Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 14

message: Can anyone fix the problem of the inline refs doubling up on Gastric-brooding Frog. Thanks -- Froggydarb croak 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it fixed now? (If it is, see WP:FN for an explanation of what I did.) Gimmetrow 01:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks -- Froggydarb croak 02:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: What is the consensus on writing footnotes like this:
 "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet," he said in a 2006 interview.


I haven't seen this spacing very often, but I find it much easier to read and edit. Omphaloscope » talk 03:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can pretty much do it however you want based on whatever editors of the article in question can agree on. Although I wouldn't describe huge six-line jumps in the middle of paragraphs as particularly easy to read or edit. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacing in references 

message: See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies regarding intermediate sources. Andries 17:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Should intermediate sources be sufficiently reliable (that is is there good reason to assume that the intermediate sources correctly quotes or have undistorted copies of reputable sources) or should intermediate sources be reliable in itself? SeeWikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive10#Intermediate_sources concerning wikipedia:Cite#Intermediate_sources:_State_where_you_got_it 17:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand where this discussion is supposed to take place. The RFC doesn't seem to indicate. Am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HELLO! Will someone please explain where the actual discussion is taking place? - Jmabel | Talk 19:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#A different proposed addition? Hiding Talk 19:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it took place here Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources/archive10#Intermediate_sources Andries 18:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: See here  Andries 19:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is unrelated to the arbcom case. This was already a matter of dispute before the arbcom case openened as can be checked in archive 10. Andries 19:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comments regarding intermediate sources

message: if it's ok with everyone, i would like to propose that we add a section entitled "cite sources that represent a fair and balanced view" The problem is that various topics have one major viewpoint and a minor viewpoint or multiple viewpoints.  I've run into wikipedians who are citing a onesided viewpoint or citations from a minor viewpoint and trying to state that it is the absolute truth... hopefully this will prevent a one-sided view of the world...Kennethtennyson 17:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cite sources that represent a fair and balanced view

message: I have not been able to figure out the difference between Template:Cite journal and Template:Cite conference.  I realize the second is meant specifically for the Procedings of confrences, but what, in terms of template arguments, or, output style, is the difference?  I presume there is one, which is why I'm posting here.  Thanks! (copied to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikicite also) JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; but I'd put most of those differences down to a lack of development of cite confrence; it's still not clear to me what the difference in style might be. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between Cite journal and Cite confrence 

message: Would it be appropriate for a biographical article that contains nothing more than DOB, names of spouse/children, and education and key positions, with dates to not contain a single reference?
This information is obviously taken from somewhere, and the truthfulness of the facts could be easily verified by a simple web search.  But the information is also not controversial.  Does an article that contains just this basic information need a reference? Patiwat 18:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all articles need references; this really isn't negotiable at this point. Kirill Lokshin 18:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure does -- here's an example of a short article that most likely will not grow any larger and just has the basic info (and nothing controversial) but still has its sources -- it's an article I created yesterday: George Rogers Clark Floyd --plange 18:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference neccesary for short articles without controversial information? 

message: Where should the citations for the following paragraph be placed?
This sentence summarizes the paragraph.  This fact came from source A.  This fact came from source B.  This fact came from Soure A.
Like this:
This sentence summarizes the paragraph.A B  This fact came from source A.  This fact came from source B.  This fact came from Soure A.
or like this:
This sentence summarizes the paragraph.  This fact came from source A.A  This fact came from source B.B  This fact came from Soure A.A
or like this:
This sentence summarizes the paragraph.This fact came from source A.A  This fact came from source B.B  This fact came from Soure A.
or like this:
This sentence summarizes the paragraph. This fact came from source A.  This fact came from source B.B  This fact came from Soure A.A
or like this:
This sentence summarizes the paragraph.  This fact came from source A.  This fact came from source B.  This fact came from Soure A.A B
-- Patiwat 10:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on the length of the paragraph, I'd go with either the second option or the last one; as a general rule, a citation must come after the material it applies to, not before. Kirill Lokshin 15:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference for the last option rises in direct proportion to the number of facts cited from each source. It gets ridiculous to have a footnote on every sentence in an article in cases where one or two footnotes per paragraph are sufficient. dryguy 15:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One point to note would be that the last option works best if the footnotes are pure citations; if there are discursive remarks also present, combining them for an entire paragraph is likely to be confusing. Kirill Lokshin 15:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, it is best to reference specific facts, assertions, or whatever as you go along, rather than trying to make a single reference cover a large part of the article at once, because the reader tends to associate footnote marks with particular sentences or paragraphs in the text. So the sequence of citations might go AAAABAACAAAADEAFAAAA. I would reference A at the end of information culled from one page or sequence of pages in a book (12-16) rather than at the end of every sentence. The reader checking the source will grasp that intuitively.qp10qp 18:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite any serious publication that makes a practice of repeatedly citing the same reference on several sentences in a row? I believe that is non-standard for a very good reason - it is distracting to the reader to have footnotes applied continuously throughout an article when one or two footnotes at the beginning of an article and on key points will do just fine. No serious publication that I am aware of puts a footnote on every sentence. A far more common practice is to group the relevant citations and place them on one or more key sentences in the introduction, something like this.1-6 dryguy 15:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just re-read what you wrote - obviously I missed where you said put the citations at the end of the paragraph. dryguy 15:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, unfortunately, we have to be more citation happy than a publication who knows who they hired to write the article. Citations help editors combat misinformation being slipped into an article, as it should be easy to spot new info going in without a cite and require they provide one. --plange 16:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to place citations in a paragraph? 

