Talk:Bathhouse Row

message: Someone erroneously put a copyvio notice without seeing the article history says "New article with public domain text from NPS site".  The title page states it is authored by Soullière for the National Park Service, and in the nomination documentation she identifies herself as an Architectural Historian, National Park Service -- Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.  Government document by a government employee.  U.S. Government public domain.  (SEWilco 03:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you copied it word for word, even the Bibliography. None of it is put in your own words. If you are merely going to reproduce a government site as a Wikipedia article, why bother? Why not just provide a link to the government site, and not pretend it is a Wikipedia article?  --Mattisse 14:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a starting point for a Wikipedia article.  Editing is expected.  One reason for copying it is so editing can begin here.  Another reason for copying it is in case it vanishes from the original location.  And the material is informative about the topic.  Nevertheless, you're discussing the material in the article and not your claim that it is a copyright violation.  Do you still claim that it is a copyright violation to use material which is U.S. Government public domain?  (SEWilco 15:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the technical issue of whether this is a copyright violation, I gather it is not, as the material was written and the photos were taken by a US Government employee.  The material certainly is informative.  On copying it to preserve it in case the original source vanishes, I don't think it is likely that the original source will vanish.  But upon further thought after comparing the original source and this article, however, I would prefer that the new article started as a stub that refers to the excellent source that SEWilco found, and that also uses the photos that he prepared and added.  I created such a stub article as a proposed substitute, at Bathhouse Row/Temp.  Following this approach would be consistent with practice within WP:NRHP, where I myself have created many stubs, some of which have since developed into better articles.  I think that I and others would feel more comfortable adding information to what is an obvious stub, including drawing selected quotes from the excellent source identified.  Hopefully this proposal will be satisfactory to both of you.  If the original article is kept, on the other hand, I would prefer that each passage that is drawn from the source should be put into quotes (I myself would be willing to edit it to make that clear).  Sincerely, doncram 19:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further I meant to say thanks for calling attention to the National Park Service online book source about the architecture of many park structures, not just Bathhouse Row.  I wasn't previously aware of the source.  I just added mention of the source to Bryce Canyon Lodge article to which I had previously contributed, and to El Tovar.  I will do same for other 20 or so sites covered by that source. doncram 20:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no need to delete material just because one editor is confused about copyrights and usage.  I suspect he's been helping deal with real copyvios and didn't notice this item does have a legal source and an optional but ethically proper recognition of the author.  (SEWilco 20:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be a copyright violation but, presenting long passages from the source without quotes around them has the appearance of plagiarism.  And, I am one WP:NRHP editor who would prefer not to have the long passages in place, but rather would prefer to develop new writing from scratch.  As I said, I have proposed an alternative stub article at Bathhouse Row/Temp.  Could we please use that and be done with this discussion sooner rather than later?  Sincerely, doncram 14:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright error 

message: This is a quote from the  Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ
Did you check the copyright status of all the material you included? I looked on the site and could not find it. Originally, I was going to nominate the article for  WP:DYK as I thought the information was interesting. But once I saw the questionable copyright status, plus DYK would never include a copy-paste rather than a written article, I dropped the idea of nominating it.  --Mattisse 16:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the first comment in the history where I state it is US Gov PD?  That means I did check.  Did you read the first paragraph on this page where I point out where the author is identified?  You looked on what site?  You could not find the title page of the electronic book?  It's at the top of the index.  It's the page with the title and author.  (SEWilco 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain 

message: Let the material in!  Sounds like public domain to me.  I would like to start editing it!  And, I would like to add to the article, the following:
Bathhouse Row was designated a National Historic Landmark on May 28, 1987. ,,
References: 
Further, I believe all 20 photographs included in that link are public domain, and I would like to exerpt from that to illustrate the article.
: Yes, the designation should be in the text rather than only in the NHL infobox.  And if you click on the black and white pictures you'll find they come from the same source (the descriptions contain the information in the label for each picture), although from a raster-scanned format rather than the PDF format.  I used the raster-scanned version because it should be of higher quality due to not being processed during PDF conversion.  The Evince document viewer is able to save individual DjVu images (right click and Save As).  (SEWilco 15:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that information on dealing with photos, it will help in many other articles on NHLs where there are similar photo sets available.  On further thought about the article, as I mention above, if the material stays I would prefer that each separate passage taken from the source article be put in quotes.  And as I mention above, I would prefer the article be started as the stub version at Bathhouse Row/Temp. doncram 19:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Information for the Article

