Talk:EADGENE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The EADGENE webmaster and the project manager have given permission for this article to be created and they have approved its content. You can contact them via http://www.eadgene.info/AboutEADGENE/ContactUs/tabid/154/Default.aspx. You can also link to this page via the out-dated www.eadgene.org website.

I will be adding citations next i.e. scientific peer-reviewed publications specifically referring to EADGENE. (CarolineChanning (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

That isn't how it works. It is for you to prove that you have permission to use the text. You cannot do that simply by saying that we are free to contact the organisation and ask.

Also, you should be aware of WP:OWN. It is not for the organisation to approve or not approve the content of a Wikipedia article.

Mayalld (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason given for speedy deletion is "This item appears to be a copyright infringement of http://www.eadgene.org/, and no assertion of permission has been made." I was careful to reword and not cut and paste chunks from the website, so I imagine the bit that has been picked up as duplicate is the list of partners. If you can tell me what needs to be changed then I will of course change it as there is no deliberate desire on my part to infringe copyright. And I am sorry if my comment that the project manager had approved content was misunderstood by you, I simply meant that she was happy with what I had written, not that she meant it should be automatically accepted by wikipedia. I hope you will be able to help me (as a new user) conform to the necessary conditions. (CarolineChanning (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

The lead sentence of the article is a word for word copy of the organisation's website.

As to the approval or not of the project manager. To be blunt, Wikipedia doesn't give two hoots about whether anybody from the organisation approves of a page. It isn't about whether or not Wikipedia accepts that there should be an article, it is about editorial independence. If there is an article, it will contain whatever verifiable factual information anybody chooses to add to it, including information that is uncomplimentary to the organisation. Mayalld (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence of the article is "EADGENE is a Network of Excellence, funded by the European Union under the Sixth Framework Programme. EADGENE coordinates a genomics approach to the host (biology)-pathogen interaction research in livestock species." The organisation's website says "EADGENE is a Network of Excellence, funded by the EC. EADGENE aims to coordinate a genomics approach to the unravelling of the host-pathogen interactions in domestic livestock." The sentences may be similar, but my version is not a word for word copy of the website, it is simply describing the same concept. I hope you did not mean to come across as rude with your "two hoots" comment to my apology. I am well aware that anyone can edit/add to/delete the content of this page - I just wanted to be sure the starting point was accurate, hence the check with the project manager. i look forward to a hopefully positive reply, as I would very much like to contribute to wikipedia in the open community spirit in which it started. (CarolineChanning (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

So, it is the first sentence from the website with a couple of extra words thrown in. Adding a few extra words here and there to make the sentence slightly different to the original doesn't stop it being a copyvio. Mayalld (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is very hard to describe what they do without using the key words. They are a Network of Excellence, they are funded by the European Union under the Sixth Framework Programme (this always has to be acknowledged and cannot be left out). They work on genomics, host-pathogen interaction, livestock species. Do you want me for further change the order of these key words or not use them at all? (CarolineChanning (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)).

• I can find no specific definition of the term Network of Excellence, and as such it isn't factual to describe the organisation as such. It is a phrase that the organisation has coined to describe itself (and I might say a somewhat pretentious term - see WP:PEACOCK), so describe it as what it is - an organisation.
• You say that their funding by the EU "has to be acknowledged and cannot be left out", but this simply isn't the case. This is Wikipedia, and neither EADGENE nor the EU can mandate that this must be acknowledged in a Wikipedia article. If you have a personal obligation to include it, then your conflict of interest in respect of this article is such that you simply can't edit it.
• As to the remainder, it isn't about changing key words. You must rewrite the sentence from scratch, using your own words. Taking somebody elses sentence, and changing some of the words is still a copyright violation.

Mayalld (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have just performed this search myself and putting the phrase "Network of Excellence" into google takes you to the EU FP6 Cordis website and gives the official definition "A Network of Excellence is an instrument for strengthening excellence by tackling the fragmentation of European research, where the main deliverable is a durable structuring and shaping of the way that research is carried out on the topic of the network." (http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/instr_noe.htm). EADGENE is an NoE, so this is a FACTUAL description. I have used this to describe what it is because that it the mechanism it obtained funding under. There are other many other Networks of Excellence funded by the EU. As a compromise I will use CeBRA's wording of "so-called" or "so-called by the EU Framework Six Funding Mechanism".
• I think the FACT that EADGENE is funded by the EU is relevant. There is a wikipedia definition of Framework Six programme which it is appropriate to link to.
• I will have another go at this first sentence and ask for yor patience and understanding. I personally disagree with your opinions but am prepared to comprise in order to share information.
• I am delighted to see that a contribution about CeBRA has already been added - it shows an interest in this page already!

(CarolineChanning (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

• Whilst you may be able to find a definition of "Network of Excellence", it remains a peacock term, and a neologism. The EU may decide to define any terms they wish, but it does not mean that the term gains any general currency for use outside of that organisation. It really is best avoided.
• Yes, the funding of the organisation is relevant, but in an article lead it isn't necessary to go into so much detail. Save the detail for the body of the article.
• Whether it is a copyvio or not isn't about opinion. It is a fact that taking a copied sentence and changing some words is a copyvio. For that reason, it must be rewritten.
• The contribution about CeBRA was from me. The article was unbalanced promotion of the virtues of the organisation, and I added it to introduce a bit of reality and balance. I notice that a further sentence has been added which makes claims that the organisation has taken steps to rectify these issues. However, those claims are unsourced, and as such can't be allowed to stand until backed up by reliable sources. Wikipedia has a strict neutral point of view policy, and attempts to edit an article which omits negative points of view, or which minimises them without providing sources (known as POV-pushing) are not allowed.

Mayalld (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments have all been taken on board by me, hopefully to your satisfaction. I have used the phrase "So-called" with ref to NoE, and changed the lead-in. You will notice the section disputed at the start of this discussion is indeed completely rewritten. I have not reintroduced the sentence about CeBRA as the references I had for these further workshops was sourced at the EADGENE website (documents written by CeBRA) and as I have not found them on the CeBRA website these citations are indeed not appropriate. I thank you for your patience, and if you are now satisfied with the content of this page I will be happy for you to archive this discussion (as it will be a little boring for anyone else who wishes to contribute to the Talk page in future, and has become rather long). Best wishes and thank you for your time - it has been a beneficial learning experience for me as a beginner. (149.155.96.6 (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC))(CarolineChanning (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC))