Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 77

message: I've been working on American Goldfinch, and there is an extensive section at the end called "Further reading", which consists of a list of books, articles, and thesis papers concerning the bird. None of them are links, it's just a list of articles. I've cut it down to just the ones that directly concern only the American Goldfinch, but it's still huge, and I'm not sure what to do with it. Nothing in the Manual of Style really addresses it. Any advice would be appreciated. Hey jude, don't let me down 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Further_reading defines Further Reading sections as "generally for resources on the topic that are not specifically cited in the article" (see also Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Further_reading.2FExternal_links). Cutting it to ones that directly address the topic and that are not already referenced in the article itself, as you've done, appears to be the correct approach. FemmeBrulee 18:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Further reading"? 

message: Posted at VP
----
Non evident risk in articles lacking critical references
Related: [Risk disclaimer]               [Manual of Style]               [Biographies of living persons]
Terms: Non Evident Risk – a risk that that has an established reality, but which within a given context is not apparent.
Current Position: Wikipedia has well established practice in how it approaches ‘risk’ and this is addressed through the use of the Disclaimer statements.
Need for Change: The matter of risk applies predominantly to articles dealing with some form of human activity and in most of those articles the risk that attaches to the activity discussed is entirely self evident, for example Rock Climbing will be understood by an reasonable person as an inherently risky activity. However there are some articles where the tone of the article and/or the absence of critical references, coupled with a received wisdom regarding the activity which endorses it as risk free, effectively disguising the risk even where medical, scientific or reasoned observational evidence suggests that risk exists.
Scope for Change: Any change would necessarily be limited to matters of established physical and psychological risk, as would be understood by as such by any reasonable person. 
It seems unlikely that there would be any appetite amongst editors to change the way that Disclaimers are currently used, although it would not be overly problematic to introduce a more prominent display of the Risk Disclaimer for articles where critical references are lacking.
The obvious response is to say that relevant articles be improved by the inclusion of critical references, however without policy change this may not always be achievable as editors may be reluctant to include references which do not precisely link to the subject of the article. (see example)
A further and unequivocally desirable improvement also depends upon an improvement in reference discipline – that is to ensure references and links to organisations which are active in risk reduction in an appropriate field. Here we can return to the example of Rock Climbing where numerous sport bodies actively promote and discuss the reduction of risk in an inherently risky pursuit.
Example of a number of associated problem articles:  [] []
The core article is a Biography of a Living Person and although a number of critical references are included, none address an activity which is presented in positive terms within the core article and six associated articles – that is the practice of meditation, an activity which the subject of the Biography has a long history of promoting. Neither the core article, nor the associated articles use a wikilink to the Wikipedia article [], which itself does include an Adverse Effects section which clearly demonstrates potential risks in meditational practice. Clearly there are editors who have decided that there is some constraint upon linking to the Meditation article, demonstrating either that there is a need to challenge the thinking behind that execise of constraint, or otherwise if wikipedia rules require such constraint, then to re-examine the how the Risk Disclaimer is displayed within certain articles.
 Nik Wright2 14:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible MoS Issues

message: There is a debate going on at Talk:Legal history of marijuana in the United States over whther the article should eb called cannabis or marijuana. One editor is claiming that as the article relates to the US it must be marijuana whereas another editor (me) argues that it should be cannabis as all the cannabis articles (eg Cannabis (drug) are callaed cannabis. The other editor has gone so far as to say that MoS insists that because the article relates to the US MoS demands it must be callaed marijuana whereas I think allt he articles should be callaed cannabis for consistency. I cant see that MoS comments on this particular tyope of issue and absolutely should do so, SqueakBox 20:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if a good case could be made that marijuana is the American version of cannabis.  — The Storm Surfer 05:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sort of sure that a good case could be made that it isn't. Jimp 05:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, this is necessarily subjective but: Yes, I agree that "marijuana" is not slang. However "cannabis" sounds more formal, dispassionate, "scientific", "clinical". Therefore, to my ear, "cannabis" is preferable in an encyclopedia. I am American. --Trovatore 07:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m not sure I agree that “'cannabis' sounds more formal, dispassionate, 'scientific', 'clinical'” – at least in America.  Rather, “marijuana” is the name by which it is most commonly known, and “cannabis” the second most well-known name for it in America.  It’s just another case of words of different language origins both coming to be used popularly and alternatively in English.  If we go by the term that the average person seeking information on the subject in Wikipedia is most likely to search on, then 'marijuana' would seem to be the better choice – at least as far as American users are concerned.  Askari Mark (Talk) 03:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannabis v marijuana

message: We've just had the semi-annual WP:LAME debate at Talk:Yoghurt, in which some editors claimed that the usage of the original conmtributor was a reason to overturn the established spelling. I propose to add a few words to "If all else fails", denying this; if anyone disagrees, revert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original spelling

message: appears to have archived this discussion, while it was still on-going. I;ve asked him to fix that. Andy Mabbett 15:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it.  He archived more than just that.  I came here yesterday to find only two sections: Making the MOS into a guiding hand usable by human editors & Lots of ugly, messy bolding at openings.  I unarchived a number of sections. Jimp 00:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prematrue archiving 

message: I've got to say that I'm not quite sure what you mean here, Tony.
I assume you're saying that there will be other reasons for including the acronym, and I agree that there will be but these really need spelling out, however, I'm then thrown by your example.  There doesn't seem to exist any connexion between the meaning I'm reading here and the example given. Jɪmp 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yeah, that makes sense ... actually rereading the original now I see that that's what you had said. Perhaps, though, we could have something like the second version on the page (it is clearer). Also, as I'd noted above, we might add a word on when to include acronyms & when not to. I have come across instances of acronyms in articles for things which were neither important to the topic at hand nor ever used again on the page. We don't need this (generally speaking, of course). Jɪmp 17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of acronyms/initialism once only in a text is one of my pet hates. It forces the reader to code the abbreviation for no reason at all. If no one objects, I'd like to include this point. Tony 02:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having run across this before I'd say that it would probably be worth adding.  The wording seems fine, though, I would add a small point.  If the abbreviation in itself is relevant to the topic at hand, it would be worth including.  The article United States, for example, includes the abbreviations the U.S.A. and the U.S. of A., and rightly so, of course, though it uses the U.S. instead. Jɪmp 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Acro's & abrev's