Talk:Austin Dabney

Accuracy

The quote at issue: it was "the first time that a black patriot's grave has been marked in Georgia". See this and Dan Maley (February 11, 2010). "Black Revolutionary War soldier honored". Bay State Banner. (HighBeam subscription required)</ref>

As I've already noted, the quote refers to a "black patriot". You cannot equate this to soldier; otherwise Benjamin Franklin wouldn't qualify as a patriot. Nor does it state the distinction was restricted to Georgians. (It would be like saying Sidney Poitier was the first black of Bahamian birth to win the Best Actor Oscar. True, but misleading just the same.) I don't see why you're so bothered by a single quote, but if you want to rephrase it without the unwarranted distinctions, go ahead and scratch your itch. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't care how it's worded, but nonfree material may not be used on Wikipedia non-transformatively; it's a violation of our copyright standards, just like throwing in a decorative nonfree image. It would also help if you didn't remove citations for material that's otherwise uncited. Until the copyright infringements cease, this will not be eligible for appearance on the Main Page. Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, first I've referenced too much. Now I'm doing too little? Make up your mind. More importantly, show me how I've violated WP:QUOTE. To call using a properly sourced quotation (and they're not even the words of the article writer) copyright infringement is bizarre. And why do you not bother to respond to the issue of the sloppiness of your version? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You're using the quote to describe the topic of the article. If you reword it, the article won't suffer at all: consequently, the quote is replaceable and thus not a fair use, regardless of whose words they are. I don't care what WP:QUOTE says here, because improper use of copyrighted material is illegal and a violation of our nonfree content criteria, which is a basic policy. Meanwhile, you're rendering text uncited; text must be cited to show where it comes from. The issue before was a stylistic thing: since a citation is presumed to cover everything that comes before it in a paragraph, repeated citations to the same thing are unnecessary — completely different from the one you removed, since there's no citation at all for the material you uncited. Finally, note that I said that I don't care how it's worded. Since I didn't have access to the source, I couldn't be sure that I understood what the source was getting at. Since you do have access to it, you'll be able to reword it properly. Finally, start heeding WP:CIVIL in your comments about my writing. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Calling your writing sloppy is uncivil? I've never heard anyone suggest a reference to the last sentence is supposed to cover everything in the preceding paragraph. Your conduct in this matter is so odd and hostile that if you do not desist, I will have to take this to WP:ANI. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Do that, and your repeated "commenting on the contributor, not on the content" will be brought to light. Why do you insist on including this quote instead of rewording it? You will note that I didn't say anything until I was told that I needed to respond to something; if I were hostile, I'd be trying to cause problems instead of enforcing our policies. Refer to featured articles, where you'll see that citations are not required after every sentence. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

My repeated what? I see I'm not getting through to you, so see you at ANI. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If I may (perhaps imprudently) stick my nose in, I wandered over from the ANI listing. It seems to me that you both are partly right.

The quote that was included didn't violate copyright law. It's a pretty non-controversial application of fair use. That being said, Nyttend has a point: just because something can be defended as a fair use quotation doesn't mean that it might not be better to paraphrase. I think there is a confusion of two issues; the availability of a non-copyrighted alternative isn't relevant to whether something is a legal fair use, but it may be relevant to Wikipedia guidelines, which are designed to be more restrictive than the legal rules. Cutting the Gordian knot, to my eye, the paraphrase actually reads better anyway.

Citing once at the end of a paragraph when one source is the basis for the entire paragraph is usually ok. It tends to read better than having several identical consecutive citations. The only problem is that with collaborative works like Wikipedia, things get moved around a lot, so that citation may not be lumped in with all of its associated material after the next editor takes a pass. (It's the same reason that citing to "ibid." is generally disfavored.) With a low-traffic, new article, it's probably fine for now.

Just my two cents. DCB4W (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"Patriot" is not the same as "Georgian soldier". Nyttend's paraphrasing is WP:OR. Any reasonable, accurate reworking I can come up with would perforce include the quote "black patriot", since that is what the Son of the American Revolution said. I could rephrase it as "supporter of the United States" or some other inelegant synonym, but it seems pointless to me to paraphrase just for the sake of avoiding a direct quote.