message: I accidently answer on my own talk page:
:I have never removed a template myself. When I put the template on the page I added to the Wikipedia list (as directed on the template) and whoever handles that makes the decision to remove it or not. Once it has been reported, I have never been involved in the outcome. If you want to edit, you can use the link suggested on the template.  You could ask a question on the copyright questions page (Sorry, I don't have the link right now but there is one somewhere.) I'll try to think of someone to ask  who could clarify this issue. --Mattisse 20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply  for Bathhouse 

message: The photographs included with the article have the attribution on them. While it is probably O.K. to use them, you cannot remove the attribution. The reason there are so many ongoing arguments about use of images, it that apparently it is very complicated legally.
--Mattisse 20:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just wondering when removal of attribution was proposed.  What discussion are you responding to?  (SEWilco 03:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To clarify what Mattisse apparently meant.  He stated on the talk page for the proposed new article, which I copy entirely: "Perhaps you can claify (as I am unclear) whether it is O.K. to remove attribution from PD photographs. The photographs from the website contain the photographer's attribution (example:). However,  apparently it is possible to get the photos from the PDF document with the photographer's attribution removed as they appear in the article now without the photographer's attribution. --Mattisse 15:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I did click on the link provided on the image discription page. However, maybe because I only have the Adobe PDF plugin or whatever, there is nothing on my computer that would recognize that document so I could not read it and see if the attribution was on it or not. When I asked the question on the image question site, the answer I got back was that it would be a good idea if I added the information myself, so that others in the future would be able to find out. Plus, there is no reason to get an image from a PDF document that is not accessible to everyone when it is available to everyone on the Internet. Question and reply:   --Mattisse 21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I am unclear if SEWilco altered the images or not, as the link he provided does not work for me. I cannot see the PDF doc that he references. I do not know what he did. That is why I asked the question on the image question page. --Mattisse 22:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs 

message: From the Public Domain like above:
So you need to do that at the very least.  --Mattisse 21:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I introduce you to the references?  And a copyvio notice is for copyright violations, not plagiarism.  The copyvio notice is erroneous.  (SEWilco 03:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that there is a distinction between copyright violation and plagiarism.  I agree with Matisse that one should avoid plagiarism or the appearance of plagiarism.  This article as written has the appearance of plagiarism.  Listing a reference at the end of the article is not the same as showing throughout that each passage is entirely a quote from another source;  explicit quotation marks are needed.  Repeating the same bibliography as appears in the source is itself misleading, implying that the new writer went to those sources and wrote the material, when in fact it was Laura Soulliere Harrison who did, and who should get the credit explicitly and entirely.  Again, I suggest resolution of this discussion by using the proposed substitute article at Bathhouse Row/Temp. doncram 14:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  There are footnotes throughout which show where the material came from.  Quotation marks requires that the enclosed material not be edited, but editing of this material is encouraged.  You're demanding throwing out the baby without even looking whether there is bathwater.  You should be editing the text provided, which is legal for use, rather than deleting material from the encyclopedia.  This is not a writing class where you are required to use your writing skills to produce every ink spot on the page.  (SEWilco 16:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quotation marks don't require that the material not be changed.  If you reword a part, you just take that part out of quotation marks, and state it differently.  Still giving the source for the information.  Quotation marks keep track of what passages are in the original writer's exact words, and are helpful. doncram 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your footnotes are misleading. Footnotes are used to indicate the source of the material, so that a reader can verify that you have interpreted the source correctly. Footnotes are not to be used as a way to plagerize.  --Mattisse 21:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution 

