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

Dates

Does basic information about a topic (such as dates) need to be cited if there's a link to a page which discusses it in more detail, and the information is cited on that page? For example, does this statement on the page about Sonic the Hedgehog Spinball need a citation?

A second pinball game in the Sonic series, Sonic Pinball Party, was released for the Game Boy Advance in 2003.[citation needed]

Terrible comparision

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)[reply]

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.--十八 04:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide are reference that everyone (not colorblind) will say that the sky is blue? It seems that some tribes don't recognize the sky as blue: http://www.radiolab.org/story/211213-sky-isnt-blue/. 85.52.20.73 (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
my man this flew over your head so far, its not that it is blue its that it looks blue which most sane color seeing people agree with Realfakebezalbob (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sky as a primary source

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)[reply]

I looked at the sky the other evening and it was purple and red. That is what happens when people engage in original research. Chillum 20:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Looking at the evening sky and seeing it be purple and red? Ain't absolutely nothing original in that research, dear sir XD. That research been being done by all men and beasts and creeping things that creepeth since their eyesight first evolved (or for vertebrates, since the ancestral tetrapod first crawled out of the sea onto land). Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cite this

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What about:

  1. ^ https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fred_Hollows
  2. ^ Retha Powers: Bartlett's Familiar Black Quotations

Merge?

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)[reply]

Sure. While at it, the example could be replaced with a less ambiguously correct one, such as "Living humans are air breathers" or "Water is wet".LeadSongDog come howl! 21:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Example

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)[reply]

Technically, yes, even the most trivial bit of trivia should be verified by a reliable (the presence of editorial oversight being the crucial criterion) journalistic, or preferrably even academic (ha, ha) source. If such a source cannot be found, some (weasel word, haw haw) would argue that the bit of trivia is simply too trivial and not worth including in an oh-so serious encyclopedia as Wikipedia aspires to be. Realistically, if I had a say, articles on pop-culture topics would be treated much more leniently in this respect, not least due to the dearth of press coverage – let alone academic research – on, say, deep-underground music. Although in cases like these, again, some would argue that the subject or bit of info is simply not notable enough for inclusion. Whatever. I for one don't lose any sleep on trivia like that on Wikipedia, since nothing much consequence depends on its correctness and people don't trust Wikipedia that much anyway.
Anyway, regarding the technical point you are bringing up: Repeating a footnote is easy, especially under the default system using footnotes (see WP:REFNAME), but also under the Harvard reference system. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
isn't Wikipedia just essentially trivia and info? you go to wiki to find out more then you already know for gods sake every animal and their dog has a wiki article! Realfakebezalbob (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial observations

I've got another example here: V – The New Mythology Suite#Similarities to V by Spock's Beard. This is OR only in the most minor, trivial sense, and easy to verify just by yourself. Sure, there's a bit of personal, subjective judgment involved in deciding if the similarities between the album covers are something to write home about, although I can't see anybody denying them. However, the rest of the similarities can hardly be argued with. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How Wikipedia fights for facts by redefining the truth

The debate regarding the question of whether the "sky is blue" needs a citation was quoted in this feature, published by Israel's Haaretz newspaper in both English and Hebrew this past week.

The story attempts to show how editors try to defend factual content in an encyclopedia where the definition of what constitutes a fact is also set by the community and is intended for readers with little to no personal experience or understanding of Wikipedia. The main claim in the article is that this is achieved by striving for verification of facts and not absolute truth.

The story attempts to show and debate Wikipedia and its polices implicit position on the question of truth, and, unlike most reports of this style, does not attribute independent agency to Wikipedia, instead addressing how different parts of the community involved in this efforts view it, vis a vis essays like this one.

Would love to hear what you think. Omer Benjakob (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging overciting on this page

QuackGuru, regarding this, do stop inappropriately promoting your essay. You've been cautioned against doing that times before. The section in question is about discouraging overciting. The section of your essay you are pointing to is about encouraging overciting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted myself, but your section needs works. It states, "More than three citations for non-controversial claims may be excessive." And also the following, "For controversial claims one citation is usually enough for content that is likely to be challenged." Um, it's the controversial claims that are likelier to need more than one reference. Why is your essay stating that more than one reference for non-controversial claims may be excessive but is outright discouraging more the one reference for controversial claims? Furthermore, it goes on to state: In certain circumstances, it may be better to add usually up to three citations to verify the same claim like this.", and lists an example text that may or may not be controversial. I'll address this on your essay page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is more information about discouraging overciting content in Citation underkill#Overciting content than the Over-citing section in this essay. Citation underkill is strongly against adding more citations after each statement. But it also supports adding one citation after each statement. QuackGuru (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do insults count as WP:SKYBLUE?

