Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Citations and references

Audit

• Closed With concurrence of AustralianRupert. See below.[1] Cinderella157 (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Comments by Cinderella157

How to cite

• Please see new section for comment.
• How do we describe Academy pages? I called it a "Unit".Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • G'day, thanks for adding this. I did a quick copy edit. I'd suggest maybe calling it a "section". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @AustralianRupert, Sections are within an article, so I am not so "happy" with the ambiguity that this might create? Thanks for the edits. As a review, it is still a "work in progress". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Do you mean "unit" as in "unit of study"? In that case, that could possibly work. Maybe also "module", to take something from the competency-based training and assessment world. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is what I am referring to. Either would do but module has no potential ambiguity with a military unit. It would be good to have a standard term that can be consistently be applied. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Creating citations and references

Proposal is for a new academy page. As indicated, I see this as being an example based guide. I will try to capture some of my experiences on how to make referencing "work". It would, primarily, be based on {{sfn}} but address work-arounds and some other "tricks". Things that I have worked with AR to develop. I see this being in two parts. The first part is a learning guide. The second part is an "exemplar". I see the exemplar being based on Kokoda Track campaign. It would be an abridged version with annotations that both comment and reveal the markup. The learning guide would explain and put the exemplar in context. Once the exemplar is created and stable, it would need protection from inadvertent edits. The guide may require more than one exemplar, to show the progression of how citation methods may evolve from a stub, to B-class (or better) as the number of citations added increases. Comments and suggestions please. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day, we already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using different reference formats, so I wonder if maybe what you are wanting to create with "creating citations and references" could be included there, or that page could be merged into your new one? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert I did a scan of things before I put this up and had a look at your link. You steered me to {{sfn}}. It is far superior to <ref></ref> - particularly for an article that grows. However, it might use the existing title - I agree. I will change the redlink. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Changed to existing module title where it appeared on this articles page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using different reference formats may need to be renamed later on. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

One para - one ref

This is something of an arbitrary "standard" in how it is viewed - particularly in assessments. It is explained here, as to what it means. However, I have observed instances of where it "appears" to have been applied to "satisfy" assessment (circumvent the process). Should we warn that "you will get caught out" or is this too much like Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose? I am refereing at this point to this guide. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day, just checking, but do you mean that one citation is added to the end of a paragraph, but it doesn't actually reference everything in the paragraph? I think we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions. This might be done for a couple of reasons, one of which might be nefarious, another might be someone trying to help by adding a reference after the fact, but without being able to reference all of what someone else has written. In the case of the latter, we don't want to discourage people adding the reference, but we should encourage them to be careful to ensure text-source integrity (possibly by adding a cn tag to the part of a paragraph or sentence which isn't cited by their reference). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert My observation actually comes from an article we were both working on improving. I did an initial check and you confirmed with what I didn't have. I'm not saying that that particular instance was "intentional" and you bring out another point - an unintended consequence. This specific section deals with the review of this "unit" of the Academy and now raises two question. Firstly, do we warn here against a "nefarious" act - you will be caught out? Secondly, do we advise on how to deal with the second? You indicate a course in this second case. Should we do both? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest the latter. Always best to assume good faith, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrariness?

Writing in "summary style" is intrinsically and inherently a process of synthesis. Without synthesis, an article becomes a series of disjunctions collected from multiple sources or a "strained" effort to join-the-dots. A "strict" interpretation creates a contradictory juxtaposition.

Any writing endeavor beyond the briefest note follows a standard formula. It opens with a statement of intent. Its body is the statement. It concludes with a close. This is true of a personal letter, a dissertation or a WP article. A well structured paragraph follows this same formula. WP:OR is a matter of policy. It is "black letter". It states, at WP:SYNTH:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not states that it is "an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:No original research page." I would, particularly, refer to SYNTH is not summary

SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources. It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process".

