Talk:Dorothea Dix

message: 209.103.193.40 added the following text on 30 November 2004.  
::This entire page is copied verbatim from a 1998 letter:
::
::"The Ambiguous Legacy of Dorothea Lynde Dix" , Edward M. Brown, Rhode Island District Branch, ::American Psychiatric Association, Newsletter, Sipikm'LKkmll?MLk;: nept. 1998, vol.30 no.2 pp.11-12. 
::
::We definitely need someone to check the copyright on this. It seems to be plagiarized.
Since then, the article has been purged of all copyright violations; that's why I removed the  template here in the talk page. Rkitko 02:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which sources, online or otherwise, is the text under copyright? I've tried to be diligent when I see new additions to the article, immediately running them through a google search. Instead of nominating it for deletion, why not remove the offending sections? Surely the entire article is not a copyvio? Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello --.
'::L{Rkitko. Much of the verbiage that is found in this article has been noted in articles by the American Psychiatric Association. I have e mailed them to get them to send me a copy of this newsletter noted above by another editor. If we ever have even a question about copyvio we must act immediately as to preserve a non liability stand for Wikipedia. It seemed that another editor had a question about it some time back and has noted it here as well on the talk page. Maybe you can enlighten me as to what you have done to make sure it's not a copyright issue? Thanks Junebug52 20:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I was just thinking. Why don't we just put a link to the American Psychiatric Association on the page with a line that say's we took verbiage from their newsletters? That would solve this whole issue and cite/source the article as well. What do you think? Junebug52 20:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the allegation of copyright violation is from an IP user back in November of 2004. Compare the version of the article in question then and now: diff. They're completely different. If it was a complete word-for-word copyvio, the only sentence that remains to be the same is the very last, which can easily be rewritten and ref'd or removed. I agree we must act upon copyright violation allegations, but this article has been completely rewritten since the above allegation. I don't see where any verbiage remains from the old copyvio source, except of course that last sentence. Thoughts? --Rkitko (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rkitko, thanks for pointing this out. My concern is this. Even though the article was rewritten, it still contain the same content, just rearranged in nature. This is a constant problem presented in copyvio court cases. I just do not want a wikilawyer to get involved and cause problems. I have seen it happen on several occassions. I think that if we reference the American Psychiatric Association and acknowledge that their newsletter was used as a source, we should be able to bypass the whole copyvio issue. I am kinda just trying to steer away from a problem before it happens. You are more passionate about this article than I am, so I will wait to see how you would like to handle it. I think that if we source this agency and newsletter, it would be safe to remove the tag. So lets do that and after it's done I will remove the tag and lets see what happens. Thanks for your attention. Junebug52 03:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can appreciate the fact that you'd like to prevent any problems here, but after reading both versions--the old copy from when the allegation of copyvio was made and the current one--I see absolutely no connection. Sure, the information is similar, but that's because it's a biography relating what happened in her life. I don't think the article was simply rewritten or rearranged. The copyvio in question was nearly completely removed in this edit and subsequent edits. Since then, I've been watching the article and nothing new has been added that I can identify as copyvio (that still remains, at least. There have been several attempts to place copyrighted text on this article, which I or other editors have reverted). We can certainly cite the article, but I honestly don't know what information in the current article can be attributed to it. Funny thing you should mention me being passionate about this article--I was just questioning how it got on my watchlist to begin with! I keep it on mostly to revert the heaps of vandalism and copyvio edits by IP and new users. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: --Rkitko. I removed the copyvio tag and asked that a reference be placed on for American psychiatric association. Just the fact that you yourself said the information is "similar" is what I was speaking of. These educational newsletters and journals are sticklers for copyvio and look at every chance they get to find violations no matter how large or small they may appear. In the past 5 years with the introduction of napster and ipod as well as other various copyright infringers, these people who own copyrights have been on missions to find violators. That is why I raised the concern. I hope you can appreciate that. An ounce of prevention..... Junebug52 11:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a little ridiculous, no? The only reason the information is similar is because both this new article and the old one cover the same subject material and probably used similar source material. The article that stands now was written by someone (really, several people) who probably didn't even have access or knowledge of the APS newsletter article. With all due respect, I do think this is a bit hyper-reactive. (And I think the same of the companies that react in such a manner, such as the RIAA. Sidenote: For an interesting read concerning the RIAA's lunacy by one of my favorite artists, read these two links. I digress.) Regardless, I appreciate your effort in trying to quell any problems before they begin. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: --Rkitko. I think you are correct on all sides, but I will tell you. As many times as I have had to go to court over copyvio as a professional witness, I can attest to the fact that their arguements were based on issues that were similar in nature. I think this whole world has gone crazy with all of the me, me, me factor. What ever happened to the gentlemens code of honor? Thanks for helping! If I can ever do anything for you, please do not hesitate to ask. Junebug52 17:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: who really was dorothea dix? how do we know any of this is true? well..... i dont know.but if i did then i would really tell the viewers but i dont know if any of this is true. how do we know if people keep lying to us?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlee669 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  who was dorothea dix 

message: I don't know how to add things to this specific page but under the Honors section it should also be noted that one of the two state psychiatric hospitals in Maine has been renamed the Dorothea Dix Psychiatric Center.  It is located in Bangor, ME.  Website is here: http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/DDPC/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsWade78 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something to add 

message: The language of the lengthy section about her surveys of states and work with state legislatures sounds dated, essay-like, and very much as if taken verbatim from another publication. I'm not going to try to research where it was taken from, but it seems like a copyright vio. Am editing to paraphrase and take out dated language and very lengthy exposition.Parkwells (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing