Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Types of sources

Considering things related to history, indicating primary sources and secondary sources is desirable in my opinion. Perhaps you would agree? Nixdorf 20:39, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

I like Rbellin's suggestion: "Try to cite sources that are widely available, relevant, and as credible as possible." Maurreen 07:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also like Rbellin's phrasing. While "credibility" may still be somewhat debatable--it narrows the debate somewhat and strikes me as considerably less subjective and POV-laden than either "reputable" or "appropriate". older≠wiser 16:28, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Rbellin's phrasing is fine with me, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with using "credibility". I'd like to create a subpage and start doing an edit of the current version, then show it to you, but I'm tied up today and won't be able to start it straightaway, just in case anyone's wondering why I mentioned it earlier but then didn't press on. There's an interesting discussion going on on the mailing list about the authority of sources, and the importance of distinguishing between primary and secondary, and when to use one or the other. Check out the archives here. [1]. There were quite a few threads and the headers kept changing so you may have to scout around a bit, but most posts were in the last three to five days. SlimVirgin 19:58, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I am not sure these terms are being used here appropriately. I don't think there ever is such a thing as an ""appropriate" source as such, because it is appropriate only in relation to the context in which it is used. Indeed, ratehr than having a guideline that says "use appropriate sources" we should say "use sources appropriately" -- then the guideline is for the editor, not the source. In contrast, I do think there are sources that are reputable or disreputable. I think this is based in part on how transparent the author of the source (or, in the case of primary sources, the creator of the source) is about his or her methods and biases. It is also based on public opinion. Both of these can be hard to ascertain, but I think in fact most people in any given field have a pretty good idea of what is reputable in their field. In any case, the measure of a works reputation has something to do with the quality of the work itself; whether it is being used appropriately or not is entirely dependent on the specific situation in which it is being used. Slrubenstein 22:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, fine, whatever, I think you are quibbling. Obviously "appropriate" means "appropriate to the siutation". My problem was with the word "reputable" which would be an inherent property of the sources. Appropriateness always involves a context. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:21, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

In choosing our vocabulary, it might be helpful to list the things we're trying to achieve. As I see it, the consensus on this page and on the mailing list is:

• (1) we don't want to discourage new or inexperienced editors from contributing;
• (2) we don't want to erect a scholarly standard so intimidating that editors without an academic background will feel unable to contribute;
• (3) we want to discourage (strongly discourage or prohibit?) editors using dodgy websites with strong POVs as secondary sources, but not as primary sources; that is, the Stormfront website may be used for an article about Stormfront, but it may not be used as a secondary source on Martin Luther King. Question: how to define "dodgy?" Answer: ostensive definition - give examples - we all know what we mean, more or less, and so will other editors;
• (4) we want to create a non-intimidating research culture, in which, as editors become more experienced, they will learn how to use reputable sources in an appropriate manner, how to cite accurately, when to spot that there's something wrong with a source, where to find good sources;
• (5) we want to create a great encyclopedia that will earn the trust of people all over the world, so we want editors to use sources compatible with that goal.

Probably the best way to achieve this is to describe what we're trying to achieve on the page, using all the words we've talked about: reputable, authoritative, credible, appropriate, qualifying each word as we use it, and giving examples of what we mean.

By the way, Zero posted something to the mailing list on sources today that we might want to incorporate in some form onto the page. See here. [2] SlimVirgin 00:00, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Zero's stuff is good, with maybe one reservation: sometimes "just a random web page" is obviously well researched even if it lacks citation apparatus. I wouldn't consider something like that a good reference, but it's often better than nothing. I'm not sure what our citation policy should be on those. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:00, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think any guidelines about evaluating sources, or which sources to use, should probably go on a different page. Maurreen 07:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I posted on the mailing list earlier today, there are two different things being talked about here, I think: quality of citations, and quality of sources. Quality of citation is about accurately documenting a source; identifying it, identifying how to find the referenced information, and characterising the source's content accurately. Quality of sources is about how accurate and reliable the source is for that particular use. It might work better to talk about the first here (how to cite sources correctly) and leave the other one for another page.