message: Hi, can someone tell me which cite template to use when linking to a streaming video/audio? -- Lost(talk) 17:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which template for streaming media 

message: IMHO mechanical application of WP:CITE and the desire for a cureall results in absurd situation, e.g. the recent idea that WP:GOOD articles do require by all means in-line cites. I very much hold that there a situarions where giving in-line cites is not only unnecessary, but misleading. Top example are overview articles about established area of science.
In special relativity, should we give a cite for:
: two events happening in two different locations that occur simultaneously to one observer, may occur at different times to another observer
This can be found in literally every textbook on SR, possibly hundreds of books. If giving just one book reference, a contributor would not only promote a specific book without reason, but leave the possible impression, that only this book supports the sentence, other books possibly not. Also for this example the verifiability argument seems rather silly: If someone needs a reference to verify the correctness of this sentence, I would rather prefer someone other to check the correctness of the article. 
Pjacobi 15:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could really use some feedback from seasoned editors here on the new changes to the GA criteria, which all seems to be pointing back to issues that have to do with WP:CITE..... --plange 14:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:CITE is a guideline, the policy that you are trying to follow is verifiability. There are many different ways to cite information, from simply listing a general reference at the end of the article which supports a large part of the information, to actually providing footnotes to the reader. In situtations where an article contains many facts that are basic to the subject and broadly accepted, it might be worth listing a few general references at the end of the article, i.e. some widely used undergraduate texts, and not bothering with footnotes. When such material is challenged, you still ought to provide a specific citation for it, but that need not be done with a reader-visible footnote. You could use  or an HTML comment, or simply note the source on the talk page. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When not to cite 

message: I'm not sure exactly where this belongs, please point me elsewhere if this discussion either belongs or has taken place before. In many articles (such as Tupac_Shakur which is where i noticed it), the publication dates of referenced books etc are wiki links to the date in question. This is neither helpful or consistant as far as i can tell, but i cant see how to edit it, and it seems to be done in a lot of articles so maybe i shouldnt anyway, can anyone clarify this? Provider uk 18:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wikilink a date in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD), user preferences allow the date to be displayed 4 different formats, which is why wikilinking dates is considered useful. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#prefsection-4 .) Some templates wikilink certain date entries automatically. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the problem with wikilinking dates is that it colorizes and highlights them, thus misleading users into thinking the editors recommend clicking on a link. That tends to disfigure an article and mislead the users. Rjensen 00:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date wikification in cites 

message: I got this in Factiva:
Starbucks Sued for $10 Million by Glen Cove, N.Y., Woman 
By Jamie Herzlich, Newsday, Melville, N.Y. 
Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
717 mots
30 décembre 2003
Newsday (KRTBN) (N.Y.)
Anglais
Copyright (C) 2003 KRTBN Knight Ridder Tribune Business News 
It looks like KRTBN aggregates the contents from many newspapers: so the date (December 30, 2003) is probably the date of the original article in Newsday, but as I accessed the Newsday article only through KRTBN, should I write, in the References sections, something like "through KRTBN"? Or only Newsday, December 30, 2003? Apokrif 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing newspapers articles which are accessed indirectly 

