I just tried to add this tag to a page and it comes up as "Template:According to whom" in red text and I'm not sure why. The page I added it to is here: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact Mongo404 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I searched Google for a translation or equivalent, zero results. Congrats German Wikipedia, for not being able to instruct us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.62 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page:

Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire "According to whom?" in that circumstance.

Even when material is followed by an inline citation, it is not always clear what is the origin of the view being expressed. For instance, if Author X cites Expert Y when stating Z, or if Author X says 'Most scholars consider Z to be true', then a simple citation referencing author X may not be sufficient to establish either the origin or the noteworthiness of statement Z. Also, without access to the source material, it would not do to simply assume that the cited author is the source of the statement in question. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, adding a citation is not the same thing as providing attribution of a view to its source; per WP:WikiVoice, "opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." Tagging a statement "According to whom?" when in-text attribution is wanted, even if a citation is already given, would seem to be an obvious choice. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 06:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I commented below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I partially rewrote the usage tips for this template to encourage using it where in-text attribution is needed. I think that for marking weasel-worded passages such as "experts believe", "many think", etc., Template:Who is a better choice, and I have added a link there to the "See also" section. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your recent changes, and I've been clear more than once about why I do not agree with your view on this matter. I told you before: [What you consider WP:Weasel words] are not forbidden and are sometimes needed, especially in cases where WP:In-text attribution might give a misleading message; WP:In-text attribution is clear about avoiding misleading messages.

In cases like these, I point people to two templates that address weasel words to show that they are sometimes needed. Template:Who states, "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Wikipedia must remain vague." And Template:Whom states, "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire 'According to whom?' in that circumstance."

I stand by that view. As far as I'm concerned, this template should be WP:Full protected just like Template:Who is. Since I see that you are also trying to change policy to accommodate your viewpoint, I will alert that policy page to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will alert the WP:Weasel words and WP:Citing sources talk pages as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that while I agree that that in-text attribution is best for some material cited by an inline citation, I take issue with the misuse of in-text attribution. I feel that you go overboard with in-text attribution and have misused it on a number of occasions. If most experts are clear about a matter, we should not be using in-text attribution in a way that suggests that only one, a few or some experts hold that viewpoint. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also alerted editors here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting template usage guidelines to make a point does not make those guidelines immune to change that would benefit the Wikipedia project. Templates are not the same as policy. NB: I am not arguing for expanded tagging of weasel words using this template, but rather arguing that {{Who}} is a more appropriate template to use in that circumstance, while {{According to whom}} seems tailor-made for marking statements in need of attribution per Wikipedia's neutrality policy. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I've been editing here since 2007, and commonly cite the rules, editors usually know that I know the rules. I've told you a number of times that I need no lesson on the rules. It's been clear to me since day one that you have been editing this site for longer than your two-year account indicates, so your experience editing here may not be that far behind mine. Either way, I did not state that templates are immune to change. Templates, like our policies and guidelines, change. But they commonly change via WP:Consensus, as indicated at the talk page of Template:POV, a well-watched template that undergoes substantial discussion. Our templates have usually been formed based on what our polices and guidelines state, and often with a number of editors having weighed in to help form them. So changing them is not to be taken lightly. I do not agree that they should be changed on the whim of an editor or on one editor's interpretation of the rules, especially one who interprets our rules as strictly as you do. Many editors point to the WP:STATUSQUO essay for valid reasons, and the status quo has worked fine for years in this case.

You made substantial changes, and I am not convinced that all or most of them are for the better. Your changes are based on what you stated in the first section above and in this section. Let's consider your in-text attribution concerns for a moment. While I agree that there are cases where an inline citation is not enough when it comes to Template:Whom, I generally agree with the long-standing "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation." application of Template:Whom. The reason that the template states "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation." is because the template was misused many times. It was common for editors to add that template or Template:Who, when the answer is right there in the citation. It was unnecessary tagging. Editors still use these template in such unnecessary ways. Sometimes editors use these templates for a simple "Some people" or "Most people" statement when the statement is about society in general, not about any notable person or specific group who can be noted in the text. Adding these templates inappropriately also cause the very problems that WP:INTEXT says we should avoid, which is making a majority viewpoint seem like a minority viewpoint. Do see Talk:Campus sexual assault/Archive 4#"The majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement." and Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 19#Template:Who and WP:Neutral; those are two primary examples of misusing these templates. Good sense from Nblund, KateWishing and Kaldari helped prevail against such tagging in those cases. So, no, I don't agree with you changing this page in a way that will aid such problems. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coconutporkpie: Thanks for starting a discussion on this. I think there are some problems with your changes, though. First, you moved a usage instruction into the alternatives section even though it's not an alternative ("Do not use this tag..."). Second, the part about "Sometimes, the offending statement..." isn't needed as it should be obvious. It's like telling people that an alternative to adding the {{citation needed}} template is to add a citation. Third, I think replacing "opinion" with "claim" is dangerous and will lead to more people adding this tag to simple statements of fact. Overall, I think the original wording works better. Kaldari (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are actually referring to the changes made by Flyer22 Reborn. The previous revision by me placed the "Do not use this template" remark under "When to use" and replaced claim with opinion as you say. Explanation of how to deal with the "offending statement" is also covered under "How to use" in that version. (Update: I think I see the confusion. Flyer22Reborn's mention of "your recent changes" [meaning mine] above actually links to a revert of those changes, which could be misleading.) —Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coconutporkpie: You're right. Sorry about the confusion. I do think some of your changes are an improvement, although we still need to be careful about making sure these templates are not misused, as Flyer22 Reborn says. For example, I think we should keep the wording about "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation..." Kaldari (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaldari: I'm not sure that it is a misuse to inquire "According to whom" when a citation is provided. Since the ostensible purpose of this template is to identify "weasel-worded phrases", I think that the citation issue is a distraction (I'm not saying that's the best use for this template — I think that {{who}} and {{by whom}} make more sense in cases of weasel words like "It is believed" and "experts say"). For instance, The New York Times may quote Famous Food Writer who says that apple pie is the quintessential American pastry. In that case, simply citing The New York Times wouldn't sufficiently identify the source of the statement "Apple pie is the quintessential American pastry". In such cases as this, when an opinion is stated as if it were a fact, followed by a citation, is there another option besides this template for marking out phrases in need of in-text attribution? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's not always clear whether material is supported by a citation or not, since there is no rule or guideline mandating that every sentence be followed by one. There are often long paragraphs with a single citation at the end. Therefore, the instruction "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation" would seem to be impossible to apply in a consistent way. It diverts the issue of attribution onto the question of verifiability – that is, whether a given citation in fact supports the material. That is obviously important, but I think places an unnecessary burden on the editor who wishes to improve the encyclopedia's wording to present a more neutral point of view. This page currently says, If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire "According to whom?" in that circumstance. In fact, I think it is necessary, because Wikipedia's neutrality policy is clear about attributing statements of opinion to their sources, and not stating them in Wikipedia's voice. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I made my views clear above and below, I will state more here and now: "There are often long paragraphs with a single citation at the end" because some editors are aware of WP:Citation overkill. The "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation" instruction has been consistently used well by editors who know when and when not to use WP:INTEXT. Obvious opinions are often reworded, or in-text attribution is added to them. Something like "The vast majority of cancer cases are due to environmental risk factors.", as seen in the Cancer article, should not be reworded to use WP:INTEXT. This template is not discouraging the use of in-text attribution; it's discouraging needlessly adding "according to whom?". In the cancer example, the sentence should not have a Template:According to whom or Template:Who. And yet, these templates are commonly used in that way by people who have not read the "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation" instruction, or similar. So the last thing we need is to encourage that type of use. WP:INTEXT states, "Simple facts such as this can have inline citations to reliable sources as an aid to the reader, but normally the text itself is best left as a plain statement without in-text attribution." Similarly, WP:MEDMOS states, "Articles that rely on secondary sources are less likely to fall into the trap of discussing the size of a single study, its methodology, its biases, and so forth. Thus, 'washing hands after defecating reduces the incidence of diarrhea in the wilderness', not 'An uncontrolled survey involving 132 experienced long-distance backpackers on the Appalachian trail in 1997 concluded that washing hands after defecating reduces the incidence of diarrhea in the wilderness.' [...] The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation. [...] It is necessary to specifically include such information only when a specific individual is being cited as an example of a person holding a minority view: You might write, 'The AIDS Denialist Society says that HIV is entirely harmless', but just use a plain statement for the widely accepted fact, 'HIV causes Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.'" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn, There you go again with a tedious essay about how long you've been editing Wikipedia and how great you are, blah blah blah. From what I could understand of your incoherent rambling, you've argued that such changes as I have made to the way this template is worded will encourage editors to use it in a way of which you don't approve. But you have no evidence to back up your claim, since you don't know what anybody is going to do. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC) [updated 20:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)][reply]

I like how the disdain drips from your every word when speaking to me. You go on about WP:CIVIL and cannot be civil yourself when you don't or can't get your way. Tsk. Regardless of those minor changes you noted when responding to Kaldari, changes we can discuss here and see if we agree on, I think Kaldari is in agreement with me about how the template can be misused and that the "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation." sentence helps stop such misuse. If not, Kaldari can clearly explain. We can also propose different wordings for that sentence or other parts of the template.

As for a "tedious essay about how long [I've] been editing Wikipedia," no, no; I spent three sentences on my experience above. And I wouldn't need to remind you that I know how this site works if you wouldn't repeatedly patronize me. I am not a newbie. If you don't want me making that clear, stop acting like I'm one. There is nothing you can teach me about Wikipedia. As for evidence, I've provided two examples of misuse above. I made it very clear that the "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation." wording was added to stop such misuse. I was also clear that editors still misuse this template regardless of that sentence. This is because they use this template without reading it. A number of our editors use our templates without reading them; that includes Template:POV, which is thankfully full-protected. That using those tags in the inappropriate ways I cited is a misuse is based on what the WP:Neutral policy states and on what WP:INTEXT states, not solely my opinion. My viewpoint on this matter is based on Wikipedia's rules and my several years of experience. You have provided no evidence that your wording will be an improvement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as for this, no, the link was not meant to mislead, considering that editors usually notice the revert. I commonly link a revert I made of another editor's edit when pointing to the edit; this is so that it's clear I acted on the matter and/or so it's clear that the edit in question is no longer in place. There you go again crucifying someone because they don't do thing yours way. You know, like that other time...and other times. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - knock it off with the slanging match, you two. Flyer22, making an argument from authority (your own) doesn't help your point. Coconutporkpie, being rude definitely doesn't help your point. People like me have this talk page watchlisted to see beneficial discussion for editors, not tit-for-tat fighting.

Kaldari writes: For example, I think we should keep the wording about "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation..." I agree. If you have issues with the use of a citation, this is absolutely the wrong template to apply.  — Scott • talk 10:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Scott. I don't think I was making an argument from authority, though. I was making an argument based on experience, and cited two prominent examples in which templates such as this are used inappropriately. Sure, editors have different experiences, but our senior editors have usually seen a lot more of this environment and interacted with a lot more editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it were not for that experience, I would not be as adamant about maintaining the "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation." wording. I would not have the knowledge that I have about how these templates are used and misused. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Scott: I withdraw the remark. And I agree that this is not the template to apply in questions of the appropriate use of a citation. But statements may be reliably cited and still present problems of editorializing, for which I think a tag such as {{according to whom?}} is ideal. I was taking "supported by an inline citation" to mean simply "followed by an inline citation". Maybe it would be clearer to include a caution against tagging material "that is verifiable from an inline citation", or something similar. But it still doesn't address the issue of neutrality. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of how this template can help with the problem of editorializing, the page Concorde has a paragraph that begins, "Generally one wants to have the wing's centre of pressure [...] close to the aircraft's centre of gravity [...] to reduce the amount of control force required to pitch the aircraft". At the end of the paragraph there is a citation to Concorde: Story of a Supersonic Pioneer (London: Science Museum, 2001), by one Kenneth Owen. The phrase "generally one wants" may be supported by the source, but it is still a statement of opinion. I might not be able to rewrite the sentence using more factual language because I might not have access to the source. I could add some in-text attribution such as "Kenneth Owen writes", but I wouldn't know for sure that this was a true representation of Owen's views (again, not having access to the source). The best option would seem to be to tag the material with {{according to whom?}} to alert editors with access to the original source that the sentence needs to be rephrased with more neutral language. But that's exactly what this template page tells people not to do. In that case, what is an editor to do? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coconutporkpie, I'll give your arguments some more thought. I think we can probably come up with wording that all parties in this discussion agree on. Feel free to propose wording here on the talk page, keeping the above objections in mind. Since I am very busy with work, and commonly only have time to check in on Wikipedia (like I'm doing now), I ask that you give me a few days before I get back to you on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm finally back to the discussion: In the case of Kenneth Owen, I would use in-text attribution if what he's stating is more so an opinion than fact. If what he's stating on that matter is the general consensus, I don't think it's appropriate to use in-text attribution since it makes it seem that he alone holds that view. If it's a matter of not having access to the source, that's a trickier issue, but it's an issue we face all the time here at this site. By that, I mean that when there is a WP:SOURCEACCESS problem, we often have to assume good faith; we have to assume that the editor provided a source that truly supports the material and delivered the text in a way that's true to the source, unless we have a valid reason to suspect otherwise.

To address the type of concerns you have, we could alter the "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation." statement to "Generally, you should not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation." Adding "generally" would make the statement less strict, and signify that there may be exceptions to that rule. We could then change the "If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire 'According to whom?' in that circumstance." sentence to "If you want to know who holds that view, first look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. Commonly, it is not necessary to inquire 'According to whom?' in such circumstances." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify that this enemy action did occur as I was the Officer Commanding the CLIVE STEELE at the time. I was then Capt Warren Barsley RAE(Tn).

I am now LT Col Warren Barsley (Retd) 106.69.216.134 (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]