Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:50, 28 November 2005

• See also: Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Dates
• Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/archive1

Missing link

Under "When adding information" we have this text:

Eliza Twisk of Amnesty International said: "This is all part of a growing trend in Europe of violent protest and equally violent response". (Channel 4 News interview, July 8, 2000)

I can't get the link to work. Does anyone know where to find it or have an alternative text? Ironically, it's more an example of a bad source at present - one that's not really there! :) jguk 10:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't get the link to work or find the text anywhere, so I replaced it with an example from the Guardian about the Bali bombing. SlimVirgin 09:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Inline links discouraged in favor of more complete sources

Comments requested at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Inline links discouraged in favor of more complete sources. (SEWilco 08:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC))

References title misread as non-web External links

I think a contributory factor in the lack of good references is that many people seem to interpret:

• See also as see also in Misplaced Pages;
• External links as see also on the rest of the "web";
• References as see also in documents that are not on the web or are on the web as PDF or Word documents (i.e. not HTML or images).

From this point of view, I think Sources would be a better title.

In some cases, I think people also treat References and External links as being sub-headings of the hypothetical Sources section, so you get a mix of see also and source material.

--David Woolley 12:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that these sections are used fuzzily and inconsistently. People (and I admit to doing this myself) often divide the stuff at the end according to the location/form of the citation, rather than by function, in the manner you describe above. Perhaps we could divide the end matter first into "Sources" and any other "Further reading". Those two major sections could then be further divided by type into external/internal links or non-HTML published material (books/papers). &mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small> 12:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, References is most commonly to list sources that were consulted; I think there is no need to change the name of such a section to 'Sources' - we just need to make people aware of the fact that they should cite their sources under 'References'. — mark ✎ 15:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's the title of the External links section that's the problem because people think all external links should be there, and by implication that none should be listed under References. And then where do you list a book that's of interest but which wasn't used as a source, because it looks odd under External links.

Misplaced Pages:Cite sources makes it clear that sources go under References and other articles/books of possible interest go under External links, which should then be called Further reading. But I wouldn't mind getting rid of the External links header completely, and I also think changing References to Sources might be a good idea. So we'd have Sources and Further reading, which is much clearer. SlimVirgin 00:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I like that idea. It passes the KISS test. Though I suspect that getting the community to accept the change from "External links" to "Further reading" may take a good bit of salescraft. older≠wiser 01:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I may have several relevant observations, although no integrated campaign:

• Emphasis upon sources rather than their format discourages the format-sensitive term "External links". Sources is sources.
• One of the reasons for a small number of citations may be related to the popularity of "External links": Many people have been linking to online material, both for related reading and as links to supporting material.
• As visible at WP:CITET, the citation templates are being consolidated and becoming easier to use. The templates encourage reasonable display of more detailed information than people might otherwise use (as demonstrated by use of URL-only inline links).

(SEWilco 03:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC))

Slrubenstein has also told me he agrees with this proposal, and will probably post his confirmation here. As this is a policy page, I'm going to leave a note on the Village Pump about it before changing it. SlimVirgin 21:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I don't totally like the word "sources" since I think that a "reference" should still be provided even if it wasn't the actual source for the information. I can't come up with a better word myself though (even checking in thesaurus.com); I worry that "citations" sounds a bit artificial; so I guess that that can just be clarified in policy pages. Mozzerati 22:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mozzerati, the idea is to use Sources and Further reading, so any text that's related to the subject but wasn't actually used as a source can be listed under Further reading. Was that what you meant? SlimVirgin 22:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

With that bit I agree and am clear. The point is that our citations should include "sources" used for verification. E.g. one editor considers it completely obvious that a hybrid number is defined in E.214. The other reader has to check that and, finding a source, includes it. They should be encouraged to add the place where they checked as a source, not further reading. Something like

• a "source" is the place where a specific fact has been checked from
  • accurate and precise
  • authoritative (but possibly in one specific area. e.g. Neo-Nazi's are authoritative web sites are authoritative about what Neo-nazis put on their web sites, but not much else).
• "further reading" is a recommended place to start reading about the topic in general
  • readable and understandable
  • reasonably general coverage
  • reasonably reliable overall

In many articles, some texts should be in both. In the sources section a specific paragraph is likely to be given. The sources section could use footnotes.

Yes, I think having two categories: "Sources" and "Further reading" makes good sense. I vote "yea" Slrubenstein | ] 23:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the aims of this proposal, but I think that there is a fair bit more discussion needed first. I recently objected to Bluemoose (talk · contribs)'s use of his bot Bluebot (talk · contribs) to reposition the Template:1911 template directly under References, because I felt that the Britannica wasn't a source that you would go to check the facts, because it was the source of the words in the first place: corroboration is guaranteed, even where Britannica was wrong.

