Wikipedia talk:You do need to cite that the sky is blue

Comment

None of the claims made by the author of the article are sited. Pretty damn hypocritical , huh? --188.178.215.134 (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is not supposed to be cited at all. It is an essay, so it is meant to reflect nothing more than an opinion (although that opinion may be pretty widespread). Bronsonboy (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Minority Opinion

In spite of this thorough and pedantic straw man argument, I don't feel that anyone is swayed from the consensus that the sky is, in fact, blue. As per the original essay: the general population should never have to defend common sense against fringe challenges because anything can be challenged if enough effort is put into being disruptive. I personally think this essay should be Userfied because it's confusing, holds a minority view, and contradicts general protocol. I don't have a source for that so you're just going to have to take my word for it. 68.3.119.83 (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The sky itself is not blue. This is why it is not cited as such. The sky appears blue to most people most of the time because molecules in the air refract light of different wavelengths in different ways giving the light shining through the sky the appearance of being blue. If you want to prove it, look at the sky at sunset when it looks reddish because of all the blue being deflected away from your line of sight. If you were to teleport to where the sun would be directly overhead again and look up, the sky would not be red... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.24.50 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that the sky is not always blue. Technically, the sky is not blue. It simply appears blue to the naked eye because of the mentioned Rayleigh scattering. None of the gasses that comprise a significant portion of Earth's atmosphere, nor, indeed, the mixture of those gasses, appear blue in a sealed container under white-light laboratory conditions. Stating the sky is blue is about as accurate as stating that the ocean is blue—I can prove you wrong by taking a bottle of ocean water and examining it; I don't even need a lab. Thus, the author makes a good argument—even if you think it may be obvious, other people will often point out that you missed something critical, or that you didn't get it quite right (e.g. your blood carries oxygen vs. your blood carries oxygen or carbon dioxide.) Because of this, it is important to cite anything that can be (or is) challenged. If it's challenged, then it needs a source. If you think you can get away unchallenged, then maybe not...until you get called on it. Bronsonboy (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Stating the sky is blue is about as accurate as stating that the ocean is blue."

Really? Color of water

Ssscienccce (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

you can try to refute the analogies all you want but at this you are just cutting the weeds not pulling the roots. Sure water isnt blue nor is the sky but the argument still stands, if you go up to most people on the street and ask the color of the sky or the ocean they will say its blue. Its similar to the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell; it isnt but it helps show what the mitochondria actually does in a simple and easily understood way. Realfakebezalbob (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Merge

This can easily be merged into the WP:BLUE article. It makes a rather limited valid point, which can simply be conceded by the original article, and then it goes off to just ride the metaphor until it breaks down. Yes, the sky isn't blue when it's raining or at night. So yes, if wrong conclusions are drawn from a basic undisputed fact, people are free or indeed compelled to invoke WP:SYNTHESIS. The point is that you don't need to cite the fact that the sky is blue when this is a truism mentioned in passing in an article about an entirely different topic. Because asking for a citation for such a truism will only detract from the article topic and litter the article with useless footnotes and caveats. Of course the same fact, even if a truism, needs to be properly referenced when it is the actual topic to which the article is dedicated. --dab (𒁳) 11:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If either essay is not clear they should be edited for clarity. But they are making different points. Merging either into the other, diminishes their impact, as the essay title would be the reverse of the point they are making. This essay is saying that people DO need to cite what appears to be obvious. Merging it to a title that says you DON'T have to cite the obvious would defeat its purpose. Both essays could, however, be merged into a new essay with a neutral title: Wikipedia:When do you need to cite that the sky is blue? or Wikipedia:When do you need to cite the obvious? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 21:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would be desirable to merge these. It would dilute BLUE's point and make all of the links in previous conversations incomprehensible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be merged, it needs to be deleted. It directly contradicts actual policy. Having it as an essay makes it seem like a legitimate argument, when consensus is completely against it.

And, anyways, the arguments are dumb. For example, it seems to not understand that the reason for a citation is to verify something, not to explain it. No, I don't need to cite that the sky is blue to explain why. I need to cite the explanation.

Furthermore, providing a citation for an untrue fact doesn't make it better. So if the argument is that the sky really isn't blue, providing a citation is actually a problem, since it gives weight to a false assertion. What is actually needed is a citation to the fact that the sky is not blue, which is not obvious.

