Talk:Peter Kivy

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

Biography

	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 has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Aesthetics / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Aesthetics
	Contemporary philosophy

This Wikipedia articles verges on plagiarism[edit]

This Wikipedia article about Peter Kivy is very close to outright plagiarism. Nearly the entire text is drawn from Naomi Cumming's article on Kivy in Grove Music Online. Some of it is taken word for word (without quotation marks) from Cumming, and the rest is a closely paraphrased or condensed version of her work. It's true that there are two footnotes crediting Cumming, but these footnotes do not give the reader any inkling of how thoroughly the article relies on her. I don't know if this sort of thing is normal practice in Wikipedia (I realize that original research is discouraged), but in the academic world it is considered unacceptable and even scandalous. Short of a completely new article, perhaps the best thing to do would be to add lots of quotation marks and additional footnotes, in a way that would make clear the extent of the debt to the other article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.179.165 (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]