text:
Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 5

Citing stuff in press
(William M. Connolley 12:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I'm not sure this is truly the right place for this question but... what is the position with regard to citing articles in press? My understanding is that for the science articles, wiki presents... well, not quite sure how to describe it, but "established science" (with contrary views were necessary). Do theories only supported by in press articles count? I would argue not. See the most recent addition to ice age.

 * I would argue that articles which have been accepted for publication and have been made publically available in some form prior to formal publication (e.g. preprint servers, author's website, etc.) should be given as much credibility as formal publication itself. Of course, obviously I am a biased since I made the changes to ice age article and am a personal fan of Peter Huybers' work.
 * Dragons flight 18:34, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the editor should just be patient and wait until the item is published -- that way, readers will know that if they want to track the item down, they can, as soon as they want. I think this is important both as a convenience to readers, and to comply fully with the verifiability policy, Slrubenstein 15:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I provided a link to the preprint of the article appearing on the author's website. It's not like it isn't publicly available.  Dragons flight 16:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Good. But I think our discussion has to focus on general rules or guidelines, not specific cases. Slrubenstein 16:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well fine. In the general case, I would think that the publicly available work of any reputable scientist, once slated for publication, should be reasonable for citation.  There is certainly no problem with citing "in press" papers in the research I do.  It is probably also worth noting that nearly all important physics and astronomy papers appear as preprints prior to formal publication and many other sciences are moving in that direction.  If you disagree with some part of this as being a reasonable general policy, I would appreciate it if you could be specific about why.  Dragons flight 16:40, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Just a note: something published in a peer-reviewed journal is not necessarily "accepted science". It is something that was judged to be sufficiently of interest, and sounded sufficiently serious, to be accepted for publication. Before going to the status of "accepted science", it is in general necessary that other authors publish results going in the same direction. (This of course depends on the particular area – natural sciences may need a number convergent experiments, while in mathematics, it is sufficient that a proof is judged to be sound for a theorem to be established.) David.Monniaux 17:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 22:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Just to be clear... I'm not attacking Dragons Flight (and apologies to him if it looked like I was), and indeed he did provide a link to the paper. My point was partly what I said and partly what DM has just said: the difference between published and accepted science. OTOH "published" is easy to judge and "accepted" might be subject to dispute. As I understand it (but can't find, so perahps I'm wrong) wiki does have some kind of policy that only accepted stuff is suitable.

Quoting of unknown pressure groups
Lately, I have come across a number of edits which included quotations (sometimes unattributed) from various groups which had a very specific point of view on a question. Of course, articles must represent all points of views, and I do not dispute that.

However, it appears to me that the value of a reference should be assessed on four aspects:
 * 1) Quality of the analysis: are there any glaring factual errors? (e.g. a study placing Italy in Africa should probably not be cited as reference)
 * 2) Expertise: is the author a recognizable institution working in the field? (e.g. a study by an obscure self-employed physicist, not published in a peer-reviewed journal, does not have the same value as a study by researcher in an internationally known institution publishing in a first-class scientific journal, even though the latter may contain mistakes)
 * 3) Identifiability: is the source traced to a clearly identifiable person, institution, publication, or group? Nowadays, anybody can start a "group" or "institute" and have Web pages, so an "institute" may actually be a handful of persons. That is why I much prefer it when the source has its own well-documented page on Wikipedia. Surely, it matters a lot, when reading the opinion of a source, to know whether the source is a reputed human rights organization, a personal project, or an institute affiliated with or funded by a political party or religious organization.
 * 4) Representativity: does the group represent a sizeable part of public opinion?  To me, it seems that quotes from mostly unknown pressure groups are a subtle workaround of the policy on weasel words, the policy of citing sources, and the policy against citing one's personal opinion.

It seems to me that these aspects are too often ignored, and that some contributors push too much irrelevant opinion quotes in the guise of NPOV. To draw a parallel, the article on George W. Bush does not, and should not, contain opinion pieces from every left-wing group on Earth saying that Bush is stupid and that his policies are a disaster; I do not see why this should be different for other articles.

In addition, I think that, all too often, sources are improperly attributed. For instance, the opinion of a single judge in a lower court in a country is not the opinion of the government of that country. The opinion of some people invited at a conference organized by institution X is not the official point of view of association X. Etc.

I think that all this should be reflected in official Wikipedia policy. David.Monniaux 11:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You make very good points and I agree with substantially all of it. But I welcome this kind of debate as being on an entirely higher level of argument than arguing whether we should have sources and properly cited facts at all. I think your criteria above for deciding on the quality of a source is very good, and one that meets more of those criteria should be preferred over one that meets less. Maybe others will have some idea on improving the criteria, and maybe we can even create a separate page for references criteria, start with the above and build a consensus for ways to distinguish between more respected sources and less.  It will of course nevr be perfect, but you have made a great start. - Taxman 13:55, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

See above. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:23, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Disagreement with policy
Sorry, Phils, but you are wrong:

I most violently disagree with some suggestions on the Cite sources page. Consider the following:

Writing from own knowledge

 * If you consult an external source while writing an article, citing it is basic intellectual honesty. More than that, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject—you won't be around forever to answer questions.

In my opinion, actively searching for authoritative references is intellectual dishonesty. Such finds belong in Further reading sections, as they are technically not sources, because they weren't used in writing the article. If one writes from their own knowledge, they are the source: anything else is further reading. We might as well turn Wikipedia in a link list if this policy is to be applied.
 * You are in effect suggesting that readers violate the "no original research policy." Editors simply cannot be the source for articles.  I think you misunderstand the policy and also how people come to know things.  What the policy means by "writing from their own knowledge" is not that people are writing from their own unmediated experience, but rather that people somewhere along the line learned something, and are not putting it into an article.  The point of the policy is that such editors should go back and find the sources that their knowledge comes from, and provide them in the article.  There is nothing at all dishonest about this. slrubenstein|talk 17:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you mean, if an author does not use a reference, but writes from personal knowledge and then adds a book they know about. Is that what you meant? Yes that is not proper, and does seem to be condoned in the above quoted text. How about instead saying If you could write from your own knowledge, you should know.... I am very concerned though when you say "actively searching for authoritative references is intellectual dishonesty". Doing that and writing facts and citing them from that source is ideal referencing, so I don't get how you can say that. I assume you did not mean that quote literally, so what did you mean? - Taxman 17:52, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Learn more about the topic

 * This applies even when the information is currently undisputed — even if there's no dispute right now, someone might come along in five years and want to dispute, verify, or learn more about a topic.

Emphasis on learn more about the topic. Thus, "Further reading", not a source. Besides, take a look at some of our featured articles about influential people. Now picture the size of the reference sections if this directive were to be religiously applied for every qualitative statement about the subject of the article. Wikipedia, as stated before, would become a link list.
 * All sources are "further reading" as well. To specifically say something is "further reading" means it was not a direct source.  To say something is a "Work Cited" means it was a direct source and could be consulted for further reading.  What kind of person would see a citation for a source and conclude that the source is not worth reading if they want to learn more? slrubenstein|talk 17:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adding citations by non-authors

 * Adding citations to external sources, especially for information in articles not already backed by citations, is also a good way to enhance even articles you didn't write.

