Welcome!

Hello, Alarics, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The following in-line edit was placed in the article regarding your assertion about US paddling: ^{[original research?]}, with the following in-line comment" moved the reference to what is references, and will remove this text after 5 days if unreferenced. I do not see any comparative photo or other clear info, and just doing an internal wikilink is not a reference. Please see WP:CITE#CHALLENGED for info about the policy. --Fremte (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I linked to the wrong page. I've fixed it now. At "Paddle (spanking)" is a photo of a US school paddle. It seemed to me that it was pretty much the same implement as what the Canadians were calling a "swat stick". Alarics (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See Birching#Non-punitive uses. Thanks. --Againme (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose you mean the reference to sadomasochism. Is that really significant in the context of birching? It seems to me very misleading to the reader to describe this as, to any significant degree, an article about sexuality. Alarics (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed significant, but we should include a tag on punishments above the sexuality one. I plan to expand the Sadomasochism part. I could not find a punishment Wikiproject.--Againme (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. But wouldn't your proposed expansion of the sadomasochism part fit better on the "erotic spanking" page? We seem to be conflating utterly different things here.Alarics (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about just a little expansion. The thing is, the word birching is used a lot in the sado community, so we should have at least a reference in this article. Regards. --Againme (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I did it. Please see if you find it appropiate. Thanks. --Againme (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. It's the big sexuality infobox on the talk page (especially when that is ALL there is on the talk page) that seems to me a bit weird. Alarics (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say your tweaks to the John Bodkin Adams were appreciated :) Keep up the good work. Malick78 (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you Malick78! glad you approve. Alarics (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes - comments taken on board and will be acted upon as soon as I can be bothered. I cite the black and blue shorts from personal attendance, which I trust will not constitute original research :-) DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I can be bold without prior discussion on the talk page. However, since you did revert my edits, I have responded at Talk:Judicial corporal punishment. We don't require discussion prior to every edit because otherwise the entire project gets mired down. Normally I would discuss it on the talk page, but, to be honest, I wasn't sure you would still be here. A lot of articles are written by an editor in one fell swoop who never returns again. It's somewhat refreshing to have someone else interested. Please, let's continue at the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alarics- make sure to use the user warning templates when reverting vandalism, such as you did here. Thanks, tedder (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder. I have now written a note on that user page, although it's an IP address with no other contributions, so my note may well not get seen. I was maybe a bit brusque in dismissing it as simply vandalism so I wrote the note assuming good faith - he/she is evidently a student at the school, who may well have a good point, just that that's not what WP is for. (Actually, if he or she is indeed an International Baccalaureate student who is finding the going too tough, he/she has my sympathy, but probably shouldn't have been entered for IB in the first place - which may or may not be a criticism of the school.)

For future reference, am I to put a template every time I revert something? Which template should I have used in this case? It is all a bit confusing. Thanks for your help, Alarics (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is vandalism, or at least NPOV- the nice thing about the early vandalism templates like {{uw-vandalism1}} is they assume good faith, saying "did not appear to be constructive", not "you are a bad person" or anything like that. An alternative would be to use the {{uw-npov1}} template. Admittedly, on a first vandal like that, I almost always use {{welcomevandal}}. I figure the 'welcome' is better at AGF than a simple warning.

And yes, you should (almost) always leave a warning template; it lets the user know that their changes are unacceptable and puts them "on the hook". An anonymous IP may never come back again, or they could be just about ready to vandalize another article. No matter what, it's the right thing to do- see Wikipedia_vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism and Wikipedia_vandalism#Warnings.

FWIW, there are some great tools to make fighting vandalism easier, if you plan on doing that. I use Twinkle with Friendly, which (a) gives you a one-click vandalism button for reverting the page, and pops up the user talk page when done, and (b) gives you a great menu of user warning templates as well as the various {{welcome}} templates.

Let me know if I can help further! tedder (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Alarics (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

To Alarics. I worked very hard on what was a terribly written school violence entry. Not only was the entry badly written, it contained unsourced copyrighted material. It is very difficult to cover the U.S. alone. I inherited the bit about Poland, but had to clean it up--the paragraph on Poland also contained vandalism that went unnoticed for a while (a vandal mocked the unfortunate Polish girl who committed suicide). I could use some help. Do you think you could cover the UK or Canada or some other English-speaking country. This could be an effective way to expand the article's coverage. Also observe that there is an article about school violence in the French and German branches of Wikipedia.Iss246 (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I will see what I can do over the next week or two. I won't have time today or, probably, tomorrow. Alarics (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Alarics. I would like to make one or two recommendations, and then ask your opinion about something. Here are my recommendations. Don't do it all at once. Pick a country. Let's say, the UK. There is probably a government web site that provides the information we want. It could be a site that is equivalent to the CDC in the US. Or a government site that is the equivalent to the U.S.'s NCES or Bureau of Justice Statistics. All the school violence Wikipedia site needs is a couple of statistics on how often students are assaulted in schools or how often teachers are assaulted. If you have a good reference, include in the reference an external link to the government site containing the data so readers could easily go there. Then a couple of days later, go on to a different country, say, Canada. And so on.

I also recommend not overwhelming the reader with statistics. I tried to keep the statistics to a minimum when I described the situation in the U.S. but I may have included a little to much data. I would like your opinion about this.

Do you think I should shorten the first paragraph by deleting the percentages for males and females? I don't want to overwhelm the reader with a blizzard of statistics.Iss246 (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will have a look for the sources you suggest. I agree there are too many statistics in the introduction. I would move some of this material down the page. In particular, I think people would surely take it as read that young males are more violent than young females; they always have been. I would suggest for the introduction just one or two headline statistics, if any - possibly the one about 7% of teachers being targeted.

What the introduction notably doesn't do at the moment is define what exactly we mean by school violence in this article. I infer that it includes ordinary hand-fights between boys, which used to be thought perfectly routine and acceptable and have been going on since the dawn of time. It seems to me that the use of knives and guns is on a whole different plane of seriousness, and it is this that seems alarming and is relatively new.

A lot of the stuff about "risk factors" appear to be "glimpses of the obvious", such as "Teacher assault was more likely to occur in schools located in high-crime neighborhoods", to which one might reply "well, duh". Other assertions seem to me deeply counterintuitive, such as the claim about exposure to domestic corporal punishment (of which there was more in the past, when there was much less school violence). I should be inclined to make this claim much weaker unless there is something a good deal more substantial than the much-challenged Murray Straus "research" to back it up.

At all events, we should beware of seeming to imply that a statistical correlation proves a causal relationship.

BTW is there anything in Preventing School Violence (proposed for deletion) that is worth salvaging for this article? Alarics (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

We need some statistics in order to show the extent of school violence. But I think we can delete the percents for males and females, and just mention males and females. It is important to mention males and females because on one of the dimensions, staying home from school because the student fears for his or her safety, occurs about equally for boy and girls. I will do that next.

