Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 18

message: Most of the articles that I edit are sports related.  Most of the time, I do not think stats should be cited.  The exception to this is in the case of statistics under dispute (See: Ty Cobb - re: batting average).  Are there other exceptions where statistics should be cited? //Tecmobowl 07:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think that citing sources should be the exception rather than the rule? Finell (Talk) 15:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, I don't.  However, in the case of sports articles, a players' statistics are generally indisputable facts accepted by the public. // Tecmobowl 09:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only do I not believe that, you're missing something important. Let's say an article correctly gives a batting average, but doesn't include anything to verify the information. Then, someone else changes that batting average (perhaps as an error, or perhaps as vandalism). How does anyone looking at the page know whether the first figure or the second figure was correct and how do they know where to look to verify the information? Sources are vital for statistics.GDallimore (Talk) 11:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, not all statistics, even sporting ones, are indisputable. A simple statistic like soccer first team appearances may need clarification as one body may count league and cup matches, another might count friendlies - a source can be useful in clarifying ambiguity. Similarly, there are many "official" charts for music and book sales. Spenny 12:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Statistics 

message: I' was recently advised to adapt the references in the article Steenbok to the Footnote system, which I duly did, although as a traditional publisher, I prefer the Harvard system. Now I read this article and you do not seem to be preferring one over the other. Please advise—GRM 08:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either system, used correctly, is fine. Please please ignore people telling you otherwise or refer them to this guideline. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the policy of neutrality, most Featured Articles (at least those I have seen on the Main Page), are heavily footnoted.Finell (Talk) 23:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The cite.php mechanism is more commonly used, for various reasons, but Harvard refs are completely acceptable in featured articles. Gimmetrow 23:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which system? 

message: I have a feeling that I have seen one or more animal articles where contributors have been able to add a Footnote to the reference for the IUCN Red List categorization within the taxobox. Can it be done? If so, can someone tell me how to do it? Thanks—GRM 09:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:TX. The variable is status_ref. Circeus 12:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referenceing the IUCN Red List status in taxoboxes 

message: Lets say someone famous has a Wikipedia page, and they decide to help contribute to it.  However, someone would say many of the things they said needs to be sourced.  However, the article is about a person, and that person edited it themselves, adding good, new information to their article.  Are they allowed to do this without any citation neededs?  Or would you have to prove it somehow, like make a video, upload it, and say "this user is my profile on Wikipedia, and I am adding information to my article."  Could someone please answer this telling me wether a person who has a Wikipedia page could do this?  Xihix 20:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:AUTO. Also, good information is information that can be verified. The identity of Wikipedia editors usually cannot be confirmed at all, and in the rare cases it can, it is too much trouble to expect an ordinary reader to be able to do it. Therefore, if the only reason to believe a piece of information is true is that a Wikipedia editor says so, the information is unreliable. --Gerry Ashton 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question...

message: I'm working on John Robb (GG theorist) and there is a lot of biographical information missing that I would like to include.  John is fairly accessible through his website and through email, would it be acceptable to email him asking for some information and then put that on wikipedia, citing the email as a source.  I'm talking thinks like birth date and location, school attended, jobs worked, fairly basic stuff that would really help round out the article.  I'm just looking for some guidance before I try to do this.  I don't want to waste my time if it won't be a valid source for the article. Grant 21:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. E-mails by definition are sent to certain individuals, and are therefore not accessible to the public for verification. --Gerry Ashton 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably, if he can point you to where such information is published by a reliable source, or since it's about himself if he chooses to put the info on his website, these options would be ok, but either way a verifiable source is necessary. ..dave souza, talk 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Email 

