Talk:Oscar Marion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792) American Revolutionary War task force

Contents 1 Nomination for deletion 2 Response from Tfirey 3 Discussion of Verifiability 4 Response from tfirey

[edit] Nomination for deletion

I have nominated this article for deletion because it does not meet the following tests:

• Wikipedia's rules on "no original research". One of the keystones of Wikipedia is the belief that Wikipedia is not a place where original research is published, but rather an encyclopedia that contains articles that are verifiable. This article, while interesting, is primarily original research - this is backed up by a comment in the December 16 edition of the Washington Post which states:

"The occasion was a triumph for his distant cousin, genealogist Tina C. Jones, who researched his identity and pressed officials to honor him." [1] (Washinton Post, 12/16/2006)

• Unverifiable - One of the key pillars to Wikipedia is the concept of Verifiability. The article as written is unsourced, save for one newspaper article in the Washington Post and a "recently discovered to be" comment in on the web page of the United States Senates art collection narrative. Contained in that narrative is a conflicting account of the actions of the people in the portrait. While the article also notes that aprocolmation was issued by the White House, it does not provide any information on how that proclomation was acquired (by what means was the proclomation obtained - through a Congressional Office, etc.)

• Unsourced The original author, and subsquent editors have not provided any primary source evidence to bolster the article claims. Other factors include:
  • "Ms. Jones, as noted in the Newspaper Article is "president of the American Historical Interpretation Foundation Inc. of Rockville Maryland," an organization which has a web presence, but does not have a track record per se, other than Ms. Jones credit for her research on Oscar's lineage.

• • The painting for which the Presidential proclomation was issued was painted in the 1830s; General Marion died in 1795; were the artists notes used in making a positive connection between the black man in the picture and Oscar? Or it is simply a belief that Oscar is the man in the picture? If so, why aren't those notes cited in teh article or on the Senate web site?

• • Ms. Jones has not published her findings in any know scholarly research journal, which would list her findings along with a full bibliography that had been verified by a journal's Board of Editors.

In closing, we can not accuratly present history if as "historians" we are unable to seperate belief from fact, and assumptions from verifiable evidence. As such, I feel this article merits deletion until such time that the facts can be rewritten and presented in a fashion that can be tested and verified. Stude62 01:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Tfirey

The information on Oscar Marion was written up in the Washington Post in an article dated 12/16/2006. I originally cited this article when I wrote the entry; it appears to have been deleted subsequently. Moreover, the information on Marion is repeated in the presidential proclamation. I conducted no, repeat no, original research when writing this article; I simply combined the material from the newspaper account and the presidential decree. What sourcing do you need other than a major newspaper's reporting AND U.S. government recognition?

[edit] Discussion of Verifiability

Tfirey, Thank you for your reply. When replying to meesages, please sign your user name by typing four tildas (example: ~~~~) - this will sign and date you posts as part of the record. Also, when adding comments, please do so at the BOTTOM of the page, not at the top. The purpose of following such a protocol helps people follow the dialogue

With regard to your comments:

• I am not disputing that the Washington Post ran an article on the ceremony and the work of Ms. Jones in her genealogy research. However an article in the Washington Post is an article in a newspaper, period. The article did not provide any verifiable information relative to the proof of Ms. Jones claim, it simply reported that there was an event. Again, the purpose of this review is not to dispute that an event was held, but the issues of verifiablility of the claim that Oscar was an offspring of Marion. If that is his only claim to fame, then, in my opinion it makes an article about a non-notable person (fame through relation) and that alone is not sufficient to warrant an article on him.

• With regard to the Presidential proclomation, I am not disputing that a proclomation was issued by the White House, but the proclomation in and of itself is not sufficient evidence to support the claims made in the article. The only verifiable fact that proclomation presents is whether or not it was issued, it in no way could be considered primary source material to support the claims in the article. Such proclomations are usually issued upon request by a member of Congess or other federally agency. So while the proclomation exists, it can only speak to its own provenance, and it does not speak to the verifiability of the primary research itself.

• With regard to the research that you performed, I do not dispute the effort that you made in putting forth this article. However a newspaper article and a document that speaks to its own existence is not sufficient to support this article alone - and they are neither scholarly works (research papers submitted to journals for review and publication) nor are they Primary source documents.

• What is lacking in that article are citations that allow people to verify Ms. Jones original research. "We" (in the boradest possible sense of the terms have nio idea is her claims were made based on government documents, plantation records, wills, muster roles, etc. that were contemporary to either General Marion or Oscar Marion. If such documents exist, they need to be cited in the article, and to date, they have not been noted.

I would also add that there is nothing in the article that would lead me, or any other reader for that matter, to reason tha Oscar Marion is notable for any reason other than his familial relationship to General Marion. As such, he most likely considered Non-notable, and more likely merit a mention in the General article, then one on his own.

I would add that in searches on A9.com, google.com, yahoo.com, etc. the returns for Oscar Marion seem to be limited to this article on Wikipedia and the proclomation.

Finally, I would ask that you read your talk page - I am asking that you refrain from removing the VFD tag on the page for two reasons. First, you simply can not remove an article from this process because you created it. Secondly, if other Wikipedians find that the article has merit, then it will not be deleted.

You may add verifiable information to the article to keep it from being deleted, however that information must be something tangible (ie checked by other people) and not heresay. Stude62 18:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response from tfirey

Stude62, I thus assume that you have nominated the entry for the Virginia Tech massacre for removal, as that article, too, is written only from newspaper reports and government statements.

More seriously, the fact that you do not have easy Internet access to Ms. Jones' research does not mean that my entry is either (1) original research (clearly that's not the case), (2) that it's not verified, or (3) that it's not verifiable. It simply means that you can't easily verify the entry from your computer.

Concerning whether Oscar Marion is a historical figure: He's the subject of a presidential proclamation (please note the spelling of that term), an article in one of the nation's newspapers of record, and has been portrayed in film.