Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 November 22

= November 22 =

Inserting a footnote onto Wikipedia
I want to insert this footnote:

From footnote 5 on pages 16-17 of this book: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Documents_historiques_in%C3%A9dits_du_XIVe_s/S3TSAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=jean,+batard+de+bourbon+rochefort+%22fils+de+louis+i%22&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover : ''"5 Le P. Anselme et les autres généalogistes de la maison de Bourbon, y compris les modernes, tels que M. Dussieux (Généalogie de la Maison de Bourbon, Paris, Lecoffre, 1869, p. 4), attribuent la paternité de Jean de Bourbon, seigneur de Rochefort, à Pierre Ier, second duc de Bourbon, fils de Louis Ier. Leur erreur est certaine ; ils se sont trompés d'une génération. Jean était le fils naturel de Louis Ier, premier duc de Bourbon, et par conséquent le frère de Pierre Ier. En effet, Jeanne de Bourbon, femme de Guy VII, comte de Forez, et fille de Louis Ier, premier duc de Bourbon, le nomme « notre chier et bien aimé frère, notre frère naturel » dans la donation qu'elle lui fit, en avril 1363, du château de Beçay-le-Guérant (Arch. nat., Bourbons, p. 1438. n° 3090). Marie de Hainault, veuve du duc Louis Ier, l'appelle « notre bien aimé Jehan de Bourbon, chevalier, fils naturel de nostre cher seigneur », dans une donation qu'elle lui fit également en 1351 (ibid.). Stevert ne s'y est pas tromgé [sic] (Hist. des ducs de Bourbon et des comtes de Forez. La Mure, nouvelle édition, II, 32, note). En revanche. Stevert conteste que le bâtard Guy de Bourbon, sire de Classy, ait été le fils de Pierre Ier comme l'ont assuré Anselme (Grands Officiers de la Couronne. Baluze (Hist. de la Maison d'Auvergne, I) et d'autres, sans en fournir de preuves. On voit par là qu'il y avait plus d'un inconnu à dégager, même après les travaux des plus grands généalogistes de la maison de France." English translation: “5 Father Anselme and the other House of Bourbon genealogists, including modern ones like Mr. Dussieux (Genealogy of the House of Bourbon, Paris, Lecoffre, 1869, p. 4), attribute the paternity of Jean de Bourbon, seigneur de Rochefort, to Pierre I, second Duke of Bourbon, the natural son of Louis I. They are clearly mistaken ; they erred by one generation. Jean was the natural son of Louis I, first Duke of Bourbon, and as a result the brother of Pierre I. Indeed, Jeanne de Bourbon, the wife of Guy VII, Count of Forez, and daughter of Louis I, first Duke of Bourbon, called him “our dear and beloved brother, our natural brother”, in the gift she made out to him, in April 1363, of Beçay-le-Guérant Castle (National Archives, Bourbons, p. 1438, nr. 3090). Marie de Hainault, widow of Duke Louis I, called him “our beloved Jehan de Bourbon, esquire, natural son of our dear lord”, in a gift she made for him also in 1351 (ibid.) Stevert was not mistaken (History of the Dukes of Bourbon and of the Counts of Forez, La Mure, new edition, II, 32, note). In contrast, Stevert disputes that the bastard Guy de Bourbon, sire de Classy, could have been the son of Pierre I as Anselme (Great Officers of the Crown, Baluze - History of the House of Auvergne I) and others have claimed, without providing any proof. One can thus see that there was more than one unknown fact to be cleared up, even after work by some of the House of France’s greatest genealogists.”''

--to the end of the "Marriage and issue" section in the article Peter I, Duke of Bourbon. Just how exactly would I do that? Futurist110 (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's very rarely necessary, and far more often unhelpful, to dump long quotations into references or footnotes. I would respectfully suggest giving a straightforward citation to the footnote as you would for any offline source, and since this is a public domain book, linking to an actual repository instead of Google Books. For instance, HathiTrust . 199.66.69.13 (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion, but I still want to make the English translation of this footnote available on this Wikipedia article since this book is in French. Futurist110 (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You should not do that. --Viennese Waltz 20:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not? Futurist110 (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? Citation needed. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we not allowed to translate foreign-language sources onto Wikipedia so long as we do it in good faith? Futurist110 (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , see WP:PLAGIARISM.   Please ping when replying . 22:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Futurist doesn’t seem to be talking about plagiarism. I see no indication that he doesn’t intend to provide adequate attribution for the quote. The issue is that dumping large block quotes in the citations is a poor stylistic habit. It is at odds with the practice of citing sources—if the claim requires verification, it may be checked by looking at the source. The fact that a translation of the source is provided doesn’t really help. If the translation provides more necessary detail than the text it supports, then the text it supports should be improved. If the translation provides detail excess to what’s needed for the article, it should be shortened until the previous sentence applies. An in-house translation requires no less (and arguably much more) editorial effort to check against the source. And if the quoted text provides some special je ne sais quoi that saying things in your own words can’t, then a quote should be in the text rather than a footnote. This isn’t Wikisource, and as far as I can tell this source’s specific wording doesn’t contribute anything special to the presentation of information. It looks to me as a case where WP:FQ’s recommendation against doing this should apply. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I certainly wasn't going to plagiarize since the relevant book is already cited in the relevant Wikipedia article ("Peter I, Duke of Bourbon"). So, you're correct in regards to this. I also understand the need not to have too much excessive information, but not everyone actually speaks French (let alone fluently) and thus one might think that it would be prudent to provide them with an English translation of what exactly this footnote (or at least its relevant part(s)) actually says, no? Else, they would have to do their own research in regards to this, and frankly, this strikes me as being a waste of time when this text has already been translated. Futurist110 (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the source of the translation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Xuxl. Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would think that would qualify as Original Research. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What about simply extracting information from these sources and writing this information in English on this Wikipedia article? Futurist110 (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Using what as a source for the English? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Faithfully translating sourced material into English [...] is not considered original research." "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations." --Lambiam 14:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Who decides if a translation is "faithful" or not? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The point is, or rather should be, that you don't need to put quotes (translated or not) into references in order for them to be valid. Non-English sources are valid references, and do not have to be translated on Wikipedia to make them valid.  Where equivalent English sources exist, we prefer those, but where the only valid reliable sources are in a different language, you just cite the source as any other source.  There is no need to quote or translate anything.  A page number for print sources or a URL to the direct page for web-based sources is all you need to allow people to find the source.  -- Jayron 32 15:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)