This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Jane Franklin Hommel is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
It is common, in some places, to use a footnote to add a colorful anecdote, or additional explanatory material, not fitting into the flow of the main document. That practice is generally not encouraged in Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. I posed the question here. While the full community has obviously not weighed in, the consensus appears to me that quotes should be revered for two related classes of use:
In a case where there may be controversy about a particular fact, and whether the cited reference supports that fact, the use of the quote will make it easier for readers and editors to reach their own conclusion, by citing the specific quote used to support the fact. This is particularly important where a reference may be not online, or behind a pay wall.
When an opinion is paraphrased, the quote will help readers and editors determine whether the paraphrase is accurate.
This article did have a quote in a footnote, and it is my opinion that the quote does not support either use listed above, thus I have removed it, or truncated it. Should anyone disagree, or feel that there are other examples of allowable quotes, feel free to start a discussion. I suggest here, if you disagree with my conclusion that this quote doesn't fall into one of those two examples, or at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#.22brief_verbatim_textual_excerpts.22_revisited if you feel there should be other allowed uses. --SPhilbrick(Talk)22:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
