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.
Shaffer, Lynda. “Southernization.” Journal of World History, vol. 5, no. 1, 1994, pp. 1–21. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20078579. Accessed 2 Apr. 2023.[1]
The Journal of World History is a peer reviewed journal and was where the original article appeared. It should be used in place of the reprint in Michael Adas collection of essays. This article has been reprinted in several collections of world history essays and has been influential in shaping the narrative about the influence of South Asia in the ancient and postclassical world.
Voll, Paul "'Southernization' as a Construct in Post-Civilization Narrative," in The New World History, ed. Ross Dunn (Boston: Bedford, 2000).[2]
Paul Voll offers a critique of Shaffer's Southernization theory.
Bentley, Jerry "The New World History" in A Companion to Western Historic Thought, ed. Sarah Maza and Lloyd Kramer[3]
Shaffer's article can be considered part of the New World History historiography and Bentley's article explains the changes this entails which could provide background and context for Southernization as described by Shaffer.
^Voll, John O. (2019-12-31), Dunn, Ross (ed.), "Southernization' as a Construct in Post-Civilization Narrative", The New World History, University of California Press, pp. 242–258
^Bentley, Jerry (2006), Kramer, Lloyd; Maza, Sarah (eds.), ""The New World History"", A Companion to Western Historical Thought, Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 393–416, retrieved 2023-04-03
