Talk:James Blair (clergyman)

Untitled

Talk page for James Blair (clergyman)

Blurb for DYK

Did You Know

...that Reverend Dr. James Blair of Scotland was a clergyman and missionary to the Virginia Colony, and is best known as the founder in 1693 of the College of William and Mary, where he served as President for 50 years?

copyvios

This page has large swathes of copyright violation. I'll try to go through and rewrite the whole thing. Please see Wikipedia:Copyvio. *sigh* Doops | talk 03:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Where do you think it's copyvio from?--Pharos 04:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • He died in 1743, after having been president of this institution for about fifty, and a minister of the gospel for above sixty years.: from [1]
  • ...to revive and reform the church in the colony: from [2]

Note that both sources are included in the "see also." OK, perhaps "large swathes" was hyperbole; these are both small examples. But in a sense that's what's so frustrating; if the whole article was a cut-and-paste we could just erase it and start again. I don't have the energy right now (contrary to what I wrote above) to rewrite the whole thing; but I don't know where to begin or stop. I could fix those two sentences; but would that be enough? What more have I missed? Besides, it's very hard to rewrite one sentence to remove copyvio (the devil's advocate might argue that it's impossible.) I don't really know what to do. Maybe I'll sleep on it Doops | talk 04:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing your point, but Wikipedia does not want original writing. The various pieces of information came from multiple sources, and most were verified from more than one. We are editors. As long as we don't have entire paragraphs taken verbatim, and we don't, every sentence or phrase used need not be paraphrased, especially true when properly attributed. How else would you research something and compile a good article? To try to placate your concerns, I will address the 2 specifics you identified, and look for anything else of that same nature. Vaoverland 04:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

We're called editors but we're writers too; and while the Wikipedia doesn't want original research it needs original writing. Copyright can certainly extend down to the level of the sentence or even phrase (if it's very distinctive). To avoid this sort of problem I generally write "from memory," i.e. having read my sources I write the article on a blank screen as though I were an expert on the subject and don't need to consult anything. Then I go back to my sources and re-read them to check that I've got all the details correct or to get the exact wording of any verbatim quotes. (However, in the spirit of full honesty I must admit that I don't start a lot of new articles; I'm more of a "reactive" editor.) Anyway, sorry if my tone above was somewhat histrionic; and I certainly recognize that your writing of this page (and robust inclusion of sources) was done in good faith. Doops | talk 04:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

In reviewing my notes, some of the information came from Wikipedia articles on the College of William and Mary and the Wren Building, neither of which were started by me, and others on related topics. There are internal links to any source within Wikipedia which was used, such as the article I started about W.A.R. Goodwin and Bruton Parish Church. Vaoverland 04:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Our last 2 messages were written almost at the same time. I want my contributions to be credible. So I will respond in that spirit. I can't write an article chocked full of facts and dates like this one and write it all from memory. But I try to make sure the facts are verified from multiple sources and are presented in a logical order and balance.

Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 05:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to cut most of the comment I intended to make here because what Doops has just posted is essentially my idea as well. I don't think it's necessary o write from memory, but we shouldn't be taking others' wording, nor "re-phrasing" either, but having only a synthesis of ideas. Of course, taking wording from other Wikipedia articles is fine (though this should preferably be noted in the edit summary), but when using other sources we should be really careful to avoid plagiarism (see for definition; the concept is often misunderstood).--Pharos 05:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been going back over the article step by step, and will compare sources to text used, to address the concerns about what maybe borderlineplagiarism, and to improve content and grammar at the same time, with the goal if having a better article as soon as possible, particularily since it is on Main Page in DYK today. I will try hard to leave good edit summary trail as I do so. Vaoverland 09:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"penny a pound" tax on tobacco

What sense of the word "pound" is meant? A penny on a pound sterling's worth of tobacco, or on an actual pound in weight? Doops | talk 03:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

PS: on reflection, the former seems much more likely. Doops | talk 06:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Another source is more clear: "The college was given a seat in the House of Burgesses and was supported by taxation of a penny per pound on tobacco exported from Maryland and Virginia to countries other than England..."

SOURCE: http://www.wm.edu/vitalfacts/seventeenth.php

I have revised the statement in the article for better clarity.

Vaoverland 07:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I don't understand. As far as I can see that quotation is still not explicit about which meaning of pound (pound sterling / pound (weight)) is implied. Am I missing something? Do you agree with my £ assumption above? Doops | talk 08:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I am speculating that the language implied penny for each pound (weight) of tobacco, but by limiting imposition to only non-England exports, perhaps the numbers work better for you. I agree it isn't very consider, and I will try to find a source which is more concise. Vaoverland 08:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's why I suspect it's £: a tax of a penny-a-£ would be a tax rate of 1/240, which is about 0.4%. That seems pretty tiny; but we have to remember that there were probably other taxes on this tobacco too and they would have all added up together. On the other hand, putting a tax of a penny on each pound in weight of tobacco sounds impossibly high. At a penny-a-lb a ship's cargo of tobacco would have had pounds and pounds and pounds worth of tax, which seems like an awful lot.

I guess here's the nub of the question: how much did a pound of tobacco cost? A pound was a lot of money in those days (in 1830, according to a book on woodland I have, £5 would still buy you a 20-cubic-ft oak tree); so I assume it was rather less than a £. If a pound of tobacco cost, say, 2s (i.e. £1 bought 10 lbs of tobacco), that would be a tax rate of 4%. That's not impossible, I guess. But much higher than that doesn't seem likely. So if the price of tobacco was much lower than 2s a lb, we can probably rule out a penny-a-lb. If it was higher than 2s a lb, then I guess the question remains open.

A possible counter-argument might be that tobacco wasn't sold in british money in colonial Va. Was it? I don't know. But even if it wasn't, it wouldn't be impossible to express the tax in those terms yet pay it in other money at the same rate (1/240). Doops | talk 17:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)