View source for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

{{Use mdy dates|date=December 2018}}
{{Short description|List of frequently discussed sources}}
{{Supplement|interprets=[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] guideline|shortcut1=WP:RSP|shortcut2=WP:RS/P}}
{{nutshell|This is a list of repeatedly discussed sources, collected and summarized for convenience. [[WP:Consensus can change|Consensus can change]], and [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS|context matters]] tremendously when determining how to use this list.}}
[[File:Comics About Reliable Sources English 1.png|thumb|upright=1.5|The reliability of a source greatly affects what information it can be used to support, or whether it should be used at all.]]
This is a non-exhaustive list of sources whose [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliability]] and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|reliable sources noticeboard]] and elsewhere on Wikipedia.

:''<big>[[#Sources|Jump to the list of frequently-discussed sources.]]</big>''

[[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS|Context matters]] tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation. When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions for more detailed information on a particular source and its use. [[WP:Consensus can change|Consensus can change]], and if more recent discussions considering new evidence or arguments reach a different consensus, this list should be updated to reflect those changes.

Reliability is an inquiry that takes place pursuant to the [[WP:V|verifiability policy]] and the [[WP:RS|reliable sources guideline]]. Note that verifiability is only one of Wikipedia's [[WP:COPO|core content policies]], which also include [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] and [[WP:NOR|no original research]]. These policies work together to determine whether information from reliable sources should be included or excluded.

__TOC__

== How to use this list ==
{{shortcut|WP:RSPUSE}}
Refer to the [[#Legend|legend]] for definitions of the icons in the list, but note that the discussion summaries provide more specific guidance on sources than the icons in the "Status" column. When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions, which provide in-depth arguments on when it is appropriate to use a source. The list is not an independent document; it is derived from the conclusions of the referenced discussions and formal [[requests for comment]] (RfCs). This list indexes discussions that reflect community [[WP:CON|consensus]], and is intended as a useful summary.

[[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS|Context matters]] tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes [[WP:SELFPUB|be used as self-published sources]] for routine information about the subjects themselves. Conversely, some otherwise high-quality sources may not be reliable for highly technical subjects that fall well outside their normal [[areas of expertise]], and even very high-quality sources may occasionally make errors, or retract pieces they have published in their entirety. Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high-quality professional journalism, while other content may be merely opinion pieces, which mainly represent the personal views of the author, and depend on the author's personal reliability as a source. Be especially careful with [[WP:SPONSORED|sponsored content]], because while it is usually unreliable as a source, it is designed to appear otherwise.

Consider also the [[WP:DUE|weight]] of the claims you are supporting, which should be evaluated alongside the reliability of the sources cited. [[WP:BLUE|Mundane, uncontroversial details]] have the lowest [[WP:BURDEN|burden of proof]], while information related to [[WP:MEDRS|biomedicine]] and [[WP:BLP|living persons]] have the highest.

===What if my source isn't here?===
{{shortcut|WP:RSPMISSING}}
Don't panic. If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source you want to use is a ''stellar'' source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious.{{efn|This is the case for some of the most prestigious academic journals in the world, like ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' and ''[[The Lancet]]''.}} It could mean that the source covers a niche topic, or that it simply fell through the cracks. Or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. If you're concerned about any source in particular, you should start a discussion about it at the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]] (RSN), after checking the "Search the noticeboard archives" there first. That is, after all, how the entries on this list got here to begin with.

{{mbox
|image=none
|text=<inputbox>
type=fulltext
prefix=Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
searchbuttonlabel=Search the noticeboard archives
</inputbox>
}}

A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present.

== How to improve this list ==
{{shortcut|WP:RSPIMPROVE}}
[[WP:CCC|Consensus can change]]. If you believe that circumstances have evolved since the most recent discussion, new evidence has emerged that was not available at the time, or there is a new line of argument not previously covered, consider starting a discussion or a [[WP:RfC|request for comment]] (RfC) at the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]].

Before doing so, please thoroughly familiarize yourself with content of previous discussions, and particularly the reasoning why consensus was reached, and not simply the outcome itself. Also consider when consensus was formed, and that the outcomes of very recent discussions are unlikely to be quickly overturned. Repeatedly restarting discussions where a strong and recent consensus already exists, may be considered [[WP:DE|disruptive]] and a type of [[WP:FORUMSHOP|forum shopping]].