message: What about geographical articles? Someone has added  to the stub on Stanbridge, Bedfordshire, which contains statements like "Stanbridge lies 3 miles east of Leighton Buzzard". I cannot see what is gained by adding a source for this type of statement, as it can be verified by consulting any suitable large-scale map. Giving a reference to one particular map would clutter the article, and might imply that that source is thought to be more reliable than others. In fact, if a statement like this survives for a year on Wikipedia without being challenged, it is probably a better sign that it is true than if it appears in just one external source. To create the reference requires a (small) amount of work, and it would discourage me (a bit) from filling out Wikipedia with stub articles. I am quite happy to add references for doubted or hard-to-find facts, and have done so when editing other articles. (Note: Since  was added to Stanbridge, Bedfordshire, I have added a reference for the population estimate. This was because the 2001 census figure, which I assumed was a 'well-known' fact, was replaced by a more up-to-date estimate, which could differ depending on who makes the estimate.) JonH 13:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Jon here (as long as we understand that "a statement like this" really means "a statement like this"; in an article like Übermensch, who knows what crap might survive for a year): it is often a pain to find sources for obvious, trivial statements like this, and it is hard to see the benefit. - Jmabel | Talk 06:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What about geography?

message: This discussion has become too particular to two fields only -- math and physics -- while completely overlooking, thus far, some other scientific areas like medicine, in which multiple citations are routinely given for almost every line in journal articles.  If I could claim common knowledge on any medical fact you can find three sources for, I can write some fantastic quackery articles.  Have a look at attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, which recently passed GA under the allegedly stricter requirements.  It has a number of statements someone apparently thought were common knowledge, since the article is largely uncited, and a good deal of the under-cited article does not reflect medical consensus, and there are not legitimate, peer-reviewed medical cites for a good deal of the content there.  Someone on GA thought it was well cited.
*"Something that can be found in every textbook?"  Not all fields are as static as some of the math/physics people here would have us believe.  Facts need to be cited so we can verify the veracity of the source.  In the articles I edit, I know the leading researchers, the medical consensus, and the well-controlled, replicated research from the garbage.  
*"Statements which are undisputed within an academic field need not be inline cited."  Without citations, how is the reader to know what is or isn't indisputed?  
*"Show me any serious publication that applies inline citations to every fact."  Read some medical journal articles.
*"I suggest we edit the page to include the statement that elementary facts should not be cited."  Less than 15% of people with Tourette syndrome have coprolalia.  That's everyday, common knowledge to me - a very basic, elementary fact.  Good, I won't cite it :-)
*"But if I cite "Mathematics by Jane Smith, PhD" and not "Mathematical Exercises by Jane Doe, PhD" I'm tacitly endorsing Smith's book over Doe's book. It's basically an advertisement for Smith over Doe. Why should we be in the business of endorsing textbooks? " This is a silly argument.  You cite any source you know to be the highest-quality source.  In every academic field, there are recognized top-notch experts.  Citations aren't recommendations to purchase something:  they are acknowledgements of top-notch sources.
*"No one has delisted articles yet."  A physician or neurologist needs to look at attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
*"A year ago we used Wikipedia:Peer review to prepare for a FAC." This is the most sensible thing I read in this entire discussion.  We keep getting *really* REALLY bad GAs at FAC, and lately we've been recommending them to peer review.  That's not very helpful, since no one is helping out at peer review.  I reviewed 9 articles at PR this week; even found some bad copyright stuff there.  Why don't we all start helping out more at PR?
*"But GA doesn't mean anything if it's the same as FA, and it seems to be very close to that right now. " I pulled random sentences out of the extensive discussions above, so I don't know who said this, but I can't believe anyone who really believes this has spent a lot of time at FAC.  The GAs coming through there are often a wreck.
*"One further point that I think people may have missed: inline citation does not mean, per se, that every sentence must be cited. It would be quite possible, for example, to have a single footnote for an entire paragraph or section."  Mountain --> molehill.  
*"To add to Kirill Lokshin's points, I've been reading some of the arguing here and elsewhere, and I must say that this chimera of a reference for every line has been invented: there's no policy or good-article principle that requires it, there just isn't; it is a straw man (OK, a straw chimera)." Reason at last.
*" In practice, enough experts read through the articles as part of the editing process that errors are found and important citations added." Not at GA, where the ADHD article got through with inaccurate, uncited information.
*"I suggest that a clarification be made in WP:CITE that facts that are obtainable in the generic undergraduate textbook on a particular topic need not be given a specific inline citation, " Almost ALL undergraduate and many medical textbooks on Tourette syndrome contain outdated, inaccurate information.  If I see someone sourcing a TS statement to Comings, I know it's not well researched.   In every field, certain journals are more respected than others.  Facts in an undergrad textbook mean nothing.  Comings is still one of the most-cited TS researchers, and most of what he believed has been disputed or refuted by subsequent research.  But I can certainly find 3 textbooks which cite him.
*"Common knowledge facts do not need to be directly cited when they are verifiable by a large number of sources."   Diet is a cause and treatment of ADHD.  You can find that in a phenomenal number of sources.  But you won't find it in controlled, replicated, peer-reviewed journal studies from the top-notch journals and the top-notch researchers.  Nope - I want to see who you're citing.  The ADHD article cites Biederman and his group (hands down the top ADHD researchers) once, and it cites a lot of pop authors.
*"Inline citations are not required on non-controversial statements that are corroborated by more than three of the sources cited by the article."  See above, and who defines non-controversial?  Folks of the POV that ADHD is caused/cured by diet don't consider that to be a controversial statement.  The way we keep POV and OR out of Wiki is by requiring highest quality sources on technical articles.
Wikipedia is not only math and physics:  a whole lot of this argument is just too focused on a few areas, and overlooking the need for citations in other areas.  Not only that, citations do more than verify facts:  they give Wiki readers a way to dig further into what they read here, helps us battle POV and OR, and builds the reputation and quality of Wikipedia.  Math and physics are no exceptions:  anyone read Atomic line filter lately? Sandy 01:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What about medicine?

