Talk:George Eldon Ladd

From Theopedia

Wikipedia copied Theopedia article, not the reverse

Not to be picky, Jason. But you rewrote the article (1/22/08) claiming that it was copied from Wikipedia. Quite the contrary. The Wikipedia article was originated 9/21/06 based on a copy of what already existed in Theopedia. I wrote the Theopedia article which reached it's near final state in October 2005. However, this is not to say your rewrite should be undone. But I may add back in a few points from the earlier version. Jim Ellis 13:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean Jordan? ;) Sorry about the confusion. I made an assumption I shouldn't have and I'm sorry for reworking your material. I don't mind reverting and then adding any info that wasn't already there. Yet, this does bring up something I've wondered about - I understand that Wikipedia is "copyrighted" and that we can't copy their material without citing it. But what happens when they copy our material and then it technically becomes copyrighted on Wikipedia? Does this make sense? Jordan Barrett (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Jordan, I can't answer your question for sure. But if our material is "public domain," Wikipedia can probably use it as they see fit with no sourcing. I don't think it is the best way for them to do it, but I haven't read their policies on such. On our article, let's just work with your latest. I've already added two points I though significant. I can't believe I called you Jason. Sorry buddy. Jim Ellis 14:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Again, sorry for rewriting a perfectly good article. Don't worry about "Jason," I've been called worse. ;) Jordan Barrett (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)