This points up the confusion that you are trying to clear up, I think. 1911 is almost further reading, but I wouldn't choose to direct someone there to check the facts: it's not a primary source, for one thing.

I also think that we need to idenitify which policy pages need to be changed to reflect anything that is agreed here. Each of those articles need to carry an announcement bringing interested parties to this discussion. User:Noisy | Talk 12:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Pages that would need to be changed in line with this policy

• Misplaced Pages:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica
• Misplaced Pages:Cite sources
• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Other sections
• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (headings)

References/external links name-change proposal

Regarding the above, I've posted it on the Village Pump and on a few policy or guideline talk pages to get more feedback before changing it. To recap, the proposal is to change References to Sources and External links to Further reading.

The reason for the proposal is that using "References" and "External links" is confusing. Sources are supposed to be listed under References, and any further reading is listed under Further reading or External links. But many editors think that any external links, whether used as sources or not, should go under External links, so then they list any material that isn't online, like books, under References, even if not used as a source. To cut through all this confusion, the proposal is to change the headers to Sources and Further reading, which are self-explanatory, and don't make the online/offline distinction. Comments would be welcomed. SlimVirgin 22:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: I'm not advocating that existing articles be changed, only that future ones would use Sources/Further reading, and of course editors could change existing articles as they come across them if they want to. So the only real work involved in making the change would be changing WP:CITE, WP:MOS, and so on. SlimVirgin 04:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree to change

1. Slrubenstein | ] 23:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
2. SlimVirgin 23:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Agree Excellent idea. It makes a lot of sense. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
4. (copied from Misplaced Pages talk:No original research) Sources and Further reading: Good idea! -- I was also confused by References and External links... Harald88 22:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Sounds good to me. --Carnildo 05:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
6. On the pages I edit this is already in effect, with "sources" referring to cited references and "references" to uncited ones. Hyacinth 09:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support, on second thought. We need unambiguous terms for this, and these terms are. — mark ✎ 09:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
8. smaines 18:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Good idea. Jayjg 04:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Makes sense. FeloniousMonk 05:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
11. As I wrote above, I think this simplifies things (only two, slightly more amorphous and more inclusive headings, versus several headings which are interpreted very differently across various articles). older≠wiser 14:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Fredrik | tc 14:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

With reservations

1. Half agree. I don't see any reason to change "References" to "Sources" (and I certainly don't see anything that would justify the amount of work involved in changing it), but I could agree to replacing "External links" by "Further Reading". One question, even on the latter: can we make it very clear in policy that things like the official sites of the subjects of articles are to be included even if they are not exactly "reading"? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

   Good idea about including official sites, Jmabel. On the References/Sources thing, the reasoning is that people use the word References differently, whereas everyone understands what's meant by Sources. SlimVirgin 07:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

2. I agree with the basic premise that the current distinction between offline and online sources is not a useful one. However, I also agree with Physchim62 that the term sources is ambiguous. - SimonP 15:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

   What else could "sources" mean, Simon? SlimVirgin 04:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

   See for instance the Caffeine, Constitution of the United Kingdom, Vitamin C, and Journalism articles. - SimonP 17:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

1. User:Noisy | Talk 12:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC) I'm going to put myself in this category for the time being, because I don't think there has been a wide enough discussion yet. I don't think I'll end up agreeing with the proposal as stated, but I certainly feel there is room for a change.
2. Physchim62 (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC). Instruction creep. I don't think it would add to the verifiability of articles (the main problem is that people just don't both to list anything), it would be time-consuming to apply to the hundreds of thousands of articles affected, it would be ambigous for certain articles (e.g. Sources of water, ethanol etc), it removes a distinction for certain other articles between numbered References and unnumbered Sources (those used in many different places in the article).

   I think that in context it is very clear that the word refers only to sources for the article. If you have any doubts I am sure that we can come up with very clear wording (e.g.: a list of all sources relied on in researching and writing the article would be listed alphabetically under the heading, "Sources" — or something like that. Slrubenstein | ] 06:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

3. Zordrac 14:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Disagree for the moment because although I agree that change may be is necessary, but I want further discussion over the change to be made. --Philip Baird Shearer
5. Francis Schonken 18:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC) Would this proposed instruction improve the Tacitus article? No, IMHO; Would it improve Sinfonia? No, IMHO; Would it improve De Bello Gallico? No, IMHO - Neither would it improve Plato, Igor Stravinsky, Histoire du soldat, Karl Popper, Philip Glass, The Scream, Blackadder, Stephen Hawking, The Beatles, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, BBC, Tsunami, Jaws (film), etc..., etc... In sum, I think many articles would rather deteriorate than improve by such instruction!