Now this is just horrid. This policy is likely to lead to misunderstandings and is dishonest (how can a reference added by someone who is not even the author of the article be a source). It is only applicable in the limited eventuality of an unsourced, questionable statement that needs an inline citation. There's no way a third person can just add a book they feel covers the subject as a source to an article they haven't written. Phils 00:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * How is this dishonest? If I read an article and see no need to change it because the article already includes stuff I think is important, I shouldn't edit it.  But if I know of more sources to support the article, I most definitely should add them.  Frankly, Phils, it seems to me that you fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia.  None of our articles have "authors" -- the author is the entire wiki community.  We hope all editors will make many contributions, based on what they have to contribute,  Every article is thus the product of an ongoing collaboration, including a collaboration with anonymous users.  It is natural that some people will add sources for things they themselves didn't write -- because it simply does not matter who writes what.  If you disagree with this policy, then just go away because not only will this policy never change, it is at the heart of wikipedia.  But if you accept this policy, I just do not understand your objection to the text you quote.  It doesn't make sense. slrubenstein|talk 17:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand that no one should be given credit for writing an article. I don't see how you derive the of adding so-called sources to article when they weren't even used to write a document from the collaborative editing spirit/policy central to Wikipedia. A source is by definition a document that information was taken from and then incorporated into a new one, not a document readers should refer to if they want additional information. Phils 18:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You still do not understand Wikipedia, and it sounds like you do not understand sources. Sources are not as you define them only those works originally consulted in writing an article.  It is very, very common that as scholars write an article -- say for publication in a peer-reviewed journal -- they go through many drafts.  During this time, a colleague may direct them to a source, or they may discover one.  These sources are regularly included in scholarly articles and for a number of reasons: the more sources, the more authoritative the claim; scholars want to give credit to others who have had the same idea (even if two people came up with that idea independently); journal articles do not distinguish between works cited and further reading, so an author wants to cite as many sources as are directly relevant as an aid to readers.  This is common practice in writing scholarly articles.  If this is true for scholarly articles, where one author may revise an article ten times before submitting it for publication, it is even more true of Wikipedia, where thousands of people revise any given article thousands of times.  Every revision is an opportunity to provide another source.  All that is important is that the source be directly relevant and confirm the claim made in the article.  I'll give just one example of where this is not only allowable, but necessary.  Say someone writes an article and uses a college textbook as a source.  Okay, this is an acceptable source, but not the ideal source.  Someone comes along later, sees the textbook source, but knows the journal article where the information or interpretation or explanation originally came from.  Editor two, for the sake of improving the article, should definitely add (or jsut change) the source.  This is in no way intellectually dishonest -- as a matter of fact it is very honest because it honestly represents the way articles are written.  If you think it is dishonest it can only be because you do not know how articles are written (here at Wikipedia, or for scholarly journals). Take a look at any major journal -- Semiotica, Diacritics, Critical Inquiry, whatever -- and I assure you, in any given article you can bet that many of the citations and references were added after the first draft of the article was written, and were not consulted while the author was writing the first draft.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk  18:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, I appreciate your comments, but find your constant attempts at passing me off as an ignorant unable to understand Wikipedia (whatever that means) rather insulting. I read an average several journal articles per week, and in every article I know, when a specific claim is made, a reference indicating the source for said claim is inserted (e.g.: Richardson[Ri17] demonstrates). I don't know what kind of journals you read, but I consider it rather bad form to simply add a document you know contains proof/evidence of your claim to your documents to cover your back in case someone questions your claims if it wasn't actually used in the making of the document. I believe a distinction should be made between actual references that were used in the making of a document and reading aids for potential readers/reviewers ("Further reading"). Phils 19:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I can understand/judge you only based on what you write here. My remarks address what you have written.  You write "in every article I know, when a specific claim is made, a reference indicating the" but you do not know when in the process of writing the article that citations was put in.  I never claimed that you do not read journal articles.  It doesn't matter to me whether you read one or one hundred journal articles a week.  My point only has to do with how journal articles are written -- and based on what you have written here, I really think you do not understand how they are written.  Whether you know/admit it or not, many citations (such as your example, or hypothetical) are discovered and put in after the text was written.  You are the one insulting the scholars who do this, following standard, accepted practice.  You may not like it, but this is how things are done.  And if you want, you can argue all you want about Wikipedia policy.  I suspect that most people, like I, will either not understand or simply not accept your argument.  And if you start off saying that you "most violently disagree" -- if you want to bring "violence" (even symbolically) into your own comments, you should be prepared to take what you dish out.  If you want to violently disagree, expect those who disagree with you to respond bluntly, or even harshly.  Your words invite it.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk  19:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I find it exquisitely ironic that your attitude suggesting a rather strong belief that you have profound understanding of the workings of both Wikipedia and scholarly discussion is in such drastic contrast with your obvious inability to distinguish opinions from the person behind them. If I disagree with some wording, it does not invite you to suggest I am a simple minded idiot. As far as I know, there is no Wikipedia policy that is not open for discussion. I wanted to express my disagreement with the way practices that were perceived by the editor of the Cite sources as being standard or self-evident were worded. Ridiculing my words by inferring that I think I can single-handedly change established policy is a grotesque ad hominem. Your comparison with the scholarly world is invalid, because, as you pointed out yourself, Wikipedia is unique: we have little professional copy-editors, and I maintain that encouraging people to add sources could lead to misunderstanding. The example I gave is an exception: it is a very specific reference to a certain document: a reviewer can be certain that Richardson proved the Slrubenstein conjecture in his paper On Slrubenstein singularities. This is not the case for most references in Wikipedia, which are not inline, but are simply added to a list at the end of the article. Phils 19:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I never called you a simple-minded idiot. Perhaps if you read my comments in the spirit in which they were written -- a serious attempt to explain to you not so much that I disagree with your criticism, but rather that I see no foundation for the assumptions your criticism is based on.  I never said that the policy is not open for discussion, nor that you should not join the discussion.  But discussions go in both directions, and if you want to raise a potential problem, you had better be prepared for the possibility that others will disagree with you.  Moreover, I was not just rejecting your critique; I was explaining why I disagree.  The comparison to scholarly articles is an analogy to illustrate my point.  Even if journal articles were not written the way they are, I would still stand by my criticism of your view.  That journal articles are written the way they are, however, certainly illustrates that my point is not idiosyncratic.  Whether sources are cited inline (as they are in some Wikipedia articles) or not, there is nothing dishonest about someone adding sources to an existing article.  You seem to think that people look at the list of sources as a list of texts that were consulted before writing the article.  You claim that you understand that Wikipedia articles do not have just one author, but my point was that the notion of an "original" article doesn't make sense at Wikipedia, so the notion of sources as being only those that were consulted before the wrticle was written makes no sense.  Sources are lists of texts added "as" an article is being written, and since Wikipedia articles are always works in progress, anytime someone adds a source it is "as" the article is being written.  Now, I never suggested that I thought you believed you could singly- handed change Wikipedia policy -- for you to think I claimed this only means you did not understand what I wrote.  I share responsibility for this, and hope that in this comment I am being clearer.  In any event, I have made no ad hominem remarks.  The only words of yours that I ridicule -- openly and proudly -- is your desire to be violent.  For me to point out your own words does not mean I am veing violent in return, it just means I am being honest. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indicating fact sources
I'm (mostly) with Slrubenstein here, with the caveat that we still need a great deal of improvement in how we indicate what facts are sourced from where. Also, I'm not sure that current scholarly practice for papers with traditional authorship can be anything more than suggestive of how Wikipedia should work. Wikipedia is something new, and I think we are still feeling our way around to the correct way to handle this issue. 18 months ago, there were almost no citations in the English-language Wikipedia (the German Wikipedia was definitely way ahead of us in this respect, and probably still is). My suspicion is that we will never get to the point where the majority of our articles are really well-sourced, but I think Slrubenstein is roughly correct about how we can head that way, and I'd hope that the articles on what would generally be thought of as scholarly topics can reach a standard comparable to what is expected in academia. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:07, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Later updates and cumulative referencing
OK everybody try to remain calm ;-)

Regarding Phils concern about the intellectual dishonesty of adding references after-the-fact, consider the following. Suppose I see an article and I agree with everything that is written, but I see that the article is badly in need of references, (since none are given). Now I happen to know several references which support all the facts and assertions made in the article. What should I do?

Suppose I decide to entirely rewrite the article, using these references, and adding them to a references section at the end. It turns out, however, that I'm a terrible writer. And a subsequent editor (or editors) comes along and decides that although everything I've written is perfectly correct and very well referenced, the original editor or editors were really better writers (and just as correct) and gradually change my turgid prose into the elegant bit of writing that was there, before I laid my grubby little paws on it — except that they decide to keep my wonderfully appropriate and authoritative references. Now is there anything dishonest or inappropriate about any of the above? Were the references used in the writing of the article?

Keep in mind that this process is entirely public and complete histories of all edits are available for all to view, so that many other editors, including perhaps the original ones, may have been watching over this process, and silently consenting to all that has gone on.

Now consider an alternative scenario. Suppose instead of completely rewriting the article I decide simply to create a references section and add the references to it. Is this situation any different? I think Phils is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that this is dishonest because the references weren't used in writing the article. But I think one could argue that they were used, namely by me, in the last rewrite of the article. One could argue that I have "rewritten" the article (albeit in a modest way) and I used the references in this rewriting. Or that I have "used" the references to fact-check the article.

I see nothing particularly wrong with any of the above hypothetical edits. The alternative view would seem to imply that no one (including the original author) could ever add references after the fact.

Paul August ☎ 21:37, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes write first, cite later
Yeah, yeah, but the key (I think) is that all Wikipedia articles are works in progress, collective works in progress, at that, and that there is nothing at all dishonest about writing a sentence first and coming up with a citation for it afterwards. This is absolutely normal. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:56, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Personally, I agree with Jmabel, Paul August and Slrubestein over this issue, and (with respect) disagree with Phils over his thoughts on referencing. I'm not going to go into the whole "violently disagree" issue, as that's just a figure of speech, IMO. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of a reference
A running theme in this talk page seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what "references" mean. In actual professional publications, they are often added after the the paper was written (sometimes suggested by referees), often indicate further reading rather than sources used to write an article (and, in fact, the two "categories" are largely indistinguishable...a good source is often good further reading, and vice versa). The only thing professional scholars regard as dishonest is not citing something you used; citing something you didn't "use" but believe is related and helpful for readers is not only acceptable but is actively encouraged. Don't base your understanding of referencing on high-school homework assignments. —Steven G. Johnson 20:31, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Professional scholars are also expected to know what sources state contradict what they are stating. Sometimes they are writing something which contradicts something previous and will specifically mention the issue in the text.  Sometimes they may include a contradictory reference to show they are aware of the topic even if they don't deal with that issue (or it may be peripheral to the present work).  ...and sometimes a reference might not be removed although the text which used the reference is removed during editing before publication.  (SEWilco 22:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC))
 * In Wikipedia, sometimes references have a life of their own. I just saw one article with "See also" containing links to a wide assortment of related WP articles.  They are all related to the article in various ways.  What I've seen happen is such baskets of references accumulate until they contain subgroups and they can be rearranged to make more sense.  Some changes will be done by editors and some by experts.  However, it is helpful for there to be supporting material of various types both for readers and WP editors.  (SEWilco 22:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Update what you know
Considering how often "what everyone knows" is not true, it is a good idea to check what you know. References should at least include enough for an equal to confirm information. As Wikipedia is intended for a wide range of readers, some references to introductory materials on the topic is a courtesy to less experienced readers. In Wikipedia, references to general information might be provided by Wikilinks to articles. However, often an expert forgets that not everyone knows the background material; readers which have to dig to find information to understand something can help others by adding needed info. For that matter, I had to wade through the above discussion to figure out the issues -- and added subheadings to help future readers. (SEWilco 22:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC))

It's not there if it isn't sourced
There's a simple answer about this. The primary wikipedia "process" isn't writing, it's editing. Whilst a source may not have been used in writing, it will have been used in fact checking which is done by looking for a good source for each fact. If no source can be found then the fact should, according to policy, be deleted. This means that it's the fact checker (the one who provides the source) rather than the author who can take responsibility for the fact and who used the source. The original writing should rather, even if used unchanged, be seen as a "useful hint" for the final editor about what to look for in the different sources. That may not be intuitive to everybody, but it is intellectually clear and honest once you understand it... Mozzerati 14:45, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

Digital Object Identifiers
Should digital object identifier (DOI) be mentioned?

Template is at Template:Doi

produces: (SEWilco 00:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Question 1: Removing citations
What about edits that remove citations? Especially citations to government admission of actions which the editor disputed took place. and which become part of edit war.
 * Usually the edit war is not over the citation per se as the content; resolve the problem concerning content, and the citation problem will get solved too. Also, I think in most cases the conflict might involve whether the citation is being used appropriately.  Anyway, I think the thing to do is settle on the content of the page, then put in the correct citations. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  15:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And when the "solution" one side of the edit war has, is to rename the article to a different subject? Or to remove the content they do not like and later re-insert a twisted version of the content to give a negative and false impression of the original subject?--Daeron 00:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Question 2: Plagiarism
When multiple sentences or entire paragraphs have been copied verbatim from other works without credit, should a notice be added until it is either credited or re-worded. Also, when a source is in the public domain with a well displayed request that any copy be credited; what is the Wikipedia opinion; credit, or no credit of the source?--Daeron 14:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You should always credit your sources, even if 1) you don't copy verbatim, or 2) the source is public domain. Plagiarism is orthogonal to copyright issues.  dbenbenn | talk 15:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Anyone brave enough to comment on this talk page Talk:Demographics_of_Lebanon or attempt an edit on the article itself? I can not, OneGuy seems to be convinced that I am the son of Satan or something or that I'm hoelessly pro-black human rights and anti-Islam or something and that I'm therefore not entitled to edit Wikipedia articles.--Daeron 00:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 5


text:
United States Army Quartermaster Corps

The United States Army Quartermaster Corps, formerly the Quartermaster Department, is a sustainment and former combat service support (CSS) branch of the United States Army. It is also one of three U.S. Army logistics branches, the others being the Transportation Corps and the Ordnance Corps.

The U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps mission is to support the development, production, acquisition, and sustainment of general supply, Mortuary Affairs, subsistence, petroleum and water, and material and distribution management during peace and war to provide combat power to the U.S. Army. The officer in charge of the branch for doctrine, training, and professional development purposes is the Quartermaster General. The current Quartermaster General is Colonel Jin H. Pak.

History

The Quartermaster Corps is the U.S. Army's oldest logistics branch, established 16 June 1775. On that date, the Second Continental Congress passed a resolution providing for "one Quartermaster General of the grand army and a deputy, under him, for the separate army".

In 1802 under President Thomas Jefferson the size of the US Army was reduced with the Quartermaster Department being disbanded. In its place the nation was divided into three departments, each with its own agent and subordinates who were responsible for quartermaster functions within each Department The Quartermaster Corps was re-established in 1812.

From 1775 to 1912, this organization was known as the Quartermaster Department. In 1912, Congress consolidated the former Subsistence, Pay, and Quartermaster Departments to create the Quartermaster Corps. Quartermaster units and soldiers have served in every U.S. military operation from the Revolutionary War to recent operations in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) and Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom).

Insignia

 * The Regimental Insignia was authorized in 1986 and revised in 1994 to the current insignia. The insignia is described as a gold color metal and enamel device 1 inch in height consisting of a gold eagle with wings spread and head lowered looking to his right and standing upon a wheel with a blue felloe set with thirteen gold stars, having thirteen gold spokes and the hub white with a red center; superimposed on the wheel a gold sword and key crossed diagonally hilt and bow up, all on a black background and resting upon a wreath of green laurel terminating at either side below the eagle's wings at the upper end of the sword and key. Attached below the device is a gold scroll inscribed SUPPORTING VICTORY in black. The original regimental insignia was all gold and approved on 31 March 1986. The design was changed on 7 June 1994 to add color to the insignia. The Regimental DUI is worn on the Soldier's right side above the name tag and any unit awards on the Army Service Uniform.
 * The Branch Insignia was approved in its present form in 1913. The sword is characteristic of military forces and symbolized the Quartermaster Corps control of military supplies. The key is representative of the Corps traditional storekeeping function. The wheel is styled after a six-mule-wagon wheel and represents transportation and delivery of supplies. The wheel has thirteen spokes, a red and white hub, and a blue felloe (the outer edge of the wheel) embedded with thirteen gilt (gold) stars. The thirteen stars and spokes of the wheel represent the original colonies and the origin of the Corps which occurred during the Revolutionary War. The gilt (gold) eagle is the national bird and is symbolic of our nation. The colors red, white, and blue are the national colors. The Branch Insignia is worn on the lapel of the Army Service Uniform, singly on a brass disk for Enlisted personnel and in pairs for Officers.

Functions
The function of the Quartermaster Corps is to provide the following support to the Army:

 * general supply (except for ammunition and medical supplies)
 * Mortuary Affairs (formerly graves registration)
 * subsistence (food service)
 * petroleum and water
 * field services
 * aerial delivery (parachute packing, air item maintenance, heavy and light equipment parachute drop, rigging and sling loading)
 * shower, laundry, fabric/light textile repair
 * material and distribution management

Former functions
Former functions and missions of the Quartermaster Corps were:

 * military transportation (given to the newly established Army Transport Service during the American Civil War and to the Transportation Corps in 1942)
 * military construction (given to the Corps of Engineers in the early 1940s)
 * U.S. Army Remount Service horses/war dogs (military dog training given to Corps of Military Police in 1951)
 * military heraldry (given to the Adjutant General's Corps in 1962)

Units
Quartermaster detachments, companies and battalions are normally assigned to corps or higher level commands. Divisions and smaller units have multifunctional support battalions which combine functional areas from the Army Transportation Corps, Army Quartermaster Corps, Army Ordnance Corps, and the Army Medical Service Corps.

Quartermaster organizations include field service, general supply, petroleum supply and petroleum pipeline, aerial delivery (rigger), water, and mortuary affairs units. Most are company level except petroleum and water, which has battalion and group level units. There is one Bulk petroleum Company on Active Duty.

 * 59th Quartermaster Company
 * 102nd Quartermaster Company
 * 126th Quartermaster Company
 * 132th Quartermaster Company
 * 133rd Quartermaster Company
 * 148th Quartermaster Company
 * Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 165th Quartermaster Group
 * 165th Quartermaster Group
 * 226th Quartermaster Company
 * Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 240th Quartermaster Battalion
 * 295th Quartermaster Company
 * 311th Quartermaster Company
 * 356th Quartermaster Company
 * Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 383rd Quartermaster Battalion
 * 464th Quartermaster Company
 * 473rd Quartermaster Company
 * 488th Quartermaster Company
 * 490th Quartermaster Company
 * 549th Quartermaster Company
 * 574th Quartermaster Company
 * 590th Quartermaster Company
 * 610th Quartermaster Company
 * 623rd Quartermaster Company
 * 673rd Quartermaster Company
 * 725th Quartermaster Company
 * 877th Quartermaster Company
 * 887th Quartermaster Company
 * 960th Quartermaster Company
 * Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment 61st Quartermaster Battalion
 * Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment 154th Quartermaster Battalion
 * Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 247th Quartermaster Battalion
 * Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 319th Quartermaster Battalion
 * Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 418th Quartermaster Battalion
 * Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 423rd Quartermaster Battalion
 * 640th Quartermaster Detachment
 * 690th Quartermaster Detachment
 * 801st Quartermaster Detachment

Military Occupational Specialities
The nine Quartermaster Enlisted Military Occupational Specialties (MOSs) are:

 * 92A – Automated Logistical Specialist
 * 92F – Petroleum Supply Specialist
 * 92G – Culinary Specialist
 * 92L – Petroleum Laboratory Specialist
 * 92M – Mortuary Affairs Specialist
 * 92R – Parachute Rigger
 * 92S – Shower/Laundry and Clothing Repair Specialist
 * 92W – Water Treatment Specialist
 * 92Y – Unit Supply Specialist

The five Quartermaster Warrant Officer Military Occupational Specialties (MOSs) are:

 * 920A – Property Accounting Technician
 * 920B – Supply Systems Technician
 * 921A – Airdrop Systems Technician
 * 922A – Food Service Technician
 * 923A – Petroleum Systems Technician

The three Quartermaster Officer Areas of Concentration (AOCs) have been merged into 92A as Additional Skill Identifiers (ASIs)

 * 92A – Quartermaster, General
 * R9 – Aerial Delivery and Materiel (formerly 92D)
 * R8 – Petroleum and Water (formerly 92F)

Leadership / School
The officer in charge of the branch for doctrine, training, and professional development purposes is the Quartermaster General. The current Quartermaster General is Brigadier General Michelle Donahue. The Quartermaster General does not have command authority over Quartermaster units, but instead commands the United States Army Quartermaster Center and School, located at Fort Gregg-Adams, Virginia, near Petersburg. This school provides enlisted advanced individual training (AIT) and leader training for Quartermaster officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers.

For a list of US Army Quartermasters General, see Quartermaster General (United States).

Notable casualties

 * The 14th Quartermaster Detachment, a U.S. Army Reserve unit from Greensburg, Pennsylvania, suffered the greatest number of casualties of any allied unit in the Gulf War from a Scud missile attack on 25 February 1991
 * Maj. Steve V. Long, a Quartermaster Officer who was serving as Secretary of the General Staff Office of the Commanding General U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, was one of the casualties of the September 11 attacks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon.
 * Several members of the 507th Maintenance Company were captured or killed in an ambush on 23 March 2003 during the Iraq War:
 * Sergeant Donald Walters, killed in action – Silver Star recipient
 * Specialist Edgar Hernandez, captured
 * Specialist Shoshana Johnson, captured
 * Private First Class Howard Johnson II, killed in action
 * Private First Class Jessica Lynch, captured
 * Private First Class Lori Piestewa, killed in action
 * Private Brandon Sloan, killed in action
 * Private Ruben Estrella-Soto, Jr, killed in action

Military Order of Saint Martin
The Quartermaster Corps established this private order on 7 February 1997. The emblematic figure is of Saint Martin of Tours. The medal, for Quartermasters either on Active Duty, in the Reserves, or Civilian status, is awarded in three grades: An updated list of recipients is maintained on the Association of Quartermasters website.
 * Ancient Order of Saint Martin (gold medallion)
 * Distinguished Order of Saint Martin (silver medallion)
 * Honorable Order of Saint Martin (bronze medallion)

The Military Order of Saint Martin is awarded by the Association of Quartermasters and not the United States Army.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: United States Army Quartermaster Corps


text:
John C. Bowling

John California Bowling is the former president of Olivet Nazarene University (ONU). John Calzone Bowling was the president of Olivet Nazarene University from 1991 to 2021. His tenure as president ended at the end of the 2020–2021 school year. His 30-year tenure makes him the longest serving president in Olivet's history.

Before accepting the position in August 1991, Dr. Bowling served for eight years as the senior pastor of the College Church of the Nazarene in Bourbonnais, Illinois. He also served as senior pastor of the First Church of the Nazarene, Dallas, Texas. He has been a member of the faculty at Nazarene Bible College in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and at Olivet Nazarene University.

Bowling holds a bachelor's degree and a master's degree from Olivet, a second master's degree, an doctorate in education from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and was chosen as a Resident Fellow for post-doctoral studies at Harvard University. In addition, he was honored by Olivet with the conferral of the Doctor of Divinity degree as part of their centennial celebration.

In addition to his work at Olivet, Bowling is active with professional organizations and local community affairs, including membership on the Board of People's Bank in Kankakee.

Dr. Bowling is a former member of the Board of Directors of the Nazarene Publishing House in Kansas City, Missouri, and of the Church of the Nazarene Foundation. He is a member of the USA/Canada Council of Education and the International Board of Education for the Church of the Nazarene.

In addition to over 60 published articles, he has authored four books: A Way With Words, Grace-full Leadership, Packin' Up and Headin' Out: Making the Most of Your College Adventure and, most recently, Making the Climb, which chronicles his ascent to the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro.

General Superintendency of the Nazarene Church
In 2005, Bowling was elected as a general superintendent of the Church of the Nazarene but declined the office, saying that his mission at Olivet Nazarene University was not complete. In 2009, Bowling was again elected to serve as a general superintendent. He accepted, but rescinded his acceptance the next day.

Published works

 * A Way With Words (ISBN 0-8341-1802-5)
 * Grace-full Leadership (ISBN 0-8341-1775-4)
 * Packin' Up and Headin' Out: Making the Most of Your College Adventure (ISBN 0-8341-1899-8), co-authored with wife, Jill
 * Making the Climb (ISBN 0-8341-2326-6) about climbing Mount Kilimanjaro
 * ReVision: 13 Strategies to Renew Your Work, Your Organization, & Your Life (ISBN 0-8341-2943-4)
 * Above All Else: 20 Years of Baccalaureate Sermons (ISBN 0-8341-2841-1)

title: John C. Bowling


text: User talk:68.41.174.179

title: User talk:68.41.174.179


text:
Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 6

Web Citation Template considered harmful
I wonder about whether the web citation template isn't actively harmful. Web references shouldn't be treated much differently from others and, given the dynamic nature of the web and when they are available, it's important to include: Author, Date of last modification (very important since the referenced text may have been edited after archive.org took a copy and before the retrieval for the reference). The web citatation templte misses out too much of this. Mozzerati 16:45, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

 * I am not sure I understand - the template merely implements the recommendation for citing a web page that is given further the page. Are you saying that that recommendation is wrong? If so, isn't the first step to change that rather than the template? Pcb21| Pete 17:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Is there a technical problem in a template having a field, such as Author, for which there may be no information and thus may be omitted? --SEWilco 19:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed that the recommendation should be fixed, but a recommendation doesn't actually stop people including extra information which the current template seems to (at least to me). SEWilco's proposal for optional parameters would be great, but, according to the m:Help:Template template help page) the only think it seems possible to do is to have parameters and set them to blank.  That might not be a bad thing ("cut and paste this and fill in what you know") since it would encourage others to help later.  Mozzerati 15:05, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

 * Hmm.. I just looked carefully at the recommendation and found it agrees with me. It says that specific web pages should be treated like "books" and then gives an example with author and date included.  In this case, I think fixing the template is needed, but there are many pages to fix.  Maybe we can do a template with defaults that ask for more to be filled in...  Mozzerati 21:30, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

 * i just tried using this project page for the first time, and i'm confused by the differences between the web example given (Gates, Bill & Ballmer, Steve) and the web template. also, i have no clue what the difference is between "title" and "work" -- described as "title=Title | work=Title of Complete Work". can't help thinking that such language implies a "Title of Partial Work" somewhere. i only need one title for my ref. shouldn't there be an "author" parm for the template? what about the year in parens from the example? is that supposed to be part of the "title"? i think this is far more confusing than it needs to be. the conflict between the web example and the web template encourages me to just make up my own format. if i'm missing something, please let me know. thanks. SaltyPig 02:33, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Citations in the text
Shouldn't we be, and when did we stop, encouraging in-text citations for the reasons listed on this project page? Hyacinth 18:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well clearly it is more effort to properly cite an article inline than to not bother. That seems to be the biggest reason it doesn't happen more often. The only argument I have seen against inline citations is that Wikipedia doesn't need them. We don't need lots of things but that doesn't mean we wouldn't be better of if we had them. The other I suppose is that some people think things like (McKusick, 2004 pp 22-25) in the text is irritating and distracting.  I guess I can agree with that since some people don't care about the citations. The system being worked on at Footnotes looks like it works really well. The next step is to have a user preference or skin setting that would allow hiding that stuff entirely for those that would want to. As I see it that would eliminate any downside of inline citations. If you look at the last several months of articles written about Wikipedia almost all of them focus on Wikipedia's percieved lack of reliability or claim it is not reliable. There really are no other valid criticisms left. Not to be too much of a broken record, but the only way to counter that is to follow the ideas at Verifiability, primary of which is inline citations. I guess the reason it stopped being encouraged as much is that enough people are negative about the whole thing (read above for examples) that those trying to promote it lost steam. - Taxman 20:24, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe strongly in, and think we should encourage in the strongest way, extensive source citation (see Attalus I for an example). I also think that footnoted citation is better than inline citation (less distracting), but inline citation is much better than no citation at all. Taxman is correct that the charge of "unreliability" is the single most important criticism Wikipedia faces. Some like, Larry Sanger believe that the way to deal with this is for Wikipedia to become a more accommodating place for experts. I think however, extensive source citation is the best way for Wikipedia to respond to this problem. Paul August ☎ 21:45, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Paul, no one is arguing against citation of sources. The only question is, given that one has put the complete reference info at the end of the article, when does one also need to insert an inline citation?  The answer, I think, is when it is not clear which reference one would go to for more information on a particular fact, or which reference is the basis for a particular statement.
 * Since Wikipedia is not for original research, many articles should cite a few major secondary sources (e.g. textbooks), and thus it should be fairly clear which reference to go to.  If you find yourself making arguments whose details need to be extensively referenced, my immediate concern would be that you might be performing original research by creating a "novel synthesis" of primary sources rather than summarizing well-established secondary/tertiary sources. —Steven G. Johnson 22:00, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Inline citations or footnotes, are helpful not only to make it clear in which reference, but also where, in a given reference (which may, for example, be many hundreds of pages long), the reader should look. By the way, as Taxman says above, thinking in terms of when, or if, source citations are "needed" is a bit of a red herring. Rather we should be thinking in terms of when, or if, they make the article better. In my opinion they almost always do. Paul August ☎ 23:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Used judiciously, inline citations are often helpful, but overused they can become a distraction. As for specific page/section numbers, they are helpful even less often than inline citations, and I rarely see them even in professional scholarly works with heavy citations; most textbooks have a table of contents and index that are sufficient to quickly find a topic. —Steven G. Johnson 02:52, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * (Anyway, it's a bit of a moot point, since the main difficulty is in getting people to cite sources in the first place. —Steven G. Johnson)

Looking for some help here
Recently, at Bovo-Bukh, User:Doops systematically removed my precise citations with the comment "all those paragraph-ending credits were getting out of hand". I have been bending over backwards to be as precise as possible in my citations. In this case the article as it stands all comes essentially from one book, but presumably it will grow and other sources will be cited. In my experience, if sources are not cited when the material is entered, they never will be.

Right now, I'm fuming, and I know I should not engage directly with the person who did this. If someone else agrees with me, I would greatly appreciate if they would (1) revert Doops's edit at Bovo-Bukh; (2) leave a note on his talk page, or the talk page of the article, explaining why the edit is reverted. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:41, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Looks like we reached an OK compromise there. Jmabel | Talk 01:03, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Again I could use some help, this time at Tibetan people (see Talk:Tibetan people). I'm guessing that Mr Tan is completely unfamiliar with academic citation; see also User_talk:Mr_Tan (which came up, in part, because he removed the 1911 from the article). I'm sure his intentions are good, but I'm getting frustrated trying to educate someone about the basics of citation as he keeps editing out the citations from the article and I keep having to restore them. To be honest, I'm tired of putting in so much time defending an article from simple ignorance (not of its topic, which he may well know better than I, but of the nature of citation). I only have so much time for Wikipedia these days, and it seems a waste to spending it all preventing (probably well-intentioned) damage instead of writing articles. This is not a topic close to my heart; I'm getting to the point of saying, in effect, "fine, screw up the article". -- Jmabel | Talk 07:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I understand your frustration above, though I have not experience such persistent removal of sources. As another user who is likely to be criticized for "getting out of hand" with citations, I would assist efforts to support citation. Hyacinth 22:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like this particular one got worked through. Very annoying, though... -- Jmabel | Talk 22:47, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Articles in books
How should articles found in books be cited and listed? Hyacinth 22:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think we have a clear standard yet, but I would use something like:
 * Drummond, Henry, "The People and Forests of Eastern Africa", in Morris, Charles and Leigh, Oliver H.G. (eds.), With the World's Greatest Travellers, Union Book Company, Chicago (1901), VIII:92-102.
 * That last is volume and page numbers. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I had been doing: But this is not clear, and has also been my format for books cited in books. Hyacinth 23:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Morris, Charles and Leigh, Oliver H.G. (eds.), With the World's Greatest Travellers, Union Book Company, Chicago (1901), VIII:92-102.
 * Drummond, Henry, "The People and Forests of Eastern Africa"

The guidelines currently suggest using the APA "Last, First" style for author names. I'd like to suggest that this is a very bad idea, for the following reasons: 18.26.0.18 23:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) "We have computers to do that": using one of the standard footnote templates, someone looking for a reference will be taken directly to it, so there is no need to reorder names just to make it faster to search the list.
 * 2) As well-documented elsewhere, this is only useful for European names, and the appropriate way to write an author's name in this style is not necessarily obvious from the way it is written on the book or in the article, unless one has another citation of the same author for comparison.
 * 3) * The rule, of course, is family name first, not last name first. We wouldn't write "Zedong, Mao" in such a list, we'd write "Mao Zedong". And one of the ways it can be useful is that we write (for example) "García Marquez, Gabriel", which makes it clear that this is (after the Spanish style) a double-barrelled surname. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:41, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Most importantly, WP policy for article titles is natural order, not "Last, First", so putting author names in natural order simplifies linking those authors  who have WP articles.

