Talk:Kent State shootings

Was the girl really 14? She looks so tall and big in the photo

Antonio Lets go Babyyyy!!!! Martin

News to me too; here's a source though. [1] (http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2000/06/08/p23s4.htm) - Hephaestos

I remember that as being in the press at the time.--Pmeisel 03:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Added back in the critical detail that the National Guardsmen were wearing gas masks and had little training in riot control. Welcome comments. clarka 8 April 2004

Unless any guardsmen have reported stated effects of the gas masks (vision impairment, exhaustion), I'd suggest inserting the word "possibly" to start the paren comment. MisfitToys

I wondered if such mention might be in the FBI reports (available at foia.fbi.gov in pdf's), congressional investigation, or civil lawsuits, but haven't plowed through the data to check. A shortcut might be to contact Alan Canfora, who was wounded in the shootings & lectures on the history & impact of the event. RE: shootings vs. massacre, I grew up in the era and fairly near the area, and always heard it as "shootings"; in my mind, at least, "massacre" would be slightly less NPV Taco 05:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

These two details are in at least two reports that I have read on the incident, as are other details that are POV (such as that most of the Guardsmen were middle-aged married men, physically out of shape, who had mostly joined to stay out of Vietnam). The lack of training in riot control and the wearing of gas masks were direct casual factors in the tragedy. clarka 28 Sept 2004

the "wearing gas masks in the hot sun (obscuring their vision and causing heat exhaustion)" bit continues to bother me; on a whim I checked historical data for weather in Kent on May 4 '70, and max temp was 66 degrees F, minimum temp was 43 degrees (that's from Akron, about 10 or 12 miles SW of Kent). So I continue to be skeptical about the "heat exhaustion" bit. Taco 19:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Microclimate data from 10-12 miles away is useless. Try putting on a gas mask, breathing through it, and marching back and forth for an hour and a half. (I'm guessing that you're not a soldier, and not in tip-top physical condition, so you're about the same as the Guardsmen that day.) Now consider that you're doing this in an open field, wearing an army uniform, in early afternoon, after the sun has had a chance to heat things up. You may be as skeptical as you like. Neither of us were there. (I wasn't born yet.) I'd rather rely on reports from people who were. (I do think that someone who was wounded in the shootings might be a tad biased, but that's just me.) clarka 14 Mar 2005

Contents

1 Shootings vs Massacre 2 Recent reversion 3 NPOV disclaimer 3.1 Quadell's comments to all the above

Shootings vs Massacre

• I don't see much in the way of discussion on naming here, probably long gone, but "Kent State shootings" gets 2260 google hits and "Kent State massacre" gets 5150. Massacre was certainly what it's called historically. - Nunh-huh 03:40, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the word "massacre" is so much more biased than "shootings." "Shootings" is a better non-biased description of the event anyway: people got shot, versus "massacre," which tends to mean "merciless killing of lots of people." Not to demean or anything, but massacres usually include more than four casualties. For such a controversial and debated topic as Kent State, "shootings" is more appropriate.

Is it really relevant or significant to bring in the Canadian lite industrial band? The year is wrong, and there must be countless other songs that refer to it- don't they deserve equal space?

Don't forget that only 5 people died in the Boston Massacre. --Pmsyyz 04:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My thought is that Boston Massacre was so-named to earn public support for the revolutionaries. "Shootings" may return fewer results, but the ones returned by it are of higher editorial quality than "massacre." Modern media accounts like CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/05/04/kent.state.revisit/), the Plain Dealer (http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/portage/1115199250294380.xml?ncounty_portage&coll=2Cleveland) , NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630596) use shootings. In addition, Kent State refers to it as either the Kent State Shootings or May 4th in archives (http://speccoll.library.kent.edu/4may70/) and by associated faculty (http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/LEWIHEN.htm). Kent State University Riot appears to be the favored subject heading in the University of Akron, Kent State, and Ohio State libraries.

I would like to see some unbiased sources that refer to it as a massacre - otherwise, it should change. Rkevins82 00:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The entry should be named "Kent State Massacre". There won't be any unbiased sources describing this event. There is inherent POV in the use the of either term: "massacre" or "shooting". However, we should apply the name of the correct term by definition, not just the term used in recent U.S. media reports. I did some general searches for the use of the terms "shooting", "shootings" or "massacre" in the news. I found that "massacre" is most often used to refer to killings with political content. "Shooting(s)" is used in either more random or more directly personal confrontations.

