== citation for 'Spearfishing today [...] more effective' == 

 [me] 

 why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.157.173 (talk)  

 so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.157.173 (talk)  

 i will add it back. 88.218.157.173 (talk)  

 yes, it is straightforward, but it does not explain, why it is. 88.218.157.173 (talk)  

 they also used sharpened stones. did the primitive spears not penetrate the prey as effectively? is that what you are saying? 88.218.157.173 (talk)  

 so? 88.218.157.173 (talk)  

 all right. 88.218.157.173 (talk)  

 [Geronimo20] 

 Thank you for your contribution to spearfishing. However, a statement as straightforward as "Spearfishing today employs modern and more effective elastic or pneumatic powered (spearguns) and slings" don't needs citations. Citations are for statements that are not common sense and might be controversial. Surely you are not disputing that "modern and more effective elastic or pneumatic powered" slings have been developed. The idea is that only statements that might be disputed should be cited. Otherwise, articles would consist of a mass of citations for all sorts of uncontroversial statements, which would clog them and make them rather unreadable. Geronimo20 (talk)  

 :I'm not sure what is worrying you. Early civilizations used sharpened sticks. More recently, we have all these newly developed elastics and so on, which can make spearguns more effective. What is your problem with that? Geronimo20 (talk)  

 ::Okay. If you think it is useful to discuss whether stones are as good as modern materials, then the place to do it is on the Spearfishing talk page. Or perhaps the Speargun talk page. It's 2 am in my time zone. and I'm off to bed. Geronimo20 (talk)