User talk:Enkyo2/Bunmei 文明 1469

• "Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice" (abstract), The Journal of Business Communication. January 1, 2004.
• Wikipedia:Process is important

________________________________________

Minor issue

/Bunmei 文明 1469 There is a minor issue with some Japanese history related articles, and I'm looking mainly for options/opinions. I've been going through Japanese history articles for about 10-11 months now, tagging articles that don't list sources, out of what I believe to be the necessity of properly citing history articles. Recently, User:Ooperhoofd has been adding (what I can best gather is) a french translation of another language of a 17th century Japanese history book into many articles (which in and of itself I don't have the standing to make judgement on), but the issue currently is that he removed the "needs sources" tag when he puts this book in as "further reading", which essentially results in calling this book a source for the article. It is my understanding that a source or reference for an article is a book or article or source that was used directly in the writing of the article. Because he is arbitrary in adding this "further reading", I suspect that many times, the book has no direct reference to the article in question. I have requested that he stop removing the "needs sources" tag from articles that he adds this book as further reading, but has no actual sources or references, but I believe possibly due to a language barrier, he isn't fully grasping the issue. Any comments or possible solutions to this situation? A more minor question I have is twofold - this being English wikipedia, should a french book be listed as "further reading" to so many articles which may or may not be directly related, and, due to the arbitrary nature of his additions, should this be allowed per wikipedia policy? I have no issues with this user, and apparently in the articles where he is actually contributing concrete information, he is doing quite a good job. Just looking to see what we can do to resolve this. Thanks! --Kuuzo 09:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, we will never know the sources of nearly two million Wikipedia articles. The authors no longer participate in Wikipedia, or they have forgotten where they read something, or they cannot access the book or library any more, or they based their writing on an ephemeral source such as a conversation or a Web site that has disappeared. Short of throwing out the article and starting from a blank edit box (citing sources for the new information we write), the closest we can come is to cite references that include facts stated in the article. So, in my opinion, we can expect references but we should not expect sources.

What are the advantages of asking third-party editors to provide the sources, as distinct from supporting references, for articles? In which circumstances are sources crucially more important than references?

Fg2 10:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree - the main reason I tag the articles is so that one of the thousands of users with a book that directly applies to the article will cite it, as well as a tag to warn students doing research that it is unverified (which I mention below). But that doesn't address the issue of adding an unrelated "recommended reading" and calling it a source without actually adding to the text (point being, it probably has nothing directly pertinent to the text). The purpose of a source should be so you can verify what is written. If one adds a source to an article that can be used to verify what is written, that is perfect and highly reccommended. But I don't think adding a book which probably doesn't have any pertinent info qualifies (particularly when it is simply "further reading") To quote LordAmeth's post on the user's talk page (which I think is a balanced and well thought out reply)

Also, I think it is important to note the difference between citations and suggesting something as Further Reading. Citations are a wonderful thing, no matter what language the source is in. I am not at all opposed to the use of this book as a cited source, provided that such errors are watched out for, etc. But there is a key difference between citing something as a source and suggesting it as Further Reading. Foreign language books should not be suggested for further reading, and I don't think things should be suggested unless they are directly pertinent to the topic at hand. Even from what little I know about this book I can hazard a guess that there is not a significant percentage of the book devoted exclusively to Kujo Yoritsune or to Empress Gemmei, and therefore it should not be suggested as further reading on those subjects. Please, Ooperhoofd, if you have a specific fact or point to cite, go ahead and cite it, but do not suggest this text - which is in a foreign language, and is far too old to be a reliable source - as if it were the definitive textbook on a half dozen scattered topics. LordAmeth 17:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it looks like various users have gone back and forth about this source on his user page over the past month or so, with nothing really definitive decided. Also, history articles, unlike most of the other 2 million articles, are always verifiable, and if they aren't, wikipedia seems to frown on that. But my question/comment is mainly on using a "further reading" which may not have anything to do with the article, as a "source" that people are expected to read to verify the article it is listed in. I personally consider the "needs sources" tag as a warning for students who use the internet for research that the article in question is currently unverified - particularly since students tend to be fast and loose with citations. I'm trying to save some headaches down the road, including the propagation of incorrect information. --Kuuzo 10:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Further Reading, agreed!

I suspect the book Ooperhoofd cites (Titsingh) is a chronology, listing enormous numbers of events. It probably has something pertinent to vast categories of articles, including historical people (emperors, military leaders, religious figures), places where events occurred, dates, battles, successions, lineages, establishments, disasters, the list goes on. I've seen many articles in which Ooperhoofd cites it, and it appears to have a relevant factoid. If it doesn't have anything relevant to an article, let's discourage listing of it. This remark may be especially pertinent when Titsingh is cited in a Further Reading section. Moreover, reliable modern sources are preferable. Titsingh is not a primary source. It has little advantage, and great disadvantage, in comparison to present-day scholarship.

