Wikipedia

Talk:Photography Is Not a Crime/Archive 1

< Talk:Photography Is Not a Crime
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Charlotte Aryanne in topic Fourth Amendment
Archive 1

Orphan status fixed

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have just added links to the See also section of five articles. The Abuse article has lots of links to other articles which might be possible places for adding links to the See also section. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool --Lexein (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
...and five more. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have added four more categories. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation style

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I returned the article to the Bluebook citation style, per WP:CITEVAR and WP:REFB. Please seek consensus if you intend to change the style. GregJackP Boomer! 03:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of book publisher and ISBN information (reducing verifiability), breaking harvard multi-cite linking (by obscuring the author's last name and removing the usual wikilinking tying them together), and removing publication date information (by which periodicals publicly identify their issues), is not helpful. Please reconsider those changes for easier verifiability, regardless of style chosen. --Lexein (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, no. Book publisher and ISBN information is not used by Bluebook. If I had wished to use Harvard-style linking, I would have used Harvard-style citations instead of Bluebook citations. There is no requirement to list that information nor to use a specific citation style that uses that information. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 11:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the citation style change?

Latest comment: 10 years ago53 comments10 people in discussion

Should the citation style of this article change from Bluebook to Citation Style 1 to be able to contain more information, and to ease verifiability for readers? --Lexein (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support as proposer - more information, and less abbreviated ("F."?) is absolutely better for the reader, and would be more consistent with the vast majority of GA and FA citation styles. Using another style such as Cs1 will also be easier for editors adding material to the article to use correctly, since Cs1 is well documented here. --Lexein (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This is merely a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of the proposer, probably because he doesn't understand the current style and is not competent in it. GregJackP Boomer! 05:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Ad hominem attack responded to in its entirety below. --Lexein (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:WIAPA & WP:SPADE. GregJackP Boomer! 20:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Not a personal attack, an honest statement of probable motivation for requesting the RFC. Damotclese (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as to this article. My general rule of thumb is that legal articles (i.e. on cases, statutes, doctrines) will primarily be of interested to the legal community, and should be in the Bluebook style with which that community is most familiar. This article, however, is about a blog, apparently by a non-lawyer, which seems to have caught the interest of legal writers, but which is likely also of interest to the general public. Nevertheless, it ain't broke. bd2412 T 13:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose at least in part, largely per both comments above. It does seem that the proposer is confused on at least a few points, particularly regarding court case citations, as GregJackP pointed out every citation style treats them the same and so the reporter abbreviation is not unique to Bluebook (if the proposal was instead to format a published court opinion using Template:Citation as if it were a book, with "publisher" and "author", that can just be rejected outright as silly). The only variance I've ever seen in legal or mainstream writing is that some state courts change the order in which the date is given and whether parentheticals or brackets are used for the date. We are not going to make up a citation format for those who don't know how to read a cite to official legal materials, whether court case or statute. I typically fill them out with wikilinks like this, to better educate the lay reader: Smith v. Smith, 103 F. 3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2010). Heaven forbid people learn something here...

    However, as for non-legal materials (i.e., ordinary published books, even if about law), I think it's helpful to include publisher and ISBN because it specifies a particular edition, which is necessary if there are pinpoint cites. postdlf (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

So you support the proposal in terms of publisher and ISBN. Thanks for that, I guess. Verification is the name of the game, with citations. Making verification more difficult to do is not the job of a Wikipedia editor. To your first point, I'm not "confused" about reporter abbreviation: I'm rather adamantly opposed to it, because this is an encyclopedia, not a law journal or court, so law citations need not be cryptic for any reason. I do wish you'd remove your assertion about "confusion". Reporter abbreviations, in the limit, are egregiously unhelpful to readers of Wikipedia who are not lawyers, and most of them are not. Unless wikilinked to an article describing the reporter, it's just blankly unhelpful. I have already been doing exactly as you described (wikilinking), to compensate for those who deliberately make things more cryptic than they need to be by choosing not to use WP:Plain English, and by choosing not to WP:Remember the reader, which IMHO should both be policies. Big picture: when a reader simply wants to verify a claim, why should they be dragged off into some cryptic netherworld imposed solely by a truculent, unhelpful citation writer? Not seeing a good reason for the resistance to change for the better. --Lexein (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
How exactly would you like to format court case citations, and what source have you found that does it in that manner? postdlf (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. To answer the question addressed to me: Probably Chicago-similar Cs1, with the same raw text, Cs1 styling (plain title, ital pub), with some overabbreviations expanded for the sake of the readers - lose nothing. Template not needed. When reporter names are less aggressively abbreviated, they become more searchable, and so, more verifiable. Wikilinking helps, but not when the article is printed. Less aggressive abbreviation is disallowed, by all accounts, in Bluebook. I prefer templates, where available, for the obvious reasons: faster, simplified free-form construction, highly uniform output, error checking, ease of expansion, COInS database usage, and extremely widespread acceptance at the project. I prefer that the use of any particular citation style not lock out the use of templates, as Bluebook does, because it (so far) mandates the COInS-breaking and widely deprecated {{smallcaps}} (see docs). Generally, standards devised outside Wikipedia, as I've been told many times, should not hold any absolute sway here; so the entire Bluebook 19th shouldn't either, especially without freely available documentation. For that reason, it really shouldn't matter so terribly much if an editor wants to unabbreviate particularly overabbreviated (cryptic) journal titles. --Lexein (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
He hasn't found any style that formats a court case differently, because there isn't one. I also see a lot of difference between finding it "helpful" and calling that "support." Postdlf also said he agreed with both oppose comments above, which were that it isn't broke, and that you didn't understand the current style. GregJackP Boomer! 20:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Lexein: "When reporter names are less aggressively abbreviated, they become more searchable..." I think you've actually got it backwards. The fact is that "655 F. 3d 78" is in essence an alphanumeric code that functions as a unique identifier for that court opinion. It is what you would enter to look it up on Lexis or Westlaw, any of the free case law sites, or even to just Google it.[1] Most people, professional or lay, are going to try to access a court opinion online, and so it isn't even really necessary to know what it "means" in terms of the print case reporter as it's transcended that increasingly unused format. And adding in extraneous information or unpacking that abbreviation to be "helpful" will not help that online search at all but might interfere with it.

