Contents 1 Origin of term 2 Disambiguation? 3 Dutch Loanwords? 4 Disambiguation 5 A term in itself 6 Delete 7 Delete 8 Suspected infringement 9 Notability and Copyright

[edit] Origin of term

Is it from the Latin "Sanus per aquam", or from the name of Spa, Belgium? This page leaves it ambiguous. The Spa, Belgium article says it is the source, as do books on the topic I have read in Belgium. Should the ambiguous sanus per aquam reference be deleted? --kjd 11:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has since been removed. The "sanus per aquam" derivation is a myth. -- Picapica 16:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It came back. Removed it again! -- Ian Dalziel 20:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And again! - Ian Dalziel 17:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to clear this up, I added a section that states it is not the source. Maybe this will help in the future. Don't know if this can be moved to another section or expanded on. Vegaswikian 18:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• No luck. It keeps being added back in. Perhaps we should add a note in the main text of the article to tell people that it's not an acronym and never was? AlexTiefling 14:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The supposed acronymic explanation is demonstrably not findable in references prior to about 2000 (search Google Books for sanus per aquam; it's clearly some recent marketing invention. Also the Romans invariably called spa locations "Aquae whatever" (Aquae Sulis, Aquae Sextiae, Aquae Iasae, Aquae Arnemetiae, etc). That's all OR, but this isn't: Spa in Belgium was, consistently with that, Aquae Spadanae. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation?

This isn't really a disambiguation page - it's the only entry for the general term "spa". -- Ian Dalziel 21:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed the disambiguation template -- Ian Dalziel 21:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Loanwords?

I really don't know, but I'm sceptical about "Spa" being Dutch, since it's a Francophone Wallon town in Liège! --Ian Dalziel 21:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The town has been around since long before the region became Francophone --Mzzl 08:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it ever used modern Dutch? -- Ian Dalziel 09:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed the category link in the absence of any supporting argument -- Ian Dalziel 17:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

I've turned this into a proper disambiguation page, as per the Manual of Style. Other stuff that was on it needs to be merged with the appropriate articles. Soo 16:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A term in itself

While there are various derivative terms, the common meaning and origin of the terms means this page should give properly sourced information which does not need to be repeated on every page about a derived term. This information has now been added, and the disambiguation template removed. ..dave souza, talk 15:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not happy about re-introduction of the "acronym" origin. Your sources, I think are all printed, so I can't check how credible they are straight away. I offer this from Michael Quinion, though : "Claims that word origins are acronyms are almost always spurious ... In fact, there’s no known example of a word being generated as an acronym before the beginning of the twentieth century (and they were rare until the inter-war years)." [[1]] -- Ian Dalziel 17:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The sources are at the links given, in two cases both as html generated for a google scholar search and as a download link for the pdf. The link regarding acronyms puts a case against, but doesn't address the particular word: it could be added to put the argument against, and it would be good to get something definitive debunking the acronym. However it's a widespread myth, put about by many sites offering spa services (though none in Belgium I've found!), and in my opinion should be mentioned, preferably with the point that it's dubious. If Quinion's a reputable source the point could be added right now. ...dave souza, talk 17:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

Entire article should be deleted because of violation of copyright and use of both government and primary sources on SPA culture of the Midwest (Arkansas) of the USA. The content of SPA is based on a 313-pages-opinion of JOHN PAIGE and LAURA HARRISON from Arkansas, published by the US Government Printing Office, under reg-number 1988-575-822-85171, financed by US Department of Interior, National Park Service. It has been written like a Thesis.

Violation of copyright.

The following reading was copied by word from citation-6, chapter-1: “Many people around the world believed that bathing in a particular spring, well, or river resulted in physical and spiritual purification. Forms of ritual purification existed among the native Americans, Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans”. Many other violations of copyright are present.

US Government financed

More than 80 citations out of 420 citations of citation-6 are financed by the US government, Further, some of the in-citations of citation-6 are lacking year of publication e.g. citation-28, -29, -30 of chapter-2, unpublished letters of the secretary of state of the USA, e.g. “ASHBURY DICKINS and JOHN FORNEY, eds, American States Paper: Documents of the Congress of the United States in relation to the Public Lands from the First Session of the Twentieth Congress, March 3, 1829; 8 vols (Washington D.C.: Gales and Seaton, 1860), 5: 708”,; SCULLY, Hot Springs, Arkansas and Hot Springs National Park, p.23 (no year of publication given); FLINT, The history and geography of the Mississippi Valley… (no year of publication given); or the entire SCULLY-collection; BRYAN, “Report on the hot water supply, p.2”; HANDBURY to TELLER, Secretary of the Interior (USA), 1882;

Advertising

Imbalanced article. Focussing entirely on SPA in the Midwest of the USA- as stated in citation-6. Further, citation-2, -3, -7 are cases of db-g11 (newspaper advertising), citation-6 a summary of primary research, citation-3 not available.

Misleading information

The copyright infringer copied – dangerously – the data presented within the article of PAIGE&HARRISON, as can be seen on the following citation:

“The Baden-Baden bathing procedure began with a warm shower. The bathers next entered a room of circulating, 140-degree hot air for 20 minutes, spent another 10 minutes in a room with 150-degree temperature, partook of a 154-degree vapor bath, then showered and received a soap massage”. Further, this statement is a violation of copyright, taken from citation-6.