message: Another Arkansas NHL article where long passages taken from a NPS website were added is Rohwer War Relocation Center.  SEWilco added 3 paragraphs there, taken from the NPS summary webpage on the site, which he cites at the end of each of the paragraphs.  I just noticed that and edited them to put quotes around the passages, a temporary solution.  It is not entirely satisfactory, as more attribution is needed if you are going to quote, IMO.  At a minimum it should show that it is a quote (now it does) and link to the source should be given (as it did).  I am thinking this issue of what is fair use vs. what is plagiarism should be discussed over at the WP:NRHP talk page. doncram 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plagiarism is a subject for a history talk page?  Try Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 89.  (SEWilco 20:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for pointing out that archived discussion, in which you argued against the need to put quotes around PD material although you feel it is appropriate to give credit to the original author for material.  Just giving a reference at the end of a passage is not sufficient for giving credit however, IMO, as it appears you are giving credit for the ideas or facts, but not their expression in particular words.  I feel you also have to give credit to Laura Soulliere Harrison for her wording, by putting it in quotes and giving clear indication that the material is quoted from the particular place it is taken from.  It appears instead that the wikipedia project's collective editorship is taking credit for the particular wording.  Also, your link could just indicate that there is some related material there, it is not clearly conveyed by the link that the material is the source and that the link should be preserved by later editors. doncram 22:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, whatever admin gets around to reading this, this style discussion is not relevant to this being PD material and not a copyvio.  (SEWilco 20:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is relevant to plagerism of PD material. --Mattisse 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't like this to be characterized as merely a style discussion.  Avoiding plagiarism or the appearance of plagiarism is bigger than that.  As some point out in the archived discussion you mention, it can be viewed as a threat to wikipedia credibility, that material attributed to wikipedia should not turn out to be written somewhere else, in a similar way to the copyvio prohibition being to protect wikipedia.  Keeping quotes in quotation marks unless and until they are rewritten in entirely new words is part of that.  Putting a copyvio issue label on it is the closest available way to raise this issue on this article.  About this article, why don't you respond to my proposal? doncram 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's public domain, then it shouldn't matter as long as there is some attribution at the bottom of the page, in the references. Plagarism strikes me as something that is more of a problem in the academic world, After all, this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, by its very nature all of the ideas come from somewhere else. It would be a tall order for someone writing an encyclopedia which prohibits original research to claim credit for the intellectual property of another. I think copyright violation is the problem here, not plagarism. If the material is public domain, there is no worry about copyright violation, attribution, then, is more an ethical choice than it is a legal one. My two cents.IvoShandor 22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention, Wikipedia doesn't have any credibility, not in the academic world anyway. IvoShandor 22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Arkansas NHL Article where long passages without quotation were added

message: One of the  uploaded bathhouse images has this warning on it:
What does that mean?  --Mattisse 00:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask in the Commons' Village Pump.  (SEWilco 05:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning - file contains malicious code 

message: Plagiarism discourages any one else from editing it. You are harming the article by your plagiarism, never mind the dishonesty involved. Why not work on the link above as an editor has offered? You are discouraging his participation also.  --Mattisse 22:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copying is not plagiarism.  Copying is only part of plagiarism.  And what was copied is not a copyright violation.  (SEWilco 22:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  plagerism of this article 