Outside of online access, I don't know how many local libraries will even carry a print run of the Federal Reporter these days, and if someone is there anyway to look for it, obviously the librarian could explain to you how to read the citation (and therefore, how to read every case reporter citation) if they couldn't figure that out online or from following wikilinks to case citation or Federal Reporter. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am looking at the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition (2003), p. 732, sections 17.284-17.286. It specifically says to cite federal and state court cases with a citation format that is identical to Bluebook formatting, for example (these are the examples from the CMoS 17.285) United States v. Dennis, 183 F. 201 (2d Cir. 1950); Am. Trucking, Inc. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir 1999), cert. granted, 120 S. Ct. 2003 (2000); Eaton v. IBM Corp., 925 F. Supp. 487 (S.D. Tex. 1996). It provides similar examples for state court citations. bd2412 T 02:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
BD2412, part of the problem is that Lexein doesn't understand any of the citation systems. Below, I explain how he uses J. Posner to argue against using Bluebook and to go to the Chicago-based CS1 templates to provide more information. The funny thing is that J. Posner dislikes Chicago more than Bluebook, and states that Bluebook is superior to Chicago. He believes that the minimum amount of information necessary the better, banning parallel cites, using regional reporters over official ones, eliminating data like place of publication, etc. About the only difference of consequence is that he eliminates almost all abbreviations, other than the most common (Ry., Co., Inc. Ass'n, and the like). I understand that he doesn't like Bluebook, I know a lot of people who hate it—but it is still an effective citation system. GregJackP Boomer! 02:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This subthread was narrowly focused on court case citations (the 3 of them, vs 24 general citations in this article, totaling 27). I was asked, and I basically said "no substantive changes save for the reporter name". For you to attack/mock/generalize again is not appropriate. As for Case citations do let me know how the general reader is supposed to find their way there, from the bottom of the article, without knowing to call them "case citations". As I have repeatedly said, I care about the reader experience. The case cites, in context, are less important than the other totality of information exclusions, but the reporter names are mere fragments of information. Case cites are triumph of infopacking. But the reporter names are just useless to general readers. The reporter names should, if they "can't" be closer to English, should be easily accessible some other way, especially when they're not spelled out in the article or footnotes. So. Others have suggested it: in the event that no wikilink to a case article exists, is wikilinking the first occurrences of reporter names such as [[Federal Reporter|F]] and Md. Cir. Ct acceptable to you? I'm just going to guess 'no'. --Lexein (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Some editors will link the citation to case citation, which is why I gave that as an example. My practice is to either use a template that links to the full text of the opinion offsite and/or to link to the case reporter article. {{ussc}} does both, for SCOTUS articles. We should also always link to an article on the court when that is part of the citation. But as I explained above, a modern online reader doesn't even need to know that the F. 3d stands for "Federal Reporter, Third Series" to find the alphanumeric string useful, and I don't think the wikilinking I recommend has anything to do with the dispute you first raised over citation styles, as we should feel free to wikilink anything depending on how useful we think the link is. And as noted elsewhere, there is no citation style that would present a case law citation in a format other than 655 F. 3d 78. That just isn't subject to variation. postdlf (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
BTW, you mentioned "Md. Cir. Ct." as a "reporter name" cited to in the article; I located what you were talking about and completed the citation,[2] and it's actually a cite to an unpublished opinion available on LEXIS. Not to a print reporter at all. And so "2010 Md. Cir. Ct. LEXIS 7" (as with a Westlaw-only citation) really is just an alphanumeric code for the opinion with nothing to unpack or unabbreviate. You do need to be familiar with legal materials before you can tell other people how we should best cite to them. postdlf (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I accept this specific critique, because it wasn't laced with abuse. Noted. --Lexein (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The selected reference style is intelligible and accepted within WP. There is no compelling reason given to change the citation system and the proposer, who would presumably administer any such change in the citation system if the proposal was accepted, has not demonstrated competency to do so. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support I think the Bluebook system, although acceptable, is unfortunate for a general topic such as this, as opposed to a purely legal topic. The metadata which Bluebook apparently omits (or at least which GJP has I gather reverted the inclusion of) such as ISBN is, in my experience, highly useful in many case. But if a change is to be made, it must be done consistently, and either all-at-once (after sandboxing if needed) in within a very short interval, and only if a clear consensus to make the change develops. DES (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
@DESiegel, I don't have an objection to a change where it can be done competently, nor do I have a problem with other styles. I recently added a bunch of refs to Sonny Landreth using CS1, because that what was in use at the article. Unusually for CS1 articles, it was listed first last instead of last, first, so I continued that practice on the article by using the "|author= |" tag. I did not use ISBN because it is not required, although I don't have an objection when others do so.
My reverts on the changes made here were not due to an animus against ISBN, it was because the changes were not consistent and the references were being screwed up. GregJackP Boomer! 17:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
GregJackP Whether the change should be made is a separate issue from whether Lexein can make it competently. If that editor can't, plenty of others can. I agree that consistency of citation format is desirable. It is my view that ISBNs are almost always desirable when citing books published after it became standard, although it is almost never required. (When a book has been widely reprinted so that there are many ISBNs and the first edition was before ISBNs were assigned, then an ISBN may actually be undesirable.) DES (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was brought here by the request for comment. It seems to me that it's appropriate to cite court cases in Bluebook style, since that is the style used in the legal community. Also, anyone reading a legal case will encounter citations in Bluebook style. It is easy enough to use a computer to "decode" the citation formats. I do not have any problem with adding an ISBN to books for which that is appropriate. Fagles (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Bluebook style is first and foremost intended for, and focused on, law and jurisprudence, as stated in its foreword, all discussions of it, and its article here. Its primary purpose is in the citation sections of legal briefs to be submitted to courts. Bluebook is not intended for general citation use in general publications such as Wikipedia. Its use here is quadruply inappropriate, because Wikipedia is not a law journal or a court, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are not about the law or of a legal nature, the vast majority of its readers do not practice law, and Photography is Not a Crime is not about the practice of law, nor is its intended audience lawyers or jurists, nor do its citations of legal resources require specific formatting as required in court documents.
WP:CITEVAR#Generally considered helpful explicitly permits "Improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by [meaning not limited to] replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it fights linkrot". Bluebook citations are demonstrably not full bibliographic citations: too much information is excluded. Bluebook exclusions prevent such improvements (according to GregJackP at above & this edit) as follows. Bluebook (or BB as implemented by GregJackP):
  1. excludes publisher from book citations (such as Olorunda (Bluebook) vs (Cs1)
  2. excludes ISBN number from book citations (see above)
  3. excludes book series name from book citations (see above)
    These three effectively hide which version of a book was used. Not helpful to readers.
  4. excludes full name of resources. "Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)". "F?" What the f is that? General readers cannot possibly know that.
  5. excludes date from periodical citations, even if the publication publicizes its date along with volume/issue - Reason (Cs1 vs BB). Reason lists editions on their website by date, not volume/issue. They don't exclude month.
  6. excludes use of lastname,firstname for use of multiple citations from multiple sources: Morgan Leigh Manning (Bluebook) vs Manning, Morgan Leigh(Cs1). A prominent experienced editor mistook the Manning ibids solely because of the Bluebook format reducing the visibility of the last name: [3] but corrected it five minutes later "{... my eyes skipped over it)". How can we expect readers to enjoy that citation style if it makes skipping a source likely?
    WP:IBID forbids use of ibid. and id. So last name is used for source reuse citing a differing location. This bluntly reduces the suitability of Bluebook, as it moves author lastname away from the left edge of the list of citations.
  7. excludes agency or nonoriginal publisher {like HighBeam(Cs1 vs Bluebook), Lyncmigration or COMTEX)
  8. excludes original publisher (Daily Business Review(Cs1 vs BB), Social Science Research Network (Cs1 vs BB))
  9. excludes {{subscription required}} for HighBeam Playboy
  10. excludes clear identification (p. #) of page number or issue (159 U. Pa. L. Rev. 335) - What's 335? could be page, could be issue. Was there an issue#? General readers won't know.
  11. excludes full date form (uses abbreviated dates Oct. Nov. which goes against WP:MOSDATE)
  12. enforces {{smallcaps}} ; merely decorative, not informative, and worst of all alters the capitalization of the names of publications, companies, journals and individuals (who self publish) against their own orthography, and against MOS:CAPS. Smallcaps are caps: to be avoided.
That's just too much information to exclude, and interferes with helping readers verify claims in the absence of convenience links (links rot).. So I'm proposing full switch to Citation Style 1 as started here. --Lexein (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This is simply a matter that Lexein doesn't like Bluebook, possibly because he does not understand the system and is therefore not competent in it.