I had the "duh" experience with an earlier definition of school violence. I found a definition in the article I came upon. It went something like "school violence is violence that occurs in a school." I changed the word school to educational facility. A few days later I said to myself, "What am I doing?" Do you have a good one-sentence definition of school violence? Or should we trust the reader to know what it is?

You brought up Murray Straus. It does not make sense to say there was more corporal punishment in the past and less school violence. The data are not available to support that. Even if true--I don't know of any historical data on the matter aside from people's memories--, you would have an ecological correlation, which would not support an inference on the level of individual children.

Corporal punishment is a risk factor. That does not mean that every child who received a spanking is going to become violent. But it does mean that compared to children who are not spanked, a higher proportion of children who are spanked will exhibit violent behavior. Of course, intensity is the issue. The greater the exposure, the greater the risk. Risk factors may or may not be causal. Psychologists may disagree on whether it is a causal factor. It is not clear that corporal punishment inhibits youth violence.

Tell me one last thing. How do you write a note here on this page, and alert me that you wrote such a note. I don't know how to do that. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

On your last point: you write the note on your user page, and then you go to the other person's talk page a leave a talkback tag. Alarics (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I just took a look at the school violence entry. It is good to see more countries getting covered. Do you think you obtain more recent information about the UK? Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe next week if I have time, I will do some more detailed research. Alarics (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have requested more time on the talk page of this article. I intend to add additional sources but may not do that for a week or two but in the mean time I'll add page numbers for existing sources. If the information is added to an existing article that is fine to, that is what I initialy intended. However I thought there was enough for an article of its own. There could also be more about racial and religious pdejudices and negligence but I didn't get to that yet. I don't know how quickly I'll get to it but I intend to put a little more into it. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is a very good idea, I think you should merge the two articles.

This has now been done.Alarics (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been keeping the references in APA style. I would recommend that style because much of the published literature on school violence (except for AMA journals) is in APA style.Iss246 (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I will have to mug up on APA style, which is alien to me. But I do think the title of the article should be made the clickable link where it is an available URL. As far as I understand WP:CITE, that is what we are recommended to do. They way you have it, the clickable link turns into a separate footnote number, so you end up with two separate numerical sequences of footnotes, which I think is messy and confusing. Alarics (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I just read your note. When articles have clickable links I include the link in the references. You do too. Many of the published articles I cite in journals that are clickable only in libraries that have data bases such as PsycINFO or Medline. Of course, students, faculty, and others who have access to those data bases from their home computers can obtain the articles too.

I wasn't sure what you mean by making the title a clickable link. Can you show me how to do that?Iss246 (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

On your last point, I have just redone footnotes 1 to 4 to illustrate it, if you would like to have a look at the raw code. You'll see that the title of the article is included within the square brackets after the URL (with a space between the latter and the former). That way, the title itself becomes the clickable link, and there is no second footnote number at the end of the note as there is at present for e.g. footnote 6 (which also has a confusing figure 1) or footnote 12 (which also has a figure 2) and so on. Let me know if this still isn't clear.

As regards external links to academic journals, etc., I thought the policy was not to include them if they weren't accessible to everybody, i.e. don't put it in if you can only access it with a library card, but I've just looked at WP:ECITE and apparently that doesn't apply to links in references. I don't like it but I bow before the supremacy of the WP rules!

Also we need to agree a format for dates. We can use the American style as in footnotes 4, 7 and 8, if you don't like the international style. I don't think the date format used in footnotes 2, 3 and 6 is in line with WP:MOSNUM. Alarics (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We've got to include relevant citations even if some readers can only access the articles cited in the library (in paper or at proprietary web sites). Anybody can access the articles if he or she has a library card. I encourages readers to visit libraries. I had to go to several libraries to access some of the material I cited. If important, relevant literature is located in, say, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, then the article has to be cited regardless of whether it was published to web. Most libraries get the reader Internet access to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Using Internet access as a standard is like saying, I will only watch movies that are in color. Then you miss Citizen Kane and La Grande Illusion.Iss246 (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we are completely at cross purposes here. I wasn't meaning that references to print journals that aren't accessible by internet should not be included. Of course they should. I was referring to external hyperlinks to websites that are accessible only if you have the right credentials. My understanding had been that in that case the reference should be given just for the print version, i.e. without a hyperlink. That is indeed the WP rule for external links generally (that are listed as "external links" at the end of an article) but apparently not (I now discover) for embedded links in inline citations. However, where there is only any point in clicking a hyperlink if you have the right library card, I still think one should mention that fact. This is not just for academic journals, it is also for newspapers: for instance, with my local library card I can, from home, access the entire archive of The Times (London) back to the 18th century, but for the majority of WP readers (who do not have such a library card) there is no point in making it a hyperlink, so one just cites it in the old-fashioned way and then they will have to physically go in person to a library, just as they do for any ordinary book or document that isn't on line. (Those who do have access to it from home will probably already be aware of the fact.) Consequently, whenever I cite The Times for a date before 1995 or whenever it was they started putting all their content freely on line, I don't include a hyperlink. Alarics (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I also dislike those links where you arrive to obtain an article, and the web says "Pay me $25 to get the article."Iss246 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

After reading the article, I determined that, while the article was indeed informative, it lacked sufficient material on the proposed benefits , instead it seems to focus more on the negative aspects. I hope we can come to a consensus upon this issue. User:BlueAthame (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now changed the section headed "Criticisms of corporal punishment" to "Pros and cons of corporal punishment". If you can find some well-sourced third-party "Pros" to balance the "cons" that are already there, by all means add them in. Alarics (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll get to work on finding a sufficient amount of pros immediately --BlueAthame (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alarics, howcome you revert the section on list of Victorians? The list is getting too long and does not reflect well on the main page. It is better to have it directed to a different page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragTian (talk • contribs) 13:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alarics, thanks for all your help. Can I check with you on this? On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Victorians, there is a part: VS : No symbol after name VJC: # after name VS & VJC: * after name Do you have a way to make it nicer as a note or footnote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragTian (talk • contribs) 04:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think it would work very well as a footnote because that is a different kind of information. I think it is actually OK as it stands, though if I were doing it myself I would have a symbol (rahter than the absence of a symbol) for VS, so that all 3 versions have a symbol. Alarics (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The symbols are already 'messy', so I am trying to minimize it as much as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragTian (talk • contribs) 20:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for calling me out on it. I was feeling that my summaries were becoming too sarcastic. You're right, because text lacks the nuances of speech, it's hard to pick up on sarcasm. Thank you for calling me out and I will try to keep all sarcasm out from now on. Wise dude321 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please include sources for your addition to the school violence entry.Iss246 (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The last change I made to that page was on 2 June, in response to your request for information from the UK, and I did cite sources for that. Which addition are you talking about? Alarics (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

On punishment as a means to preventing or intervening in school violence.Iss246 (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you didn't make the change with regard to preventing or intervening in school violence. I did want to ask this. When are you going to add to the part of the school violence entry on its international character?Iss246 (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to add more information about the school violence from an international perspective?Iss246 (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I will try to do some more on that soon. Give me a week or two. Alarics (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You are doing a good job with the international piece, and I look forward to each new addition. I have a question about the change you just made in the reference to the Larsen article. Your placements for the external links are good. I think it is useful to write the citation in APA style. Almost every citation in the entry is in APA style. Most psychology and education research uses APA style. Best wishes.Iss246 (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think the sentence "Corporal punishment offers several advantages, such as that it is quick and cheap" will seem perfectly clear to native English speakers. However, I have modified it a bit to make it even clearer. If you are not satisfied with that, we shall have to make the point separately for corporal punishment in the home (where the main point is that it can be implemented instantly) and school corporal punishment (where an equally important point is that its costs, e.g. in staff time and classroom space, are neglible compared with such things as detention or suspension). This point is made explicit in the following paragraph. In fact a similar point could be made in relation to parental punishment, because alternative parental punishments such as grounding or "time out" need to be supervised by the parents if they are going to work at all. Alarics (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My problem with the sentence "Corporal punishment offers several advantages, such as that it is quick and cheap" is that it does not specify a relation. If I simply said that "Casablanca is a better alternative" it isn't obvious if I'm comparing it with another movie, another city in Morocco, a song, etc. Upon your revision I see you've given the sentence the interpretation "corporal punishment offers several advantages over other types of punishment".

The entire section seems to presuppose that children need to be punished, and the argument for corporal punishment is therefore contrasted with other types of punishments. I don't think my confusion with the sentence stems from me not having English as my mother tongue, I think it's because I'm a bit unfamiliar with the entire notion that punishing children is somehow a necessary part of parenting and education.—Gabbe (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Goodness me. Well, I'm afraid most people find that it is! Alarics (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure about that?—Gabbe (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No doubt about it. See e.g. the TIME article that is the first cited reference, as far as parental punishment is concerned. As to schools, I think they pretty well all find they have to have punishment of some kind, even though it is not allowed to be corporal in your country or mine. Alarics (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute the slightest that public opinion in the US is in favour of corporal punishment. The article dosn't mention any surveys over the UK, but from what I gather public opinion there is in favour as well. Look, this is turning into an argument between you and me over the merits of corporal punishment. I've been in a few arguments with wikipedians over issues other than specific article content, and it's rarely productive.—Gabbe (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly was not intending to debate the merits of corporal punishment. I was simply pointing out that punishment of some kind (not necessarily corporal) is a standard feature of schools and families not only in US and UK but (as far as I know) more or less all cultures. So your being "unfamiliar with the entire notion that punishing children is somehow a necessary part of parenting and education" seems a slightly strange and difficult starting-point for contributing to articles on the subject. Alarics (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In my country all forms of extra-judicial penalties are forbidden in schools. Not only corporal punishment, but detention, being expelled, etc. have all been banned as being outdated. The judicial system may of course take care of a student who commits a crime. But educators are not allowed to inflict any sort of punishment whatsoever. A high degree of parents do their parenting without resorting to "grounding", withholding allowances, etc. This is the situation not only in Sweden but in other Scandinavian countries as well, for example. Believe me, millions of people live in cultures where parents and educators don't punish children. It costs very little in clarifying text to adapt the article to explain the argument in favour of corporal punishment to someone like me.

Anyway, the real problem with the "pro"-part of the "pro's and con's"-section is that it does not cite any notable proponents, but appears to be random jottings by some supporter of corporal punishment.—Gabbe (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You cannot possibly dismiss that whole section as merely "random jottings by some supporter of corporal punishment". It gives examples of both sides of the argument (American Psychological Association vs. Prof. David Benatar) with sources cited in both cases, and (until you removed the relevant part) it also discussed the pro and con of the Committee on the Rights of the Child's stance on the question, again with several sources cited. Don't forget that these bits and pieces in the "corporal punishment" article are only summaries and that the separate articles on different kinds of corporal punishment, such as Corporal punishment in the home, go into more detail with more argumentation on both sides. By the way, this "pro and con" section came into being because people were complaining that the overall article (as it was at the time, anyway) was too much biased towards anti-spanking views. It is all a very contentious subject and we have to include all the major points of view and leave our own private opinions at the door when writing about it. Alarics (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The APA vs Benatar bit is fantastic, I love it! If the entire section were like that I would have absolutely no complaint whatsoever. But the pro-con-sections begins with the following, unverifiable, statements:

“

Corporal punishment offers several advantages, such as that it is quicker to implement than other punishments, and costs nothing. In the case of parental spanking, it can be an instant corrective to misbehaviour by the child, though it might well be more effective if preceded and followed by a calm discussion. Where school corporal punishment is concerned, those who support its use point to the fact that as soon as the student has been punished he can go back to his class and continue learning. This contrasts with most other kinds of school punishment, which waste a lot of staff time on e.g. supervising detention classes or in-school suspension. Where corporal punishment is offered as an alternative to out-of-school suspension, the student is able to continue in education instead of sitting at home or loitering in the streets, which is an arrangement likely to be regarded by the student as having a free holiday.

”

The statements in the three paragraphs above should be attributed to CP proponents. As they stand now, they could be an accurate representation of what proponents think, but it could just as well be but random jottings of an arbitrary Wikipedia editor.

As for the Committee-bit, that's another thing altogether. It does contain sources, true. But it relies heavily on primary sources, and does a lot of novel synthesis for which it does not provide any secondary sources. Primary sources should be handled with much caution.—Gabbe (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think BlueAthame (who was complaining that the POV tag on this article could not yet be removed because it was, in his/her view, too much biased against corporal punishment) said he/she was going to find some attributions for those three paras. He/she doesn't seem to have come back to the topic yet, so I will see if I can find something myself. Give me a bit of time. Do bear in mind that this whole group of articles was a random incoherent mess until a month or so ago when I embarked on trying to sort it all out. Nobody was taking any responsibility for any of it, and there was a great deal of dubious stuff with no sources cited. I have done a great deal of work on it but it is a gradual process and you should not expect perfection instantly. Alarics (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm certain you have done a great deal of good work. If I gave off an accusatory tone above I apologise profoundly. It definitely wasn't my intention to point fingers at anyone. And I know very well that making good articles on Wikipedia is a slow, laborious and arduous task, and I have the deepest respect for you for pursuing it. I'm just trying to do my best to make sure that articles (especially those on contentious issues, which appears to be almost anything under the Sun) are well-referenced throughout. —Gabbe (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a reply to this edit on this page.—Gabbe (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Preventing school violence, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preventing school violence. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now reorganised this into alphabetical order, and tried to standardise the references. I would be grateful if you could refrain from altering them all with a citation template! I find the results of those things quite user-hostile.

[UPDATE a year later: I have changed my mind completely in the light of further experience, and I now support the use of citation templates. Alarics (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)]

Also I noticed you made new Europe and USA maps for this and Corporal punishment. Do you think it would be good to have a world map for Judicial corporal punishment? Alarics (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the reorganisation: Great! Regarding citation templates, I'll try to remember not to alter references when the article already has an established convention regarding citation format. If there isn't any established convention for a specific article, however, I wouldn't hesitate to add a citation template.

About the map though. I wouldn't mind making that map, but I'm a bit uncertain how it would be coloured. Should there be different colours for nations only punishing adults in the judicial system compared with those punishing adolescents as well? Should those punishing men as well as women be coloured differently from those only punishing men? Should those pracitising JCP only as a disciplinary measure, only as a penalty, or both be coloured differently? I can imagine a lot of factors to include.

If I were to make that map I probably would chose to have two colours, one for states using JCP as a disciplinary measure and one for states which do not. What do you think? Gabbe (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best to keep it simple, and not bother about the detailed distinctions between the countries that do use it, since anyone who is interested can simply consult the list of countries. So why not have a colour for all the countries in the list, and all other countries can be left blank. Of course this whole map idea is less than perfect, in that it draws attention to countries that happen to be geographically big, while Singapore, which is easily one of the biggest users of JCP, will probably be invisible or at any rate indistinguishable from Malaysia, which by chance falls into the same category. But still it will give a rough idea, I think. Alarics (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realised there were 2 different versions of "Beating the devil out of them". Alarics (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That's alright, I almost made the same mistake myself once. Gabbe (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, when you boldly removed corporal punishment as a See also and I reverted, it'd have been better if you'd discussed it rather than simply reverting. Your argument that corporal punishment and physical abuse are totally unrelated because one is legal and the other illegal seems... semantic. Different people, periods and countries will call the same behaviour corporal punishment or physical abuse depending on their own laws and ethics. Both involve the use of physical violence against another individual, but besides the purpose of See also links, and any links in articles, is to guide readers to related topics, not to assert that the two are identical. It does readers a disservice to remove links like this. A clear comparison between corporal punishment and physical abuse is made in reliable sources, attested to by this Google News search:[1] and this research study:[2][3]. This book describes corporal punishment and physical abuse as being in a spectrum:[4]. Fences&Windows 17:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

But those studies and that book are not "reliable sources" as far as corporal punishment is concerned, because their entire raison d'etre is to be POV on that issue. Anti-corporal-punishment agitators are always trying to muddy the waters by implying that corporal punishment and physical abuse are the same thing, but they are conflating disparate phenomena for the purposes of their campaign, and it should be no part of Wikipedia's purpose to help them on their way. You may say "Both involve the use of physical violence", but people who defend the use of moderate corporal punishment do not accept that it constitutes "violence". Anyway, if somebody who is reading the physical abuse article wants to go on to read about corporal punishment they know how to do so; I just don't see what's "See also" about it, that's all. Alarics (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not just a couple of studies; there are literally thousands of sources that compare the two. How are you judging whether they are reliable sources? Your point of view seems to be that it is anathema for anyone to compare or draw a link between corporal punishment and physical abuse, but even if such a link or comparison is in truth invalid, there is an active debate about it, and we should reflect this. I just don't think your attempt to suppress this is tenable. Fences&Windows 19:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I'd be right that you're a supporter of corporal punishment, I presume? Fences&Windows 19:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Not especially, but I find a lot of the campaigning against it to be glib, blinkered and intellectually dishonest. (Some of the people who defend it are idiots as well, but that's by the way, as indeed is my personal view or yours.) You're right of course that "there is an active debate about it, and we should reflect this", and Wikipedia does do that amply. It just seems to me that, by putting "see also corporal punishment" on an article about physical abuse, we are appearing to be taking sides in that debate. It a bit as if you had an article entitled "greedy bankers" and put at the bottom of it "see also: Jews", just because there are some people around who would approve of the idea that they are connected. Alarics (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. My objection is made the stronger by the fact that all the other things in that particular "see also" list -- child abuse, torture, etc. -- are unequivocally negative, i.e. things of which it could be assumed everyone would disapprove. Corporal punishment cannot be put in that category. Alarics (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The See also links are really placeholders as I'm being too lazy to do all the research to properly rewrite the Physical abuse page, which I saved from a prod. I just found articles that were related, without any intent to suggest that corporal punishment is physical abuse - although I belief that some of it almost certainly is abuse. I don't agree that your analogy/strawman of Jews=Greedy bankers is at all similar to the Physical abuse/Corporal punishment debate, as reasonable academic debate occurs on the latter, whereas only swivel-eyed racist nuts argue the former. I will get around to adding a brief section on the corporal punishment/physical abuse debate, and I'll make sure to find a balance of sources. Fences&Windows 20:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I was exaggerating somewhat to make a point, but actually I do think that many of the most vehement anti-corporal-punishment people are pretty "swivel-eyed" as you put it, however much they may be able to hide behind "academic" respectability. (So are most of the people who bother to make a fuss in favour of CP. The truth in my view is that the issue isn't that crucial one way or the other.) Alarics (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alarics/Archive 2009! There appears to be a discrepancy between the information in The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre article which you have contributed to or edited. The November 2008 Ofsted report and the article may not be referring to the same schools. Moreover, in an article about Heathfield School, Wolverley it is claimed that it merged with Bewdley. However, a website exists for a Heathfield school in Wolverly about an independent school on which there exists very little verifiable online information. There is clearly some confusion concerning these two schools and their affiliation. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre, improve the article if you can, and leave any comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the Heathfield article and reducing the confusion. However, to meet Wikipedia standards, the article still needs references. The schools website and, various directory entries are not alone sufficient to justify notability. If you can also help with these issues, please go ahead. .--Kudpung (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Done! Alarics (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your quick intervention. I was unable to find much info on Heathfiled, and I was of two minds about putting an AfD on the article to avoid any embarrassment for the school. Although all schools are per se notable, a fishy Wiki article could do them more harm than good if they are genuine schools. If you are interested in schools in general, you may like to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools (if you are not already a member), or if your are interested in the county of Worcestershire you may like to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire.--Kudpung (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with your trimming down of the introduction.

Do you think we might also get rid of the section headed "Etymology"? I think etymology belongs in a dictionary rather than an encyclopaedia. Alarics (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see something we can agree on! :)

Regarding the etymology section, I can't say I care much for it one way or the other. I can imagine some people would disagree with removing an etymology section for the simple reason that "it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia", but on the other hand, the section currently adds little to the article. So, I don't know. Gabbe (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I will leave it there. Alarics (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my mind, I fully believe the section should be removed. I raised the issue on the article talk page, lets give it a couple of days to see if anybody disagrees with us. Gabbe (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You did some good work in this change [5] but I am curious as to why you removed some citation templates. I don't want to be working at cross-purposes with you with respect to citation formatting. Cheers Nurg (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The {{cite news}} template has a field for "publisher", and that's generally where I put the newspaper or cable news service or whoever the publisher is. By these edits you changed many of them to the "work" field. I don't see any reason for that change. I'm not sure about the purpose of the "work" field, but I think it can be used to identify an op-ed, an editorial, or some other specialized kind of work. An entity like Politico or the Huffington Post is a publisher, not a work.