In summary of what this implies, a statement is not SYNTH if: it simply joins the dots, it is a summary of what the sources say, it is not a biased POV, it is not an unreasonable conclusion that would be arrived at after consulting the cited sources, it is not novel or controversial. A closing sentence of a paragraph that joins togeather four or five independant, verifiable and cited statements is just good writing style.

My own experiences in editing inform my opinions in this regard. Battle of Buna–Gona was a battle of logistics that was "never fully resolved" - a verifiable statement. The capacity of the LOC was increased substantially with airfield development and then large ship convoys - verifiable. But the numbers of Allied troops also increased - verifiable. That the increased capacity was largely consumed in maintaining increases in the size of the force is not explicitly stated in the sources, though the result - that it was "never fully resolved" is. A similar issue arises WRT artillery. There was a critical shortage of ammunition. Support allocated to attacks was meager. Attacks failed. Command pressure resulted in renewed and repeated attacks that made little or no ground - in a large part, due to inadequate artillery support. Each of these steps is verifiable; however, what is not explicitly stated (but strongly implied) is that this cycle was perpetuated by, and in turn perpetuated, the ongoing shortage of artillery support.

My observation is that MILHIST somewhat "zealously" applies a requirement for citations and WP:SYNTH yet at WP:SYNTHNOT, it observes:

Wikipedia doesn't have them, supposedly. But if a policy gets enforced zealously, it can be hard to tell the difference. The solution is to not enforce policies zealously. Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article.

It also observes: "If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH." This is the case in the two examples I have given and are why I raise the matter. One way of addressing some of the issues that arise may be to document the basis of statements with hidden text. These comments do not indicate that we should erode our standards, but rather, apply "commonsense" in a way that improves articles. Anything that truly strays into WP:OR can and should be challenged. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Arbitariness 2

In writing the background (introduction) of an article, it is usual to put a battle into a broad context of the war that then narrows to the specific. There will be references such as Pearl Harbour and the fall of Singapore or Britain's declaration of war following the invasion of Germany. My point would be, that there are some things that are WP:BLUE. No, WP is not a reliable source. However, for some things, it serves. I suggest that there might be some latitude in these respects and what might be seen as an overly pedantic "obsession" with citations. Anything written must be verifiable - certainly. The need to cite arises when it is "likely" to be challenged. This is distinct from a challenge for the sake of doing so. This is the point I make here.

I would give another example of "obsessiveness" created by the "perceived need" to have a citation at the end of each para. A para is written with a citation at the last but one sentence that supports that. The last sentence is simply to attribute a block quote that follows, where a citation is given at the end of the quote. Does the sentence in attribution also require a citation, simply because it is the last sentence? And what of when the quote is made in support of the paragraph? Other sources may support what is said, but none so clear. Is not a block quote part of the para it follows (particularly if there is an explicit link by way of an attributing sentence. Is it not overly pedantic to require the same citation be made twice?

As a counter-point, I have indicated where I have found a deficiency in this arbitrary "policy". A case where a challengable statement has been made (early) in a paragraph that is "supported" by a single closing citation. The citation did not support that part of the para that was challengable. It is speculation to attribute this as a deliberate attempt of concealment; however, it highlights the arbitrary nature of the guidance and the potential for abuse. For one, I would rather see the controvertial statement referenced and the non-controvertial statements that follow go without, than see a bogus reference placed in satisfaction of an arbitrary rule.

