# "Cite?" is wearing very thin **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 26, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065 "2009-01-26T16:55:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/101 "2009-02-20T15:44:20Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > It doesn’t make any difference. Whether I’m providing the cites unasked or in the first place, it is silly to say if you don’t trust me you are not going to trust my cites. It might well make sense for you not to trust a particular dodgy cite that I might give, but to say that as a general proposition you are not going to trust my cites because you don’t trust me makes no sense, unless you know what cites they are. > > Frankly I think you are scouring for reasons why citing and asking for cites is not a valid behaviour, and you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying they are never any use when very often they may be. You’re refusing to admit you’re wrong in the face of all evidence, which is what you’re accusing me of doing. Funny. ---
**Author:** ![Tracy\_Lord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@Tracy\_Lord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tracy_Lord)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/102 "2009-02-20T16:02:48Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I think the simplest solution to this problem is to just post the damn picture! See? Sleazy and tiresome. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/103 "2009-02-20T18:57:35Z")
Some egomaniac posters get angry over the references they are given. That would be a cite for sore I s. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/104 "2009-02-20T19:48:32Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > The real problem is that a “cite” is always expected to be something you can click on. Someone once asked me to give a cite, so I mention the title, author and page number of a book I had. The other poster rejected it because it wasn’t on the internet. Wait, are you talking about me? I didn’t reject your cite, but you might have though I did because I didn’t reply. I’m just waiting til I can get my hands on the book you referred to. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/105 "2009-02-20T20:17:29Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > The real problem is that a “cite” is always expected to be something you can click on. Someone once asked me to give a cite, so I mention the title, author and page number of a book I had. The other poster rejected it because it wasn’t on the internet. Well, a book cite is legit, but many cites here (and elsewhere) are taken out of context. If we have a link we can check the context also. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2009, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/106 "2009-02-20T22:39:03Z")
> [@Tracy\_Lord](#): > > See? Sleazy and tiresome. I know this is off topic, but you’ve got me curious. Why do you think that comment is sleazy? (or any of the similar comments you’ve seen before). ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/107 "2009-02-21T07:42:24Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, a book cite is legit, but many cites here (and elsewhere) are taken out of context. If we have a link we can check the context also. And some cites, like yours often, do not support your point and even sometimes contradict it and support the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/108 "2009-02-21T09:58:27Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > You’re refusing to admit you’re wrong in the face of all evidence, which is what you’re accusing me of doing. Funny. Oh, thanks for letting me know. Most posters, I’d require something solid, but in your case, your word is golden. Or in other words, without the sarcasm, what the fuck evidence are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/109 "2009-02-21T15:20:11Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Oh, thanks for letting me know. Most posters, I’d require something solid, but in your case, your word is golden. > > Or in other words, without the sarcasm, what the fuck evidence are you talking about? I wasn’t being sarcastic. You’re either not paying attention to the thread and talking completely out of your butthole, or you’re being deliberately obtuse. Tell me how on Earth post #100 makes any sense at all in light of post #83, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/110 "2009-02-22T04:01:35Z")
For the convenience of the home viewing audience: Post 83 by **Cisco** : > [@](#): > > There is a lot to arguing that doesn’t involve dry facts, and many cites are biased, outdated, or just plain wrong anyway. And it’s not that I would never ask where someone was getting their information from but, well-- that’s a perfect example-- “where are you getting your information?” is a lot less abrasive than cite?! in my opinion. Even asking for a source seems more accurate and genuine. It’s not as much wanting it but the way it’s asked for here that gets to me. We’re participating in group discussions here, not comparing term papers. “Cite?” is something I would expect a professor to write on a freshman’s homework. Post 100 by **Princhester** : > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Cisco** : > No, I’m saying that if you say something and I don’t trust you I’m going to look into the matter for myself at that point. And you providing me cites is different than me asking for them, so that’s really a pretty bad example. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t make any difference. Whether I’m providing the cites unasked or in the first place, it is silly to say if you don’t trust me you are not going to trust my cites. It might well make sense for you not to trust a particular dodgy cite that I might give, but to say that as a general proposition you are not going to trust my cites because you don’t trust me makes no sense, unless you know what cites they are. > > Frankly I think you are scouring for reasons why citing and asking for cites is not a valid behaviour, and you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying they are never any use when very often they may be. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/111 "2009-02-22T04:03:55Z")
