Wikipedia talk:Citation needed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This needs better wiki'ing

Wikipedia:Citation needed needs a link (in the text) to Wikipedia:Citing sources and in addition preferably Template:Cite web, in/next to the text "If you can provide a source to back up the statement, please add it."
I would do it myelf, but Citation needed is protected/or not showing an 'edit this page' tab at the top.
This would make it easier for a casual user to see a statement they know a source for to easily find the correct way to cite that source. If finding out how to cite a source is more than a couple of links (and several pages of skimming details) away, or non-obvious, the casual user is going to give up (or, merely remove the 'cite needed' on the page in question).
~ender 2007-11-23 11:51:AM MST

What

Why is the notice by SooBahkDo on here? It tells you how to milk a cow. Please can anyone explain if not I will remove it! Harland1 ^t/_c 16:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's confusing. Possibly an attempt to show how references will look in a correctly formatted article? Unnecessary IMO. Prodster (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful on the citation needed page to include an example citation (or a link to an example citation) illustrating how a citation can be "correctly" added to a page. I agree with a post above, that how to properly respond to a citation needed post should not require tons of research by a casual user just to learn how to respond with a valid citation. SooBahkDo (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed^{[citation needed]} on Citation Needed^{[citation needed]} page?

It looks quite odd that the "Citation Needed" page has an explanation that needs citation in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.240.170 (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Verbose text/intrusive labels

The text [Citation needed] is much to long and disrupts the flow of text. For example it could be replaced with a single superscript question mark, like this^?. This will have a minimal impact on the article appearance, will still warning the reader about the quality of the information.--85.204.119.88 (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This should be discussed at Template talk:Fact, and, indeed, has been discussed, many times. (You're welcome to bring it up again; I'm just warning you that it's a perennial debate.) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That page is locked, and the only mentions are archived. Per the comments here, the debate seems alive and well, and seems too intrusive for most, even being compared to vandalism. So let me start the perennial debate anew. My preference would be to shorten it to 'cite', or something similarly concise. Nazlfrag (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with is being a form of vandalism. It's like book burning: sanctioned by some authority, yet destructive. 72.40.152.209 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

'Citation needed' is a good tool, and needs to be a little intrusive to achieve its aim. Sorry, but it is meant to interrupt the flow.That is the whole point of the exercise. 89.242.148.204 (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah. "Citation needed" is just one peron's notion, and often a misguided one at that, of what is needed. I estimate that half of these intrusive, overwrought tags are frivolous and wrongheaded. As if wikipedia didn't have enough trouble with believability, these blue notations are screaming BOGUS and UNRELIABLE to readers. I couldn't agree more with Nazlfrag. BTW, I am going to change the heading for this discussion from the vague "verbose text" by adding "intrusive labels". Sfahey (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. While these tags are sometimes helpful, they're overused, and I'm occasionally tempted to do something like this. 70.177.165.188 (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would teach'm a lesson! But of course it would be throwing fat on the fire. Please someone who knows how institute a poll to help resolve this issue; perhaps on the lines of 1. keep same?; 2. shorten tag?; 3. eliminate tag, and somehow refer issues to talk page? Sfahey (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hide it by default. It could show on mouse-over perhaps, or when a user opts in. 72.40.152.209 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Tag is long

People complain that it interrupts the flow of text. I have no strong opinion but wouldn't something like ^[CN] be better? George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 19:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that it's been discussed above, I'll leave it here for now but if anyone wants to move it that's fine. --George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the citation tag is long and hardly aesthetically pleasing but it is one of many aspects of the look of wikipedia which is very much heavily biased in favour of editors rather than designed for best reading experience. The tag is long and alternatives might be better but the existing tag is entrenched and that inertia could be very difficult to overcome. While I agree with your suggestion to change it I cannot encourage your specific suggestion , abbreviations and acronyms are obtuse and unclear. Shortening it to "Fact?" or "Fact" might make more sense since the underlying markup is 'fact' not 'cite' which is needlessly confusing when learning the markup but there is a much bigger design and cultural issue in how Wikipedia is designed to make things best for editors rather than optimized for readers. -- Horkana (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Web pages