• I searched the BBC for uses of the term "massacre" and returned about 1000 results. There are a lot of political killings referenced in the first few pages.[2] (http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=newsifs&tab=news&q=massacre&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=go)
• BBC search results for "shooting" reveal some sport links and also the targeting of inanimate objects.[3] (http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=shootings&x=0&y=0&scope=newsifs&tab=news)
• A Google search of the NY Times for "massacre" turns up political killings and horror movies.[4] (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&c2coff=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=massacre&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=nytimes.com&safe=images). The first and third results are used for political killings: Srebrenica massacre [5] (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/international/europe/03serbia.html) and an attack on an unarmed march of the MST[6] (http://www.nytimes.com/specials/salgado/home/killings.3.html).
• A Google NYTimes search for "Shooting" search reveals a lot of movie and photography results.[7] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&as_qdr=all&q=+%22shooting%22+site%3Anytimes.com&btnG=Search) A second NYTimes search for "Shootings" results in stories about drive-by attacks and workplace violence.[8] (http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22shootings%22%20site%3Anytimes.com&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&sa=N&as_qdr=all&tab=wn)
• General Google news search for "massacre" leads with Tiananmen Massacre, attacks in the Congo Civil War and the Ludlow Massacre.[9] (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=%22massacre%22&btnG=Search+News)
• General Google news search for "shooting"[10] (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=%22shooting%22&btnG=Search+News) and "shootings"[11] (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=%22shootings%22+&btnG=Search+News) turn up more random, criminal or purely interpersonal violence.

If we want to be consistent and apply the same standard to political killings as we do to the Tiananmen Massacre, then we should restore the page to "Kent State Massacre". DJ Silverfish 22:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Silverfish for responding. You have certainly done some worthwhile research. I still maintain that "shootings" should be considered for use here, as it appears to be the accepted term by most historians. While you found stories relating to the various uses of the terms in different contexts (thank you), I do not agree that we can place the Kent State Shootings in the same category as the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Kent State was not an example of "political killings." The events leading up to the shootings were disturbing to say the least. A ROTC building was burned to the ground, other campus buildings were vandalized, and demonstrations grew to be very large, disrupting the functioning of the campus. On the afternoon of May 4th, thousands gathered to hear speeches in the area around the bell and hill. The National Guard had been called out to stop the violent demonstrations that had already occurred. Here is where the situation gets sticky (for me, at least). The demonstrators were mostly non-violent that afternoon, though there were reports of rocks being thrown, etc. National Guardsmen were sustaining injuries while watching over the demonstration. At one point, the Guard read the riot act, believing that the demonstration was becoming too large. Students subsequently failed to disperse. The Guard moved in in line and removed the students. They fired tear gas, yet students stood their ground as much as they could. The students believed they had the right to protest as they saw fit (though the riot act had been read). I can't get inside the heads of either side. In hindsight, both appear foolish. Poorly trained and under-equipped Guardsmen should have backed-off. Students also should have dispersed after a riot had been declared and tear gas was fired. Did anyone deserve to be shot? No. Do the Guardsmen deserve blame for taking lives? Yes. But the political motivations that I assume you mean (Republican Gov. sends in Guard to quell dissent) does not appear to be the reason for the shooting. Instead, it seems very likely that the Guardsmen overreacted to what they believed to be a threat and fired. I don't know who fired first among the Guard, but from reading their statements, they don't sound like men bent on quashing dissent--as was clearly the case in 1989 Tiananmen (also a non-violent protest, unlike Kent). Thanks for reopening the lines of discussion.Rkevins82 04:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it would be worthwhile turning this into a discussion about the behaviour of the involved parties. Also, I don't think the determining factor for the use of the word "massacre" should be whether or not we have to do with a "political killing". Just like the anonymous contributor above, I'm strongly convinced that in contemporary use, the word massacre is usually reserved for cases in which the death toll is higher - almost always above 10, and often in the hundreds. The contemporary examples put forward by Silverfish, the Tiananmen Massacre, the Srebrenica massacre, and the events in the Congo Civil War, all had hundreds, if not thousands of victims. The same goes for most of the top BBC hits concerning "political killings", such as the massacre of Setif, the Gwangju Massacre and the recent events in Andijan. To me, claiming that we must use exactly the same terminology for the Kent State events seems like stretching it, whether or not you regard the latter "a killing with political content". In the first two pages of hits, there are also a few events with a death toll of 10-15 people (but none with as few as four) described by the BBC as "massacres", such as the Dunblane Massacre [12] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/13/newsid_2543000/2543277.stm), a recent event in Colombia [13] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4475291.stm) and another in Iraq [14] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4465445.stm), and a school shooting in Minnesota in March [15] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4444927.stm). Incidentally, however, these cases actually seem to lack obvious political context. This might indicate that the "massacre" bar for "political killings" is in fact higher than for civilians on a shooting spree.

