Wikipedia talk:Citation needed/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Edit request on 11 July 2013

In the article discussing the history of Paramount Studios, a reference is made around the timeframe 1976, to "Martin Davis". That should be "Marvin Davis." He and his wife Barbara moved to Hollywood from Denver to take over Paramount which was having financial difficulties at the time. He purchased the control of Paramount with his enormous earnings from the oil industry. from:[details removed] verifiable from numerous articles in the Denver Post in 1976. 71.229.185.226 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Please make this request on the talk page for the article it applies to. RudolfRed (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please

Read the 2nd citation already posted.It's already cited.151.40.81.20 (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It's ironic that the caption

of the xkcd graphic doesn't cite the name of the web comic strip or the name of the artist that created it. --Shorthoughts (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

removal of unsourced items: what term?

If a citation needed-tag is not answered by providing proper sources in a given time, I think it is all right to remove the disputed tekst. But I wonder: how long should I have to wait before I clean up unsourced texts? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Except for certain kinds of claims about living people, which require immediate production of inline citations, there is no specific deadline for providing citations. Please do not delete information that you believe is correct simply because no-one has provided a citation within an arbitrary time limit. Where there is some uncertainty about its accuracy, most editors are willing to wait about a month to see whether a citation can be provided." – From {{citation needed}}
Basically, it depends on how correct you believe the information is. — Reatlas (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The German Empire and greatest extent is wrong.

it "cites" the year 1914 as the year of greatest extent. but history shows as after Belgium was occupied there Land area grew by 10,000 square miles or something. certainly 1914 was not when this country stoped growing. 99.45.130.77 (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the {{citation needed}} tag. You should discuss factual inaccuracies on the specific article's talk page. — Reatlas (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Guided tour for referencing

Hi,

I started page Wikipedia:Citation needed/Guided tour but not sure, which is best place for the topic,Wikipedia:Citation needed/Guided tour or Help:Referencing for beginners/Guided tour will be the better place ? Because purpose is Help:Referencing for beginners but tool tip of citation needed template usually redirects every one to Wikipedia:Citation needed

Mahitgar (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014

Modification of the following sections with reference to reliable citation. Under 'Research', "The usage of millimetre wave frequencies (e.g. up to 90 GHz) for wireless backhaul and/or access (IEEE rather than ITU generations)"

and in the first paragraph of the article,

"5G does not describe any particular specification in any official document published by any telecommunication standardisation body."

See: Rappaport, T.S.; Shu Sun; Mayzus, R.; Hang Zhao; Azar, Y.; Wang, K.; Wong, G.N.; Schulz, J.K.; Samimi, M.; Gutierrez, F., "Millimeter Wave Mobile Communications for 5G Cellular: It Will Work!," Access, IEEE , vol.1, no., pp.335,349, 2013

59.96.245.77 (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Citation needed. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --ElHef (Meep?) 02:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2014

This is the article from whence the information needing citation came.

http://www.freit.org/WorkingPapers/Papers/FirmLevelGeneral/FREIT407.pdf Superlaza (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Citation needed. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. LittleMountain5 18:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Scientific citation needed

Is it possible to add the template [scientific citation needed] as I found articles with trivial citations but there is a need to find the scientific background .. if there is any ;-) 

Etron770 (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
{{Better source}}? — Reatlas (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
hmm I really would like to have that request for peer reviewed scientific papersEtron770 (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
How about {{Citation Questionable}}?

207.144.204.209 (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

I would like to add citation needed somewhere 90.208.177.18 (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

I would like to add citation needed somewhere 90.208.177.18 (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Citation needed. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 16:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleting line about where to put the template (middle of sentence, end of sentence) ...

I just deleted the line about where to put the template. It was added by Quiddity on July 5 as a result of this brief discussion on the talk page. At the time, Quiddity made the edit despite acknowledging that the info probably belonged in the more detailed documentation.

Well, I think that was the right instinct. I think this page should just provide top-level information. The anonymous editor who had the question should have looked to the more-detailed documentation for his answer, and if it wasn't there, he should have asked his question there.

Ahhh, the earthshattering issues that keep me lying awake nights ... Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

diff for clarity/reference, and no objections from me. :) –Quiddity (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2014

72.199.166.44 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor Sing 08:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

in biographies

How about properly-sourced claims in biographies of living people that are outright false (source is false)? Deleted immediately or discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.244.98 (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Why '

Hack an acc Am so mad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC52:5290:D84C:9F2C:1326:CB73 (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

How long is appropriate? How soon is too soon?

How long should a citation needed tag be on for before someone deletes the item that allegedly needs a reference? How soon is too soon for something to be deleted after such a claim is made? Should the person who places the citation needed tag also be the one to delete the item? Centerone (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question, but I will attempt an answer instead. I just removed one dating back to 2013 requesting clarification on an invalid date 29 February 1973. I change the date to year only, problem solved. ie It was a longstanding trivial statement so I had no hesitation to remove the fact. I would suggest a general guideline should be "Use your best judgement". Controversial stuff should be removed quickly but allow reasonable time for editors to find a source. Anything else you need to consider if the citation needed tag is justified (see Request for opinions - is 'citation needed' overused), is the fact probably true? (Google it), is it a better article with or without that fact and has there been enough time for a citation to be found WP:WIP? Periglio (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015

Citation available for comment "this was the Bible used by Shakespeare can be found in

[1]

Brian Fedrickson Semnos1 (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Semnos1 (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - as it says at the top of the page:-
Do not ask general questions on this page. Do not comment on articles on this page.
To comment on an article, go back to that article's talk page. - Arjayay (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Cannot figure out how to add citation where requested in "Messianic Judaism" entry

Re: a reference to David H. Stern's Jewish commentary on the New Testament, A citation is requested for the paragraph stating that Sha'ul=(Paul's) writing is congruent with Torah instruction. The end/foot-notes content should read as follows:

David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary {Clarksville, Md. Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., 1992}, 395-397. 67.166.216.208 (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)ET Carter. January, 2015

As it says at the top of the page:-
Do not ask general questions on this page. Do not comment on articles on this page.
To comment on an article, go back to that article's talk page. - Arjayay (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we at least have citations on this page???

This page includes a copy of the xkcd about needing a citation. And that copy...lacks a citation. Can we at least have proper citations on the citation needed page of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.32.221.162 (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2015

"Andrew had the largest royal army in the history of the crusades (20,000 knights and 12,000 castle-garrisons)." This statement should be replaced or at least deleted, since it's absolutely false. For one, knight is not the same as horseman (Hungary never had this many knights for sure, neither any other country I think, even a 1000 of real knights was a great force for a looong time and very expensive!), but the real problem are the huge numbers. Even in chronicles the Hun-Austrian joined army is not bigger than 10 000 men, but we know these numbers are already inflated, and most historians agree that the size of Andrew's army was most likely not bigger than 4000 people. This number comes partially from the data of ships rented in Spalato and other cities by Andrew for his followers to reach Akkon. Sources: Runciman, Borosy (very good study, examines many different sources and the latest works too!), Zsoldos, so on. I seriously doubt that you'll find the huge numbers above in any historical work. If this number means the number of soldiers left in Hungary, that may be ok, but what does that have to do with Andrew's crusade and the number of his troops on the way to the Holy Land? Castle-garrisons??? Very misleading, and probably false even if it means Hun soldiers left at home (too lazy to look it up now :P).

Hungarian history student writing a paper on this issue

86.61.114.253 (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you are in the wrong place, since this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Citation needed.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this on the talk page of the relevant article in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2015

Sources: Zsoldos Attila: Magyarorszag II. Andras keresztes hadjarata idejen. In: Magyarorszag es a keresztes haboruk. Lovagrendek es emlekeik, 2006. Page 101. 

        Borosy Andras: Hadakozok, keresztesek, hadi erdemek a kozepkori Magyarorszagon. Valogatott tanulmanyok, 2010. Page 218-219.
        Powell: Anatomy of a Crusade 1213-1221, 1986. Page 136. 
        Sweeney: Hungary in the Crusades, 1981. Page 478-479.

So please replace this: "Andrew had the largest royal army in the history of the crusades (20,000 knights and 12,000 castle-garrisons)." with this: Contemporary sources state that the number of Hungarian forces reached 10 000 to 15 000 men, but modern historians mostly agree on the "much reasonable figure of 4000 knights." (Source: Powell 136.)

