Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Citation needed

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion at User talk:Vami IV/Completionism § Completionist idea: eradicate all {{cn}}

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Vami IV/Completionism § Completionist idea: eradicate all {{cn}}. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed tag left unresolved

Hey, I keep noticing that there are articles where the [citation needed] tag has remained unresolved for years. Sometimes they are left unresolved for decades.

Is there any kind of policy or essay regarding this kind of phenomenon?CycoMa1 (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVEIT is one starting point, but the short version is that if material has been tagged for a long time and you don't believe sources exist that can be used to verify the material that has been challenged, removing the material is an option. Depending on the length and nature of the material in question, you might consider leaving a note at the article's Talk page discussing the removal. DonIago (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a higher-traffic article, if a fact tag has been left lying around for many years, it's usually because nobody thinks it's important. Sometimes these get added for reasons unrelated to verifiability (e.g., by students who hope someone will add a source they can cite in their homework). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

updating info re: adding a citation, adding a visual editor description for "citation needed" tag

Right now, the page says "You can add a citation by selecting from the drop-down cite menu at the top of the editing box," with "cite" illustrated by this image.

However, in the current visual editor, there is no drop-down cite menu; instead, citations are added by clicking on a button, where the image on the button is double quotation marks. Does anyone know where to find an image of the quotation marks button to replace the current "cite" drop-down menu image?

Also, there's currently no discussion of how to add a "citation needed" tag using the visual editor, only how to do it using wiki markup. I think it would be good to add something about how to do it using the visual editor. I'm new to adding "citation needed" tags, and the way that I figured out to do it is: click on the "+" drop-down menu, choose "Template," write "Citation needed" in the Find template box, and then click on the top response. Is that the most efficient way to do it using the visual editor, or is there a more efficient way? If my description is the way to do it, and people agree that it would be helpful to add this description, does anyone know where to find an image of the "+" drop-down to add, and perhaps also images of the template icon and a search box? FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion, I don't know if you've discovered this yet, but from inside the visual editor:
  1. Click the [citation needed] tag itself.
  2. Click the white "Add a citation" button in the popup.
  3. Paste in your URL or choose a manually formatted citation.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have misread your comment. To add the tag, the fastest route is to just start typing the template. If you type a double {, it will pop up the Insert > Template search box. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing, thanks, I'd hadn't know that at the time of my 8/2024 comment, but have since learned it, though I tend not to use it for citations, as the citation button in the visual editor makes it easy to autopopulate the fields for some citations and to reuse other citations.
My reasons for posting my earlier comment:
  • WP:NEEDCITE says "You can add a citation by selecting from the drop-down [cite] menu at the top of the editing box," where [cite] shows this image. That image is similar (though not identical) to the image that currently appears above the source editing box, but it's not similar to the image for the citation button in the visual editor toolbar. These directions address how to add a citation using the source editor but don't say how to add a citation using the visual editor (at least, I'm now interpreting "editing box" to refer to the box that appears for source editing, as visual editing doesn't result in an editing box, only a toolbar).
  • When I wrote my August comment, I don't think I had experience with WM Commons and so didn't know where to look for an image of the citation button in the visual editor toolbar. I just looked and found it.
  • The info page also says "In wiki markup, you can question an uncited claim by inserting a simple {{Citation needed}} tag, or a more comprehensive {{Citation needed|reason=Your explanation here|date=April 2025}}. Alternatively, {{fact}} and {{cn}} will produce the same result." Again, there are no directions for visual editing.
When I left my August comment above, I was hesitant to edit an info page. I'm still a bit hesitant, but I think it would be helpful to add a bit of text for people using the visual editor. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 is probably the best place for basic information about adding refs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps there should be a short sentence linking to that Help page right after the sentence "In markup, you can add a citation manually using ref tags." The third bullet, though, is about adding the "citation needed" tag. The first half of the instruction, "In wiki markup, you can question an uncited claim by inserting a simple {{Citation needed}} tag ..." also works in the visual editor if you paste that full text in one fell swoop (rather than typing it, which you can't do because as soon as you type {{ you're taken to the template search box), or you can just type the {{ and then type/select Citation needed. So that should be added.
As I look at this info page now, I also think it would be good to rearrange a bit:

To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, Wikipedia provides a means for anyone to question an uncited claim. In wiki markup, you can do this by inserting a simple ...