  • The complaint he has is better suited at WT:Citing sources instead of here, as it appears to be a systemic issue, and not one that is limited to one article.
  • Bluebook is specifically mentioned as a suitable citation style, along with APA, ASA, Chicago, MLA, and Vancouver. Lexein just doesn't like the style.
  • Nothing requires the ungodly amount of anal information that Lexein is requesting, indeed, the first example in WP:Citing sources is merely "Ritter, Ron. The Oxford Style Manual. Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 1."
  • Note that it does not have a ISBN or a book series, nor does it show "which version" is used.
  • Additionally, probably because he is not competent in the Bluebook style, he doesn't know that in Bluebook you do identify the "version", "edition", or other variation so that the exact same book can be found.
  • Since Lexein is not competent in using the Bluebook citation style, he has made a large number of incorrect statements in his reasoning, above.
  1. excludes publisher from book citations (such as Olorunda (Bluebook) vs (Cs1) - this is an inaccurate statement. Publisher information is included in Bluebook citations IF IT IS RELEVANT. See Rule 15.4, p. 140-41 (all references are to the 19th ed.)
  2. excludes ISBN number from book citations (see above), true, but ISBN is not required by any citation style, nor by Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, WP:Citing sources states that the use of ISBN is optional. Even if I was required to use another style, I still would not include ISBN.
  3. excludes book series name from book citations (see above) - not true, see Rule 15.4, above.
  4. excludes full name of resources. "Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)". "F?" What the f is that? General readers cannot possibly know that. Yet every citation system out there, including our own template system, uses that same format. See {{Cite court}}, {{Cite Canadian court}}, and {{Ussc}} for examples. Even if we went along with his request, this citation would not change. Competence is required, especially if one wants to cite courts cases, regardless of the style used.
  5. excludes date from periodical citations, even if the publication publicizes its date along with volume/issue - Reason (Cs1 vs BB). Reason lists editions on their website by date, not volume/issue. They don't exclude month. Not true. It does not exclude the date if the date is relevant, see Rule 16, generally, pp. 147-58. In consecutively paginated journals, it is normally not necessary, but in monthly magazines or newspapers, it is. Again, this comes from Lexein not understanding the Bluebook system.
  6. excludes use of lastname,firstname for use of multiple citations from multiple sources: Morgan Leigh Manning (Bluebook) vs Manning, Morgan Leigh(Cs1). A prominent experienced editor mistook the Manning ibids solely because of the Bluebook format reducing the visibility of the last name: [1] but corrected it five minutes later "{... my eyes skipped over it)". How can we expect readers to enjoy that citation style if it makes skipping a source likely? First, the statement is just plain inaccurate. Subsequent citations to a source use a short citation form, so subsequent Manning cites would read: "Manning, at 110-11, nn. 40-49." Secondly, if you can't read a last name, changing the citation style isn't going to help you.
  7. WP:IBID forbids use of ibid. So last name is used for source reuse citing a differing location. This bluntly reduces the suitability of Bluebook, as it moves author lastname away from the left edge of the list of citations. Bluebook has never used "Ibid", and were Lexein competent in this style (or if he had bothered to click on the wikilink in the guideline), he would know that it is Idem, a Latin word for "the same." In any event, Bluebook doesn't require the use of Id., one can use the shortform citation for subsequent cites.
  8. excludes agency or nonoriginal publisher {like HighBeam(Cs1 vs Bluebook), Lyncmigration or COMTEX) - true, unless it is relevant.
  9. excludes original publisher (Daily Business Review(Cs1 vs BB), Social Science Research Network (Cs1 vs BB)) true, unless it is relevant.
  10. excludes {{subscription required}} for HighBeam Playboy - not true, were HighBeam the only source for Playboy, you could include the subscription template, but since you are not citing to HighBeam but to the original publication, this is not relevant. Again, competence is required.
  11. excludes clear identification (p. #) of page number or issue (159 U. Pa. L. Rev. 335) - What's 335? could be page, could be issue. Was there an issue#? General readers won't know. So? It is simple for them to find out. Is the 159:335 any clearer? I had know clue what that meant until I looked it up. General readers won't no that either.
  12. excludes full date form (uses abbreviated dates Oct. Nov. which goes against WP:MOSDATE) - which is not true and is a complete fabrication of what the policy actually says. Both MOS:DATE and WP:CITEVAR allow the use of abbreviated dates in citations. Again, competence is required.
  13. enforces {{smallcaps}} ; merely decorative, not informative, and worst of all alters the capitalization of the names of publications, companies, journals and individuals (who self publish) against their own orthography, and against MOS:CAPS. Smallcaps are caps: to be avoided. Again, completely incorrect statement. A number of editors have taken a number of articles to both featured article and good article status. The smallcaps issue has been brought up and accepted as it was a part of the citation style. Examples include: Ex parte Crow Dog, Menominee Tribe v. United States, United States v. Lara, Aboriginal title in the Marshall Court, Criminal law in the Marshall Court, Crimes Act of 1790, etc. Second, in the Bluebook style, smallcaps are in fact informative, not decorative. For example, a name in smallcaps indicates that this is a book author, and his statements carry more weight than someone who merely wrote an article (an whose name appears in normal case). The other styles use similar formatting to identify article (italic type, quotation marks, underlining), all of which serve a purpose. The fact that you do not understand the style does not mean that it's merely decorative. Again, competence is required.