Personally, I doubt very much that web-pages count as reliable sources for citation. The text advises us to watch for the propagation of extremist (or merely contentious) views and to watch for 'self' publication. Such citations are often 'self-referential'. A number of contributors favour contentious remarks. Either they do so unwittingly, because they lack the academic rigour to strive for neutrality and objectivity; in which case, are they really the best people to initiate or edit a topic? Or they do it knowingly, because they have an agenda to push, and know that citations add a veneer of pseudo-academic respectability to what would otherwise stand as subjective propaganda: so, references are made to web-sites that share their bigotry or ignorance. Or, in a minority of cases, it might be part of a concerted effort (ie. the oft alleged: conspiracy!). Again, are these the best people in whom to trust a subject as valuable as knowledge? On examining the cited web-site, often it adds no more authority than the proposed-Wiki original. A factually-incorrect statement repeated, does not magically morph into a correct one. Some web-sites are superb. Many are 'good but flawed: proceed with caution'. Many are run by 'well-meaning' "academics" of the "cut and paste" school. The other two sources listed should be the options required for citation, with web-sites added as extra illustration, not as the original validation. The web-site, as a source, does not yet have the requisite reliability for this task. You generally search the web because you are ignorant and seeking enlightenment, not because you are expert and wish to exercise your faculties of discrimination.89.242.148.204 (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The medium (web, print, radio, etc.) has nothing to do with whether a source is reliable. Superm401 - Talk 14:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And, when an ignorant searches the Web, it's because sometimes the enlightenment is there. Slalaurette (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

citations not working

I've tried adding citations to the "Education" section of the page on Lake Elsinore, California but they don't work. What am I doing wrong? (links are still embedded) but not placing references at the bottom of the page, and not linking to the articles cited.DavidPickett (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it myself by adding {[... reflist}} , which wasn't automatically done by adding the < ref> tags. DavidPickett (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Position of 'citation needed' in articles

Everywhere I go nearly half of the 'citation needed' tags are positioned incorrectly in the sentence, examples

Kernels of popcorn should have 15% to 20% moisture content^{[citation needed]}.

Kernels of popcorn should have 15% to 20% moisture content. ^{[citation needed]}

It should be,

Kernels of popcorn should have 15% to 20% moisture content.^{[citation needed]}

Should something be added to this page clarifying the style for citation tags? 209.244.43.122 (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be. 92.26.104.209 (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Overuse?

I noticed some articles overuse this tag. I think some people are taking advantage of this tag just to say THEIR opinion and present it as fact. An example is The Mariah Carey article. The "Theme and Music Styles" section is pratically all "citation needed"! A lot of things technically should be able to be proven.

Eg."she was given piano lessons when she was six years old" Surely Carey herself would have said that otherwise how else would the fan know its true?

eg."Carey said that she cannot read sheet music[citation needed] and prefers to collaborate with a pianist when composing her material, but feels that it is easier to experiment with faster and less conventional melodies and chord progressions using this technique.[citation needed]" If she "said" all this, where did she say it? Probably a magazine, so if a source can't be found, then its probably not true? --The Blizzard King 21:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If a source isn't found, we can't use it. It might be true, but Wikipedia goes by verifiability, not possible truth. Superm401 - Talk

Portuguese Wikipedia template related to this

I'd like to include the arcticle in the portuguese Wikipedia that contains the template related to this one. Someone able to do that should insert the following code in the page: [[pt:Predefinição:Carece de fontes]] Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.47.42.131 (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

fact tag deleters

How should I deal with people who just randomly delete fact tags? At least one Wikipedian who did this had a valid excuse and provided a credible citation when I requested more information. This makes me wonder if I should ever revert an edit when someone removes a fact tag without explanation. What would you do if you see someone removed a fact tag without explanation? Is there a generic template that I can use? Would you revert the edit without consulting the person who removed the tag? Kushal one 18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

First make sure they are in fact "randomly deleting" the tags. I find many more examples of people who apparently ADD fact tags randomly, after statements that are virtually common knowledge and thus do not require citations. These irrelevant and intrusive labels make wikipedia articles appear less acceptable and in the end needlessly threaten good articles with elimination. Sfahey (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the norm. :-( There is some sort of interesting psychological truth in here. What thrill does somebody get from adding such a tag? What is the motivation? I'm thinking it's essentially the joy of officially sanctioned vandalism, kind of like book burning. 72.40.152.209 (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Manjari.singh (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I am from India and so I KNOW that you have to specify which Mrs. Gandhi coz Gandhi in India is a family name and hence there have been 3 Mrs Gandhi (s) in past 50 years, each fresh in Indian memory .I am not sure about Italian memory though :). And hence your fact is lost in memories and translations and perceptions !