And only after that, something like:

If you see text that has been tagged with [citation needed], try to provide a reliable source for the statement, and discuss if needed. You can add a citation by selecting from the drop-down ...

FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to Wikipedia:Be bold in improving this page. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2024

Change "citation needed" in "Current space law retains ownership of all satellites with their original operators, even debris or spacecraft which are defunct or threaten active missions.[citation needed]" to "Oreshenkov A.M. 2024. Theoretical basis of international legal aspect of “space debris” removal. Moscow Journal of International Law. No. 2. P. 46-64. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2024-2-46-64" 2000Anastasia (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2000Anastasia This isn't the page to request edits, you need to do that on the talk page of the relevant article. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2025

    • Subject:** Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2025
    • Request:**

Please change the sentence:

  • "This template should be used sparingly and only when necessary."*

To:

  • "This template should be used judiciously to maintain the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia articles."*
    • Reason:** The revised wording better reflects the purpose of the citation needed template, emphasizing its role in maintaining Wikipedia’s reliability rather than just limiting its use. DGTG08 (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. DonIago (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging unsourced content added by ourselves

Are there any guidelines regarding the use of 'citation needed' tags on unsourced content that we ourselves are adding to articles? For example, if someone wants to add information they personally believe is true but can't find a reliable source to support it, is it acceptable to just go ahead and add it, then tag it with 'citation needed'? I’ve encountered an editor who wanted to include content, but since they couldn’t provide a source, they decided to just add a maintenance template as a substitute. In some of the ANI reports I’ve filed, I was even advised that if the information seems accurate, tagging it might be enough. But isn’t it the contributor’s responsibility to provide a reliable source for any content they add? And isn’t it highly problematic to rely on others to verify something you already know is unlikely to be verifiable in the first place? - Arcrev1 (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information with a CN tag, to me, is little better than adding it with no tag at all. When I see editors adding information with a CN tag I revert and notify them. Well-meaning editors who want to add information but are unable or unwilling to provide citations (but are willing to tag it) might be best off bringing their information to the article's Talk page, where they can make an argument for why they believe the information to be true and worthy of inclusion. DonIago (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If information cannot be verified—i.e., no reliable sources can be found—then it should not be added at all. Tagging it with [citation needed] as a substitute for sourcing, especially when the editor knows it’s unverifiable, is a misuse of the tag. "CN" is a short-term maintenance tool, not a license to include unsourced claims. Relying on it as a fallback degrades article credibility and encourages a culture of careless editing. Adding content with a CN tag already attached—knowing it’s unsourced—is no better than original research. Editors who continue this practice knowingly are undermining the verifiability policy. I hope they can create another guideline for when not to use CN. A good rule: if it can’t be sourced, it shouldn’t be added—not even with a CN tag. - Arcrev1 (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Wikipedia is best served by a simplistic, one-size-fits-all rule.
Sometimes people get interrupted. Sometimes they mislaid the source. Do you want to risk losing all your work, just because you left the book you need to cite at school/work? Because you closed the tab?
And what kind of information are we talking about? We don't have a rule that says everything has to be cited. Only four types of information are required to have citations at all:
I copied that list straight out of the top of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy.
And then there are the made-up fake rules. @Arcrev1, your most recent edit says that an "Instagram post shouldn't be used as a reliable source". Before that, you assert that Facebook isn't acceptable. You will not find that rule in any of our policies or guidelines. Whether social media posts are reliable depends on who posted it, and what the post is being used for.
I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tito_Sotto&action=history which appears to be the source of this question. There was no {{citation needed}} tag involved. The IP editor added {{BLP unsourced section}} to an unsourced section, and you removed the tag.
What you should have been doing is:
  • asking yourself whether Tito Sotto#Filmography, as a filmography section, actually needs to have inline citations, beyond the implied claim that if you look at the credits for the listed film, then you'll find the actor's name there. Most editors do not believe that "Wake Up Little Susie (film)<ref>Wake Up Little Susie film credits</ref>" is actually an improvement over "Wake Up Little Susie (film)".