message: The link Reliable source in How to find sources goes to a horribly complex disambiguation page. It seems to me that this topic needs more discussion to give guidance. At the moment the section on how to cite sources is rather too biased towards Googling. Generally I do not see quoting a Googled web page as much more reliable than a wiki link. If I follow the technique suggested, it says to me that the process is "Guess a fact" then "See if anyone else's guess matches". This is a Bellman's Rule of Three approach. In fact that section is encouraging a Dan Brown interpretation to the meaning of research, and by implication is suggesting the process is one of retro-fitting original research into wiki policy. (I've got quite irritated by that section, the more I think about it :) )
This is a necessary section but it needs to be far more authoritative before it deserves to be on the main page: it needs to state some sort of hierarchy of quality, some tests for the veracity of the data, and it needs to warn of the dangers of citing without quality undermining the citation process.
Spenny 07:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have been bolder. However, if you read through the article, there is not an obvious link into wikipedia:reliable sources - indeed the nutshell link goes to verification. I think a lead in paragraph needs to be put in to the How to cite sources just to point in that direction. I'll be brave. Spenny 14:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to find sources

message: Some users are inserting Google searches as references in articles. See, for example, Royal Rife#References. This can't be kosher, can it? Is there a stated policy against this that I'm missing? -Sean Curtin 05:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have several discussions among editors where the consensus was that performing a google search is original research, since slight variations in the search terms can lead to much different results, and because the same search performed at different times can lead to different results. I think the place to discuss this would be Talk:WP:NOR. --Gerry Ashton 16:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google searches as references 

message: A few of the regular editors here might want to get involved in the discussions going on at Wikipedia:When to cite... an essay/guideline proposal that is very similar, but not exactly the same as sections of this guideline.  I am concerned that if accepted we could end up with conflicting guidelines on the same subject.  I am not saying that we will... only that there is a potential.  One thing the proposal is trying to do is answer the question: "when DON'T you need to provide a citation?"  Please pop over, read the essay and comment Blueboar 14:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal on similar topic 

message: is he
:No--Wizardman 11:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is vice macmahon really dead 

message: The twelfth reference at the Taylor Allderdice High School article is a rather long one.  I'd like to streamline it if that's possible, although there are concerns that doing so may distort the reference.  So is it possible to streamline it without losing the integrity of the reference? This website  suggests two possible styles that I think could be adopted:
but I wouldn't know what fields go in where and how it would corrupt the reference. Appreciate any thought or help people can give. Hiding Talk  13:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Taylor Allderdice High School]] reference format 