The source copied also used the units of “degrees”, however meaning “Fahrenheit”, because the original source is from the USA, where Fahrenheit was common in the 80. However readers might think that the people from Baden-Baden (Germany) are professional killers by using 140-degrees “Celsius”, because “Celsius” is the common unit of degrees of temperature in Europe, even in UK – and 140 degrees Celsius kills. Many other misleading information is present, because taken out of the context of the primary sources, mentioned in the PAIGE&HARRISON-article.

Misleading redirection of galvano-spa-bath

Spa bath and galvano-spa-bath are listed in the database of PUBMED. Wikipedia contained an article on galvano-spa-bath which was deleted and the heading directed to the copyright infringement of SPA. However the readers are not getting any information on galvano-spa-bath from the copyright infringement, only the in-citation-9 of chapter-3 of citation-6 is explaining the use of galvano-spa-bath. Good value – administrator, or redirector sandman!!!

Original research

Many citations missing. Many primary sources, i.e. original research is used by PAIGE&HARRISON in citation-6, base for a Thesis or review article on Hot Springs in the Midwest of USA, and covered within the WIKI-SPA-article as an overview on spa bath in general. Further, Citation-6, the backbone of the spa-article, is listing 420 citations, more than 340 citations are from US newspapers, and unpublished results, from letters to the e.g. Secretary of State of the USA.84.154.99.17 (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've listed this for further examination at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 November 24.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is blanking the page the only answer? 68.49.205.168 (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OR, the redirection of galvano-spa-bath, advertising and other charges are copy edit problems. Given the large number of edits to a long existing article, deletion seems like overkill. Maybe if some specific copyvios exist they need to be excised. Also, isn't US government research public domain? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

IT is not only a long existing violation of copyright as can be seen from former versions, but also consisting of primary research.Alljerry (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How much of the article is a real copyright violation? I'd argue that these can be fixed by editing them out. Not sure what primary research has to do with this. 00:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs, I'm not sure what, exactly, this is supposed to be a copyvio of. The paragraphs quoted above look remarkably similar to the content of a page (with a different name) that was successfully brought to AfD just a couple of weeks ago. The use of the copyvio procedure on this page looks disruptive, and as one of the editors who helped, in a small way, to knock this page into shape, I'm reasonably sure that copyrighted content did not form the bulk of the material on the previous stable version. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

I am a patent attorney from the European Union and quite familiar with IP rights such as copyright. Having a look at the argument of the admin I am convinced that the admin does not know anything on copyright. To make it short: there is no “little” violation of IP rights – it is a yes or no issue with regard to the law - on both sides of the ocean. From the US textbook “Understanding Intellectual Property Law” (Chisum& Jacobs, section 4-153; 1997) you over there across the ocean can learn that there is an infringement of copyright if the work / article is derived directly or indirectly from a copyrighted work, or is substantially similar in expression to the copyrighted work. This is the case with this article as proved by effects of evidence, supra. Therefore the admin, supra, should stay away from this article proposed for deletion on grounds of copyviolation. To make it clear it is a violation based on TRIPS which also has been agreed by the US government. Further the violation is based on USC § 501 Infringement of Copyright (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.pdf).Alljerry (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to nominate this article for deletion, please use the regular procedure. If you are alledging copyright violation, please be certain to cite the source whose copyright is violated. You do not need to lecture us on the nature of copyright law; many of us have a good understanding of how intellectual property law works - I deal with this is a professional capacity myself, though not as a lawyer. What is necessary is to demonstrate that the work, as presented, is an unauthorised copy of one or more specific other sources covered by existing copyright. As one of the authors of the present article, I naturally deny that any such thing is the case. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected infringement

This matter was listed at the copyright problems board. The original contributor of this material, here, provided a link to the source, which s/he indicated was public domain: here (be advised; it's a large pdf). It is a publication of the US Department of Interior, National Park Service. NPS says, "Information presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated , is considered in the public domain. It may may be distributed or copied as is permitted by the law." There is no indication otherwise to exclude a conclusion of public domain. Without evidence that this publication is excluded, there is no copyright infringement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability and Copyright

Administrator AlexTiefling (talk) undeleted the page “spa” or “spa bath”. Major concerns were brought up because of violation of copyright, advertising, primary research, and citations out-of function. Effects of evidence of the violation were presented and discussed on the page “discussion”. Even after our complaints the administrator AlexTiefling did neither fix the citations out of function (no 3, no 4) nor the plagiarism or copyvios. Further, the content of the article is regarded as being dangerous, because it copied physical units of temperature, i.e. Fahrenheit, leaving away the Fahrenheit. Readers out of the USA are lead to Celsius degrees on hot vapour of water (154 degrees). Citation-6 is an internal report of US department of interior, not implicating it is public domain.

Desired outcome The page “spa” should be deleted including former pages, i.e. history.

Powers misused Preventing protecting both US and international copyright. Not checking, verifying the complaints mentioned. Stating that she/he contributed to the article however without fixing obvious mistakes. Using simply the power of an administrator. No fixing obvious mistakes pointed to.

Applicable policy -blatant advertising. -blatant copyright infringement. Wikipedia:Copyright violations. -blatant PlagiarismAlphamay1 (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. I'm an editor like you. I have not undeleted anything, because nothing here was deleted. As for the 'spa bath' article, that was deleted not because of copyright concerns, but because it was a heavily biased point-of-view-specific fork of the present article. The copyright issues in this article have already been investigated (see above) and found to be baseless, since the US government document in question is explicitly in the public domain, and thus legitimate for incorporation into GFDL-based articles such as those on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what you think is being advertised here. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

To this, I will add that notability is a not a speedy deletion criteria, although certain types of articles may be speedily deleted if they do not assert the importance of their topic. This is not among them. Please review WP:CSD and our deletion policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)