  • asking yourself why it's okay for the whole list to be unsourced, but someone can't add any more items to the list without providing sources for the new material.
  • asking yourself why you believe this is a case of can't find a reliable source to support it when the IP's edit summary (We should stick on Tito appeared based on credits) told you that they were relying on film credits. In this case, anyone who puts the name of the film and the name of the actor into their favorite web search engine will readily find evidence that the claim is both true and verifiable.
  • asking yourself why you didn't even attempt to WP:SOFIXIT, and instead repeatedly reverted out the accurate information.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: When I said Instagram or Facebook posts shouldn't be used as reliable sources, I was stating a general rule—not that they must never be used. However, per WP:SPS, Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. In the case of Facebook and Instagram, the uploader is typically not a recognized expert or authority. You also mentioned that not everything on Wikipedia must be cited, but according to WP:V, All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable.. Additionally per WP:BURDEN, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.. Regarding the four types of sources, you claimed there are "only" four, but the guideline does not say those are the only types—it lists them as examples. As for the maintenance template, I did not intentionally remove it. It was removed because I used the undo function, which automatically reverts all recent changes, including templates.
I shared this message to highlight the overall use of the [citation needed] template—I'm not referring to any specific article or subject. What I meant is that we shouldn't always rely on maintenance templates, especially in cases where the information being added has no established source available. I simply want to encourage all editors to provide proper references when adding content. Also, that IP user has admitted they haven’t found any source yet. Just because they saw the information in another Wikipedia article doesn't mean they can use it as a source for a different article. Wikipedia articles cannot be used to source other Wikipedia articles. - Arcrev1 (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the need for inline citations in filmography sections: While it’s true that not every line in a filmography section has a citation, this doesn’t mean citations are unnecessary. Per WP:V and WP:BURDEN, all material must be verifiable. The assumption that a reader will “just check the credits” is not the same as providing a verifiable, accessible source. If a reliable source (like a published database, industry site, or news outlet) is available, it's always better to include it.
  • On the inconsistency of allowing unsourced lists but rejecting new entries: If a section is already unsourced, the appropriate response is to improve it, not to justify adding more unsourced content. Otherwise, we’re just expanding a problem. Adding new material without sourcing when we already know sourcing is an issue only reinforces the lack of verifiability.
  • On the IP relying on film credits: The edit summary mentioned credits, but no reliable source was provided. According to WP:RS, Wikipedia requires published sources, not unverifiable personal observations—even if they are true. Saying that “you can Google it” or that it appears in credits isn't enough to meet the burden of verifiability. If it’s so easily found, the editor who adds it should include the citation.
  • On WP:SOFIXIT: I support fixing issues when feasible, but SOFIXIT is not a substitute for verifiability. If someone adds potentially contentious or unsourced content, the burden remains on them to provide a source. My reverts were based on the principle that adding unsourced claims to a BLP-related article (even indirectly) needs to be handled carefully. - Arcrev1 (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arcrev, the "Facebook" source you objected to was TV channel's post on Facebook. Kapamilya Channel is not some random person on the internet; it is a notable news source. The Instagram source you reverted was from a celebrity news magazine, ¡Hola!. We don't revert someone citing a news outlet just because "usually" we don't want personal posts from individuals. If those publishers are reliable, then they're reliable regardless of whether they choose to post a news story on social media vs only posting it on their main website.
"all material must be verifiable" does not mean "all material must be followed by a little blue clicky number". See the definition in the Wikipedia:Glossary: "Something that people are "able" to "verify". Specifically within the meaning of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, it is information that someone (although not necessarily you) could, with enough effort and expense, determine has been published in a § reliable source, even if no source is provided in the article" (underlining added for emphasis).
