Talk:Gettysburg's Unknown Soldier

The text is from 1863. It is not in copyright. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The citation is the NYT dated 29 March 2009. That article appears to have picked up earlier wording, but you didn't cite the original, you cited the 2009 version. It may be that one is allowed to do this, but I'd like one of our copyright experts to weigh in, unless you can cite a rule clarifying that this practice is acceptable. My understanding is that pd material can be used, but it must be properly attributed. I don't know that a citation of a 2009 NYT article qualifies as a proper citation of material from 1863. I mean that literally, I don't know, but I'm erring on the side of caution.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a copyright violation. The lengthy quote is clearly labelled in the NYT article has being written (and published) in 1863, which means that any copyright protection has long expired. I don't see why the fact that the NYT article was published in 2009 has anything to do with it. Hut 8.5 00:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Public domain "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism." I don't see a citation with the date of 1863 or the purported source. Maybe it is acceptable to impute it from another source, but that doesn't constitute "proper attribution" in my mind. Has this issue been discussed? SPhilbrick  T  01:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For a start that's not a copyright problem and therefore not justification for blanking the article. You don't need to have an exact citation to the original source to avoid plagiarism, you just need to say where it comes from. This material is clearly identified as a quotation, and adding that this particular quote was published in the Philadephia Inquirer on October 19, 1863 would be enough to address any plagiarism concerns. Hut 8.5 11:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree (I responded to a post of Sphilbrick's at WT:CITE). But this is all missing the point somewhat. This article really has notability problems. The long quote from 1863 can go to wikisource. The article here needs to decide whether it is about the book or the soldier or the photograph. Either way it likely needs to be merged somewhere else, as this is really just padding an article with an 1863 quote. We don't need an article about every book on the US Civil War, nor every solider. Note that the link on the book's author is a redirect (created by the author of the article) to Dunkelman (also created by the author of this article). Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To Hut: Oh yes, I agree that the article did not need to be blanked for an attribution issue, but I missed that the quote came from an 1893 publication because the reference was to a 2009 NYT article. MRG confirmed today that I could have reversed myself, but I wasn't sure if the usual protocol was to let someone else make the call
 * To Carcaroth: Good point on notability issues. However, given my extensive presence on RAN's talk page, I'd prefer to let someone else run with this.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough . I too agree this subject may well be non-notable. Hut 8.5 15:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)