Reliable publications include established newspapers, academic journals and books, textbooks, and other published sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking.
Unreliable sources include blog posts and other self-published works, press releases, and social media posts.
In order for a source to be considered verifiable, other editors should be able to consult the source.
Is the source independent of the subject?
Is the source connected in any way to the subject? This is especially important when writing biographies or about organizations.
For example, if you were writing a biography, sources like the person's webpage or personal blog would not be considered independent.
Is the source primary or secondary?
Primary sources include first-hand accounts, autobiographies, and other original content.
Wikipedia allows limited use of primary sources, but typically only for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and only if they are published and verifiable without requiring specialized knowledge.
Secondary sources should be the main basis for a biography on Wikipedia.
If you're working on a topic related to medicine or psychology, ensure that your sources follow these special guidelines.
If you're creating a new article, consider the following:
Ensure that your topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
In order for a topic to meet the notability requirement, you must be able to identify 2-3 sources that are reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject you're writing about.
Finding sufficient sources to establish notability can be especially hard when writing about people or organizations.
Sources that are not independent of the subject might be useful additions, but don't count towards the notability requirement.
Wikipedia has developed special guidelines for writing about living persons. Please follow these carefully.
Wikipedia has a series of guidelines for writing about different categories of people, such as academics and artists. If you're trying to create a new entry about a living person, please look at these carefully.
If you're not sure whether a source is reliable, ask a librarian! If you have questions about Wikipedia's sourcing rules, you can use the Get Help button below to contact your Wikipedia Expert.
Banks, Sandy. “Unflagging Controversy: Why Did Some Protestors Against Proposition 187 Carry the Red, White, and Green Instead of the Red, White, and Blue? To Latinos, It Was Prideful. To Many Americans, It Was Insulting.” Los Angeles Times, 10 Nov. 1994.
This is an article from the Los Angeles Times in 1994. It covers the controversy surrounding certain demonstrations against California Proposition 187 for their display of the Mexican flag. The reporter found that the tactic was unpopular amongst non-Latino voters. Movement leaders responded with a shift to American flags (both displays and sales) at later events.
Bowler, Shaun, Stephen P. Nicholson, and Gary M. Segura. “Earthquakes and Aftershocks: Race, Direct Democracy, and Partisan Change.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 50, no. 1, 2005, pp. 146-159. [1]
This is an article in a peer-reviewed political science journal. It covers the electoral consequences of racial appeals and animus, particularly of California Proposition 187. The research suggests that it reversed trends of increasing white and Latino affiliation with the Republican Party. Instead, it created attachments to the Democratic Party.
Kalfus, Marilyn. “Opponents Hire A Proven Winner: Initiative’s Detractors Say Their Agendas, Track Records Are Known.” Orange County Register, 2 Nov. 1994.
This is an article from the Orange County Register in 1994. It covers the coalition of interest groups that formed in opposition to California Proposition 187. The reporter found that the display of Mexican flags by the grassroots arm of the movement contributed to a conflict in strategy with the other more mainstream associations.
