Talk:Steven Millhauser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

I believe User:Birdmessenger was in error in tagging the Steven Millhauser page as in possible violation of copyright. The notice at the bottom of the page cited reads: "Certain biographical material and photos licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, from Wikipedia, which is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc." In other words, that page took the material from Wikipedia, not the other way around. I can tell you for sure that the list of works on the Mystic Games page is, except for being in a single paragraph rather than on separate lines, exactly as I ordered and formatted it, all on my own, on the Wikipedia page back in May.ShelfSkewed 17:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Seems I missed that notice. My mistake. My alarms were triggered, however, by the intro paragraph:

Steven Millhauser (born 3 August 1943 in New York City) is perhaps one of modern American fiction's most elusive characters. When his novel, Martin Dressler, won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1997, Millhauser told an interviewer that it would not change his life one bit — "I dare it to," he was quoted as saying. The prize brought many of his older books back into print. As the patina of the prize faded however, they slowly retreated from the shelves and back into the hands of the small but devoted following he has always enjoyed.

That text and the rest of the article is not encyclopedic in tone at all, in my opinion, which is why I was quick to assume it was copied from elsewhere.--Birdmessenger 17:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a feeling that was the case. After noticing the CV tag, my reaction to the tone of the prose was identical to yours, until I saw the fine print. Now how do we get the tag removed? I know it's as easy as editing the page, but I don't want to get zapped by an admin for editing a CV-tagged page.ShelfSkewed 17:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I was kind of wondering that, too. Eh, I guess I'll take it off since I put it on. I can take a zapping if I have to.--Birdmessenger 17:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think your instincts were correct. The page cited may have copied it from Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean the Wikipedia author didn't copy it from somewhere else. Have a look at these:

• Powell's Books - The Barnum Museum (see About the Author)
• Dalkey Archive Press - The Barnum Museum (see Author)

I'm going to reinstate the copyvio. DoctorElmo 17:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Article NOT plagiarized 2 Text in question 3 Permission to use my article withdrawn 4 From the Realm of Morpheus query

[edit] Article NOT plagiarized

I am DEEPLY disturbed at this false labelling of the Steven Millhuaser article as plagiarized.

I am a college professor, longtime scholar of Millhauser's novels, and I wrote the entire original version of the article myself; every word is my own. The only quote in the article, where Millhauser replied, in response to being asked whether the Pulitzer Prize would change his life, "I dare it to." This was a quote widely reported in the press at the time (TIME magazine, the New York Times, and others will verify this) and it is attributed as a quote, and it is brief and well within fair use.

The sites listed as sources for the article are in fact sites which have quoted, without acknowledgement, from the wikipedia article. The article was started by me in 2005 (the quoted material is from the first paragraph, there from the start) and has been around long enough that evidently both Powell's Books and the Dalkey Archive Press found it, and found it worth quoting.

Whoever marked this as a copyright violation should have looked further into the case. Can anyone mark an article as such? Is this person an administrator? Shouldn't the protocol be to contact the main author(s) of the article? I wish there were a much clearer process to speedily adjuducate such claims.

I have been an admirer of Millhauser's works for 20 years and spent many hours crafting a good article, which was then edited and added to by a small number of devoted wikipedians. Nothing in the article in any way violates any copyright; all of the text is original, and even the most cursory examination of the sources would show that the wikipedia text is the common ancestor of both the phrases on Powell's and those at the Dalkey Archive Press.

I have spent, by my own estimate, some 200 hours contributing to wikipedia, and have until now enjoyed the process. I have not only contributed articles but have released several of my own photographs into the creative commons license just so they could be used freely on wikipedia.

This kind of too-quick labelling of an article of mine as plagiarized is tremendously disheartening, and makes me want to never contribute again. The services of thoughtful hardworking people who are central to keeping the wikipedia accurate will be hard to obtain, I should think, if the wikepedia's adminsitrators so carelessly label their work as copyright infringement with no substantive basis.