message: This section is too large to edit, so I'm adding a section break. We're going over the same points. Philip has regularly brought up some convention that would attach some meaning to whether a ref mark is before or after punctuation. They could occur both ways in the same article. Despite being asked for months, he has not provided a style guide which talks about this convention. I think it's pretty clear that consensus is against anything like that, both for stylistic and technical reasons. It's not clear how this convention would be distinguished from random placement.
Now, there *is* a style used outside Wikipedia which puts ref marks before punctuation all the time, and this is what Stemonitis is proposing be allowed. While I don't see a great reason to change Wikipedia's style on this regard either, it's clearly a different issue. Please keep these issues distinct. Gimmetrow 19:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Philip makes several points. Firstly, that the guideline should be descriptive, not prescriptive. Secondly, that different styles are possible and are in fact used. Thirdly, that consensus should be reached at each article for a change of style. All of those points are generally applicable even if we ignore the meaning that placement would have under his system. You cannot discount his entire message because you disagree with one aspect of it. I don't necessarily agree with that aspect of it, but the remaining points are good points and are pertinent to the discussion we've been having before. --Stemonitis 05:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not suggesting that it is my words or no words. I am happy to go with a compromise that does not give the alternative explanation of  what it means to place a footnote to the right of a full stops, (particularly when it is at the end of a paragraph). For example as mentioned above the revision edited into Wikipedia:Footnotes by Ligulem on 14 June 2006 as a compromise to  this previous discussion, (one which at the time I thought had put this issue to bed) is quite acceptable to me. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And to me. Any dissenters? --Stemonitis 09:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine; there is no consensus. This will at least have the benefit of stopping GA hassling people over it. I would deprecate any effort to encode information in footnote placement; because it will mislead people reading other articles, where the convention is not adopted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I tried to change the wording to reflect this small consensus that there is no consensus for the enforcement of pre-punctuational citation, but was reverted by SandyGeorgia because there was "no consensus". If there is no consensus now that it be so, then it should not be included in the guidelines, which should not only reflect the consensus, but should also reflect the lack of consensus. If there is no consensus for a guideline (and there seems not to be consensus for this aspect now, even if there was once before), then it should not be kept merely because it's been around a long time. There does seem to be acceptance that the practice is not universal, because the  tag has tended to be left alone. That must, however, be only a temporary measure. If consensus cannot be reached that the guideline is to remain as stated (and there are several voices fairly adamantly against it), then it should be re-worded to reflect the new consensus or lack thereof. I cannot understand why my change was undone, but I am loath to make it again directly. I do not honestly know if there was consensus in the past for this (Philip Baird Shearer asserts there was not; SandyGeorgia asserts that there was), but there certainly seems to be none now, and nobody objected to the proposed wording linked by Philip Baird Shearer, with both myself and Pmanderson concurring. It's not a large statistical sample, but it's all I had to work on. It also seems like a harmless change, because people who are uncertain and looking for advice will still default to the post-punctuational style as currently required, but it will allow those who prefer to do it otherwise to do so, and will hopefully cut out the many edits which consist of merely switching from one style to the other. --Stemonitis 06:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried an edit which recommends after punctuation, but deprecates switching. Let's see what happens. I do think that relying on switching between before and after punctuation is a recipe for misunderstanding, and have said so; but if someone disagrees, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: Noting Spenny's comment above it looks like the EU is not the only organisation that has more than one way of advising people on how to use footnotes! I copied the new text from this article into the WP:FOOT article 09:17, 4 July 2007 Philip Baird Shearer (Talk | contribs | block) (16,137 bytes) (ref tags: Altered to the same wording in  Wikipedia:Citing sources#Placement of footnote reference tags as agreed in Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Footnotes are placed outside punctuation)
This has been reveted by:
*SlimVirgin twice with the comments: "there is agreement that ref tags go after punctuation, as in the overwhelming majority of books/journals" and "this is the place to discuss changes to this page, and when it was last discussed there was a strong consensus in favor of this version; if you want to re-open that discussion, please do".
*Crum375 "I think this [perscription to use CMS] is the consensual version"
So now we have the position where the two guidlines WP:CITE and WP:FOOT that contradict each other. I guess the debate will have to be held all over again on Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes --Philip Baird Shearer 10:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CITE and WP:GTL also have conflicts.  Personally, I think that guideline conflicts are not a good thing.  I think that one way to reduce conflicts would be for guideline pages to limit their assertions to the areas which their intros declare that the pages address. -- Boracay Bill 12:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: guidline clash

message: I have removed the info on Template:Wikicite and Template:Wikiref from the See Also section.
Removed: "Template:Wikicite - makes a simple numeric reference (eg, number in square brackets), for use in a "References" section."
Observed behavior:
*
:produces
:
*
:produces
:
*
:produces
:
Removed: "Template:Wikiref - makes a simple Harvard-style reference (eg:  Smith 2006)."
Observed behavior:
*
:produces
:
*
:produces
:()
*
:produces
:
Also see Template_talk:Ref#Documentation. -- Boracay Bill 23:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates: wikicite, wikiref, ref family, note family 

message: I have made statements relative to citing sources on the talk page for no original reserach. Please go there for more information. Rsduhamel 17:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stating the obvious is not original research and there needs to be a grace period for hard-to-find references. 

message: At Wikipedia Project: Professional Wrestling we have a problem. The problem being that the bulk of what is written about by the project members occurs on TV and PPV, and is then reported on by websites but the websites themselves (including WWE.com and the like) cannot be relied on as a good reference, and a small set of editors from outside the project have been stubbing pages down because we lcak the right sources. Having looked at TV pages I see that it is possible to use TV episodes as a source and on one WP:PW page I have added a group of sources using the Pay-Per-Views as references and I have been told that this is the place to discuss sources. So if anyone could look at Hell in a Cell and ignore the content (the article is in need of heavy re-writing) and tell me what they think about the sourcing. Darrenhusted 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PW]] 

message: There is some information that is simply not readily available on the internet, such as interesting facts about baseball players from the 60s that only played in 3 seasons.
Say for instance that I want to cite a fact from a 1966 Topps Baseball card. What would be the correct way to go about doing this? Thank you.SashaNein 16:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've wondered this myself. Basically the way I did it on Rodney Peete is probably not the right way to do it. I'd say cite the comany and year that made the card, the card number. There's no raw method of doing it do you probably have free reign there. Wizardman 16:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I've done that for articles on Ed Brinkman and Bill Short. Hopefully no one will have an issue with it, since it's difficult enough finding information on these players other than MLB statistics. Bill Short didn't even HAVE an article week ago. Thanks!SashaNein 17:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I have to stop watching this page because there's some edit war going on the main article page. If anyone wants to follow up on this hit up my talk page.SashaNein 12:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you cite trading (baseball, football, SPORTS) cards? 

