had no sources

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "had no sources" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when indicating that there were no references or citations available for a particular claim or piece of information. Example: "The article was criticized for its lack of credibility because it had no sources to back up its claims."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

8 human-written examples

"He had no sources.

The New Yorker

American intelligence agencies had no sources at all in Iraq after 1998 to collect information about either illicit weapons or ties to terrorism, the committee said.

The New York Times

Which raised a question: If the president really believed we had no sources for our story, then what leak did he think needed investigating?

The Washington Post

The committee found significant short-comings in almost every aspect of the intelligence community's human intelligence collection efforts against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activities, in particular that the community had no sources collecting against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after 1998.

The New York Times

The research had no sources of funding.

Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control

have shown that more than 2/3 of the farmers from Vidarbha had no sources of irrigation other than the monsoon rains (Kale et al., 2014).

Life Sciences, Society and Policy

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

52 human-written examples

I've had no source of money from the insurance company.

The Guardian

His family had no source of income; they couldn't harvest enough wheat even to make their own bread.

The New York Times - Magazine

He had no source of funds to begin production, even if he had received orders (which he had not).

The New York Times

In this case, by mid-2014, the agency charged with developing the so-called BioDistrict had no source of revenue, only $500 in the bank, and no administrative head.

The Guardian

The present manuscript had no source of funding.

Annals of Intensive Care

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "had no sources", ensure the context clearly indicates what specifically lacked sources, such as a claim, research, or information. This enhances clarity and avoids ambiguity.

Common error

Avoid assuming that because something "had no sources", it is automatically false. The absence of sources simply means the information lacks verifiable support; it doesn't necessarily invalidate the claim itself.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "had no sources" functions primarily as a descriptor, indicating the absence of supporting references or origins for a particular claim, statement, or piece of information. As Ludwig AI confirms, this phrase is grammatically correct and usable in written English.

Expression frequency: Uncommon

Frequent in

News & Media

37%

Science

43%

Wiki

10%

Less common in

Formal & Business

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Social Media

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "had no sources" is a grammatically sound and frequently used expression for denoting the absence of references or supporting evidence. While Ludwig AI confirms its correctness, it's important to use it judiciously, ensuring that the context clearly indicates what lacks sources and avoiding the automatic assumption that a lack of sources equates to falsehood. Alternative phrases, such as "lacked sources" or "were without sources", offer similar meanings, allowing for nuanced expression. The phrase appears most commonly in scientific and journalistic writing.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

lacked sources

Replaces "had no" with "lacked", offering a more concise way to convey the absence of sources.

had no citations

Replaces "sources" with "citations", specifying the type of missing references.

didn't have any sources

Replaces "had no" with "didn't have any", providing a more conversational alternative.

possessed no sources

Substitutes "had no" with "possessed no", emphasizing the absence of ownership or access to sources.

had an absence of sources

Replaces "no sources" with "an absence of sources", focusing on the lack itself.

were without sources

Uses "were without" instead of "had no", highlighting a state of lacking sources.

were devoid of sources

Employs "devoid of" to stress the complete lack of sources.

had a dearth of sources

Uses "dearth of" to indicate a scarcity of sources, rather than a complete absence.

were unsubstantiated

Shifts the focus to the claim being unsubstantiated due to the lack of sources.

were undocumented

Indicates that information wasn't recorded or supported by documents because of the absence of sources.

FAQs

How can I use "had no sources" in a sentence?

You can use "had no sources" to indicate that something lacked references or supporting evidence. For example, "The article was criticized because it "had no sources" to back up its claims".

What are some alternatives to saying "had no sources"?

Alternatives include "lacked sources", "possessed no sources", or "were without sources". The best choice depends on the specific context and nuance you want to convey.

What does it mean when something is described as having "had no sources"?

It means the information, claim, or study in question didn't cite any references, provide supporting data, or identify where the information came from, raising concerns about its credibility.

Is it always bad if something "had no sources"?

While it's generally preferable for information to be well-sourced, the severity depends on the context. In academic or journalistic writing, it's a significant issue. In informal conversation, it might be less critical.