Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 9

message: I have a problem with a source document with an annoted intext footnote, however the end footnotes remain unpublished or withheld.  There is some controversy regarding the textural material, as to whether or not in can be attributed to one speaker alone.
My understanding is, in the absence of an unpublished footnote, the source document itself becomes the citation, and according to MLA style referenced here What do you do if your source doesn't list an author?, reads,
:"you must first determine whether the author is anonymous, or whether the document was written by a corporation or committee."
:"When making a reference to a corporate author within your own text, you are advised by the MLA Handbook to refer to the corporation in the body of your paragraphs and to avoid citing them in your parenthetical references.
Any assistance to resolving this controversy would be appreciated.  nobs 19:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unpublished footnotes

message: Realising I was coming into the middle of an edit war, I've slightly changed my previous proposed edit about inotes and gone ahead with it.  Does that cover citation overuse in a way which won't discourage citations?  Mozzerati 22:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The case for invisible references seems awfully unclear—the main point of referencing (indeed, almost the whole point) is to help the reader, and you don't help the reader with references she can't see.  If some alleged article has so many citations that it is interfering with readability, then something else is wrong; either  it's engaging in original research or it's just plain badly written.  (I don't understand why people are trying to solve this "problem" of "over-citation", which as far as I can tell is nonexistent in virtually all of Wikipedia.)  Besides, if you just want to add a comment to other editors, there is already a common mechanism: 

text: Contributors who refuse to reference are not following the policy of Wikipedia; of course, it is better for such people to add an invisible reference than nothing, but that doesn't mean that this page should endorse that practice.  The basic principle of citation policy on Wikipedia, which most editors seem to have agreed upon for some time (modulo minor details) is that it is critical for Wikipedia to provide readers, not just editors, with references to support articles and to provide sources of further information.  Encouraging "invisible" references would be a major change to this policy and would therefore seem to require support from a lot more editors before being endorsed by this page. —Steven G. Johnson 23:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert war / inote 

message: Comments requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Inline links discouraged in favor of more complete sources. (SEWilco 08:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline links discouraged in favor of more complete sources 

message: Can someone point out some articles which use Harvard-style referencing?  (SEWilco 02:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Without picking any particular examples, if you look through WP:FA you can find many that use it at least in part.  Actually, FA provides a good example of the variety of styles in use and some of those articles are also what I would call mixed bags with several different styles used in a single article.  Dragons flight 03:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, of course.  Thanks.  (SEWilco 03:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  Looking at the first article in each category, only Alchemy, Coca-Cola, and  Anne of Great Britain are of interest.  Anyone notice any other examples?  (SEWilco 04:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of articles using Harvard notation 

message: Perhaps much of the details at Wikipedia:Cite_sources#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22 should be in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), Wikipedia:External links or Wikipedia:Footnotes.  The summary in this article should kindly remind DON'T DELETE DEAD LINKS and point at the details of restoration methods.  (SEWilco 04:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Section moved; this talk page section copied to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Dead link details --Francis Schonken 07:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link details 

message: I removed the words "that apply to the article as a whole" from the sentence: "References that apply to the article as a whole are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading."
I did this because it wasn't clear what it meant, and SEWilco used it in another article to remove the References section and replace it with Notes and footnotes, on the grounds that the sources applied to specific points and not the "article as a whole." But sources always apply to specific points, so I don't know what he meant.
I'm concerned about this page in that some editors here seem to be changing the guideline to suit very particular and unusual points of view about what sources and citations are. The page has to be consistent with policy, with other publishing styles and conventions, and with common sense. The more complicated we make the issue of citation, the less we'll be able to persuade editors to provide sources.
The guideline also has to be well written so that people understand it, but there is some confusing writing. Does anyone mind if I go through it and do a copy edit? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was clear to me what it meant.  General references in "References" section.  Notes for more specific sources in "Notes" section.  I think you forgot about "Notes" mentioned in Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Numbered_footnotes_-_.22Notes.22_section, and there could be phrasing in both section which mentions the other situation.  The "Numbered footnotes" section also has to be rewritten, as both "numbered footnotes" and "Harvard references" are means for doing specific references to sources, differing only in notation.  (SEWilco 19:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean by a "general reference." Can you give an example? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like "References" and "Notes" are being used in Music of the United States and George W. Bush.  Based on the previous definitions in WP:CITE, if I were writing the article "Bronze" I might use a book on bronze metallurgy and one on the Bronze Age as general references for much of the text.  On the other hand, specific sources might be noted for details on welding or weathering.  (SEWilco 03:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose SEWilco has clarified the point, so that we can go back to the version that worked fine. --Francis Schonken 05:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd call that "the version with References being for general sources".  Revert to it before other improvements.  Still awkward, it is.  (SEWilco 05:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References section