Hopefully we can put this to rest and go back to creating featured or good content. GregJackP Boomer! 07:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If, in order to understand these references, "competence is required" to an extent that Leixin (according to you) lacks, presumably most other readers will also lack the said competence, and therefore such references are more or less useless. I deplore the use of obscure and cryptic reference styles that ordinary readers will not understand. -- Alarics (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Alarics, most people don't have a problem understanding the references. My reference to competence was in regards to Wikipedia requirements, see competence is required and levels of competence. I don't know what Lexein's problem is, but he doesn't understand the various citation styles. Let me give you some examples of the four most popular citation styles for a couple of different sources.

Bluebook: Gregory O. Gagnon, Culture and Customs of the Sioux Indians 15 (2011).
MLA style: Gagnon, Gregory O. Culture and Customs of the Sioux Indians. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood Pub. Group, 2011. 15. Print.
APA style: Gagnon, G. O. (2011). Culture and customs of the sioux indians. (p. 15). Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood Pub. Group.
Chicago: Gregory O. Gagnon, Culture and Customs of the Sioux Indians, (Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood Pub. Group, 2011), 15.
Turabian: Bibliography: Gagnon, Gregory O. Culture and Customs of the Sioux Indians. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood Pub. Group, 2011. Inline: (Gagnon 2011, 15)

Bluebook: Alex Tallchief Skibine, Redefining the Status of Indian Tribes within Our Federalism: Beyond the Dependency Paradigm, 38 Conn. L. Rev. 667, 678 (2005).
MLA style: Skibine, Alex Tallchief. "Redefining the Status of Indian Tribes within Our Federalism: Beyond the Dependency Paradigm." Connecticut Law Review. 38. (2005): 667, 678. Print.
APA style: Skibine, A. T. (2005). Redefining the status of indian tribes within our federalism: Beyond the dependency paradigm. Connecticut Law Review, 38, 667, 678.
Chicago: Skibine, Alex Tallchief. "Redefining the Status of Indian Tribes within Our Federalism: Beyond the Dependency Paradigm." Connecticut Law Review. 38 (2005): 667, 678.
Turabian: Bibliography: Skibine, Alex Tallchief. "Redefining the Status of Indian Tribes within Our Federalism: Beyond the Dependency Paradigm." Connecticut Law Review 38 (2005): 667, 678. Inline: (Skibine 2005, 667, 678)

Bluebook: Linda Greenhouse, Court Upholds Tribal Power It Once Denied, N.Y. Times, Apr. 20, 2004, at A12.
MLA style: Greenwood, Linda. "Court Upholds Tribal Power It Once Denied." New York Times 20 Apr 2004, A12. Print.
APA style: Greenwood, L. (2004, April 20). Court upholds tribal power it once denied. The New York Times, p. A12.
Chicago: Greenwood, Linda. "Court Upholds Tribal Power It Once Denied." The New York Times, Late edition, sec. A, April 20, 2004.
Turabian: Bibliography: Greenwood, Linda. "Court Upholds Tribal Power It Once Denied." The New York Times, April 20, 2004, A12 Late edition. Inline: (Greenwood 2004)

Bluebook: United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004).
MLA style: United States v. Lara. 541 U.S. 193. Supreme Court of the United States. 2004. Print.
APA style: United States v. Lara. 541 U.S. 193. (2004).
Chicago: United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004).
Turabian: Bibliography: Not cited. Footnote: United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004). Inline: (United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004))

Do you really see a significant difference? Lexein first got bent out of shape because Bluebook did not include ISBN numbers, together with a lot of other irrelevant, basically useless information, that 99% of our readers don't even care about. He may even be one of those guys who likes to fill in all the irrelevant boxes on the templates. He got upset about the reporter number in a legal cite - but if you notice, all the the styles cite to the reporter! That is what I mean by competence. He's upset that Bluebook doesn't label pages as "p. #" - but if you'll notice, only the APA style labels it that way, the rest are by the position in the cite, just like Bluebook does. That is what I mean by competence. He's concerned that the volume is not labelled - but none of the styles label the volume, again, it is done by position and / or a typeface style. That is what I mean by competence.

If he can't be bothered to learn the major styles, why is he nitpicking on what others use? Further, when he started working on the article, he screwed up the references, with three different styles on the page at one time, and none of them done correctly. He'll argue that point, but all you have to do is look at this diff, where you can see some of the refs listed first name last name, some listed last name, first name (examples are fn7, fn15); where the formatting of the original ref style has been arbitrarily changed, in some cases screwing up the actual citation (example fn26, where volume 30, page 385 was changed to volume 30, note 385) (example fn19, where page 160, note 28 was changed to page 160 28); where differing styles of indicating volume was used (example, compare fn21 using 56(126) to fn18 using v. 33 n. 2, p. 34.); and generally changing from one coherent style to several ad hoc or bastardized styles.