message: Hi again.  I received notice that Bathhouse Row/Temp was routinely scheduled for deletion, so was prompted to begin editing the main Bathhouse Row article again.  My first step is to copy in the material in Bathhouse Row/Temp which contains all the value added by SEWilco in the form of wikilinks to usable photos, but which does not contain the long passages of text copied from Laura Harrison's on-line book.  I want to edit each of those sections to create some discussion of each bathhouse, perhaps quoting from the online book but using shorter quotes with quote marks to give credit properly for actual words.  I implemented the copy from Temp as one edit, then was working on a revision, but i get an edit conflict warning and I see that my first edit is immediately reverted and, in the edit label, is termed vandalism by SEWilco who happens to be on-line and alert to any change.  May I please have permission to edit this article?  I would like to proceed and edit.  Sincerely, doncram (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no permission needed, but there is no need to destroy informative and sourced material.  -- SEWilco (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you saw, I went ahead and put each long passage from Harrison's 1986 book into quotes, and began some editing to update the article.  I see you reversed my putting the quotes into quotation marks.  Without use of quotations, I don't see how readers can understand  which is the text written by Harrison and to be credited to her, vs. which is new writing.  It certainly makes it harder for wikipedia editors, not to know which is the quoted material vs. not.  I don't recall whether you have acknowledged that a writer should be credited with writing the actual words, commonly done by putting the words into quotes.  Do you disagree that she should be given credit for her eloquent wording?  I think in fact that she should get a lot of credit;  I think her eloquent wording got this and other sites designated National Historic Landmarks, while other sites of similar or greater merit but without such writing in their nominations did not become NHLs.  The on-line book, as you know, is a reworking of material that she wrote first in the separate nomination document.  As you must see, merely putting a footnote at the end of a long passage or paragraph does not convey that the wording is credit to that source, it only conveys that some content material from that source is being relied upon.  I think that either the long passages have to go, or the article has to include an unusually large amount of crediting given in the form of quotations, since almost all the material is copied from the Harrison text. doncram (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  She is being credited repeatedly for her work, and we don't mark the origin of every single word in an article (we do mark the origin in the editing history).  Her text is being reused as being public domain words, and her eloquent wording will now be tinkered with by more editors.  In this copy of her text there is nothing special about the strings of characters and her wording (and citation of her as source) will survive on its own merit, as long as her wording is better than what other editors produce.  If it does all get rephrased then she goes away.  Probably more source material has to be found so people have more material to add to the article.  -- SEWilco (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revising the article anew 

message: This is an alternative to arguing how to proceed within this article:  develop two versions of the article, with neither being primary.  Agree in advance on some process for deciding which version shows at all times, or from some future time onwards, to regular wikipedia readers.
A PD text-based approach would be in one version of the article, which would carry a tag indicating PD material is used.
Alternative version would be either starting with a nearly blank slate, like Bathhouse Row/Temp is now, or it would start with Harrison text set aside in quotation marks and/or block quotes.
Perhaps the decision on which to show as the main article, at some specified future date, could be made by some agreed-upon third parties.
This would perhaps run like a horse race, with the two versions competing for other wikipedia editors to help in developing each one.
I am trying to come up with an alternative here, this is just an idea. doncram (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to not understand that there is nothing special about public domain text.  We can use it verbatim with no attribution.  WP:V only requires that the information be verifiable, so a single citation of the source is sufficient.  If anything, the text which remains unaltered helps make it easier to confirm where the information came from, but change the text if you can improve it.  Just edit the article instead of trying to isolate some imaginary contamination with CAUTION tape.  -- SEWilco (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have demonstrated plenty of understanding about what is public domain text, and what are some limitations of using it, such as forever including a tag.  Also, it has been noted by another here, that having the unmarked long passages in place makes the article less attractive for other editors to be involved with.  It is unattractive to me also to work on an article that would forever show a Public domain tag on it.  I have been very clear, I think.  WP:REF covers how to properly quote sources, including suggesting alternative block quote methods.  This is not about WP:V. doncram (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The other editor could have broken up the blocks of text, as I did following the suggestion.  If you don't like the PD tag you can remove it, it is not mandatory.  The source of the text is cited.  -- SEWilco (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what you are refering to, about breaking up blocks of text.  If you mean cutting up the Harrison text and moving it around, then each section cut up needs to be set aside as a separate quote.  I would prefer to keep the Harrison text set aside, whole, and create new text. doncram (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Removing the PD tag would convert the status of the article to being plagiarized.  It would not be a copyright violation, but there would exist long passages without indication that the text is copied verbatim from somewhere else, which is one form of plagiarism.  The PD tag at least provides an indication to the reader that the material is not all original wording by wikipedia writers, adjusting the reader's expectation on the originality.  Assertion or implication or reasonable expectation of originality is one element of plagiarism.  I don't want to contribute to an article that has the appearance of plagiarism. doncram (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Develop two versions of this article? 