message: In many articles, the same source may be used to support sentences in different parts of the article and it is appropriate to reference each one. I can use WP:CITE but then each reference to the same book or article is listed completely as a separate number in the references section. For example see the refs 1 and 2 in puberty. I cannot find the method to make subsequent uses of the same citation simply refer point to ref 1 where it is listed in full. Just point me to an example of a page that does it right and I can figure it out. I am also asking this question on the talk page of WP:HELP and will watch both places for answers. Thanks. alteripse 20:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the phrase "I can use WP:CITE" is not meaningful because several different methods are mentioned in that style guideline. In the Puberty article, the first citation begins . You could change it to <ref name=Marshall>. Then the second reference to the same work could just be  with the rest of the second reference removed. (Puting a / at the end of an XML tag is short for this: <ref name=Marshall>. The trick works for any XML tag.) --Gerry Ashton 20:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I will try it. It will soon be clear whether I have properly understood. alteripse 20:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing a footnote more than once. I also replied at Wikipedia:Help desk#question about citing same source multiple times. PrimeHunter 20:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After trial and error, the correct method is actually Marshall. But you did get me close enough to solve it, thanks. alteripse 20:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the effect of Harvard references but I dislike the complexity of the templates and named references.  I have come to use a simple ref tag with the information of a Harvard reference inside the tag, e.g. For quotation from Doe, see: Foo (1923), p. 18. Is there a way to use the Harvard citation templates without using named references, which I find hard to maintain? Buddhipriya 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: question about citing same source multiple times 

message: Right, I've recently been working on a page quite hard, and I'm encountering an error frequently that I really can't explain in my head at all. This is going to come out sounding really stupid, I just need a second opinion so I know I'm not going insane. Anyways, recently I've been doing a lot of work to the article on Dominik Diamond. Under the section Dominik_Diamond#Present_Work_with_Talk_107, I added a reference to a source I had already used as a source at the beginning of the article, basically i added <ref name="Show_Changes"> to the end of the sentence, thinking it would bring up a [1] sign and all that. For some unknown reason (this is the bit which makes the least sense), after pressing the preview button, everything in the article after the point which I had sourced had mysteriously disappeared! So, thinking I must have pressed a wrong button or something, I went back to the edit box, but sure enough, the text was STILL in the edit box but NOT showing on the page!! At this point i was ready for screaming. It gets worse, because if you enter in the full citation, ie, "<ref name="">{{cite web .... etc", the page works fine, but the second you change it to just <ref name=""> again, the information disappears again (Yet is IN the edit box if you click edit!!!)
This is perhaps right up there with the most confusing thing I have found on Wikipedia. At the moment, I have left the page in the format with hidden information, as I am hoping that it is just my eyes ... or something. Could someone try and make an edit to the page to see if this is just me? If not, what the hell is going on!!!!
Keep up your good work here guys. Thanks. --SteelersFan UK06 06:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyou! Nearly went insane there! Check your usertalk for a little something for your troubles. Pray, may I ask, what did you do? --SteelersFan UK06 06:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the diff; I just added the slash (/) at the end of the named ref.  When you define the ref the first time, you use ref info here and when you use it the second and subsequent times, you use  with a slash.  Thanks for the smile!  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see! Oh well this all seems so simple now...Again, thanks, and keep up the good work --SteelersFan UK06 06:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peculiar Citation-isms 