One sometimes has to use bad sources (sometimes there are no good sources, or one hasn't been found yet) but one should always do good cites, even of bad sources. —Morven 07:24, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point Morven. I mean seriously, people can spend years in graduate school and still struggle with evaluating the quality of source material, so I don't think it is realistic to expect a short Wikipedia article to even begin to address the problems involved. Of course we must still attempt to address it, but we need to be realistic with our expectations. I agree that the first step is encouaging and facilitating people to provide a citation for sources used in an article. Evaluating the credibility (or appropriateness) of sources can then get thrashed out as needed. older≠wiser 13:00, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree to with Morven. I think it was in the same spirit that I made the point about appropriate verus reputable -- I don't think I am quibbling, Maureen -- I think we do not want to confuse newbies. I want to add one point to SlimVirgin's comments, all of which I agree with. I think the single biggest turn-off to newbies is not complex policy pages (and yes, I still agree that policy pages should not be too complex); the biggest turn off is when they soon find themselves in edit wars they do not understand. So my main criteria for developing policy pages is, we want to help them avoid getting into edit conflicts early on that would turn them off. Since a new editor can be criticized byothers for using non-reputable sources or for failing to use sources appropriately, we need to distinguish between the two (as Morven distinguishes between quality of sources and quality of citations) and explain them as simply and clearly as we can. But "reputable sources" is crucial, because many edit-wars are triggered over what constitutes a reputable sourc. Slrubenstein 17:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just for clarification, Slrubenstein, I think you have me confused with someone else. I haven't said anything about quibbling. Maurreen 17:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Damn -- I am very sorry, Maurreen. I meant Jmabel. Slrubenstein 19:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No problem, not to worry. Maurreen 05:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some musings about citing sources

I haven't been following discussion, my apologies, but I posted some random musings about citing sources on the mailing list and got a couple of flatteringly positive responses. Steven L. Rubenstein called it... well, I don't want to blush... and said "I think incorporating into the policy at least some of what he wrote would be an important improvement." Since what I wrote was long and might be a bit tangential, and I'm don't want to spend time right now figuring out how it bears on our policy, I've put it up on my user page here. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A question about APA style

I'm somewhat puzzled by the example given. Specifically, what does "Gettysburg: Printing Press" signify? The location of the publisher? What about "Printing Press"? —Simetrical (talk) 02:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the APA style book, but the example you give is a common one. It's part of the "facts of publication," which includes place, publisher, and date. Taken literally, your example indicates that the publisher is "Printing Press" located in Gettysburg. —Wayward 22:33, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Authoritativeness and Relevance of sources

Every text in Wikipedia that is not a direct quote is a interpretation of another text. Even a summary is an interpretation of the original text. Furthermore, deciding which arguments to present for and against a theory in an article is interpretation and original research. So all articles in Wikipedia contain some degree of interpretation and original research. Therefore the guidelines cannot just decide which information to allow or not to allow. It must also be guidelines for this discussion and interpretation. In the more controversial topics in Wikipedia informal rules for this discussion is already in place by itself. Look for example at capitalism or race and intelligence.

A rough draft might be that all facts should be supported from outside sources, if demanded. The only theories in Wikipedia should be those held by "many" people or an authority.

Regarding sources in the discussion of a theory, one important factor is the authoritativeness of the source. One guideline might be to avoid arguing against more authoritative arguments with less authoritative. For example, to avoid arguing against peer-reviewed studies by referring to common opinion. Although common opinion could certainly be mentioned, especially in areas where there are no academic research as in many conspiracy theories. An example of the hierarchy of authoritativeness might be:

1. Peer-reviewed studies or government statistics 2. Academic press 3. Opinion held by an authority. That might be a person who has previously done academic research in discussed area. Or dead persons considered authorities by authorities today. 4. Opinion held by many people who are not authorities (5. Opinion held by only one or a few people who are not authorities).

Another factor is the relevance of the source for the theory. A source with very little relevance for the theory should be avoided. An example of the hierarchy of relevance might be:

1. Discusses the theory directly. 2. Discusses general principle important for the theory. For example, a page about peak oil might reference an article that discusses solar power in general without mentioning peak oil. 3. Statistic that if generalized affects the theory. For example, a page about capitalism or Marxism might reference US government statistics about growing differences in income. (4. Anecdotal evidence for the theory. For example, a page about poverty in the third world might reference the income of a particular person.) Ultramarine

I mostly agree; one demurral: the priority of peer-reviewed studies varies with subject matter. For example, a peer reviewed academic paper on punk rock would probably be authoritative on dates and names, but wouldn't necessarily carry any more weight than a review in Maximum Rock'n'Roll for its judgement of a band. There are simply fields where the real experts aren't in academia. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:53, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about this heirarchy of relevance as it could be used by some to introduce their own synthesis of published material i.e. their own arguments. While others have made the point that we don't want to stifle creativity, and I agree with that, we also don't want people using Wikipedia as a platform to publish their own essays. Dipping into a variety of sources for a paragraph here and there that supports an argument is personal essay-writing. Ultramarine's example about a page about Marxism referencing U.S. government statistics about differences in income is an example of what editors ought not to do, in my view. Perhaps that's what you meant too, Ultramarine. I'm all for giving examples within a "heirarchy of relevance," but I'd like to see a cut-off point where we say: "And these examples would count as original research." SlimVirgin 22:39, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Abbreviating journal titles

It is a common practice to abbreviate journal titles in references. Although these abbreviations are clear to people familiar with the field, they are often hard to decypher for general readers. For example, Math. Scand. means Mathematica Scandinavica.

I intend to add some text to the project page to the effect of "Write out journal titles completely; don't use abbreviations." in the Journal articles section, unless someone objects here. dbenbenn | talk 20:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that journal titles must be fully spelled out. The reason for abbreviations is either that the author (of a book) provides a key to the abbreviations, or that the author (of an article) assumes that his or her audience knows the full titles. We can't make this assumption here; the range of our articles is too broad to follow the first example, and our audience is too large and heterogeneous to follow the second.

PS isn't Math. Scand. the magazine about scandals involving mathematicians? Slrubenstein 22:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Same in other realms: Talmudic literature, for example: Sanhedrin is a lot clearer than Sanh. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:52, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, done. Thanks for the reply. dbenbenn | talk 21:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Citing secondhand

Is there a proper method for citing something that is cited in another work? For example, I have a source that says Charlie Gillett has said (the first rock and roll record) was Bill Haley's "Crazy Man" in 1963. Nick Tosches has argued for "Sixty Minute Man", which was recorded by the Dominoes in 1951. (there are citations for Gillett and Tosches). Tuf-Kat 19:08, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

In academic journals and books I have seen two different practices:

• one is simply to lift the quote and provide its original citation.
• The other is to say "blah blah blah," quoted by x (x 2005: 87).

I think people favor the first approach when the original source is easily available. Sometimes, though, this source is from an out of print book or a magazine or journal so minor that most university libraries don't have it -- in that case, people favor the second approach. Another consideration is the context in which you are using the original quote. If you are doing it in the context of a discussion of the secondary source, you should follow the second approach. Slrubenstein 19:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you haven't seen the original work, you should generally make that clear. You can cite "FOO cited in BAR". -- Jmabel | Talk 19:56, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Article titles in quotes

This is the example for an article currently used in "Cite sources""

Brandybuck, Meriadoc. (1955). Herb-lore of the Shire. Journal of the Royal Institute of Chemistry