86.61.114.253 (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you are in the wrong place, since this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Citation needed.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this on the talk page of the relevant article in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

http://www.howard.edu/newsroom/releases/2011/20110112SCHOOLOFCOMMUNICATIONSCELEBRATESLEGACYDAY.html 71.77.68.22 (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you are in the wrong place, since this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Citation needed.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this on the talk page of the relevant article in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2015

Hello, I noticed that a citation was missing for the last sentence under "Endorsements" in the second paragraph. The sentence is the following, "It was announced on August 1, 2014 that September 2014 will see the release of Rihanna's first fragrance for men, "Rogue Man." I would like to add a citation that I came across that talks about Rihanna's interests in developing a fragrance for men and supports this sentence. I believe it would be great to add some facts as well. This citation includes good information on why Rihanna is interested in fragrances.

The citation is the following (MLA format): "Rihanna Defies Boundaries with New Men's Scent." PR Newswire. Oct 14 2014. ProQuest. Web. 15 June 2015 . Itzelmares21 (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Citation needed. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 22:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2015

Athuang1114 (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

how come the article still says it's September when it's October?--151.224.44.61 (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The date is when the "citation needed" first take place in the article.--Francis Le français (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015

98.71.4.104 (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Sir,while going through wikipedia, its written that "The Utmanzai speak mostly Pushto and Hindko.[citation needed]which is not correct. Regarding the language spoken in waziristan, either one , south or north , Pashtu is the spoken language. Its written in here that they speak Pashtu and Hindko which is not true. Hindko speaking people leave in cities of Khyber Pashtunkhwa ,not in Waziristan. In North Waziristan its only Pashtu where as in South Waziristan the spoken language is Pashtu but a small minority of Burki tribe (locally known as Urmarh) speak Urmarhi in their home only. In public they too speak Pashtu. Please correct it . Utmanzai speaks Pashtu only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utmanzai_(Wazir_clan)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2015

[!-- Begin request -->Wieland spent many evenings at the well known Wieland family guest house and tavern Sonne Post in Neuhuetten. Here in the quiet guest house gardens the former poet of an austere pietism now became the advocate of a light-hearted philosophy, from which frivolity and sensuality were not excluded.

Woher stammt diese Aussage? please tell me the source? in the german Wikipedia it doesn't exist[

Waldbuesser (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Citation needed. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. RudolfRed (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2015

Carl Denaro was 20-years old and Rosemary Keenan was 21-years old at the time of their shooting incident. 108.21.205.201 (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2015

delete "Downes became Commodore of the Mediterranean Squadron, and from 1828 to 1829 he commanded the Java in the Mediterranean.[citation needed]" add "Downes was Commanding Officer of the ship-of-the-line USS Delaware in 1828 to 1829 when it was the flagship of Commodore Crane of the Mediterranean Squadron" citation "Delaware put to sea 10 February 1828 under the command of Captain J. Downs to become the flagship of Commodore W. M. Crane in the Mediterranean." From Delaware III (Ship of the Line) Naval History and Heritage Command online Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships at http://history.navy.mil

108.16.191.130 (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you are in the wrong place, this talk page is solely for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Citation needed.
Please make your request at the talk page for the relevant article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016

I want to change it so that The spark of rebellion counts as two episode instead of a movie. The official blu-ray and DVD as well as netflix says it's two episodes, so that is the only truth. I also want to change so that the shorts isn't in the series category, because they aren't a part of the series, they were small prequel shorts to create hype around the show. So i'd put them into their own category. Some people might try to tell that spark of rebellion doesn't count as two episodes, but the blu-ray, dvd and netflix (i'm pretty sure it's only on netflix in scandinavia) is proof.

83.93.114.80 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Citation needed. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Mz7 (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for opinions - is 'citation needed' overused

I wonder if anyone else feels that there are too many requests for citations needed that disturb reading flow and are often requesting citations for things that, in all honesty really don't need a citation. I have just come from yet another page (Mig 31 I didn't write it, I have never edited it before) where just about every para ends in 'citation needed', despite the fact there are many many inline citations hardly any of which are for contentious facts, and virtually all the requested information could be found in the references. One was actually asking for a citation to justify the description that was not only obviously true to anyone with basic knowledge in the area but was also illustrated with pictures in links already in the sentence.

