Talk:Robert Gardelle

R in date of death field?

There's a dispute here that I don't quite understand over the following:

• [1]: Kiefer.Wolfowitz adds ", r" to the date of death in metadata.
• [2]: Fram removes it, describing it as an error.
• [3]: Carrite put it back, without explanation.
• [4]: Fram removed it again, as an error that had been reinserted.
• [5]: Kumioko says it's not an error, but I guess some kind of reference?

What does that ", r" mean? I haven't ever seen it before. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't referring to the R in the Persondata but the reference under Further reading Fram removed. I don't think the R in persondata is intentional. Kumioko (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay. :) With that out of the way, maybe we can reach consensus on the larger issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the r in the persondata. If we need to we can add it back but I really don't think its needed. Kumioko (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Presentation of source

Basic dispute here seems to come down to what to call the sourcing section and how to present it. I'm hoping to find a compromise.

First, I don't believe we should call it "Further Reading" in accordance with Wikipedia:Citing sources: Types of Citations; WP:FNNR and WP:FURTHER. Sources are generally listed in a section titled "References" or "Notes." I understand the use of notes when the reference is as was given, but wonder if calling it references and using a standard reference format will ease all concerns. I can certainly see why - in an article this size - the use of both templates would seem to be overkill. :) Since there's only a single creative sentence (and since I have now reformulated the lead somewhat more consistently with the manual of style for biographies), I'm hoping that switching to {{PD-notice}} will suffice in allowing us to retain the regularly formatted reference but still satisfying the concerns of Wikipedia:Plagiarism. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise and a good start but for me this 1 article is just an example more than the problem. Fram has made a habit of creating these cut and paste articles from these old sources. There is no doubt that Fram knows the rules but my problem is that he seems to be using that knowledge of the system to userp the purpose of the rules. Even if these sources are in the common domain it poses a problem for me because it still constitutes plagiarism even if not a copyright problem. Especially since so few references exist for many of these articles outside the one given. Kumioko (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia's definition, it doesn't actually constitute plagiarism if the source is properly acknowledged. :) When this article was created, it displayed the following text:

This article incorporates text from the article "GARDELLE, Robert" in Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers by Michael Bryan, edited by Robert Edmund Graves and Sir Walter Armstrong, an 1886–1889 publication now in the public domain.

Our consensus guidance at Wikipedia:Plagiarism says, at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources:

A practice preferred by some Wikipedia editors, when copying in public-domain, or free content, verbatim, is to paste in the content in one edit, with indication in the edit summary of the source of the material. If following this practice, immediately follow up with careful attribution, so that the new material can't be mistaken for your own wording.

• Put the whole text (if small enough) in blockquotes or quotation marks.
• For sections or whole articles, add an attribution template; if the text taken does not form the entire article, specifically mention the section requiring attribution.
• In a way unambiguously indicating exactly what has been copied verbatim, provide an inline citation and/or add your own note in the reference section of the article.

Fram did this - from the edit summary to the attribution template. So this is really just a disagreement about how best to cite the source and display the notice. There is - until and unless consensus changes, of course - nothing wrong with pasting content from a public domain source if you clearly say what you are doing. (Emphasis added because that's the important bit.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Precisely my point. He know's the rules and how to get around them. Its still really bad writing though. For what its worth I have written a lot of articles pertaining to Medal of Honor recipients and others that all have a lot of open source content. I could have copied and pasted as Fram did but I didn't, because its lazy writing and no way to present the information to our readers. Kumioko (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow; it doesn't seem like getting around the rules when you obey them. :) It may not be the optimal way to produce an article (I know people who agree with that), but it's serviceable and openly permitted and practiced. A quick template transclusion check shows we have over 5,500 articles that copy content from the public domain Dictionary of National Biography, for instance. I imagine that's our most heavily used pd source (though I haven't checked) but there are dozens. See Category:Attribution templates for some of the most common. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That's true there are a lot referring to that. There are a lot for DANFS too. But upon review I think we would find that the vast majority were created before 2008. It was common then, its less common now and for good reason. I'm not going to continue to beat a dead horse though. I think its bad writing and we shouldn't be doing it and I won't do it. If the community wants to allow this type of editing, which it seems clear is the case, then who am I to stop them. I'm barely editing these days so it doesn't really matter that much to me anymore. Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Precisions on nationality

Robert Gardelle was born, and died, in the Republic of Geneva (1541-1798 and 1813-1815). (The Republic of Geneva was briefly annexed by France (1798-1813) and became the capital city of the département du Léman). In 1815 Geneva joined the Swiss Confederacy. Before 1815, a Genevan was either … Genevan or, very briefly, French. To qualify such a person of "Swiss" is an anachronism. Sapphorain (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is one that all the sources follow. At least in Enmglish "Genevan" is not a nationality. You need to realize this. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, some sources classify people like him as "Swiss" for convenience. But it cannot refer to his nationality, since this would be in contradiction with historical facts. Sapphorain (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

ALL sources. It certainly does refer to his nationality. See WP:OR. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

All sources? Well, you'd certainly need to source this assertion... But yes, there are a number of sources which describe 18th century Genevans as "Swiss". This is certainly by convenience, and not to describe them as Swiss nationals. And it is not doing original research to comment on a source being in contradiction with historical facts. An individual cannot be given the Swiss nationality after death. Sapphorain (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)