Adding new content without an inline citation does not "reinforce the lack of verifiability". Adding new content may "reinforce the lack of citations", but material is either verifiable because of what's available in the real world, or unverifiable because of what's not available in the real world. Whether a little blue clicky number is present does not determine whether the real world has reliable sources saying ____. If I write "Smoking causes lung cancer" with no source at all on the Wikipedia article, then it's uncited, but it's still 100% verifiable, because anybody could visit their favorite web search engine and find sources that say exactly this.
Film credits are reliable sources, so anyone who says they got this information from the film credits is telling you that they got this information from a reliable source.
It's true that "SOFIXIT is not a substitute for verifiability"; however, it is a perfectly good substitute for uncited-but-verifiable content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • End credits are filmed text… and any text is capable of being cited. It does not matter whether the text is printed on paper, carved in stone, appears in electronic format, or in film format. It can be cited. So… If some idiot demands a citation for information that appears in the end credits of a movie or TV show… just cite those end credits. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: Cast and character information is not WP:BLUESKY—we still need inline citations to verify it. It's not an unreasonable request. If you believe that end credits are a valid source but think it's unnecessary to add an inline citation, does that mean it's acceptable to omit inline citations as long as the source exists somewhere else? I'm not pointing to any particular subject, editor, or case. But in the Tito Sotto article, an IP user added a film entry without providing a source. The film was released in the 1980s, and we don't even know if it still exists today or if it has been uploaded online by the production company—we simply don’t know. So what credits can be used as a reference if the film or TV show itself is no longer available? The user wants to use a {{citation needed}} tag as a placeholder until they can find a source. But if that's the case, then the content cannot be verified for now. Are we just letting end credits remain there, wherever they are placed, without turning them into an inline citation? If the end credits do exist, then why didn't they use them as a source? I understand—it’s possible that the end credits exist and could be used as a substitute for an inline citation. But my main concern is this: Is it acceptable, in general, to use the {{cn}} tag or any other maintenance template as a substitute for a reliable source? That’s the issue I’m raising—not what others have stated above. - Arcrev1 (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand my point. I don’t really care about WP:BLUESKY. Once someone requests a citation (ie a “challenge”)… someone needs to find a source and cite it. If it truly is BLUESKY, that should be easy. So, stop wikilawyering and just find a source.
Now, for films and TV cast info, the end credits are usually good for that. Sure, in the extremely rare situation where all known copies have been destroyed - or where the few know copies are inaccessible to the public - where no one can view the end credits to verify what the text says, then obviously we can not cite what does not exist. But that is rare indeed. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding {{citation needed}} is a request for a source for verification, adding it when you add text could only mean that you don't have a source to verify the information. If the content is WP:BLUESKY then it doesn't need the {{citation needed}} tag, if it does require a source for verification and you don't have one then it shouldn't be added. Separately the tag is specifically asking for an inline citation, if it's one of the types of material that require inline citation then it definitely shouldn't be added without one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned earlier that I reported an IP editor that posted a cast and character in a television article and multiple biographical articles. I reverted it multiple times and gave warnings to them multiple times, and then they just ignored it. One of them was blocked by an admin. The remaining IP editors were reported by me to ANI. I waited an hour to receive a response, but they didn't take any action; they didn't block anyone, and they didn't lock any article. Instead, they gave me advice that if the IP editor's unreferenced edit is true, it's just that it was uncited; we can just tag them with cn. Okay, that is a good response to the IP editor, but what will happen if we tag them? Are they going to refrain from adding unreferenced edits? No, what is going to happen is that they will keep on adding unreferenced content because they know that it is not going to be removed. That is the issue I am raising. I want to propose adding a guideline that prohibits adding unreferenced content with a CN tag at the same time to the When Not to Use CN section. - Arcrev1 (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the IP editor added cast information that is supported by the credits of the television work, then then work itself is an acceptable primary source, and I think it would be a bit pedantic to require that a citation be added. If the role is uncredited or such, then a CN tag seems appropriate, unless you have good reason to believe the credit is entirely erroneous; the role can always be removed later if nobody can provide a citation. As IP editors are frequently also new, I would start with a Level 1 warning and work my way up. However, if they're also violating WP:3RR then that's a consideration...but that should be brought to WP:3RN, not WP:ANI. Either way, don't expect anyone to respond at ANI if it's only been an hour since you posted; it sometimes takes a couple of days for anyone to weigh in. If the IP continues to add unreferenced content, then you'll have a stronger case that they're being disruptive. In any event, while I don't doubt your intentions, I do think you may have followed a bad process flow here, and I'd recommend trying to be a bit more patient. DonIago (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one of the disputes:
