Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Convenience links

We have a question for Cass Review. The story goes something like this:

• Ruth Pearce (sociologist) has a page on her blog: https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/ On this page, she collects all the criticisms of the subject of the article we're working on. This page also says, in the introductory text, that the Cass Review "has been extensively criticised by trans community organisations, medical practitioners, plus scholars working in fields including transgender medicine, epidemiology, neuroscience, psychology, women’s studies, feminist theory, and gender studies". In case it helps, I would describe this webpage as self-published, primary, advocacy-oriented, and independent of the Cass Review, and I think she would qualify as a subject-matter expert under WP:SPS rules.
• Four months ago, three non-profits (e.g., the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA)) issued a joint statement about a different/non-Cass report (called "Keeping Children Safe in Education 2024"). I would classify this joint statement the same way as Pearce's blog post, but a joint statement is bigger than just "somebody has a blog". This other/education report mentions the Cass Review's final report in one paragraph.
• The joint statement deplores the school report relying on the Cass Review's final report (e.g., "poor and inconsistent use of evidence"). The joint statement also quotes the bit on Ruth Pearce's blog post I give above. A Wikipedia editor summarized it thusly in the article: "They also quoted healthcare activist and feminist Dr Ruth Pearce, who collated criticisms of the review and said it "has been extensively criticised by trans community organisations, medical practitioners, plus scholars working in fields including transgender medicine, epidemiology, neuroscience, psychology, women’s studies, feminist theory, and gender studies". ("They" in this sentence refers to the three organizations issuing the joint statement.)

The citations given for this were the joint statement plus the blog post that the joint statement quotes. The latter is described as a Wikipedia:Convenience link for anyone who wants to go straight to Pearce's blog post instead of reading the joint statement and clicking through to the blog post from there.

The questions are:

1. Is it acceptable to cite the blog post directly? This would be a second ref, as obviously the original blog post can't support claims about what the later joint statement says.
2. Assuming it's acceptable to add the blog post, would citing it (in addition to the joint statement itself) be ordinary/usual/typical in Wikipedia articles, or at least desirable for some reason?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Including a link to the primary source mentioned by the reference is acceptable if not required. You could include it as a separate reference, although this can sometimes be confused as using it to support content, or construct something with one reference to avoid that issue (<ref>{{cite advocacy group}} quoting {{cite blog post}}</ref>). I would also think in such a situation you could not include the blog in a reference, and instead include it in the Further Reading or External Links section. Adding any additional content based on the self published posts alone would depend on the author, if the are "an expert in the field who has previously published by other reliable sources" then it shouldn't be an issue.

Looking at the discussion at Cass Review I would add that although quotes require references, that doesn't mean the original source is required. If the quote is republished in a secondary source that secondary source is fine for verification purposes. Also none of this is a statement about whether it should be included, as I don't want to be involved in that discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. My own view exactly aligns with although quotes require references, that doesn't mean the original source is required. I wonder if anyone else has any views, or wants to make any guesses about how often both the original and the quoting source are cited together?

Including it in ==Further reading== or ==External links== would probably violate WP:ELPOV, but if that comes up, we can ask for advice at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It happens quite often, but I wouldn't call it common (unless that's observation bias). It's common in some academic areas, but Wikipedia ≠ academia. I see your point about ELPOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

How to cite something in newspapers.com?

What's the right way to generate a URL for a publicly-viewable clipping in newspapers.com? Cannonball (Milwaukee Road train) had a reference that linked to https://www.newspapers.com/image/1066814482 but that gets you to "You need a subscription to view this page" if you're not logged in. So I logged into my account and generated a clipping, which has a URL of https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-waukesha-county-freeman-cannonball-c/159032901/ which is only marginally better; if you're not logged in, it gets you to an image of the page that's too small to read the type, and if you click on it, you're back to "Create a free account, or sign in". I thought the idea of a clipping was that it was publicly viewable. Am I just doing it wrong? RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith, so far as I can tell, a clipping image is always the same width for logged-out viewers. So, if you're clipping one column, even if it's a long one, then the legibility is good. Clipping a whole page across will come out fuzzy. Wikipedia:Newspapers.com says that we're meant to use clippings rather than "/image/" links, so I've been doing it that way. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Per Rjjiii, clipping image can be seen by non-logged or logged-out viewers and you should take a news block for clipping instead of the whole page and use the "/article/" link. Here is an example (taken from a citation in WXYZ-TV)