When I create content, I don't give a rat's ass about finding subscription required download sites for the sources. I do care about finding sources, but all I need to do is provide the source, not provide two tons of excess information that no one needs. If he decides to create content, then he can use the templates and use all of the variables to his hearts content. All I ask is that he not screw up other articles in his apparent zeal to fill every box on a template. GregJackP Boomer! 13:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Question: since Wikipedia is not bound by any specific rules of style, why not bastardize it a little bit? What's wrong with, e.g., using Bluebook style but putting "p." in front of the page number, naming the publisher in the parenthetical with the date, and/or throwing the isbn number on the end? I ask this is a former law review comments editor and federal appellate law clerk, and current professional legal editor. bd2412 T 13:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
If someone wants to do that, I don't have a problem with that. I already have dropped Id., supra, and the like, using the shortform instead. I'm not going add a "p." or the publisher to articles I create though. When this first came up, my reaction was to let him change it if he had consensus or not, until I saw how badly screwed up the references had become. Then, when he explained why Bluebook was worthless and that I didn't know what I was doing, I had enough. If he can't competently change from one reference style to another, he should leave it alone. If he doesn't understand the styles extant, how can we rely on his judgment on switching styles. In addition, from his language it appears that he wants to do away with Bluebook on Wikipedia at all. Apparently this is based on the fact that Judge Posner doesn't like Bluebook. Fine, so they both don't like Bluebook. Don't use it. But don't tell me that I can't use it on Wikipedia because he doesn't like it. GregJackP Boomer! 14:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, work in progress, aborted. You claim I wrote that you "didn't know what [you were] doing" - that's a goddamned lie. I don't like it for very good reasons. That you elect to ignore those very good reasons, and burden readers and editors with missing and cryptic information, well, that's on you. --Lexein (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Points:
  1. Answering GregJackP's Ad hominem attack added here ("probably because he doesn't understand the current style and is not competent in it"), such attacks, per WP:CIVIL and WP:Etiquette, have no place here. As for "don't like it", you're the only one who does "like it". Best not to throw that particular stone. I refute BB's usefulness for Wikipedia. If I, an experienced, quite competent, editor in good standing "don't understand" it, then you cannot reasonably expect our readers to. This encyclopedia is for general readers, who read standard English, not cryptic abbreviations. I am not (nor are they) likely to pay any money for a book about a citation style which is so voluminous and so utterly discredited. By whom? By Judge Richard Posner, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (See Bluebook#Criticism)). He is not ignorant of it, and he is your accredited superior in matters of opinion in re legal matters, and citations. See "Goodbye to the Bluebook", Posner, 1986, "The Bluebook Blues", Posner, 2011. Nor is he alone. Neither the Supreme Court of the United States, nor courts in California follow it.[4]. See also Michigan Law Review, 2011, Legalblogwatch (2011), "The Dark Side of The Bluebook", Cathy Roberts, Utah State Bar (2011), CK Law Review (1991). If they don't bother with it, why should we? Easy. We shouldn't be bothered.
  2. This is the correct place to discuss a change of citation style, as you have demanded in multiple locations. Your new position that the discussion doesn't belong here is flip-flopping, and disingenuous.
  3. Any "screwing up" of the citation itself was entirely due to the unclarity of the original citation style, which is little used, and much derided. See #1. Your fault for using BB. Not mine.
  4. The revision I made was in progress, and I left the broad form of most citations alone, including name order, as you wrote them, sans the precious {{smallcaps}}. Anything else "screwed up" is on you. If I had finished, your complaints about consistency would have been void.
  5. Your examples above exclude the ridiculously cryptic abbreviations, I see. And you've mounted quite the WP:WALLOFTEXT defense, since you "don't care about the article".
  6. About points above: Your citation of the Bluebook rules("See Rule 15.4"), without providing a free place to confirm your assertions, is unfair to editors. And your wikilawyering nitpicking defense of your implementation of a little-used, little-wanted style is sad. Attacking me over id. vs. ibid, both of which are forbidden by WP:IBID? Silly. Abbreviated dates are not wanted by the vast majority of editors. WP:DATES really states abbreviated dates are acceptable "in areas where conciseness is needed". Conciseness isn't needed for dates in citations. I'll leave the rest of your WP:POINTY, exaggerated, defense, full of uncivil attacks as it is, for other editors to see, for what it is.
--Lexein (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Look, I understand that it is difficult for you to accept that you are not competent in the use of the various citation styles, but all I'm doing is pointing out the obvious. You complained about the following:
  1. No label for page numbers. Gee, did I mention that only the APA style does that? None of the other major styles use a page label. IEEE does, along with "vol." etc., pretty much labeling everything. Maybe you should use that style.
  2. That no one likes Bluebook. Actually there are several who like Bluebook. I gave you several examples of good articles that used the Bluebook style, and just above, BD2412 stated that he preferred Bluebook for legal articles.
  3. You complain that Judge Posner doesn't like Bluebook. OK. I've known that for years. I've also known for years that he is only one of 874 Article III judges, and only one of over 3,500 who have been appointed as an Article III judges. I've known that the ALWD style was developed to replace Bluebook, except that it has failed miserably in doing so. You claim to refute its usefulness, but every point you made was either incorrect or not relevant.
  4. Which is also the reason that I responded at length, due to the WP:WALLOFTEXT that you began the threaded discussion with. Really? You think that you can throw all of that BS up there and there would be no response? How quaint.
  5. I especially like how you try to turn your incompetence in "revising" the citations to my fault for correctly using a citation style that you didn't like. Not only did you screw up the BB refs, you changed others using at least two separate styles, which, BTW, were not compatible with each other. Not only that, it was clearly shown by the diff. That diff, by itself, raises a competence issues as to your work with non-templated citations.
  6. You complain about my explaining the Bluebook rules to you, that you don't have a copy. If it concerns you that much, visit a law library or a university library. It's not my job to provide you with the book, nor for that matter, the actual references.
  7. You are wrong about the WP:DATES argument, as it clearly states in both the guidelines and the thousands of articles which use abbreviated dates,
  8. You are also wrong where you say my comments are a "goddamn lie"—as far as a direct quote, that's correct, but any editor would infer the same thing when you post this on their talk page: "Babyducking", "poorly executed", "fanboyism", etc. Then you also tell me to "stop using ibid, and please start using named refs for multiple use of a single source, and maybe harvard notation..." It's pretty apparent what you meant.
