Template talk:No footnotes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"related reading or external links"[edit]

With apologies in advance to User:Joy and others who may not "believe we are really doing this again". The following is a continuation of the 2009-2010 #Clarification discussion, the 2012 #Related reading or external links discussion, and the 2013 #Consistency between template name and description in template box discussion. The main participants of those discussions were User:PBS and User:Jeepday. Even though PBS was probably a bit too pushy, I don't think his conduct was "trollish" and I disagree with the assessment that he did "not seem to be having [the] discussion in good faith". I am another editor who has difficulty accepting the (location of the) "related reading or external links" phrase in this template. My suggestion is as follows. I would like to alter the <300 articles that transclude {{No inline citations}} to use {{No footnotes}}, so we can start using {{No inline citations}} and {{No footnotes}} can be deprecated. First of all, parenthetical (author-date) referencing is also a form of inline citation. Secondly, {{No footnotes}} has been used for years and by not replacing it but instead deprecating it, its perceived spirit remains intact; that "there is content in the related reading or external links that can and should be used". Thirdly, when creating {{No inline citations}} we will move the "related reading or external links" phrase into a separate sentence; one that states that if such sections exist they may contain sources that are reliable enough to be used as inline references. This tackles the problem that {{No footnotes}} appears to imply that the material currently in those sections are (reliable) references. Please let me know whether you support or oppose this proposal. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake in the text above, swapping the names of the templates. Could you please check and fix this? Debresser (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
No, the text is as I meant it to be. {{No footnotes}} should not be changed but should be deprecated. We can start using {{No inline citations}} instead, which will be similar but with the changes I outlined above. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You said "I would like to alter the <300 articles that transclude {{No inline citations}} to use {{No footnotes}}". Are you sure you didn't swap the name sof the templates here?
I have no problem with deprecation. I am not sure I understand what new text you would propose precisely. Could you please write the new proposed text here? Debresser (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
To keep the exact spirit of the text currently used in those <300 articles intact, we need to make sure the template they use is {{No footnotes}} instead of {{No inline citations}}, before we create a (new) {{No inline citations}} that is worded differently. As for the new proposed text, I would like put it together in consultation with you and other editors. What I would like to know first is whether other editors, in particular User:PBS and User:Jeepday, support or oppose the proposal to keep {{No footnotes}} as it is but deprecate it in favor of a new {{No inline citations}} template that will have the "related reading or external links" phrase in a separate sentence. All this for the reasons I explained: a) parenthetical (author-date) referencing is also a form of inline citation and the new template name does not single out footnotes, b) by not replacing the old template but instead deprecating it, the old template's perceived spirit remains intact in articles where it is being used, and c) the new template will explain how sections such as "related reading or external links" may contain sources that are reliable enough to be used as inline references, instead of mentioning it in one breath with sections that are actually meant to contain references. I could write the exact proposed text here, but before we venture into that sensitive zone, I'm curious as to whether this could be a way forward at all. I'm glad you wrote you for one have no problem with deprecation. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure what you are proposing. The name of the template does not really matter, as they both say the same thing. WHat is it that you want the message to say? As Debresser has suggested can you post your proposed message? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Currently, {{No inline citations}} redirects to {{No footnotes}}. My proposal includes changing {{No inline citations}} from a redirect into a new template that is separate from {{No footnotes}}. {{No inline citations}} will be somewhat different from {{No footnotes}}. There are two reasons why the name of the templates (will) matter: 1. footnotes and parenthetical referencing are both forms of inline citations, similar to how red and blue are co-hyponyms of color, and 2. when the templates are worded differently, {{No inline citations}} will no longer have the (exact) perceived spirit of {{No footnotes}}. I am proposing a change. The result of the change will be that the templates no longer say the same thing, which means the names of the templates will start to matter. I would like to put the new proposed text for {{No inline citations}} together in consultation with other editors. What I would like to know first is whether other editors support or oppose my proposal. By reading my proposal carefully, it should be clear what kind of change I am proposing. I will once again explain my proposal. On this talk page, PBS and I have expressed the opinion that we have difficulty accepting the (location of the) "related reading or external links" phrase in the {{No footnotes}} template. We believe that, in some instances, {{No footnotes}} may appear to imply that the material currently in aforementioned sections are (reliable) references. To tackle this problem, we could start using {{No inline citations}}, and move the "related reading or external links" phrase into a separate sentence; one that states that if such sections exist they may contain sources that are reliable enough to be used as inline references. We would deprecate {{No footnotes}} in favor of a new {{No inline citations}} template. This means that {{No footnotes}} remains intact; it remains exactly as it is right now. It has been used for years and we will not replace it in articles where it is currently being used. By not replacing it but instead deprecating it, its perceived spirit remains intact; that, as User:Jeepday put it, "there is content in the related reading or external links that can and should be used". {{No inline citations}} is currently being used in <300 articles, and to keep the exact spirit of the text currently used in those articles intact, we need to make sure the template they use is {{No footnotes}} instead of {{No inline citations}}, before we create a (new) {{No inline citations}} that is worded differently. I could write the exact proposed text here, but before we venture into that sensitive zone, I'm curious as to whether this could be a way forward at all. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment[edit]