I feel "Citation needed" has is often transitioning from a noble idea to ensure good referencing practise into a form of cut and paste vandalism. There is no perfect solution, however one I suggest;

A note to users suggesting;

- Everyone can be a writer as well as an editor. Before requesting a citation, make a reasonable effort to find one yourself. At least scroll through any references provided and try Google.

- If you are not familiar with the topic, and the statement does not seem contentious, think carefully before requesting a citation.

And however politically impossible it will be in an editor dominated political culture, I would love a bot to remove requests for citation are automatically removed after 6 months unless the person who has asked for a citation provides an explanation of their attempt to locate a citation themselves.Winstonwolfe (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Winstonwolfe, "citation needed" is definitely overused. And I hate it when an editor overtags with it instead of simply placing Template:Unreferenced or Template:Refimprove at the top of the article, or in a section that is specifically unsourced or needs more sources. Flyer22 (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
As for trying to find a source yourself before tagging something as needing a citation, that is what the WP:Burden and WP:Preserve policies state. Flyer22 (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes the requests border on the absurd. Last night I edited the page on Goerke's Corners, Wisconsin adding a pop culture reference (It's mentioned several times in a 1949 movie.) and including a link to the movie's page here in Wikipedia, which includes more information on the reference than I used. Within less than four hours, somebody, probably a bot, added a request for citation. I'd think that having a link to the other page in my addition would have been sufficient. JDZeff (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not sufficient as Wikipedia is forever changing. That is, the citation(s) on the other page could change or be deleted. You should copy it/them over to the new page. Each Wikipedia article need it's own citations - that is, it needs to stand alone. — Lentower (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
{{Citation needed}} is not seriously overused, except when {{Unreferenced}} or {{Unreferenced section}} can be used.
Though I prefer {{Citation needed-span}} as it shows exactly what text needs to be verified by citation. — Lentower (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there a point where we can say that "citation needed" has become vandalism? It appears (yes, I am using weasel words; I cannot prove these assumptions) that it happens when an editor feels slighted in NPOV battles. Instead of retiring gracefully, they seem to spam articles with CITE tags at the end of virtually every sentence. Far from improving our encyclopedia, it makes articles nearly unreadable. I am primarily a consumer now, editing mainly for grammar and links (my highly-active editing days are past), but I find excessive CITE tags incredibly disruptive. If we decide that CITE is fine as it is, could we consider changing the very long [citation needed] tag with something smaller, along the lines of [ref?] or even [?] with a tooltip of "Citation needed. Please help improve this article by adding reliable sources"? User:Kevin.159.53 posting as IP 159.53.78.143 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I think there is a limit to assuming good faith on this one, and we have long crossed it. "Citation needed" is and always was about vandalism by NPOV battle losers and deletionists. It certainly doesn't make Wikipedia any better for the reader; it does the opposite. 97.104.85.21 (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "citation needed" has in fact become a running joke on explain xkcd and xkcd what if for that very reason. [citation needed]


there hasn't been a discussion here on what to do when one finds a page that has been overtagged. i stumbled across a page, during a meandering stroll down a wiki-hole, and it was almost unreadable. i actually know very little (okay, nothing) about the subject, so can't try to add a few sources. i checked the history, and they were all added, 3 weeks ago, by one user. i looked at that user's page, and he/she seems to be a very active editor out here. so much so, that i would certainly think he/she would know better than to do this. i checked the 3 sources already on the page (1 dead, 1 marked as dead but not, 1 fine)--the dead one and the one marked as dead but available had both been checked 3 weeks ago by the same editor that inserted all the tags. i added a section on the Talk page, calling out the overuse of the tags. (no attempt had been made on the Talk page to discuss the article's verifiability by the overtagging editor.)

so...what is one supposed to do? here's the page. laugh as you must: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_swing Colbey84 (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, but object strongly, to content in article here based on decades of experience

… both as an academic faculty member in the sciences, and as a longstanding editor at WP. Here are the specific objections.

