 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Citations
editI've added citations, but I think they add more clutter than clarity. Certainly, things would not be so nasty if fewer sources were cited; however, that doesn't work so well for the reader who has one of the sources excluded but not the one we decided to keep. I'm not sure going to footnotes would help much; the citations would be more compact here, but still arguably a mess. Many publishers, such as the University of Chicago, absolutely disallow multiple notes.
I pulled the references for just this reason. As mentioned, I think it's advantageous to have multiple references for the reader who may have but one of them. Since the article at this point consists of two paragraphs and five sentences, I can't see why it would be that hard for the reader to associate the claims, all of which seem uncontroversial, with one of the cited sources, especially with page numbers given. I recommend we go back to where we were, at least until the article gets long enough that inline citations are really needed. I would add the citations of pp. 151-61 for Adams 1980 to the reference, though. JeffConrad (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)