Shouldnt the article title be in quotes? Shouldnt the name of the journal be italic? Like so:

Brandybuck, Meriadoc. (1955). "Herb-lore of the Shire", Journal of the Royal Institute of Chemistry

--Stbalbach 21:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Yes. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:32, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Template:Journal reference needs attention, then. Uncle G 23:20, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
  • Done. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:28, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Quoted article titles is one common style, and no one will complain if you use them for your citations (I do so myself), but it's not what APA style does. —Steven G. Johnson 23:30, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

If I am going to now be adding quotation marks, since I discovered the project page model changed this year to reflect the above after I had already started articles without using them per the old page examples, I do not plan to put the comma after the article title outside the quotation marks unless that is the way I am supposed to punctuate in every other context. In American punctuation style, we don't place commas and periods outside quotation marks (but we do with semicolons). Is there a statement somewhere that says Wikipedia uses British style punctuation across the board? If so, then I have tons of articles to change. Also, previously we didn't put a period after both the author and date, just after the date. My intended method for Music bio article's source reference list:

Smith, Joe (1955). "Example Article Title." Scientific American.

— Emerman 15:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. While the most common U.S. style puts punctuation inside quotation marks when they represent an actual quotation, this in not the case when quotation marks are used to set off titles. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:16, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that statement or a particular style guide link demonstrating it that you can point me to? I have not seen one, and I have bookmarked several citation style guides online. To me, the style I have used in the Music bio article's source reference list I did looks right; what do you think? It did not look right to me when I briefly had it the other way. When I put the comma or period outside the quotation mark, it also pushes a big space between the quote mark and the punctuation if it's a linked article title, and it generally just looks awkward. I previously looked at several style guides before I even started writing my articles. If I saw that your statement is supported by several style guides, I'd be glad to adopt it. I have my own book copies of The Chicago Manual of Style, AP Styleguide, and a couple of others I could hunt for in my house if you are using a book reference for this statement. — Emerman 01:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Referencing a CD

I want to reference a music CD. I came here looking for an example of what style to use, but it isn't addressed. Anyone care to add that info? Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 23:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've been using a format of my own creation. For example Alvin Curran. Hyacinth 00:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Concern over some text

"If there are few references and the material is uncontroversial, in-text citations are often unnecessary." - I disagree! If we are going to have inline references in the form [1] then I really must say that this is not correct. For instance, The Sydney Morning Herald has online versions of newspaper articles, but when they get archived it's impossible to get access to the article. All methods of verification of the time, the title of the article and the author are then lost to us. Having a link that doesn't describe the info is NOT good. In fact, it's worse that useless! We really still need to add the inline references to the references section. I would like to scrap this particular statement. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There are no references without in-text citations. A list of references at the end of an article without citations is at best Further reading. Hyacinth 02:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So what we have here is: a references section that doesn't reference anything, and inline references that are almost next to useless when the site takes down/archives/moves their pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, Ta bu shi da yu is confused — you always should have the complete reference information at the end. What the comment in question is saying is that you don't necessarily have to sprinkle the text with (Foo, 1995) pointers in addition...this is only necessary in cases where it is difficult to figure out which reference contains information on which topic in the article. (Often, the references should be to broad review articles and textbooks relevant to the entire article, not just to specific statements.) The comment is not referring to [1]-style autonumbered URLs, which are deprecated here for a variety of reasons (albeit are still better than nothing).