  1. Essentially, from a probabilistic perspective, it is never the case (probability approaching zero) that the citation-at-end-of-paragraph-covers-whole-paragraph generalization is true here. This sentence/guideline should be deleted, or edited to read that "Paragraphs with single citations at end of paragraph should periodically have the single citation checked—i.e., after intervening edits—for its continuing coverage of the entire paragraph's material; when the material is confirmed, the reference should explicitly state the coverage (e.g., 'The full content of this sentence is taken from {{cite journal… '), addition of which should be traceable through the Edit summary. Until such checking is done, a single paragraph-ending citation should bear an inline {{verification needed}} tag." If one needs a professional justification for this comment, see any set of scientific reviews, e.g., off top of head, here, and tabulate the number of paragraphs appearing that have but a single citation. In technical, fact-filled writing, that number is near to zero.
  2. The same is essentially true of the attachment of a single citation to a complex or long sentence that is technical, or otherwise fact-filled. Again, consult any small set of scientific reviews for justification, or even just the one linked above. In such, you will see that sentences routinely have two or more citations, often appearing at the breakpoints between phrases in their construction (or attached to individual elements connected by conjunctions). Again, the verbiage of this "Citation needed" article should reflect reality—that it is, probabilistically (in this editor's experience), more likely at WP that an editor has added a disparate phrase, post hoc, unsourced, than they returned to the original source, and found further information to add from that source, such that a new edit is also covered by the old citation. In this sense, an editor should be directed in this article, with something like, "Any newly appearing material should be considered suspect, as unsourced, until it is verified as having been sourced from the originally appearing citation, and until such time the original single source can be checked, an inline {{verification needed}} tag should be placed."
  3. From the perspective of one that has professional publication experience and (therein) experience generating team-produced documents of high quality, as well as longstanding WP editorial experience and professional consulting experience regarding scientific R&D operations, the prohibition, stated here in this article, of having both section {{refimprove}} and inline {{citation needed}} tags is likewise poorly considered and so seriously flawed, especially in combination with the foregoing assumptions made regarding paragraph-single-citation situations. Operationally, and for simplicity, consider a section with a tag of {{refimprove}} for one paragraph that contains abundant technical or historical content, sentence after sentence, but no citations, and no inline {{citation needed}} tags. Consider the following: An editor comes upon the tag and completely unsourced paragraph, attempts to help and finds a source for one sentence (and for sake of argument, while it could be any sentence of the paragraph, let's make it), the last sentence of the paragraph. The editor adds that citation. Per the stated assumptions, even if the editor placing the one source (and knowing its limited coverage to the single sentence) leaves the section tag in place, the next editor to come along, based on the presumptions of this article, would see fit to remove the section tag, even though only a small percentage of the issue (one unsourced sentence of several) had been addressed.

It is for the reason of clarity of the status of individual elements in a shared document, created by a team, that full, explicit information, line by line is preferred over more global (section by section) tags. Anyone who has produced a shared regulatory document knows that "More sources are needed in this section." is not so helpful of a sidebar Comment; much preferred, instead, is "The first half of Sentence 4 still needs a source." Global section or chapter Comments, in shared document generation, are simply flags to call wide attention of other editors to big remaining problems (the same role section and article tags are intended to play here); it is the inline tag that is the workhorse, and makes clear where work is actually, specifically needed. In short, the inline vs. other tags serve different purposes, and to deny their joint appearance in problematic sections is simply misguided, operationally.

The bottom line from my reading of this article on this tag: It is hopefully optimistic, and as a result hopelessly disconnected from the realities of shared document production, and of the way in which work is done at Wikipedia. If people take this article seriously, it goes a long way to explaining the rampant unchallenged plagiarism and other WP:VERIFY violations that are easily and repeatedly found throughout this encyclopedia, which claims its reliably to be just that—the extent to which it is actually traceable to sources that can be verified.

There is only a single reason I can see, for not allowing thorough tagging of sentences, paragraphs, and sections that are problematic vis-a-vis sourcing, and it is one I find wholly unjustifiable from a scholarly perspective (see Ch. Lipson's "Doing Honest Work…")—that we care more for the cosmetic aspects, the appearance of our articles, than for truly moving articles toward quality (and informing readers, honestly, about their status, meanwhile).