  9. I don't need someone who doesn't create content to tell me how to write an article. When I need help on an article, I go to people that have written good and featured articles, like I have in the past. You may have noticed that I have not asked you to help. There's a reason for that. GregJackP Boomer! 15:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I deleted the above comment as a mere continuation of ongoing WP:Personal attacks about "competence", against WP:UNCIVIL and WP:Etiquette. See also WP:TIGERS. This discussion is not about editors, it's about the article, and how its usefulness to readers can be improved by using a less cryptic citation style, which will be easier for editors to implement correctly when adding material to the article. --Lexein (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You can call it whatever you want—I reverted it because you were clearly trying to remove any opposition to your argument. I am pointing out facts and providing a diff that supports it. Your conduct has not been civil from almost the start of our interaction, yet I have not removed a single statement or word of your personal attacks on me, nor will I. I have responded to every one of the points that you have brought up, pointed out specific language in the guidelines and policies, yet I post a WP:WALLOFTEXT? And you did not?
Again, I know how to write content, or to be more accurate, featured and good articles. I've done it repeatedly. Had you approached in a collegial manner instead of telling me what I needed to do and the initial insulting remarks, you may have gotten a different response. The citation style is fine, and no more cryptic than others, as I pointed out above. Again, it is not my fault that you don't understand it. That is no reason to start adding multiple citation styles to the article. Except for you, I haven't really had any editors have problems adding material or references to the article.
In those cases, one of two things happened: either the editor correctly copied the format in the article, or they inserted a bare URL (which was easy to fix). This has been the only time where I've seen an editor completely screw up a reference section. As BD2412 said, it's not broke, so it doesn't need fixin'. GregJackP Boomer! 19:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Nope, you've been a bully and an outrageously abusive editor, deliberately misreading what I write about Bluebook as an attack on you. That's your choice, but I refuse to continue to be badgered and insulted about my competence as an editor. Any citation style which is abused by an editor to omit information helpful to readers is a bad style. And, for your offense taken, I've already apologized, as noted previously; but I see that was in vain, because you take anything written about your beloved citation style as an offense to you for which you must counterattack ad hominem and ad nauseum. And again, your assertion that I "completely screwed up" anything is false and unfair, because it was in progress. --Lexein (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Not hardly, but if you want to learn about citation styles I would be happy to help you learn. GregJackP Boomer! 21:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
That's nothing but presumptive and abusive provocation. The discussion is still not about editors, it's about a manually entered citation style that is unwanted (<<17K vs >2.6 million), notably and publicly derided, inappropriate for Wikipedia general use (intended for use in law), insufficient for Wikipedia's purposes (excluding too much information both by design and option), and is, overall, counter to the dual goals of helping readers and editors by being helpful both in presentation and administration (no documentation freely available). It's not too much to ask, to ask for something better for this article than Bluebook. --Lexein (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, if you don't want help from me, fine. So far everyone but you is opposed to the change. Postdlf even tried to explain it to you. If you don't want to learn about Bluebook and other citation styles from me, ask BD2412 or go to either project Law or SCOTUS and ask there for help. I'm sure that someone there would be willing to help you learn. Look, not being competent in this area is not that big a deal, we can help you with it, if you're willing to listen. GregJackP Boomer! 01:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Too bad you aren't taking responsibility for the arbitrary restrictions you're interpreting in Bluebook. Too bad you couldn't avoid more slimy insults - you were so close. And smack in the middle of something intended to sound sincere. Too bad about sentence 5. Still not about editors, or are you just not hearing that? --Lexein (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Although you have been dismissive of offers of help, I feel I would be remiss if I didn't clarify some misinformation that I believe you have. You speak of Posner's objection to Bluebook, but I don't think that you really understand his position. He believes that Bluebook provides too much information and points out that the Bluebook forms are superior to those found in the Chicago Manual of Style. See Richard A. Posner, The Bluebook Blues, 120 Yale L.J. 850, 854 (2011). He especially found the extra information, such as city of publication (which he called a "pointless requirement") to be useless. Id. That's hardly the argument I think you would want to use to support the CS1 template (which is based on the Chicago MOS). Posner's citation style is only a couple of pages because you do not include any extra information. Period. This is an example of Posner's preferred style: 7 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1109.01[1], p. 1109–4 (15th ed. 2002). You know, I don't see a lot of difference. But arguing that Bluebook is not good because Posner doesn't like it and then saying you want to put even more information out there makes me chuckle. GregJackP Boomer! 02:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Stop. Posner's main target was Bluebook, not Chicago. I'll go as far as apparently having a blind spot about chunks of Posner. I also think you partially misrepresent him above. I don't want cryptic citations facing our readers. You do. But I was right to reject your pretend "help" offered in the midst of attacking me only because it isn't help; it's utterly indistinguishable, by anyone, from abuse. Obviously, you wrote it to be that way. Brass tacks: since Cs1 is "Chicago-like" per lots of people including you, it was not unreasonable for me to, in reply, suggest that. Is anyone calling for full-boat Chicago? No. It's not supported in Cs1. I'm only calling for not Bluebook for all I've already listed, and because of the way you formulated those citations, insisting on not providing information to readers which is relevant to them. And I'm proposing to use the single most-used style at Wikipedia, Cs1, because it offers direct obvious support for more information that you, or Bluebook (who cares), is willing to provide, meaning other editors can use it. Generally Wikipedia provides more information than you, at present, want to. Going forward: the only way forward for me to be able to even consider rereading any of your prior insulting language as productive or in the least helpful to anyone, and to be able to AGF about any of it, is for you to stop deliberately misreading me, stop the mockery and abuse basically forever, and immediately apply liberal strikethroughs or replacement of your prior insults. I'm not even asking for an apology - just get rid of the bullshit, then I'll strikethrough what I proposed about which I've changed my mind. That is, if you want to go forward. --Lexein (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I've never denied that Posner doesn't like Bluebook. He thinks it requires too much information, and has thought that for 25 years. It's really old news. I can post other quotes, with sources, if you like. I was (and am) serious on my offer to help you learn about citing and citation styles. As to the style you're requesting? Yes, I know that CS1 is not Chicago—it's worse! I'm willing to help you, but you have to understand that I'm blunt. What you are taking as "abuse" is merely me pointing out where you need improvement. Let me know if you want my assistance. GregJackP Boomer! 04:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

