User:Marluxia.Kyoshu/True
There are some things that can not be verified, people will never write about them. However, this should not mean they have no place on Wikipedia. There are cases when something can be verified by anyone who looks up the item, but no right-minded journalist would write on said content. For instance:
Most windows are made of glass.[citation needed]
That doesn't make much sense, now does it?
I propose that Wikipedia adopt a policy so that things such as this, which will not, or can not, be proven notable or verified, can still be included:
Most windows are made of glass.[factual]
Meaning that, even though no book will say 'most windows are made of glass', one can look at any window and verify, himself, that most windows are indeed made of glass!
A few more examples:
Cats have eyes.[factual] Wood is made from trees.[factual] Fish can't speak.[factual] &c.
Now, the above examples probably never would have been given the 'citation needed' tag, but there are some cases where there would be some argument. I'm going to use a few examples from my edit history that prompted me to propose this...
Encyclopedia Dramatica includes copious amounts of pornographic and shocking images.[citation needed]→[factual]
In this case, any person could go to the site and browse 10-20 pages to prove to themselves that this site has many pornographic and shocking images. There is no reason to verify this.
In an obvious homage to Chad Vader, one of the achievements on the Xbox 360 version of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed is entitled "Worst Day-Shift Manager Ever"[citation needed]→[factual]
In this case, anyone could rent the game, and try to get the achievement, and there is no question that said achievement is not a reference to the Chad Vader internet show. The fact that the achievement is actually there is proof enough that there is no reason to verify this.
The Pokémon episode, Dennō_Senshi_Porygon, has never been shown again, however, it is easily accessible on the internet.[citation needed]→[factual]
A quick Google search will prove this true, there is, again, no reason to verify this.
While technically 'bong' does not mean a device used for smoking marijuana, drug-related connotations have been formed with the word itself. Due to these connotations, some head shops will not serve customers who use the word "bong".[citation needed]→[factual]
Again, to verify this, all one would have to do is walk into any head shop and say the word 'bong', most head shops will give you a warning, or ask you to leave.
There are probably more examples, but I believe that with these, I have made my point. I think that this should be a new standard in Wikipedia. ~九尾の氷狐~ (「Sumimasen!」 「Dochira samaka?」) 12:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)