No consensus for this proposal. Number 57 11:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This proposal to deprecate {{No footnotes}}, and replace it with - a somewhat differently worded - {{No inline citations}}, needs (additional) input. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.136.210.153 (talkcontribs) 11:05, 6 November 2014

  • Oppose because, the user using the IP Address 82.136.210.153 is more than just a casual editor, so I suspect that the IP address is being used as a false colour. -- PBS (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
PBS, please WP:AGF. Please address the proposal rather than attacking me personally. If you're implying that an RfC started by an IP editor is invalid, that would not be an acceptable thing to say. General note, for the record: I choose to sign my RfC request above with just the date, as is permitted per 2. of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/RfC. PBS changed it into a full signature. I undid his edit and pointed to aforementioned section. He has reversed that edit of mine. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
By the way, if there's one person who I thought would have supported this proposal, it was you. You started those threads about what is currently the problem with this template, the exact problem I'm trying to solve via this proposal. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing a reason to change anything. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
What about the reasons I gave? Can't you at the very least add your views on those, and explain why you think those aren't (good enough) reasons? This template basically says 'this article includes x, y or z, but lacks inline citations; please introduce more precise citations', and y and z are respectively "related reading" and "external links". This gives the impression that whatever is in such section are (reliable) sources; are already citations. According to WP:CS, WP:EL, and basically every related guideline in existence, such sections should not be assumed to contain (reliable) sources. In some cases they can be reformatted as such, but that's not what the current template says. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
We're back to square one. Here I was thinking that I had found a way to keep you - the person who has objected changes to this template since 2009 - happy by not proposing a change of {{No footnotes}} itself and thereby keeping its perceived spirit intact. But all you have to say is "Not seeing a reason to change anything." That's some world class reasoning there, gotta love all those arguments and counter-arguments related to the proposal in question. We may as well make it a majority vote and just ignore any substantive discussion. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Considering that {{No inline citations}} is a redirect to {{No footnotes}}, and the former is a longer wording then the later, I oppose this proposal. There is no reason to use the longer name, and it's not like it is a significantly different template. Seems like a bikeshed proposal to me... — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
You write 'considering that x is a redirect to y', but after my proposal this would no longer be the case. The mere fact that you wrote aforementioned phrase shows me that you either did not fully read my proposal or did not understand it properly. Opposing a change because a template name would be seven characters longer isn't a very strong argument, especially considering the possibility to use shortcuts, just like {{No footnotes}} has several shortcuts including {{Nf}}. Also, you write there is no reason to use the longer name, but as I've explained the longer name is more accurate. Also, it would be a significantly different template because its meaning - perceived spirit - would change, as you can read in various other threads I referenced in my first post. Using a different template name is only part of my proposal. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparently the essence of my comment went right over your head. Write the new template before proposing that we switch to it. That's what sandboxes are for, and I can't imagine anyone excepting your proposal without seeing the replacement. Maybe the best course of action is to just modify the existing template (use the sandbox and request an edit since it is protected). My point about not using the longer name (it's already a redirect to no footnotes after all) is that it is very unlikely you are going to convince the community to use a different template name just for the sake of change when the existing one has been used for years and years... — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, your first comment did/does not convey what you appear to think it does. Either way, at this point it's clear that my idea of putting together a new proposed text in consultation with others at a later stage is not an option.

