Template:Did you know nominations/George E. Clymer

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

George E. Clymer

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

George Clymer's Columbian press

• ... that George E. Clymer in 1813 invented the Columbian printing press (pictured), which marked one of the most significant changes in presses of the 1700s?  Source: Southward, 1900, p. 578
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Aesculapian Club
  • Comment: Statement and source supporting hook are found in the 4th paragraph of the 'Inventor' section

5x expanded by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 23:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC).

• Article contains too-close paraphrasing. Compare for example "naturally desired by many American printers, however, most were too poor at that early date to pay the asking price of $400, so in 1817 Clymer brought brought and introduced his pressto England where it was immediately well received by England's experienced printers and remained in great favor for many years. For his invention Clymer received a gold medal valued at one hundred golden ducats, and following the introduction of his printing press in Russia he also received a present from Alexander I, the Czar of Russia" with "Much as the press was desired by American printers they were too poor at this early date to pay the price ($400), so Clymer took it to England in 1817 where it was immediately taken up by experienced printers and was in great favor for many years. For this invention Clymer received from the King of the Netherlands a gold medal valued at one hundred golden ducats and a present from the Czar of Russia following the introduction of the Columbian press in that country". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
• In the hook, the comma should appear after (pictured) rather than before it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

* @Nikkimaria:, The text in question has been reworded. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• A more comprehensive review and rewrite of the article is necessary. Here is another sample from a different section: "At the age of sixteen he entered the trade of carpentry and joining, and in little time had devised a unique plow especially adapted for tilling the soils in that part of the state. Over the next twenty-five years he continued in this capacity in his home neighborhood and applied his skills and ingenuity in numerous ways" vs "When sixteen years old he took up carpentry and joining, and within a short time devised a unique plow especially adapted to the local soils. He continued at his chosen trade in his home neighborhood for at least twenty-five years, during which time he applied his ingenuity and inventive skill in numerous ways". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Once again, we are dealing with similarities in short general simple phrases. Similarities in bold.

"At the age of sixteen he entered the trade of carpentry and joining, and in little time had devised a unique plow especially adapted for tilling the soils in that part of the state. Over the next twenty-five years he continued in this capacity in his home neighborhood and applied his skills and ingenuity in numerous ways"

"When sixteen years old he took up carpentry and joining, and within a short time devised a unique plow especially adapted to the local soils. He continued at his chosen trade in his home neighborhood for at least twenty-five years, during which time he applied his ingenuity and inventive skill in numerous ways

In any case I will reword a few things if this is an issue, but there is no call for a rewrite of the entire article based on the the similarities of a couple general phrases you have noted here.

Here also, other opinions are needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, the issue is not direct copying, but too-close paraphrasing. I would suggest reviewing WP:CLOP which outlines what that means. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

No need to recite the alphabet. Once again, there were a couple of similarities, but I'm not seeing the proposed and apparent monumental issue you're trying to give us here. Again, other opinions are needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Similarities are still similarities. If they are unavoidable per WP:LIMITED then perhaps that could be accepted, but in any case, if wording is far too similar to existing sources, that should still be avoided except with direct quotes. As you already said, they're "short general simple phrases", so I can't imagine it being difficult to simply paraphrase the wordings instead of copying exact wordings. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• I would echo Narutolovehinata5 and Nikkimaria's comments – if that's not CLOP, I'm not sure what is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm getting the impression that no similarities whatsoever will be accepted here. If they are short general phrases, in context with one's own wording, it shouldn't be an issue. However, I'll begin making some changes since several editors have expressed similar concerns here. Happy New Year. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Text in question has been reworded. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: the close paraphrase issues are still present. The Early life and family section is mostly CLOP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Thanks for your review. The early life section contains simple and general ideas that can only be related in the similar fashion the source does. Telling the same story, using a few similar general phrases might involve some close paraphrasing, but I'm not really seeing where one can refer to the entire section as too close paraphrasing. I am willing to rewrite the entire section but am a little confused as to how to convey these simple ideas without causing the same issues in your opinion.

The source says, emigrated from Geneva early in the eighteenth century. — The article says, "came from a Swiss family that emigrated from Geneva in the early eighteenth century". How would you say "emigrated from Geneva in the early eighteenth century"?

The source says, "born on his father's farm" — The article says, ""He was raised on his father's farm". How would you say Clymer was born and raised on his father's farm?

