Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious
As many of those who have read academic papers know, even claims with citations are often suspicious. Time and time again I've found cited sources that don't say what was claimed.<p>Sometimes, citations are not specific enough (e.g., citing a huge book rather than the specific page with the evidence). So, better than giving a URL would be to give a URL with a "fragment" if possible, i.e., #id.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_fragment" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_fragment</a><p>Chrome can be even more specific now with this extension: <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/link-to-text-fragment/pbcodcjpfjdpcineamnnmbkkmkdpajjg" rel="nofollow">https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/link-to-text-fragm...</a>