In a discussion on the talk page for Richat Structure, a user mentions that calling someone an idiot is WP:SKYBLUE, presumably because they believe it's obvious. Do insults count as WP:SKYBLUE? Aaronfranke (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 3 June 2021

Replace 

'Further Reading', 'See Also', or 'External Sources'

with 

"[[MOS:FURTHER|Further reading]]", "[[MOS:ALSO|See also]]", or "[[MOS:LAYOUTEL|External links]]"

since section names are sentence case, not title case; "External sources" is not a standard appendix section name; and links to how to format the sections would be helpful. JsfasdF252 (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done as this is a non-article page and the edit is potentially constructive, I have done it for you. --littleb2009 (she/her) (talk • contribs) 00:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This essay's title is a poor argument against citations

It never ceases to amaze me how often people try to use cite this essay against the need for citations. Its title alone needs changing.

Specifically, the sky is not always blue. When rainclouds are overhead, it's gray. At night, it's black. On clear night with no light pollution, it's filled with stars. When it snows, it's pink. And on other planets, it's various other colors. The color of the sky is a phenomenon determined by the science of atmospheric optics, which is purely scientific. How is that not requiring of citations??

Second, it should be pointed out that in the sky article, the parapraph that describes the color of the sky has........a citation!

Bottom line: While many things on Wikipedia do not require inline citations (like the synopsis of a released work of fiction), the one referenced in this essay's title is a lousy example. Nightscream (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this page for deletion a few months ago and the consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it - I still don't necessarily agree with a lot of the idea behind the essay but a lot of editors seem to in a way that doesn't violate WP:V. I added a line in the lead that should hopefully be uncontroversial and discourage misuse and abuse.
Admittedly it is also an essay and not policy, so I'd support a name change because the title seems fairly prescriptive and also just plain wrong, you do need to cite that the sky is blue and it is, in fact, cited. - car chasm (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit silly, though I think most WP essays are. I do wonder whether or not changing the essay (through moving or deletion) will adjust how often and with what arguments people will argue against citations of what is imagined to be common knowledge. Protonk (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wow no wonder people think wikipedia is toxic, its a comparison that some one can go "yah that's true" most people dont give a piss that the sky isnt actully blue, it looks that way most of the time. its not like this is a new analogy, just like "I never had a slice of bread, Particularly large and wide, That did not fall upon the floor, And always on the buttered side!" or " a cat always lands on its feet" it doesnt have to even be true it only has to demonstrate the point Realfakebezalbob (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some Wikipedians are extremely literal-minded. It would hardly be surprising that some of them would find the title of this page upsetting, confusing, or irrational. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs better examples

The current examples lists in the article are "the sky is blue" and "hands typically have five fingers" both of which are currently cited and both of which I've personally heard people challenge before for reasons that are not simply reducible to pedantry. "Water is wet" is another idiom of the same type, but that too is often disputed (although water is, in fact, wet). Surely we must be able to come up with some better examples that are not actually cited in mainspace? - car chasm (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

they arent cited because they are idioms, they aren't ground breaking statements, for example if you jump on earth you will fall, if you have even been on earth then you will know that is true. An other example is grass is green (not that you would know! JK it was to tempting lol) Realfakebezalbob (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Water is not wet at temperatures below 0 °C, assuming normal atmospheric pressures.
People who do not understand or appreciate this page as it is written will not find the concept any easier to understand if you re-write it to use other examples. However, @Carchasm, if you were looking for a policy-endorsed example, then Wikipedia:No original research explicitly says that "The capital of France is Paris" does not require a citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over citing this page

This page presently says Note that this essay should never be cited in a dispute about whether or not a certain fact is true or not and should not be considered a replacement for the core content policies.

One editor thinks that it would be better to say almost never. Another thinks that never is better.

I think: We should remove this sentence, or at least re-write it to present a factual statement, rather than issuing orders to editors. For example: If another editor believes an "obvious" (to you) claim in an article is doubtful, misleading, or wrong, then citing this page is not going to convince them that the claim is correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be ok with removal, we don't need to list every scenario in which citing this essay is inappropriate. The re-write above would be better than what we currently have too. Scribolt (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Googleguy007, do you have an objections to just removing the disputed sentence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the change, I think the new wording is just as informative without essentially invalidating the essays existence. Googleguy007 (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do that, then. @Googleguy007 or @Scribolt, whichever one of you gets here first, please either remove that sentence or replace it. (I have no opinion on which is best.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]