Except in articles where Ooperhoofd (or someone else) adds substantial material from Titsingh, the book is not a source, and should not be listed as a source. Again, though, I'm not sure what the point is in asking for sources; when we encounter an article that doesn't list sources or references, I believe we should retroactively ask for references instead of retroactively asking for sources. Also, note that Wikipedia's requirement is that All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. To become a Featured Article, an entry needs citations for facts likely to be challenged; for articles that are lower in rank (Good, A, B, Start, or Stub), citations are useful and valuable but progressively less required, and citations for widely accepted facts are not even necessary in featured articles.

The same article also has the answer to your question about French sources: Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it. Wikipedia:Verifiability has similar statements. There must be many modern English scholarly works available to establish the credibility of Wikipedia articles. I don't think we need to rely on Titsingh. But Wikipedia is a volunteer organization, and when someone answers our call for references by citing Titsingh, maybe that's better than nothing. It may be a long time before another volunteer comes along with a better source.

Regarding a direction for future tagging of articles, I'd suggest that in many articles identifying questionable statements is more fruitful than requesting sources. For specific templates, Wikipedia:Verifiability suggests using the {{fact}} template on a sentence. For articles, {{Not verified}} or {{Unreferenced}} is their suggestion.

Fg2 11:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with all that's been said. I just hope we can somehow convince Ooperhoofd to understand and cooperate. LordAmeth 00:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Think again

Two of Fg2's mild sentences need to be reiterated for emphasis:

Wikipedia is a volunteer organization, and when someone answers our call for references by citing Titsingh, maybe that's better than nothing. It may be a long time before another volunteer comes along with a better source.

In this context, I'm wondering which of your sentences specifically demonstrate that each of you have consulted Nihon Ōdai Ichiran prior to this concerned exchange? In a venue where thousands of postings have no reference at all, you're complaining about ME -- about my hard work. Who's kidding who?

When Kuuzo first complained in June, I responded reasonably; and I even took the trouble to help bridge any misunderstandings by providing references and citations which helped establish the validity of my sources. How often do you imagine other editors have done something like this? The answer to this hypothetical question doesn't much matter. What does matter is what I did do. My actions have been congruent with my words. See: (1) Nihon Ōdai Ichiran, (2) Jinnō Shōtōki, (3) Gukanshō.

The practical consequences have been unwarranted derision.

Let's assume that for whatever reason, neither Kuuzo nor Fg2 knew about the seven volumes of Nihon Ōdai Ichiran nor the Hayashi family nor the Shōheikō nor the 310 volumes of Honchoutsugan (本朝通鑑/ほんちょうつがん). The continuing problem for me is that LordAmeth did know, and yet he said nothing. That's very troubling.

My best efforts were for naught. This is extremely frustrating. I can only conclude that I've somehow earned this disrespect, and that it's up to me to figure out how to move beyond today's impasse. But how ...?

LordAmeth posted a contrite apology at User talk:Ooperhoofd, and I'd be inclined to say okay, fine, let's move on ... but -- wait -- I already tried that route in June. The problem is puzzling and vexing. This is what LordAmeth wrote:

Well, I am really sorry that you feel I am not assuming good faith, and that you find my comments "meritless and distracting." I have never been especially good at expressing my ideas as clearly as I ought to, and writing out what must be read between the lines of my comments. I do truly apologise for that. As I have said before, you seem like a very knowledgeable, educated, and dedicated editor, and I wish that we could work together rather than assuming poor faith about one another. I have tried my best to be as reasonable as possible, and I appologise if you have found that to be annoying. I can see that you are tired of these unconstructive arguments, and I too am more than willing to simply let it go. I look forward to further excellent content contributions from you, and I hope that we can work together productively and constructively in the future. LordAmeth 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

But what I read here persuades me that this "discussion" will only come back to bite me in the ass whenever Kuuzo has nothing better to do with his time ... or whenever who-knows what happens ... and then LordAmeth will join along in the fun and I won't be able to ignore them while I continue to work on other things. I don't relish looking forward to being the butt of an unfunny joke. That prospect is neither welcome nor wholesome. No.

Here's what I think:

• Assume good faith ≠ Kuuzo
• Assume good faith ≠ LordAmeth

I'd prefer to be proven wrong, of course. It would be better for everyone, better for Wikipedia in the long run ..... But I do know one thing: I have nothing to prove here. That burden lies elsewhere.

Paraphrasing Lord Ameth: "I just hope we can together somehow convince each other to better understand and cooperate."

The only place I feel on solid ground is within another admirable Lord Ameth statement: "I simply want to work together with others to help the project improve." Ooperhoofd 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)