GregJackP - can you please stop with these suggestions another editor is not competent. You shouldn't need a degree or a vast experience in reading citations to be able to find the original source material easily and quickly from citations on Wikipedia. Competence shouldn't be necessary to use them, even if it's required to create them. Your posts do come across as a bit abrasive, if you could tone it down a few notches, that would be grand. Now, I've had a look, and I'm far from convinced Bluebook is appropriate for an international project, almost all the citation formats we use are firmly rooted in the past, for national newspapers and national journals. I'm degree educated and have vast experience of using journals and periodicals, in case we're going to go down the route of questioning competence, and I'm sorry, but I don't believe "Conn. L. Rev" is appropriate outside of the US legal profession, anymore than I'd want to use "Proc. R. Soc" outside of an audience consisting of fellow British scientists (it's Proceedings of the Royal Society) and even newspaper abbreviations, in an international context, become problematic. "N.Y. Times" is OK for America, but take it out internationally and you really need to expand stuff out to New York Times and regularly including the country and city. We need to do what's best for our readers, not contributors, please do take them into account and remember they won't all be in America, they won't all be solicitors and lawyers and they won't all speak English as their first language. Please try and make sure these people are catered for with citations and sources. Nick (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Nick, I agree with quite a bit of what you are saying. You should not need a degree to find source material from a citation, and your point on competence is exactly what I've been saying, that you need to be competent to create citations in the first place. As an editor who has taken articles to GA status, you are aware that the reference style needs to be coherent.
When this first started, I took a stand-off approach, until I saw what havoc was being wrought on the article. Here are examples of the citations that were there before I went back in to fix them.
Both of these were originally in Bluebook format, and both were changed by Lexein, but not consistant with the other (note first last and last, first). One paper was linked, the other not.
You can see the same type of problem here. Some are last, first, some are not. Also look at the way that the volume is handled. In two of the refs, it is vol#:page# and vol# (page#). In others, it is v. # n. #, p. # (which is incorrect for that style anyway, it should have been v. #, p. #, n. #). Still others read vol. # p. #. You can also look at the dates. Some are at the very end, some are located right after the author. There was absolutely no consistency and no understanding of the various styles that he was using. Further, in the Cerame cite, he changed the page number to a note number. Completely wrong.
It was also shown when he started arguing about Judge Posner not liking Bluebook and using that in support of his desire to go to a templated (CS1) solution. The problem is that Judge Posner wants less, not more. I'm very familiar with Judge Posner, he's been a Seventh Circuit Judge for years and is a well-known purposivist jurist who is often contrasted with Judge Easterbrook or Justice Scalia. To believe that Posner would support more information is misusing the source. Posner also stated (in one of the articles that Lexein uses) that Bluebook was superior to Chicago, which is what CS1 is based on.
Turning him lose on this article is a minor issue, but given his statements about Bluebook not being useful in Wikipedia at all, I fear that he will turn next to good and featured articles. It would be similar to his deciding that all distilled malt beverages should be called "whiskey" and proceeds to change all occurrences of "whisky" to "whiskey". Or to determine that there are only three regional types of Scotch whisky, moves all of the Speysides into a Highlands, combines Island and Islay (obviously those belong together), or other havoc.
I'm open to another way to describe his lack of ability in this area besides competence, but I'm afraid I'm at a loss. What would you call it? GregJackP Boomer! 17:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Full halt. Your wikilawyering is useless, because my edits were, as stated repeatedly, quite simply, a work in progress, stopped upon discussion with you. Do you see that you're not convincing anyone of anything but your mean-spiritedness, refusal to really discuss in good faith, and blind inability to see a work in progress? You keep making it about editors, and you keep bullishly repeating yourself. You claim that you're "blunt" above, but that's not the story here: it is your needless needling, degradation and abuse of another editor that is unacceptable, especially after you've been asked to stop and strikethrough in order to move forward. No attempt you make at explanatory revisionism is acceptable.
  • The steps to move forward are these: 1) you striking through (and/or substituting) your quite abusive and deliberately repeated troll-like language, and 2) me striking through the points which I'm willing to retract. You've been advised many times that the edit I performed was a work in progress, which was obviously stopped at the beginning of discussion with you. There's no excuse anymore for you to consider it anything more than that.
  • Since you can't think of any other way to describe an editor than "not competent", here are some approved suggestions: "disinterested and unrigorous about Bluebook, and completed only partial work on Bluebook", "insulting to Bluebook", "careless about Bluebook", "reluctant about Bluebook", or "can't be bothered with Bluebook". Each of those substitutes is acceptable to me, because they state the higher truth, far better than you. Strikethrough and replace, then we can move forward. --Lexein (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
To be blunt, no. Only one person has asked me to strikethrough comments, you, and that's because you don't like hearing that (to paraphrase your suggestions) you are careless about citations, disinterested and unrigorous about citations, and can't be bothered with proper citations. My comments were not limited to your work on Bluebook, it was due to the lack of attention to detail on the citations themselves. My comments were on the content you added. How do you want to cite volume and page? Using an example of Volume 58, page 120, would you cite it as 58:120? Or 58(120)? Or vol. 58, p. 120? Or v.58, p. 120? I can't tell because you used each of those in changing it from Bluebook. It's one thing to change from one style to another, and another to change from one style to four other styles. It's not just Bluebook that you were careless about. Once you accept that you need additional help in this area, then we can move forward.
So this is where we are at.
  • You can start to discuss the problems your content additions caused, and quit trying to cover up the lack of consistency in your changes to the citations as a "work in progress."
  • You can stop with the pointless whining about strikethoughs. It's not going happen. It's also disingenuous after you come onto my talk page, telling me how I'm screwing up the article, and telling me how to do content. I was gentle earlier on this, but you have no business trying to tell me how to do content. None. Especially not after the citation errors you introduced into the article, as I discussed above. You don't send Prince Fielder to a Little League coach to improve his hitting, you send him to a Mark McGuire. I'm sorry that you don't like that. My peers thought enough of my citing ability to move three article to featured (all using Bluebook), one to A-class (Bluebook), and eleven twelve* to good article (nine ten Bluebook).
  • I'm done listening to you whine about this. I'll refute any arguments that you make on citations, but will not respond further to strikethrough requests until you agree to get some help on citing material for articles. A good way to start is to work on improving an article to good or featured status. GregJackP Boomer! 22:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC) *As of Dec. 8th, when another article achieved GA status. GregJackP Boomer! 21:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • There it is folks. Intransigent, still uncivil and insulting, and bloodymindedly uncooperative. Abuse left in place. How about that? I've offered the only way forward, and this is what we get. --Lexein (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Ridiculous. I've offered to help you with citations, offered numerous suggestions on how you can improve your ability in citing sources, recommended working in areas that would help you, pointed out the exact errors you made, and all you do is talk about strikethroughs. You have yet to address why you used four separate citation styles in the article, instead deflecting any genuine criticism of your actions with bogus allegations of trolling, bullying, etc. Just answer that question, and work in progress won't fly. You don't replace one style with four, not even while it is in progress. We can move forward, but you have to want to improve instead of insisting on "strikethrough and replace." GregJackP Boomer! 22:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I came here via the RFC request. I've read through this talk page and the previous exchange between GregJackP and Lexein at the former's talk page. Bluebook is not a citation style I would personally choose but it is a perfectly legitimate one to use in Wikipedia. Looking at its implementation in this article I don't doubt that I could locate any source referenced, which is the only real purpose of a reference system. In any case, as there is no community consensus on the best citation style to use in Wikipedia it is the practice, where there is a dispute, "to defer to the style used by the first major contributor". Applying this guideline to this dispute, there is no overriding necessity to change the citation style and, relative to the article creator, Lexein has not demonstrated the competency to implement an improved citation style consistently in any case. While Lexein's desire to improve the accessibility of article content appears, ostensibly, a laudable one, their lack of expertise in this area would appear to be a hindrance. It is unhelpful to direct other editors in the matter of content creation when one does not recognise either one's own limitations or when other editors may simply be more informed than oneself. Also, I think Lexein's intervention on GregJackP's talkpage, while probably well-intentioned was, at least inadvertently, potentially insulting to GregJackP. No doubt GregJackP could have been less blunt in riposte but I'd find it hard to disagree with the substance of their arguments there or in the text above. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, thank you for your comments. It is my impression from your comment that you oppose the proposed change. If so, could I trouble you to make a comment to that effect in the Survey section? Or, if I'm wrong, indicating your support? Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 06:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • FiachraByrne, you, like GregJackP, have elected to ignore the simple fact that the revision was a work in progress, stopped, in progress, as a result of discussion, in progress, with GregJackP, and furthermore prominently labeled started by me, above. That's a rather glaringly simple fact to deliberately ignore, followed by a rather jarringly abusive conclusion. You are quite wrong to use such abusive language, as was GregJackP, when better, truer, language was available, and offered. I suppose you might have missed the comment by Nick, above. --Lexein (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I read Nick's comments and I'm aware of your statement that your additions should be considered a work in progress. I think for an article like this with no obvious flaws in its referencing you should consider experimenting with "improvements" in your user sandbox before making changes in the article mainspace. Consistency in the application of a citations is probably the single most important factor to consider in the use of any reference system. The evidence indicates that GregJackP has a better handle on the whole issue than you do yourself. There are lots of articles with very poor and inconsistent use of citations where your efforts would undoubtedly mark and improvement. Why not tackle one of those articles with bare urls and poorly formatted references rather than this one where the references have been entered consistently and rigorously, if not according to your personal preferences.
In the absence of any community consensus on the best citation system to use in WP, this essentially comes down to a question of personal preference and talk-page consensus. You can't simply impose your own preference on any other editor and your attempt suffers from a lack of credibility when you appear less knowledgeable of the relevant issues than that editor.
I think you're very quick to shout abuse in the face of a candid appraisal and marshall your outrage without giving due consideration to the fact that you may have caused offence or that you may be in error.
Arguable GregJackP could have spared your feelings by not calling attention to a competency issue but that does not change the fact that there is an evident competency issue and one which you should address before arguing that editors adopt the reference system that happens to align with your own personal preferences. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation Styles Summary?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is anyone willing to sum up the arguments on both sides of the above debate (without calling either making personal attacks)? Or should I just go ahead and read it? I'm mostly curious as to why we use Bluebook in this article I guess. Also I am familiar with WP:CITEVAR and am not asking to change the style, just trying to understand. Zell Faze (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"Because I want to and I like it and because CITEVAR says I can, and because you're incompetent" are the only reasons ever offered by the proponent of the style in use. "Because it's precious and cryptic, nonstandard compared to the tens of millions of uses of cite templates, inappropriate and unhelpful for general citation use for general readers due to its cryptic nature, unhelpful as used by the author due to exclusion of useful information (and convenience URLs, until added by me), and not publicly, freely, completely documented anywhere for style verification, regardless of any competency red-herring issue" are the reasons offered by the main opponent of the style in use, me. --Lexein (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Fourth Amendment

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article states that PINAC focuses on the rights of photographers and "the First Amendment rights of the public". It seems to me that their cause has as much to do with upholding the Fourth Amendment as the First. In video after video, on PINAC and similar sites, interactions with law enforcement frequently (almost always actually) progress from the "let me see your ID", to the "am I free to leave or am I being detained" scenario. Please share your opinion about whether this important Fourth Amendment piece should be included in the article. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Qualified support. As long as the section does not give undue weight to the 4A issues, which PINAC does not focus on as much as 1A issues, and there's no other issues with it, I'd see no reason not to include it. But in general, it's not worth asking the talk page whether to add content. With certain exceptions, such as highly contentious articles or biographies of living persons, it's better to be bold and add what you think is notable content than to wait for consensus before adding. Charlotte Aryanne (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Photography_Is_Not_a_Crime/Archive_1&oldid=1136198677"