These are nuances of referencing that are perhaps too subtle for an introductory guide but they do relate to project "policy" and suggest a need to address some of these issues at such a level. I note that science has its own guidelines. Perhaps we should consider the same. I note MILMOS on this subject in respect of this but it is somewhat limited. Again, hidden text may obviate drive-by tagging and pedantic disputes.Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day, you raise some interesting points, but I think we need to be careful not to be seen to be promoting acceptance of uncited end sentences/partially cited paragraphs by changing our guidance here too drastically, regardless of how uncontroversial statements included are/were. Referencing serves several purposes, IMO (including helping students find references for their own work, as well as verification), and what one person thinks is WP:BLUE or uncontroversial will invariably differ (and could indeed be gamed, IMO). If the issue is that sometimes controversial statements are being included inside a largely non controversial paragraph with a reference that doesn't cover the controversial statement, then they can easily be challenged during a review by any other editor with a "cn" or "verification failed" tag by someone verifying the reference. That said, I've tried to adjust the guidance on the page a little further to hopefully cover off on the concerns you raise. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert These matters are not for this "unit" but more, a matter of "MILHIST policy". The nuances are too detailed for a beginner. My first premise is that every statement is subject to challenge - but not challengable for the sake of doing so. My second premise is that, any concluding statement must be substantiated by preceding verifiable facts. Such facts must be cited. That which leads to a conclusion "must" fall to this: "If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH." There must be checks-and-balances that mitigate gaming. Hence, I have suggested hidden comments. There is the test of a person conversant with sources v's one labouring from ignorance and "zeal" v's reason and commonsense. I think that the burden of proof rests with the writer but excessive zeal is the counterpoint and consensus is the answer - based on a reading of the sources that support it. In the case of a concluding sentence, I would not apply a ciation to it but to the preceding sentences. The opportunity to game already exists but as you note, we should assume good faith. WP:BLUE would only apply to that which is clearly and reasonably so per the couple of examples I gave and even more so, where there are well sourced articles that cover such material. The key is, as you rightly observe, that they are not controversial. As I observed in closing (below), our present policy is both a strength and a weakness and an opportunity to improve. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

General comments to all above

There are both strengths and weaknesses in what we do at present and opportunities to improve (I think). Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

See What to cite

@AustralianRupert, Trying to capture an idea but not certain of the best way to express it. The best sources will be written by academics and be peer reviewed. Histories written for the "popular" market by "non-experts" (such as journalists) may be less informed in their opinion and may need to be treated as such. However, if the work is published through a publisher of reasonable repute, the oversight afforded means that figures, dates and quotes reported can be reported can be relied upon in a WP article with a reasonable degree of confidence. I think it is appropriate to say something at the point indicated (my first question). I am struggling for the words to say this succinctly. You might have an idea? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

See Title of the work

@AustralianRupert, I am thinking this is a bit granular and a fair bit of it isn't supported by the cite templates. I got about halfway through ... I have put in hidden comments. I think a lot could go. If you have a chance, you might have a quick look and bash it about - Pls do.

WRT the rest of the "module", it is pretty close (except for calling "topics" "modules" I think). As you have already had a look at it, you might like to have a look through again if you get a chance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day, I have made a few changes here. Please check, and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Split?

@AustralianRupert, Thanks. I added a little more at "What to cite", trying to capture an idea (above). It comes from a discussion per Hermann Graf and a notion that a source became unreliable because it was written in a more "popular" style. The consensus being that it was reasonable as a source for dates and places etc but not opinion. I think you might guess at the general proposition being made for the negative. I would be happy for this bit to be bashed around a bit more or cut out.Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

What you have written seems fair enough to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to split the "module" (running with this for Academy pages) at "how to cite"? My thinking is to keep modules to short bites, unless they really need to be bigger. This looks like a logical break. It could be - parts 1 and 2?

or: It could be "Citations and references (citations)" and "Citations and references (references)"

or: "Citations" and "References"

or: "Citations and references" and something else. Say: "What information to include in a reference".

For the rest of it, I did some minor copy edits since you, and I think it is right to go, save these two things. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day, regarding a split, the module used to in fact be split before I merged several together a couple of years ago: [2]. My thoughts were that including the information together allows us to hopefully reduce repetition. Whether that reasoning is still relevant, I don't know, although I think it would be fine to leave it as is. If it was to be split, perhaps "What and when to cite" and "How to cite" might work as titles. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I was steering away from "How to cite", since it doesn't go into the mechanics - though it works OK as a section heading here. I would just break it in two with no repetition but happy enough to keep as one - for now at least. We could close this unless you want to ask for a third opinion on what we have done? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, happy for it to be closed now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)