message: I would like the policy to indicate some flexibility. I think, for example, the dictum against "citing other Wikipedia articles" is too harsh. I'm looking at a few summary style articles right now where there are demands for sources that it woudl be tedious to compile from the subarticles, many of which merely list sources in end-notes or external links. If an inline citation exists, it's easy to move, but in summaries or lists they can create "citation clutter". (Hey, if people can debate category clutter, even for useful categories saying there are just too many, why can't I debate having too many citations?) To my mind the referenced article is a subarticle, which handles the topic as a primary topic, and thus the place for citations about it. To be pertinent to the question at hand here, maybe we need to slip the words "editorial consensus" in there someplace. If editorial consensus is that there are enough citations ... after all, that is practically how it works, becaouse obviously one citation per word is too many, and I bet only a handful of articles even achieve one citation per sentence. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a separate issue, but one that needs to be discussed. Therefore I'm breaking it out as a new section. --ScienceApologist 23:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary style and CITE contradiction about linked subarticles

message: This article is an absolute mess.  It provides no coherent well sourced definition of a Black person and just rambles on and on about various people who were labled Black in different times, places, and languages, and tries to merge them all together as a coherent ethnic group.  It would be like trying to merge Native Americans and people from India into a coherent article called Indian people. It makes no sense. We had requested mediation and the mediator said we should use the census as our source. Here's what the U.S. census says:
A Black is “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.”  
Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas.  And yet we still have editors insisting that South Asians be given equal weight in the article and be considered Black.  These people provide no cited definitions or census classifications to defend their assertions, instead they cherry pick from different sources in different countries for examples of South Asians being labeled Black, often in different languages.  But by the same logic, I could argue that the Black Irish are Black.  The point is the people editing that article need to be forced to adheare to a coherent sourced authoritative definition of a Black person, or the entire article should just be deleted as POV and unencyclopedic.
Dictionary.com[],  the free dictionary online[].,  the U.S. census[],  and the British census[] all emphasize the idea that Blacks are of African origin-in fact it is against the law for a dark-skinned person of South Asian or Australian origin to claim to be black in the census.  An article by the BBC makes a clear distinction between Blacks and the dark skinned people of South Asian ancestry[].  This article about race in biomedicines says “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens)."[].  I really need help getting the editors of that article to stick to a coherent definition, instead of just pushing their own POV. Editingoprah 06:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Desperate help needed at the [[Black people]] article! Please get involved!!

