Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 08:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seamus Heaney(history · last edit · rewrite) from This article has a history of copyright violations and has a lot of it now. Deletion may be required, and a rewrite certainly will be.♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems premature, frankly. There's nothing on talk that I can see, and this is a popular article that has been highly edited by many. You need to spell out what you think is a copyvio, and from where. In the meantime the blanking tag should probably be removed. ADMIN ATTENTION NEEDED. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the Earwig tool does show that there may be some violations.[1] It highlights [2], [3] and [4] as the most likely sources that may be improperly copied. I do agree with Johnbod that a more thorough explanation is needed from the OP though. "a history of copyright violations and has a lot of it now" is not sufficient rationale to blank the article without discussion. — Amakuru (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, I should have raised the subject of the copyright violations on the talk before throwing the baby out with the bath water, but again, I am not aiming to delete the article. I am seeking a resolution to the copyright problem that doesn't involve gouging out several large pieces of it. Copyright violation is a serious matter, which is why I have taken this step, though I probably should not have beaten around the bush and just rewritten the offending portions as I have before. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, a lot of what Earwig finds is quotes and job titles etc, & I suspect the copying in the top two may be the other way round, which should be checked. Yes, you should have raised the matter on talk. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly this blanking and tagging action seems (at best) premature and (at worst) ill-considered and somewhat reckless. Of the sources which are claimed as potential copyvio issues, I would note that the:
first (a page on seamusheaney.org) is from a domain that was first registered in August 2006. A comparison of the article content in revision ID 67196088 (a revision ID/point-in-time before that domain even existed) suggests that the seamusheaney.org page borrows at least some of its content from the Wikipedia page. Rather than the other way around.
third (the Irish Times obituary) was also published sometime after the bulk of the content on this article had already been written. And regardless, as has already been noted, the main content similarities which the tool notes are simply the titles of Heaney's works, quotes from others about Heaney, quotes from Heaney's own works, job titles and awards held by Heaney, and other short strings of text that are not copyrightable or materially relevant in a copyvio discussion regardless.
I'm not sure what conditions need to precede this type tagging/escalation, but I would have considered that a tagging editor should have at least undertaken a quick review themselves (along the same lines as WP:BEFORE), addressed any obvious points in that review themselves, and/or (if they didn't have time/energy/interest in doing so themselves) at the very least highlighting any concern on the relevant Talk page. Or project. So that other editors could make a quick review. And consider whether the copyvio concerns hold enough water to warrant escalation. Which, in my view, they do not.... Guliolopez (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Meanwhile, the page has been blanked for 4 days, which at an average 650 daily views, means some 2,600 readers have been thrown back onto the much shorter other top-of-google hits, if they bother going there. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the most egregious copyvio/close paraphrasing I could find, which comes from the BBC article which is from 2004 at latest, but was added to the article in 2006. Before and after. Don't mind the percentages; look at the content. There were some additional small bits of copying from other sources that I also rewrote. It's very late, and I'm tired, so I'd appreciate another pair of eyes on this. Here is the overall diff. I don't think there is enough left to warrant keeping the blanking template, so I've removed it. I agree with the above that we should be very careful about blanking high visibility/vital articles without some specific identification of what the problem is. — The Earwig (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 08:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)