Further discussion

I neither agree or disagree with his proposal because I think if a change is necessary it needs changing to something else that that which is suggested. Also there is the question of is this "Instruction creep" trying to prescribe the wording of headings such as "Sources" or "References" etc. Personally of the two I prefer "References" to "Sources" but I would not like to insist that either was better and because I like footnotes I am not sure that either is desirable.

• See also

  Just for internal links

• Bibliography

  For books, official sites and any sites used as a general reference, or more than once in the article.

• References

  Not sure there is need for this if there is a Bibliographyand notes. But I do not think it should be changed to "sources" if it is called References or vice versa.

• Notes (wikipedia:Footnote3)

  for all notes used in the article. This allows for the format "author Bibliography" page xx

• External links

  For any blog sites which people think are of interest but are not used as refrences. The big advantage of this is that it allows one to keep the rif-raf out of the other sections without starting a revert war. Also I often find that in reading the external sites they can be moved up into notes as the often cover specific points in the article. As Misplaced Pages is a work in progress this is a useful mechanism for gathering informaion. Perhapse this section could be renamed "Further reading" ... not sure. The problem with "Further reading" is that it implies that the sites listed under it are in some ways more detailed or better than the Misplaced Pages article, which is not implied by External links.

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

further query about foreign language sources (copied from a user talk pâge)

I have some queries about how the current policies operates and what it means, which are of particular concern to me most of all because I live in a country where almost all the academic books available are either in French or in Arabic.

As I understand the policy, if I reference a book in English, I am not obliged to provide a verbatim quote of what it says. The policy doesn't seem to me to imply that more stringent requirements apply when a foreign-language source is referenced. The two examples you give are both of direct quotes, and I got that bit all right. In any case, Misplaced Pages is full of foreign language speakers, many categorised or listed as available, so the citation of a foreign-language source (particularly in a language such as French) may make the verifiability a little more complicated, but hardly makes it impossible.

To make my concerns a bit clearer, this is an example of an article I created based entirely on one foreign language source (by a respected academic) (here here is another example, which also would have been impossible - for me, that is - without using a foreign language source). I made two direct quotes, which I now understand I should also give in Arabic. But the rest is summarised or simply based on the Arabic source, as one normally does when using sources for any work. Should I have cited in Arabic every element of the book that I actually used? This would make the process of creating the article almost impossibly burdensome.

Also, there may well be sources available in English, but I don't have them. Does this mean I should have refrained from writing the article? I'm not claiming it's a particularly good article (in fact, looking back over it now it strikes me as pretty poor in many respects), but it gives Misplaced Pages some level of coverage of a notable figure in the intellectual, and to a degree political, history of the modern Middle East.Palmiro | Talk 11:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't require foreign language citations to be directly quoted. In general it can't do that, as it would be copyright violation. What it says is that, if and only if there is a direct quote:

1. the original foreign language text must also be directly quoted;
2. if possible, the English version should be from a recognized translation, which should also be cited as a source, not a direct translation from the foreign language source.

--David Woolley 12:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks David. Palmiro | Talk 14:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Are URL-only links an acceptable citation style?

A straw poll is being taken based on whether using only URLs in an article is an acceptable style for citing sources instead of having more detailed citations. See Talk:Global cooling#SEWilco.2C disruptive reverts.2C and citations. (SEWilco 23:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC))

SEWilco is presenting a misleading view of the debate. The real debate, which he has escalated into a revert war on both Global cooling and Kyoto protocol, is over his pushing of his cumbersome footnotes style into these articles with no regard to the consensus of the editors working on these articles. He has been advised against this . Please carefully consider the debate history on those articles if you plan to comment. Vsmith 01:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

He's been pushing the same at WP:CITE and WP:MOS for ages, trying to insert his own opinion in place of the agreed guideline. He recently made a comment about WP:V sometimes requiring a change of citation style, so I'm half expecting him to add something here soon, though perhaps the RfC opened against him today will dampen his enthusiasm for a while. SlimVirgin 07:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco is violating our guidelines, which specify that editors should favor the original citation system or reach a consensus on a new one. This is a serious offecne. Slrubenstein | ] 14:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Both sides seem to be at fault here. In my view URL only links are undesirable, but arbitrarily changing the way that inline citations are marked is also undesirable, as is using a non-standard section heading for, what is currently called, References. SEWilco should not have changed from direct numeric links to footnotes without consensus, but the opposing side should not have removed the proper citation, but should have only removed the footnote mechanism, and put them under the References heading.