Second, Hyacinth is still beating the drum that references are somehow distinct from "further reading", which is not how references are used in most publications and is even less relevant to Wikipedia (where the question of which things were "used" to write a work is blurred by multiple authors). —Steven G. Johnson 23:26, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I too think that the distinction between further reading and works cited is useful. It is true you don't find this distinction in academic books and journals -- but that is because they are not written primarily as educational material. Many textbooks, on the other hand, make this distinction. That any article has many editors shouldn't be a problem. I am sure any editor will figure out where to put the works they cite, and where to put others that they do not cite but nevertheless recommend to people. Slrubenstein 16:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Slrubenstein. References are entirely distinct from further reading. The former are those actually used to contribute material to an article or to factually confirm what is there. The latter is simply a source available for the interested reader to find more. Yes various uses outside Wikipedia confuse the distinction at times, but that doesn't make the difference any less important. The question of which were properly used simply needs to be confirmed by each author using a given resource. That is not an issue. Confirming they did actually use them is potentially a little more difficult, but if someone says they did, we should assume good faith, unless evidence is provided they are wrong. Eventually referenced articles could be put through a formal peer review process that does validate the facts against the cited sources and perhaps additional ones if needed. - Taxman 18:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Hyacinth, Slrubenstein and Taxman, in that, there is a useful distinction between the recommended works listed in a "Further reading" section and referenced (and perhaps cited) works listed in a "References" section. Of course works listed as references can also be used for further reading. Paul August ☎ 18:40, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

You are all entitled to your opinions, but please realize that you are all absolutely at odds with mainstream scholarly practice. (Not just in journals. The textbooks that I have do not make this distinction. By and large, they either have a "further reading" section or a "references" section in each chapter, not both, plus a bibliography chapter at the end that typically summarizes all the works cited. Although I think a single "review" article is a better analogy for a single Wikipedia article than a whole textbook, anyway.) The essential problem is that the distinction you want to make is completely artificial: very often, a good source for writing about something, or for checking a fact, is also a good source for further reading, and vice versa. (Moreover, an expert will often write from her own knowledge and then add a reference to help a general reader.) Wikipedia exacerbates the problem because, while one editor used a source to look up a fact and recommends another for further reading, the case might be the opposite for another editor who comes along and wants to check an article...should the citation heading fluctuate with time? —Steven G. Johnson 04:47, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

For one, the distinction is not artificial in the least. The source was either used properly or it wasn't. For another, those listed as correctly used references are no less available to the reader then any other source listed as further reading, they just instead have the additional distinction that they were properly used as a reference. Your question is spurious. If one editor used one source as a proper reference it should be listed as such. Another editor later comes along and uses a source that is listed as further reading to do the same, then it too should be listed as a proper reference. Thus it is still very simple, and no conflict is had: those sources that were correctly used are listed as such and those that were not are not. - Taxman 20:05, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Steven G that this distinction, while there is some logic to it, is relatively uncommon (at least in my experience) and I don't think it is particularly helpful for a general readership where such a subtle distinction is likely to either go unnoticed or cause confusion. older≠wiser 12:43, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

If the policy/explanation pages explain the distinction, there is very likely to be no major confusion. And then just like any other distinction, if someone misses it, just point them to the correct policy page. Besides, the distinction is not remotely subtle. The source was either used by the editor or it was not. Amalgamating them is innaccurate at best and dishonest at worst. Again, the only argument you guys repeatedly make is that other people don't do it correctly, so there is no need for us to. Well other people don't release under a free license either, so there is no need for us to either. Both of those things are entirely irrelevant to what we should do. It's like saying John doesn't avoid beating his wife so why should I? Wtf does that have to do with the price of tea in China? So basically I'll even concede that you are correct that it is not a common practice to make the distinction correctly, even if that is not in fact true, I don't know. But it is thoroughly irrelevant in any case. And finally, whether it is immediately helpful to the general readership is also beside the point. What is helpful to the general reader is to read an article from a resource that has a system in place to make sure the information is reliable. Proper referencing, including making the distinction between resources properly used as references and those not, is a key part of that system. - Taxman 20:05, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