Sincerely, Russell A. Potter, Ph.D., Professor of English, Rhode Island College Profrap 23:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text in question

Having looked at the Powell's Books site, I believe that the text in question is that which reads:

"Steven Millhauser is perhaps one of modern American fiction's most elusive characters ..."

That line is a QUOTE from my article. Has no one considered the possibility that the Powell's web author quoted from the wikipedia?

Many people quote the wikipedia without attribution, which, in the sense of the wiki's goals, should be totally kosher, I believe (though the source should have been noted). However, what is to prevent anyone who is checking the wikipedia for originality to, having seen a quote elsewhere, suddenly ban the wikipedia article as plagiarized?? This, it seems to me, is very likely to become an increasingly serious issue over time,

Professor Russell A. Potter Profrap 23:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Permission to use my article withdrawn

Having given the matter a good deal of thought, I have decided that I cannot comfortably contribute to an online "community" where I have no control over my own contributions. I understand the wikpedia's goals, and admire them -- however, the kind of investment I make in my own writing is too singular for me to be comfortable having my text edited, flagged, etc. by random people.

I have moved the original version of my brief essay on Mr. Millhauser to my own website, where it will reside at

http://www.ric.edu/rpotter/authors/Millhauser.htm

I hereby withdraw permission for the wikipedia and the Wiki Media foundation to use this work, which is copyrighted by me. I request that the entire article on Steven Millhauser be withdrawn immediately.

As a follow-up to this action, I am abandoning my own account. I have applied for a new password and have deleted the e-mail containing it, so I will be unable to make any further postings.

For all my other contributions other than the article "Steven Millhauser," all the permissions and releases to the GNU license, public domain, etc., remain in effect.

regretfully,

Dr. Russell A. Potter

Profrap 20:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You have once agreed to license your contribution under the GFDL; this permission cannot be revoked. That said, it is unfortunate how this situation has turned out. Fredrik Johansson 14:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Russell Potter has taken the issue to the Citizendium forum here. This looks like a silly mixup, so I'll restore the version of the article immediately previous to the copyvio notice. I'll also revise the entry to make the article more encyclopedic in tone, and less like a bookstore blurb. That should help eliminate any further confusion on the copyvio issue. Casey Abell 15:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Before I do anything, I've left notices on the Wikipedia copyright problems page and on DoctorElmo's talk page. I'll allow some time for any objections, then restore the page and do the revisions. Fair enough? Casey Abell 16:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

From Profrap (still lurking about) I appreciate your repairing the immediate damage, but still feel the process was not very effective here. Having already been informed that the 'suspect text' was soon to be deleted, I am also surprised to find the GDFL still enforceable -- chalk that up to the department of unforseen consequences.

I moved the new version to a temp location, deleted the existing article to get rid of the copyvio versions, and then moved the new version back into place. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From the Realm of Morpheus query

Does anyone know why From the Realm of Morpheus is the only one of Millhauser's books never to be reissued? Other than the original 1986 Morrow hardcover, my searches haven't turned up a reprint of any kind, even a non-U.S. edition. --ShelfSkewed [Talk] 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, From the Realm of Mopheus was issued in hardcover by William Morrow; it did not sell well and was quickly remaindered (I was working at a bookstore at the time, and the large quantity and low price of the remainders surprised me). I think also that the episodic quality of the story, the strange mix of baseball with Elizabethan English, was offputting for some readers, and is likely a factor in its not being reissued. I also have heard that Millhauser was obliged to cut the mansucript fairly severly, and perhaps that makes it read less coherently than his other novels

-- the ghost of Profrap

Thanks. Perhaps Dalkey Archive Press, a publisher that doesn't shy away from Quixotic publication projects, and which has already reprinted a couple of his books, will allow him the opportunity (if he wants it) to issue a "restored" version. --ShelfSkewed [Talk] 22:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)