Hi, list :)
So, here I am writing an article on a creature from [[Norse mythology]], the primeval cow [[Auðumbla]]. I start with quoting the relevant primary source and then I say a few things about the creature's name and its possible anglicization. Often I call it quits at this point and go to the next article but this time I was interested in writing about parallels to the primeval cow in other mythologies.
So I read up on Zoroastrian mythology, find a scholarly article, a relevant primary source in translation and I'm good to go.
But I also want to say a few words about [[Hathor]], an Egyptian cow goddess. Unfortunately I'm far from being an expert on Egyptian mythology and don't have the knowledge to use the primary sources. So I rely on secondary and tertiary sources. I fish around a bit on the Internet but don't find anything that looks especially reliable. The Wikipedia article looks okay and has the information I want to use but unfortunately it doesn't have any references listed.
So, I decide to, honestly, cite the Wikipedia article on Hathor as my reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au%C3%B0umbla
Is this a faux pas? I don't see anyone else doing this.
- - -
Here's another Norse mythology article; [[Lofn]]. This time I quoted the most important primary source, mentioned the others, cited my four references and I was out. A short article for a minor character about whom very little can be said.
Today I noticed someone added a link to the Greek Wikipedia article on Lofn. Out of curiosity I took a look. Apparently someone basically translated my English article. I'm fine with that, of course. Happy, in fact. What bothers me a bit is that all the references are simply omitted.
You could argue that it wouldn't be appropriate for the Greek article to translate the reference section since those probably aren't the references the translator is working from. I'm fine with that. But shouldn't the English Wikipedia be cited as a reference? And shouldn't direct quotes, like the Old Norse text in this article, be sourced to their origin?
So, what do you reference pedants have to say about all this? :)
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
You could argue that it wouldn't be appropriate for the Greek article to translate the reference section since those probably aren't the references the translator is working from. I'm fine with that. But shouldn't the English Wikipedia be cited as a reference? And shouldn't direct quotes, like the Old Norse text in this article, be sourced to their origin?
So, what do you reference pedants have to say about all this? :)
I can't find it at the moment, but there was a page on en: somewhere giving some guidelines for this that seemed reasonable enough to me:
1) Note somewhere at the bottom "This article or an earlier version is based on the English Wikipedia article [blah]." (Similar to the "originally from EB 1911" notices.)
2) Put somewhere in the references section, or possibly in another reference section after it, "The English Wikipedia version of this article cited the following sources: [...]."
-Mark