The source says, "showed a particular skill in the maintenance of the mechanical equipment". — The article says, "he showed himself to be skilled at repairing and improving farming equipment". How would you relate this simple idea without raising too close paraphrasing issues? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I think the first important question is: do any other sources share details about Clymer's early life? Part of the problem is over-reliance on Mitman, and it's hard to avoid clop when presenting the same facts in the same order. If that is the only available source, some of the material could probably be trimmed. We could say, for example, that "Clymer was born around 1754 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, into a family of Swiss ancestry." Some could also be moved. The bit about his early mechanical proficiency could maybe be dropped into a later section, as background on his work on the Columbian Press. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: There are no sources that I know of that cover Clymer's early life. Reliance on one source is usually any issue when used to cite the entire article, or much of it, and gets into matters that could well be expressed from a different point of view. In this case, we're dealing with one short section which covers the simple basics of Clymer's early life. . -- In any case, I rewrote the section which may contain a few similar general terms or phrases. Hope this is adequate for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Additional. Most of the sources only cover Clymer's career as a printing press inventor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Gwillhickers, one thing you can do is pull apart ideas in the source and use a different order and grouping, along with different wordings. You seem to be so fixed on the words that are there that you cannot pull back from them sufficiently to reorganize and restate what's there. For example, your first two examples are from the "Early life and family" section discussing the family's emigration and Clymer's birth. You could start with his birth and upbringing in Bucks County, and then mention that the family had arrived from Geneva, Switzerland, earlier in that century. (Why is the word "emigrated" required?) I was confused and then troubled by the final sentence of that section, which is written in a way that it's unclear whether it was Richard Backhouse who had three daughters (one of which would be Margaret), or Margaret and George. The source says that Clymer was survived by three daughters (and, indeed, you also mention the survival in the "Final years and legacy" section); he could have had other daughters that predeceased him and/or a son (or sons) who did likewise. To say in Wikipedia's voice that his marriage "produced three daughters" gives the impression that it's an exact number born to the couple during their marriage and thus does not accurately convey the extent of our knowledge from the given source. There is another way in which this source is cited for information that is not there: in the next paragraph, the article states and later also obtained a British patent when he introduced his press in England. The source merely says that he later obtained a British patent with no indication as to precisely when. You would need a source with further information to make that "when he introduced" assertion. Regardless, it should be easy for you to avoid paraphrasing here; something like "and was subsequently also granted a patent by Great Britain" would cover it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: Thanks for your review and thoughtful advice. Evidently I finished rewriting the section and posted my second reply to Firefangledfeathers before you completed and posted your message here. I've reordered, as you suggested, a couple of items in the section. As for number of children, the source said three. We have no way of knowing if there were others, and I have reservations about implying anything but what the source says on that note without inviting O.R. concerns. I used a couple of your suggestions so far and will make efforts to use your others if need be. For now I have to run. Hopefully this will be wrapped up by tomorrow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset and Firefangledfeathers: — Suggestions were used in the article, with some minor rewording and other copy-editing. Hopefully all issues have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. If there are any more issues, please let me know and I'll get right on it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I don't think the Early life and family section issues are fully resolved, and I checked the next paragraph down and found more of the same clop issue. I had meant to mark this with Template:DYKno in my first comment here and only now realize I missed it. When the first sections I check have these issues, and I'm not the first editor to bring them up, I think it's fair to say that "considerable work before becoming eligible" is required. I'd appreciate the thoughts of BlueMoonset here, as they are much more experienced with DYK requirements, norms, and procedure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to what statements or paragraphs are at issue?. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's the paragraph I checked. To be clear, I would not consider fixing this one paragraph a resolution to the issue, as I presume other parts of the article are similarly affected. If you'd like further DYK review, it should come only after you check the rest of the article and proactively handle any clop.

Your text:

Clymer moved to Philadelphia around 1800 and became much involved in the construction of the first permanent bridge across the Schuylkill River where it passed through Philadelphia, particularly in the construction of the piers. To clear the coffer-dams he developed a special pump that was capable of pumping 500 gallons of water per minute, which was also capable of dredging and removing sand and gravel, and proved to be far superior to any other pumps in the area at that time. The following year he applied for and received a United States patent on December 22, 1801, and later was also granted a patent by Great Britain.

The source:

About 1800 he moved to Philadelphia and became much interested in the erection of the first permanent bridge across the Schuylkill River, particularly in the construction of the piers. To clear the coffer-dams he devised a pump superior to any then available. It had a capacity of 500 gallons of water per minute and was capable of transporting sand, gravel, and stone. For this he received a United States patent Dec. 22, 1801, and later obtained a British patent.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Firefangledfeathers and BlueMoonset: — Perhaps it's best to withdraw the nomination, as this seems to be taking more time than I had anticipated. I'm of the opinion that CLOP involved more than a few common phrases worded in the same order as presented by the source, and that simple general facts, that didn't involve unique wording or special interpretation was not an issue, esp when it involves a few phrases, per WP:LIMITED. e.g.How many ways can we say Clymer went to Philadelphia in the 1800s, took an interest in the construction of a bridge, and designed a special pump? This is not to say the article didn't need any work. In any case, I'm going to continue addressing any remaining issues, and hopefully soon it will pass a GA review and make the DYK page. I'll ping you guys when that happens. Until then, I want to thank both of your for your extended time and effort here. You can go ahead and remove the nomination. Once again, many thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Marking , though BlueMoonset should feel free to amend/reverse. I think the last part of WP:LIMITED applies:

    "Note, however, that closely paraphrasing extensively from a non-free source may be a copyright problem, even if it is difficult to find different means of expression. The more extensively we rely on this exception, the more likely we are to run afoul of compilation protection."

I believe an uninvolved editor should be around eventually to formally close this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Firefangledfeathers and BlueMoonset: — Yes, we don't want to rely on one guideline, of any sort. At the same time, general statements of fact should not be an issue. e.g.Clymer was born on his father's farm. He worked hard and proved to be skilled in fixing farm equipment, etc. WP:FACTSONLY: "Facts and ideas cannot be protected by copyright, but creative expression is protected. " As soon as we get into matters involving special interpretations, unique wording and that sort of thing, close paraphrasing (where it invites copyright concerns) is then an issue, and I don't see where this was done in the article. It concentrated on statements of fact, and did not copy any unique or creative expressions or interpretations..In any case, at the risk of sounding patronizing, I would have no issues with any involved editors in the future if they conducted themselves fairly and objectively, as you and BlueMoonset have done. Again, thanks for your efforts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)