Wikipedia talk:Citation needed

Edit request from 78.151.149.168, 28 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

I'd like to remove the citation needed line "60% of people believe in ghosts" to the line contained within www.eauk.org "Of those aged 65 or over, 19% said they believed in ghosts, compared to 48% of 18-24 year olds". I believe this is a reputable source for legitimate statistical results and I'm positive it'd Czech out. Ganight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. James Fear (talk • contribs) 05:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

78.151.149.168 (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The most dubious aspect of Wikipedia

The concept that a "citation" makes something verified is the most dubious aspect of Wikipedia.

The logic employed is that something published is more accurate. In actuality, that only applies to peer-reviewed journals. Everything else is not really checked (except in cases of actionable statements).

A good example is that some years back, the SF Chronicle had a Living section with a column of "interesting facts" which entertained readers' questions, one of which was "Where did the rock group Flock of Seagulls get its name?" and the answer was "from Jonathan Livingston Seagull" - and, of course, despite being published in a major newspaper that employs "fact checkers", that was WRONG. A Flock of Seagulls, according to the band members, got its name from a lyric in a song by the UK rock group The Stranglers.

So, that incorrect fact, could now be a citation to a major publication, and yet it would still be WRONG. Whereas if someone posted "the band members told me... " and then put the correct explanation, some Wikiboy would slap a "citation needed" on it, or even delete it for lack of evidence.

Nowadays, anyone who wanted to post that "the sky is green", can start his own sky web site, with a blog and forum, and then cite that web site or blog as a "citation" that "the sky is green".

The end result of this process will be Mythipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.180.69 (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A citation helps others attempt to verify, nothing more. It's up to readers to actually verify content. A citation certainly doesn't make something "verified" in the past tense. And per WP:Verifiability, Wikipedia is interested in verifiability, not "correctness". The reason for this is simple: As you note, people are often wrong. Wikipedia cannot effectively arbitrate who is "right" or "wrong". (How do I know you're not wrong about the origin of the band name? I don't even know who you are.) Presumably other verifiable sources can be found, and the discrepancy documented, and the reader can decide who to believe. A properly cited article is very easy for the reader to verify and judge. This has created more than a few high quality articles. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation NOT Needed

Citation is not necessary as the very definition and article covering the subject is enough to explain the statement which requests citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxorz (talk • contribs) 11:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I responded at User talk:Zaxorz. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation

I was wondering what the coding is for putting a 'Citation Needed' warning on a section and/or article as there seems to be none on this project page.--Jacksoncw (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Place {{unreferenced|date=today's month}} at the top of the article. Miguel AG (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Russinmy, 28 August 2011

I have a citation for a "citation needed" request for the article on Vaughan Williams' "Hodie." The sentence reads "Hodie has not remained among Vaughan Williams' more popular compositions, and is done less frequently than many of his other works.[citation needed]" My citation is as follows: This dissertation is posted online and you may double-check my citation at: http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-06262008-31295017081703/unrestricted/31295017081703.pdf To be more objectively provable and specific, please change "Hodie has not remained among Vaughan Williams' more popular compositions, and is done less frequently than many of his other works." to "Hodie has not remained among Vaughan Williams' more popular compositions with critics, and is done less frequently than many of his other choral works." Explanation: No one has ever subjected "Hodie" to a general "popularity contest" with everyone. The Wikipedia author's statement is too broad. Also, narrowing down the statement specifically in order to group "Hodie" with Vaughan Williams' choral works makes more sense. It is difficult if not impossible to assess the number of performances of ALL of the composers' works, but much easier to quantify the number of performances of his choral works, which the author of the dissertation has obviously done, at least to his and his reviewers' satisfaction (his dissertation was accepted and approved by peer reviews).Russinmy (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Russinmy (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Just adding {{Reflist}} so I can see the source. Samwb123^T-C-E 16:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)