message: I just undid several edits of SEWilco that may well have been useful on their own, but which mixed up new wording into Harrison wording, which I would prefer to keep separate.  I reverted it back to the last place that had kept Harrison wording in separate paragraphs, although which is which paragraph is not marked by quotes or block quotes.
Note, SEWilco's last reversion of an edit that I made struck out some new text that I wrote, in addition to unmarking Harrison passages.  I have now struck out some new text that SEWilco added.  Please don't take offense.
Instead of adding new text and/or engaging in an edit war, could we discuss here how to proceed?
Sincerely, doncram (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find your new text amongst the paragraph-sized external link markup which you had created.  My new text was minor adjustments while moving related text next to each other.  No offence taken at edits, offence only taken at spray painting article with blue paint and making it unusable for readers.  Reinsert your new material wherever it was.  -- SEWilco (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You take offense at my testing out an alternative way to mark up which is the copied text.  Okay, instead of "spray painting article with blue paint" to mark the copied text, would you please permit use of quotation marks or block quotes to mark the copied text.  Again, my goal in going forward would be to reduce or eliminated the blocks of copied text.  I am making a request to you as another editor to work in a way that would allow me to feel comfortable contributing to the article, while reaching the same goal.  Why not accept that? doncram (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, if you need markers for yourself then pick out a section which you'll be editing.  Put HTML comments such as  before the Harrison text which you want to keep track of.  Edit the section.  There's no need to mess up the appearance of the article during editing.  -- SEWilco (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure, but perhaps we could do something with this idea.  Would you agree to keep the Harrison text blocks marked that way intact? doncram (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Or if the only thing you don't like is the NPS PD template you can remove it.  There's no need to rewrite useful text just to have different text.  -- SEWilco (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See mention above about how deleting the PD template creates effective plagiarism.  It is not helpful to just delete the tag and pretend there is no problem. doncram (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It was extensively discussed and pointed out that we don't isolate reused public domain text such as EB 1911 text. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this now an Edit War?  Let's discuss first 