<ref>{{cite news |last1=Johnson |first1=L.A. |date=February 3, 1995 |title=Channel 4 newscasts take the ratings lead in Detroit |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-channel-4-newscasts-t/120083876/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20241012091020/https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-channel-4-newscasts-t/120083876/ |archive-date=October 12, 2024 |access-date=March 3, 2023 |work=[[Detroit Free Press]] |pages=3F, [https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-channel-4-news-wins-r/156927271/ 6F] |via=[[Newspapers.com]]}}</ref> Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 09:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

In my case, the original article was laid out so as to span the full width of the page. RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I wrote an essay on this to help out, User:Chew/essays/Citing Newspapers.com Clips.

It should give plenty of examples of how to cite; if anything is missing, let me know. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 22:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

CITEVAR for a TFA

I'm not sure where to ask this question; if there's a noticeboard for this I don't know about it so please point me at it if this is not the right place.

Gerald Durrell has just been on the main page; I took it to FAC and it became featured using short citations. While on the main page, JnpoJuwan, who had not previously edited the article, converted the citations to sfn in good faith. I reverted and left a message on their talk about CITEVAR, and they accordingly opened a discussion on the article talk page, here. Two other editors have joined that conversation, both of whom agree that the article should change to a templated style, though one suggests using harvnb instead. Pinging those editors too: DuncanHill & Chew.

Per the footnote under CITEVAR, The arbitration committee ruled in 2006: "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

I don't think I've run into this situation before, where an editor not otherwise involved in the article makes a style change and argues for it on the talk page, where others agree. I would have thought that "editors should not ... edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style" applies here. If half a dozen editors who like any style, say {{rp}}, were to suggest converting any actively edited article to that style, it's unlikely there would be more than half-a-dozen editors to disagree with them, and that seems to go against the spirit of CITEVAR. (I've certainly left talk page messages suggesting changes to citation styles, but only for articles I am editing or plan to edit.) So am I right to think that the discussion on Talk:Gerald Durrell is overridden by CITEVAR, since those editors have not actively edited the article in question? Or am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Mike positively encouraged JnpoJuwan to open the discussion on the talk page. Now he seems to want to ban the discussion he himself invited. A clearer case of ownership I've never seen. DuncanHill (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I did encourage them, and I think it was the right thing to do. I was just surprised when others uninvolved in the article showed up. I agree there's a contradiction between CITEVAR and OWN, and that's what I'm trying to understand -- after all, what does the Arbcom ruling I quoted mean, if there's no distinction between editors working on the page and those who are not? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The citation style shouldn't be changed without discussion, that discussion should happen on the articles talk page. If there is then consensus to change it then there is no reason it should not change. CITEVAR doesn't say it can never change, only that doing so against consensus is a bad idea. The relevant text from CITEVAR would appear to be ... without first seeking consensus for the change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Does that mean that editors should not ... edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style has no force, then? As far as I can tell that was JnpoJuwan's only reason for editing the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

But now he's seeking consensus on the talk page. He hasn't edit-warred, he's accepted your reversion and followed your advice to go to the talk page. You have absolutely no basis to complain. He made a mistake, you corrected him, and now he's doing what you told him to do. Other editors are participating in the discussion in good faith. You don't get to decide who can take part in the discussion, and you don't get to stop a discussion based on "the wrong people are taking part". DuncanHill (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

CITEVAR is not a prohibition from changing the citation style. Another relevant sentence would be "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page." So if editors believe a change would help improve an article they can do so (as long as they have consensus), not making a change that by consensus would improve the encyclopedia because of a rule would seem to go against policy and the spirit of Wikipedia.
I don't think you can take just that section of the sentence as law, without the rest of the sentence "... nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike." The prohibition is singular. An editor shouldn't edit an article just to change the style based on their own preference, but that doesn't exclude the style changing based on consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If the is a dispute over the style I would suggest following the normal dispute resolution methods. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the correct interpretation of the P&G: it doesn't say it can never change; just that changes should be discussed. If the consensus on the page is to move it to {{sfn}} (which, notably, co-exists with {{harvnb}}), WP:CITEVAR does nothing to stop that consensus from moving forward. Ifly6 (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I honestly don't see much point in CITEVAR in that case, but as that seems to be the consensus interpretation I can accept it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Inline citations

Hi everyone. Some time ago, I revamped the article Pokémon. On 20 occasions, the article uses inline citations to books and scientific essays. For example:

According to Tomisawa (2000), the phrase "Capsule Monsters" was already registered. According to Hatakeyama & Kubo (2000), the word "capsule" could not be used in the trademark.