Deleted material
Stevenj deleted the following, and does not seem to have added any equivalent. Since (unlike some people who will remain nameless) I don't want to edit an important policy page without consensus, I thought I would bring this here and make sure that others agree with me that this should be restored:

 * When citing the publisher, omit "company," "books," "press," and similar words, except when referring to university presses. For example: "Penguin" instead of "Penguin Company," "McGraw-Hill" instead of "McGraw-Hill Book Company" (but: "University of Chicago Press," not "University of Chicago."

By the way, our example with "Wol Press" violates this rule. On the whole, I like the slightly cute examples given, but I think this one is awfully obscure for people who really need an example. It may not be obvious that "Hundred Acre Wood: Wol Press" is supposed to be place of publication and publisher. I suggest something less obscure.

This too:
 * Italicize the title of the book. If there is a subtitle, write it after the title of the book and a colon.

Italicizing titles is normal practice in English. No, not every standard calls for it, but it almost always makes it clearer what portion is the book title. Similarly, everyone in the English-speaking world recognizes a colon as separating a title from a subtitle. German practice, for example, is different (they use a period) but is seems to me that we should encourage consistency on this point in the English Wikipedia.

(Rewording very slightly in this next one, because it was not completely in line with current section-naming practice...)

 * Alphabetize the sources in a "References" or "Further reading" section by last name. For entries without an author or with an anonymous or unnamed author, alphabetize by the title of the work (omitting conjunctions and propositions).

Does anyone have a problem with restoring these to the project page? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:34, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Completely agreed on the first two. I'm not sure there was a consensus decision taken on alphabetizing reference lists -- if I recall there was some contention that other orders, like importance of source or order of recommended reading, could be useful.  I don't mind alphabetization myself, but let's be wary of instruction creep.  (Also, I have to say that I think the addition of MLA style examples is completely reasonable, and their deletion, while it doesn't bother me hugely, strikes me as a bit hasty.  If we offer one "example" style without consensus to use it, others surely can make the same claim.)  -- Rbellin|Talk 06:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As for the multiple styles of citation: they each deserve an article in the main space, we can link here. And yes, alphabetization is the least important of these three, I don't really care about it either, just pointing out that it was longstanding content removed without consensus or even a clear comment. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have no specific objection to adding back the bits about the publisher and the italicization; I would leave out the bit about alphabetizing references because there is no consensus on it. However, I generally am concerned about adding in zillions of picky instructions — they make the page as a whole less readable and more off-putting. Keep in mind that our main priority is to get people to cite sources in the first place — I could care less whether someone puts "Press" in the publisher name or italicizes the title (the latter should be clear from the examples anyway). Trying to turn this into something resembling a comprehensive citation style guide, or worse, a guide to several styles (APA, MLA, IEEE, APS, etc. etc.) works against that goal. The only purpose of the examples — remember, there is no consensus on a precise style anyway — is to give people who aren't used to citation a template to follow to make sure they include all the information. —Steven G. Johnson 01:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Not everyone shares your feelings on this specific topic, or your worldview. I valued every detail given on this project page when I first started citing sources because that knowledge gave me the confidence to do it.  Rather than seeing all the little stylistic details as horrible rules that I didn't want to bother with I was glad to have something explain it to me and help me understand the bigger picture through the details. Hyacinth 20:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Hyacinth here. It's not the Wiki Way to require that somebody buy a dead-tree book in order to edit in accordance with policies—we should include all the information people need to get started citing.

 * By the way, what happened to the rule about not wikilinking anything but author and title when appropriate? I'd really rather not start seeing citations again like
 * Cornelia Christenson, Kinsey: A Biography, Indiana University Press, 1971
 * like I can recall seeing a couple years ago. TreyHarris 18:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Merge
References has not been updated for almost a year and is mostly forgotten - it should be merged here and made into a redirect, would you agree? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * it's completely obsolete having been superceeded by Footnotes Footnote2 and Footnote3. Although none of these has become policy, it's clear to me that direct external links are a bad idea since it's impossible to tell what they are supposed to refer to if the content at the other end of the link gets changed.  I think that little of the material should be moved elsewhere.  Probably it should just be marked as obsolete.  Mozzerati 20:17, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

References makes sense to me. Having read through the first and skimmed the second two, I still have no idea what those three things are, and why there are three. Hyacinth 20:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Good point. The Footnote* articles are based around new technologies and are intended to replace some References material.  The Footnote* tools have not been completed, and the discussion has been focused on techniques and usage, so the pages are describing trees without giving an overview of forest for casual readers. (SEWilco 03:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Importance

 * From Importance.

What are the standards of importance for sources? (prompted by recent dispute on Talk:Myth) Sure, we have to Cite sources, but who and what kind? Does the source need to be a professor of the article's topic? Do they have to be an "expert"? A professional? A friend or relative? Should creationist sources be allowed? Hyacinth 03:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * For example: mythology.
 * May no discipline other than mythology comment on myths, or just not on Wikipedia? Why? What about when other fields studies include myths, such as music with texts or tone painting depicting myths. Would a source simple need to be respected in both fields? Actually all three: mythology, poetry, and musicology? (four including history?) Freud may not be an expert in the history of myth, but that does not mean he may not have insight. Also, he was an example, and possibly a poor one, so don't waste your words tearing him apart. Hyacinth 06:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if there is an easily defined standard, but if the purpose is quoting someone on the definition of the term, that individual ought to be highly respected and sourced by other scholarly published references in the field. To use your example, Freud, although he may be entertaining, certainly would not count as notable for defining a field other than psychoanalysis and its offshoots (say, dream analysis or something along those lines). DreamGuy 03:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC) (from Talk:Myth)
 * Shouldn't this be part of Cite sources or a related policy? It's really a different issue to the importance of different subjects. ··gracefool |☺ 01:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's some discussion of this above: see especially and. If someone wants to summarize some of this and add a short section to the project page (or discuss it at more length in a separate page and link to it from the project page) I think that would be good. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:48, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Citing other Encyclopedias
What's about citing other encyclopedias? (Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, etc.) I find other encyclopedias to be great for checking content and style (after all the ultimate goal is to make the article as good as what they have or better). Should they be listed as sources? - Pioneer-12 01:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say that if you've significantly used them, yes. But I'd also say to be cautious about making significant use of any currently copyrighted encyclopedia: the potential for problematic plagiarism is probably larger there than anywhere else. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:55, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of this, I recently started a List of encyclopedias in Google Print with over 20 preformatted references. --Alterego 15:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Also there are issues of accuracy, verifiability and distance from original source. Encyclopedias are, like Wikipedia tertiary sources, written as a summary of other sources. Furthermore, most encylopedias fail to follow our cite sources policy most of the time. This means that when something is wrong, there's no way to know why or where it came from. There are a number of examples of this, for example, since encyclopedias state David Irving's made up numbers for casualties in the Bombing of Dresden without attribution, many people end up with the same error, but it's difficult to trace why. Better to always find a secondary source and back it up by checking some of the primary sources. Once you've done that the encyclopedia will probably only qualify for external links. Mozzerati 06:51, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

 * There may be issues of verifiability and distance from the original source, but there aren't any issues of accuracy. An up to date version of a major encyclopedia is one of the most accurate sources on the planet. Far more accurate then your average secondary source (which may be written by a poor researcher or someone with a political agenda). Of course you can find a number of examples of errors (in a work of over thirty thousand pages, there are bound to be some), but that doesn't change the fact that they are accurate well over 99% of the time. This doesn't mean that you should blindly follow what's in the Britannica or Columbia; it means that, if you say something contrary, you better have a very good reason.

 * Of course I don't think we should be copying other encyclopedias wholesale. In fact, it seems kind of silly for an encyclopedia to be listing other encyclopedias as references at all. (Seems rather derivative, don't you think?) However, I do think that they should be checked and compared often. It's amazing how many articles here can be improved in style and organization just by comparing what other encyclopedias have to say on the subject.

