Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: WP:SNOW keep. Consensus is overwhelming, the nominator has withdrawn their case for deletion, and there is no reasonable possibility that continued discussion will conclude with any other outcome. BD2412 T 17:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

I believe this page should be deleted, because as far as I can tell, there is never an acceptable reason for citing it. If another editor has indicated that you need to cite a source for an assertion you make, there are only two possible scenarios:

1) The material is, in fact, not obvious, and you need to cite per WP:V 2) The material is obvious, but the other editor is not acting in good faith. However, you should still assume that they are acting in good faith and not call a spade a WP:SPADE.

In either case, you should not cite this essay either because of WP:V or because of WP:AGF. Additionally, there appears to be some confusion among the community about the difference between policies and essays, so removing this essay may enlighten some people about the editing policy and how it has not changed over the years.

I understand that this essay was written when wikipedia was much younger, long before I made an account here, however, it is simply not the case that "too many citations" is even a problem we have on any of our articles on academic subjects. I do not see any justification for preserving it. After discussion below, I've changed my mind and would like to withdraw my Delete vote as the nominator - I can see the rationale for keeping it. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Essay can easily be misread and used as an argument against citing information that the editor considers "obvious". Gusfriend (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * weak delete per WP:NOTBLUE. The essay serves no purpose, only applies to blatantly obvious redundant inferences that shouldn’t be pointed out at all (i.e. “here is a girl purchasing a burger. The establishment she is at sells burgers”) and is not based in policy. It’s just somebody’s irrelevant pet peeve. Dronebogus (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume you're being ironic there in citing another essay in support of your argument to delete this one MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think all essays are bad. I don’t know what your point is. Dronebogus (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty non sequitur and Tu quoque Dronebogus (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and all above. SK2242 (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as original author. The topic and point remain valid opinions, and essays need not enjoy consensus. If the outcome is to delete, I request the page be userfied to User:Stifle/You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and that You do need to cite that the sky is blue be deleted also. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah the reason I voted “weak delete” was because I completely expected this to happen. tend to be nostalgic about ancient  essays even if they’re objectively not great. Dronebogus (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The existence of an opposite essay doesn’t mean the opposite essay gets deleted also. The opposite essay highlights a valid point— the “obvious” is rarely so. This essay is just saying “I think a nonexistent problem is dumb”. Dronebogus (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you nominate that page I’m going to be assuming bad faith because you have no reason to delete it besides WP:POINT Dronebogus (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Essays are generally philosophical supplements to policies. If your essay is basically encouraging people to say “screw WP:V, only stupid people need to be told this” it is not a “supplement” to policy, it’s a violation. Dronebogus (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * RE: "and that You do need to cite that the sky is blue be deleted also." Now that's just silly. If your essay is deleted, the reason would be that a consensus is found that this essay goes against Wikipedia policy which supersedes essays, and is therefore too disruptive to keep around. The opposite essay doesn't have that problem. The reasons for deleting this one simply don't apply to the opposite.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 20:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The rationale for deletion is based on editors allegedly citing it for unacceptable reasons. But that applies to all essays, not just this one. As is clearly stated in the box at the top . Editors who cite this or any other essay in an effort to bolster an argument need to have the purpose of essays explained to them (or be trouted if they already know it). This essay is useful because it informatively expands on the guideline which states that sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. It explains in simple terms to newer editors the limits of WP:WHYCITE. People read essays, note the prominent warnings at the top, and may learn things. I did. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a good argument for deleting most of the essays actually. As a newer wikipedian, they only ever served to confuse me, and I was also confused why essays were cited so often in debates - I did not realize at first that "most longtime users who are doing so are just wrong" was a plausible explanation. The box that it is not a policy may be clearly marked, but if people don't read it... &#32;- car chasm (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a valid essay, it's a viewpoint on Wikipedia's citation policy that some may find useful. The OP's opinion that it should not be quoted by other editors is not a valid reason for deletion.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that the viewpoint the essay holds is an incorrect one, because it is incompatible with the verification policy. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The essay's argument that not absolutely everything in an article has to be cited does not seem to me to be incompatible with WP:V, which states that inline citations are required when verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, and if a user is quoting WP:BLUESKY, what scenario do you envision where they are doing so, other than in response to material being challenged? I certainly wouldn't recommend that any new users who have questions about the citation policy read it - it will just confuse them as it initially confused me until I learned I could ignore all the essays. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Carchasm: Have you read WP:JUSTANESSAY? If not, that may clarify your confusion about essays. Levivich 16:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why don’t we do this:
 * ban shortcuts to essays unless there’s a consensus on the talk page
 * move essays expressing fringe interpretations of policies and guidelines to userspace Dronebogus (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Because each would require at least one Village Pump RFC which would quickly fail because NOTCENSORED? BusterD (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that’s not what NOTCENSORED means Dronebogus (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:V, specifically WP:BURDEN, also says It's one of our stupid, confusing, contradictory rules: not everything needs an inline cite, but anything without an inline cite can be removed and should not be restored. Thus, under WP:V, any and all WP:BLUE statements can be removed and should not be restored, and I can understand why someone would understand that to mean that everything needs a citation, i.e. WP:BLUE is contrary to consensus. (Although even if it is contrary to consensus, that's not a reason to delete an essay. Essays are exactly the right place for people to make arguments for changing consensus.) Levivich 16:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - If material is challenged, citing this essay would indeed be a terrible argument, but I think of this is something more for newbies than experienced editors. The sourcing/citation requirements can be tricky for some people to learn, and I could see someone getting the impression from other help pages or PAGs that absolutely everything must have a citation. Sure, it's not the most helpful essay, but I'm not seeing any reason for deletion. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. The arguments against this historical essay amount to "I don't like it" and "it's old". Calling any long-time contributor a "wikigeezer" is an extraordinary and unfortunate thing, especially when the labler has admitted their assertion choice here was made specifically because they foresaw the "geezer" would reasonably defend their own work. It would be inappropriate to label User:Dronebogus a young whippersnapper, for example. Even a label a reader might judge as humorous is a label, and as such resembles a personal attack on an entire core group of wikipedians. Such language heightens bad faith and does little to resolve an outcome in formal process. While it would be a simple matter (and appropriate) to strikethrough that insult to a long-time admin and their fellows, the usage of "wikigeezer" says a lot about the wrecking ball approach some users take to Wikipedia. BusterD (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not going to join in on calling anyone a geezer, especially since I may very well be older than a lot of longtime users myself. But I would like to go on the record here as saying that a "wrecking ball approach" is an entirely valid one for large parts of wikipedia, so long as it done in a civil and non-disruptive way. "We've always done it this way" is how organizations stagnate. The essays may have been nice ways to build community early on, but in general they seem vestigial to me at best. This one is just particularly bad and one I had to deal with recently, so I nominated it for deletion as a poor reflection of community values.
 * I can also empathize with the frustration when any change is proposed and all of the most vehement opposition comes from people who created their accounts before 2008. I would humbly suggest that language like "core group of wikipedians" also does not help with this perception as it implies that people who have been here longer are somehow more important, and that using that sort of language may also heighten bad faith, although undoubtedly in a much less severe manner than "Geezer". &#32;- car chasm (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree with the points made by User:Carchasm, even though my use of "core group of wikipedians" was intended to define "wikigeezer", and not to disparage editors with less editing experience. Insulting and judging by the group is bad practice and the refuge of dangerously small minds (here I'm talking about mankind, and not about anyone on en.wikipedia). BusterD (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I’d take being called a wippersnapper as a compliment.
 * Also I’m amused that “geezer” (metaphorical, and not intended to be a serious insult) is considered shocking when I’ve seen experienced users call people “fuckwit” “pathetic being” and “[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brad101&diff=next&oldid=469402079 bitch]” with minimal retribution. Double standard much? Dronebogus (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess I should’ve said “old timers” or “veterans” Dronebogus (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not interpret "wikigeezer" or "geezer" as a personal attack, for what it's worth. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I view it as an escalation, similar to "ok, boomer". "Double standard much?" One can't reasonably be expected to have reacted in dismay to every odd 2012 or 2022 violation of civility. You got any of those diffs of MY behavior? Since say, 2012? Even before? My standard is I don't escalate if I can avoid it. Accusing me of displaying a double standard is both lame and baseless. Just like "wikigeezer." BusterD (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The person who was supposedly targeted doesn’t care. Drop the WP:STICK. Dronebogus (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * When you stop wielding one. BusterD (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That implies I was wielding one in the first place Dronebogus (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I just suggest that you both leave it at that before this ends badly? 😁 Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 13:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTBLUE. Since when do we delete essays because we disagree with them? If you disagree with an essay, you write a counter-essay. WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE are like the two quintessential examples of counter-essays. Neither have consensus, but deleting them would be censorship. Levivich 16:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - This essay is useful for cases where tendentious or sealioning editors want "proof" of the most basic things. It is also useful in the same way that WP:CALC is. If the essay is being misused, it should be fixed, not deleted. That one user misused this essay (which prompted this MfD) does not mean the essay is useless or fatally flawed.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:GUIDES, essays often reflect minority opinions. Deleting such opinions is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Let's slow down on the Wiki-space deletions. --WaltCip- (talk)  19:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, we don't just delete essays because we disagree with them. I haven't seen any policy based reasons for deletion. -- Mike 🗩 19:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I don't think the delete rationale is unreasonable, I see the perspective that this essay is more than just disagreeable, but even goes against WP:V, and that keeping it around can do more harm than good as it's easy to misinterpret it as saying that any material that's considered sufficiently "obvious" doesn't need a source. I actually agree with all of those criticisms. But I'm not convinced that this warrants deleting it. Essays are just essays, and there's a perfectly good counter-essay you can respond with if an editor tries to point to this one. I personally disagree with this essay and I've always been critical of the idea that having too many citations is, on its own, a bad thing, and I've seen editors invoke similar essays like WP:OVERKILL in ways that I think are very disruptive, but I also recognize that there are quite a lot of editors who have their reasons for disagreeing with me and believing that these essays are fine.  Vanilla  Wizard </b></b> 💙 20:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as a legitimate perspective and valid use of Wikipedia-space for hosting an essay. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, an important essay on a possible viewpoint even though many disagree with this viewpoint. Pika voom  Talk 10:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The scenario for citing this essay is not binary, as the nom suggests above. A third scenario is that the person referencing this essay truly thinks the information is obvious, and citing it may even border on insulting a reader’s intelligence. That should then be discussed. Once the obviousness of an assertion is established, then this essay seems quite applicable. But in a broader context, I think many essays occupy the same space in the usefulness spectrum as archived talk page discussions. Essays represent a good synthesis of perspectives without actually going through a thorough community-wide vetting process, but like archived discussions, they are useful as background. This just makes the information more visible and accessible than archives. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Keep voters are making much better, policy based arguments here, whilst some of the delete arguments bear a resemblance to wikilawyering.