I'm only now seeing this paragraph: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing. Does this policy also apply to the referencing style I used above?

I've compiled a list of inline citations here: Talk:Pokémon#Inline citations. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Would that not be WP:INTEXT attribution? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that that looks like in text attrbution and not parenthetical referencing. Ifly6 (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not see any parenthetical citations in the article. Parenthetical referencing refers to placing citations in text without using <ref> ... </ref> or {{Sfn}} formatting. Donald Albury 15:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Manifestation: This old version of Actuary used parenthetical referencing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Stuff like "According to Tomisawa (2000)" is indeed a parenthetical citation, even if no full reference details are given. It would be better to just give the author's name if in-text attribution is considered relevant ("According to Akihito Tomisawa"), or otherwise to omit the "according to" clause altogether. Gawaon (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

"According to Tomisawa (2000)" is not in parentheses, therefore, it's not parenthetical. It's in-text attribution. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@everyone: Thank you for your responses! My point is: there is nothing on this policy page regarding the inline "[author] ([year])" format. This is the format used in academic papers. I know that Wikipedia isn't an academic paper. But I still feel this type of in-text citing could be useful to us.

An example:

• Roberts (1986) believed that John Doe committed the murder. However, Reese (2006) presented new evidence pointing to James Roe as the culprit.
• Jake Roberts believed that John Doe committed the murder. However, Tim Reese presented new evidence pointing to James Roe as the culprit.
• Historian Jake Roberts wrote in The Butler Did It (1986) that John Doe committed the murder. However, in a 2006 JFS paper, cold-case detective Tim Reese presented new evidence pointing to James Roe as the culprit.
• Some historians believe that John Doe committed the murder. However, modern evidence points to James Roe as a possible culprit.

In the first phrase, the years between parentheses provides readers with a visual cue, helping them differentiate between the cited authors of sources (Jake Roberts, Tim Reese) and the key figures within the historic case (John Doe, James Roe).

In the second phrase, this differentiation is not explicitly made, and the reader may not immediately understand who Jake Roberts and Tim Reese are.

In the third phrase, the text makes more of an effort to explain the sources and its authors. This may be important, but it also makes the text longer and more cluttered.

Mentioning an author in-text is crucial when you wish to make it clear that this is what *they* believe to be true, not what *Wikipedia* believes to be true. It is *their* point of view, not Wikipedia's. This improves an article's accuracy and neutrality.

Explicitly mentioning the year of a source may also be important. If the murder was committed in 1983, then a source published in 1986 would've been written in a very different context than a source published two decades later. With regards to forensic science: DNA evidence would not have been available in the 1980s, but it could be in the 2000s. - Manifestation (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, if the source from 1986 is outdated, we probably shouldn't mention it altogether. Wikipedia doesn't strive for completeness, and not every possible source needs to be included. Gawaon (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

A source from 1986 may not necessarily be 'outdated' in the sense that it has become useless. Quite the opposite: it could be a priceless historical document, e.g. containing interviews with people who have since passed away. It may also be relevant to emphasize in a Wikipedia article that the source is from that time period, hence the "Author (Year)" format. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

More general, I'm confident that WP:PAREN is meant to forbid "Tomisawa (2000)" just as well as "(Tomisawa 2000)", as those are clearly two variants of the same citation style – authors will use one or the other depending on which one fits better into the text flow. See Parenthetical referencing § How to cite, where this is explained. Gawaon (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm less confident that we intended to ban this, but you could write "Tomisawa in 2000" instead, and then not have to worry about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

What about linguistics documents?

I'm trying to cite linguistic documents about harmony systems, but I don't know what they qualify as with the new editors. Kaden Bayne Vanciel (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure about the specifics, but to me the important difference would be between primary research (i.e. the initial publications by field researchers documenting their findings) and secondary surveys collating and synthesizing and filtering the aforementioned primary research after it has had time to be reviewed by the broader community—still published frequently as journal articles, but also in monographs and edited volumes. As with any other science, strongly prefer citing the latter. Remsense ‥ 论 06:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)