message: There are problems with the writing in this article, to the point where some of it seems to be meaningless. For example, what does this mean? "The types of references described in this section don't always fall under "cite sources", but can give additional support to finding sources that are related to the wikipedia article."
Also this:
"Footnotes are sometimes useful for relevant text that would distract from the main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point in greater detail. Such footnotes can be especially helpful for later fact-checkers, to ensure that the article text is well-supported.  Thus, using footnotes to provide useful clarifying information outside the main point is fine where this is needed."
I assume it means: "Footnotes may be used to cite sources, or to link to texts that provide more information" — but then why not just say so?
The harder this is to read, the less it will be read, so if we want editors to take it seriously, I suggest we keep the sentence construction simple, and the ideas clearly expressed. I'm sorry to write in this way: I don't intend to be overly critical, but our policies and guidelines have to be well written, because if we can't get it right even here, we can't ask editors to pay attention to detail anywhere else. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That paragraph is also trying to convey that footnotes may contain explanatory notes, not only citations of sources.  A footnote might also contain a long clarification, or merely a short note such as "Uses the same ammunition as the M1."  (SEWilco 04:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing

message: Part of the table of contents looks like this:
5 Style and how-to
:5.1 References in a "References" section
:5.2 In-line references
::5.2.1 Harvard style
::5.2.2 External links
6 Additional referencing
:6.1 In-line wiki-links
:6.2 References in a "See also" section - subpages
:6.3 "External links" and "Further reading" sections
:6.4 Numbered footnotes - "Notes" section
I watched it grow, so understand it began as a simpler list and then each type of information accumulated related material.  Some reorganization seems needed because related information has accumulated in separated locations.
* Possibly "In-line wiki-links" should be first.
*:Don't agree: section 5 is about "exclusively used for citing sources"; section 6 is about "can be used for citing sources, and can be used for other things"; "In-line wiki-links" clearly belongs in the second of those two categories. See also risk for circularity or even hidden original research when relying too heavily on "internal links" as references (well, explained that elsewere, there's still a section in Village pump/policy where I give some detail about that, the "lists and references" section). --Francis Schonken 07:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: I brought this up on the talk page, got clear consensus, wrote it up well, and put it on the project page. One person has now removed it four times in the face of apparent consensus, even though he has not made a single specific objection to the substance of it. Right now, I have better things to do than fight about this. Apparently he does not. If someone else will restore what I wrote, that will be welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like lies and false accusations all that much. above two persons suggested to move the section elsewhere (and "move" is not the same as "remove" as far as I know). Then you didn't even care to comment on these suggestions. Then, the move was performed, with a clear indication of the link to where it was moved. What's your problem? --Francis Schonken 06:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources that are defunct external sites, redux 