 * I like the idea of putting them as external links. That helps out both the readers and writers of wikipedia. Hmmm, maybe that should be mentioned in the style guide, or even supported in the software... - Pioneer-12 09:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pioneer-12 writes, "In fact, it seems kind of silly for an encyclopedia to be listing other encyclopedias as references at all." I agree 100%. Of course it makes sense that we compare our articles to those in other encyclopedias, because it maight give us ideas. But I think it is absurd for one encyclopedia to use another one as a source. We might as well just tell people not to look at us but to look at another encyclopedia. I guarantee that the authors of articles in other well-established encyclopedias do not use encyclopedias as sources, they go out and do real research, looking at primary and secondary sources. We should do the same. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  15:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)'
 * It's not absurd, it's a great idea. Most encyclopedias are specialized and strive to go to great detail in their subject matter. They are not your atypical Encarta or Britannica which aim to give a general overview. If we were citing those, I agree it would be absurd. But citing a specialized encyclopedia for an important yet arcane factoid is an awesome use of resources. For example, there was recently an unsolved debate as to what Alferd Packer was charged for. I did a little bit of Google Printing and came across the Encyclopedia of Western Lawmen & Outlaws, which mentioned he was tried for murder and convicted for manslaughter.  Since the information was at best ambiguous on internet sources, this was the best way out.  If, in the future, overwhelming evidence contradicts the statement in that encyclopedia, we know exactly what statement to replace, where it came from, and what the reasoning was at the time --Alterego 21:05, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Right. Citing specialized encyclopedias is good. Citing general-purpose encyclopedias is silly. Checking and comparing general-purpose encyclopedias is a very good heuristic. - Pioneer-12

Automating citations and references
Suggestion: It would be nice if we could partially automate citations and references for books and other materials with an ISBN by providing a template something like {cite: } and {ref: }, that would be expanded at page-request time. Ignoring for the moment how the data would be stored, such a citation or reference would fetch the data and insert it into the HTML whenever a page containing it is requested.

The reason I suggest this partly for ease of providing good citations, but also so that corrections to a book's bibliographic info could be made in a centralized place, and we could start getting away from the incorrect/incomplete references scattered all over Wikipedia that are very labor-intensive to track down and fix. (We want good citations for our articles, right?)

Some thought needs to go into the mechanism, but here are some conversation-starter thoughts. Clearly the links can't be autogenerated if no one has entered the data, so presumably the data would reside on a special class of page containing the bib info for that ISBN. Ideally the citations and references would contain not only the text extracted from that page, but also link to it as an article about the book, so that interested parties could find out more about the source as a book, if there is anything to say about it beyond its publication data.

However, that simple scheme is complicated by the fact that some books have multiple editions with different ISBNs. That should be addressable in a straightforward manner if we had the ISBN citation repository, because then an article about a book could just {ref: } in a "Known editions" section. What we would need for going in the other direction is an article name somewhere in the ISBN citation repository, so that you can find the article about the book (if one exists) from the ISBN.

Of course, the automagically generated reference could still include the ISBN as an anchor for a link to the book-search stuff we have now; presumably it would be the title of the book within the reference that would link to the article (if any) about the book. Also, it would be nice if the {cite:blah} and {ref:blah} in an article simply didn't show up if the necessary data hadn't been entered; that might encourage people to cite sources that they wouldn't bother with if they had to do more than flip the book over and look at the ISBN.

At any rate, don't let the implementation issues distract from the basic desirability of having the publication data about a book stored only in a single place so that it is easy to maintain, plus an automated system for fetching that data into other articles as formal citations and references. — B.Bryant 01:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Just a remark: ISBN only works for books, and only for those published in about the last 40 years. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I point out WikiProject Wikicite. (SEWilco 8 July 2005 19:55 (UTC))

Content moved
I moved the discussion on the appropriateness and quality of sources to Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/Appropriate sources (well, I hope I moved all of it). David.Monniaux 06:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Neat. It seems you are planning on distilling from that talk page a Cite sources/Appropriate sources page. That would be nice to have.

 * - Pioneer-12 06:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question added
Please see my comment/question above in 10 Article titles in quotes. — Emerman 15:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alternate citation style?
I know that the APA and MLA styles are the most famous and preferred in most academic circles, but I'm not too fond of them. I've always found the ordering of infomation to be awkward. I prefer listing the title first. Is there an official, notable style that uses this format? I don't want to cite sources with the title first only for my style to be considered "irregular" and changed to APA style later. I would rather just use a notable "regular" (if perhaps uncommon) citation style to begin with. If there is no viable alternative, then I will use AMA--but surely there must be an alternative.... - Pioneer-12 13:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think everyone has a preferred citation style of their own; it's likely to be difficult to come to any sort of global WP consensus because disciplines vary as to preferred styles, and many parts of WP aren't really the subject of formal study. There looks to be talk about providing a BibTeX-like citation system, where this could be made a matter of user preference.  (I generally prefer "plain.btx" style myself.)  Being flexible in this regard also makes contributing much less daunting to non-mavens; there are far too many policies and unofficial conventions as it is.  So long as all the necessary information is there, people should not complain about citation style (and should only change the citation style if it is inconsistent or incomplete, not because it doesn't conform to the style guide they used in school).  18.26.0.18 23:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Organization of pages without sources
Is there a template we could put on pages without reference information and/or a Category for such pages? I think this is one of the biggest problems on Wikipedia and unfortunately one that isn't treated with sufficient vigiliance. Also, if it is decided to approach the problem like this, there should also be a way to make sure only "important" topics, i.e. ones that have a decent amount of literature, receive this sort of attention otherwise it will be a pointless endeavour. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:51, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * Template:Unreferenced and Category:Articles which lack sources (which replaced the earlier Template:Cite sources and Category:Missing citations). —Steven G. Johnson 04:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * This page isn't the place for extensive discussion of this (which has occurred several times, elsewhere), but the real issue isn't simply whether an article "has sources" but whether particular statements are sourced. If someone just goes and slaps a few references onto an existing article, it still doesn't really let us know what facts in the article actually are sourced. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:40, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Not that slapping ugly templates on a article will make the fundamental problem any better. Pcb21| Pete 08:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 6


text:
Butt Out

"Butt Out" is the thirteenth episode of the seventh season of the American animated television series South Park, and the 109th episode overall. It first aired on Comedy Central in the United States on December 3, 2003.

In the episode, representatives from an anti-smoking campaign rap about the dangers of smoking for the children of South Park. For fear of growing up to be giant nerds, the boys decide to take up the habit.

The episode pokes fun at the formulaic storyline of some South Park episodes (including the movie), which start with the boys getting themselves in trouble and inciting a controversy between the townsfolk and a national interest group (or a major catastrophe) while trying to avoid punishments, subsequently learning a lesson from this conflict.

Plot
An overly-upbeat anti-smoking music group called Butt Out, which incorporates outdated elements of dance and hip-hop into its routine, performs at South Park Elementary. The boys are put off by what they see as the lame, condescending nature of the performance. The performers proclaim that, if everyone refuses to smoke, they can grow up to be "just like [them]". The boys, fearing this outcome, go behind the school to immediately start chain smoking, despite it causing them to cough furiously.

When the school counselor, Mr. Mackey, approaches, the boys discard their cigarettes into a nearby dumpster, which causes a fire that burns down the entire school. When the boys are brought before the principal and their parents, the adults are enraged and ashamed at the boys smoking (but oddly, there is no acknowledgement of the school burning down). They then convince themselves that the blame lies with the tobacco companies, whose cigarette advertising campaigns have influenced the kids. The boys happily transfer the blame to avoid punishment, but Kyle recognizes the pattern of a South Park storyline and unsuccessfully tries to get his friends to avoid the coming calamity.

The town summons celebrity spokesman Rob Reiner to combat the spread of smoking among children in South Park. Although Reiner is outspokenly against smoking, he is gluttonous and disrespectful, taking pride in imposing his will on others. Cartman, however, looks up to Reiner precisely because of these qualities.

Reiner disguises himself (poorly) as a woman and infiltrates a tobacco factory along with the boys. While touring the factory, the vice president teaches them the history of tobacco and how the tobacco industry protects and defends freedom, explaining how the mandated warning labels on cigarettes enable consumers to make an informed choice, which Kyle finds reasonable. Suddenly, Reiner takes a photo of the boys in the factory, sheds his disguise, and throws one of the employees over the railing before fleeing.

Reiner takes the boys back to his anti-smoking encampment and introduces them to the "decent and caring" people of his Anti-Smoking staff, who are shown to be pale, hunched-over, hissing, and dressed in black. Reiner plans to digitally alter his photograph in order to falsely depict the executive giving cigarettes to children. By now, Stan, Kyle, and Kenny are disgusted with Reiner and his tactics, so when Reiner offers them the opportunity to appear in an anti-smoking TV commercial, they decline, but Cartman eagerly agrees.