message: I changed
:Inline citations are not required for every statement in Wikipedia, provided the statements are corroborated by the references cited in the article.
to
:Inline citations are not required for each statement in Wikipedia, as long as the article provides some means by which a reader can readily find a published source corroborating that statement.
The point here is that inline citations are not sacred, and inline citations for every statement are not necessarily required, but the spirit of verifiability must be met.
My goal was to find language that blunts the attack of " nazis" who seek to make bad-faith abuse of policy in order to gain tactical advantage in a POV-war by tying the opposition up in busy-work—which seems to be one of the concerns here—but does not compromise WP:V. 
At one extreme, sure, if it is patently obvious to the average reader that a statement like
:[Beethoven] is widely regarded as one of history's greatest composers, and was the predominant figure in the transitional period between the Classical and Romantic eras in Western classical music
must be "common knowledge" in the music field, and if the article cites some general references (which it does), and it's obvious which references would be expected to confirm the statement ("Davies, Peter. The Character of a Genius: Beethoven in Perspective?"), there's no haste in providing an inline citation.
At the other extreme, if I'm faced with a statement that is not obvious, and there are a dozen general references cited at the end of the article, and it's not obvious which one of them would corroborate the statement, and the references are not online links and several of them are book that would not be expected to be in a medium-sized public library... well, it's not fair to expect me to obtain a dozen books and comb though each of them. What if I can only put my hands on ten of them? How do I know whether the corroboration is in the other two?
Personally, I'm not totally convinced that there's any good way to meet WP:V with present apparatus other than inline citations, but I'm willing to settle for stating the goal to be achieved rather than dictating a specific means for achieving it. 
The reader has to be able to find a published source fairly easily. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully support Dpbsmith's changes. dryguy 22:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Meh, I suppose that will have to do; we're likely to sit here reverting for a long time, otherwise. Kirill Lokshin 23:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it won't. I wholeheartedly disagree with the policy of steamrollering changes without consensus, just by implying the threat of another lenghty edit war or dispute. There is currently no consensus concerning any changes to the guideline, which means it should not be changed in any way. I would like to ask all parties involved to behave in a mature way. Bravada, talk - 23:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, do you have any problems with the actual text that was added, or just procedural concerns? Kirill Lokshin 23:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (reply to Kirill) Yes I do - it is absolutely redundant and litters the guideline to make somebody feel better. See also Gerry Ashton's comment far above. Bravada, talk - 23:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As others have pointed out, not one person on the page has said inline citations are required on every statement. Until someone says so, we have consensus that they are not required. dryguy 23:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) This is a false argument. The question in the poll was "Every fact in every article should have its own inline citation with a specific page number where the fact can be found" which no one really supports, but you can't reverse that and say ergo "Inline citations are not required for every statement in Wikipedia" because sometimes, in some cases, they will need to be. That's the difference.--plange 23:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's why I didn't respond to the poll, but I opposed the way it was written.  Sandy 23:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent change to WP:CITE does not mention page numbers. dryguy 23:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The two sentences are opposites of each other.  Either every fact need an inline citation, or not every fact needs an inline citation.  Could you explain your opinion that is is possible to simultaneously disagree with both?   CMummert 23:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One can, of course, also hold the view that this guideline should make no statement regarding whether or not an inline citation is required for every fact. Kirill Lokshin 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that is exactly the point that is at issue in these discussions. CMummert 23:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that when we aren't explicit, we get some editors who think that CITE supports them in their declaration that particular articles are unverified simply on the basis that they don't have inline references. --ScienceApologist 23:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: (reply to Kirill) Egg, zactly.  We get to use our brains, instead :-)  Sandy 23:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very convenient way to disagree with anything while not having to provide a coherent argument as to why. dryguy 23:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We do not have consensus;  we have gone in circles and are back to the same point we were 24 hours ago.  I have a problem with the current vagueness.  " Inline citations are not required for each statement in Wikipedia, as long as the article provides some means by which a reader can readily find a published source corroborating that statement."  So, these editors who don't want to cite can say, go read this 400-page textbook.  We need exact page numbers (or ranges of page numbers).  And once you've given page numbers, there is no reason just to not give the darn cite already.  And, I have a problem with any wording that refers to "each statement", as it ignores the fact that sometimes entire paragraphs can be cited from one source, etc. Sandy 23:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has contradicted the statement that not every sentence needs an in-line reference. That's pretty much a consensus that this statement is correct as far as I can tell. --ScienceApologist 23:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Faulty logic, as explained above, and the sentence inserted says more than that.  Sandy 23:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be easier to focus on the semantics to everyone's satisfaction if you would just tell us your position. It is like you are constantly morphing your opinion. Do you think inline citations should be required on every statement or not? There is no logical flaw in ScienceApologists point. You either support this very specific requirement, or you don't. dryguy 23:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My position hasn't changed, and is that the current wording is/was fine, no changes are needed, we shouldn't be making specific statements at all, and that no one here has yet proposed any new wording worthy of inclusion on WP:CITE that won't ultimately be a detriment to the project, allowing for speculation, ongoing edit wars over whether to cite, and continuing problems at GA (noting of course, that you won't have this problem at FAC - uncited articles won't pass there.)  I supported an earlier summary by Kirill, which basically said the same thing the current policies say, hence no need for change.  If you can construct new wording that leaves no wiggle room, I'll endorse. Sandy 23:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still haven't answered the question as to whether or not every sentence needs an in-line reference. Please take us seriously. --ScienceApologist 23:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you haven't kept up with the entire page:  I and others have answered it several times.  There may be an article which requires an inline site for every sentence, it is common for medical articles to have multiple cites per sentence, and there is no need to place any explicit statements about numbers needed in our guidelines, which are working just fine for most of Wikipedia. Sandy 23:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen a version that says "no article may include inline cites on every statement." I have seen plenty articles with multiple, redundant cites on every sentence that serve no useful purpose. I can only guess they were added based on a misguided interpretation of WP:V and WP:CITE. The clarification will help avoid such missteps in the future, thus improving overall quality at Wikipedia. dryguy 00:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, a lot of words but still no answer to the basic question. --ScienceApologist 23:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, this is certainly a non-sequitor. There is a difference between original research and original phrasing. Original phrasing in science and mathematics is fundamentaly equivalent statements that require contextual manipulation of verifiable references. Ironically, it was in order to combat pseudophysics that original research was developed in the first place, so it doesn't make much sense to attack editors who are reasonably dealing with how to indicate sources in science and math articles. --ScienceApologist 23:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That is WP:OR.  This is WP:CITE, which says how sources should be cited to comply with WP:V and WP:OR.  If consensus is reached that inline citation is not necessary to quality as what [[WP:V] and WP:OR call citation then WP:CITE should be edited to reflect that consensus. CMummert 23:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Not every fact requires inline citation. There is no bright-line rule for when facts do require inline citation. The spirit of verifiability must be met.
Dpbsmith (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reader must be able to find a published source readily 