In addition: If you drop an object whilst standing on the Earth, it will fall and hit the ground.

Do we need a citation for that? Is it a violation of WP:V when it would take longer to find a reliable source than to verify it yourself? No matter where you are, or what circumstances you are in? Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 13:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I did just drop my phone now, and it didn't hit the ground because there was a table in the way :). But I am steelmanning here, I understand your point - I would just say the overlap between information that belongs on an article and that never potentially needs citation is very small: an article on earth gravity where that sentence might appear may actually require more explanation. I can attest also that as someone who has at least been reading wikipedia for a long while that I've never thought "Gee, why is that cited, that doesn't need a citation." That might not be a universal experience though.
 * I generally see the validity of the keep point of view here now, and my overall opinion on the purpose of the essay has been changed even though I still don't agree with the content. It looks like the discussion may have drifted off topic a bit above, so I wouldn't object if someone uninvolved closes this early as it's pretty clear which direction the consensus is in. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Carchasm: I was just giving a bit of an (extreme) example of what would be an unnecessary citation request. Mind you, there are some clowns who, if I stated "if you drop an object whilst standing on the Earth, it will fall and hit the ground due to gravity" will genuinely stick a [citation needed] on that because "It's actually due to electromagnetism". 🙄 (repeatedly bangs head against brick wall). (That's a bit off topic though.)
 * I have seen cases of stuff being cited where it seems ridiculous, like a person's name being cited, even where there is no controversy over what their name actually is, but as you have noticed, it's not too common though, and it would be quite easy to never see such a case, but I suspect that this essay might have something to do with it being that way.
 * Anyway, I admire the fact that you have had the guts to admit to changing your opinion, in unfortunate contrast to what has led to another user being (at last check) en-route to an AfD ban of some sort. It may do to make some sort of note below the nomination to indicate that, so that an uninvolved editor can see it. If the nom pulls their implied "delete" !vote (as I understand, you are now more neutral on the idea though, not so much calling keep), it holds a good deal of weight, and will probably help to close this off sooner.
 * This MfD has been valuable though, so please don't feel too bad about starting it. Maybe we need to link to this MfD somewhere in the page for the essay, as it would be a valuable addition to that page, and help give the essay further context. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 03:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no policy-based rationale for deletion here. Moreover, as pointed out, it's good to have a document explaining how requests for citations can actually be tendentious editing or sealioning — an attempt to control a discussion through malicious "politeness". WP:AGF is not a suicide pact; we assume good faith going into a conversation, but as the conversation unfolds, evidence can override that assumption. I also concur with 's point: A third scenario is that the person referencing this essay truly thinks the information is obvious, and citing it may even border on insulting a reader's intelligence. When some scientific fact is in every introductory textbook on a subject, for example, an editor who knows the subject may naturally find that fact too obvious to need a footnote. If that obviousness then is disputed, well, That should then be discussed. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an essay, which per policy does not speak for the Wikipedia community. That one disagrees with it is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON, nor is the fact that someone cites an essay incorrectly, so this honestly could be speedily kept under WP:CSK#3. And the essay's core point (that there doesn't need to be a citation for literally every claim of fact) is based in policy. WP:MINREF notes that you don't actually need inline citations in literally every place: there's certainly some aspects to which we can simply say that the sky is blue and not need to provide a source. It singles out four sorts of places where citations are required, citing the verifiability and biographies of living persons policies. WP:V doesn't specify that citations actually need to be present; the policy notes that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged need an inline citation. WP:BLP adds one more area where citations are mandatory per policy—where contentious facts are added about living people. But, besides this, there is no policy mandating inline citations. Particularly obvious facts ("Earth is the home of mankind") that are not contested are not required by policy to have citations. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Essays aren't official policy, so this one isn't. Also, it has a lot of incoming links, so we would have to fix a lot of them. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 02:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a wikipedia essay. There is no rationale to delete it just because "it can't be cited". — Mcguy15  (talk, contribs) 17:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is an essay with which some editors disagree and some editors agree. Essays are like that.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * comment even though I voted delete this seems like an extremely obvious case of WP:SNOW close. Dronebogus (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just for the record. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.