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. If this article has related reading, external links or similar sections, those may contain sources that are reliable enough to be used as (inline) references.

Is along the lines of what I have in mind. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
How can the template name remain the same when its perceived spirit changes if the proposal would be implemented? The current template is being used in thousands of articles to convey that, as User:Jeepday put it, "there is content in the related reading or external links that can and should be used". This would no longer be the case after the proposed change. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment I cannot possibly be the only person on Wikipedia who thinks that this template currently appears to say that content in "related reading" or "external links" are (reliable) sources. It literally says about the article in question that it "includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations". Can anyone at least side with me on this. PBS? Anyone? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. The IP is correct. That's exactly what it says and it's a good idea. End of. Also, IP, get an account. Editors will take you more seriously. So long as you're an IP, you're going to get grief. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Template-protected edit request on 7 November 2014[edit]

Please replace:

{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||$N=No footnotes |date=__DATE__ |$B=
{{ambox
| name  = No footnotes
| subst = <includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly><includeonly>substcheck}}</includeonly>
| type  = style
| class = ambox-No_footnotes
| image = [[file:text document with red question mark.svg|50x40px|alt=|link=]]
| issue = This {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes 
 | [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|'''biographical article''']]
 | {{{1|article}}}
}} includes a [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|list of references]], related reading or [[Wikipedia:External links|external links]], but '''{{#ifeq:{{{1|article}}}|article|its sources|the sources of this {{{1}}}}} remain unclear because it lacks [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|inline citations]]'''. {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes
 | Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced '''must be removed immediately''', especially if potentially [[defamation|libelous]] or harmful.
}}
| fix   = Please [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|improve]] this article by introducing more precise citations.
| date  = {{{date|}}}
| cat   = Articles lacking in-text citations
| all   = All articles lacking in-text citations
}}
}}<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
<!-- Please add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, thanks -->
</noinclude>

with:

{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||$N=No footnotes |date=__DATE__ |$B=
{{Ambox
| name  = No footnotes
| subst = <includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly><includeonly>substcheck}}</includeonly>
| type  = style
| class = ambox-No_footnotes
| image = [[File:text document with red question mark.svg|50x40px|alt=|link=]]
| issue = This {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes 
 | [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|'''biographical article''']]
 | {{{1|article}}}
}} includes a [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|list of references]], related reading or [[Wikipedia:External links|external links]], but '''{{#ifeq:{{{1|article}}}|article|its sources|the sources of this {{{1}}}}} remain unclear because it lacks [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|inline citations]]'''. {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes
 | Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced '''must be removed immediately''', especially if potentially [[defamation|libelous]] or harmful.
}}
| fix   = Please [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|improve]] this article by [[Help:Referencing for beginners|introducing more inline citations]].
| date  = {{{date|}}}
| cat   = Articles lacking in-text citations
| all   = All articles lacking in-text citations
}}
}}<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
<!-- Please add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, thanks -->
</noinclude>

as I believe that a link to instructions for new users to understand how to add citations may improve the quantity and overall quality of citations in articles on Wikipedia. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. please don't paste code blobs, they're difficult to compare and test. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Added to the sandbox and the testcases page has been fixed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
So apart from the pointless capitalisation of the first letter in two non-visible page names, it's adding one link (why is a link to Help:Referencing for beginners necessary when Wikipedia:Citing sources is linked in the previous sentence? If a link is necessary, wouldn't Wikipedia:Inline citation be better, per WP:EGG?) and changing one word. That word changes the meaning of the sentence, so Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template.. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Rr64 I think the Help:Referencing for beginners is a better target for such a link because it is more likely to be first time editors and it will be easier for them to understand than Wikipedia:Inline citation. Also, the word change is to clarify that we are not asking them to add 100 more references to the bottom of the page, we are asking them to add more inline citations to the text, which is the whole purpose of the template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 January 2015[edit]

It seems that typing {{No footnotes|section}} is supposed to produce the text "This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but the sources of this section remain unclear because it lacks inline citations." This makes sense, as individual sections by themselves don't contain references or links, only articles do. See also this discussion, where the change was made.