Removal of the "wikipedian protester" image

Someone removed the xkcd comic image "wikipedian protester", apparently under WP:SELF. However, since this article is about the Citation Needed policy (and therefore the subject is already about the internal workings of wikipedia), I would say that the image could be kept under WP:WAWI. The image itself is a valid illustration of what the policy is about, and should be kept. However, if the image was removed for some other reason (such as WP:COPY), then I could see it being removed. Toad of Steel (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

At the very least the deletionists should provide an edit summary to indicate it is an intentional thought out action and some not subtle vandalism or trolling. Inclusionists should have no qualms about reverting deletions of anyone who wants to remove the efforts of others but is not willing to make the small effort of explaining themselves with some kind of edit summary. -- Horkana (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I restored the image. According to the history, no reason (i.e. empty edit summary) was given for its removal by the editor. --CRiyl (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be here, simply because while XKCD is funny, the need for verifiability is quite serious. Superm401 - Talk 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Any editing on Wikipedia articles should be serious but how exactly does one humorous image on a project page become destructive in building this encyclopedia? Does the comic give people the motivation to vandalize articles? To pull wiki-anarchic shenanigans? --CRiyl (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the reason to exclude it. Copyright isn't an issue, as Randall Munroe gives blanket permission for nonprofits to use the strip, and I would think that concerns about self reference or verifiability would be moot because this is a project page. No? 24.20.131.232 (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

From my quote collection, to all onlookers: "To be honest, I think the thing that makes Wikipedia a "laughing stock" is not many articles on the minutia of television or other fiction, but the seriousness with which we take ourselves." "Community is built by allowing the free activity and interaction of members, not by blocking harmless behavior even if many or even most think it "useless." If something is useful to my neighbor, it's useful even if I have no need of it at all." --Kizor 18:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I say kudos on the XKCD image.--Dan ^(Talk)|@ 16:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

In cases of obvious (popular) opinion, why not have a [PO] tag or something similar? I have seen MANY articles with perfectly valid, reasonable statements being bombarded by "citation needed". We are humans, not robots, and can readily separate fact from opinion. We don't need a tag to tell us that "many people believe" or "some people confused this as" are opinions that cannot be verified easily.

I really have no interest in verifying the clam that some people believed the photo of the dog on the cover of Becks's "!ODELAY" album was a mop. I can plainly see that, yes, it does look like a mop. It's no stretch of the imagination, and I don't need verification. It's just a matter of common sense, which I believe an encyclopedia should take into account. Every time I see "citation needed" after reading something obviously abstract, I feel like I'm being treated like an idiot. What's next? Putting "Caution! HOT!" on the coffe that I just paid for? Oh, wait... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.235.130 (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Coding problem?

I've used the {{cn}} template in this article. It results in the following mess:

{{#if:||[citation needed]

I can't actually see where I've gone wrong. Did I make a mistake, or is there a temporary bug with the template? Aridd (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

xkcd

The xkcd comic is unfunny and self-indulgent and doesn't add anything to the meaning of the article. It should be removed. 86.131.86.108 (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While I enjoy xkcd very much, I do agree that the comic strip doesn't add anything to the article. - Tekoteko (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense here, but per #Removal_of_the_.22wikipedian_protester.22_image consensus seems to be to keep it. Superm401 - Talk 07:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I vote to remove the strip. It adds nothing. EditKing (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Don't vote, we discuss. If you don't provide reasons, your opinion may be discounted as "just a vote". —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's why I think the xkcd comic belongs, and why I miss it:
1) It captures a lot of values in Wikipedia, internet, and democracy.

• It's got an audience member at a political rally -- traditionally marginalized, but suddenly empowered to talk back to the broadcaster;
• it reminds us that the public is responsible to speak up or get trampled;
• it shows how skepticism and dialogue improve conclusions;
• it shows how a world with Wikipedia (and with CITATIONS!) means less propaganda.

2) It's so dang clever. --Agradman (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's clever, sure, but it doesn't belong. This page should be as "to-the-point" as possible. It's not a guideline page, etc. It's a page where people click on the link looking for instructions on what to do, quick and simple. Gary King (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I do agree with that. Since this debate has gone back-and-forth for a while, I'll just throw out the suggestion of adding an "external links" section at the way bottom, with a hyperlink to that comic ... as a compromise ... but I'll wait for people to talk about it. --Agradman (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure whether it should be here but as long as it is, there should be a mention of it in the text and a link. (internal) I cannot edit this semi-protected page. 193.166.138.80 (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

How do I add a citation when I find one?