message: SEWilco, you raised a big discussion at the talk page of Citing Sources, in which it was abundantly discussed that your style of deleting the quotation marks fails to sufficiently credit Harrison for her wording and represents poor referencing.  You and some others expressed other opinions on various subjects, but you did not obtain a consensus that it would be wrong to quote Harrison directly.  Please stop reverting this work.  We could discuss here what would be some process to move forward with this page. doncram (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In particular, a way forward would be for you to write a new passage about one of the bathhouses, and insert that before or after Harrison's quote.  If your passage is in fact new writing and not just plagiarized, and you could explain your sources, I expect we could agree to eliminate Harrison's quote.  I suggest testing some approach to make small changes like that for awhile, rather than investing in making multiple edits which have the appearance of being a mask to executing a big revert.  Your previous edits, although they may include some other changes, effectively constitute a big revert of the page back to a state where Harrison is not credited by quotation marks. doncram (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is too bad that the major editor is not willing to rewrite the article as happens to most other articles that are based on a PD source. Lake Baikal comes to mind, which had no sources when I first came across it over a year ago or more. But because the article was accessible and legible, and there was no editor guarding the article,  lots of other editors joined in on improving the writing and gathering numerous citations. That included me, even though I knew nothing about the subject. A article has to be interesting enough to draw other editors to help, or you will never get anywhere in trying to improve it. It has been sitting there for months in the same awful state. Big blocks of text look like copy/paste (with or without quotes) say to other editors, "Go away!" Mattisse (Talk) 19:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  The first edit is labeled a reversion which incorporates the improvements, there was nothing "effectively" about it.  But Harrison's text needs improvement too.  -- SEWilco (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: As repeated in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC mandatory quotation of public domain text, the custom is that we attribute public domain text but it then can be edited.  We don't freeze text in quotations.  Text is again being thawed for editing.  -- SEWilco (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  SEWilco, I just reverted your newest big revert to a state where Harrison's wording is unquoted.  Would you please not start by such a big revert.  Please consider what I suggested above, that you write in your own words a small section, and make a small change rather than a gross revert. Also, and please take this lightly as it is meant: While I do not have the only say on what is correct referencing either, I don't believe you are the one to say what "We" do or not in wikipedia, the way you say that comes across as if you are quite royal. :) doncram (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I again reverted your imposed quotation format which freezes Harrison's wording.  Wikipedia custom is to not impose the original text's quirks on readers and editors.  You said earlier you were rewriting, and instead reverted and froze the article's text.  -- SEWilco (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know when you are speaking of, when I said "earlier" that I was rewriting.  It seems a long time ago, that I was trying to do actual writing in this article, but as I recall it you reverted what I did, so my constructive efforts were undermined.  If you are suggesting that you would back off a bit and allow some editing, that would be refreshing.  It may be that I wanted to start by deleting a chunk or all of the Harrison text, and you were then insisting that the whole Harrison text stay.  I also do not understand your accusations that I impose the Harrison text blocks upon the reader.  I would prefer to remove them entirely.  Please comment further. doncram (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, now with a few edits Matisse does some rewriting.  SEWilco, in what amounts to a big revert, accepts those changes but implements his point of view that nothing can be quoted.  However I will revert SEWilco's edit now.  Note, a small amount of "progress" has been made:  there is less of the hated PD text, the area under dispute is smaller.  Hooray. :) doncram (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are in error.  I did not "start by such a big revert".  You started by changing the article's format and have tried to keep much of it locked away from editing, including with repeated reversions.  And you are being redundant in referring to "what amounts to a big revert" when I labeled it as being a reversion.  Stop forcing text in articles into quotations.  -- SEWilco (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to suspect that your comment here is for the record, for you to refer to in arguments you will raise elsewhere, and not to actually further any discussion here.  I note that you have done another big revert just now, and posted an "INUSE" sign, presumably to implement various further edits, disrespecting the process suggested for a way forward.  Perhaps I prejudge this time, but it does not augur well that you start by doing the big revert. doncram (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because you damaged the existing and customary format of the article, of course restoring the lost work requires a reversion.  Why would starting with a reversion not augur well?  The article is improved by restoring the improved version from the weaker original text.  -- SEWilco (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of quoting to credit Harrison 

message: I wonder if it is helpful to understand the Harrison on-line book as a primary source (Wikipedia:PSTS).  Harrison visited, studied the facility, took copious notes and photographs, and then wrote up an original description of the buildings.  She used her professional training and judgment in doing so, and created what is primary, original research.  This is different than, say Encyclopedia Britannica or other secondary or tertiary material.  Harrison's writing is so detailed and primary that it is unlikely that there is any other source for the same material.  I saw guidelines in wikipedia somewhere (do not have the discussion bookmarked, can't find right at the moment) for treatment of primary sources, which were strong on quoting and citing the source, would not be approving of cutting and pasting in the primary source material.  Perhaps the difference between tertiary sources like encyclopedia vs. primary sources is worth considering here. doncram (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right. If a researcher publishes the results of his experiment, survey or whatever,  in a journal, even a peer-reviewed journal, his research results are considered a primary source. He was the one that was there, collected  and analyzed the results. To make a claim based on his results on Wikiepedia, you would need a source that meets WP:V to support his findings. Is Harrison of sufficient status that her accuracy is assured to be unbiased and that she made no mistakes in measurements, etc.?  Was she an objective observer, or was she overly involved in the topic? That can happen even to professionals. (That is why only one professional source is not enough.) Does she have expertise in historical architecture?  Mattisse (Talk) 17:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text: So you're claiming that attributing the text to her should be removed?  The public domain text can still be used, as most of it is obvious from photos and the building floor plans.  But removing the attribution wouldn't be right.  -- SEWilco (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SEWilco, you're being deliberately obtuse to say that. doncram (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harrison text as a Primary source 

