Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.134.142.225 (talk) at 00:18, 25 April 2008 (→Scholarship). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page documents an English Misplaced Pages content guideline. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.

Shortcuts WP:RS WP:RELY WP:RELIABLE

This page in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

This page is a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources. It is not a policy: the relevant policies on sources are Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research, with additional restrictions in biographies of living people. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.

Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and either Verifiability or No original research, this page should be updated to accurately reflect the policy as presented on those pages.

Misplaced Pages articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources; however, this does not mean that every view must be given equal weight, and there is no requirement that any individual reliable source is used, provided the neutral point of view, as spelt out in WP:NPOV and explained in WP:NPOV/FAQ, is maintained.

Reliability of specific source types

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. These specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment.

Scholarship

ARAKA WAS HERE

News organizations

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

Self-published sources

Self-published sources may be used only in very limited circumstances; see above.

Extremist and fringe sources

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves in articles about themselves or their activities, and any information used must be directly relevant to the subject and their cause of notability. Articles using such sources should not repeat any contentious claims, or any claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Finally, these sources should never form the primary source for an article.

Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), such as revisionist history or pseudoscience) should only be used as sources about themselves or, if correctly attributed as being such, to summarize the views of the proponents of that subject. Use of these sources must not obfuscate the description of the mainstream view, nor should these fringe sources be used to describe the mainstream view or the level of acceptance of the fringe theory. When using such sources, reliable mainstream sources must be found in order to allow the dispute to be characterized fairly, presenting the mainstream view as the mainstream, and the fringe theory as a minority fringe view.

Reliability in specific contexts

Biographies of living persons

See Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Sources

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

Claims of consensus

Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

Other examples

See Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples for examples of the use of statistical data, advice by subject area (including history, physical sciences, mathematics and medicine, law, business and commerce, popular culture and fiction), and the use of electronic or online sources.

See also

• Misplaced Pages:Check your facts, essay
• Misplaced Pages:Common knowledge, essay
• Misplaced Pages:Independent sources, essay
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
• Misplaced Pages:Citing sources
• Misplaced Pages:No original research

External links

• How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.
• How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.

• Misplaced Pages content guidelines