message: My personal opinion, which I do not feel was adequately captured in the poll or in CMummert's which-side-are-you-on-boys challenges, is that
*Inline citations are always desirable, even for "the obvious," and are not that hard to supply.
*Inline citations are highly desirable for "the obvious" when the obvious involves historical or political overtones. Or, generally, when "the obvious" is a belief that's so widely held that it is widely presented as a standard narrative, but where there is a substantial body of dissenting or unorthodox opinion (even nutcase or crackpot opinion).
*Inline citations should be supplied whenever a good-faith request is made for them. Note that a "good-faith request" doesn't mean "I think this is wrong," it means "I'd like to see a citation for this." 
*Inline citations for "the obvious" are not needed until someone makes a specific request that a specific item be cited.  
I do not like the idea of summarizing my opinion in the words "Not every fact requires inline citation." I really want to see some modifying language. I would be angry if someone removed good-faith "citation needed" tags with an edit comment like "Not required, see WP:CITE". I would be very angry if someone removed an actual inline citation, referencing this policy.
Perhaps the language should capture the fact that there's a range of opinion. 
:Not every fact requires inline citation. There is no bright-line rule for when facts do require inline citation. The spirit of verifiability must be met.
Dpbsmith (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How about articulating the fact that there's a '''range''' of opinion?

