User:Vassyana/insanity/RS

'''This is an archived version of WP:RS used for sandbox purposes. It is not policy or a proposal'''.

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

Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources. See Neutral point of view.

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. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment.

Scholarship
Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. This is usually considered reliable, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories. Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources, as appropriate.


 * Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
 * Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are welcomed.
 * Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles.

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 sources
Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.

Biographies of living persons

 * See Biographies of living persons

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 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.