It might also be of interest to look at Wiktionary's definition of "massacre":

The killing of a considerable number of human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people; as, the massacre on St. Bartholomew's Day, St. Valentine's Day massacre; Amritsar massacre; the Wounded Knee massacre

Note that nothing is said of a political dimension. It might be argued that it is unclear from the definition what constitutes a "considerable number". The St. Valentine's Day Massacre saw "only" seven casualties. The other examples given, however, all seem to count the dead in the hundreds.

To sum it up, "massacre" seems to be a highly unusual word for an event in modern times in which four persons were killed, however tragic and historically important it is. / Alarm 23:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Orangeburg Massacre, the Greensboro Massacre and the Ludlow Massacre are all examples which do not agree with a neat formula of (# dead = massacre).

It was pointed out much earlier in this thread that, judging by Google results, "massacre" is the generally accepted term for the killings at Kent State. The attempt to delimit the use of the term "massacre" to exclude political killings, despite generally accepted usage, is POV. DJ Silverfish 18:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I did not misunderstand your first post entirely, your original argument ended with the conclusion that the Tiananmen Massacre is a case of political killings we call a massacre, and since the Kent State events are another case of political killings, they, too, should be called a massacre. Considering the fact that the death toll estimates for the former range from 400 to 7,000 I just found the parallel between the two a bit unconvincing. Looking at the examples you originally provided, I simply noted that they generally seem to support what Wiktionary says: in a contemporary use "massacre" applies to the killing of a considerable number of human beings. This does not mean I'm trying to impose the opinion that the term "massacre" should not in any case be used for political killings (which by the way is not my personal POV).

Anyway, dictionary definitions aside, I agree that the logical place for a Wikipedia article on a historical event is generally the most commonly used term for it. But it actually seems as if the above poster got something wrong. When I tried a Google search (excluding Wikipedia references that might skew the result towards Wikipedia's current usage) I get a distinctively different result. "kent state shootings" -wikipedia (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22kent+state+shootings%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search) get 8,340 hits, whereas "kent state massacre" -wikipedia (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22kent+state+massacre%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search) only gets 4,890 hits. So - I'm sorry, even the Google test has a strong margin against "Kent State massacre". / Alarm 13:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recent reversion

I read this page recently and learned a lot. So I looked up more about it, and found several inaccuracies, and some parts that were POV. So I made a dozen changes over a couple of days. In some places I corrected information (e.g. moving the downtown violence from May 3 to May 2.) In others, I corrected grammatical errors, such as comma placement. In others, I removed POV (e.g. removing words like "viscously", or rewording "agreed that some decisive action was necessary".) But most of what I did was add good information. I did a lot of research, and added a "Lead-up to the tragedy" section, a "May 1" section, and additional paraphraphs throughout.

So I was quite dismayed and saddened to see that User:Daniel Quinlan had reverted all of my changes, claiming "too much POV to edit piecemeal". [16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kent_State_shootings&diff=0&oldid=11237308) This was rude, and it hurt the article. If there are specific parts of the article you disagree with, offer suggestions to improve them. But don't make wholesale reversions of people's hard work.

I'm reverting back for this reason, but I invite discussion as to what parts are problematic. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:52, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I looked at what had been removed by the earlier reversion and was surprised that a full reversion was done. The content appeared well-intentioned and the writing seemed OK overall. There should have been either specific corrections or at least a discussion of the changes. --Beirne 15:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

The added background and detail provided by Quadell greatly improved the article, and I believe it should be restored. I am interested in hearing why Mr. Quinlan wants the changes reverted. There are a couple loaded terms that could be toned down but overall it's pretty NPOV. --Alexwcovington (talk) 12:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV disclaimer

User:Daniel Quinlan added the NPOV disclaimer to the top of this page, which says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page."

So far, there is no such discussion. For that disclaimer to be relevant, we should discuss what parts are POV, and propose ways of dealing with the problems. So what POV problems do people see in this article? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 22:46, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I edited what I felt needed changing and don't have anything else to change. I went to read how the NPOV process works and it seems to come down to two things:

Talking with other contributors is a great way to find out why there is a dispute over an article's neutrality. Ideas and POV's can be shared and ultimately the disputed fact or point can be fixed if it is incorrect or, when dealing with a controversial issue, various legitimate sources can be cited in the article.

