Category talk:Articles with unsourced statements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Articles for deletion This category was nominated for deletion on July 9, 2006. The result of the discussion was delete.
Articles for deletion A deletion review related to the Category:Articles with unsourced statements was concluded on August 20, 2006 with the result of discussion was undelete. See also: related ANI archives.
Categories for discussion This category was nominated for deletion or renaming on September 9, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
Articles for deletion A deletion review for Category:Articles with unsourced statements Category page was concluded on 2007 February 20 with the result of discussion was keep for now, no prejudice against relisting.
Categories for discussion This category was nominated for merging on September 9, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

More useful category[edit]

Er, can anyone think of an article that doesn't contain unsourced statements? Perhaps that would be a more useful category...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
  • Quite. I don't see this backlog ever being cleared :) --BesigedB (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it won't, but we can take a a good stab at it. I probably spend about an hour ever day adding the {{fact}} tag to articles. Most of them actually get sourced. --Liface 18:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This category is deeply irksome - since pretty much every article has unsourced statements, pretty much every article could be in this category (except maybe some featured articles, although I would guess that even many of these contain unsourced statements). Also, coming across this category on the main article page seems unnecessarily negative to me - it singles out articles in this category as "bad articles" to readers, when in fact they're just articles where someone bothered to put a category up. I think categories that are not legitimately part of the article itself, but notes designed to get editors to work on them, should generally go on the talk page. But that's obviously not general practice. john k 19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This category is a pain and it will never be cleared. It gives an negative impression that is very often unjustified. I think it should be deleted. Athenaeum 05:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm gonna start a subcategory for various different things, maybe Music articles with unsourced statements. Bsd987 13:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
It's true that pretty much every article contains unsourced statement. But that's like saying everything is pointless. Which is, of course, true if you think long enough about it. But it's ridiculous to put a bullet in your brains because of it. Just like it is pointless to put every existing Wikipedia article in here because all of them contain unsourced statements. This category should contain every article which contains one or more citation needed ({{citation needed}}, old) or fact ({{fact}}) tags. That's it. (Is there a wikibot on it? Would be handy.) Instead of wasting our time on it, we should discuss when exactly we should use the fact tag. I guess we all agree to use it if a statement is really doubtfull and when we can not relay on our good faith assumption. But that doesn't really answer the question of course. -- Face 19:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The size of this category proves that too many people are too trigger happy with this kind of thing. People seem to go around reading articles and adding 'citation needed' to everything they're not sure about. What's the point? For one thing, if you did cite all the things that everyone wants cited, the references sections in some of these articles would be so long they'd take ten minutes to load on a 4Mb broadband connection. You can't source every statement, but it doesn't make them untrue. I miss the days when I could look at articles on Wikipedia and not see a massive template at the top of every page telling me why the article is rubbish. I don't think the problem is that there are too many unsourced statements on Wikipedia, I think the problem is that there are too many people who have to put "[citation needed]" at the end of every sentence they, personally, don't believe. --Stevefarrell 11:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I really like Bsd987's suggestion. If we break these down into categories, it'd seem a lot easier to tackle, not to mention that it'd allow specialists to find articles they'd be of use in. 04:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That won't work because it is added by template. Clearly deletion is the only solution as at present all this category does is waste time and get in the way. Brammen 10:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
i agree, people are extremely trigger happy in adding this tag. like one person said above, spending an hour ever day adding this tag to articles! we need to have a way more stringent requirement to adding this tag, such as an article without ANY sources at all. now that would be a very handy tag to have. hmm.. maybe it exists already? Mathmo Talk 03:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was the sent to "deletion review" when that page has no mandate to deal with categories?[edit]

The deletion review page quite clearly does not cover categories, and therefore the decision that was taken to restore it there is clearly invalid and meaningless. People who understand categories won't have seen the discussion, so the outcome was determined by people who don't appreciate the damage that there were doing because categories are not their focus. This category really needs to be deleted as it does nothing except to get in the way of easy use of the category system. Brammen 10:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review is mandated to examine all forms of deletion. Most disputes are about articles, but there is nothing "invalid" about it reviewing CFD decisions. I will say however that if CFD and DRV can reach very different conclusions about the same category then it is likely indicative that one of these two communities is acting in a way that is out of touch with the desires of the Wikipedia community as a whole. Dragons flight 15:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I like this category.[edit]

Yes, I like this category because, having a half hour or so to spare, I can pull up a story, search for "Citation needed," hunt for one or two or more source or sources and, having found it or them, add it or them quickly to the article. Of course, sometimes it takes a LOT searching on Google or elsewhere, but upon doing so, I am always struck with how omnipresent the poorly sourced WikiP articles are in the Internet. And so those unsourced sentences and statements just multiply like bunnies.

I have no compunction about removing them either, hoping that they will soon vanish from the 'Net.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 02:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why I hate this category[edit]

This category certainly has its uses, but at present we lack the infrastructure to control its abuse, and I suspect it may do more harm than good as a result. I invite comment (naturally, that's what talk pages are for).

I've just removed a {{cite needed}} tag from an otherwise excellent article on the Emperor Penguin, see Talk:Emperor Penguin#Removed cite needed. It's a good example of one of several ways in which this category is regularly abused. The factoid in question is not particularly contentious, and is supported by one of the references already provided in the Further reading section. The reference sections of this article are short, not like the overly comprehensive bibliographies of some articles, so the information was and is easily verifiable.

There are several problems here. One is that the tag didn't add anything to the article. The detailed citation that was presumably requested by it would be a different style to the existing (excellent) article, which would contravene the MOS, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Another is why it was added. I'd guess it was added by someone looking for information. The way to do that is to use the reference desk, or the talk page, not to edit the article with an implicit question. At the very least, the person adding the tag should put their question explicitly into the talk page.

Or, worse, it may have been added in order to challenge the information. I'd guess not in this case, but that's a common ploy in more controversial articles. And again, it adds nothing to the articles in question.

Food for thought? I'm not saying delete this category. I am saying that if we keep it, we need to put some effort into the infrastructure to support its use. Some guidelines need to be written, publicised and agreed (that's the hard part). Andrewa 03:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way of finding out just how many articles are currently in the category? The category has a backlog note, and there are about 1,000 articles starting with Aa-Am, so I guess that means there are about 2,000 starting with A. That's a lot of articles. I wonder how many of these tags are useful? Andrewa 06:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem? If a statement is marked Citation Needed, just hunt around until you find one. If you can't find one, delete the statement. Seems simple to me. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 11:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, many of the statements marked Citation Needed are nothing of the sort. Sorry if I didn't make that clear before.
As a result, many (possibly most) of the articles currently in this category don't belong here, and the lack of effective guidelines makes this likely to continue. So we're left with an enormous number of articles with a notice on them that is both inaccurate and discouraging to the contributors who have taken the trouble to write some excellent articles... such as the Emperor Penguin article. Andrewa 13:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, about that Emperor Penguin article: I don't see any sources anywhere in it. Of course, there are some links below the main text, but there is nothing within the body of the piece that gives sources for the statements, all of which may be true and all of which may be false, for all we know. I think there is a BIG discrepancy in what you and I, Andrewa, feel an article should look like: Unfortunately for ease of reading, the operative principle for WikiP, so far as I know, is to give sources for all the material. (And I am not flogging Andrewa nor anybody else here, please let me make that clear.)
I personally don't mind looking up the sources and citing them when I find them. Others who have problems doing that (it can be boring and a bit precious) could put their talents to use elsewhere in WikiP, and I would not blame them. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Nor do I have any problem looking up sources and citing them. The problem is the abuse of this category.
When you say you don't see any sources in it, I assume you mean that there are no footnote style references. There are good sections on Further reading, References and External links. These are all sources. To flag each individual paragraph or statement with a footnote explicitly identifying its specific source is certainly permitted by the MOS, but it's not required.
It's certainly the opinion of some editors that it should be required, but as yet there's no consensus on this AFAIK.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what AFAIK means, nor MOS. for that matter. Yours, GeorgeLouis 05:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK = "As Far As I Know". AFAIK
MOS = "Manual Of Style". WP:MOS --Scott Davis Talk 04:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Meantime, in a strict sense the MOS doesn't even permit adding these explicit references if they are contrary to the original style of the article. I think commonsense should prevail here, and if you or anyone else wishes to do a minor refactor of the article to change its reference style, that's fine by me.
What's not OK IMO is putting an inaccurate tag on an isolated paragraph, which is what was done here. And I don't want to flog anyone either. I haven't attempted to identify the editor in question, and think it would be irrelevant and unfair to do so. The problem is, such tags are becoming very common, which is one reason we have such an enormous backlog in this category.
Put a tag on the talk page by all means, identifying this article as one which in your opinion needs a minor refactor to add these references. But don't mess up an otherwise excellent article with your opinion as to the merits of its style. Andrewa 21:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Some history[edit]

This category has been deleted at least once, undeleted following deletion review, and subsequently proposed for deletion, which was closed as a speedy keep, I guess because there was no chance of consensus (although that's not what the person closing the debate said). Andrewa 04:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Help me get rid of the Zs . . .[edit]

I'm working my way backwards through these pages, starting with the bottom of the "Z" page. I have already got rid of some 10 or 12 of them and am learning a lot about the Balkans, Turkey, Iran, Iceland and other countries that use those odd semi-Latin letters which you will find at

Only 128 pages to go!

(If you want, you can grab Zen and the Årt of Motorcycle Maintenance — not one of my favorite books.)

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 02:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did it! There are now only 19 pages in the "Z" section, and I will be able to keep my eye on them in my so-called spare time. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
lol, this here is a good example of how this tag is used too much! if there is this many PAGES of articles about articles starting with Z.. then how many with all the other letters?! Mathmo Talk 03:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Karma in Hinduism[edit]

This article has the references restored. Can someone remove the article from the category?


Raj2004 03:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

it still had one reference wanted on the page, i improved the page a little so that the tag would be removed. is done now. Mathmo Talk 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Is it just me or is this category redundant, given the existence of Category:All articles lacking sources?--Vercalos 00:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

{{fact}} places articles into Category:Articles with unsourced statements. {{unreferenced}} places articles into Category:All articles lacking sources. The difference is that, in theory, {{fact}} is for specific statements that need referencing, while {{unreferenced}} is for whole articles that have no references at all. —Seqsea (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Split by month[edit]

We should perhaps do this, the same way as the other major cleanup categories. Comments? Rich Farmbrough, 11:38 1 January 2007 (GMT).

I think that could be very useful for preventing older unsourced statements from being forgotten under the constant deluge of newer ones (at the rate wikipedia expands, it's bound to happen). Some might be there for years because there isn't a citation to be found, anyway, and knowing that the article has been on the list for a long time could make it easier to tell that people have tried, and failed. 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
OK started, see Template talk:Fact. Rich Farmbrough, 18:08 5 February 2007 (GMT).

How much time for small unsourced statements[edit]

I like many others of you when I have some spare time take a wander through this page and have a look at the articles on it and more often find the link and am able to untag it. My Question some articles that are otherwise excellent have one or two citation tags on very minor points or are of a speculative or POV nature, How long is a reasonable time before a small text adjustment and hence remove the tag is reasonable either in months or perhaps editorial frequency? --Matt 01:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This category should not even be here, AFAICS[edit]

