Talk:Thai political party withdraws nomination of princess for prime minister

Review of revision 4463273 [Not ready]

 * I have been under the impression that "distance from source" refers to the Wikinews text being too close to verbatim, that this is a plagiarism avoidance thing. I looked at each of these and checked all three sources for each one.  Either the numbering doesn't match or I've misunderstood the term.  Per Paragraph 3, the words "first member of the royal family to" appear in the AP source, but they're not accompanied by anything else verbatim. "Election commission is required to rule" doesn't appear in any of the sources.  The word "predecessor" does not appear near "oust" in any of the three sources... I'm also not sure if you're saying the source used distinctive phrasing or the Wikinews article does.  I moved a few things around anyway.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well a lot of those bits got churned up in the update anyway. Title's up for grabs.  I'm not loving it.  I think it's unlikely people won't know what country the Thai Raksa Chart party is from, given the name. Hm. "Princess' prime ministry play put on pause by party preoccupation with kingly prerogative"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll try to remember to make some further comments, when the time comes, on distance-from-source. --Pi zero (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What about shortening it by putting the king's disapproval into the body alone? Thai political party withdraws princess's prime ministerial nomination? BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've applied the major simplifications; while preserving specific details as submitted, which is not quite as compact, by two words. --Pi zero (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding distance from source. The rule of thumb on verbatim copying says if there are four consecutive words identical to source, that's a problem, with some mostly-common-sense reasons, such as someone's title (I tend to treat name-and-title as if they were one "word", and sometimes make allowances for verb forms that require multiple words in English though I wouldn't care to say off hand exactly how that works).  However, that isn't the only way a passage can be too-close-to-source.  If a lengthy passage is unchanged except that it's been "scuffed up" &mdash; superficial changes here and there such as changing the tense of a verb, substituting a supposed synonym, or the like &mdash; it can still be a problem.  Even minor word reordering isn't an ideal solution, although it may be the most a reviewer can do without disqualifying themselves from publishing the article. Here's a simple example of problematic "scuffing up"; first, the passage from source (which isn't too long to quote in this non-news-reportage context), then the text submitted to Wikinews, with the problem highlighted in pink, and scuffed bits in orange.  Note that only the last bit was flagged by semi-automation; the larger passage was reconstructed from that hint by human review.
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Al Jazeera
 * Thailand has been a constitutional monarchy since 1932 but the royal family has wielded great influence and commanded the devotion of millions.
 * Wikinews
 * Thailand became a constitutional monarchy in 1932, but the royal family remains popular with the people.
 * }
 * (The latter part of this also had some neutrality/analysis difficulty.) Peculiar/distinctive word choices and turns of phrase are best avoided too, e.g. the word "ousted" in this case (though that was also in the midst of a lengthier too-close passage). --Pi zero (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Problem is that the source does not say that the monarchy was limited by a constitution in 1932, as is now in the Wikinews article. It only says that the monarchy became constitutional in 1932.  The idea that the constitution reduced the monarchy's power is an inference or assumption.  It's probably right, but it's still not direct from the source.  Going from the source alone, the monarchy might have had less power before 1932 than under the constitution. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My comment above is about copyvio. The content issue you mention is quite separate.  (And yes, it's right.  It's also what the words in the source would be understood to mean by most people, so that if it weren't right it would be deceptive and need redress regardless of whether it was technically true.  We don't get excused from making a mistake because we used a source that made the same mistake &mdash; we're supposed to realize when information is suspect, and take steps to attribute or omit surgically as appropriate.  With the notion of "obvious"ness lurking on the fringes.) --Pi zero (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Problem is that the source does not say that the monarchy was limited by a constitution in 1932, as is now in the Wikinews article. It only says that the monarchy became constitutional in 1932.  The idea that the constitution reduced the monarchy's power is an inference or assumption.  It's probably right, but it's still not direct from the source.  Going from the source alone, the monarchy might have had less power before 1932 than under the constitution. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My comment above is about copyvio. The content issue you mention is quite separate.  (And yes, it's right.  It's also what the words in the source would be understood to mean by most people, so that if it weren't right it would be deceptive and need redress regardless of whether it was technically true.  We don't get excused from making a mistake because we used a source that made the same mistake &mdash; we're supposed to realize when information is suspect, and take steps to attribute or omit surgically as appropriate.  With the notion of "obvious"ness lurking on the fringes.) --Pi zero (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)