It is absolutely irrelevant whether this is at odds with mainstream scholarly practice or not. As we all know, many things about Wikipedia are absolutely at odds with mainstream scholarly practice. The question is, are these differences merely matters of convention, or are they substantive? What is our goal, regardless of the goal of scholarly publications? How do we best achieve it? It is on these grounds that I think that having Works Cited and Further Readings is important. These two together fill the function of a "bibliography." By the way, most academic publications have moved away from a bibliography (which would list all the relevant works that were consulted in writing the article or book) to Works Cited (which lists only those books or articles actually cited in the study). I think there is value to Works Cited, because it is a quick and easy way for someone to get bibliographic information on something cited in the article. But this leaves out other books and articles that we know might be of interest to readers -- this is why "further reading" is for. Frankly, if some reader (as Steven G. implies) sees the category "further reading" and infers that they should not read any of the books or articles under works cited, well, what can I say -- thy have more serious problems than wikipedia confusion. Slrubenstein 15:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I was not specifically referring to scholarly publications in mentioning the relative uncommonness of having multiple sections containing bibliographic details. Although I still have occasion to consult academic pubs now and again, I am more familiar with practices of trade and general publications. I honestly do not see how having separate sections for "Works cited" (or "References") and "Further reading" (or "Bibliography") is helpful to anyone other than specialized readers and in so far as Wikipedia editors are having difficulty in coming to a clear understanding of what the purpose of each section is, is it really so farfetched to think that a general reader might be a little confused? And beyond those sections, there are "Sources" and "External links", which also overlap somewhat with the others. In many of the articles I write, I simply list the sources I used to create the article rather than provide any specific citations for discrete details. Of course for quoted material I'd give a more specific citation, but in general the articles I tend to develop are an amalgam of facts drawn from a variety of sources--it would be extraordinary and rather unfriendly to readers to reference specific citations for most details in the narrative. It is desirable to have specific citations for novel or disputed details and quoted materials, but I'm not sure why footnotes are not sufficient for that purpose. older≠wiser 16:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Whether it is helpful to every single wiki reader is again, entirely irrelevant to whether it should be done or not. If its value exceeds its cost it should most certainly be done. The cost is very low, and the value of the accuracy and reliability (and verification of that reliability) is very high. That makes it a simple decision. The cost is low because basically if anyone is confused, and that will happen, simply point them to the relevant policy/explanation just like it is done hundreds of times a day right now for other issues. Finally, it is not unfriendly at all to readers to properly cite individual facts directly to their source. Wiki is not paper, and the citation marks can in a relatively short amount of time, be set to be invisible to the average reader by default. I think the programming time to implement that would be less than a week of focused work including the time to implement the citations system in the first place!. You are right though that it is especially important for important or disputed facts. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think footnotes would be just fine for that. I think the specific implementation of how the citation is made is not important as long as it is clear what source or sources the fact comes from or is verified by and that all the relevant information on the source is made available. So its clear we agree on something at least! :) - Taxman 20:23, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Finally, it is not unfriendly at all to readers to properly cite individual facts directly to their source What may or may not be unfreindly is precisely how the citations are presented. There is little that is more off-putting to non-academic readers than long (and possibly multiple) lists of bibligographic materials, especially so if used for citations of otherwise commonplace facts. I think discussing this in the abstract is difficult--especially as it is very likely that different types of articles may require very different levels of citation. I'd actually be quite happy with a citation system that has some sort of dual interface, so the nitty-gritty details are available, but only if readers really want to see them. older≠wiser 21:04, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well I can agree with that. A system that lets the user select the level of citation they want to see would be ideal. I'd even be fine with having it almost off by default as long as it was there. Now there is no perfect system like that yet, but I certainly don't think it is worth it to avoid promoting better citations just because a couple people will get annoyed by them now. Even if every reader were somewhat annoyed by them the value of good citations is well worth the cost. It would just be that much more motivation for someone to develop the system we agree would be great. For now it could be as simple as having a third namespace with a tab next to the "discussion" tab that holds the citations and referencing. This is not the place to discuss the system implementation, but it certainly would not be relatively difficult. - Taxman 22:41, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)