message: External links at Wikipedia:Guide to layout says:
Put here, in list form, any web sites that you have used or recommend for readers of the article. [...] (Some editors prefer to list external links under "References"; there is currently no consensus on the desirability of a separate section for on-line citations.) 4.250.138.131 15:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: This page does not seem like the place to list a dozen common situations and their suggested Harvard styling.  I think a summary of Harvard referencing should be in WP:CITE with a link elsewhere for details. I observe that the Harvard referencing section is trapped here.  But there is no existing page for Wikipedia style for Harvard referencing.  The Harvard referencing page is not the place for a specific Wikipedia style.
What seems like a good placement for Harvard details?
# Accumulate it all here.
# Create a new Wikipedia: page.
# Create a new WikiProject.
# Put details in a section in WP:FOOTNOTE.
— (SEWilco 06:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SE, with all due respect, I disagree.  Many other policy and guideline pages provide examples.  Clearly, an editor should be able to follow links from this page in order to learn more nuanced and detailed things.  But I also think that this page should be sufficient for an editor to look at to understand how to cite sources.  I do agree that a longer and more detailed, separate article on Harvard style is a good idea, but I do not think that this article suffers from "too much" detail. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Editors should be able to come here and get a quick overview of what to write if they want to use that style. Thank you for all the edits you made, SLR, by the way: they've improved the page a lot. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and thank you (I know you tightened up the prose of some of my recent additions, and you made it better), Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  Exactly.  It is where to put that "longer and more detailed" information which I'm asking about.  At present there are only seven bullet points in Wikipedia:Cite sources#Harvard style but there are many other details to be clarified.  I moved some provided items to Harvard referencing as examples, but the suggested styles for Wikipedia should be in a Wikipedia: page.  (SEWilco 16:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard summarization 

message: I am finding this a bit difficult to follow since I can't put in enough time right now and it seems changes are being made very fast.  However I have objections to both versions and I do consider that you are making "substantial" changes.  I feel that suggestions which encourage the use of multiple systems are specifically against consensus.  I think that the general consensus is that we should use one system but that we don't know which one it is yet (so we let people experiment and change about until we can agree which one is right).  Probably that, the "reference system which is to come" should be built into mediawiki.  Encyclopedias follow house style rather than the style of particular subject areas for the good reason that they are aimed at a "general" audience rather than at specialists in particular areas.  In the long term, inconsistency is bad even if it can be justified in the short term.  
Please slow this down and open some kind of broader debate if you can't find agreement.Mozzerati 20:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not adding complexity, the consensus has been that there are multiple systems which can be used.  (SEWilco 20:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slower changes 

message: I've just made a few changes. I'm writing up the explanation now. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See articles Attalus I, First Macedonian War, and Jew.  (SEWilco 17:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My edits

message: :" — which appears like this.  A full citation must then be given in the References section like this:'
:* Google's website, which appears as:
:* Google's website"
The above does not make apparent any connection between "[1]" and "Google's website".
* "You should always add a title to an external link by supplying descriptive text after the URL separated by a space and enclosing it all in square brackets."; from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Link titles
— (SEWilco 14:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in the References, External links, and Further reading sections. Not when you're using an embedded link to link to a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, when you're using an external link to a source.  "Always add a title".  A URL-only link provides little information about the link.  (SEWilco 06:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not in the text. Haven't you read the page? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have read the page.  As I've pointed out, the section on external links begins with the syntax definition including placing a bare URL within text, flows into general external link usage, starting with the "Link titles" section and then "embedded (numbered) links" section.  More isolated usage is then covered in "Position in article", "Foreign-language sites", "File type", and "File size" sections.  If you look at the embedded links section from which you draw the "References" format, you find it discusses both citation and inline usage.  The "Link titles" and "embedded" sections both discuss general link usage and "Link titles" is not referring only to "References" usage.  (SEWilco 16:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  URL-only citations 

message: Perhaps the sample citations can be in a single place rather than repeating them.  Repetition of the reminder to provide full citations should be sufficient (if not excessive in itself).  (SEWilco 14:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones do you mean? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scattered citations 

