Talk:Dexter Lehtinen

References

Links to newspapers need links to online archives. These references are bogus. Corvus cornix_talk 07:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, I don't think there is anything wrong with unlinked references per se; many reliable sources are not available on line. But it is a very good idea to include them when available, especially when citing potentially sensitive or controversial material about a living person, as you are doing here. That said, I do agree that unilateral removal wasn't necessary -- a polite request would have gotten things off on a better foot. Hope it won't deter you from further editing, Jfire (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callelinea (talk • contribs)
  • The above was added here by Callelinea, not by Jfire. Corvus cornix_talk 07:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That was what he posted on my talk page on this matter.Callelinea (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Now that they're in-line, we can match news pieces to article claims. If you still think they're bogus (i.e. that they don't support the claims in the article) the onus is really not on Callelinea to show that they're not, but on a concerned editor who has access to the relevant newspapers. Of course that's why we prefer online sources, using {{cite web}}. Prefer but not require. Remember to assume good faith. Dethme0w (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC) This was posted on your talk page regarding this matter. Callelinea (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Corvus, it is simply not true that newspaper citations are require to have links to online archives. I'll echo what Dethme0w has already said: links are very much encouraged where available, as it makes verification much easier, but there are reliable newspapers that do not have their archives online or require payment to access them. Jfire (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What I see here is an article that at first had a rather unhelpful list of newspaper articles as "references." The list was correctly removed, and since then they've been turned into inline refs, which makes them a lot more relevant and IMO, satisfy Wikipedia:Citing_sources. They'd be even more helpful still, if they were web references to online versions of the newspaper articles - but that is not required if online versions do not exist. In short, the article had a problem, Corvus and I pointed out the problem, and Callelinea went to considerable effort to satisfy the burdens of attribution and verifiability. Corvus, if you still think that the references are bogus, you'll have to show how before deleting them again. Dethme0w (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a fair summary, Dethme0w. Jfire (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a mistaken belief by some editors that only sources that are online are acceptable. Obviously that's wrong - most books are not, and non-fiction books are generally excellent sources. As for newspaper articles, while it would be nice to have a link to an archived online copy, sometimes those aren't available. And even if they are, if an editor gets information via paper or microfilm copies, he/she isn't required to do the extra work of finding an online link. Wikipedia doesn't require perfect citations, only citations that are sufficient for other editors to enhance if they want to take the time to do so.

Obviously, if several of these off-line citations turn out to be bogus, that puts all of them in question. But unless that happens, we should assume that they're valid, and leave them alone.

Finally, I note that the last 20 years of the New York Times archives are completely free and on-line; that would cover the period during which he was nominated to be a U.S. Attorney, and then resigned from that position. I strongly suggest that an interested editor check out that source, and replace (as much as possible) off-line sources with on-line sources. Or check the archives of any of the cited sources where those are online, and add a link/URL. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

Callelinea, I noticed that several sentences in this article were taken directly from the Time magazine source [1]: "The paper reported on a deposition from his former wife, who swore that before their 1982 separation he hurled a television set across a room, bashed through doors and shoved her around. The Herald also said Lehtinen sprained the arm of his girlfriend, former legislative aide Dolores Zell, by pushing her to the floor." You need to be careful when taking material from an online source to rewrite in your own words, summarize, integrate, or synthesize the material from several sources. It is not acceptable to copy and paste sentences, as that constitutes a copyright violation, which is taken very seriously on Wikipedia. Please replace that section of the article and any other that may be copyvios ASAP. Thanks, Jfire (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Would this satisfy the copywrite vio? Other problems brought up in his confirmation ordeal were according to the Time Magazine article "...The Miami Herald articles revealing details of Lehtinen's personal life. The paper reported on a deposition from his former wife, who swore that before their 1982 separation he hurled a television set across a room, bashed through doors and shoved her around. The Herald also said Lehtinen sprained the arm of his girlfriend, former legislative aide Dolores Zell, by pushing her to the floor". Callelinea (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's still questionable, and it reads very awkwardly to quote it like that. You have numerous citations for that section; what you should do is summarize in your own words what they say, rather than quote one of them but cite all of them. Jfire (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reworded, hope its ok now. Thanks Callelinea (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)