Back in July 2006, [[Category:Articles lacking sources]] and [[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]] were both deleted in two separate AfD nominations. In August 2006, a review of deletion was conducted for [[Category:Articles lacking sources]] and it was reinstated. Then, in September, User:Dragons flight appears to have reinstated this category (Articles with unsourced statements, here) based on the review of deletion for the other more basic category [[Category:Articles lacking sources]]. It appears the Dragons flight may have confused (or otherwise conflated) the two cats in August, when he applied the review of deletion to [[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]. AFAICS, only one review appears ever to have been actually discussed, which was for [[Category:Articles lacking sources]] (those with an “unreferenced” template). If I'm looking at the history correctly, this category (Articles with unsourced statements) shouldn't even be here. ... Kenosis 04:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Another note: this is sick stuff, folks. What we appear to have here is a monthly cataloguing within a maintenance category within another maintenance category, within yet another category of aticles requiring maintenance. In other words, under the original agenda of cataloguing articles that have templates identifying them as not being in keeping with WP:NOR and/or WP:VER, we also have the additional category of articles with one or more little "fact" tamplates, applied to some individual clause or sentence, which has become a separate category with well over 20,000 articles (not counting, of course, the hundreds of thousands of articles in need of fact templates on one or more of the statements within). And on top of this, the review of the previously successful CfD appears to have managed to drag along the more complex and debatable subcategory which attempts to catalog all articles on the wiki that have one-or-more "fact" requests. As if that's not enough of an arbitrary and virtually useless headache, now there's a monthly category within a category containing tens of thousands of articles that changes with every little "fact" template placed on a clause somewhere, within a category within a category . Maybe it's time to consider that the attempted cure is worse than the disease. ... Kenosis 05:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Concur. This cat was re-created in error, and should be deleted as a cat which was recreated after deletion without going through deletetion review. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The recreation was intentional and based on the unanimous DRV for the closely related category. This was explained at ANI. I do not consider this to have been an error. Also note that a more recent CFD was closed "speedy keep", essentially endorsing my undeletion. Dragons flight 15:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
This category is closely related only insofar as it deals with sourcing. A "fact" request in an article is on a completely different level of operation than an "unreferenced" template for a whole article. In other words, it's a separate category, and one which evidently is widely misunderstood, and is arguably a misleading title that is too easily confused with "Articles lacking sources". This is in addition to the question of what is the value of having a category with nearly 25,000 articles, a category that changes every time someone makes a "fact" request for some little clause. And in addition to that, now we have a bot (SmackBot) that has labeled virtually every fact request on the wiki as "February 2007", a practice that accomplishes nothing more than to have notified everyone that the bot was active in February 2007. ... Kenosis 17:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Moreover, the ANI discussion involved significant doubts and questions by several admins about this unilateral action to reinstate a "related" category without separate review. This category was deleted, unilaterally reinstated, and has gotten wildly out of control with tens of thousands of articles that change every time someone adds a fact template somewhere on the wiki. It's unsustainable and useless, and the unsustainability will never end as the demand for better sourcing continues to grow; indeed it's foreseeable that this category will ultimately consist of virtually every article on the wiki. But for now, it's been deleted, reinstated without review or clear consensus at ANI, and should immediately be deleted in accordance with the clear consensus for deletion in July 2006. ... Kenosis 18:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Significant doubts? Really? Where? The core dispute is over the disconnect from CFD to DRV. I didn't see anyone at ANI challenging the restoration. If you simply believe that large categories shouldn't exist, simply because they are large, then I believe the community as a whole rejects that argument. You have recourse to run a new CFD or to refer my actions to DRV, but it would not be appropriate to come back many months later and simply delete it again. Dragons flight 18:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The substantive issue was already decided in the CfD for this category. The essentially unilateral reinstatement of it on the basis that it's a related category is a procedural error that went "under the radar" here. Plainly it would not be sustainable WP "policy" to allow resurrection of deleted subcategories based on DRVs for larger, more important categories (in this case the cat containing articles with "unreferenced" templates). The most expedient course would be to merely delete per the original decision which was never DRV'd in the first place. ... Kenosis 18:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The restoration of the cat is akin to the sneaky little riders on bills that end up funding rain-forest research in Arizona. The DRV does not appear to have addressed this cat specifically, restoration therefore, seems to be outside both the letter and spirit of the DRV decision. •Jim62sch• 18:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
As I said, if you disagree, take it to DRV. It was outside the letter of the ruling, but clearly in the spirit of that decision. I expressly mentioned it on ANI because it was unusual and it stood unchallenged. And, don't forget the subsquent keep at CFD. Dragons flight 19:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no DRV to take it to, as none ever existed for this category. The only action that exists for this category to date is a successful CfD, one which was unilaterally overturned. I suggest it should be promptly deleted in accordance with the last known community action, then DRV'd if someone wishes to, and get some actual feedback from the WP community this time. ... Kenosis 19:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You would create a DRV. It is "deletion review" and covers both things that are deleted and undeleted where there is a dispute about the outcome. And you are again ignoring that there is both a delete CFD and a more recent keep CFD (which is the most recent community action). Dragons flight 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
To what end? Creating a DRV would simply be a perfunctory step and a waste of contributors valuable time. And for what? No, it just needs to be deleted. Process exists to help us, not the other way around. FeloniousMonk 19:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the additional action in September. I notice that the "speedy keep" mentioned by Dragons flight was applied quite quickly, after a mere two days of being available for comment and with the outcome still being very much debated. Something is very, very wrong with this picture as it relates to "community actions". I will take a bit of extra time to review the broader implications of all this as it relates to WP community and administrative process, along with the substantive issues pertaining to this category. Appreciate it, folks. ... Kenosis 20:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, wait. CFD already reached a consensus to 'delete'. Why 1) does it still exist 2) and considering the previous CFD result why does DRV needs to followed to complete the deletion the community endorsed? It's clear looking this over that this category exists because due to process and the community's input being short-circuited. Considering the existance of the CFD result, I'm inclined to delete this category per the previous CFD and existing process and convention. FeloniousMonk 20:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
(ri) Good decision. DF appears to be trying to misuse process to his own ends. As for his comment re the spirit of the CFD and DRV, his definition of spirit and my definition are clearly different. One is very loose, and then there's mine. •Jim62sch• 20:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It is plain, after at least a preliminary study of the situation here, that the "speedy keep" was arbitrarily implemented without proper feedback from the community. It's a confusing situation, in significant part because of the easy confusion of the two categories as to what each refers to ([[Category:Articles lacking sources]] (unreferenced) and [[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]("fact")).

