Slim writes:
Would you please post your correspondence with him on the Talk page, as you indicated you would, so that other editors can judge whether he was evasive in response to your enquiry? Your claims about Mitchell Bard as a source have implications for a number of Wikipedia articles in which he is quoted.
This makes no sense. Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia should consider sources as unreliable if one of our thousands of anonymous editors doesn't get instant gratification from a writer and scholar that they have never met? There are hundreds of respected researchers out there who do not waste their time answering e-mails from the millions of people on the Internet.
Having mommy buy you a computer and pay for your AOL account does not make you a colleague of any academic or writer, and does not mean that they have to answer you correspondance.
Every week on the Phyics and Chemistry Usenet newsgroups we have people (kooks, really) claim that mainstream chemistry and physics is wrong. Their proof? They sent their own letters, questions and theories to leading scientists, and the scientists did not respond.
Is this really proof that we shouldn't trust these sources? No, it is only proof that writers and researchers don't answer every demand they get from people with an AOL account.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
A reliable source will include a specific document and a page in that document. It is true that messing around emailing someone who has cited an ambiguous reference is generally pointless, in fact, may constitute original research. In this case we have a secondary source who may or may not have gotten his information from a reliable resource. It does no harm to contact him, might even get him involved with Wikipedia, but it would be wrong to make too much from his replies or lack thereof.
The question comes down much more to folks who made estimates and published them in some accessible and identifiable format.
Some folks write books that are quite derivative. With respect to Communist artocities Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a number of books of this nature. He is a political scientist, but when he comes up with a number, say for how many died in the Ukrainian famine, you can be sure he did not independently calculate the number but is quoting it from some other estimate. This makes citations to his work, not as good as to references where the nature of the estimate is more transparent.
Fred
From: Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 06:13:02 -0800 (PST) To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Let us not attack sources as unreliable without reason
Slim writes:
Would you please post your correspondence with him on the Talk page, as you indicated you would, so that other editors can judge whether he was evasive in response to your enquiry? Your claims about Mitchell Bard as a source have implications for a number of Wikipedia articles in which he is quoted.
This makes no sense. Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia should consider sources as unreliable if one of our thousands of anonymous editors doesn't get instant gratification from a writer and scholar that they have never met? There are hundreds of respected researchers out there who do not waste their time answering e-mails from the millions of people on the Internet.
Having mommy buy you a computer and pay for your AOL account does not make you a colleague of any academic or writer, and does not mean that they have to answer you correspondance.
Every week on the Phyics and Chemistry Usenet newsgroups we have people (kooks, really) claim that mainstream chemistry and physics is wrong. Their proof? They sent their own letters, questions and theories to leading scientists, and the scientists did not respond.
Is this really proof that we shouldn't trust these sources? No, it is only proof that writers and researchers don't answer every demand they get from people with an AOL account.
Robert (RK)
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Robert said:
Slim writes:
Would you please post your correspondence with him on the Talk page, as you indicated you would, so that other editors can judge whether he was evasive in response to your enquiry? Your claims about Mitchell Bard as a source have implications for a number of Wikipedia articles in which he is quoted.
This makes no sense. Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia should consider sources as unreliable if one of our thousands of anonymous editors doesn't get instant gratification from a writer and scholar that they have never met?
Firstly, a lot of the email content I've deleted constitutes an unacceptably personal attack. Secondly, the citation in question has been checked by me and others against the primary source on the UN site and we cannot find the figure that Bard attributes to it. I don't propose that we should class Bard as unreliable, but we must not claim as a fact that the figure Bard cites is a UN figure. We must attribute it to Bard and say that he claims that it originated in the source material, but this cannot be independently verified. And we quote the source document so that anyone who wants to can check that it is not there.
I believe Zero has found a copy of the UN mediator's report and will post about it on Monday, so hopefully the issue will be cleared up then. The thing is, we do have to be able to quote from reliable scholars and journalists about what they've read in reports, or else we'd have to spend all our time in archives digging up primary-source material ourselves. I personally find it hard to believe that Mitchell Bard would have misquoted the UN report, but we'll see soon enough.
Slim
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Secondly, the citation in question has been checked by me and others >against the primary source on the UN site and we cannot find the figure >that Bard attributes to it. I don't propose that we should class Bard as >unreliable, but we must not claim as a fact that the figure Bard cites is a >UN figure.
