Talk:The Octagon House

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance). National Register of Historic Places High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Museums Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'm sorely tempted to place a copyvio template on this page since it is copied verbatim from http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dc22.htm. However, is it a copyvio if the source does not carry a copyright notice? It's blatant plagiarism all the same, but is it a copyvio if there's no stated copyright? --Canonblack 10:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[EDIT] The same passage, again verbatim, appears on this page as well [1] as the second of three sections in a much longer write up. This page does carry a copyright notice, however it also has a link to the

NPS page cited above. So which came first, and if NPS is the original source, is it free use? And if it's free use, shouldn't NPS be credited here? --Canonblack 10:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

According to the public domain page...

Works of the United States Government and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain.

and since this came from an nps page I think it's covered, but I should source it.

[EDIT] It's listed as the reference. What more do you think should be done?

Cranor 04:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there were a section describing how the house got the name "Octagon," when in actuality it's shaped like a hexagon. I don't know the answer. Does anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:E04:F77:F55C:435F:162C:E965 (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of the date I'm posing this the article contains the text "President Madison ratified the Treaty of Ghent, ...". No. Wrong. The Senate RATIFIES a Treaty. The President SIGNS it.For instance, in the article on the Kennedy-era Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, we find that President Kennedy SIGNED the Treaty on 7 October 1963, while the Senate RATIFIED the Treaty on 24 September 1963. I am increasingly frustrated with this sort of content from Wikipedia. I think that if this kind of disregard of the fact that "signed" and "ratified" are two different words were to occur in someone's Master's Thesis or even a term-paper of an undergrad, it would be rejected. And yet we find people like this writing for Wikipedia all the time.2600:8804:8C40:31:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]