It is quite clear the last review of this category in September was never allowed to be brought to a proper completion, being short-circuited with a "speedy keep" after two days. I'm not an admin of course, but I already stated my position, and I'd certainly support an administrative action as FeloniousMonk mentions to go back to the last valid community action (a successful CfD), allowing anyone to initiate a new DRV if they feel compelled to do so. If such a DRV occurs, I would hope that the various admins would allow discussion of the issues to go the expected full course and be brought to a proper completion (is it 7 days minimum?). ... Kenosis 20:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The complete practical uselessness of these categories had only become clearer since last year. Osomec 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, if none of you are willing to actually start a deletion discussion, I will. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20#Category:Articles with unsourced statements. Dragons flight 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


I find this category VERY useful. It serves to hold the articles by month subcategories in a clear, concise way. Makes it much easier to deal with by date. BTW, how are empty subcats dealt with? Feb 2005 and Jan 2006 are both empty and could probably be deleted. CovenantD 08:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And March 2006 CovenantD 08:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding CovenantD's recent edits to the article on Truth, please see WP:point. As demonstrated by his edits, there was only one purpose, which was to remove statements which had older fact tags attached. As also demonstrated by the edits, this user had no familiarity whatever with the subject involved (constructivist epistemology), removing a sentence that actually involved several issues that were a continuation of previous statements in the article which those involved in the article had decided to leave a "citation-needed" with the implicit understanding that it could wait until whenever someone got around to it, being the rather obscure subject that it is (i.e., constructivism and constructionism generally, social constructivism, radical constructionism/consctructivism, epistemological and hermeneutic constructivism, with confusion about which means precisely what even among scholars who write about it). The removed sentence in the article on truth was actually integral to the section as a whole. This is not entirely atypical of the kind of event that can happen (with good intentions of course) when users endeavor to scramble around the wiki trying to fix one thing, in this case old fact templates placed into a monthly category, while failing to take into consideration the wide variety of issues that editors of individual articles have encountered. And some of us have day jobs too-- it's not as if we have every minute of every day to do the tough work of researching every little thing in every damn article. But oftentimes, editors know the statements to be verifiable and probably correct based on their previous research, but don't happen to have the old textbooks right at their fingertips, buried as they are beneath a pile of stuff in storage and such.
What I'm attempting to say here is that this issue of fact tags is not anywhere nearly as simple as some appear to believe. If there's going to be a policy on fact tags, it should properly be brought into the discussion in the wider community in such places as WP:VER, WP:Reliable sources, WP:NOR, WP:BOT, and other such relevant fora. ... Kenosis 22:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You call it disruptive; I call it cleanup. First of all, it is the responsibility of the person adding a statement to an article to cite that statement. From vandalism patrol, I've learned that a large number of old uncited statements are tagged that way incorrectly,[1][2][3] because they are POV, unprovable or yes, vandalism mascarading as "citation needed."[4] Rather than leave them in place indefinitely with a tag that implies a citation just hasn't been found yet, I remove them. I do integrate any cited information into the article.[5] You'll notice that when the removal of the statements in question was challenged, my ultimate decision was to leave them in place with the appropriately dated fact tags in place.[6] Hardly the work of someone out to disrupt Wikipedia. CovenantD 23:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't call it disruptive, though WP:point does. So my apology is hereby rendered for that part of what I was attempting to say, which is that it is action in pursuit of a single objective.

I should also say, however, that what I'm reading above reflects a serious misapprehension of how articles are written. Who the heck is finding these sources? And who the heck is finding sources for the tens of millions of actual unsourced statements that've been sitting around forever that don't happen to have "fact" tags attached? Many of these statements are verifiable per WP:VER, quite within policy and agreed by the editors of a given article to be thusly in keeping with WP policy. No, it is not cleanup when one has absolutely no familiarity with the subject or the history of the article, and merely has an agenda to remove statements that someone else at some point in time decided to attach a "fact" tag to for whatever reason,. WP policy allows these tags to sit there forever by consensus of the editors who actually are involved in the writing of the article, if those editors want it to. I'm sorry, but this is not cleanup; it's cruising with a single-minded mission to clean up old fact tags without taking into consideration the other factors involved. The statements initially removed by CovenantD in this instance were incorrectly and inappropriately removed. Which brings me back to that the central problem is this category and automatic dating, with a single minded policy by a few WP users on a mission that was never dicussed by the wider community as to what would be its various side effects and as to whether the WP community as a whole wished to implement a de-facto policy to remove statements that happen to have fact tags attached to them, without requiring that the user removing the statements with older fact tags become familiar with the subject matter and article history and actually participate in the article in some meaningful way related to its content. ... Kenosis 23:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(random unindent) Apology accepted - I understand how these pages can change when you're not looking. However, I think we have a difference of opinion as to the interpretation of WP:VER. From the "in a nutshell" box:

  • Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
  • The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

That said, I am perfectly content to leave the relevant material in place on Truth, with the appropriately dated tags, knowing that editors are aware and working on it. Of all the articles I dealt with in this round, only this one has been contested - that's a pretty good record. If there is consensus on the talk page that the tag is inappropriate, then remove it. At the very least, my actions have brought highlighted attention to a bit of the article that needs work.

Too many <citation needed> tags just get forgotten or can never be cited - it's those that I'm trying to clean up. Others may get caught up in that, but if their removal is contested I'm not going to fight it too much. It's all about building a better encyclopedia. CovenantD 00:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You might have a look at José Cabrera nuclear power plant. Someone has stuck a {{cite}} notice on the statement that this NPP is also known as Juan Cabrera. This fact is easily verified by following the Google links already provided in the discussion of the article name on the talk page, or by doing a quick Google search... all that is being asserted, after all, is that this is the same power station. So, how do we clean up this IMO useless notice so it won't come back? I'll have a go, but some advice would be appreciated! The tag seems a complete waste of everyone's time to me, but regardless, it needs to be resolved and removed. Andrewa 10:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
See also Talk:José Cabrera nuclear power plant#Citation needed. Andrewa 02:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the stupidest category on wikipedia. What's the point of a category that will probably contain just about any non-FA article that anybody cares to look at and tag. Furthermore, why should the category space of such a huge number of articles be mucked up with these categories that ought to be there for the use of editors, not readers. If this category is going to exist, it should be a talk page category. Categories in articles should, I still assert, be about the subject of the article, not about the state of the article itself. It is pretty clearly a violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self reference, among other things. john k 21:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing from category[edit]

Hi. Will someone remove Tushar Gandhi from this categories as I've made sure this article has been referenced? Worc63 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Friends! I have substantially documented Verbal Behavior and feel that it no longer has almost any statements that are not unsourced (maybe less than 1-2%?). Does it have to be 100% to be removed? --florkle 20:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories are handled by Wikimedia software. As long as the article references the category (whether it's explicitly included, or transcluded through a template), it will appear in the caregory. In this case, there's still a few statements needing citation, but don't worry about them. --Sigma 7 07:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What this means is that the article is automatically added to this category (and others) by the presence of one or more {{fact}} tags imbedded in the text. After your excellent work, there is now only one of these left: On the statement Skinner's general position favors rate of response as a dependent measure. As soon as this tag is removed, the article will automatically be removed from the various unsourced statement categories.
As to when this should be done, there are three possibilities:
  • Find a source for this statement.
  • Remove the statement.
  • Remove the tag and leave the statement.
It's a matter of your judgement as an editor which of these is the more appropriate. Not every sentence and proposition needs to be sourced; To do so is very poor style. (On the other hand, it all needs to be verifiable, which is not the same thing at all.) Andrewa 03:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
No, every statement does need to be sourced. However, the citation does not necessary have to be inline. It should be for potentially controversial statements. Superm401 - Talk 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Format on subcategories[edit]

Category:Articles with unsourced statements since 2008-12 is a much better format on the monthly Categories, since the categories then automatically will be sorted correctly. Can we do this instead of using the unsorted month year? Nsaa (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new category[edit]

Just cross posting a suggestion from Template_talk:Citation_needed#New_Category. Please hold any discussion there --Selket Talk 22:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comments: c: link prefix for Wikimedia Commons[edit]

There is a cross-wiki discussion in progress as to whether c: should be enabled globally as an interwiki prefix for links to the Wikimedia Commons. If the proposal gains consensus this will require the deletion or renaming of several pages on the English WIkipedia whose titles begin with "C:", including one or more redirects to this page. Please take a moment to participate in the discussion.
There is also a related discussion on the English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 16#C:ATT to which you are invited to contribute.
Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)