My personal view is that the direct link format is a bad idea, because it is too easy to forget to create the full citation (most newbies wouldn't even think of creating one), it is easy to overllook one or all of them if a link has to be repaired and it is difficult for a reader to quickly take a view of the likely credibility of the source of a claim. The footnote mechanism is not mature enough, and I believe is achieved using a hack, and it doesn't seem to be able to cope with multiple citations from the same source without duplicating the citation. My personal conclusion, when adding the first reference, is that Harvard style is best, but that means foregoing links to the full citation (or doing them manually, with the expectation that susbequent editors won't understand).

--David Woolley 10:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Case Study: Mylo Carbia

Mylo Carbia is a Florida based screenwriter who's never had a movie produced. Biographic web pages and IMDB entries abound for her, however, and they have a reputation for being full of false, misleading or inflated information. I noticed her Misplaced Pages article and decided to dig in, mostly using Google. After an hour or so of research, I pulled about 2/3 of the claims, some of which were really outrageous (Starred in an off broadway production of "The Search for signs of intelligent life in the universe, etc.) Other non-wikipedia pages have even more outrageous claims (Dated Ben Affleck). A couple of the claims were true, though. What's left are a handful of unverifiable but not totally unreasonable claims. One claim has her studying tropical medicine in Oxford. Oxford is both a town and a loose group of colleges. No specific college is mentioned. Another has her winning an "Outstanding Young Floridian" award from the Jaycees, who keep no records of who has and has not won the award. Tony the Marine and myself disagree. I say they go (in fact, I think the whole page should go) and he says they stay. Rather than sparking an edit war, I figured I'd put it to you guys.

I've commented on that talk page. SlimVirgin 20:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Misuse of WP:V to steamroll Vfds

I have noted on a few occasions that WP:V has been used as a reason why an article should be deleted. However, on a number of occasions, this has been misused. Someone has stated that an article does not conform to WP:V, for example stating that "personal homepages do not count as verifiability" when in fact they were official business pages, of the business which is the focus of the article, which in fact do pass WP:V checks. This was used to manipulate the Vfd for the planes of existence (chat site) Vfd, and a number of voters then agreed with it without checking facts. Whilst many people vote with only 5 seconds of thought, it seems dishonest for people to misuse an official policy like this to steamroll a Vfd. Zordrac 20:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zodrac, if a business page is the only source, and there are no third-party sources (if that's what you meant), then having an article on it would violate this policy. SlimVirgin 20:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it has about 50 third party sources. They are all being disputed. Zordrac 14:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure what the problem is. People are certainly encouraged to explain why they think a thing should or should not be deleted. If some editors want to delete for lack of verifiability, they'll make their reasoning known (hopefully) in the Afd. One editor's "misuse of policy" is another editor's sound reasoning. People disagree about what's verifiable, what's neutral, and what's original research all the time. Friday (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

So what is the answer? If someone says something that is not true in order to influence votes, mis-quoting wikipedia policy, is this permissible? Should the voters be asked to re-vote with the evidence that they voted under false assumptions? Zordrac 14:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't list any credible third-party sources that I can see. A third-party source would be, for example, if a newspaper had written an article about the website. It seems to list as sources only itself and other personal websites. SlimVirgin 20:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Guilt by association

I have added the following to the policy:

Sources which rely on guilt by association, the Association fallacy are not considered verifiable. Only a source which specifically identifies a person or organization as having engaged in a behavior can be considered adequate. This is especially true of membership in an organization and associated activities.

This phenomenon is clearly illustrated by Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others

Fred Bauder 02:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty incoherent. I've attempted to reword based on what I think you are saying. If I misunderstood you, I assure you it is not willful, and feel free to reword anything I got wrong. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry fellows, but I do not understand the meaning of this sentence. Care to explain/clarify? thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Claims that are attested only by a source or sources which rely on guilt by association are not considered verifiable. Only a source which specifically identifies a person or organization as having engaged in a behavior can be considered adequate. This is especially true of claims that extrapolate from membership in organizations and from activities of others associated with that organization.

Wow, and I thought I was clarifying! Can someone else please take a shot at this? Maybe moving entirely away from Fred's words (of which I had tried to preserve as much as possible). -- Jmabel | Talk 07:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"Extrapolate" is a BIG word. Fred Bauder 14:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Fred for the example. It clarifies it for me ... nothing beats a good example. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @

Question: The wording is very clear. Now, the question is, is a judgement made only about the specific reference in source material, or to the reliability of the author of such guilt by association tactics, which then would apply to other works by the same source. nobs 21:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Only to those using smear tactics Fred Bauder 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

How about Charles Burgess Fry as an example. His reputation as a sportsman has never recovered because of his political sympathies in the 1930s. Maybe the two should not be associated, but they are, and any explanation of his relative sporting obscurity today is in part at least explained by his political associations the 1930s. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)