Talk:Double reed

EB1911

Copied from User talk:Hyacinth

[Snip]

The reason for simply including text from Public Domain (PD) sources and not quoting them is that the often archaic or floury Edwardian wording can be updated in the usual Wikipedia way -- something that can not be done if it is quoted.

[Snip]

@PBS: A cited quote is much more transparent then the highly opaque paragraph which is actually a quote with a note at the bottom of the page saying that some of the article may or may not have originated or be exactly the text from a source. You say {{EB1911}} exists for a reason, I say that {{Cite EB1911}} exists for a reason. Hyacinth (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

if the text is opaque then placing it outside quotation marks makes it possible for Wikipedia editors to edit the text and make it more transparent. -- PBS (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@User:Hyacinth While I disagree with you about the quotation, I understand your argument in favour of it. However I do not understand why you made this edit (Revision as of 02:03, 14 June 2020) which changed an inline citation into a general source. An edit, that as I understand, it goes against the Verification policy and the Plagarism guideline. Could you please explain your reasoning for the edit. -- PBS (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@PBS and Jerome Kohl: See: WP:QUOTE#Comparison with paraphrases. A cited quote distinguished by quotation marks or {{Quote}} is much more transparent then a paragraph which, opaquely as possible, is a quote not distinguished as such. A quote not distinguished as a quote with a note at the bottom of the page saying that some of the article may or may not have originated or be exactly the text from a source, is highly opaque formatting. That doesn't mean that the quoted text itself is opaque, simply that we have presented it in the most opaque manner possible. Hyacinth (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to cite EB1911 then a template exists for that: {{Cite EB1911}}. Hyacinth (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a quotation does not prevent alteration. Quotes may be paraphrased, they may be shortened, they may both be shortened and paraphrased, and they will be done so more easily and well if it is indicated that it is a quote. Without something to distinguish it as a quote the text may be edited to say the exact opposite of the cited source, but still have the citation left as if it says the opposite of what it does indeed claim. Hyacinth (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are worried about attribution whey did you remove the inline citation? -- PBS (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"text may be edited to say the exact opposite of the cited source," that is true for any text in a Wikipedia article including those that contain a summary of a copyrighted source or text copied from a PD source. This is why Wikipedia uses cited sources. In the case of EB1911 as most of the original source is available on Wikisource, it is easier to check and verify than many other sources. -- PBS (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@PBS: Should the use-mention distinction be made or not? Should quotations be presented as quotations? Hyacinth (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Without going into philosophy this question can best be answered by reading the Plagarism guideline and specifically the section "Copying material from free sources". The general agreement among editors that copying from copyright expired text is acceptable unless there is further creative merit in it for example poetry, lyrics, expressions that are still quoted (eg this is "much ado about nothing"). I suggest that if you wish to take this further you post a query to Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism -- PBS (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I see you have reverted my reverts. This is becoming a slow edit war so, following dispute resolution I have asked for a third opinion (Wikipedia:Third opinion). -- PBS (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: As I look at the article, there are 7 citations to Encyclopedia Britannica in the article, none of which are presented as quotes. Running the Earwig copyvio detector shows the large block of text copied verbatim. Although citing a public domain source is not copyvio, I thought that it would constitute plagiarism to present the source material as the editor's own writing without framing it as a quote or with in-text attribution. However, to my surprise, Wikipedia:Plagiarism § Public-domain sources indicates that this is okay (assuming that EB itself is neutral and that its summary of expert opinion of 1911 still holds today). I am always overcautious with attribution, though, and if I'd added the material I would have presented it as a quotation, or more likely I would have paraphrased it.
I'm going to mention a couple other related issues. This article seems to suffer from a problem common in smaller articles, where editors have directly added material to the lead. It is better to instead expand the body of the article and then, when that is stable, to adjust the lead to summarize the body. There really shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't in the body of the article, and quotations are to be avoided in the lead (quotations represent a single source and can give undue weight). Another issue are the length of the quotations. Although it doesn't apply to public domain sources, fair use rules say to not quote more than 10% of a source (this quotes/uses 245 words from a 1200-word EB article). The quotation from Musical Instruments is also very long, and I don't feel that either of those should be in the lead. I feel that a lot of the lead material should be moved down to the body, then the lead rewritten concisely so that it has no quotes or repetition of content. (Feel free to submit it to WP:GOCER for copy edit once the content is stable.)
This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps. –  Reidgreg (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@User:Reidgreg Thank you for reviewing this issue. I made a mistake. I did not read the most recent quote that User:Hyacinth had added and assumed that it was a revert to quoting EB1911 and not another quote from a different source.

As to the EB1911 citations. I would like to go back to just adding one at the end of the block, but if User:Hyacinth wishes to keep them it is not something I will press. I would only increase the number if additional information from another source was inserted into the EB1911 text so breaking text–source integrity without an additional EB1911 inline citation before the new text.

I do not see the need for the new long quote. If needed, the information can be summarised, particularly if it were to be summarised with the EB1911 text.

I agree with you that this information (in quote 2 and the EB1911 text) ought to be moved out of the lead and placed into the body of the article, leaving just a sentence or two as a summary in the lead.

-- PBS (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It's the repetition and long-windedness that gets me. We should give an overall summary of the sources in a logical manner rather than summarizing source A, then summarizing source B, then summarizing source C, which is repetitive and wastes the reader's time. I mean, it's a good place to start, assembling the material from each source. But then that should be split up by sub-topic and organized in a logical manner (in which case the additional citations may be useful), discussing each notable aspect of the topic in a way that will make sense to the reader. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)