works became PD in the United Kingdom, and anywhere else with a life + 70 years rule. As the article states, Frederick Warne failed to register US copyright when The Tale of Peter Rabbit was published over there, so it has always been freely copied by other publishers in the US. Warne tried and basically failed to remedy the situation by threatening the other publishers for many years throughout the 20th century, and perhaps they are still trying: or perhaps they just failed to update their website, or indeed are still hoping that unjustified threatening noises may accomplish something for them. But this has little bearing on the current article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright or not?