Template:Did you know nominations/Austin Dabney
The following is an archived discussion of Austin Dabney's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC).
Austin Dabney
[edit]- ... that slave Austin Dabney was the only African American granted land by the Southern state of Georgia for his military service in the American Revolutionary War?
- Reviewed: John Russell, Viscount Amberley
Created by Clarityfiend (talk). Self nom at 02:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Alt. hook 1 "... that slave Austin Dabney was purchased from his owner, freed, and granted land by the Southern state of Georgia for his military service in the American Revolutionary War?" Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Ready to go after some cleanup; new enough, long enough, information is in sources, and hook is reflected in article. I wasn't convinced of notability at first, but when someone is covered in a professional encyclopedia, we'd be foolish to declare that he doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I much prefer the first hook; the second is in the article as well, but the first is catchier. Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Not eligible; the nominator persists in including an unnecessary nonfree quote. Until this is resolved, it is not eligible for appearance on the Main Page any more than would be an article with gratuitous nonfree images. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any unnecessary nonfree quotes are included in the article. duplicationdetector shows some issues, but not too many issues. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- When I left the above comment, Clarityfiend was doing his best to get the quote back into the article, and I figured that he'd revert me again as he'd just done a little while before. He's since gone to ANI to force it through, and see the talk page; this isn't a stable situation yet. Nothing from the New Georgia Encyclopedia appeared significant to me; I check all online sources (if not password-protected or in another language) when I review. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- When I looked at the article, the quote item was not in it.[1] On the article talk page Talk:Austin Dabney, Clarityfiend appears willing to replace the quote.[2] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems the quote in question is this one [3]. Is this argument over the inclusion of the single small quote: "the first time that a black patriot's grave has been marked in Georgia" credited to Dan Maley (February 11, 2010). "Black Revolutionary War soldier honored". Bay State Banner. (HighBeam subscription required)? Is it really the quote itself or the wording that somehow offends? A quote that short is well within the limits of fair use. Don't see where Nyttend is going with this unless I'm missing inclusion of more block-type quoting. Froggerlaura ribbit 13:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's the entire disputed quote. Puzzling no? (The article from whence it came can be read here.) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, according to WP:Quote quotations from non-free sources are allowed as long as they are not excessive or utilize a substantial part of the non free work. The recent edit by Nyttend marked "Reword a quote how you want, but you may not include nonfree material used non-transformatively" is perplexing since quotes (by definition non-transformative material) can definitely be used and the original wording of the quote appears to be integral to understanding the passage. Froggerlaura ribbit 02:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- The point is that it's a quote being used as part of the text. Quotes are used transformatively when they're used to demonstrate what someone thinks or says, but here it's just being used instead of Clarityfiend's own words: the article wouldn't at all suffer if he were to rewrite it in his own words. Using someone else's words when yours will work is only appropriate when those words are in the public domain or freely licensed; otherwise it's a violation of our nonfree content standards, just like when someone uses a nonfree image when a freely-licensed or PD image will work. If Clarityfiend had introduced his own words as soon as I raised this, we wouldn't have been having this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- What is your problem? You've already had two editors other than myself state they were unable to understand your objection. How many more do you need? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're violating our nonfree content criteria by using nonfree content unnecessarily. You're responsible for prolonging this because you've refused to use your own words. How much simpler can I be? Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nyttend, Clarityfiend has already stated that the attempts at paraphrasing do not convey the same meaning as the quote and are misleading. A soldier is not the same thing as a patriot. That is not what the source is saying. The quoted passage is taken verbatim from a quote from an SAR member, so we are quoting his opinion second hand. The very short quote is under the terms of fair-use. Clarityfiend should include the phrase "in SAR member Bob Galer's opinion" to the quote to clarify whose opinion this is. I personally have no idea what "black patriot" means or what categories of people it is meant to include, so for me to paraphrase based on what I think Mr. Galer might mean is misleading and something I find more damaging to the project than quoting him directly in his own words. Froggerlaura ribbit 05:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're violating our nonfree content criteria by using nonfree content unnecessarily. You're responsible for prolonging this because you've refused to use your own words. How much simpler can I be? Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- What is your problem? You've already had two editors other than myself state they were unable to understand your objection. How many more do you need? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- The point is that it's a quote being used as part of the text. Quotes are used transformatively when they're used to demonstrate what someone thinks or says, but here it's just being used instead of Clarityfiend's own words: the article wouldn't at all suffer if he were to rewrite it in his own words. Using someone else's words when yours will work is only appropriate when those words are in the public domain or freely licensed; otherwise it's a violation of our nonfree content standards, just like when someone uses a nonfree image when a freely-licensed or PD image will work. If Clarityfiend had introduced his own words as soon as I raised this, we wouldn't have been having this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, according to WP:Quote quotations from non-free sources are allowed as long as they are not excessive or utilize a substantial part of the non free work. The recent edit by Nyttend marked "Reword a quote how you want, but you may not include nonfree material used non-transformatively" is perplexing since quotes (by definition non-transformative material) can definitely be used and the original wording of the quote appears to be integral to understanding the passage. Froggerlaura ribbit 02:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's the entire disputed quote. Puzzling no? (The article from whence it came can be read here.) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems the quote in question is this one [3]. Is this argument over the inclusion of the single small quote: "the first time that a black patriot's grave has been marked in Georgia" credited to Dan Maley (February 11, 2010). "Black Revolutionary War soldier honored". Bay State Banner. (HighBeam subscription required)? Is it really the quote itself or the wording that somehow offends? A quote that short is well within the limits of fair use. Don't see where Nyttend is going with this unless I'm missing inclusion of more block-type quoting. Froggerlaura ribbit 13:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- When I looked at the article, the quote item was not in it.[1] On the article talk page Talk:Austin Dabney, Clarityfiend appears willing to replace the quote.[2] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- When I left the above comment, Clarityfiend was doing his best to get the quote back into the article, and I figured that he'd revert me again as he'd just done a little while before. He's since gone to ANI to force it through, and see the talk page; this isn't a stable situation yet. Nothing from the New Georgia Encyclopedia appeared significant to me; I check all online sources (if not password-protected or in another language) when I review. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any unnecessary nonfree quotes are included in the article. duplicationdetector shows some issues, but not too many issues. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Third opinion
I arrived at this issue via the WP:Third opinion forum. I've started a discussion about it at Talk:Austin Dabney. Could interested persons please post comments over at that talk page (not here .. that way the comments are all co-located). Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The issue seems to have been resolved. The quotation has been removed from the article. The article has been stable for several days. Discussion on the talk page has petered out. All is OK now. --Orlady (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- No it hasn't. I just gave Nyttend a week to respond. The argument is still going hot and heavy. The paraphrasing (and the need for it) is dubious, to put it mildly. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- As Clarityfield notes, this is still at an impasse with the third opinion process seemingly stalled: I think this should wait until the third opinion process is declared over or dead, or someone new with sufficient gravitas weighs in here. (How about you, Orlady?) There seems to be a genuine disagreement regarding fair use/non-free content here. Nyttend originally replaced a thirteen-word quote Clarityfiend had included in the article (itself part of a quote in the article of something a man named Bob Galer said) with a paraphrase that Clarifyfiend felt missed a critical distinction in the quote, and when the quote was eventually reduced to the three words "black patriot's grave", Nyttend maintained that the shorter quote was still "violating our nonfree content criteria by using nonfree content unnecessarily" and removed it. For myself, I don't see how the article could use the word "patriot" from this source without some sort of quote. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The situation with the quotation seems to be resolved. There are now three "third opinions" that are all in agreement, including one by Noleander, one by me, and one that I found on Moonriddengirl's talk page. I've edited the article accordingly. Back to the hooks and article: Original hook still looks OK. I have concern about ALT1, in that he wasn't exactly "purchased from his owner" -- rather, his owner's heirs were paid compensation for his emancipation. So as not to prolong this any further, let's go with the original hook. --Orlady (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)