message: Francis continues to revert, so I'm writing out some examples here of the problems with his version, as I see them. Apart from the odd structure he wants to impose,  with footnotes discussed in a separate section from Harvard referencing, here are a few of the problems with the writing. With some of the examples below, it's hard to guess what's meant, and yet Francis is engaged in a slow revert war to keep them on the page.
*"The usual templates for generic references can be used in footnotes, and there is a recommendation to do so."
*"In most cases "Further reading" is absorbed in the references section, but when it exists as a separate section, that's usually for articles on broad topics, where the works mentioned in "further reading" offer an interesting angle to the subject, but not broad enough to be listed as a reference. They're rather primary sources than the secondary sources mentioned in the "references" section."
*"If the sub-topic wikipedia article is duly referenced to specific literature, these references need not be repeated in the general article: instead, try to provide general references for the general article."
*"The advantage of the techniques described in this section is that they can be used for other or additional text clarifications apart from the citation of the sources on which the article is based. In some cases disadvantages of these techniques can be that one or more steps are added before the original source of the article text can be reached, or in some cases even make it less clear whether the article is based on an external source."
*"Of course, a Harvard style reference can be the displayed text for an external link, if the referenced work is available on-line."
*"The system of presenting references in a wikipedia article can change over time. If you're involved in such operation: strive for clarity."
*"Make readers of the encyclopedia find reliable sources, which can be helped by a clear lay-out (in other words: messy layout usually doesn't help)." [Make readers find their own sources?]
*"Choosing one ore more of these styles for application in a wikipedia article, is foremost dependent from clarity: choose the formatting that helps the reader best to trace back the sources on which the article is based, without hampering the overall readability of the article."
*"When it is thus important to cite sources, this guideline helps you determine ... [w]hen to add citations (which pretty much resumes to: "always") ..."
Apart from these, there are minor points such as Wikipedia being sometimes written with an upper-case W, sometimes as wikipedia; and incorrect punctuation (e.g. "references (or: citations)".
But the worst of it is that this version shows no understanding of what references are, or primary and secondary sources. For example, what are "articles on broad topics ... but not broad enough to be listed as a reference"? And what does it mean to say of items listed in the further reading section that "[t]hey're rather primary sources than the secondary sources mentioned in the "references" section"?
There's also no discussion of embedded links, no examples of how to write them, no discussion about the importance, when using embedded links, of including complete citations in the References section.
Then there are less clear-cut objections, but still important. For example, imagine a new editor who knows nothing about policy and who comes to this page for the first time. Which opening sentence is stronger and more informative?
*consensus version: "Providing sources for your edits, in particular for edits that are challenged by other editors, is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy."
*Francis version: "This guideline concentrates on providing style recommendations for the insertion, in wikipedia articles, of references pointing to reliable sources."
In the Francis version, the first sentence imparts no information, spells Wikipedia with a lower-case W, and his next sentence (below) mentions NOR and NPOV, but doesn't say they are policy, doesn't say what their relevance is to WP:CITE, and contains a minor grammatical/punctuation error ("in more detail," or "explained, with more detail, ..."). It's not a good introduction to the page, overall.
:"The importance of providing citations is explained with more detail on several other guideline and policy pages, most notably Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research."
And then there's the structure, with footnotes (barely discussed) in a different section entirely from Harvard referencing, on the grounds, it appears, that Harvard referencing is used exclusively for citing sources, whereas footnotes may be used to impart additional information. But so what? This is a page about how to cite sources, and that's the only aspect of footnotes that matters here. Their other uses can be mentioned but they shouldn't determine the position of the section on the page. Both citation systems belong together.
I know that there's the issue of English not being the first language, and I have a lot of respect for people who edit in languages other than their own, but all the more reason not to keep reverting people who try to tidy or rewrite it. And not all of the above can be attributed to language problems. I'm sorry for listing all this, but we've been going round and round for days now, so I'm hoping specific examples may be helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, I can't disparage the work you pout into setting all of this out.  But, no offence: "food luck."  Schonken is apparently a POV warrior who only wants to impose his own views against all others.  Above I expressed the reasons for many of my changes, including my problems with the earlier version  and Schonken did not respond to any of my criticisms or explanations, he just reverted.  We just need to be careful about this POV warrior. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the other version