I believe Zero has found a copy of the UN mediator's report and will post about it on Monday, so hopefully the issue will be cleared up then. The thing is, we do have to be able to quote from reliable scholars and journalists about what they've read in reports, or else we'd have to spend all our time in archives digging up primary-source material ourselves.
Absolutely. But we should not ignore clear instances where an attempt to verify a citation to primary material fails. Scholars do make errors, indulge in interpretation, and so on, and we should allow for this. The safest way to cite secondary sources is cite the secondary source (Bard, in this case) as *our* source for a quote (the scholar himself) and note *his* claimed source. If the primary material becomes available it may still be a good idea to list the secondary source, but it is no longer of great importance. For this reason I have some problems with other estimates in the UN section which have clearly not been verified against a cited primary source. I have provided a UN source for one of the figures and when one of us finds time I hope we will be able to trace the primary source for all official estimates from UN sources.
Zero has found the document and has posted a very helpful analysis at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Estimates_of_the_Palestinian_Refugee_fligh... In summary, the 472,000 figure was indeed in the document, but Zero feels Bard may not have interpreted it accurately.
I agree that citing the original document is better than citing a secondary source, though others might argue that makes it hard for the reader and other editors to check that Wikipedia is quoting accurately.
Slim
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:47:34 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Absolutely. But we should not ignore clear instances where an attempt to verify a citation to primary material fails. Scholars do make errors, indulge in interpretation, and so on, and we should allow for this. The safest way to cite secondary sources is cite the secondary source (Bard, in this case) as *our* source for a quote (the scholar himself) and note *his* claimed source. If the primary material becomes available it may still be a good idea to list the secondary source, but it is no longer of great importance.
Zero has found the document and has posted a very helpful analysis at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Estimates_of_the_Palestinian_Refugee_fligh... In summary, the 472,000 figure was indeed in the document, but Zero feels Bard may not have interpreted it accurately.
I agree that citing the original document is better than citing a secondary source, though others might argue that makes it hard for the reader and other editors to check that Wikipedia is quoting accurately.
I do hope that nobody would make such an argument. We should always cite primary sources where at all possible, and this instance shows the importance of correctly handling secondary sources. It isn't so much a matter of a secondary source being intrinsically unreliable, it's the danger that we may replicate possible errors in secondary sources by citing an attribution to primary source as factual when, not having checked it, we do not know it to be factual.
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
SlimVirgin wrote: I agree that citing the original document is better than citing a secondary source, though others might argue that makes it hard for the reader and other editors to check that Wikipedia is quoting accurately.
I do hope that nobody would make such an argument. We should always cite primary sources where at all possible, and this instance shows the importance of correctly handling secondary sources.
Indeed. And the way *not* to handle them is to put caveats beside them stating (in so many words) that "we have not been able to verify these as truthful" (which, of course, we don't do). Doing so, of course, would be highly POV, since it would naturally create the impression that the sources were suspect and untrustworthy, rather than the actual case that certain editors are unwilling or unable to check the primary references. The fact that only a tiny number of seconday sources seem to even be candidates for this kind of treatment is interesting.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
SlimVirgin wrote: I agree that citing the original document is better than citing a secondary source, though others might argue that makes it hard for the reader and other editors to check that Wikipedia is quoting accurately.
I do hope that nobody would make such an argument. We should always cite primary sources where at all possible, and this instance shows the importance of correctly handling secondary sources.
Indeed. And the way *not* to handle them is to put caveats beside them stating (in so many words) that "we have not been able to verify these as truthful" (which, of course, we don't do).
But we must. If a secondary source cannot be verified it is useless. And to make it absolutely plain, I advocate that *all* secondary sources should be handled with care. The extremely loose wording of the citation was what caused the problems--it was attributed to a primary source with the appendage "cited by", while it was plain to all of us there we were not in a position to attribute the figure to the primary source as a matter of fact. That is how *not* to cite a secondary source--to give it the appearance of a citation of a primary source. Using a secondary source, we must take care to attribute the opinion (or estimate, or whatever) *to the secondary source*, appending any claimed primary sources to aid the user in his own research. We can state as a matter of fact that the secondary source says such-and-such and claims that this is sourced from so-and-so. Unless we know for a fact that so-and-so also says such-and-such (in which case we wouldn't neet the secondary source) we cannot say "so-and-so says such-and-such, as cited by Sec & Ary Sauce."
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
I do hope that nobody would make such an argument. We should always cite primary sources where at all possible, and this instance shows the importance of correctly handling secondary sources.
Indeed. And the way *not* to handle them is to put caveats beside them stating (in so many words) that "we have not been able to verify these as truthful" (which, of course, we don't do).
