Wikipedia talk:Citation needed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Caution
Do not ask general questions on this page. Do not comment on articles on this page.
This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page "Wikipedia:Citation needed". Use this link to find out how to ask questions and get answers.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Citation needed page.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[edit] 'Citation needed'

welshwriter 15 February 2008

I am being asked to provide a citation for something I have added to The Torch Theatre Milford Haven. 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.[citation needed]

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)

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? [citation needed]

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Citation Needed on 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)

[edit] St Basil

Please note there are mistakes in the St Basil's entry. The name of the architect is wrong (scholars cannot agree and don't believe Posnik is the one), as is the claim that TV journalists report by standing in front of St Basil's. It's illegal to film on Red Square, and this rule is strictly enforced. (I am a former TV news producer in Moscow).

[edit] 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)

'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.[citation needed][citation needed] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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 !

[edit] What is the social background of Mrs Gandhi ?

This Wikipedia biography claims that Mrs Gandhi comes from a poor family... If it's an exact information, that's good, but did her father run or not a building contractor business ? I am French and in my country, an entrepreneur like a building contractor is labeled as "bourgeois" (upper middle or middle class)!! But maybe Mr Maino (father of First Lady Gandhi) went bankrupt and loose his status (LOL) ?!!! Is there anyone who could clarify this ? Thanks :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.50.97 (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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).TalkHelp 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).TalkHelp 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

  • 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)

[edit] A California Gentleman at John D. Lee's hanging

Much Utah material on the massacre is in private hands--it is likely that family information is still in oral form. Some has been posted on Blogger-- I subscribe to Google Alerts, an it is a good idea for anyone working with this material.

For instance, after the September apology one senior remembered a box of old papers in the attic. These were written by a member of a family of

California Mormons, probably rearing stock or involved in the Mormon Pony

Express that delivered mail to presumably Mormon ships at San Diego via the

Jefferson Davis lead colony at Whittier.

As news of the massacre worked its way East, the non-Mormon population

became incited against the family and they were forced to return to Utah,

settling near Parowan .

John D. Lee maintained a ferry on the Colorado River which my Grandfather always pointed out to me when we had the altitude to see it. The letter contained the last words of John D. Lee which the writer obtained by wearing his best suit and getting as close as possible. Finding that he had been taken for a Journalist, he chatted with other presumed journalists and was close enough to hear John D's last conversation.

The writer wasn't sure the web was the best place to leave this information, so I suggested she call the reference library at a major western repository, Riverside, the University of Utah, or Weber State University. Logan State is also good, while the University of Southern Utah has a small collection.

I came across this information a short time later, but the site was taken down. It was called Wanderer in a Strange Land. I put in an alert on Google on Wanderer for a month or so and searched on Blogger. Nothing came up.

The Oxford Book will be a good beginning and contain, as promised, the material contained in Church archives. I don't know if BYU will be included. Most of the material previously cited on events at Mountain Meadows is stored at the archives in a major repository at Riverside, CA.

The Oxford Press effort will, or would have been the beginning of a thaw. Many of the people who moved to higher altitudes after the mass killing at the Meadows stayed in these new, small communities.

For more of my Mountain Meadows Musings, go to

www.mountainmeadowswiki@blogspot.com--begin reading at the first posts which are archived at the end--written in July, 07.

So, the question is--how to handle and cite oral history?

Kathleen Matheson Sutherland, 4-19-08

  • Hello, this isn't a good place to discuss how to cite specific sources for an article (this talk page is only about the citation needed tag itself). I'll suggest looking here for starters if you haven't already.--CRiyl (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 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)