**Cisco** , are you saying that it is the abruptness of the word “cite” that you object to rather than being asked to provide a source for your information? ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/112 "2009-02-22T04:23:13Z")
I’ve made 14 posts in this thread - prior to this one - and they’re all still here, in print, for your perusal. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/113 "2009-02-22T07:48:26Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > I’ve made 14 posts in this thread - prior to this one - and they’re all still here, in print, for your perusal. I think this is where the disagreement lies for me. I think it’s MUCH ruder to expect people to know what someone is talking about when that someone doesn’t want to provide information for the other party (through cites or any other documentation) than for someone to ask someone else to help provide them with information about what the heck they’re talking about. In other words, “Cite?” is much more polite than “Guess” IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/114 "2009-02-22T07:48:34Z")
And I’ve read them all, **Cisco**. I’m just trying to clarify what you were saying. If you don’t want me to understand you, then say nothing and you will continue to get “cite” requests in the usual way. If you prefer that I ask what your source of information is, just let me know and I will be happy to accomodate you. Another snide answer and I will wonder why you bothered to post. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/115 "2009-02-22T10:46:56Z")
The point I took issue with was you saying quite simply that if you don’t trust a poster you are not going to trust their cites. Which as a general proposition make no sense since (to take an extreme example) Wally the Lying Poster could give you a cite to the Encyclopedia Britannica. No amount of vague references to your posts in this thread in general is going to save you from the fact that your generalisation was silly. ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/116 "2009-02-22T13:17:01Z")
The request for a cite is meaningless if the cites are dismissed in advance. There is no reason to ask except to piss on them. I’ve seen that tactic too often; asking for a cite and then sifting it for some shortcoming that is unrelated to the topic at hand when the call for a cite was made. Obviously, if a citation has weaknesses or fails to demonstrate what was meant to be supported, that should be pointed out, but too often the play is made regardless of the content of the cite. That is going to be the case if one asks for cites knowing they will be discounted. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/117 "2009-02-22T20:38:57Z")
No amount of squirming is going to save you from the fact that you totally misrepresented what I’ve said, Princhester. And my reference wasn’t vague at all, either. Quite the opposite, it was as crystal clear as it could’ve been. I’m not going to sit here and repeat myself over and over for people who are too lazy to read the thread. Most everybody else seems to get what I’ve been saying. **xtisme** picked up on it last page almost as if I were writing plain English. **Zoe** , I’d answer if I had any clue what you were talking about. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/118 "2009-02-22T20:45:18Z")
A citer who cited a site tried to get 2 citers to cite said the 2 to the citer is it harder to cite or to get other citers to cite ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/119 "2009-02-22T23:05:01Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > There is a lot to arguing that doesn’t involve dry facts, and many cites are biased, outdated, or just plain wrong anyway. And it’s not that I would never ask where someone was getting their information from but, well-- that’s a perfect example-- “where are you getting your information?” is a lot less abrasive than _cite?!_ in my opinion. Even asking for a source seems more accurate and genuine. It’s not as much wanting it but _the way it’s asked for here_ that gets to me. We’re participating in group discussions here, not comparing term papers. “Cite?” is something I would expect a professor to write on a freshman’s homework. I haven’t been following whatever argument you’re having with Princhester about this, but I wanted to register that I agree with much of the above. In fact, I am not sure I have ever used the word “cite” here, and am almost completely certain I’ve never used it all by itself in a sentence, as in, “Cite?” The way the word gets used here its too naturally interpreted as a challenge rather than an invitation, but what I want is to invite, not to challenge. So I usually put it in long winded terms, like “I was wondering where I could read more about that” or “Can you provide further information?” or “What data supports that conclusion?” or whatever is appropriate in context. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065/120 "2009-02-23T10:44:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Cisco, are you saying that it is the abruptness of the word “cite” that you object to rather than being asked to provide a source for your information? That sentence is not clear? Okay, I’ll try again: Is it the _word_ that bothers you or is it being asked to give your source that bothers you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cite-is-wearing-very-thin/483065.md?page=7)