message: Matisse, thank you for making the edits you have done.  Could we perhaps discuss them somewhat, before investing too much more effort for now?  I think SEWilco should be allowed to comment, and I have some comments.  I question some changes.
For example, The article has been revised to show "The cream-colored brick building is neoclassical in style with the base, spandrels, friezes, cornices and the parapet finished in white stucco. The entrance is divided into seven bays by engaged columns, with a pavillion on each end.[3]"
That rephrases from Harrison direct quote:"Exterior walls are cream-colored brick, with white stucco finishes at the base, spandrels, friezes, cornices, and parapet. Engaged columns divide the entrance into seven bays, flanked by pavilions at the north and south ends."
I am not sure how helpful is the paraphrasing here.  For one thing, it is not a summary, as it is as long as the quote.  Also if it is left as a quote, then it is clear that it was Harrison's judgment that the building is "cream-colored".  We don't know if the building is still cream-colored or not, I believe that is Harrison's judgement more than 20 years ago.  Also, i don't know what an "engaged column" is.  If we aren't conversant ourselves with the terms used by an expert, it is probably not helpful to rearrange them, as we will introduce errors.  This problem was discussed in the wikipedia discussions (which I still cannot find yet) about why it is not good to mix in primary source material.
Does anyone know what an engaged column is? doncram (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know what an engaged column is and have provided a link in the article. As you say, this is just a listing of items and provides little of interest. Linking is a good way of educating persons not knowledgeable about architecture, but, obviously the whole article cannot be linked. Since I know what the architectural words mean I can picture now what the front of that building looks like. But, to me, the article is a boring list of items for each bathhouse, rather like an insurance company might do.  Little in the article gives any information on the historical setting or background; there is no human feel to it.  The interaction between the town and the park is not described. Nothing is said about the present situation. A picture of a glass window is the lead image, instead of the aerial image of historical area. I've done as much as I am going to do. Sorry if I upset you. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 21:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do appreciate what you are doing here, and what you are trying to do.  I am not upset, i just am concerned about you that I don't want you to put in too much effort all at once, and on my part i am a little dizzied by the pace of change. :) Also I'm sorry, when i wrote that I had pasted from the article and lost the wikilink to engaged column.  I've gone to that article, and okay, now I guess i think i understand what that is, pretty much.  The particular sentence is very dense, using multiple specialized terms that you have wikilinked.  To understand the sentence would be a game for the average reader, to go and look up each one, then try to picture it all together.  I guess it underlines for me that this is technical / primary / expert description, and that even with rephrasing somewhat, it is not a sentence that I or any other average wikipedia editor would say or write.  One test of writing is to read it aloud to another person.  I think i would get a big "huh?" response from the average person.  I see what you mean about it coming across as an insurance company inventory.  So what do you think about including it or not?  Another option would be to say something like: A detailed description of the bathhouse's architecture and appearance in 1985 is provided by Harrison in 1985, here, with a wikilink, from this statement in the main text or with this statement in a footnote.  Or, if the Harrison description is dense but interesting, put it down in a footnote, with wikilinks added. doncram (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that article is written for the general reader. It is written for someone fascinated with a detailed description of period architecture. It is an article on a National Park and a National Historic Landmark but it  reads like an architectural article or worse. See Hoysala architecture. Even the Hoysala article  ties the architecture into the context historically and culturally. The Bathhouse article has little information in it except the lists of architectural details. My opinion is that either the small part of the article that is relevant be merged with the National Park article, or the article be rewritten to include the historical and cultural angles. Isn't that where President Bill Clinton's mother used to go regularly when he was a kid? It was supposed to be a swinging place back then, risqué even. Or get more into the geological aspects of hot springs.  Mattisse (Talk) 23:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, you mean community interaction like this  which has been cluttering up my browser for months while waiting for this article to again become editable?  -- SEWilco (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the depth of coverage about architecture (very light) vs. geology and social topics in the ChicagoTribune article much better than the too-detailed current article, too.  