Historians commonly cite many sources in books because there is and will always be disputes over history. Contributors on Wikipedia can do the same thing, thus giving readers a broad spectrum of POVs and opinions..

If someone has something to say, this is their big chance. In the meantime, it might be useful to cite the sources of the new information to help put this issue to rest. --Beirne 23:42, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the npov warning for the time being because it has not been justified on this talk page. The other contributors should know which parts of the text are being objected to and for which reasons, so that they are able to work towards a version which everybody agrees to. Readers should know which statements are debated and which not. regards. High on a tree 08:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is unfortunately not very NPOV:

(I'll add my comments on Daniel's comments directly after each one; the bullet points are his, I've signed my own comments. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC))

• First is the selection of images: there's just one and it's a picture of a dead kid. No other pictures from the events, burning buildings and whatnot.
  • fixed Daniel Quinlan 09:01, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

There are now, so this objection is no longer an issue --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Second, "divided the nation along politcal lines" is more than a bit commentary-ish for an article. POV. Not partisan POV, but POV.

Why POV? Did this issue not divide the US along political lines? --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Addition of the word "tragedy". This is new to the article and highly POV.
  • fixed, "shootings" seems to work just fine Daniel Quinlan 09:01, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. The shooting of several young people like this is a tragedy. However, this could be replace by something like "leadup to the shootings" --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The paragraph beginning "Promising to end the Vietnam War" is nice prose, but really doesn't amount to a factual summary. This isn't supposed to wax nostolagic about Vietnam area war protests.

It doesn't. The introduction might need some extending, but it's not POV. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "There were unfounded rumors that revolutionaries were planning to destroy the campus" - this needs to be cited.

Agree. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "not necessarily associated with any of the political machinery at KSU" - it's POV. The article points out that violent actions were not protestors, but that people who were shot were just a bunch of kids. The section goes on in the same vein.

I'm not sure what is meant here. It is not POV to point out that the people involved in the riots previous to the shootings were not necessarily war protesters, but also included elements coming specifically to riot, if this is true. Like the above objection, this section could do with some explicit sources being mentioned. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "appearance of a war zone", holy rhetorical cow

Ehh. The NPOV rules does not mean you have to suck all the life out of writing. Having seen pictures and film of Kent State that day, yes it looked like a warzone --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "(Actually, Rhodes never did declare the State of Emergency which would have made the May 3rd and 4th protests illegal; this was not known by either the students or the National Guard at the time.)" - I'm not sure this is true, especially without attribution; seems like original research or speculation.

Needs explicit sourcing again, but not POV. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "The rally may have in fact been legal, since a state of emergency had not been declared, but there was a widespread belief among both the students and the guardsmen that the rally was illegal." - same issue

Needs explicit sourcing again, but not POV. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "wearing gas masks (obscuring their vision and possibly causing heat exhaustion)" - seems like more speculation, but I think this was there before, continues in same vein

Not speculation as far as I know, it has been widely accepted that gas masks were worn. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• 'a New York Times reporter stated that "it appeared to go on, as a solid volley, for perhaps a full minute or a little longer."' - this really doesn't add anything except POV embellishment

Disagree. Evokes the immediacy of the shootings. It is well known that during incidents like this, time seems to slow down --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Killed were Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer, and William Schroeder (all but Schroeder were Jewish - a fact often brought up by observers with anti-Semitic predilections, especially since Schroeder was determined to have been merely an observer and not a participant in the protest). - the dead are listed twice in the article, the Jewish stuff seems unnecessary IMO, but I think it was there before

The transition to the consequences is a bit awkward --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "evoking a mythic sense of grief" - do I need to explain?