message: Two parts since this seems to the two separate circles we are going around in. And yes, voting is evil. :p Agne 23:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This poll is quite odd. The second two parts of (2) mean the same thing - that not every fact needs a citation.  And it is not coherent to say that although a fact is represented by consensus, that fact shouldn't be added to the policy. CMummert 23:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the argument that thepolicy doesn't represent consensus but doesn't need changed is quite weak.  So if consensus says not every article needs a cite, it should go into the article. Arguing to keep the current article against consensus is not exactly good faith. But if the article does agree with the consensus, then clarifying this can't make the article worse.  CMummert 23:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Considering the small sampling here (compared to the whole project) an item would need near unanimous support to be even close to considered "consensus". It wouldn't be wise for anyone to change the guideline based on this. This is mostly for our benefit of discussion. Agne 23:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not the consensus opion on WP:GA when the guidelines were changed there. Notice has been placed on many project message pages about this discussion, so there has been adequate chance for editors to participate.  And WP:CITE must be on a lot of watchlists. CMummert 00:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As I pointed out above, this position implies that not every fact needs a citation, if there is room for interpretation on a per-article basis.  Thus this position supports the consensus that not every sentence needs a citation. CMummert 23:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out above, no it doesn't.  Sandy 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CMummert is right. If the choice is between every sentence requiring a citation and not, you are saying that every sentence does not require a citation. --ScienceApologist 00:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DONOT (shit, that's not an article?). Do not engage in this strawpoll. This is a game with a calculated intent. Marskell 00:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF.  We are trying to assess consensus.  This poll was placed by Agne, who favors inline citations, and a similar poll was placed by me, who doesn't.  SO apparently both sides are interested to know.   CMummert 00:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strawpolls should be an outcome of consensus (i.e., "we're here, what next"), not a means to find consensus. And, they should not be content specific unless you're polling specific content. I've done market research--you don't have clauses like "per Gerry Ashton's suggestion" unless you're polling re Gerry Ashton. I'd suggest: take it easy. Marskell 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  My "calculated intent" is that reasonable people will see that they can reasonably disagree on matters like this. As I mentioned to Bravada, it certainly wouldn't be wise to guage such a small sampling as consensus in either direction. But the group of 6-9 editors who have been discussing this on and off have pretty much been going in circles. If we can get a "break" in the circle, maybe we can bring this matter to a conclusion. (after edit conflict) LOL, I've done market research too and no this is not a market research poll. The "per Gerry" was simply because his comment best summed up that sentiment.  Agne 00:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, if only in a cursory way, if you've done market research (i.e., designed opinion surveys) you should be able to design a question without a nod towards one option. In any case, this is a "we're tired--let's poll!" poll. The only consensus you'll be verifying (on one of the most important issues facing Wiki) is that between ten editors between Sept 20-something and early Oct 2006. This may need a haul into userspace and a poke at people ("What do you think?") before using this talk as some definitive measure. Marskell 00:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your point. As I said before, I don't think the result of this poll should be used to the change the guideline at all. But you are quite right that an invitation to get more people involved is more ideal. The views of 10 editors should never decide anything as major as this. Agne 00:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: These polls seem to agree with WP:DDV#Straw polls.  There is a real question of whether Not every fact needs a citation is consensus.  I didn't write this poll, and I pointed out at the top of it that the answer choices overlap each other.  (I doubt the first question has any weight, since it's hard to argue that policy should not reflect consensus.)  CMummert 00:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I only drop into this discussion on rare occasions, and I find this straw poll to be once again, posing a straw man.  No one says every sentence should have a citation; but a no vore will lend support to those who oppose the idea that every fact should have a proper citation.  I don't plan to dignify it by a reply. SteveMcCluskey 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody here has said that articles do not need adequate citations or that WP:V should be changed.  The question is the role of inline citation.  If you believe that every fact needs an inline citation, you should vote yes above.  So far, not one person (including you) has made that claim. At best, some people refuse to make a decision one way or another, which is hardly a strong argument. So the consensus seems to be leaning towards Not every fact needs an inline citation, the literal opposite of Every fact needs an inline citation. CMummert 01:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modified Strawpoll 

message: 1.) Does the current guideline need a change?
*Yes-complete reworking per Gerry Ashton's suggestion
#ScienceApologist 23:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shall current guidelines be changed?

message: 2.) Does it?
*Yes
*Maybe.  For some articles, every line may need to be cited.  Sandy 23:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the small sampling here (compared to the whole project) an item would need near unanimous support to be even close to considered "consensus". It wouldn't be wise for anyone to change the guideline based on this. This is mostly for our benefit of discussion. Agne 23:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not the consensus opion on WP:GA when the guidelines were changed there. Notice has been placed on many project message pages about this discussion, so there has been adequate chance for editors to participate.  And WP:CITE must be on a lot of watchlists. CMummert 00:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As I pointed out above, this position implies that not every fact needs a citation, if there is room for interpretation on a per-article basis.  Thus this position supports the consensus that not every sentence needs a citation. CMummert 23:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out above, no it doesn't.  Sandy 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CMummert is right. If the choice is between every sentence requiring a citation and not, you are saying that every sentence does not require a citation. --ScienceApologist 00:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DONOT (shit, that's not an article?). Do not engage in this strawpoll. This is a game with a calculated intent. Marskell 00:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF.  We are trying to assess consensus.  This poll was placed by Agne, who favors inline citations, and a similar poll was placed by me, who doesn't.  SO apparently both sides are interested to know.   CMummert 00:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strawpolls should be an outcome of consensus (i.e., "we're here, what next"), not a means to find consensus. And, they should not be content specific unless you're polling specific content. I've done market research--you don't have clauses like "per Gerry Ashton's suggestion" unless you're polling re Gerry Ashton. I'd suggest: take it easy. Marskell 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  My "calculated intent" is that reasonable people will see that they can reasonably disagree on matters like this. As I mentioned to Bravada, it certainly wouldn't be wise to guage such a small sampling as consensus in either direction. But the group of 6-9 editors who have been discussing this on and off have pretty much been going in circles. If we can get a "break" in the circle, maybe we can bring this matter to a conclusion. (after edit conflict) LOL, I've done market research too and no this is not a market research poll. The "per Gerry" was simply because his comment best summed up that sentiment.  Agne 00:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, if only in a cursory way, if you've done market research (i.e., designed opinion surveys) you should be able to design a question without a nod towards one option. In any case, this is a "we're tired--let's poll!" poll. The only consensus you'll be verifying (on one of the most important issues facing Wiki) is that between ten editors between Sept 20-something and early Oct 2006. This may need a haul into userspace and a poke at people ("What do you think?") before using this talk as some definitive measure. Marskell 00:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your point. As I said before, I don't think the result of this poll should be used to the change the guideline at all. But you are quite right that an invitation to get more people involved is more ideal. The views of 10 editors should never decide anything as major as this. Agne 00:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: These polls seem to agree with WP:DDV#Straw polls.  There is a real question of whether Not every fact needs a citation is consensus.  I didn't write this poll, and I pointed out at the top of it that the answer choices overlap each other.  (I doubt the first question has any weight, since it's hard to argue that policy should not reflect consensus.)  CMummert 00:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I only drop into this discussion on rare occasions, and I find this straw poll to be once again, posing a straw man.  No one says every sentence should have a citation; but a no vore will lend support to those who oppose the idea that every fact should have a proper citation.  I don't plan to dignify it by a reply. SteveMcCluskey 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody here has said that articles do not need adequate citations or that WP:V should be changed.  The question is the role of inline citation.  If you believe that every fact needs an inline citation, you should vote yes above.  So far, not one person (including you) has made that claim. At best, some people refuse to make a decision one way or another, which is hardly a strong argument. So the consensus seems to be leaning towards Not every fact needs an inline citation, the literal opposite of Every fact needs an inline citation. CMummert 01:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''"every sentence needs an in-line reference"'' 