I see in articles that there are notations of where a citation is needed? Does anyone know how to add those when I find them. Depending on whether it is a book or a website, it is hard to tell what is the proper format? If it isn't a bother could you put a link on my talk page? Thank youElmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the full treatment can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. There are several alternative styles, and various templates which can optionally be used. However, if that seems over-complicated, don't worry about it. I think it is safe to say that we would rather have a "non-standard format" citation than no citation at all. So if you have found a source for something that lacked one, add it to the article however you can. Others can always wikify or reformat the citation, if needed. That's part of the wiki way. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

It is unclear from this article whether the "citation needed" link can only be laid down by a "Wikipedia editor" (and whether that means that the lay masses like myself are not able to do so). If it's restricted to Wikipedia "editors", the article should indicate this clearly. If not, the article should tell us (the layfolk) what code we would use in order to insert it properly. Andrew 3:19pm EST, January 23 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.222.120 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It can be laid down by anyone. You are a Wikipedia editor. Everyone is. The code is: {{cn}}. Aridd (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, I changed "Wikipedia editor" to "Wikipedia user." --Agradman (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Example syntax

I created [[Wikipedia:Citation needed link]] so we could have the example be a real, clickable link here. That way, the "[citation needed]" text on this page would look just like it does with the actual {{fact}} template. Well, it turns out that people are copying-and-pasting the example to other pages. Example. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Citation needed link for the full list. So I guess we're going to have to use {{fact}} on this page, because people are going to copy whatever is on this page. (Be aware that Template:Fact does more than just inline some text, it also categorizes, so anything but the real thing is not the same thing.) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch, although there's less than 100 pages on that list. Considering this page gets 15,000 hits a day, that isn't too many. Gary King (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it could be worse, to be sure. But I would expect steady growth, and it's a problem we can do without. I'd rather the syntax be right than worry about the color of the text on this one page.  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've gone through and fixed all the pages that used the example rather than the real template. I'll be requesting deletion of the "citation needed link" page next. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding {Citation Needed}

at the top of this page (that which we are discussing) there needs to be an instruction as to how to add a {citation needed} tag to the end of a sentence (that needs tagging.) 173.49.48.72 (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is already a referral to instructions on the Wikipedia:Citation needed page:

• To learn more about the "citation needed" template itself, including when and how to use it, see Template:Fact.

—DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Make the tag invisible?

The citation needed tag annoys me. How do I disable it in my user settings? If that requires removing inline citations as a whole that's fine too, but they are not nearly as annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.246.10 (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The CN tag is surrounded by HTML sup tags in the Template-Fact class. Therefore, you just need to go to Special:Mypage/monobook.css on your registered account and insert CSS code something like this:

sup.Template-Fact {
    display: none;
}

That will make the "citation needed" tags disappear for your account, but they'll still be there for anyone who wants to see them. You could do it to the "noprint" class instead to get hide all the content that isn't supposed to be printed (i.e., all the stuff that non-editor readers wouldn't need to see). -BRPXQZME (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The tag looks trashy and reflects badly on Wikipedia. I'm cool with "there for anyone who wants to see them", which implies that this is opt-in. Problem is, it's opt-out. As an anonymous reader, I'm stuck looking at these abusive tags. 72.40.152.209 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this could be made to appear on mouse-over only. The same goes for those ugly reference numbers. 72.40.152.209 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

RE Elliott Sharp , need another template

There's a claim in the lead of Elliott Sharp that s currently market as "citation needed". However in this instance I think a more appropriate template would be "gibberish" or "WTF?" or something of that nature. Is such a template available? Agradman ^talk/_contribs 19:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for one. If it's Patent nonsense, just delete it from the article text. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no patent nonsense there -- the claim is that the composer "extended the application of fractal geometry, chaos theory, and genetic metaphors to musical composition and interaction". It's ok, I found the template -- {{huh}} Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I miss the xkcd comic

citation needed.

sighhhhh.
Our non-use of the comic contravenes the consensus at WP:Cita_le_fonti.
Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 05:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

so much simpler

I'd like to substitute the following simplified version. Please let me know if it raises any concerns?

To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, all questionable claims require proper citations to reliable sources. Statements that do not meet this standard may be labeled with the {{fact}} template, generating .

What should I do?

Exercise caution when relying upon these statements. If you know of a source that helps verify the statement, please be bold, add a footnote, and remove the tag. WP:citation templates provides standardized formatting; WP:Tutorial offers editing instructions.

Was this flag used improperly?

Statements that violate Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons should be deleted immediately. Other inline flags are available to identify specific problems with neutrality and factual accuracy and verifiability and sources.

Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

extra instructions for first-time editors

User:CharlesGillingham, I made some revisions to your proposals. I'm wondering if you think my text strikes the right balance between simplicity and explanation? I do agree that some extra instructions were needed for first-time editors. You proposed the following:

Press the [Edit] button, find the place in the text where {{fact}} appears and replace it with [URL of a website] (for a website) or <ref>Author, publication date, title, and page number of a book</ref> (for a book). Other editors will be able to improve this citation once you have added it. For complete information on adding citations to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Citing sources.

I have replaced that text with:

For guidance, visit WP:Tutorial, WP:Citing sources, and WP:citation templates.

Thoughts? Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 23:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

First time editors find our help pages less than useful. See the wikimedia usability study. Apparently, almost no one has the patience to start at the top of the help system and dig through all the pages for what they need. For example, WP:Citing sources prints out at more than fifteen pages. It documents all the clever and different citation methods that various editors have come up with over the years, it prohibit some very specific things that some editors don't like, and so on. The detail is there because WP:Citing sources is mostly used as a place to settle arguments and end edit wars. It functions more like a legal corpus (a library of legal precedents and decisions) than a help page.

So, my thought was, why not tell the reader exactly what he should do? It's really not that complicated, and certainly not as complicated as the help system makes it appear. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that your version is only a few days old! I had no idea. I hate when I discuss a change on the talk page (as you did), and then somebody comes a long a few days later and clobbers it. I don't blame you for reverting. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Apparently, there used to be text similar to what you're proposing, but on February 8 I replaced it with a link to the tutorial. Until I started this round of edits on August 13, the page looked something like this. On August 15 I removed the link to the tutorial, with the edit summary "removed information that is not really necessary on this page". Clearly, removing the link to the tutorial was dumb.
• I am going to try to integrate your text into the existing page. Be right back. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 01:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I've restored almost everything you wrote, but now it's segregated from the main text. I think we're pointed in the right direction. Let me know what you think. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 02:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

xkcd again

Hey all, I love xkcd, believe me, I do. Especially this comic. I was there at the first meet-up, and I was holding this sign. I got it signed by Munroe and it's hanging in my kitchen. But I really don't think the comic belongs on this page. The only reason people come to this page is because they're brand-spanking-new to Wikipedia and don't get what the "citation needed" tag means. The comic is just going to be confusing for them. It's only funny if you already "get" why CN is needed, and how much a badly-sourced Wikipedia article is like a politician's speeches. Newbies won't get it. You have to have been at WP a while to appreciate it. It might be appropriate in other places at WP, where people are more likely to "get it", but not here. Unless someone has some rational counter-argument for leaving it, I say we remove it. Does anyone have any objections beyond WP:ILIKEIT? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. DragonHawk, you made a fair case, and I promise I'm open to persuasion, but at the moment I think it makes the concept clearer for newbies. As the editor who's (almost) singlehandedly done the consolidating of this page over the last week (diffs), I didn't just restore it because WP:ILIKEIT. When user:Gary King removed the image on February 10, his edit summary was "don't think it adds anything useful. this page should be as short and sweet as possible". Back then, the page was chronically confusing, so I can understand the desire to remove the comic; but I've consolidated and simplified the page significantly since then, so I don't think that concern is still applicable.
• When I review the past discussions here and here, I feel comfortable saying that the removal was not representative of broad consensus. On 1 January 2009 you (DragonHawk) invited a discussion, and on 12 February 2009 I responded, but a discussion never got triggered. (I was a new Wikipedian back then so I didn't rock the boat). Let me restate the reasons I provided back then:

It captures a lot of values in Wikipedia, internet, and democracy.

• It's got an audience member at a political rally -- traditionally marginalized, but suddenly empowered to talk back to the broadcaster;
• it reminds us that the public is responsible to speak up or get trampled;
• it shows how skepticism and dialogue improve conclusions;
• it shows how a world with Wikipedia (and with CITATIONS!) means less propaganda.

• Essentially, I could have summarized all that junk as follows: "This page may be an introduction to {{citation needed}}, but it's also a proper opportunity to introduce newbies to the Wikipedia ethic, and the comic captures that perfectly."

• The way I see it, that picture captured the spirit and intention of the citation needed policy in a manner that is easy to understand. The current format seems to work: the points written offer the how to in order to actually cite the source, while the picture and associated caption easily explain the why behind it. Toad of Steel (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• DragonHawk, your concern is that This page is for newbies, and the comic will be confusing to them. I think that the confusion is a function of the caption. Historically, the caption has simply said, "xkcd "wikipedian protester" comic" or something like that. Now that I've changed the caption, I can add another reason to that list: It makes the page less confusing for newbies.
• I'm at work so I don't have time to shorten this post, but I'm happy to hear more from the folks who want to remove the comic. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 16:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think xkcd sucks, so I agree it should be removed.  Grue  16:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• haha, perhaps it does suck. I'm not a big fan myself. but this comic helps explain the concept. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• so, you don't like it? Toad of Steel (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What's going on here?