But we must. If a secondary source cannot be verified it is useless.
Nonsense. *Your* inability or unwillingness to verify it does not mean it is useless.
And to make it absolutely plain, I advocate that *all* secondary sources should be handled with care.
There are thousands on Wikipedia; perhaps tens of thousands. Go for it.
The extremely loose wording of the citation was what caused the problems--it was attributed to a primary source with the appendage "cited by", while it was plain to all of us there we were not in a position to attribute the figure to the primary source as a matter of fact. That is how *not* to cite a secondary source--to give it the appearance of a citation of a primary source. Using a secondary source, we must take care to attribute the opinion (or estimate, or whatever) *to the secondary source*, appending any claimed primary sources to aid the user in his own research. We can state as a matter of fact that the secondary source says such-and-such and claims that this is sourced from so-and-so. Unless we know for a fact that so-and-so also says such-and-such (in which case we wouldn't neet the secondary source) we cannot say "so-and-so says such-and-such, as cited by Sec & Ary Sauce."
I don't recall seeing other secondary citations handled this way in other Wikipedia articles, or indeed, even in this Wikipedia article. It was only this particular secondary source which seemed to need this treatment.
Jay.
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050125 03:43]:
JAY JG said:
The fact that only a tiny number of seconday sources seem to even be candidates for this kind of treatment is interesting.
*All* secondary sources must be handled with caution.
Yes. Particularly in the increased push for more and better referencing. I see nothing wrong with listing a secondary source, but there must be some accepted format for listing a secondary source with the primary source it points to.
Even though it's susceptible to abuse by the querulous, I think it's important that the following continue to be the case:
1. any assertion in an article can be questioned with a request for a reference; 2. the quality of a reference can be questioned.
This should *expecially* be the case in controversial areas.
(I try to cover my arse preemptively, e.g. in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System#X.Org_and_XFree86 - that second paragraph summarises history of recent bitter memory. You bet I'm going to reference it sentence by sentence to the point where the described sequence of event couldn't reasonably be disputed.)
Something about this needs to go on [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]], though we should probably thrash it out here for a while first ;-)
- d.
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com JAY JG said:
The fact that only a tiny number of seconday sources seem to even be candidates for this kind of treatment is interesting.
*All* secondary sources must be handled with caution.
Handled with caution is fine, specific ones singled out for special treatment is not.
Jay.
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050125 04:23]:
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
JAY JG said:
The fact that only a tiny number of seconday sources seem to even be candidates for this kind of treatment is interesting.
*All* secondary sources must be handled with caution.
Handled with caution is fine, specific ones singled out for special treatment is not.
Bjorn's handling of it may have been clumsy (and that username raises an eyebrow), but I think the essential point he was trying to make still stands.
(Also, you both seem to be assuming less than complete good faith on the part of the other. I really don't see that as eing the case for either of you. I see no reason this can't be worked out in a mutually satisfactory manner now and for the future.)
I see no reason why each of the thousands of secondary references shouldn't have attention paid to them in principle. We have a reference checking project, after all.
- d.
From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au
*All* secondary sources must be handled with caution.
Handled with caution is fine, specific ones singled out for special treatment is not.
Bjorn's handling of it may have been clumsy (and that username raises an eyebrow), but I think the essential point he was trying to make still stands.
(Also, you both seem to be assuming less than complete good faith on the part of the other.
Bjorn created his Userid for a particular kind of advocacy, and has used it for nothing else. In the case of this article, he has produced a large number of extremely high estimates of dubious provenance from many pro-Palestinian sites, without questioning them at all. In others he has considered blogs, Letters to the Editor of the Guardian newspaper, even Holocaust Denial sites as valid references, but somehow thought this particular reference (which happened to be lower than he liked, and from a source he didn't like) needed an overwhelming amount of scrutiny. I think lack of good faith is entirely warranted in this case.
I really don't see that as eing the case for either of you. I see no reason this can't be worked out in a mutually satisfactory manner now and for the future.)
I can work in a satifactory way with anyone who follows Wikipedia policy.
I see no reason why each of the thousands of secondary references shouldn't have attention paid to them in principle. We have a reference checking project, after all.
A great idea, in principle.
Jay.
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050125 05:19]: From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au
I see no reason why each of the thousands of secondary references shouldn't have attention paid to them in principle. We have a reference checking project, after all.
A great idea, in principle.
