Please immediately remove contentious material about living people (or existing groups) that is unsourced or poorly sourced.
Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies.
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the contribution.
Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page.
A cited source on Wikipedia is often a specific portion of text (such as a short article or a page in a book).
Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made.
If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science.
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications.
The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments.
Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online pages, columns or rolling text they call blogs.
These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.
Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.
Predatory open access journals are considered questionable due to the absence of quality control in the peer-review process.
That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, podcasts, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources.
Any such use should avoid original research, undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference.
The article text should clarify how the material is sourced from Wikipedia to inform the reader about the potential bias.
However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance.
Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people.
Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page.
[3] Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include: Do not plagiarize or breach copyright when using sources.
All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.
If there is a disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y," followed by an inline citation.