Fair warning, I'm going to have a high threshold of skepticism for changes being introduced to this page within 48 hours of its being posted on Digg.com.

The purpose of this page is to explain how to insert a citation. The text has been refined over months, with input from dozens of experienced editors, to make it as simple as possible. If you're going to make huge categorical changes, you should at least give your reasons!

Zondor, I've left you a message at your talk page and also sent it to you via direct email. If you're going to make further edits to this page, I'd appreciate at least hearing back from you. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 00:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Zondor did not make that edit, I did. I arrived at that page not from an inline link. Which I guess made it out of context. In fact I have never seen "inline links to project pages" before. (did XKCD originate/popularize them?) Seems like a bad idea to me. How can we get rid of them? Bensaccount (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• I see. Immediately before you arrived, Zondor had added an "external links" section, and then a "references" section, and I strongly feel those don't belong -- but I realize those weren't your doing.
• I feel strongly that we need a caption that's relevant to this page's function within wikipedia, i.e. explaining the significance of the template. Although "Semi Protect the Constitution" was the original caption (tooltip?), we're not displaying the comic as a tribute to XKCD. In fact, there has been a strong movement afoot to remove the comic from this page entirely, based on the argument that its inclusion serves no purpose other than paying tribute. While I agreed that we should not keep the comic if it served no other purpose, I also argued that the caption could be re-written to make the comic useful, i.e. to explain the "Wikipedia ethic". That is how we arrived at the compromise, of keeping the comic, but using a relevant caption. I chose the text "When judiciously inserted, the {{citation needed}} template promotes accountable discourse" because it serves this purpose. The specific wording can be changed, but we need to find something that serves this purpose
• From the bottom of my heart, I love the fact that this comic is on this page, and I don't want to "wake the dragon" of people who want to remove it entirely. To forestall that kind of intervention, I'm going to revert to the previous caption. I'm not doing this to control the debate -- as a general rule, I never revert before reaching consensus, and I certainly can't revert again tonight without violating 3RR -- but I hope you'll, at least, stick around and work with me to find a caption that does satisfy you. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic -- I'm definitely happy with the caption you just applied. It's an improvement over my text. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 05:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Inline links

I arrived at that page not from an inline link. Which I guess made it out of context. In fact I have never seen "inline links to project pages" before. (did XKCD originate/popularize them?) Seems like a bad idea to me. How can we get rid of them? Bensaccount (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see why we need to expunge the "inline links to policy pages." It is a frequent practice, especially on pages designed for newbies. It's all over WP:Five Pillars for example.

• That is not what would be called "inline links". Linking from the main namespace to the Wikipedia:project namespace is different from linking between pages in the project namespace. Bensaccount (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, I'm new to this vocabulary. I still don't understand what is the meaning of the phrase "inline links".
• Just this morning I was thinking we should move this page to Help:Citation needed. Is that relevant to what you're pointing out, or am I raising another tangent? Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 17:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Links to the project namespace in line with article text Bensaccount (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect "inline link", as used above, means what is more properly termed a "cross-namespace link". It's generally sternly frowned upon to link to another namespace from article content, but cross-namespace links are acceptable in templates which are not part of the article content. The later would include editorial templates such at {{citation needed}}. They're not part of the article, they are about the article. • I don't think "inline link" has any standard meaning on Wikipedia. "Inline template" refers to templates which are inserted into article text (like {{cn}}); this is as opposed to templates which are (e.g.) message boxes. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

qp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.56.153 (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing the example to "Most People Breathe in Ghosts"

Serves the exact same function but is far cleverer... why undo it?