Yes. There is no doubt that photographs can and do becoming defining images of a time, place or emotion; if this particular photograph is one of those and I think it is, it is not POV to mention it. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• 'not only hippies, but also "decent suburban kids"' - again

This passage describes a feeling amongst many people who saw the photographs of the Kent State shootings. Again, it is not POV to mention this. (Though the description of this feeling can be clearer) --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Quinlan 09:14, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

My conclusion is that Daniel has some points about how things are formulated in the article, but that it is overkill to label this article not neutral. I would therefore remove the warning, but take his advice on some points to heart. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quadell's comments to all the above

• This discussion is really helping to improve the article. Thanks to all participating.
• The additional images really help to bring home the feeling of the event.
• I don't think "divided the nation along politcal lines" is too POV, but I don't mind it being removed.
• I don't think tragedy is POV, unless you can find any decent-sized group that thinks the shootings were not a tragedy. The campus called it a tragedy, the National Guard called it a tragedy, the press, the president, etc. Calling the election of Nixon a tragedy would be POV. Calling the Asian Tsunami a tragedy would not be. I don't think calling this a tragedy is either.
• I had originally written the paragraph beginning "Promising to end the Vietnam War" to imply causation, and someone re-worded it to simply state the facts (a change I approve of). I think it's now NPOV, but it could use expanding. I don't think we should refrain from giving background information on the events.
• "There were unfounded rumors that revolutionaries were planning to destroy the campus" This is sourced: the external link http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm says there were ". . .rumors that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and the university", and Scott Bills's Echoes Through a Decade also mentions them. Both the sources are listed in the article. My personal POV is that Governor Mayor Satrom and Governor Rhodes were completely unjustified in reacting so harshly to the protests, but I added this line in to counteract my POV and state a fact that might help someone understand their positions. I certainly don't mind it being removed. :)
• "not necessarily associated with any of the political machinery at KSU". I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. It was there when I first saw the article. Feel free to remove it.
• "appearance of a war zone". If you prefer, I could quote the opinions of Kent State's history department: "Nearly 1000 Ohio National Guardsmen occupied the campus, making it appear like a military war zone." Or I could quote several contemporary news sources that called it a war zone. It certainly had that appearance, but I could quote other's accounts instead if you so desire.
• "(Actually, Rhodes never did declare the State of Emergency which would have made the May 3rd and 4th protests illegal)" and "The rally may have in fact been legal, since a state of emergency had not been declared, but there was a widespread belief among both the students and the guardsmen that the rally was illegal.; this was not known by either the students or the National Guard at the time.)" This is also sourced: it is backed up by several of the external links and sources, including the Report of the President's Commission on Campus Unrest.
• "wearing gas masks (obscuring their vision and possibly causing heat exhaustion)" - before I got to it, the article said that it did cause heat exhaustion. I added "possibly", since I could find no evidence that it did. As stated near the top of the talk page, the high that day was 66 in nearby Akron, and no sources I have found make the claim that heat exhaustion or limited vision were in effect. I had left the claim in in order to counter-act my own POV (which is that the guard acted with criminal irresponsibility), and I wanted to leave in any claim that might partly exonerate the Guard. But on reflection, I think you're right, Daniel. It's an unsourced claim, mere speculation, and should be removed.
• The quote from a NYT reporter is an uncontested fact. It's not NPOV to quote someone.
• The antisemetic stuff was there before. I don't think it adds to the article, and I agree it should be removed.
• The "mythic sense of grief" was there when I got there. Perhaps it could be reworded. What do you suggest?
• The "not only hippies" bit does describe the widespread perception of the events, as described in several of the external links and sources.
• Daniel, more than half of the problem you have listed with the article were not added by me, but were also present in the version you were reverting to. This is a good example of why wholescale reversion of others' work is an inappropriate way to deal with suspected POV problems. I'm glad you have now listed your objections so that we can work to improve the article.
• Nearly every article on Wikipedia could be improved. You could put an NPOV disclaimer on just about any article, saying it could be made more NPOV, but that's not what the template is for.

So, are there any other POV problems anyone sees, or have they mostly been dealt with? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:16, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

The discussion here is very helpful and I think we will end up with a better article. I'll make one comment for now, though. Earlier I suggested that sources be cited. In particular, pointers to the references should appear next to the material in the body of the article. This is not suggested in the Wikipedia:Cite Sources article as strongly as having references at the end of the document, but by pointing to the references next to the assertions in the document it will help show which items are based on research. --Beirne 19:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, but every sentence should be based on research and supported by the sources. Should every sentence have a footnote? Which ones? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Good question. You don't want to clutter up the document too much. A couple of ideas would be to either write a few sentences at a time from a source or to limit the pointers to lesser-known or more controversial items.--Beirne 00:29, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

The easiest way to provide a balance between readability and explicit sourcing is to mention the sources either at the end of each chapter/paragraph, or footnote them and refer to the general sources at the end of the article. See Wikipedia:Footnote3 for more information on the latter method. --Martin Wisse 07:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)