Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Harlem

message: Hi.  I'm going to be mediating this case.  So you know vaguely who I am, I've been editing since November 2004.  I became an administrator two years ago.  I was elected to the Mediation Committee at the end of the summer of 2005.  I was subsequently a member of the Arbitration Committee, which I left at the end of my one-year term due to time constraints.  I am, in fact, just recommencing editing after a long lay-off.
Now, to the process I'd like to go through with this case.  I would like to hear both parties' views without complicated discussion in the first instance.  To that end, I'd like you both to put a statement below, under your named section.  Please don't engage in a detailed rebuttal of the other editor's points for now.  I want to get an overview of the situation first.
When we have got to this place, we can then decide exactly what issues are under contest.  From there we will hopefully be able to find a solution you can both be happy with.
Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note from [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] (mediator)

message: ===Statement from Uucp===
Thank you for taking the time to help with this. Our dispute has to do only with the proper placement of footnotes in sentences which make multiple claims of fact. I believe that the most accurate placement, and a placement totally in keeping with WP:FOOT, is to place each footnote by the fact to which it refers.
For example, in the original article, 
: "The move to northern Manhattan was driven in part by fears that anti-black riots such as those that had occurred in the Tenderloin in 1900Poverty and Politics in Harlem, Alphnso Pinkney & Roger Woock, College & University Press Services, Inc., 1970, p.26 and in San Juan Hill in 1905 might recur."
Information about blacks heading north after the 1900 riots appears in one source; information about their migration after the 1905 riots appears in another source. Nothing in the name of the source would suggest to the reader that this is the case. To make clear which facts are backed by which sources, the footnotes should be placed as above. If the footnotes were to be placed at the end of the sentence, as Emerson7 prefers, it would suggest to the reader that both facts are backed by both sources, which is simply wrong.
In another example on the page, a sentence contains some facts that are backed by footnotes and other claims of fact that are not currently backed by footnotes at all. In that case, moving the footnote to the end of the sentence creates the appearance that the unbacked assertion has been backed by a source, when in fact it has not.
This is a dangerous error, in my opinion, important to avoid.
The solution is obvious -- keep footnotes by the specific facts to which they refer, which seems to be what WP:FOOT requests anyway.
: "Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers."
Emerson7 thinks that the guidelines require that footnotes be placed after punctuation, but I see that nowhere in the rules and, if it were there, I would argue that the rules ought to be changed.  Too often I see people abuse footnotes to create shields for editorial claims. While I recognize that this is not Emerson7's intent, his/her footnote placement would support such abuse. People can combine a fact with an opinion in one sentence, stick the footnote for the fact at the end, thus (erroneously, abusively) giving their opinion the majesty of cited fact.
Thanks again,
Uucp 17:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements from parties

message: Thank you for taking the time to help with this. Our dispute has to do only with the proper placement of footnotes in sentences which make multiple claims of fact. I believe that the most accurate placement, and a placement totally in keeping with WP:FOOT, is to place each footnote by the fact to which it refers.
For example, in the original article, 
: "The move to northern Manhattan was driven in part by fears that anti-black riots such as those that had occurred in the Tenderloin in 1900Poverty and Politics in Harlem, Alphnso Pinkney & Roger Woock, College & University Press Services, Inc., 1970, p.26 and in San Juan Hill in 1905 might recur."
Information about blacks heading north after the 1900 riots appears in one source; information about their migration after the 1905 riots appears in another source. Nothing in the name of the source would suggest to the reader that this is the case. To make clear which facts are backed by which sources, the footnotes should be placed as above. If the footnotes were to be placed at the end of the sentence, as Emerson7 prefers, it would suggest to the reader that both facts are backed by both sources, which is simply wrong.
In another example on the page, a sentence contains some facts that are backed by footnotes and other claims of fact that are not currently backed by footnotes at all. In that case, moving the footnote to the end of the sentence creates the appearance that the unbacked assertion has been backed by a source, when in fact it has not.
This is a dangerous error, in my opinion, important to avoid.
The solution is obvious -- keep footnotes by the specific facts to which they refer, which seems to be what WP:FOOT requests anyway.
: "Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers."
Emerson7 thinks that the guidelines require that footnotes be placed after punctuation, but I see that nowhere in the rules and, if it were there, I would argue that the rules ought to be changed.  Too often I see people abuse footnotes to create shields for editorial claims. While I recognize that this is not Emerson7's intent, his/her footnote placement would support such abuse. People can combine a fact with an opinion in one sentence, stick the footnote for the fact at the end, thus (erroneously, abusively) giving their opinion the majesty of cited fact.
Thanks again,
Uucp 17:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement from [[User:Uucp|Uucp]]

message: my argument condensed down to a few sentences contends that tags appearing mid-sentence make for difficult reading, by diverting the reader's attention before the thought of the sentence has been completed. this is resolved by having reference tags follow the nearest punctuation...preferably a period...as directed by mos:foot, the 'chicago manual of style', and other such references manual on copy editing. any ambiguities should be handled in the text of the footnote itself. --emerson7 | Talk 07:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement from [[User:Emerson7|Emerson7]]

message: Thank you both for summarising your views of this.  I understand your arguments and reasoning.
The dispute is between Uucp, arguing on the grounds of intellectual honesty and avoiding abuse of citations, and Emerson7, arguing on the grounds of aesthetics, ease of reading and current policy, specifically WP:FOOT, which itself explicitly cites the Chicago Manual of Style.
Now, as far as I can see, the key line is in WP:FOOT: 
Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers.
When placed at the end of a clause or sentence, the ref tag should be placed directly after the punctuation mark, without an intervening space.
The problem is interpreting the meaning of this correctly.  Does it require footnotes to be placed after punctuation only if that punctuation is already present, or does it require going to the punctuation at the end of the clause, however far ahead that may be?
Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement of dispute 

message: The principal aim here must, I think, be to consider the problem in the context of the rest of Wikipedia; it is necessary to follow the conventions of the encyclopaedia.  The page Harlem obviously must be consistent with other pages.  It isn't of vital importance to determine what is right, merely what is current practice and policy on Wikipedia.  If either of you were to disagree with Wikipedia's policy, that should be the focus of the debate, not this page in isolation.
Would you subscribe to this summary?  Please comment below, or email me if you want private discussion.
Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: although standard industry practices is of much more concern to me than the aesthetics, my view is sufficiently characterised in your summary. --emerson7 | Talk 21:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would ask for a slight modification of your intent --  Let's concern ourselves primarily with written Wikipedia policy, and if those policies are ambiguous, we should move to a discussion of which interpretation of those policies best achieves Wikipedia's stated goals. Seeking instead to match the practice on other pages may lead to suboptimal outcome, as other pages may be done poorly themselves. Uucp 23:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving forwards