Kiron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kironoryx (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

'Citation needed'

I posted a line on the page of a band called Michael Learns to Rock(MLTR) saying : "According to their website and communication with fans on facebook, they are currently working on their next album.", but apparently someone had the rare wisdom to tag it with [citation needed]. So how do I get a citation to something that's posted on their website? Can't someone who really wants 'verifiable' evidence just go and check out the official website of the band, since I have clearly mentioned it in the concerned line and also the link for the website appears in the 'External Links' section at the bottom of the page? This is what I call gross misuse of the [citation needed] feature. ~AKP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.118.39 (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Cardenas in 1542 sailed the ocean blue, along with abe lincon, christopher columbus, and miguel torrez. Juan Galvan was abducted by ronald reagan with a randsom of 1 gillion dollars Do we need a stick person to Represent Citation needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.54.8.45 (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC) welshwriter 15 February

---

I really tend to like the "citation needed" tag since more often than not it tends to point out that the so-called stated "fact" is just so much BS. Consider the claim on this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-paid_legal_services: "As of 2000, an estimated 122 million Americans had some form of a legal service plan." Given that there are roughly 300 Million US inhabitants, then factoring out say 20% that might be infants and children, there would be only 240 Million other US inhabitants. If there really are an "estimated" 122 million Americans with some form of a legal service plan, we'd be near the 50% market penetration level. Unfortunately, this just doesn't match reality as anyone can easily prove by talking an informal poll of the people they meet in the course of a single day. So...thanks for adding the "citation needed" tag to help point to potential readers that this article has a hidden agenda and is using false claims to make us buy into that agenda. Clearly, though, it would be best if we could have some sort of "SBS" tag (as in, "Suspected BS"). Doug, 20june09

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.77.65 (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I am being asked to provide a citation for something I have added to The Torch Theatre Milford Haven, so el que sembra su maiz que se coma su pilon. The provenance to the fact is that I knew the architect and know his role. I cannot, though, find any written source to back up my knowledge. How do I cope with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshwriter (talk • contribs) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They're just some not now chief schlump with a webpage making some random claim. How is the reliability of a wikipedia article enhanced by refusing to allow the schlump writing the wiki piece to provide his/her own knowledge, but require them to point to some other schlump's webpage where the OTHER schlump rambles on about that OTHER schlump's knowledge? It all comes down to someone who knows what they're talking about talking about things. That's all any citation is, excepting "original research". So let's just farkin admit it and not require "citations" for things that do not require being backed up by original research to be believable. It's just a mind game people who haven't sat back and thought about this play on themselves. Wow he was a noob! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.53.206 (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of this thing is now worse than the vandalism. It's everywhere. It interrupts the flow of text, making articles much less enjoyable to read.

For those who think this helps wikipedia to look professional, think again. It does just the opposite. No "real" encyclopedia would spam every article with annoying and worthless junk.

24.110.145.202 18:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a very different type of encyclopedia, though. One of my friends was once making jokes about "citation needed" being on Wikipedia all the time, and it shows the point...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, it's not worse than vandalism, and it's definitely not worse than subtle errors. It's designed to help us write a more accurate encyclopedia, not "look professional". We know it's a self-reference, meant for editors more than readers, and that's unavoidable. Finally, if you think that regular encyclopedias are always accurate, you're very, very, wrong. Superm401 - Talk 09:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I do think it's overused. It is actually possible for writers to know something through personal experience, or for something to be "common knowledge". "The sky is blue". "Up is the opposite direction to down". "London is the capital of England". Do those statements need a "citation needed"? - Exile (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the biggest problem is people that have a poor understanding of the subject matter placing these tags - for example, I was reading an article on computer chipsets, and someone had decided to tag the statement "the mobile versions have lower power consumption" - yes. they do - this is the primary design criterion for a mobile chipset. I'm glad it's not just me that's getting annoyed by this stuff - there seem to be a increasingly large number of WP editors who go around editing articles with a complete absence of domain-specific knowledge. - TriMesh (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree with many of the sentiments above,but even as a sceptical reader, I find the 'reality check' of that symbol reassuring. It tells me that somebody else has noticed the unsupported (and presumably contentious)statement. The fact that it is present indicates the writer was/is unwilling or unable to substantiate a questionable remark, but that, in the interests of the debate, s/he was allowed to continue the remark with only the mildest finger-wag of dissent or query. That is necessary. It is not about an unchallenged flow of contentious material, followed or countered by an equal flow of opposing contentious material. Better to write less and in a manner that does not generate controversy. Quality should be the aim, not quantity.89.242.148.204 (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm here on this page because I'm also finding that damned link turning up on every bloody assertion that doesn't happen to have a footnote link. It's appropriate where the assertion is open to reasonable question (or perhaps where it has been questioned by someone, even unreasonably); it's definitely not appropriate when the assertion is part of the descriptuion of some thing or event that is uncontentious. Example, from Greco-Turkish_War:

"The Greek landings were met by sporadic resistance, mainly by small groups of irregular Turkish troops in the suburbs[citation needed]. However, the majority of the Turkish forces in the region either surrendered peacefully to the Greek Army, or fled to the countryside[citation needed]"

In the discussion page it is abundantly clear that this subject as a whole is contentious; but these two assertions don't seem to be subject to question. They are a simple matter of historical fact. Surely the fact that a topic is contentious doesn't mean that every indicative sentence in it must have either a citation or a [citation needed]?

