Edit to add: A formal request for a rule change has been made here: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/703984/change-proposal-citation-needed-template-approved-template
I see that some folks are marking unsourced bio sections with {{citation needed}} and others with <ref> A source citation is needed for this information </ref>.
In looking at the {{citation needed}} page, it appears as though there had been (or is) some talk about eliminating this template.
I'd like to argue against eliminating it and to also suggest that the {{citation needed}} become the Wikitree standard for marking unsourced bio sections.
I've been looking at a lot of project profiles and when I see that the birth, marriage, & children sections are all sourced, I tend to move on to the next profile. But upon closer examination, I am seeing that the footnote leads to the note: "A source citation is needed for this information."
In my mind this is just wrong - it is entering a source to say that there is no source. If there is no source I feel it is more appropriate to just mark that there is no source for that bit of information rather than create a source that says there is no source. To me, it seems counter intuitive and makes the profile appear sourced when it is not.
And when you have a longer bio, maybe 15 paragraphs, each paragraph with one or more sources, what happens when source 20 of 38 is "A source citation is needed for this information?" To the average reader who is going paragraph to paragraph, the statement of fact that has a citation next to it appears proved when in fact the citation merely says to add a citation. If in stead, where citation 20 went, the reader saw "Citation Needed," they would know that this portion of the bio is unproven.
I believe that the practice of marking sources with reference tags saying there is no source be abandoned in favor of the citation needed template.
I welcome your responses.
edited to add "leaders" tag