Arcrev1, who has been editing for just two months and so still counts as a newbie in many respects, made the wrong choice (i.e., in this specific instance, the Facebook post actually is reliable for the names of the cast members). Arcrev1 probably gleaned the non-existent anti-social media rule from seeing other editors do the same (only, we hope, with social media posts that aren't from bona fide media outlets). This is because our main method for teaching Wikipedia's rules is similar to the telephone game, and with each repetition, some important detail gets lost.
The IP added a URL in the edit summary, which means that the IP did better than the previous 78 people who added names to this list. Anyone who wants to improve that article need only copy the Facebook URL and drop it inside a pair of <ref>...</ref> tags. This is definitely in the Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems territory: Don't revert just because the citation wasn't formatted correctly. Don't revert permitted uses of social media. Just copy the URL out of the edit summary and stick it where in belongs. It usually takes 30 seconds to WP:HANDLE that kind of problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t say that Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other self-published websites and blogs are always unreliable. I said they are “unreliable” based on my interpretation of WP:V, WP:RS, and Wikipedia’s policy on sources that aren’t considered reliable. WP:UGC, Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources. WP:RSPFB, Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a self-published source with no editorial oversight. If my understanding of the policy is not right, then sorry for that. My current account is not my first account — my first account, which I retired years ago, received warnings for not posting reliable sources. Because of that, I took time to read the policies and guidelines on sourcing and began to treat them as absolute. My eagerness to add references comes from observing other editors. I’ve seen experienced users revert IP editors who added cast and character information without citing reliable sources. They also do not accept Facebook and other self-published websites as reliable. That is my observation, and I take it as a lesson from experienced editors. My concern here is whether it is acceptable to use a citation needed tag as a substitute or temporary substitute for reliable sources — I did not raise concern about my understanding of reliable sources. - Arcrev1 (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Facebook post shouldn't be used as a reliable source". Without a limiting word or phrase (e.g., "usually"), your statement is actually wrong. It is wrong in the general case (sometimes they should be used as reliable sources) and wrong in the specific case (this particular Facebook post is from a media outlet, and it is reliable for this information).
Above, I agree with you that Cast and character information is not WP:BLUESKY but not when you claim that we still need inline citations to verify it. For works such as books, films, TV shoes, etc., some information doesn't need inline citations unless and until someone issues a WP:CHALLENGE.
For example, we normally accept, without any citations needed at all:
  • "Romeo and Juliet was written by Shakespeare." Why? Because anyone picking up a copy of the play in question can read the title and author information off the front cover.
  • "Romeo kills himself at the end of Shakespeare's play." Why? Because anyone who reads the play can discover the suicide scene in Act 5, scene 3.
  • "There are 13 tracks on The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album." Why? Because we assume that anyone reading Wikipedia can read the information printed on the album and check to see that there are 7 on the first side, 6 on the other, and do a simple, routine WP:CALC process of .
  • The list of tracks on that album has no inline citations. Why? Because we assume that anyone who wants to check this is smart enough to figure out that the names of the songs are printed on the album.
If you see something that's correct but doesn't have a properly formatted citation, you should try to fix it. If you're not sure whether it's okay for some simple facts to be uncited, then check some similar WP:FAs. For example: High School Musical: The Musical: The Series#Guest and Homicide: Life on the Street season 2#Guest are both FAs, and both of their lists of guest actors have zero inline citations.
What I'd like you to take away from this conversation is:
  • It is possible for information to be verifiable even when it is uncited. Wikipedia requires article content to be 100% verifiable, but it does not require 100% citations.
  • There are a few things, mostly in articles about works of fiction, that experienced editors believe normally do not require an inline citation.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Citation_needed&oldid=1297812379"