Wikipedia talk:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
 

Terrible comparision[edit]

Both because the sky isn't blue (it only appears so) and the sentence on the sky looking blue in the article sky has four citations. Showing that you do indeed have to cite that the sky "is" blue.--Remurmur (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The cites are there for the attribution of why the sky is blue, not just because it's blue or else there'd be a sentence in that article with four cites that says "The sky is blue". And while the sky certainly only appears to be blue, ask anyone in the world what color the sky is, and you'll get the same answer, hence the ubiquity of the choice phrase.-- 04:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
How can the sky "appear" to be a different color than it is if color is a property of appearance? Eebster the Great (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The sky is colorless. The scattered light in the sky can make it appear to be blue, red, orange, or yellow.--Remurmur (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a common colloquialism for something obvious. Whether it's technically true or not is irrelevant. Drop it. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The sky as a primary source[edit]

WP:PRIMARY states "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot." An earlier version had something similar described by Wikipedians on talk pages as the "apple pie exception," though I don't know what version might have been the most exemplary of that; this one [1] mentions apple pie "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions." I think this was saying apple pie (or a sky) can be a kind of primary source.

There are cases where a source may not be needed (the primary source is unstated) but where there may be no merit to the easily verifiable claim. "Is the Pope Catholic?" Well, Pope Benedict XVI actually does link to Catholic Church, but doesn't cite that, and it doesn't mention he's a man. "Does a bear shit in the woods?" Usually, unless it's in a cage. If the information is the answer to a rhetorical question or some kind of circular logic, it's probably not needed; "'Obvious troll is obvious' {Citation needed}" would be silly, as it can go without saying. Шизомби (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cite this[edit]

Yes, this is not the best example. Let's have a contest for who can come up with the best one. I call it "Cite this". I'll start:

  1. A sharp stick in the eye is painful. Chrisrus (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How about these?

  1. Barack Obama's surname is Obama.
  2. The Leaning Tower of Pisa is in Pisa. (inspired by the humorous quiz question: Wo steht der Schiefe Turm von Pisa?)
  3. The Empire State Building is one Empire State Building tall. (an IP did add a "citation needed" tag to the caption, which was removed with a reference to this page – a valid application of the policy)
I've seen other examples of gratuitous "citation needed" tags, but can't remember them anymore. Too bad. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge?[edit]

It seems that WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE could be merged. It seems in some circumstances the obvious needs to be cited and sometimes it does not depending on the circumstance. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Example[edit]

I frequently run into "source needed" trigger-happy editors when they either disagree with an edit, feel ownership over an article or see any information they don't believe is essential as "trivia".

My favorite example was that I posted a brief mention of two actors working on a film who had worked together before. I was asked to prove this. Apparently, the cast lists on the movie pages (both of which were well-known, popular movies) were not an adequate source for who was cast in a film and I was told that Wikipedia (meaning even the information contained in the rest of the article which I was contributing to) was not a reliable source.

Taken to the logical extreme, this standard would mean that any statement in a Wikipedia article ("While X was married to A...", "So-and-so played the role of Robin Hood...","Q published his first book when he was 27...") that was previously discussed in an earlier section, would require additional citations if it is referred to again in subsequent sections of the page. This would quickly lead to citation overload (and overkill).

I'm not sure that extensive citations are needed when an editor writes "Harrison Ford acted in several Star Wars films" or "The Yankees are a New York City baseball team" or "Cat videos are popular on YouTube". By this measure, every single statement on Wikipedia should be required to have outside sources verify it! 69.125.134.86 (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)