Anyway, the presence of a citation doesn't in any way strengthen the credibility of an assertion, unless the cited work itself is credible. But that is a matter for the reader to judge, ultimately; so [citation needed] just disrupts the flow of an article, and challenges its credibility, without adding anything, and especially wiithout explaining why the assertion is open to question.

MrDemeanour (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But if those assertions are "a simple matter of of historical fact" then should not a citation for them be easy to supply? Why not just include it? --208.114.177.246 (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am getting angry more and more with this thing. How can you make a citation when you cannot prove something, but still you know the stated fact is true? I have seen that on other pages before. Things that I knew (because I was in the room when they happened) were not published as facts, because they were never written in a book that could be stated!!!! No, I am never quoting from books, I am only writing about things I do know, because of own experience or practice, or just because I was there when 'it' happened. How can I EVER prove that?

And in this Frau Holle chapter again: I am a native German, completely familiar with the stories and tales about her. Of course she is still referred to as weathermaker. Now wiki demands this to be citated. HOW can we citate that? We just know it, because it is part of our culture!

It is part of our language and culture. I DO KNOW THAT because it is MY culture. BUT: I cannot bring a citation, because I don't have the scientific books at hand. Now what? Just leave it?

What about those cases when history happened in your presence? You were there, saw it, heard it, but you can't quote a book that wrote about it. Does that mean you cannot add your knowledge? On rateyourmusic.com this is exactly what happened to me. My articles were not published because they demanded a book where I quoted from, while in fact I was telling about personal history with the people of interest there. In the end I just left that forum and quit. Sharing knowledge seems not welcome. Now this here as well. I am getting turned off, really! 4.131.200.190 (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)albgardis, Jan 2,2008

Wikipedia has a policy on that; it's called No Original Research. That, in turn, stems from a fundamental policy that anything contributed to a Wikipedia article has to be Verifiable by This is not in any way a comment on your particular character; it's just the way people expect an encyclopedia to work. In more technical terms, your own personal experience is a primary source; an encyclopedia really needs reliable secondary sources. There are alternative outlets for some material, if that helps you any. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous: How are you supposed to get citation from someone when this is a forbidden topic in their country? And you say that wikipedia requires someone to verify my research?

Some half-wit - obviously a senior Wikipedia editor - has asked for a citation for the requirements of the British Award of 'Companion of Honour'. Oh! For Heaven's sake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairlightseven (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least change the tag to something like [cn] instead of [citation needed]? I'm getting sick and tired of the length of this tag ruining the continuity and readability of many paragraphs.--Sysys (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm aggravated with staunch defenders of [citation needed] because the issue here is not that the function is being "overused," but that it is being horribly MISused according to the guidelines created by Wikipedia. Let's take a detailed look at those guidelines, shall we? There are four reasons for citations to be used: quotations, contentious statements about living people, scientific data and exceptional claims. Looking at the various complaints listed above, not ONE of them falls into the first three categories. All of those examples would (theoretically) be considered "exceptional claims." So you're telling me that the architect of a regional theatre in Wales, a minor piece of historical data, and the requirements for a British award are considered "exceptional claims?" Please. An exceptional claim, as Wikipedia defines it, is either a "surprising claim," a controversial quote, or a claim contradicted by prevailing wisdom. Again, looking at the examples above, none of these fall into those categories. No, the reason "citation needed" is typically used is because some yahoo does not PERSONALLY know if a statement is true or not. This is an enormous abuse of this function, and Wikipedia should really crack down on it. .--trawicks (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.246.162 (talk)

Wow - frustration. I don't have the elevated Guru status, but can someone who does insert this (Rolfs, Robert T., Joesoef, M. Riduan, Hendershot, Edward F., Rompalo, Anne M., Augenbraun, Michael H., Chiu, Michael, Bolan, Gail, Johnson, Steven C., French, Pamela, Steen, Eric, Radolf, Justin D., Larsen, Sandra, Brady, William E., Wagner, Kenneth F., D'Aquilante, Debra A., The Syphilis and HIV Study Group, A Randomized Trial of Enhanced Therapy for Early Syphilis in Patients with and without Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection N Engl J Med 1997 337: 307-314) to treatment of Syph with Benzathine PCN in the Intro? This is the Standard of Care for Syphilis Treatment as advised by the CDC. - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodGuru (talk • contribs) 03:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)