Talk:Francis Marion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

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 a list of open tasks.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information:

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=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

[edit] Spelling

In the third paragraph, defense was spelled incorrectly.

unsigned comment by User:24.236.100.30 16:54, 16 November 2005 24.236.100.30

Actually, this article is in British English, so defence is correct. --A D Monroe III 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy?

Removed from page: British historian Christopher Hibbert said that Marion was "a wily and elusive character, very active in the persecution of the Cherokee Indians and not at all the sort of chap who should be celebrated as a hero. The truth is that people like Marion committed atrocities as bad, if not worse, than those perpetrated by the British."

This comment inserts a POV without any specifics or proof. I have been unable to find any information that links Marion to any atrocities. Whoever put it here, needs to supply some specifics.

Marion's success as a guerilla was only possible with the strong loyalty of the population. Within the Williamsburg area, he was quite safe from the British, as their every move was quickly reported to him. Outside this area, where there were more Tories, this was not true, of course. But Marion's reputation was as a gentleman who could command fiercely loyal troops simply from the force of his character. At one point General Greene, not understanding that Marion's men supplied their own horses, requisitioned horses from him, which he refused to do. It was a tense time between them, with Marion offering his resignation before he would give away the personal property of his own men. Finally Greene came to an understanding and dropped the issue. Such practices were to some extent, the source of the loyalty of his men. Pollinator 16:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hibbert did say that in an interview, see http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Exclusive/0,,332358,00.html . Or did you mean that Hibbert's assertion needs documenting ? Angus McLellan 16:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that you are not quite aware of the meaning of WP:NPOV. Opinions can and should be described in an Wikipedia article, just not the editors' (ours). (Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy.)

The historian cited as a representative of this opinion, Christopher Hibbert, has written numerous high-profile books, one of them specifically about the American Revolution (ISBN 039302895X). This and the fact that the cited article is from one of the UK's most reputed newspapers proves without doubt that his statement represents at the very least a significant minority view.

The fact that you refer to The Guardian as a "pulp magazine" indicates that your knowledge about this publication is not very reliable. I would suggest that you first make yourself more familiar with it by reading the article The Guardian (if you think it to be wrong, then correct it) before doubting this source or removing that link here.

Sure there could be an expanded section about alleged atrocities committed by Marion, but it's not our job here to prove or disprove Hibbert's view, only to verify that it's a notable one. For balance, I am also reinserting the link to the National Review article defending Marion (contrary to your assumption there is no Wikipedia policy not to link to opinion pieces).

regards, High on a tree 13:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The opinion quoted might reflect truth or not, but the opinion exists. --A D Monroe III 14:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

...contrary to your assumption there is no Wikipedia policy not to link to opinion pieces). Just what are you talking about? I also removed a link that defended Marion, because the whole thing is a crock. Once again I ask: What atrocities? We have a historical commission working on his history right now, and the more we study his life, the more regard we have for him. Any evidence of atrocities is only a smattering from sources with an axe to grind - and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Pollinator 05:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There being no response, I am removing the statement. Simply saying that so-and-so said something is not encyclopedic, especially when there is no evidence to back up the statement. Also, if the Guardian is such a high quality paper, why does it run an article written in the same style as the US pulp rags? Pollinator 02:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

-USAF 157th squadron, of the South Carolina air national guard, are called the "swamp foxes", presumibly after Marion.

I know that the following isn't proof, but it could lead to it. Consider the following from the trivia page of the IMDB's Patriot page: "Mel Gibson's character was originally scripted to be the real historical figure Francis Marion, "The Swamp Fox", but after historians informed the filmmakers of some of the more sordid aspects of Marion's life (slaughtering Indians, raping his female slaves) they decided to create a fictional story and a more likeable hero." Anyone know more about this? --Happylobster 17:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added a modified version of the "controversy" issue to the article. Regardless of which side has the facts, the fact that a dispute exists is encyclopedic and worth mention. I personally don't care who is right, I merely want people to delve deeper into ANY topic. An encyclopedia entry is merely a starting point, as all English teachers love to point out when assigning term papers.

Incidentally, the fact that "so and so said" something doesn't invalidate a topic in an encyclopedia. Re-read your old Britannica's sometime and see how much is hearsay. For example, L. Ron Hubbard is the primary source that said Xenu exists; whether Xenu exists or not is not the point, the whole of Scientology is a coverable topic in an encyclopedia.

Most of history is somewhat subjective; as they say, "history is written by the winners." --Tokalon73 02:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As one might say, Francis Marion is not the "All-American Hero" that many say he is. For example, did you know that he hunts natives for fun? 65.95.113.102 02:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The argument that "a lot of Encyclopedia Britannica is hearsay" isn't relevant -- just because someone else did sloppy fact-checking doesn't excuse us from doing our best to back up our facts. An allegation that he hunted Native Americans for fun needs to be supported with evidence. Please include a citation in the article, preferably something scholarly and backed up with research. --Bookgrrl 02:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm sure you've backed up your facts. The only edit I've made to this page has a citation now. I'd like to see you put citations on all of the other points that are not cited. 65.95.113.102 03:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point you are in violation of 3RR. Where in your citation does it say Francis Marion hunts natives for fun? Thanks, Brian 03:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)btball

Brian - my apologies for the paraphrase. It actually says, "Although controversial, one of his favourite past-times include hunting Native Americans for game." I think this may slightly misleading, since hunting for "game" implies he either ate them or hung them on his walls. Possibly a more correct statement (assuming that this is true in the first place) would be that he hunted them as a game, i.e. for sport? --Bookgrrl 03:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC) sorry, misunderstood Brian's comment -- I think he and I are both confused as to the applicability of the citation...--Bookgrrl 03:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

65.95.113.102 - Regarding the added citation, I'm not sure what in the website you've cited actually supports your statement? In that document, I find for example this, which seems to directly contradict your assertion: "Some of our men seemed to enjoy this cruel work, laughing very heartily at the curling flames as they mounted, loud-crackling, over the tops of the huts. But to me it appeared a shocking sight. "Poor creatures!" thought I, "we surely need not grudge you such miserable habitations." He then goes on to talk about the Cherokee children and how they "will return, and peeping through the weeds with tearful eyes, will mark the ghastly ruin poured over their homes, and the happy fields where they had so often played. `Who did this?' they will ask their mothers. `The white people, the Christians did it!' will be the reply." Can you point to a direct quote from this book that supports the allegation? --Bookgrrl 03:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, neither I nor Bookgrrl can find anything in the citation that supports 65.95.113.102's edits (most recently reverted by admin Rogerd). The assertion by 65.95.113.102 should remain off the article page until discussed and agreed to here on the talk page, when, and if, there is a valid citation for the claim. Brian 03:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)btball