This entire essay seems to be an IDONTLIKEIT to the concept of WP:BLUE. It offers nothing to the encyclopedia except a way to provide dueling essays, rather than actually discussing the problem and arriving at consensus. Oh, and a snarky reply to the idea that the sky is blue. — trlkly 08:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You wrote that we should not validate false assertions with citations, but it is not our job as encyclopedists to decide what is true and false. Our duty is to identify what external sources believe to be true/false and reflect. If there are substantive sources making conflicting claims about the sky's color, then the assertion that the sky is just one color is likely to be challenged and thus requires a citation. This seems consistent with the verifiability policy. NTox · talk 08:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the comment made by SilkTork above to a certain extent. It is quite common for essays to hold diametrically opposed viewpoints, sometimes being written soley for that purpose. Merging the two essays in question wouldn't make sense as it would result in one that would clearly contradict itself.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete

Don't merge, delete. The very foundation of this essay is wrong: no one questions that the sky is blue. It can be questioned, but only by someone being disruptive. The idea that there is a reason why the sky is blue, and that the colour can change, does not change the fact that the statement 'the sky is blue' is used as a generalisation, not as a statement of permanent quality. Because everyone, absolutely everyone in this world who can see colour accurately, knows what is meant by the statement. This essay therefore is pointless and gives succour to pedants and disruptive editors. I know it is just an essay but do we have to keep all essays? Isn't there a limit to how low WP will stoop to accommodate fringe editors? Malick78 (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This essay is a load of (naughty word expunged) - really! All that was ever needed was a comment on the talk page for the original essay pointing out the "The sky is blue" is perhaps not a very good example - perhaps "Paris is the capital of France" might be better one? Nothing really substantive here to justify asking for "silly" citations. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Soundofmusicals: No. There is nothing "silly" about it. If Paris really is the capital of France, then there must be a million sources out there that say that, so a citation is easy to produce and in no way disruptive (it's just a little number in the text after all, that does not disrupt reading). Citation is cheap, whereas original research masquerading as "common sense" is dangerous. We should err on the side of the former.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If you really want to cite a ridiculously obvious fact or two then there is very possibly little harm in it (except wasting valuable time that could, at least in theory, be used to genuinely improve the quality of content!). Very broadly, moderate "over-citing" may even be better than gross "under-citing", although I would dispute that we actually need to "err" in either direction! Asking for silly citations with a "cn" tag (or, worse, a battery of such tags) is however at best a useless waste of time for other editors, who are more or less constrained to find one of those "millions" of citations, and a good one at that, to get rid of the tag. Perhaps a morning's work, and all for something that adds absolutely nothing to the verifiability of the article, and which no one was ever going to dispute anyway. We are entitled to have differing opinions about what constitutes "obvious", and "common sense" - but there is a point at which having serious doubts about a clear and obvious statement IS just plain silly. All this load of [naughty word] does is to labour the point that "the sky is blue" may not be an awfully good example of this kind of thing! Oh deary deary dear. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Any editor asking for a silly citation (that we cite something that is truly common knowledge/common sense) is not worth considering in that moment. I'd likely take the matter to WP:ANI, no matter the drama. Requesting citations for truly common knowledge/common sense matters is WP:Disruptive. For example, asking that we cite that a hand has five fingers (usually anyway) is utter nonsense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Malick78: I know it is just an essay but do we have to keep all essays?: Essays can be nominated for deletion at WP:MfD.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

UTC)

• It's ok, I've calmed down now - I've pretty much given up on WP because of the drama (and a veiled threat on my talk page that somebody 'knew who I was'). But thanks for responding :) Malick78 (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

we are of the opposite view points (I assume an article you were working on was edited and left unsourced starting an edit war, or something similar; and if that is the case I understand your frustration as an article I have put lots of work into has been in an edit war because of radicle statements such as "neon tetras need to be in groups larger than 5") but I can agree that this place needs a major and when i mean major I mean MAJOR, change of view/ cooperation; I guaranty that this entire argument could be settled if instead of deleting people would add a source (it takes the same time.) We all edit Wikipedia to make it a better place, lets do our best to do that its not fun for either side to have edit wars; we can do so much more by working together instead of working against each other! But im not very smart, and this idea is very radical so what do I know ;) Realfakebezalbob (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't this go against the whole point of Wikipedia?

This whole article seems like a fringe opinion. So anyone can write an long essay about their own personal opinion and make it look like a wikipedia guideline? This is probably causing more harm than good. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It explicitly says on the top that this isn't a guideline but a viewpoint. Essays are subjective and do not have an official status on Wikipedia. Feel free to ignore it if you think this essay is inimical. -- ChamithN (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yea, but maybe we should be aware of the confusion this creates. Anyone can have their own opinion, but it doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. Remember Wikipedia is not a Blog Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Should we nominate this essay for deletion? WP:MfD

I don't want to go ahead and do it without the input of others. Please voice your opinions about this here. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this essay undermines the intentions of Wikipedia described on the very prominent and very cited essay WP:BLUE. I don't think it represents a majority point of view and it just seems to be here in order to justify the pedantic behavior that makes it very difficult to make progress during editing. I know it can "just be ignored", but if we are supposed to ignore it, then why have it here to begin with? I think it just creates more confusion than it provides guidance. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes please, I suspect it was only posted in the first place as a joke! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose deleting this essay. WP:BLUE is not policy, but just another essay, and not everyone agrees with the opinions expressed there. They can be outright harmful to Wikipedia's reliability, because there are many false statements that are regarded as "obvious" by many people - including "the sky is blue", if not qualified correctly.

