Talk:Tell Tweini

Stolen History section

Large sections were stuck in, unsourced, by an IP editor completely cribbed essentially verbatim from a paper. Example text from the paper "By the beginning of the 9th century BCE Tell Tweini had been completely redeveloped. Excavations and a geomagnetic survey revealed a well-preserved plan of the city during the Iron II/III period (ca. 900-500 BCE) (Fig. 2), showing a new orientation of the city structure (Fig. 20), with an elaborate street system (Fig. 21) connecting several monumental buildings (Field A) (Figs. 15-16), including a Phoenician temple district (Field B), with domestic and industrial areas" to compare to the article. From "Bretschneider, Joachim, et al. "Tell Tweini: a long story short." About Tell Tweini (Syria): artefacts, ecofacts and landscape: research results of the Belgian Mission. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 281 (2019): 1-30.". Haven't decided what to do about that.Ploversegg (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ploversegg: Was the 2019 article published under an open licence? There are two options:

1. If the source is available under a Wikipedia compatible licence, then text can be used with proper attribution.
2. If the source is not under a suitable licence, the text needs to be removed as it is breaching copyright, and the revisions containing copyrighted material deleted as per WP:RD1.

Richard Nevell (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, the short answer is I have no idea. :-) I do know that the publicly accessible Text says "The copyright on this publication belongs to Peeters Publishers." I also know AI says "The publication "Tell Tweini: a long story short" (likely authored by K. Vansteenhuyse or in collaboration with J. Bretschneider) has been listed in academic contexts alongside the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License" which I never believe AI off the drop and also I have no idea what that means.Ploversegg (talk) Ploversegg (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

If in doubt, it's best to assume the licence isn't compatible. Even if the AI is correct (and I'm not convinced), Wikipedia doesn't allow a CC licence with non-commercial or no derivatives clauses.

So the text can be removed and if someone can demonstrate it is suitably licensed it can be added back in. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. My plan ... go ahead and upgrade the archaeology section, which can carry some of the load of the deleted text, then roll back the History section to what was there before the transgression occurred and work from there.Ploversegg (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that if you add your planned upgrade and the remove the problematic text, revision deletion will end up making the attribution of what you added less clear as all revisions with the copyrighted text would need to be removed, no just the initial edit. That may not be a big deal, but if you would like to preserve the history of what you will have added it would be worth reversing the order. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I was planning to just go back in time (article history), copy the History section from the earlier article version, then delete what is in the current history section and put what I time grabbed. Does that violate some Wiki-rule?Ploversegg (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The edits in Question happened in 2021 btwPloversegg (talk) Ploversegg (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Removed copyrighted text added by IP editor

Reverted to text before edits in question occurred. If someone were to wish to see the deleted content it can be found at the article history version. Ploversegg (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)