Difference between revisions of "Template:Evident"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(expand situations where this template is appropriate - I expect there are more) |
m (update) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | <includeonly><ref>Citation '''not''' needed. See [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|here]], point | + | <includeonly><ref>Citation '''not''' needed. See [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|here]], point 14.</ref></includeonly> |
<noinclude> | <noinclude> | ||
'''<nowiki>{{Evident}}</nowiki>''' | '''<nowiki>{{Evident}}</nowiki>''' | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] | *[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] | ||
| − | *[[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia]] (point | + | *[[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia]] (point 14) |
</noinclude> | </noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 15:03, April 30, 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.