message: Would you need to cite the release dates for a DVD? I'm reviewing List of Lost episodes for FLC, and they have a bunch of release dates that do not have citations. It occurred to me that I have no clue when these DVDs were released in Regions 2 and 4, and I only know when they are released in Region 1 if I go to Amazon and look myself. Would something like this require citations? I know that when I worked on another LOE, I cited all the regions I could, and if I couldn't get it then I removed it. Thoughts?   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: If a particular item has been tagged with the "citation needed" tag since February, can we delete that uncited item? What is the acceptable length of time to allow something uncited to remain in an article?
:It depends on the item. A controversial and potential defamatory item about a living person could be removed immediately, with an invitation to discuss on talk page and provide published evidence before being re-inserted. A controversial "fact" in a article with several active and disagreeing editors could be removed after asking for citation, allowing a couple of days for response if the inserter is not actively editing when you notice it, then remove to talk page. For an item of fact that is unlikely to be a source of controversy, and is likely false, I would move it to talk page with request for documentation. If it likely true (e.g., a medical or historical fact likely to be verifiable), leave the citation request and leave it alone indefinitely. If we removed every uncontroversial-probably-true assertion just because someone hasn't bothered to find a citation for, we won't have much of an encyclopedia left. alteripse 02:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I would remove anything that has had a cite tag on it since February, though I'd first look around for a citation myself before removing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I tend to do a little differently--if it is non controversial, and likely trture I just remove the tag--usually there was no good reason for it in the first place. We have quit enough problems finding sources for the controversial stuff  & the things most likely false. DGG 01:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is NO justification, in my opinion, for removing a citation needed tag where a statement is unsourced and therefore not WP:VERIFYable. On the other hand, I tend not to remove an unsourced statement, even if the tag is old, unless I have reason (including an educated hunch) to believe that the statement is incorrect. Finell (Talk) 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove if tagged for months? 

message: This is my first time posting on Wikipedia. I am completely overwhelmed by what I need to read to sort out how to cite (I think that's what I need to do?) to keep the posting I submitted on the Schoharie Scary Horror Film Festival.How much time do I have to get this right? Any suggestions as to where to begin? Thank you so much. I feel so stupid. I don't eve see any tildes on my keyboard, so how do I sign?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Studiosulu (talk • contribs) 07:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no time limit; however, the article may be nominated for deletion at any time if someone doesn't think it meets the notability guideline.  The best thing to do would be to find articles in reliable third-party sources such as newspapers or magazines and use them as references in the article.  To type a tilda, press Shift and ` (which usually appears to the left of the number 1).  ShadowHalo 07:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help. How much time do I have? 

message: References do not usually contain page numbers but citations do.
At the begining of the year this was included in the text under Harvard Referencing as:
:Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article.
and before that it was included as a whole section called Page numbers:
:When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article.
:* According to Jessica Benjamin, one weakness of radical politics has been "to idealize the oppressed, as if their politics and culture were untouched by the system of domination, as if people did not participate in their own submission" (Benjamin 1988:9).
:* Jessica Benjamin has argued that radical politics has been weakened by its inattention to the ways oppressed people participate in their own oppression (Benjamin 1988:9).
:Page numbers are not required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view.
:* In the 1980s several feminists explored feminist readings of psychoanalytical thought (e.g. Gallop 1985, Hamilton 1982, Rose 1986, Benjamin 1988).
:* Jessica Benjamin, for example, has drawn on Freudian and feminist theory to argue that in modern Western society, the relationship between males and females is paradigmatic for a variety of relations of domination and submission" (Benjamin 1988).
:Page numbers are especially important in case of lengthy unindexed books.
I am in favour of reinserting this section without the examples what do others think? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems reasonable; especially with a note that most scholarly books are indexed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I try using this as a SOP whenever possible. Dysmorodrepanis 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. DGG 01:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In academic sources that I use most often, the practice of just citing a book in toto regarding a concept is unusual, as it puts the burden on the fact-checker to figure out where in the book the issue is covered, or even what terms are used for it (not uncommon in my areas of interest).  So I always like to see at least one page number where there is a definite reference, even if the subject is handled often in the work. Let us not forget the useful passim in a reference: E.g., "Many people like ice cream." (Reference: For an overview on the popularity of ice cream in Western cultures, see: Doe (2007), p. 1, and passim.) Buddhipriya 23:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Full citations - page numbers