Cartman claims in the commercial that he is dying of lung cancer from secondhand smoke, but discovers after the shoot that Reiner's group plans to kill him and cover it up by claiming it actually was from lung cancer. Cartman flees to his friends, who initially refuse to help him, fearing that they too will be killed, but eventually they agree to help. They consider returning to the cigarette factory, as they know that the vice president there will take their side and protect Cartman from Reiner. Kyle warns again that this is following a formula, and it will lead to a confrontation between the town and the factory, where they will have to admit they lied about why they smoked and talk about what they have learned.

The boys go to the factory anyway, as it's the only way to keep Cartman safe, and the townspeople confront them there along with Reiner (who is eating an entire cake). The townspeople turn on Reiner when he reveals his evil plan, and as he attempts to justify himself, Kyle begins giving a speech (while commenting once more about how the familiar formula is unfolding). Kyle says that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, and calls Reiner a fascist for imposing his will on others. Cartman, no longer respecting Reiner, stabs him with a fork, revealing "Reiner" to be a boneless sac filled with green goo, who completely drains. The parents then ground the four, as they now know that they smoked of their own free will, and though Stan is relieved that the ordeal is over and the four have "learned [their] lesson", Kyle disappointedly replies, "No, we didn't, dude. No, we didn't."

Production
"Butt Out" was written and directed by Trey Parker. Matt Stone said the episode was inspired by a desire to spoof both California's strict smoking bans and film director Rob Reiner; Stone said, "We try not to be, 'All right, here's the point we want to make.' But things like California's smoking ban and Rob Reiner animate both of us. When we did that Rob Reiner episode, to us it was just common sense. Rob Reiner was just a great target."

A television promo for the episode showed a deleted scene involving Butters interacting with the "Butt Out" group. The final scene where Kyle tells Stan they didn't learn their lesson was not included in the episode's original broadcast.

Theme
The episode satirizes anti-smoking education presentations by external providers that come across as cheesy or irritating to the young adult demographic they target, effectively negating any message they might be trying to send across. The episode also satirizes adult pretension, a common theme in South Park episodes, in their ineffective and nonsensical responses to the smoking problem in South Park. According to Brian C. Anderson, it also lampoons the pretentiousness of the Hollywood movie industry and liberalism, particularly through the use of Rob Reiner, the real-life American director widely known for advocating smoking restrictions. Reiner and, by extension, Hollywood adopts a holier-than-thou attitude with regard to smokers, and show a lack of understanding toward the poor and middle-class. The episode advocates accepting personal responsibility for smoking rather than blaming the tobacco industry or external forces like Hollywood and television (which are often accused of condoning and glamorizing drug use, particularly with alcohol and tobacco); as such, tobacco executives are portrayed as reasonable and decent, while Reiner and Hollywood representatives are nasty and elitist. Another theme is Rob Reiner constantly eating and overweight to the point that he can't fit through a car door, pointing out that although fast food is as dangerous as smoking, it is overlooked.

Although it was legal to smoke inside of bars in Colorado at the time of the episode's airing in 2003, the state would later ban smoking in most public places in 2006, including bars.

Reception
"Butt Out" received mostly positive reviews. Conservative writer Brian C. Anderson praised the episode saying the portrayal of Reiner, Hollywood and their anti-smoking efforts "perfectly captures the Olympian arrogance and illiberalism of liberal elites." Anderson said this was particularly illustrated by a scene in the episode in which Reiner yells at a sawmill worker for smoking in a bar, and tells him he should relax by spending time in an expensive vacation house like Reiner does. Anderson described it as a "classic sequence".

Amanda Kiser of The Battalion praised the episode's portrayal of anti-smoking educational performances: "Watch the 'Butt Out' episode of South Park if you were not fortunate enough to witness such a spectacle as a preteen. Granted, the truth is substantially less ridiculous, but it is still incredibly, nauseatingly self-consciously hip." Richard Ives of Times Higher Education also praised this aspect of this episode: "Teachers to whom I've shown these clips sigh in recognition." The Daily Record of Scotland praised the episode, which they said was extremely "timely".

In a 2017 Reddit interview with fans, when asked of his portrayal in the episode, actor Rob Reiner's reply was "I thought it was funny, but I'm not quite that fat."

title: Butt Out


text:
User:Artist2005

Igor Kaminski (1887–1942)
 Polish-Jewish Artist

The biography of Igor Kaminski is fragmentary. Although a prolific European painter of the early 19th Century his work is rarely cited and most of his paintings are found in Austria and Switzerland. Kaminski was born in Warszawa into a musical family. At first he wanted to become a musician but he never succeeded. His cousin Joseph Kaminski became a well-known violinist in Poland. Kaminski studied art at the Kunstschule Witebsk where he was probably influenced by artists like Paul Klee and Marc Chagall. After residences in Zürich and Wien he became a victim of the Nazi regime and died in a concentration camp in Birkenau. His paintings are sometimes found in Europe but to date there is no official inventory.

Kaminski's work is abstract and constructivist. He often painted formalized animals and plants. Kaminski worked with different types of media, most often gouache and oil on cardboard. He was acquainted with the Polish constructivist painter Henryk Berlewi (1894–1967). In Igor Kaminski's work the colors yellow, blue and brown are predominant and symbolized fish are common.

It can be estimated that Kaminski painted more than 500 works between 1920 and 1940.

References

Kunst von 1900 bis heute. Eröffnungsausstellung des Museums des 20. Jahrhunderts, 21. September bis 4. November 1962. Wien, Museum des 20. Jahrhunderts, 1962.

Dexel, Walter. Bilder Grafik Angewandte Kunst. Katalog. Bonn, Städt. Kunstmuseum, 1973.

Danuta Czech: Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau 1939–1945. Rowohlt Verlag Reinbek bei Hamburg 1989 ISBN 3498008846.

Example of early paintings on cardboard, Zürich, 1924

In 1927 Igor Kaminski´s work was displayed at the Galerie Arends in Berlin under the title "color and light of animals".

Verst.-Kat. Berlin, Die Sammlung Oscar Huldschinsky, Verst. 10./11.5.1928 (Cassirer/Helbing), Berlin 1928

title: User:Artist2005


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stair-cane

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by Manning Bartlett. A и D я 01D TALK  EMAIL  13:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Stair-cane
This is the name of a product that the person who created this article is promoting. If you look at contribs he created a bunch of articles about the various products. Elfguy 12:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Andrew Goodman (activist)

Antisemitic Tone
The article states that Goodman was of "Jewish heritage." So Judaism is a race after all? I thought it was merely a religion. Clarification is required.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 * According to Wikipedia, "Jewish ethnicity, religion, and community are highly interrelated, as Judaism is an ethnic religion, although not all ethnic Jews practice it. Despite this, religious Jews regard individuals who have formally converted to Judaism as part of the community. (2021, est.)" Fruitflies1 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Untitled
The link to www.nationalist.org/alt/2005/goodman.html inserted by User:Crosstar is not appropriate here. It is a mock interview which attempts to link Carolyn Goodman to various views by putting fictitious words in her mouth. In doing so it also abdicates responsibility for factual accuracy. Its primary purpose appears to be to generate hatred towards Jews. It has no place on Wikipedia.--Joeboy 12:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * He's been spamming these links into dozens of articles. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Reagan Speech?
I don't see what the paragraph below has to do with Goodman. I am removing it for now, but if someone can explain how it fits, please go ahead. Deepak 16:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

On August 4, 1980, Ronald Reagan launched his presidential election campaign with a speech in    Philadelphia, Mississippi in which he declared his support for states' rights. Some critics saw his choice of Philadelphia as the launching point for his campaign as an attempt to further the Republican Party's southern strategy.

I think the quotation helps to illustrate that the Southern Democrats who opposed civil rights legislation all turned Republican, and Reagan was attempting to gain their support.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- KenWalker | Talk 02:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fiction & Unproven
NOTE--I live 22 miles from the murder site. Most of the articles written about the murders are fictional or unproven. 130313
 * That may be so, but in order to add information to this article, especially information of that magnitude, you need to find it published in a reliable source.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Goodman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100617150117/http://www.jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials8.htm to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/trials8.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Andrew Goodman (activist)