Talk:W. H. Grattan Flood

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Composers

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers articles

Untitled

I don't know a great deal about Grattan Flood's career in general, but his book "The Story of the Bagpipe" is generally considered by most historians of the subject to be utterly unreliable. As for the article itself, it seems pretty adulatory in tone, but as I know little about him, I think it's best left to others to clean up. Calum 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments by the author of this page

1. i do not know the proper protocols required to respond to Calum

2. i have played in a pipe band for 59 years, and know the turf.

3. i collect books on the bagpipes, and from a technical point of view, the history of the pipes leaves a lot to be desired; mostly a lot of wishful thinking.

4. i am not aware of any historian who has criticized chevalier flood.

5. in any event, the article is not about the efficacy of the great highland pipe vs. the great irish warpipe, or about bagpipes at all.

6. i am a student of irish history, inter alia, and i do know that chevalier flood received numerous accolades from the highest offices

7. i re-checked the article for adulatory comments. none are really my words but the words of others. i see words like "renowned, major figure, works much praised, prolific, and so forth. these words represent less than 1/10th of 1% of chevaliers story. if editor wants to remove them to make the article less adulatory then so be it. it does not take away from the accomplishments of chevalier flood.

joe 02:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio?!

While I agree that the adulatory form is not necessarily a violation of WP:NPOV, we have the more serious issue of WP:C -- this page is extremely similar to the following article: http://www.waterfordcountylibrary.ie/library/web/Display/article/96/ which is copyrighted by the Waterford County Library, a part of Waterford County Council. The text needs to be completely rewritten, in truth, I really need to blank it out per {{copyvio}}. The information in that site may be used, if properlty referenced, but it must be re-written enough to be a new work. -- Avi 18:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that only the beginning is an issue, and if that could be re-written to not sound as if complete phrases or sentences were lifted from the above link, I think it would be fine. -- Avi 20:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

i have made some modifications to the article and placed some of the material closer together so they could be sourced properly.

it amounts to a handful of words.

by the way. when i go over my notes from lots of sources over the years, i could argue that everyone is violating everyone else, since they all use the same words to describe grattan flood. using words like works of enduring value, proflic writing, pivotal works, etc.

the article as it stands now is mostly facts.

i have read some of his works on music and i have a lot to say about his works. and will add it to the article when i have time.

i also plan to go back to wexford ireland, and get better pictures for this article. i also need to find where his papers are being stored. he has corresponded with some of the giants of his time, and some of that needs to be revealed.

i think the way i have presented the article after rewrite is more neutral. although everyone praises him as "renowned"

please give me some ideas on how i can conform this article to the highest standards of wiki.

joe 05:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article as it stands doesnt look like anything else that i am aware of.

COPYRIGHT ISSUES

To the editors of Wikipedia.

I have permission from the Waterford Library to use any of their material on Flood for wikipedia.

i have have been told by two reliable sources, that the book, the story of the bagpipe, (1911) is in the public domain. The first source is from prof hutten, iowa univ, copyright department, and the second is from Mz Walter, Wiley @ Sons. i pursued Scott Publishing, then Scribner, and finally Wiley & Sons. Scribner had indicated that when they were acquired by Thomson, they sold their library collection to Wiley. But Wiley has no copyright on the book because it was published in 1911.

So i intend to use graphics from the book, as well as quote freely from all the william henry grattan flood material. joe 00:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are an editor of Wikipedia. Yes, a 1911 publication from Ireland will be long out of copyright now (I think Ireland's copyright laws are identical to the UKs, at least from that era?). As to using the stuff, go ahead, but remember that Wikipedia is for writing articles about topics, not wholesale copying of non-encyclopaedic writing - by which I mean that the style and content of the majority of his work will not be suitable for drag and drop. If you are willing to make the effort to digitise it, it would be better off in the sources wiki. Calum 06:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSource, to be precise. --Craig Stuntz 12:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of cutting and pasting. it is not a challenge. I am interested in facts that should be in an encyclodpeida. i am not interest in opinions unless they are from Einstein or Jesus. i will check out wikisource. there is a lot of content in Flood's book that should be preserved somewhere. i have already digitized it and will probably keep it on my website (which is being overhauled).

what i find interesting is that Flood made some stupid errors in copying source material; but some of his critics are dead wrong in their statements of his so called errors. it is clear to me that they have not read his work. but so what.

my goal is simple. i like google and own a ton of it. and i like wikipedia. together they make a great tool for education. and i have some time to store some of my knowledge on wikipedia. so i will do it in the hope that is makes the world a more informed place. joe 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]