As I said, it's susceptible to abuse by the querulous. But that's an editor problem. How far is too far? At what point do we cull querulousness without forestalling questioning of a reference seriously considered (in good faith) to be dubious?
- d.
From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au
I see no reason why each of the thousands of secondary references
shouldn't
have attention paid to them in principle. We have a reference checking project, after all.
A great idea, in principle.
As I said, it's susceptible to abuse by the querulous. But that's an editor problem. How far is too far? At what point do we cull querulousness without forestalling questioning of a reference seriously considered (in good faith) to be dubious?
I don't know how to quantify the general rule, and seriously doubt that it could be quantified. Suffice it to say, however, that when editors are not editing in good faith, this problem will arise. In the case of the particular citation we have been discussing, the "abuse by the querulous" line was crossed days ago, and this was borne out when the primary sources were finally located.
Jay.
I've occasionally written "this information has not been independently verified" after a statement made by a source I regard as dodgy or self-interested, but this shouldn't be done often because all sources can be questioned to some degree; and then, as Jay says, it starts to look POV that only certain sources are picked on for that degree of scrutiny.
I feel Bjorn did not come to the mailing list with entirely clean hands in this matter. He has previously used quite questionable sources for other edits himself; he accused Bard, based on nothing solid, of not even having read the UN progress report; and he implied that Bard had been evasive when, in fact, Bard had simply not answered Bjorn's second e-mail. Bjorn also did not tell Bard the information was for Wikipedia, which I feel he should have done. Also, once Zero had obtained the report and suggested a way to word the reference to make it accurate, and Tony had edited that onto the page, Bjorn decided to create an entirely new category, and moved the information out of the UN section and into a new section called "Incomplete estimates" (even though Tony's edit made it clear the estimate was incomplete, and the words "progress report" imply that anyway.) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estimates_of_the_Palestinian_Refug...
This begins to look like POV pushing and not just careful scrutiny of source material.
Slim
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:28:51 -0500, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
And the way *not* to handle them is to put caveats beside them stating (in so many words) that "we have not been able to verify these as truthful" (which, of course, we don't do). Doing so, of course, would be highly POV, since it would naturally create the impression that the sources were suspect and untrustworthy, rather than the actual case that certain editors are unwilling or unable to check the primary references.
From: slimvirgin@gmail.com
I feel Bjorn did not come to the mailing list with entirely clean hands in this matter. He has previously used quite questionable sources for other edits himself; he accused Bard, based on nothing solid, of not even having read the UN progress report; and he implied that Bard had been evasive when, in fact, Bard had simply not answered Bjorn's second e-mail. Bjorn also did not tell Bard the information was for Wikipedia, which I feel he should have done. Also, once Zero had obtained the report and suggested a way to word the reference to make it accurate, and Tony had edited that onto the page, Bjorn decided to create an entirely new category, and moved the information out of the UN section and into a new section called "Incomplete estimates" (even though Tony's edit made it clear the estimate was incomplete, and the words "progress report" imply that anyway.) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estimates_of_the_Palestinian_Refug...
This begins to look like POV pushing and not just careful scrutiny of source material.
Indeed it does. At the same time Bjorn was criticizing this cite, and basically accusing it of being false, he (in another article) had no problem whatsoever using this reference to a *blog* http://misnomer.dru.ca/2003/02/11/a_coalition_of_the_willing.html (i.e. a dubious, tertiary source) as proof of whatever point he was trying to make.
Jay.
Concern arises in the cases of secondary sources which take particular points of view. Such sources marshall evidence which supports that point of view. Being "unwilling or unable to check the primary references" applies when those references are relatively easy to locate, not the case here.
Fred
From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:28:51 -0500 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Let us not attack sources as unreliable without reason
Indeed. And the way *not* to handle them is to put caveats beside them stating (in so many words) that "we have not been able to verify these as truthful" (which, of course, we don't do). Doing so, of course, would be highly POV, since it would naturally create the impression that the sources were suspect and untrustworthy, rather than the actual case that certain editors are unwilling or unable to check the primary references. The fact that only a tiny number of seconday sources seem to even be candidates for this kind of treatment is interesting.
Jay.
Robert said:
Slim writes:
Would you please post your correspondence with him on the Talk page, as you indicated you would, so that other editors can judge whether he was evasive in response to your enquiry? Your claims about Mitchell Bard as a source have implications for a number of Wikipedia articles in which he is quoted.
This makes no sense. Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia should consider sources as unreliable if one of our thousands of anonymous editors doesn't get instant gratification from a writer and scholar that they have never met?
