Difference between revisions of "Template:Evident"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(people are right - point 13 is the key one here) |
(expand situations where this template is appropriate - I expect there are more) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
'''<nowiki>{{Evident}}</nowiki>''' | '''<nowiki>{{Evident}}</nowiki>''' | ||
| − | This template can be used to mark statements | + | This template can be used to mark statements which do not require a reference. These include: |
| + | * obvious statements | ||
| + | * statements which no one would seriously dispute in good faith | ||
| + | * statements which synthesise or sum up material included elsewhere in the article in question | ||
| + | * logical inferences from known facts | ||
| + | * applications of conservative principles to facts and events. | ||
New contributors to Conservapedia, often those who have previously used [[Wikipedia]], sometimes insist on references being provided for even trivially obvious statements. At worst, this can be done in bad faith to try and force the removal of information to which they are ideologically opposed. In order to head off this problem, this template can be added. It will add a footnote for the statement in question that says '''"Citation NOT needed"''', hopefully removing the need to go over old ground and explain how Conservapedia and Wikipedia differ. | New contributors to Conservapedia, often those who have previously used [[Wikipedia]], sometimes insist on references being provided for even trivially obvious statements. At worst, this can be done in bad faith to try and force the removal of information to which they are ideologically opposed. In order to head off this problem, this template can be added. It will add a footnote for the statement in question that says '''"Citation NOT needed"''', hopefully removing the need to go over old ground and explain how Conservapedia and Wikipedia differ. | ||
Revision as of 08:18, April 18, 2012
{{Evident}}
This template can be used to mark statements which do not require a reference. These include:
- obvious statements
- statements which no one would seriously dispute in good faith
- statements which synthesise or sum up material included elsewhere in the article in question
- logical inferences from known facts
- applications of conservative principles to facts and events.
New contributors to Conservapedia, often those who have previously used Wikipedia, sometimes insist on references being provided for even trivially obvious statements. At worst, this can be done in bad faith to try and force the removal of information to which they are ideologically opposed. In order to head off this problem, this template can be added. It will add a footnote for the statement in question that says "Citation NOT needed", hopefully removing the need to go over old ground and explain how Conservapedia and Wikipedia differ.