Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

Discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard To discuss the reliability of specific sources, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN).

view · edit Frequently asked questions Questions Where should I ask whether this source supports this statement in an article? At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Don't forget to tell the editors the full name of the source and the exact sentence it is supposed to support. Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me? No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/cost. If you need help verifying that a source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange or a relevant WikiProject. Do sources have to be in English? No. Sources can be written in any language. However, if equally good sources in English exist, they will be more useful to our readers. If you need help verifying that a non-English source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Wikipedia:Translators available. I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it? No. Wikipedia includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough. I personally know that this information is false. Isn't that good enough to remove it? Your personal belief or knowledge that the information is false is not sufficient for removal of verifiable and well-sourced material. Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source? No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be published. Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"? No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual. What if the source is biased? Sources are allowed to be biased or non-neutral; sometimes these are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a controversial subject. However, the resulting Wikipedia articles must maintain a neutral point of view. Does every single sentence need to be followed by an inline citation? No. Only four broad categories of material need to be supported by inline citations. Editors need not supply citations for perfectly obvious material. However, it must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source for all material. Are sources required in all articles? Adding sources is the best practice, but prior efforts to officially require at least one source have been rejected by the community. See, e.g., discussions in January 2024 and March 2024. Are reliable sources required to name the author? No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement. Are reliable sources required to provide a list of references? No. Wikipedia editors should list any required sources in a references or notes section. However, the sources you are using to write the Wikipedia article do not need to provide a bibliography. Most reliable sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles, do not provide a bibliography. Does anyone read the sources? Readers do not use the reference list extensively. This research indicates that readers click somewhere in the list of references approximately three times out of every 1,000 page views.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 8.

This page has been mentioned by a media organization: Samuel Breslow (2022-09-29). "Wikipedia's Fox News Problem". Slate (magazine).

The Teahouse and Help Desk often get questions about genealogy sites like Ancestry.com and Find a Grave.

I have started drafting a guideline (currently tagged as an essay) at Wikipedia:Genealogy sources. Please feel free to chip in. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We say: "Questionable sources are those...that are promotional in nature". However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.

I wonder if we have a shared understanding of what it means for a source to be "promotional in nature". For example, are the red carpet interviews before the Oscars "promotional in nature"? Is a positive book review "promotional in nature"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no right answer to this… a lot depends on the “who, what and where” of the source. The key is to ask: is the interview/review independent of the thing being commented on. An interview with someone involved in a film is probably not independent… a gushing book review might be. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you see it as a question of WP:INDY? Why don't we just say "isn't independent of the subject matter", then? Editors have a shared understanding of what independent means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I've ever thought about that phrase, nor do I recall anyone bringing it up in any exchange I've had. (For that matter, I don't recall anyone ever referring to WP:QUESTIONABLE in a discussion.) It looks like "promotional in nature" was introduced in 2009. I'm inclined to think of it as sponsored content (this section wasn't introduced until 2018) + the content that gets excluded as "unduly self-serving" in BLPSELFPUB/ABOUTSELF/SELFSOURCE. So I don't see a strong reason to keep that phrase in light of those sections. The content of Oscar red carpet interviews largely falls under one or the other of those; at least, I think of someone promoting a film they're in as a form of sponsored content. A positive book review would be OK to use, as it doesn't fall in either of those; certainly practice is to pull from both positive and negative book reviews. As an aside, I find it odd that there's a section on questionable sources but not on generally unreliable sources. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the absence of a "gunrel" section is because that concept was made up by WP:RSP and technically has no basis in policy. The community used to believe what the FAQ says:

Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?

No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual.

– though the difference is largely in principle. In practice, there were always sources that were basically unusable (given that, e.g., so few articles actually need a statement like "A throw-away account on Reddit once said ____"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles like Super Penguin League use image-hosting websites such as Alamy. Are those absolutely considered unreliable? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like with Youtube, if we know the image uploader is an official account of the entity in question, then that generally can be used as a primary source. If that can't be verified, then no, its not reliable. Masem (t) 15:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alamy is a Stock photography company. The sources in question are the uploader-supplied captions on photos such as this one: https://www.alamy.com/french-american-former-professional-basketball-player-tony-parker-plays-during-a-chinese-variety-show-super-penguin-league-2019-in-shanghai-china-21-september-2019-image409290057.html In this case, it says "French-American former professional basketball player Tony Parker plays during a Chinese variety show Super Penguin League 2019 in Shanghai, China, 21 September 2019. Captions are provided by our contributors" and says the photo (and caption) are "By Stringer - Imaginechina/Sipa Usa". This is not a great source. I'd have to know more about this company to know whether it's an allowable source. I suggest replacing them or tagging them with {{better source needed}}, and if you encounter opposition, please take the question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would be good to mention them, likely as mostly unreliable. Otherwise it's a gray zone, some folks can argue they should be treated just as mater thesis (while I think they are weaker). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone indicated that any given bachelor's thesis has "had significant scholarly influence"? (WP:THESIS says Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. No scholarly influence, no reliability.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument occasionally, if rarely, appears. Wiki is big. I think it would be best to explicitly clarify this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely say that MY bachelors thesis (on the colonial history of the town where I grew up) is unreliable and had no scholarly impact beyond the local high school history teacher showing it to his students as an example of how to create a bibliography. Blueboar (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bachelor's thesis basically positioned me like Cassandra with regard to the impact of war mobilization in the United States on the antiglobalization movement but, despite me being entirely correct, it had absolutely no scholarly impact in any regard and, frankly, I think I mostly got really lucky regarding the predictions I made. It would also not constitute a reliable source. I think, in general, we should not be using bachelors' theses. Simonm223 (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § WMF seeking feedback on Reference Check. Sdkb-WMF ^talk 18:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The journal has been brought up in the talk page of the Dead internet theory, specifically the article The Dead Internet Theory: Investigating the Rise of AI-Generated Content and Bot Dominance in Cyberspace. It looks predatory, but I'm not 100%. Could someone please let me know if it passes sniff test. I would like a 3rd party opinion I can point to, as this topic gets a bit of attention and I don't want to be the only "bad guy" gate keeping the page. Thanks! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please move this question to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh sorry, thought that's where I was. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here to take part: Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#RFC on the "Populated, legally recognized places" standard. FOARP (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Restructuring RSP regarding reason for discussion. The thread is there. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. CNC (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]