You also changed some date formats. If you look at the examples at Wikipedia:Citation templates, you'll see that dates for retrieval of the information are entered in the YYYY-MM-DD format. I'm not sure about this point either, but I think the reason is that people who set their preferences appropriately will see the date displayed in their preferred format. In other words, if the access date is entered as 2009-07-31, a British Wikipedian will see 31 July 2009 and an American will see July 31, 2009 (provided each has set the preference that way). If the date is entered as July 31, 2009 then everyone sees it that way. As I said, I'm not sure about that, and it might apply only if the date is wikilinked. Whatever the reason, though, using YYYY-MM-DD for access dates is the common practice. Did you have a reason for these changes? (It's not a big deal, which is why I'm asking here instead of on the article talk page, where so many battles have already erupted!) JamesMLane t c 02:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am simply trying to standardise the format throughout the article so that all the references look the same. The "cite news" template field for "work" renders the name of the newspaper in italics, which I think is the usual convention. I think "publisher" may be meant for a case where a need is felt to say who publishes the newspaper (e.g. if the title is obscurely local but belongs to a larger group that people will have heard of), but anyway the significant point is that that does NOT render the name in italics, which is why I have been changing it.

On date formats, I am afraid you are a bit behind the times. It used to be policy to wikilink dates so that, as you say, they would appear according to the format set by the user's preferences. For better or worse that policy has been abandoned (principally I think because it was found that the vast majority of users never did set any date preferences, and because many editors never did wikilink the dates, not having understood the reason for doing so), and we are now supposed to NOT wikilink the date but to put it into one or other format, as seems most appropriate; since this is an article about the US President, I have been using the American format (even though I personally think it is an illogical format and much prefer the international one). The main thing is to standardise the style of presentation within any one article.

The YYYY-MM-DD format using numbers only ("computer style") is user-hostile to non-geeks, in my view; one has to stop and think out what it means every time one comes across it. Even so, had all the dates in the article been rendered thus, I should have left them alone. (I believe you are right that the computer style is favoured for "retrieved on" dates for web references. I stumbled across this fact only yesterday, and now wish I had left these ones alone. But in any case I don't see the point of having a "retrieved on" date when there is already an article date, so I use "retrieved on" only when linking to a website which does not itself bear a date, not when linking to online newspaper or magazine articles.)

For the current policy on dates, see WP:MOSNUM#Dates. Alarics (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Just found this more detailed page: Template:Cite_news, which confirms what I said above about about the parameters "work" and "publisher". Alarics (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Cane Whip Three Women and A Half Parental alienation Oxenholme Monatomic Richard Hughes (musician) Flour Absorption spectroscopy Taking Children Seriously Goy Telok Kurau Primary School Habitat (retailer) Bodily harm Romance De Amour Ministry of Education (Singapore) Sutton Lim Chu Kang Metamorphic Technique

Cleanup Erotic spanking Parenting Elder abuse Merge Sembawang Network file system Inbreeding Add Sources Switch (rod) Public humiliation Hainan Kopi Tales Wikify Woot History of Benin Humiliation Expand Telomere Rights Newark North Gate railway station

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Wouldn't the "newspaper" parameter (which is a synonym for "work") be an even better choice? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "newspaper" would be vastly better than "work", but appears not currently to be an option in the "cite news" template, or at least it isn't shown in the documentation. "newspaper" does appear as a parameter in the documentation for the "citation" template, but I thought use of that template was now deprecated in favour of "cite xxx" templates.

Anyway I see that the CNN example is still there. I think an actual newspaper would be a more typical example to use. Thanks, Alarics (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And there is still the question of the "location" parameter that I mentioned. This is available in the "cite news" template, but not mentioned in the example given. Sorry to keep pestering you about this. Alarics (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: I now discover that "newspaper" parameter does work properly in "cite news", even though it isn't mentioned in the documentation for that template. I think "newspaper" is much better than "work". Alarics (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the quick answer to my question about writing lines. I usually have to wait days for answers to obscure questions like that, but you responded in less than an hour.

By the way, the HTML anchor seems to be case sensitive, so I put in a big W. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and it's a pleasure. Alarics (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove accessdate parameter in citation templates. The reason you gave for removing them is no reason at all. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am following Wikipedia policy on citations. Please see WP:CITE, which says:

"Citations for newspaper articles typically include: [.....] date you retrieved it if you read it on the Web, unless it is on a stable website that maintains its archive over the long term".

I have not actually deleted them in the Eurostar article, I just commented them out so that they can still be seen by editors but not by the ordinary reader, for whom the information is entirely useless - it just adds to the clutter. For instance, an article in the Guardian or on the BBC always has a date on its page -- the date the article was published. That is what is important to the reader. It is of no help to the reader to know when the editor who added the citation found it. Alarics (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say to comment them out once they are there! Furthermore, what makes you so sure those sites are stable and maintain their archives for a long time? And saying that "Retrieved on ...." in a reference (!) is cluttering, is plain exaggeration. And finally, I have never seen any other editor doing such a thing. Which also says something, if you ask me. At the very best (and I actually think this is not wise), this is an unnecessary thing, and we should not engage in unnecessary things. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No, to present the reader with two different dates -- when the only useful one is the date when the article was published -- is potentially confusing and definitely clutter. We know that the Guardian and BBC sites are stable because we can see, if we investigate them, that they keep their archive available in perpetuity. The only person to whom the retrieval date information might conceivably be of any value (and even that is very dubious) is another editor, who can still see it in the edit box. You say that my changes are "unnecessary". Well, Wikipedia as a whole is "unnecessary" but it is still useful, and so are my changes, because they make things easier for the reader. Alarics (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The second date is clearly called "Retrieved on", so I see no possibility for confusion. Webites like the BBC are indeed stable, but even stable websites sometimes overhaul their archives, with dire consequences, usually. Anyway, I still hope in the future you will obstain from this type of edit. You might want to seek a third opinion on Template talk:Cite web. Debresser (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but it wouldn't be relevant to discuss it on Template talk:Cite web because many web pages (not having a fixed date) *do* ideally need to have their access date specified. I am only talking about "cite news", not "cite web", and my main point is that *newspaper* articles already have a date, so adding a second date is both unnecessary and potentially confusing.

(Just to be clear: if your source is a newspaper article or news item, the important thing is to cite the name of the newspaper and the date when the article was published. If the item happens to be on the web, by all means give its URL as well for convenience, but that is of secondary importance; the citation still stands without it, whether because the web page has now disappeared or because the item only ever existed in printed form and was never on the web in the first place. The date on which that URL was found by some editor is immaterial.)

In fact, though, the issue *has* been extensively discussed on a number of occasions. Have a look at this archived debate and you can see that, well over a year ago, User:Wasted_Time_R set out the arguments against including retrieval dates for everything that happens to be on the web, and eventually a consensus emerges in favour of the compromise to not delete the accessdate info altogether, but to hide it from the casual reader (albeit with some disagreements about how technically that is best done), *only* in cases where a stable article already has a publication date.

That is presumably why, for a long time up until the day before yesterday, the relevant text on WP:CITE read as follows:

"Citations for newspaper articles typically include: [.....] and a comment with the date you retrieved it if it is online (invisible to the reader)."

That is the instruction I have been following, and it is not clear why User:SlimVirgin changed that wording, the day before yesterday, to "date you retrieved it if you read it on the Web, unless it is on a stable website that maintains its archive over the long term". He did that in the middle of a wider, multi-stage edit of the page and I don't know whether he meant to lose that wording, but it certainly doesn't appear to have resulted from recent debate on the relevant talk page. I am going to contact him/her and see if I can revert the wording of WP:CITE to what it said before. Alarics (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I do hope you have my talkpage watched. Debresser (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Alarics, hi. Noticed your deletion of 2nd ISBN for Thomas book on BoPI article today. I'm sure that was my error, transcribed from library book; I'll probably add the correct one in next edit. Noticed your domicile, assume educ professional. I've been seeking BoPI-related books for over a year now, not always easy in UK. I borrowed many from public library systems, but even BL lacks some, and even when they do have one, it takes ages and £2.50 even for local concessions. I'm still looking for some but don't have any contacts in educ - any helpful tips would be welcome.PeterWD (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I was just cleaning up assorted dud ISBNs - no need for more than one ISBN for the same book, anyway. I do have a BL card, and have found very few books in English that they don't possess, although their catalogue is sometimes user-hostile and they do sometimes turn out to have things they don't at first appear to have. Have you tried WorldCat? I have no particular expertise re Bay of Pigs (my interest in it is really only at a tangent from the JFK assassination) but if you tell me what you need I will see if there is anything I can do to help. Alarics (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for response. My rationale for multiple ISBNs, rightly or wrongly, is to accommodate variations within libraries' or booksellers' data, as they might only list under the specific edition they hold, and not cross-reference to other editions. Right now I'm waiting for a copy of Higgins 1987 just discovered in the Ealing reserves, plus an airfields book, and renewed a reservation for a copy of Franqui 1983, and I don't want to get too many at once with masses of photo cataloguing and archiving piling in this year. The one I tried to get last year was Ferrer 1982 (Operation Puma), BL said no, but luckily I finally managed to buy one from a US dealer. Among those not yet found in UK are Trest 2001 (Wings of Denial) and Haas 2002 (Apollo's Warriors...), but I'm not actively looking for those. Update, thanks for tipoff about Worldcat, not heard of it before; just tried it, confirms no copies of Trest in UK.PeterWD (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up. Worldcat says only copy of Haas in UK is USAF base library at Mildenhall; I had contact with someone there a while back, but one day I might try access via local library. I forgot that recently I had also been looking for Hunt 1973 (Give Us This Day), in case it has any useful BoPI gems, and Worldcat says Oxford Uni has one, so I might try that sometime. As a byproduct of my search for Hunt book last week, I discovered a copy of his 1975 (Undercover: ....) in Twick library loan store, so I might just pick that up tomorrow. I'm not much interested in his alleged involvement in JFK conspiracy, but happy to supply any quotes you might want. BTW, looks to me like his WP confusing bio needs JFK stuff broken out into separate section.PeterWD (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Just a note: WorldCat doesn't have every local library. "What's in London libraries" at http://www.londonlibraries.org.uk/will/DataSources.aspx?opt=all will scan all their catalogues at one go. Alarics (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have been using WILL, there's a link on local library websites. There are always several library catalogues "temporarily unavailable", but magically working OK if you go direct. This always seems to be the case for Houns. Also, it lists stuff not then available when you go direct.PeterWD (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The previous version of Child discipline mentioned only domestic corporal punishment. I just added background information about school corporal punishment. Olegwiki (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Alarics, I think the Second pink-div has clearly achieved a general consensus. See my 17:52, 16 September 2009 post. Greg L (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

To start with, the changes you made are not consistent with bibliographic notations in the Modern Language Association Style Guide which is being used primarily for the article's bibliography, which are simply stated as: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date. If in the place of publication, the location is generally known as in "New York" or "London", then no further descriptor or country location is needed, but if a location is obscure or not widely known such as "St. Albans, Herts" then a country entry is applied. In the case of the author, the exact or the author's choice of name is accepted. If the author states it is "Ken" in one publication, and "Kenneth E." in another, is immaterial; the cataloger goes with what the author uses in the particular work. As for ISBN, any use of the International Standard Book Number is entirely optional, and the only reason that it is usually added to a Wikipedia bibliographical record, is due to practice. You were correct that the ISBN for the particular title was incorrect and may not actually have even been assigned, as it is up to the publisher to use this coding system, and the Online Computer Library Center, or OCLC convention is not accepted as part of a bibliographic record at this point, although over 70,000 libraries worldwide have accepted the OCLC protocols and opened their collections. Use of it in Wikipedia is okay. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC).

Hi Alarics, thanks for your reply, as I had made the original revision with some trepidation, recognizing that it had not been made without due consideration for cataloging rules. One of the issues that still remains with the type of information that the Wikiwacky masters of referencing have made is that there is no real understanding of bibliographical standards. The templates are one example of this. When Wikipedia started, there was a genuine effort to elicit responses from the great multitude, but with that came a flood of unverified and unsourced material. In order to establish some type of scholarly approach, various means were put in place to assist the contributor who was not "classically" trained in the vagaries and intricacies of bibliographical referencing, summed up rather tersely and inaccurately as "references". As things moved along, the templates were instituted, and as a cataloging librarian, I recognize the need and usefulness of templates as in my final years in the position as a librarian, I and my staff were using templates in order to input cataloging information from sources such as the Library of Congress or from publishers' sites. The vast difference between the catalog templates that were provided by various software programs such as Columbia, was that the MARC (Machine-Readable Bibliographic Cataloging) record that was established was properly formatted. The templates in use in Wikipedia are not properly formatted and no end of asking has produced any budging from the folks who created them. Editors have taken it upon themselves to install "tweaks" into the templates to handle different functions, but even then, another editor often will reverse the change. A number of editors such as myself, have simply abandoned the cumbersome, "buggy" and often incompatible templates to revert to an earlier, "Stone Age" system of "scratch cataloging" that requires the editor to hand write the citation or bibliographic record, entry by entry. I have reverted to training that is now thirty years+ back in the dim past when I received my university training as a librarian. In order to use a hand written form of referencing sources introduces a new dilemma in that a basic understanding of cataloging conventions must be in hand. So to skirt back to the original issues, I have the cover image of the work before me, and the author refers to himself as "Ken" and that is how he should be entered in the bibliographical record. The geographic locator in a record that identifies place of publication (this is an entry in some style guides only, but since the Modern Language Association style was being used, then a place is specified), required a fairly standard entry to be made. If the location is "generally" known by city name, then that is all that is required, but if the location requires further elaboration then state or country is used. For example, "Washington, DC" is all that is required, but "York, UK" is commonly used. FWiW, don't get me started on the ISBN and OCLC entry as neither is part of the bibliographical record but due to common practice, are often used. Bzuk (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC).

I seconded wholeheartedly your proposal at Template_talk:Citation#Format_for_accessdate. Could you please add a link to the discussion? Debresser (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I found it, and added the link myself. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems we agree on more than we disagree about. Debresser (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd still rather not have access dates at all. I have yet to see a single convincing explanation for why they are ever needed. I especially think they are confusing in newspaper or magazine citations when the item referred to has a publication date, which is all that is required. But where people insist we have access dates, I would like them (and all other dates) to be proper, unambiguous dates with the month written out in full. That's my position in a nutshell. -- Alarics (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on that as well, but I think all big steps have to be broken down into minor ones. |accessmonthday= and |accessdaymonth= are now deprecated and exstinct. |accessday=, |accessmonth= and |accessyear= will follow within the next few weeks. Then let's wait a year or so, and see what we can do then. Debresser (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have started with the step-by-step deprecation of those parameters. And it will please you to know that in doing so, I also update documentation pages. The changes I make include removing the recommendation for ISO format, moving the accessdate parameter down in the list of parameters to diminish its importance, and change its status from "recommended" to "optional". Just give me two weeks to work quietly, and in time the difference will be substantial. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for letting me know. -- Alarics (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No SmackBot is not converting any dates to pseudo-ISO. Although I agree with their limited use on the "accessed" field - partly since it is meta-data that should maybe be hidden altogether. Now you say there is consensus to convert pseudo-ISO into full dates, can you point me to the discussion? I saw a sniff of it over at Mosnom and might tie it into the unlinking of pseudo-ISO dates I've been doing. Rich Farmbrough, 11:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC).

thanks I jumped in there. Rich Farmbrough, 11:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC).

The link that you sent me states that YYYY-MM-DD should not be used in prose, but it did not say anything about in footnotes. Currently, there is no policy or guideline opposed to this format in footnotes. There is a never-ending discussion, of course, but I don't see it being at all valid if most of Wikipedia (the other 10,619,575 accounts) have not been informed of a discussion that affects all of Wikipedia's articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It says "However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness". That was never meant to include footnotes, where such an extreme degree of conciseness is never needed. The reason it has become a habit for some people to use YYYY-MM-DD in footnotes is because they see it in other footnotes, and that in the first place was only an accidental by-product of the date delinking/autoformatting saga - it was not meant to appear as YYYY-MM-DD to the reader, on the assumption (incorrect, as everyone now realises) that most readers would have date preferences set.

YYYY-MM-DD is ambiguous to many readers. It was designed for computers to read, not people. Even many of those of us who know what it means still have to stop and think about it, so it is a barrier to understanding. It saves only 7 characters at maximum over writing the date out properly. It looks geeky and is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia which is supposed to be written in English. -- Alarics (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Happened by here, so would add my voice of support to all Alarics says above. Also, I have a question as to the vote. Given all that (which I was about to write to you myself ... the reason I stopped by), I would think that saying that the format is not to be used in footnotes would just be a matter of reflecting more precisely what is the case. If true, I would not expect that we would need any supermajority vote to reflect it (though expansive discussion is great) -- only if we were to seek to revise (rather than reflect) the status quo. Do I have that right?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, in principle, but others would no doubt object that it has never been made explicit and therefore in their eyes is not the status quo. I suspect that in practice we will need a substantial majority. At any rate I think we now have to put the matter to a wide vote. -- Alarics (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. The more I think of this, the more I believe that YYYY-MM-DD should not be a format that readers have to contend with, as I've now convinced myself that their use is distinctly minority in the real world, and that they are likely no less confusing that the MM/DD/YYYY format. And from some poking around the internet, it appears that YYYY-DD-MM has been used by some systems, and even where it was not supposed to be used people inputting have input info in that format. Happy to follow/contribute to the larger discussion. Where/how will that take place?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I was hoping someone would tell me how to do it! -- Alarics (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK the RfC is now under way at Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates. -- Alarics (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for opening up the discussion! Question -- is it appropriate for me to respond to what people say, below their votes?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering that myself! I fear it would be seen as counter-productive if one did that repeatedly. The most important thing is to put your own comment in the appropriate section, support or oppose. -- Alarics (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. I wonder whether it might not be a good idea for someone to let the 15/16 whose votes were noted in your summary (both sides of the issue), but who have yet to opine on the new vote page, of the goings-on so that they can contribute there as well if they like?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, if they don't comment within the next couple of days. -- Alarics (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you change the last number in the date in your example from 31 to a number 12 or lower.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think it might be better left, so as to indicate that even when it is not "ambiguous" in that sense, we still don't want it. -- Alarics (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Ok, I defer to you (though I think that it might have helped people visualize the issue in the discussion, as much is about the possible ambiguity of the date). Quick partially related query -- what is the rule with citing sources behind registration-only or pay-only sites? I had thought that was disfavored, but can't seem to find a reference that says that. This of course came to mind when people spoke of the pay-only ISO standard. I think its a minor point (even if you can get it -- who does?), but was curious. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually in the example I was simply quoting the existing text of MOSNUM. That's where the (1976-05-31) example came from. -- Alarics (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

On citing sources, I think the issue isn't whether you can cite the source that is behind a pay-only or registration wall, but whether you can hyperlink to it. I can't find the reference either, but I'm sure I have read that you shouldn't hyperlink it if it isn't available to everyone. If there is only a free abstract, but the full article is behind a pay wall, I suppose it depends on whether or not the abstract on its own supports the claim in the article. I think we're talking mainly about scholarly journals here. Usually they have also appeared in print, so you can certainly still cite them without a URL just as with a book that isn't on line.

A similar situation arises with newspapers where you can access the archive only if you have the right library card. With my local library card I can access The Times (London) online (in digitised facsimile) back to the 18th century, but when I cite a news item from it in an article I don't give a link to it because I assume most readers don't have such a library card, so as far as WP is concerned it is equivalent to physically finding the back issue in a library. -- Alarics (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. Not sure that I fully follow the rationale, but I guess that is for another day.

BTW, this and the advice in [6] is what I am concerned will happen (and is happening today) on the editor/inputter side of things with the YYYY-xx-yy standard. So much for "not ambiguous".--Epeefleche (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And the ISO 8601 Wikipedia article (wouldn't you know it) uses the ISO standard within the text of the article ("It has been superseded by ... the current third edition published 2004-12-03.").--Epeefleche (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Three more quick thoughts. a) Most of the "oppose" commentators apparently believe (incorrectly, I would submit) that the YYYY-MM-DD format is completely unambiguous or the least ambiguous possibility; it is troubling if they are casting their vote based on a mistaken belief (e.g., opposers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 20, and 21). b) Some (e.g., opposer 1, 4, and 7) believe it is the most common format in footnotes; I don't know if that is true, if it is it may well be due to the actions of bots without clear MOS permission, and it is not the most common format in google searches (by far). And c) If by chance the format survives in footnotes, can we at least seek to eradicate it from prose within footnotes?--Epeefleche (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(a) I agree, but enough different people have pointed out that they are mistaken about the unambiguity. Maybe they can't read. We just have to keep hammering away on the point. (b) It is certainly quite common in footnotes, but whether the most common, I wouldn't like to say. We have explained the largely accidental reason why it is as common as it is. (c) I'm not sure it is worth going to the stake over what is a rather small proportion of incidences. Mostly they are dates of newspapers and, above all, retrieval dates -- most of which are completely unnecessary anyway, in my view, but that is another argument. -- Alarics (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I couldn't help but notice that after starting the RfC with regards to YYYY-MM-DD date formatting, you posted a notice on the talk page of several editors. While there generally is no issue with notifying people, it can be a problem when it is seen that such posting is done purely to gain support for your cause. In this case, while the wording of your notice was fine, you only invited comment from those who had previously expressed an opinion that went along with your own. Please refer to WP:CANVAS (specifically the votestacking sub-section) for further guidance. Regards. _wjemather^bigissue 19:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. I notified all the editors that I could find who had previously commented on the issue, irrespective of their position, other than those who had already contributed to the new RfC. I knew that some of them such as A. di M. and Rich Farmbrough and TheFeds were not on my side of the argument. I had looked through the earlier discussions and noted the user names. I would have contacted several others on the opposite side of the argument, too, had they not already commented in opposition to my proposal, such as your good self. I am trying very hard not to get irritated by having my integrity called into question. -- Alarics (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, I agree with what Alarics says here, and it is consistent with our conversation directly above on this page (note the reference to "both sides of the issue"). Alarics has been working very hard at inviting comment, with good success, and I think his many efforts in this regard (including posting on some wikiproject pages) have been fairly evident.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The section heading made my intentions clear, and meant no offence. I understand you may be unfamiliar with various processes, and want to give you the benefit of any doubt, but the facts speak for themsleves.

None of the 4 editors (Cavrdg, Darxus, Denimadept, Offliner) who were determined (here, by you) to want to keep YYYY-MM-DD in footnotes, and had not already commented, were notified.

Of the others (A. di M., Headbomb, HWV258, Ohconfucius, Rich Farmbrough, Septentrionalis/Pmanderson, Sssoul, Debresser, Greg L, Jimp, Tony1) 10 (in bold) out of 11 were notified. In addition, two other potentially favourable editors (based on comments posted at the Village Pump, or elsewhere) were also notified (Noisalt & Josiah Rowe). _wjemather^bigissue 01:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I missed Cavrdg, Darxus, Denimadept and Offliner. That was an oversight, or else I was confused and thought I'd seen their names on the RfC already, or I thought I'd done everybody when I hadn't. Shall I notify them or will you? -- Alarics (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just notify them, so the record is clear that you contacted all (just my suggestion).--Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'll leave it up to you. Cheers. _wjemather^bigissue 19:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Alarics (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's so pleasant to see a non-contentious discussion on wikipedia for once.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

At some point, perhaps we should consider whether there are any next steps (if the vote remains as it is now). And, if so, what they are. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the clear outcome, I don't see that it is worth devoting any more time or energy to this matter, sadly. -- Alarics (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

it never end?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have given up following it. The result seems to bear out my hunch that many of the most active WP editors are technophile geeks, probably borderline autistic/Asperger's, who cannot see how things look to most ordinary people. The funniest example is the one who wrote "I am a computer programmer and I understand it perfectly well". -- Alarics (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope that you derived as much pleasure writing that as I did reading it. That's really funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And, if they really believe that numbers are so pretty and communicate better than letters, why do the vast majority of them use all-alpha names as their wikipedia names?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the summary/etc have been interesting ... using that word loosely.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I will stop checking it as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your cleanup but now the Daily Mail reference I added today simply gives " .London" without the name of the paper in the ref, which cannot be correct. I'd amend it myself but I can't work out how to... Regards, Ericoides (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake. I've fixed it now. -- Alarics (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ta. Ericoides (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Was your last edit to Template_talk:Cite_news#archiveurl_without_original_url_old_papers really true? I don't think so. And even if it were, there is no need to start bickering about such trivia. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not bickering. I just wondered why you had bothered to add something that User:RL0919 and I had between us already said. It gave the impression that you hadn't read what we wrote. -- Alarics (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to say it again in these words, and point out the fact that it is clearly in the documentation. Thanks for removing that. I appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Whilst Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates was closed with no consensus, something similar is starting to sizzle at Template talk:Cite web#Date formatting. Thought you'd like to know. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Alarics (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Grateful thanks for your painstaking date revisions and tidying up, with apologies for my sloppy editing. FYI this is the third revision to the dates. The article started out as a USA/UK collaboration using the US dating method - hence the reference to USA origins and the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Which, incidentally, I believe is significant, but ah well.... Then an Englishman revised all the dates. Now you. SJB (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. The issue with the dates isn't primarily UK vs. US (although the general view I think is that it is better if an article about the UK uses the UK date order), it's that all-numerical dates, whether dd-mm-yyyy or mm-dd-yyyy, are ambiguous and therefore deprecated. -- Alarics (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I generally like the changes you've made to Moon landing conspiracy theories, but it looks like that in some of the accessdata parameters to the cite templates, you not only removed the formatting (good) but you also commented out the date entirely. I went through and undid the date commenting. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I was following the instructions at WP:CITE#HOW, which says:

"Citations for newspaper articles typically include:

• name of the newspaper in italics (required)
• date of publication (required)
• byline (author's name), if any
• title of the article within quotation marks
• city of publication, if not included in name of newspaper
• the date you retrieved it if it is online, invisible to the reader: <!--accessed: date-->"

In practice, I generally comment out access dates only where they seem especially unnecessary, such as mainstream media sources like major newspapers or the BBC, and press releases from respectable organisations. In these cases one knows that there is always a solid publication date stated on the target page, and the ordinary reader will not need to know, indeed may actually be confused by, the date on which some WP editor originally found it.

But I know a few people still like to see it there anyway, so I shan't revert your revert. -- Alarics (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The source for this was the individual himself, Sebastian Doggart, who was at Eton 1983-1988. To corroborate, you are welcome to contact him directly at sebastiandoggart@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacnewton7 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)