Firstly, a lot of the email content I've deleted constitutes an unacceptably personal attack. Secondly, the citation in question has been checked by me and others against the primary source on the UN site and we cannot find the figure that Bard attributes to it.
You couldn't find the figure, because you didn't find the documents themselves. That's quite a different thing, as I pointed out on a number of occasions. Zero was kind enough to find the documents, and it turns out the 472,000 figure is in there, and does indeed refer to the estimated refugees as of October 1949, which is pretty much what my wording of the footnote stated.
It is completely unacceptable, in my view, to add caveats to cited references as you did, stating "Attempts to verify Bard's attribution to the UN Mediator's report have so far failed (http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ab14d4aafc...)", or as Bjorn did ("Attempts to verify Bard's attribution to the UN Mediator's report have so far failed: see Talk:Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948."), simply because you are unwilling or unable to expend the necessary energy to look up the primary sources. Moreover, telling people to refer to Talk: pages is bad form, particulary (but not exclusively) because Talk: pages change all the time, and are often archived.
Jay.
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050125 02:53]:
It is completely unacceptable, in my view, to add caveats to cited references as you did, stating "Attempts to verify Bard's attribution to the UN Mediator's report have so far failed (http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ab14d4aafc...)", or as Bjorn did ("Attempts to verify Bard's attribution to the UN Mediator's report have so far failed: see Talk:Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948."), simply because you are unwilling or unable to expend the necessary energy to look up the primary sources. Moreover, telling people to refer to Talk: pages is bad form, particulary (but not exclusively) because Talk: pages change all the time, and are often archived.
However, you didn't have the primary reference either, which would have avoided a great many problems.
In general, questioning a reference shouldn't provoke this level of defensiveness. It did turn out to differ in small but important ways from the original citation.
There must be an NPOV way of dealign with secondary references like this - of indicating one is quoting a secondary reference and naming the reference they claim.
- d.
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:09:40 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
or as Bjorn did ("Attempts to verify Bard's attribution to the UN Mediator's report have so far failed: see Talk:Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948."), simply because you are unwilling or unable to expend the necessary energy to look up the primary sources. Moreover, telling people to refer to Talk: pages is bad form, particulary (but not exclusively) because Talk: pages change all the time, and are often archived.
However, you didn't have the primary reference either, which would have avoided a great many problems.
In general, questioning a reference shouldn't provoke this level of defensiveness. It did turn out to differ in small but important ways from the original citation.
The important differenence was how Mitchell Bard presented it in his article and how Jayjg wanted it presented in Wikipedia against how I and other editors wanted it represented in Wikipedia. We all guessed that the figure came from Count Folke Bernadotte's report from September 16, 1948 but we were mislead due to Mitchell Bard's sloppy referencing. He dated the publishing of the report to 18 September, 1948 while the real date was 18 October, 1948. Me and other editors found it of utmost importance to mention that the report was written long before the war was over and that it therefore was incomplete - anyone who does not have an excellent knowledge of the Palestine war would be fooled by it. Jayjg found it unfitting to tell the reader that. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estimates_of_the_Palestinian_Refug...
Oh, and there is more on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Estimates_of_the_Palestinian_Refugee_fligh...) that reveals what a dishonest, clueless propagandaist Mitchell Bard is. I don't think Wikipedia should mirror his words. That'll be all for me on this subject. Sincere thanks to all who offered their input, and since apologises to all for wasting your time. And FYI, Björn Lindqvist is my real life name. So much for anonymous internet e-mailers.
From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050125 02:53]:
It is completely unacceptable, in my view, to add caveats to cited references as you did, stating "Attempts to verify Bard's attribution to the UN Mediator's report have so far failed
(http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ab14d4aafc...)",
or as Bjorn did ("Attempts to verify Bard's attribution to the UN Mediator's report have so far failed: see Talk:Estimates of the
Palestinian
Refugee flight of 1948."), simply because you are unwilling or unable to expend the necessary energy to look up the primary sources. Moreover, telling people to refer to Talk: pages is bad form, particulary (but not exclusively) because Talk: pages change all the time, and are often archived.
However, you didn't have the primary reference either, which would have avoided a great many problems.
Yes, of course, if we had the primary references everything would have been quite simple. Well, except, of course, in cases like the LaRouche articles SlimVirgin mentions, where apparently the LaRouche supporters there accuse you of lying until you actually scan the documents and post them somehow.
In general, questioning a reference shouldn't provoke this level of defensiveness.
