{{citation needed}} versus <ref> A source citation is needed for this information </ref>

Question

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

Comments

On the Data Doctor challenges, they had asked for people to add {{unsourced}} on profiles that had no or limited sources.  I have seen some that have the {{citation needed}} but I see many more with the {{unsourced}} which puts a large black banner on the profile.  Since they were recommending to put the {{unsourced}} template into profiles, it sounds like that is what they want to use.  Maybe it is an improved version of the {{citation needed}} template.

If you add sources to a profile, you should remove the {{unsourced}} or the <ref> indication that a source is needed message.  I think those may be inserted when they are being created by a Gedcom import, possibly.

---

Linda, {{Unsourced}} puts the black box on the top of the profile and adds the profile to the list of unsourced profiles.

The {{citation needed}} template is VERY different.

All it does is add the words "citation needed" in that very spot:

And the "citation needed" (in green letters) is hyperlinked to the Wikitree sources page.

---

I have submitted a rule change request for this: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/703984/change-proposal-citation-needed-template-approved-template

Answer 1

I definitely see the need for this template.  It is simple to use and makes it easy to see what facts in a profile need a source without scrolling down.  This must have been an approved template at some point as it has a page https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Template:Citation_needed.  I can't determine from the comments on that page whether it was actually deprecated.  I hope not.

Comments

When I was learning to use WikiTree as a brand new member and equally brand new to genealogy, I was instructed to use the citation needed template for specific statements of fact for which I did not have a source to cite.  To the best of my knowledge nobody ever said anything about not using it anymore and I still use it quite frequently.  If anyone ever decides not to support it any longer then there should be a way to set EditBot to ferret out all the profiles that are using it and substitute some other means of labeling the specific facts as unsourced … which does *NOT* make the entire profile unsourced.

---

Well this is great! I need this for those little things you have in a bio that you are cleaning up that you have not found after looking at several sources , but you think "hey, maybe I will find that one next time" - I may use that one for sure

Answer 2

I completely agree.  There are some profiles which give me motion sickness from going down to the Sources section, only to find 'A source citation is needed for this information', then back up to the biography narrative I was reading, then down again, up again, back again...grrr!

{{Citation Needed} is small, neat, and to the point.  And you don't get motion sickness. 

Comments

Hey Ros, here is a way to get rid of the scrolling blues.  Add this to the top of the Profile Bio, say just under ==Biography=

<span id="1b">^{[[#1a|(Top)]]}

Then any where on the bio where you think someone might want to jump back to the top, paste this:

<span id="1a">^{[[#1b|(Back to Top of Page)]]}

You can add line this as many time as you want in the bio with no changes to the text.  Clicking on it will return the user back to wherever you placed the first line on the bio.

I don't think anyone with a pages long Profile should mind this addition as it makes the viewing experience a little easier and scrolling back to the top of the Bio a thing of the past.

And this will work on Space Pages as well. 

---

Thanks for that! But it isn't really necessary when sources are involved.  Next to each source is a little arrow which zooms you back up to where the source points to; my objection is to all this zooming around, however easy the code can make it. 

---

All true Ros, but this looks cooler.  LOL

---

I don't think you're "span id" is recommended wiki markup.

---

This is taken from a profile that was loaded from a GEDCOM file on Oct 19, 2018 and the source as seen below was created automatically by WikiTree when imported.

* Source: <span id='S1529275375'>S1529275375</span> U.S., Social Security Applications and Claims Index, 1936-2007 Ancestry.com Publication: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. {{Ancestry Record|60901|0}   

So I guess it isn't all that bad.  What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  ;)

Answer 3

I, too, agree. I see {{citation needed}} in Wikipedia on occasion after what appears to be a statement of fact. This lets you know right away (without looking elsewhere) that there may  be a  question about this 'fact.' Or at the very least, it's undocumented.

Answer 4

the "<ref> A source citation is needed for this information </ref>" text is old and used to be automatically added when anyone created a new profile without specifying any sources.

That's been changed.

Comments

Some folks are still actively using it and recommending to newbies to do the same.  Do we have a rule/direction in place wherein {{citation needed}} is the "go to" method?

Answer 5

SJ, The problem is that templates, and the {{citation needed}} text is a template, need to be created and approved my leaders of WikiTree. I can find no mention of the template you are advocating on the pages for approved templates so I do not believe they should be used no matter how much better you think the final output looks. The reason for that is it could be removed in the future by anyone. Sorry.

Comments

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Template:Citation_needed

That's the point of this post - I'd like it to be the standard use and put on the approved template list.

---

Say what?  It shouldn't be used because it can be removed?  Nonsense.  

In fact, some of leaders of WT actually use this template in profiles.  So what are you talking about?  Of course it should be used in the body of a biography!  

And the 'unsourced' template should be added where appropriate.

The rules here solidify into absurdity sometimes.  IMHO.

---

Robin, according to the guidelines on WikiTree since that template is not on the list of approved templates it should not be used and in fact should be removed.

---

Again, that is the reason for this post.

---

Dale, if it is ever eliminated, I'm ready with my backup:

This sentence needs a source.^{{{green|<u>''[citation needed]''</u>}}}

---

Dale is correct that the {{citation needed}} template has never been officially approved. Though, I would not exactly agree that templates which are not officially approved need to be removed from profiles. It's complicated. See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Style_FAQ

The problem with approving {{citation needed}} is that we have not agreed upon usage of this type of template. Here are the approved types: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Templates

See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Template_Guidelines for more about the process of approving new ones. (Note: I think some of this is out of date regarding External Link Templates.)

I hate to be a stickler, to the point of absurdity, but we need to be careful about our process. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Developing_New_Rules

What type of template is {{citation needed}}? Could it fit within one of the existing ones (formatting?)?

---

Thanks for the quick reply Chris.  While this email was more of a question to find out the particulars of this template (and I think we have our answer) - I will draft up a free space page rule change proposal & a new G2G thread proposing the change and link to it from here.

---

I have submitted a rule change request for this: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/703984/change-proposal-citation-needed-template-approved-template

Answer 6

Agree with all your points. The use of ref tags masks the improvement needed, especially in a partially sourced bio.

Answer 7

{Citation Needed} and {Unsourced} are definitely 2 different applications. Citation is for uncertain parts in a bio lacking sources whereas unsourced is if it is all devoid of a primary source. And since the primary function for the citation sticker is to call attention to a specific area, putting it in ref tags removes it from the very area you are trying to call attention to.

This is one of the few times I advocate just saying "NO" to ref tags.

Comments

"This is one of the few times I advocate just saying "NO" to ref tags."

Hear! Hear!

Answer 8

I have submitted a rule change request for this: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/703984/change-proposal-citation-needed-template-approved-template

Answer 9

I always look at the whole profile and have used "no source for this info" or similar as a ref in '''bold'''. Works well when the bio is narrative, I think. When you look at the whole thing you can easily see what needs doing.

Comments

If it is IN ref tags then it is NOT easily seen because it has a number and looks like it has a source. It is only if you look through sources, see it, and cross over the numbers that you find it isn't. It would be easier to see (source needed) than it would be to hit ref tags.

---

Depends whether I'm just reading a profile for pleasure (!) or studying it. If I'm studying it I tend to look at the list of sources first.