message: With all due respect to those who constructed this, I am removing myself from this poll, which has now become confusing and poorly-constructed, noting that my position remains simple:  WP:V is policy; WP:CITE does not need to change, and we don't change polices and guidelines by straw polls involving an extreme minority who happen to be following a page at any given time. I reiterate my position:  the policy/guideline is working fine for most of Wikipedia, a minority is opposed because of an issue that started and should remain at GA, and sources, per policy, are required throughout Wikipedia, independently of GA, for any statement another editor requests, whether that means every line or not.  No change to any wording on WP:CITE is needed or justified.  Those who don't like GA's tighter requirements should opt out, knowing they won't pass FA either.  Sandy 00:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100% Bravada, talk - 00:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim has been made several times that articles without inline cites will not pass FA review.  But the featured article earlier this week, Detroit is clearly lacking inline citations for many facts (in the intro paragraphs and lower down).  I would wager that if I survey the featured articles, few of them have an inline citation for every fact. CMummert 00:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated above, this issue also arose with Marcel Lefebvre at WP:V when those editors brought it there. This is not isolated to the GA dispute. And seeing as not one person has yet stated that every statement should be inline cited, it is definitely not an "extreme minority"; quite the reverse. dryguy 00:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question the usefulness of this straw poll

message: I've been improving the article mirror matter since yesterday. A few more citation need to be included for some facts. However, if I were to follow the guidlines expressed by some here, then this article would need 100 more citations.  :)  Count Iblis 13:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really find that you need to add four and five cites to one sentence, then I suggest you review the recent and exemplary FA Daniel Boone to see how that can be done effectively.  I didn't read the article because, on first glance, it looks more like a WP:POINT.  Sandy 15:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand why the article violates WP:POINT. Combining multiple refs to one will be done later because the article will be expanded and some refs will have to be referred to separately.  Count Iblis 15:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it violated WP:POINT.  Sandy 15:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another example 

message: Episodes of a given TV show should have a citation form too... shouldn't they? MLA gives a way of doing it so can't wikipedia also do this. While it might seem inherent to put Episode X, there are also anime in Japan that redo series, have multiple series for the same show, and even the US does remakes or have films with the same titles. Having a long line to clarify who did what adds clutter. It would be nice to have a template to add to the pages for TV and movies, conforming the MLA style that's not dependant on specific date seen (not like video, more like for TV episodes, films, etc). So if one film references another film that's not up, that the person can find out the date it was made and the director as well as the title, instead of having to expound it within the article. I looked around, but I couldn't find anything that had that (which was not dependant on "air" date, but more on "publishing" date) So one for film and one for TV (series, not journals) or combine the two... might come in handy later since some of the wikipedia stuff is self-referencing, but it's nice to have it kicking around. Less clutter would be nice....--Hitsuji Kinno 04:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing Television (episodic) and film