Talk:Carmelita Hinton

General citations vs. inline citations

A short while ago, I made an edit wherein I addressed a general reference style; to whit, I changed the name of the section from 'References' to 'Notes', and then added a more typical References section, complete with reflist template, so as to properly display an inline citation. Another editor altered that somewhat, noting, "reformat into one refs section: those are the "proper" references for this article -- see WP:REF#General_reference".
I have reverted it back, as both citation styles are not meant to be used side by side. As this is a biography, the use of inline citations - fully bullet-proofing the statements used in the article. I would actually prefer that the general citation were converted over to inline citations, but I have no idea where the named sources were specifically used. Until someone is able to do so, we can call the section containing the more general references 'Notes', and the specific references in the section specifically named for them.
Lastly, a little bit fromthe linked edit summary. I've italicized the pertinent text:

"...it may sometimes be acceptable to simply add the citation at the end. It serves as a general reference, not linked to any particular part of the article. This is more likely to be appropriate for relatively undeveloped articles or those covering a very simple or narrow topic. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged requires an inline citation, as does contentious material about a living person..."¹

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to have two separate sections, that's fine -- but those aren't notes, so they shouldn't be in a section called "Notes". Further, there's no pressing reason at all to use inline citations here, and anyone who can read can easily check the material in this article against those sources. As the person who wrote the bulk of this material, I will absolutely not be wasting the effort to footnote every fact individually simply because you think it's nicer or more "bulletproof" in some abstract way. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Rbellin. We can call them 'other sources', 'further reading' or some such. And you will note that I in no way suggested that "we footnote every fact individually". That would indeed be tedious. As the person who wrote the bulk of this article, you need to understand that other editors might have more (or simply different) knowledge of the subject material as well; this is how articles grow from start-class to GA- and FA-class. The best way to preserve material that is accurate and from a specific source is to footnote it with inline citation. I am not saying you need (or should) go batshit crazy with citations. figure out which statements in the article are the most likely to be challenged as original research or synthesis, and cite them. That is what I mean when I refer to an article's "bulletproof" properties. If you consider that effort to be a "waste", then consider how you will feel if the bulk of the article content gets skewed or deleted. All that effort in writing the bulk of the article will then have been wasted. I don't necessarily think inline citations are a waste of time, but that's just me. And likely thousands of other editors here. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Further reading" is just as inaccurate as "Notes." Those are the sources for the bulk of the article, so they should be called "references" per WP:MOS. I have no idea where you got the idea that all material without inline citations was subject to deletion (and no idea why you'd want to make veiled threats like that about other people's substantial and encyclopedic work), but it comes from no Wikipedia policy that I have ever seen in my years of editing. If you want to make a substantive contribution to this article, be my guest, but I'm not wasting any more time with this niggling policy-lawyering. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are incorrect, Rbellin - you might want to consult with a more experienced editor in this matter, as you appear unwilling to interact with me without being snide about it ("niggling policy-lawyering"), or to take my word on the matter. Your years of editing span only 5k edits in 6 years; I'd advise you that taking the tack that you are somehow a better or more experienced editor than I isn't going to carry the day here - at least, not with me. As well, edit-warring the subject, as opposed to actually finding a solution here, isn't going to help, either. You are currently at your third revert of the day; a fourth will have some negative consequences for you.

That distasteful matter aside, I'm going to again ask you - since you said the entire article is based off the general references - to provide information to prove that, or remove the sources. Information that is challenged must be cited or removed. That is Wikipedia's rule, not mine. Your preferred version of the article suggests that your "sources" are somehow more important than inline, cited sources. Prove it or remove it. If you cannot find the time to do so, please do not interfere with others trying to improve the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the sources of both the Kennedy and Sadovnik sources, and I have to say that I haven't the foggiest what parts of this article you've taken from them. there is information there, but little of that - specifically the Sadovnik - appears here. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but these sources aren't proving that they are superior to the inline citations, which can in fact be proven. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Rbellin, if the items now listed as further reading were used to reference materials in the article, they need to be properly converted to inline citations. You can use named refs to make it even easier. Simply listing them at the end of the article and labeling them as references is not a valid reference style, per Wikipedia's manual of style and per the verifiability policy, which states "anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." In essence, Jack has challenged the material in this article, so the items listed below, if they are references, need to properly made into inline citations to show that the material is verifiable. WP:CITE does allow for a "general" reference, however please note that it applies only to unchallenged material. From my own experiences in dealing with good and featured articles, they have heavily fallen out of favor as they are less accurate and it makes it much easier for someone to come along and add additional, unverified material to an article, without anyone knowing it is not actually sourced. I would also urge you to remember to remain civil in your discussions with other editors, assume good faith in your interactions, and refrain from edit warring. When you disagree with an edit, discussion rather than continuing to revert. Also of concern to me is that several sentences in the article are far too close to the original wording from the sources. These need correcting per WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:PARAPHRASE. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the troubling sections, and converted one of the refs to an inline citation to help solve the issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)