I would encourage a strong edit of this guiding article, to move it in the direction of reflecting, and so dealing with, Wikipedia reality, and encouraging honest and continuing assessment of the status of texts and sources at Wikipedia. Cheers. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

See the mild edit I did of this date. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
And I disagree with you making these substantial changes without discussion. A number of editors, including me, disagree with the way you add "citation needed" tags. That was most recently clear in this discussion. You overtag, and commonly add "citation needed" tags where they are not needed. So you should not be changing this page to comply with your tagging style. And if you insist on reverting, I will insist on starting a RfC on the matter and bringing in as many editors to this discussion as possible. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
For now, I alerted this and this page to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I can certainly appreciate the Prof's logic.

I also have a huge problem with the passage that was reverted to: "If you feel an article, or a section within an article, needs more than one or two tags then ALWAYS add a {{Unreferenced}}, {{Refimprove}}, or {{Unreferenced section}} tag to the article or section concerned instead of an ugly battery of individual tags..", and it's not just the weird double periods at the end of the one sentence paragraph.

It's difficult to find any article within the English Wikipedia where it's not technically feasible to stick an eye-wateringly obtrusive {{Refimprove}} template right at the top. Many pages I visit to copyedit have had one there for years with no help offered as to what particular word or phrase is especially problematic and no clue given on the article's discussion page as to when I can remove the template since the test to be passed before removal is essentially Sisyphusian.

I also agree with Flyer22 that, because of the repercussions and wide-ranging nature of the changes, the reverted edit should be treated as the Bold part of BRD and look forward to being educated by the ensuing discussion... BushelCandle (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The basic difficulty of the "cn tag lover's" argument is that a cn tag is in itself NEVER an "improvement" to any article. The theory is that it will quickly attract a responsible editor who will check the statement concerned for verifiability, and either add a good, reliable citation, delete the statement as doubtful and unverifiable, or, perhaps best of all - add a new statement - cited this time, that better accords with the sources. As we all know - this kind of improvement practically never happens as the result of a cn tag - the typical example will stay (for weeks, months, or even years) until someone deletes it as stale and unnecessary - all too often without either changing of deleting the statement in question, or for that matter adding a good citation.
These tags would not be necessary at all if:
  • Editors worked directly from sources more than they do (while avoiding direct plagiarism of course, and citing everything that needs to be cited). Plead guilty to this one myself occasionally. It would be futile to deny that many wiki articles need constructive, well cited improvements.
  • The editors who love to tag everything in sight bore the guidelines here more in mind - which essentially boil down to this - if the statement you are about to tag is THAT doubtful you would more than likely be much better off simply deleting it altogether. If you suspect it is probably true, but feel that nonetheless that it really needs to be cited, then finding a citation yourself is MUCH more constructive than tagging it. I might add that IF (and, alas, it is a big big IF!) the tag is justified, then the tagger is likely him/herself to be the very person to have a good idea where to start looking for the right citation!
  • A sentence, and a paragraph, and even a section, very often (although of course not always) essentially represents a single thought, that can be referenced by a single citation. WHERE this is obviously the case it is NEVER good policy to add several cn tags in the middle of the sentence (paragraph, section). Alas it often happens, which is why the sections objected to are there.
  • A really genuinely "BAD" article or section needs an overall tag - it is futile, generally speaking, to attempt to tag every doubtful point. Even here - better really to remark (on the talk page please) that the article or section in question is bad, and rewrite it yourself - making sure to add your citations as you go - or at least before you put your work in the "public" article area. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, although, given this discussion, I think you should have discussed this addition before adding it. I agree with the "If you feel an article, or a section within an article, needs more than one or two tags, then at least consider adding a {{Unreferenced}}, {{Refimprove}}, or {{Unreferenced section}} tag to the article or section concerned instead of an ugly battery of individual tags." sentence because excessive tagging often makes things worse and it has not shown to help any more than a single tag. And in both cases, the tags can be there for years. Rather than always focusing on the WP:Burden policy, editors need to start taking the WP:Preserve policy in mind; it states, in part, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ "From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations" by David Ewart @ 1983 Zondervan Corporation GRAND RAPIDS MI page 195
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Citation_needed/Archive_3&oldid=1091551342"