Wikipedia:Suggested sources: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 17:45, 7 July 2022

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

This essay relates to ways to find reliable sources, depending on the particular topic (see below: List of suggested sources). There are the general Wikipedia policies:

WP:Reliable sources (WP:RS) - rules about determining reliable sources
WP:Verifiability (WP:V) - rules about writing verifiable text.
WP:BLP - rules about living people, and what not to quote from sources.

Other essays:

WP:Reliable source examples - general issues to consider.

Specific questions:

WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (WP:RSN) - ask about specific sources.

However, editors new to a particular topic might not realize some specific major publications are preferred as sources. Guideline WP:MEDRS suggests sources for medical text, but other subjects need recommendations for reliable sources, as well.

The term "reliable" is a relative measure, depending on context. The answer to the question, "Is X a reliable source?" should always be "For what?" because expert publications might be better sources to back rare details, whereas news reports cover general aspects. For example, a top newspaper is typically unable to match the expertise of a medical journal or computer-technology magazine, but news reports are the most likely to have recent information, for major facts (but not for precise technical details, which are sometimes mistaken in general news reports).

List of suggested sources

There are thousands of reliable sources, but perhaps consider the following list, as a start:

Specific subject areas

History topics

For historical texts: see essay "WP:Identifying reliable sources (history)".

Medical topics

For medical text: see WP:MEDRS, NIH.gov, PubMeds MedLine, and major medical journals. See medical essay: "WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)".
For human genetics and anthropology topics, see a Wikipedia editor's annotated bibliography Anthropology and Human Biology Citations.

Sciences

For general science: use index Web of Science; major journals Science or Nature.

Parapsychology

For parapsychology, see: wp:WikiProject Parapsychology/Resources.

Computer technology

For computer technology: publications of the Association for Computer Machinery (ACM) with SIGSOFT.org, SIGGRAPH.org, etc., PC Magazine, publications of IEEE.

Films, TV, video games or music

For films and TV: Variety.com (Broadway plays), TV Guide, RottenTomatoes.com, Allmovie.com, BoxOfficeMojo.com
For music lyrics: www.Lyricsmode.com (states music copyrights on each webpage).
For video games: www.allgame.com, arstechnica.com/gaming, www.gamertell.com, www.cnet.com, wired.com, and see 50 more: WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources#List.
Custom Google search: Custom search video-games (matches only WP:GAME reliable sources)
For music/rock bands: pitchfork.com (reviews, new albums), etc.

Others

For topics related to human intelligence and IQ testing, see a Wikipedia editor's annotated bibliography: " Intelligence Citations".

Current news

For American and worldwide news: ABC News, CBS News, CNN, The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, PBS.org, The Wall Street Journal
For more local USA news: almost any mainstream U.S. city newspaper that has been published for more than two years.
For UK and worldwide news: BBC News, The Guardian^[1] (London), (The Observer), The Times (London), The Daily Telegraph (London), The Independent (London), The Scotsman (Edinburgh), and their Sunday equivalents; generally avoid British tabloids such as the Daily Express, Daily Mirror and The Sun, and Daily Mail.
For more local UK news: the London Evening Standard; any well-established morning, evening or Sunday regional newspaper (see this list)
For Canadian news: The Globe and Mail (Toronto) and The Toronto Star (Toronto)
For Italian news: La Stampa, La Repubblica, Corriere della Sera
For French news: France 24 TV (France24.com)
For South Asian news: DAWN (Pakistan), Hindustan Times (India), The Express Tribune (Pakistan), The Hindu (India), Times of India (India)

The above-mentioned list is just a small list of suggestions, but it provides a specific starting point for editors unfamiliar with the major sources covering each specific field.

Notes

^ Note that not all sections of The Guardian, or of any "reliable" newspaper, should be considered reliable sources for purposes of establishing notability-- The Guardian's "Review Anything" section has been found to be an inadequate source for establishing real world notability in at least one deletion discussion.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{For|the Wikipedia policy about sources|WP:Verifiability}}
+{{For|the template to suggest sources for future article improvement|Template:Suggested sources}}
-{{Redirect-for|Wikipedia:Find sources|Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library}}
+{{See also|Help:Find sources|Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library}}
 {{essay}}
@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 * For American and worldwide news: [[ABC News]], [[CBS News]], [[CNN]], ''[[The Christian Science Monitor]]'', ''[[The New York Times]]'', ''[[The Washington Post]]'', ''[[The Boston Globe]]'', ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'', ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'', ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'', [[PBS.org]],  ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]''
 * For more local [[USA]] news: almost any mainstream U.S. city newspaper that has been published for more than two years.
-* For UK and worldwide news: ''[[BBC News]]'', ''[[The Guardian]]''<ref>Note that not all sections of ''The Guardian'', or of any "reliable" newspaper, should be considered reliable sources for purposes of establishing notability-- ''The Guardian's'' "Review Anything" section has been found to be an inadequate source for establishing real world notability in at least [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/208 Talks of Angels|one deletion discussion]].</ref>  (London), (''[[The Observer]]''), ''[[The Times]]'' (London), ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' (London), ''[[The Independent]]'' (London), ''[[The Scotsman]]'' (Edinburgh), and their Sunday equivalents; generally avoid [[British tabloid]]s such as the ''[[Daily Express]]'', ''[[Daily Mirror]]'' and ''[[The Sun (United Kingdom)|The Sun]]'', and always avoid the ''[[Daily Mail]]''.
+* For UK and worldwide news: ''[[BBC News]]'', ''[[The Guardian]]''<ref>Note that not all sections of ''The Guardian'', or of any "reliable" newspaper, should be considered reliable sources for purposes of establishing notability-- ''The Guardian's'' "Review Anything" section has been found to be an inadequate source for establishing real world notability in at least [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/208 Talks of Angels|one deletion discussion]].</ref>  (London), (''[[The Observer]]''), ''[[The Times]]'' (London), ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' (London), ''[[The Independent]]'' (London), ''[[The Scotsman]]'' (Edinburgh), and their Sunday equivalents; generally avoid [[British tabloid]]s such as the ''[[Daily Express]]'', ''[[Daily Mirror]]'' and ''[[The Sun (United Kingdom)|The Sun]]'', and ''[[Daily Mail]]''.
 * For more local UK news: the ''[[London Evening Standard]]''; any well-established morning, evening or Sunday regional newspaper (see [[List of newspapers in the United Kingdom|this list]])
 * For Canadian news: ''[[The Globe and Mail]]'' (Toronto) and ''[[The Toronto Star]]'' (Toronto)