While parts of WP:NOTBLUE may be a bit tongue-in-cheek, it serves a valuable role in helping protect Wikipedia from hoaxes, errors introduced by well-meaning but sloppy editors, and wikiality. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggested tone change

IMHO I think the essay would be more popular if its tone were consistently more like "Sometimes it makes sense to cite that the sky is blue". As it stands, I (and maybe even the essay author) disagree with the title as it stands out-of-context: Obviously you don't need to cite that the sky is blue, and someone removing it because it's uncited is usually being tenditious. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Another reason for citing: avoid copycat unsourced additions

Another reason for citing where possible that I often come across is that failing to source obvious information can lead other, especially new, editors to try to add non-obvious unsourced information. I see this frequently in "in popular culture" sections. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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) 08:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Issues with "conditions under which the sky may not appear blue".

I'm not sure if anyone still cares about this article, but I noticed some things that seem pretty outlandish in the 'The "obvious" isn't always obvious' section.

"During the night, the sky appears black."

Two points here. First, the obvious definition of "sky" here is that it refers to our atmosphere, which doesn't appear at all at night, and therefore isn't black at night.

Second, despite how obvious it is that "sky" refers to the atmosphere, and not the objects or space beyond it (search Google for "sky and space difference" and the top dozen or so hits agree), there are numerous references (such as the Sky article) making the opposite claim. Which happens to go hand-in-hand with the article's message that certain "obvious" statements, such as "you can't see the sky at night", are less obvious than they appear if they presume a standard definition of a word that actually has multiple meanings.

Certainly for purposes of this article, it seems odd to consider the color of anything other than the atmosphere, since it's clearly the atmosphere that's blue, not anything else. And anyone making the statement "the sky is normally a blue-ish color" is clearly talking about the daytime sky. Though, again, this conflict of understanding might well lend itself to the article's validity.

"Jesus says ...", "M. Minnaert notes ...", "Oscar Hammerstein wrote ..."

These all seem out of place. We don't need some random quotes to know that the morning and evening sunlight appear yellow and red, or that the sky is never exactly one color tone. Nor is Jesus a more reliable expert on the matter than some random guy you see on the street. The naturalist is (presumably) a scientist at least, but not in a field of study relevant to the quote. A songwriter is the least reliable of the bunch, as their entire profession is about evoking thoughts and feelings, often at the expense of the truth.

Just replace these quotes with a statement like, "At twilight, salmon reds, oranges, purples, white-yellows, and many shades of blue can be seen."

"On other planets, the sky is almost never blue."

This falls in with the first issue. Any article where the presumption of a blue sky would remotely be considered obvious is necessarily referring to Earth's atmosphere. The Earth's sky appears blue even from the Moon or Mars, and isn't even visible from most celestial bodies. And I don't know why anyone would assume the atmosphere on other planets must be blue if they are at all qualified to write articles about other planets.

"Blind people don't know it and can't verify it."

Any blind person who doesn't know the sky is blue has been living under a rock and doesn't know how to access Wikipedia anyways. They can easily verify it by asking one of the 7 billion people on the planet who aren't blind.

People with ... blue-yellow color blindness"

When talking about the color of anything, the presumption is always standard human eyesight. Obviously, people who are color blind, animals who see beyond the human spectrum, or machines that see completely outside the human spectrum are not likely to perceive an object as being the same color. Putting citations that fire engines are red makes sense if some fire engines are yellow. Putting a caveat that the red fire engine may not appear red to all sentient beings in the universe is a waste of time unless that's the very point of the article. Putting a citation to prove that the red fire engine appears red to most humans isn't even the purpose of a citation.

Conclusion

I get that the premise of the article is that there are clearly occasions where citations to "obvious" things might be required. But this article seems to simply reinforce the notion that such citations should be reserved for the exceptions, rather than the rule. And the statements above are so very pedantic that they almost deliberately undermine the article's message, rather than reinforce it.

199.127.114.114 (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Citing the symbol period

You do not need to cite on every wikipedia article that the symbol period represents one of the ways that you can end a sentence for at least one moment between the time this post was posted and one minute before it was posted. Nor do I recommend doing such a thing.

From my current understanding of computer programming, we don't always need to account for every possible error that could occur when making a program. Instead, I think it is considered acceptable to cover the most likely errors and some beyond that when making a program.

2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:984E:F9AE:AD6D:15AC (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)