But the template doesn't work properly. Typing {{No footnotes|section}} instead produces a text which begins "This section includes a list of references..." which is incorrect. Looking at the code (disclaimer: I'm not familiar with Wikipedia template coding) I think the template is set to display "This (parameter 1) includes a list ... but the sources of this (parameter 1) remain unclear..." which causes the incorrect behavior. JudgeDeadd (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: JudgeDeadd, (parameter 1) is everything after the first pipe (bar eg. | ) character until then second pipe character or the closing curly brackets ( eg }} ). In your example |section}} says that section is parameter 1. This means the template is working as intended. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. It is clear that the template is not working as intended. See the discussion above, again. The template, in its current version, has been edited by User:EVula, in response to User:Peter coxhead's request that the phrase "This section includes..." be changed. This means that EVula's intentions were, indeed, to make the fix requested by Peter Coxhead--to change the template so that it states "This article includes..." But currently the template does not do so, and still produces the erroneous "This section includes..." text. So it is not working as the most recent editor intended. (True, other editors made some edits to the template after EVula, but their edits did not change anything in the part of the template I'm discussing, and don't seem to affect the functioning of this part.) JudgeDeadd (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

whole page
Using {{No footnotes}}

section only
Using {{No footnotes|section}}


Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As you can see in the example, if you want it to say article, don't use |section for parameter 1. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done The message relating to a section was nonsense; JudgeDeadd was quite right. It said "This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links" but sections never contain "a list of references, related reading or external links". These are part of the article. When used as {{No footnotes|section|BLP=yes}} it correctly said "This biographical article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but the sources of this section ...". So it should say the same without the "biographical" when BLP=yes is absent. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit-undo.svg Undone: This request has been undone. That's incorrect usage. If you want to introduce new functionality, please test it in the sandbox per WP:TESTCASES and develop a consensus before implementing. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Of course sections contain "a list of references, related reading or external links" - it's part of the Manual of Style. See WP:FNNR, WP:FURTHER and WP:ELLAYOUT. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Peter coxhead, for pointing out this omission in the BLP part of this template. I added that as an obvious omission. Debresser (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
No. What Peter coxhead meant was that individual sections of the article itself don't contain their own, individual source listings etc., only the article as a whole does. JudgeDeadd (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If the section doesn't contain a list of references, related reading or external links then it is empty and should just be deleted. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
(sigh) Sorry, but I'm not sure why do people keep misunderstanding me, and this is getting annoying. I don't mean the References/External Links sections found at the end of articles. I mean that individual sections of the article itself don't contain their own individual reference lists. For example... in the article Hillsgrove Covered Bridge, the sections "Overview", "History", "Bridge dimensions" don't contain their own lists of reference sources tacked on at the end, so if we tried putting the template in one of these sections, the message wouldn't make sense -- it would refer to a reference list supposedly contained by the section, when there is no such list in the section itself. I really hope I expressed myself clearly; I have no idea how could I possibly make it any simpler. JudgeDeadd (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps that is because you are the one not reading what the template actually says and are misunderstanding everyone else. I also mean the individual sections of the article itself. If they do not contain their own individual reference lists, they must have either related reading or external links or they are empty and should be deleted. In your examples, those sections all have related reading which makes the template appropriate. There aren't suppose to be a {{Reflist}} in every section, but there are suppose to be inline citations in every section which will add entries to the {{Reflist}} section at the bottom of the page. Can you show me some actual examples of where you think this template is misused? I'll happily explain why it is or isn't appropriate for each one of your examples. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "I also mean the individual sections of the article itself. If they do not contain their own individual reference lists, they must have either related reading or external links or they are empty and should be deleted. In your examples, those sections all have related reading which makes the template appropriate." Uh... what? Okay, now you got me completely confused. All right, for example: in the Hillsgrove Covered Bridge article, take a look at the Overview section. Where, exactly, is the "related reading" in the section itself, or this section's own "individual reference list"? All I see is the "References" and "External links" sections at the bottom of the article as a whole. The "Overview" section doesn't contain any references/links at the bottom. Huh--I guess it means, per your words, that that section is actually empty (funny, because I'm pretty sure I see quite a lot of text in there) and we should delete it! As for your request for examples of misuse--e.g. take a look at the Colossi of Memnon page, the "Sound" section. The template is there, and it says: "This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links", but there are no references, related reading or external links to be found at the bottom of the "Sound" section, so the message is incorrect. Simple as that. Okay, the issue isn't that important; it's just a cosmetic change to fix a somewhat confusing text. But for the life of me I cannot comprehend why is my point so hard to understand. JudgeDeadd (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The related reading in Hillsgrove Covered Bridge#Overview is in the collapsed section below:
The related reading in Colossi of Memnon#Sounds is in the collapsed section below:
I'm hoping you understand now... Related reading means the text in the section. The text in the section has no inline references, hence the {{No footnotes}} is appropriate for that section. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that {{no footnotes|section}} is a better choice for these cases than, say, {{refimprove|section}}? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Only if there are no inline references at all in the section. Neither of the examples I'm responding to need {{No footnotes}} at all. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
If a section has no inline refs at all, use {{unreferenced|section}}.
If a section has some inline refs, but they are insufficient, use {{refimprove|section}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it, it was me who was wrong from the start. You see, the "Sound" section in Colossi of Memnon was originally inserted with the books by Curzon and Gould added as sources into the article's Colossi of Memnon#References list, but without the inline citations. I wanted to add the template, but never realized that other readers wouldn't be able to tell which of the bibliographic entries refer to the section. That was incredibly dumb of me. JudgeDeadd (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please will someone explain to me when a section ever contains "a list of references, related reading or external links". It never does. The message makes no sense whatsoever. {{No footnotes|section}} should be used when the article has a list of references, related reading or external links, but there are no inline citations in that section. An example would be Pandurang Sadashiv Sane#Early life. The article has a list of references and of external links, but that section has no inline citations. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I have seen that in the References section of an article, when it doesn't contain a list of refs. Some editors prefer to do that rather than place the ugly damn maint. template at the TOP of an article. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 03:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
But then the second part of the message is wrong, namely "the sources of this section remain unclear because it lacks inline citations"; when placed in the References section the message should read "This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but the sources of the article remain unclear because it lacks inline citations."
Return to my example: Pandurang Sadashiv Sane#Early life. If I put {{Unreferenced|section}} it should not read "This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but the sources of this section remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. ..." This message is plain wrong. The section does not include a list of anything. So why was my correction reverted? I'm still waiting for an explanation. Unless there's one soon, I'll make the correction again. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If you put {{Unreferenced|section}} it doesn't say that at all: it actually says "This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by ..." It's a clear message, and if inaccurate (e.g. because refs are present), either change it to something else (like {{BLP unreferenced|section}} or {{refimprove|section}}, or remove it. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64: sorry, I switched templates above. {{Unreferenced}} is fine. {{No footnotes|section}} generates .
Peter coxhead (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Please will someone explain to me when a section ever contains "a list of references, related reading or external links". It never does."

Actually, I saw a (bare) external link spammed into the bottom of a new section just a few hours ago. "It never happens" is factually wrong. I am willing to agree that it should never happen, but that's a completely different kettle of fish. If you want to see reality, then you can spend a while cleaning up Whistleblower protection in the United States. It looks like there's about 90 external links that need to be cleaned up, many of them in list format, right in the sections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)