Talk:Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site

Merge proposal

• Support merging Grant's Farm and Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site since these articles apparently pertain to the same place.- Gilliam (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose merge, as reading the Grant's Farm article states that it is owned by the Busch family and is an entity near to the Historic Site but not part of the historic site, and is privately owned by . I would be willing to reconsider this upon review of additional source material; however, at present, we have this: http://www.slfp.com/SLFP-GrantsFarm.htm Montanabw^(talk) 23:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Grant's Farm and the Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site are not the same place. They are located near each other and have some connected history but Grant's Farm is owned and operated by Anheuser-Busch, promotes Anheuser-Busch (for example, you can try free samples of Anheuser-Busch products, visit the Budweiser Clydesdales etc), while the Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site is operated by the National Parks Service and houses a museum which documents the history of President Grant, slavery and the Civil War. Sarah 09:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Here is why the material that is being added to this article is getting removed: 1) It appears to be a WP:COPYVIO from some other web site. We can't do that. 2) The material is completely unsourced, so we have no footnotes or citations to know WHERE it came from. Please read WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:RS for how to properly attribute things. 3) The material is not properly formatted with headings and subheadings. Now, if problems 1 and 2 were dealt with, problem 3 is minor, but it is not worth the time of another editor to work on formatting when the whole thing is a copy and paste anyway. Rewrite the material in your own words and provide proper references and citations to your sources, and then the material can stay. It's no great conspiracy; it's just not done correctly. Asking people for help instead of instantly attacking them is the best way to get what you need to do completed. Montanabw^(talk) 02:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Follow up: I ran the content through a couple of plagiarism checkers, and the results clearly indicate it is a copy and paste. We truly cannot do this here, but you CAN use the Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site web site as a source - it is a reliable source for this material - but it must be said in one's own words, and ideally will have additional sources. I have no concerns about adding more material and improving this article, but it must be done properly. Montanabw^(talk) 02:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It was written for the web. It is written for the web and is in the public domain and therefore there is no copyright infringement.

Just because something is on the web it doesn't mean it's not copyrighted. ... discospinster _talk 02:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It was written by the National Park Service, and therefore is not copyrighted.Timothy Good (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2014 (U

Not entirely true, and even so, it still has to be sourced and not copied and pasted. Montanabw^(talk) 02:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems that it wasn't written by a third party, so it may well be public domain. Perhaps there is a template that can be added to note this. ... discospinster _talk 02:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is one: {{PD-USGov-Interior-NPS}} ... discospinster _talk 02:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That was a good addition, discospinster. Thanks.Timothy Good (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

We use that one mostly for images. Montanabw^(talk) 02:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, National Park Service material is not copyrighted.Timothy Good (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

IRRELEVANT!!!! You still can't just copy and paste the whole thing here without attribution! That is PLAGIARISM. If a college kid copied and pasted that web site and turned it in, calling it their term paper, they'd flunk the class because it is PLAGIARISM. You are the editor and contributor of the material, hence YOU are responsible to say where you got it and so on... Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The web site reference has been inserted. Is that acceptable?Timothy Good (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

NO! You are still copying it verbatim and passing it off as your own work. That is called plagiarism! Please read this: Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Montanabw^(talk) 03:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see what the Plagiarism article says: "...public-domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source,"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NPS can be used as a source. But where it is properly used, the articles also include material from other sources as well. ~ This article Magnolia Mound Plantation House is an adequate example. See the many inline footnotes and a small bit of material taken from the PD source. Kings Canyon National Park is an even better example of the NPS material being used properly in a footnote. Montanabw^(talk) 04:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The article includes a link that indicates the source (http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm) and I've added the links for the other paragraphs. ... discospinster _talk 05:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

It seems likely that an editor on this page is closely connected with the topic of the article. That would create what we call a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest editors are strongly advised not to edit the article directly, but are always welcome to make suggestions for improvement on the talk page (i.e., this page). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)