Basically it mentions there are 8 bathhouses, and that only 1 is open.  I don't know, are we three close to agreeing that the detailed descriptive text could best be deleted from the article?  It would sure be a lot less painful than going through all the detailed rephrasing that Mattisse kindly began implementing for the first bath.  I do think some very summary description for each of the 8 separate baths could be useful.  Perhaps just make a simple table, with the name, photo, date of construction, short description for each one? doncram (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! Sounds way more interesting, and kind of a 21 century version of of the 1940s.  Also sounds like you would have a great deal more fun writing it. Geology is always interesting, I think. I'm wondering why the private company that runs the one open bathhouse gets the money to restore it  and why the hot springs have no sulfur if most do. And Al Capone?  I think the person who wrote the architectural article did so because you have to have to document all that to apply for the National Historic Landmark designation.  Mattisse (Talk) 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deletion of details about the focus of the article, the bathhouses, doesn't seem like improvement.  If the Park article's description of the geology needs a summary that the water is heated due to depth rather than nearby magma, that article is the place for that info.  I don't know how much geology we need here, although probably not that odd 8,000 mile description (maybe they're counting all the zigzagging through cracks).  Al Capone is only mentioned for the hotel and speakeasy, which belongs in the Park article.  The hotel uses spring water and hotel customers might not have used the bathhouses.  -- SEWilco (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  I didn't link to engaged column and other terms because I don't want to link overly common words.  If you think a term is not common, link it.  -- SEWilco (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, for the record, I perceive you, SEWilco, to be attempting to be snide and rude.  And that you are successful.  I am inclined (although i don't absolutely promise) to give up on this article, which is also what I perceive to be your goal.  To one or two others who have attempted to edit here, or to others who may take their places, god rest your souls.  :)   Actually, I don't really take too much offense.  doncram (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Not at all snide.  Look at what I had linked and you'll see they were mostly links to directly related articles or broad topics such as classes of architecture.  I left the more common phrases for linking as needed, particularly because a lot of editing was likely and the first-occurrence linking rule gets entangled with that kind of thing.  -- SEWilco (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And on the topic of the gangsters, you might want to mention them in the Park article along with a mention of the new gangster museum which is in the town (I think that was mentioned in one of the last two refs in this article).  Maybe a visitor will get more info for the article.  I haven't read through all my stuff so don't know if the gangsters are associated with the Row, but the museum in town seems more relevant to the park in general than to the Row.  -- SEWilco (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  detailed edits in process 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bathhouse Row. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061102012735/http://www.oldstatehouse.com/educational_programs/classroom/arkansas_news/detail.asp?id=559&issue_id=41&page=1 to http://www.oldstatehouse.com/educational_programs/classroom/arkansas_news/detail.asp?id=559&issue_id=41&page=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bathhouse Row. 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/20080227100411/http://tps.cr.nps.gov:80/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1412&ResourceType=District to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1412&ResourceType=District
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613035953/http://www.nps.gov:80/hosp/historyculture/upload/QUAPAW%20BATHHOUSE.pdf to http://www.nps.gov/hosp/historyculture/upload/QUAPAW%20BATHHOUSE.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070721140615/http://www.friendsofthefordyce.com/ to http://www.friendsofthefordyce.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714214013/http://www.nationaltrust.org/11Most/list.asp?i=147 to http://www.nationaltrust.org/11most/list.asp?i=147
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bathhouse Row. 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/20070815091935/http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/harrison/harrison2.htm to http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/harrison/harrison2.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1412&ResourceType=District
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/hosp/historyculture/upload/QUAPAW%20BATHHOUSE.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070815091935/http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/harrison/harrison2.htm to http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/harrison/harrison2.htm
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) 20:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified