This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1 - Please change "7 Carter" into "7 Carver".
2 - Asymptote circuit was not F section circuit, but RF section.
3 - Monk circuit was a seperate circuit to Monkeypuzzle. Monkeypuzzle formed in June 1942 by Raymond Flower (Gaspard) in La Sologne and included Marcel Clech, Pierre Culioli, Yvonne Rudellat. This circuit later became Adolphe when in March 1943 it became a subgroup of Prosper in Touraine. Raymond Flower was sent back to London. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.203.183.66 (
talk •
contribs)
I'm afraid that Sidney Jones (composer) is mistakenly linked as a SOE operative (see the "Inventor" section), provided that the named article makes no mention of such a relevant event in the composer's biography.
-- Filippof ( talk) 21:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't get what a "Dakota expert" may be.
Thanks in advance for suggestions & explanations. -- Filippof ( talk) 23:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
References
@ Smallchief: please provide evidence that John Robertson of Ayr, Scotland is "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", since the website is clearly a self-published source. FDW777 ( talk) 16:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
If you're planning to persist in adding more unreferenced content, I'll just remove all of it per WP:BURDEN. Please fix the existing problems with this article. FDW777 ( talk) 07:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Should inline citations be required in an article listing only basic, factual information or is a bibliographic note on sources acceptable? Smallchief ( talk) 08:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The article SOE F Section networks was created in 2003 and contains contributions from 92 editors. This is intended to be a factual list of the networks and agents of the clandestine Special Operations Executive (SOE) in France during World War II. Ninety-odd SOE networks operated in France and the total number of SOE agents was about 470. Most of the networks and about one half of the SOE agents are now listed in the article in its present state of construction.
On 18 June 2021 User:FDW777 added the following message to the ongoing discussion on my talk page: "If you're planning to persist in adding more unreferenced content, I'll just remove all of it per WP:BURDEN. Please fix the existing problems with this article. FDW777 (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)"
In response, I note that WP:Burden says the following: "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."
Attempting to meet the concerns of FDW777, I immediately put an under construction tag on this page. I assume the "problems" FDW777 refers to are the lack of in-line citations in the article. I'm not aware of any challenges to the factual accuracy of the article.
So, my question is: are in-line citations required in a non-controversial list such as this? To add in-line citations to each entry in this article (when completed) would require 1,000 or more footnotes. Moreover, the great majority of them would be identical and come from one of three sources. M.R.D. Foot, SOE in France is the gold-standard reference for SOE articles, but his book does not include many dates and names needed for a complete list. The second essential reference is a website, [2] by David M. Harrison. Harrison's record as a historian of the SOE includes an article "Special Operations Executive: Para-Military Training in Scotland during World War 2," which is cited as a reference in the List of SOE establishments Wikipedia article. Harrison also wrote the foreword to a biography of SOE agent Jacques de Guélis, and he is cited elsewhere on the web and in books. His website gives names of all agents and networks, date of arrival in France, and whether captured, executed, or survived. The third major source is Unearthing Churchill's Secret Army, by John Grehan and Martin Mace which gives dates and details of the death of more than 100 SOE agents killed in the line of duty.
My alternative to putting 1,000 repetitive and nearly identical footnotes in the article is a biographical note stating that the above three sources are the references for all entries in the list unless otherwise footnoted. Is that acceptable? I repeat my point: this is an non-controversial article of dates and facts - not opinion or analysis. One needed improvement might be to retitle the article "List of SOE F Section networks," to indicate this is a list.
My proposal for a bibliographic note rather than inline citations is supported by WP:Inline citation. "The opposite of an inline citation is what the English Wikipedia calls a general reference. This is a bibliographic citation, often placed at or near the end of an article, that is unconnected to any particular bit of material in an article, but which might support some or all of it. It is called a "general reference" because it supports the article "in general", rather than supporting specific sentences or paragraphs."
Frankly, I am reluctant to continue work on this article if it is threatened with deletion.
Now, a bit of further background. The fact that this article is presently unreferenced is due to FDW777. On 19 December 2019, FDW777 deleted from this article 185 footnotes citing a website [3] he deemed unreliable. My contributions to the article at that time consisted only of one small edit, but I reverted his deletion, opining that his deletion of the footnotes was a worse not a better outcome. He then deleted all the footnotes again. I didn't contest his second deletion. He raised the issue to confirm his deletion at [4] and after a brief discussion three editors agreed with him (although one stated that the info on the disallowed website would be hard to find elsewhere -- and nobody pointed out any errors in the article due to reliance on that source). I didn't participate in the reliable source discussion but accepted the results of it and added a citation needed tag to the article.
I will appreciate your concurrence that a bibliographic citation, as proposed above, will preserve the article, rather than requiring the extraordinarily burdensome task of footnoting at least a thousand facts. Smallchief ( talk) 08:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
A local consensus to suspend the verifiability policy for a certain article is by definition invalid, I suggest he reread WP:IAR and also notice that every single policy and guideline states at the t op to use common sense and occasional exceptions apply. FDW777, there's something you need to understand: sourcing concerns alone is not a legitimate reason to "challenge material. In other words, anyone may challenge content they think is likely to be wrong or misleading if it's unsourced; but challenging content for NO OTHER REASON than that it is unsourced or poorly sourced is disruptive. Using that as a reason to demand inline citations is atrocious. Had there been general references already in place, that would not have been challengeable. Because there weren't, you "challenged" the content, and then you demand inline citations because it's "challenged content". I'm sorry, but that is WP:POINTY and disruptive as all hell. Firejuggler86 ( talk) 09:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation(emphasis in original). It does not say "material whose accuracy is challenged". Even if it did, the fact that this article has been constructed using no references and self-published references (including many uses of forum posts) means I'm quite entitled to challenge the accuracy. I've been generous in giving the editor an opportunity to fix the problems with the article, they chose to try this end-run round policy instead. FDW777 ( talk) 09:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation(emphasis in original). Do you see the word "and" between "quotations" and "any material"? That means they aren't the same thing. The material has beem challenged, please add inline citations. FDW777 ( talk) 10:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Responding to User:Buidhe. It's not as clearcut as you make it out to be. Here are two quotes from Wikipedia citation policy.
Wikipedia: Inline Citation "Some articles (e.g., articles about controversial people) will require inline citations after nearly every sentence. Some sections (e.g., dense technical subjects) may even require more than one inline citation per sentence. Others may not require any inline citations at all." [Emphasis added]
Wikipedia: Stand-alone lists "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (Note: None of the agents and networks named in this list, in my opinion, are of the four kinds of material required to have citations.)
"When an inline citation is not required by a sourcing policy and editors choose to name more sources than strictly required, then either general references or inline citations may be used. It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, does not require an inline citation."
In addition to the above statements of policy, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists names several list articles as good examples that editors should follow. Several of the examples in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists have few or no inline citations for entries on the list. The List of winners and shortlisted authors of the Booker Prize has only a few inline citations. The List of cat breeds has only a few inline citations. The List of fictional dogs has only 2 inline citations in a long list of notable and non-notable fictional dogs. None of these articles are challenged for lack of citations. Shall I rush to tag these articles for inadequate citations and threaten to remove all uncited material?
An interesting example is List of Finns, a very long list of notable Finns with only 2 inline citations. All the Finns listed have wikipedia articles. Following the Finn's example, we could retitle List of SOE F Section networks and agents as List of notable agents of SOE F Section, delete the names of all SOE agents presently without wikipedia articles (about one-half of the agents), and we would have a perfectly acceptable list article with few or no inline citations. If we retitled and reworked the list with only notable agents listed, it would still be a somewhat useful list, but a completed list would be ten times more useful.
My point is simple. List of SOE F Section networks and agents is a non-controversial, factual list that is being singled out to meet an unreasonable standard not required by Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia practice. I have given numerous examples to illustrate my point. Smallchief ( talk) 11:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations.
Any statement that has been
challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with {{
citation needed}}
, or any similar tag)
. Since the entire article has been tagged since January 2020, this clearly meets one point which is all that's needed since it's not all three points that need to be satisifed. If not, it's quite clear the content has been questioned on the talk page since the article has been constructed from forum posts and other unreliable references. Or if that's not enough, when I remove the offending content, that will satisfy the "being removed" part.Salesman I -- Philippe Liewer (organiser), Violette Szabo (courier), Isidore Newman (radio operator), Claude Malraux, Bob Maloubier
Salesman II -- Philippe Liewer (organiser), Violette Szabo (courier), Bob Maloubier, Jean Claude Guiet (radio operator)
References: As for articles on Szabo and Maloubier, plus Scholar of Mayhem: My Father's Secret War in Nazi-Occupied Europe, by Daniel C Guiet and Timothy K Smith, New York, Penguin Press, 2019, ISBN 978-0-7352-2520-6
I'd add this to the article, but I don't want some jackass to delete it because I don't know how to add references. 104.153.40.58 ( talk) 23:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)