Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 12

message: I'm not at all convinced that separate, inline references are needed (or even desirable):
* When a work is referenced that contains its own article on Wikipedia.  Mention of that work, and a Wikilink, should be enough. E.g. 
::In his Pensées, (Blaise) Pascal writes:
:::Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give reasons for their beliefs, since they profess belief in a religion which they cannot explain? . . .      (Pensées, no, 201).
* In many cases, where an author is quoted who has his own article on Wikipedia, and the work referenced is discussed on the linked page.  
* In short, if it's obvious that a particular author or a particular text are being referenced or quoted in text, no separate reference should be necessary.  
In short, while I generally favour the addition of references to articles, I tend to think that wikilinks should be primary, and notes, external links, and similar references, secondary.  Smerdis of Tlön 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly OK on facts, but how about on opinions?  I seem to be in an argument (via edit summaries and user talk pages) about just this with  HQCentral, who is clearly a fine writer, but seems to feel that he can insert opinions into an article willy nilly as long as he asserts that they are held by someone who is listed as a reference. This is taking place in an article of relatively specialist interest — Collier's Encyclopedia. I happen to have a weird connection to it (my dad was an executive at Crowell Collier Macmillan in the 1960s). I don't disagree with any of the opinions being expressed, but they are opinions, and, as far as I know, WP:NPOV + WP:NOR + WP:CITE + who knows what else add up to a need for each of these to be explicitly cited. If someone else would also weigh in on this, it would probably be a good thing. - Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I may be misunderstanding you, but - yes: A specific link to the best result of a googling for "well-known" facts is better, because it makes things more explicit, and faciliates discussing the validity of the souces.  It should certainly not be required, but at the same time, it should certainly not be prohibited or removed when it is provided.  A Wikipedia article itself can't be a source - it can only be a summarization and condensation of other sources.  That's basic. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with that premise, though I understand why you say it.  Wikipedia articles tend to be better-researched than the majority of newspaper articles, and in many cases better than published biographies.  It depends what you mean by "source", but these days when I'm looking for hard facts about almost any subject, I come to wikipedia first and go to printed sources only if I need more detail. Deb 10:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: To clarify further, I could satisfy the "need for citation" requirement by citing a source that is less accurate than what is in the wikipedia article. Deb 10:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, if the WP article is "better researched" than some source that is cited, then why aren't the sources used in that "better research" cited? If something is important enough to be written about in WP, someone has already written about it elsewhere, and that source can be cited. I see nothing wrong with citing multiple sources even for a short article, if necessary to support all of the facts stated in the article. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, by that reasoning, it would be okay to introduce inaccuracies as long as you can cite a source for them. Deb 19:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Sorry, but the best way to achieve accuracy in Wikipedia is to only include material that has been published in reliable sources. If you cannot cite a reliable source for something, then the information is not reliable. If you use a source that is not a published source that can be readily checked by other editors and readers, then you are engaged in original research. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 19:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When not to cite sources, round III 

message: Question from a new user. I have followed six or more links and I think more than once each, to find out how to make citations, references, Harvard references. Is there one page that I can follow safely for English Wikipedia? Thought I had it at last at Template_messages/Sources_of_articles but alas that page says Harvard markup is "IN BETA TESTING PHASE—TEMPLATE SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR BREAK PERIODICALLY". If that page is right, then at least I know there is no agreed upon markup yet. Thanks for any help. --Susanlesch 00:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Is there an example article that you follow, one that cites books, papers, news, Usenet, video and other kinds of sources, that uses both references and footnotes and illustrates how they should work together? --Susanlesch 00:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I wish there was, but AFAIK, it's still in a state of confusion and non-clarity.  We have lots of standards... ;-)  The basic guideline is, if you are working by yourself on an article - do whatever you feel like, and please document it if you don't just pick one of the many exsisting methods; if you are working on an article with pre-existing citations or active editors, ask them on the talk page what they do, and follow their suggestions.  That's the best advice I can give you.  Good luck, and thanks for contributing. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a heckuvalotta work to do it and change it later so I wanted to ask. Thanks for your help, Jesse. --Susanlesch 02:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Accepted Markup 

message: I'd like to get some feedback from others who are thinking about the issues of citing sources on Wikipedia. Rather than burden this page with a lenghty analysis and proposal I've placed it in my own user space. I welcome comments at the associated talk page. 
Let me briefly summarize the proposal here. Basically I'm trying to think through the disctintions between notations, citations, references and sources. From that analysis I propose two strategies. First to alter the manual of style to disentangle these issues. Second, to develop a list of feature requests for MediaWiki software developers to make the job of adding and editing content even easier down the line. I think this proposal addresses a lot of the concerns I've seen raised here on this page, which is why I metnioned it here. --Cplot 06:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible solutions for notes, citations, and sources (and references) 

message: I would like to help find citations that are requested. What category do I go to to look for  requests? Thanks Eagle talk 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the template page, click "What links here" on the left side. Maurreen 12:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to help? 

message: I seem to be in a disagreement with some people at Talk:Polish-Romanian Alliance#Google Books as citation. The references in Polish-Romanian Alliance are mostly blind links to Google Books. I think that's inadequate citation, but at least so far I'm a minority of one in saying so. - Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google books is a wonderful free service, and surely the link to an online page is better than merely a reference to Book XYZ page 122. Rjensen 07:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It's not.  A combination of both is certainly better than either alone, but mere URLs to Google Books (while certainly better than nothing) are actually harder to track down (if/when the link breaks) than a normal citation.  We obviously need both, and should have typical citations in preference to google book's links. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google books as citation