Can you give me a guideline or example of referencing entire paragraphs with a single source at the end? I've never come across that practice before, not here, not elsewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As to the citation issue: Here, and here, are examples of style manuals that approve of the end-of-paragraph citation, and here is one that deprecates that practice. There isn't an obvious right or wrong answer; it's something I'd think is very much up to the individual editor. DCB4W (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well then, that doesn't apply to most of the paragraphs here, since they draw on multiple sources. In particular, it isn't the case for the second paragraph, the one I tried to improve.

Nyttend, you've been told by SwarmX that I haven't violated WP:QUOTE. Response? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think that the quote is being used for the truth of the matter asserted (e.g., I don't think the quote is being using as part of the text). The quote is expressing an opinon of the Sons of the American Revolution. The problem is that the opinion is regarding black patriot's graves in Georgia whereas the topic of the article is Austin Dabney, not Georgia black patriot's graves. The reference information should be reworded to focus on the topic (e.g., to focus on Austin Dabney). Would the text "To the best knowledge of the organization, Dabney was the first black Georgia patriot from the period whose grave was marked." Or how about "To the best knowledge of the organization, Dabney was the first black Georgia militiaman from the American Revolution whose grave was marked." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you also are distorting the meaning of the quote. The SAR are not saying that that it is a first for a black Georgian, but rather that it is the first for a black in Georgia. Others may have been honored in other states before Dabney for all we know. Also, the second version restricts it to Georgia militiamen, something that is not stated. I suppose you could say, "To the best knowledge of the organization, Dabney is the first 'black patriot' to have his grave marked in Georgia", with "black patriot" in quotes. BTW, I've found a fully accessible copy of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

HI. I noticed this case at the WP:Third opinion forum, and I thought I could offer some assistance. Let me read over the issues above, and then I can ask some questions. --Noleander (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Question for both parties: Is the issue about whether the quote can be used in this article? Or in the DYK? or both? --Noleander (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In the article only (which is holding up the DYK). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. So is an editor asserting that the quote violates WP fair use regulations? --Noleander (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Nyttend is. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Do you assert that the three words "black patriot's grave" are a violation of fair use policies? --Noleander (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: Do you think it would be better (presuming the quote were included) to identify the source of the quote in the text (not just in the footnote)? As in" "According to historian ABC, Dabney's grave was the first 'black patriot's grave' in ...". --Noleander (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The source reads:

"To our knowledge, it's the first time that a black patriot's grave has been marked in Georgia," said Bob Galer, an SAR member from Columbus and one of the organizers of the dedication ceremony.

I think it would be a violation of WP:OR for us to guess what the source meant by "patriot". I suggest just using a quote from the source (and, no, it is not a violation of fair use) and name the source ("Bob Galer, a Sons of American Revolution member" ) in the text, not just in the footnote. If there is another source that can be found that says "AD is the first black soldier that had his grave marked ..." then we can revisit this. --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Noleander. There's plenty of evidence that when the SAR talks about "patriots", they probably mean "patriots of the American Revolution", which means people who served in some military capacity in the Revolution. However, we don't actually know what the SAR means by "black patriot" in this context. I've searched in vain for a source confirming that he was the first black Georgia soldier of the Revolutionary War to have his grave marked. The closest thing I've found is multiple repetitions of statement that this was the first time that the SAR had honored a black person in Georgia ([1], [2]). Accordingly, I think the article needs to either (1) use the words "black patriot" (not an interpretation of what it probably means) or (2) state that he was the first black to be honored by the SAR in Georgia. If the words "black patriot" are used, they should be in quotation marks, and the rest of the quotation should be paraphrased (not quoted) and attributed to a member of the SAR, not to the entire organization. --Orlady (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I see that User:Moonriddengirl expressed a similar opinion about the quotation at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 50. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I edited the article consistent with the three third opinions. --Orlady (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)