With all due respect, I think you have it backwards, David. In general, citations, particularly explicit ones like this, shouldn't provoke this level of skepticism and caveats.
It did turn out to differ in small but important ways from the original citation.
But its treatment in the article did not, regardless of what the secondary source was stating. The number was correct, it was stated as interim, it was made clear in the footnote that the refugee flight was not over, and that many more refugees fled after that. The treatment after the original source was located differed little.
There must be an NPOV way of dealign with secondary references like this - of indicating one is quoting a secondary reference and naming the reference they claim.
There was, and it was done. It was only the original caveats that were POV.
Jay.
David Gerard wrote
In general, questioning a reference shouldn't provoke this level of defensiveness. It did turn out to differ in small but important ways from the original citation.
Is it me, or is this thread and its predecessor(s) illustrating something quite different from what we were being told? The proposition 'cite original sources and all will be well' seems hardly to be sustained by all this.
Like it says under the edit box, citing sources is supposed to help others to verify postings. Unless it is done with exactly that in mind (easy access, amongst other things), doesn't it mostly displace debate?
Charles
JAY JG said:
It is completely unacceptable, in my view, to add caveats to cited references as you did, stating "Attempts to verify Bard's attribution to the UN Mediator's report have so far failed (http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ab14d4aafc... or as Bjorn did ("Attempts to verify Bard's attribution to the UN Mediator's report have so far failed: see Talk:Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948."), simply because you are unwilling or unable to expend the necessary energy to look up the primary sources. Moreover, telling people to refer to Talk: pages is bad form, particulary (but not exclusively) because Talk: pages change all the time, and are often archived.
If I see a reference in an encyclopedia I expect it to have been verified by the author of the article, or else the author should state if he has attempted to verify it and been unsuccessful. This is important information about the quality of the citation and must not be omitted.
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
If I see a reference in an encyclopedia I expect it to have been verified by the author of the article, or else the author should state if he has attempted to verify it and been unsuccessful. This is important information about the quality of the citation and must not be omitted.
Your expectations are not in line with reality. Encyclopedia articles use secondary references all the time, and do not insist that the author of the article check every primary reference. Historians, scientists, etc. are quoted all the time.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
If I see a reference in an encyclopedia I expect it to have been verified by the author of the article, or else the author should state if he has attempted to verify it and been unsuccessful. This is important information about the quality of the citation and must not be omitted.
Your expectations are not in line with reality. Encyclopedia articles use secondary references all the time, and do not insist that the author of the article check every primary reference. Historians, scientists, etc. are quoted all the time.
I'm not too familiar with standard practice in encyclopedias, but in journal and conferences papers, it's considered fairly standard to cite the secondary source if that's where the quote or other information came from, even if the secondary source itself cites a primary source---citing the primary source is taken to be an assertion that you've personally gotten the information from the primary source, or at least verified that it's there. If it were discussed in running text (as something particularly murky or controversial often would be), it would be with phrasing along the lines of "Smith (1997) places the population of Moscow during this period at 2,321, citing a census of 1854 consistent with various other reports." If the census of 1854 is completely undisputed, then it could be simply mentioned directly, but the citation would still be something like "The census of 1854 placed the population of Moscow at 2,321 (Smith 1997)"---citing the census itself would be inappropriate unless you've personally looked it up.
Quotations seem often to be unattributed, but IMO this is also a somewhat undesirable practice, especially given how many quotations are actually improperly attributed by hearsay.
-Mark
Delirium (delirium@hackish.org) [050125 05:26]:
I'm not too familiar with standard practice in encyclopedias, but in journal and conferences papers, it's considered fairly standard to cite the secondary source if that's where the quote or other information came from, even if the secondary source itself cites a primary source---citing the primary source is taken to be an assertion that you've personally gotten the information from the primary source, or at least verified that it's there. If it were discussed in running text (as something particularly murky or controversial often would be), it would be with phrasing along the lines of "Smith (1997) places the population of Moscow during this period at 2,321, citing a census of 1854 consistent with various other reports." If the census of 1854 is completely undisputed, then it could be simply mentioned directly, but the citation would still be something like "The census of 1854 placed the population of Moscow at 2,321 (Smith 1997)"---citing the census itself would be inappropriate unless you've personally looked it up.
That looks like a very good way of dealing with it to me. What's a concise format for footnoted reference use?
(I'm asking this with a view to something to add to [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]]. Being mindful of [[m:Instruction creep]], of course.)
- d.