If you feel that this list inadequately summarizes the content of the linked discussions, [[WP:BEBOLD|please help to improve it]], or start a discussion on [[WT:RS/P|the talk page]], especially [[WP:BRD|if your changes prove controversial]]. In updating this list, please be mindful that '''it should only summarize the content of past discussions''', and should not include novel arguments not previously covered in a centralized forum. If you would like to present a novel argument or interpretation, please do so in one of these forums, so that the discussion may be linked to, and itself summarized here.

=== Inclusion criteria ===
{{shortcut|WP:RSPCRITERIA}}
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|Inclusion criteria}}}|Inclusion criteria|
For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect '''two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] on the source's reliability that took place on the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]]'''. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.
}}</onlyinclude>

=== Instructions ===
{{main|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Instructions}}

Any editor may improve this list. Please refer to the [[/Instructions|instructions]] for details, and ask for help on [[WT:RSP|the talk page]] if you get stuck.

== Legend ==
{{plainlist|class=perennial-sources-legend}}
* {{anchor|Generally reliable}}{{shortcut|WP:GREL}}[[File:Yes Check Circle.svg|20px|Generally reliable|link=WP:RELIABLE]] '''[[WP:RELIABLE|Generally reliable]] in its [[areas of expertise]]''': Editors show [[WP:CON|consensus]] that the source is [[WP:RS|reliable]] in most cases on subject matters in its [[areas of expertise]]. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much [[WP:WEIGHT|weight]] to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments to exclude such a source entirely must be strong and convincing, e.g., the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (a [[WP:NEWSORG|well-established news organization]] is normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL|exceptional claim]], or a different standard of sourcing is required ([[WP:MEDRS]], [[WP:BLP]]) for the statement in question.
* {{anchor|No consensus|Marginally reliable}}{{shortcut|WP:MREL}}[[File:Achtung-orange.svg|20px|No consensus|link=WP:NOCON]] '''[[WP:NOCON|No consensus]], unclear, or additional considerations apply''': The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither [[#Generally reliable|generally reliable]] nor [[#Generally unreliable|generally unreliable]]), and may be usable [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS|depending on context]]. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered.
* {{anchor|Generally unreliable}}{{shortcut|WP:GUNREL}}[[File:Argentina - NO symbol.svg|20px|Generally unreliable|link=WP:QUESTIONABLE]] '''[[WP:QUESTIONABLE|Generally unreliable]]''': Editors show [[WP:CON|consensus]] that the source is [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|questionable]] in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be [[WP:SPS|self-published]], or present [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]]. Outside [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|exceptional circumstances]], the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a [[WP:BLP|living person]]. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for [[WP:ABOUTSELF|uncontroversial self-descriptions]], and self-published or user-generated content authored by established [[subject-matter expert]]s is also acceptable.
* {{anchor|Deprecated}}{{shortcut|WP:DEPREC}}[[File:Stop hand.svg|20px|Deprecated|link=WP:DEPS]] '''[[WP:DEPS|Deprecated]]''': There is community [[WP:CON|consensus]] from a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] to [[WP:DEPS|deprecate]] the source. The source is considered [[#Generally unreliable|generally unreliable]], and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for [[WP:ABOUTSELF|uncontroversial self-descriptions]], although reliable [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]] are still preferred. An [[WP:EF|edit filter]], {{efl|869}}, may be in place to [[WP:EF#Basics of usage|warn]] editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter are <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:RecentChanges|tagfilter=deprecated+source}} tagged]</span>.
* {{anchor|Blacklisted}}[[File:X-circle.svg|20px|Blacklisted|link=WP:SPB]] '''[[WP:SPB|Blacklisted]]''': Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of [[WP:LINKSPAM|external link spamming]], the source is on the [[WP:SPB|spam blacklist]] or the [[m:Spam blacklist|Wikimedia global spam blacklist]]. External links to this source are blocked, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|spam whitelist]].
* [[File:Treffpunkt.svg|20px|Request for comment|link=WP:RFC]] '''[[WP:RFC|Request for comment]]''': The linked discussion is an uninterrupted [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] on the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]] or another centralized venue suitable for determining the source's [[WP:RS|reliability]]. The closing statement of any RfC that is not clearly outdated should normally be considered authoritative and can only be overturned by a newer RfC.
* {{anchor|Stale discussions}}[[File:Farm-Fresh hourglass delete.png|20px|Stale discussions|link=WP:CCC]] '''[[WP:CCC|Stale discussions]]''': The source has not been discussed on the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]] for four [[calendar year]]s, and the [[WP:CCC|consensus may have changed]] since the most recent discussion. However, sources that are considered [[#Generally unreliable|generally unreliable]] for being [[WP:SPS|self-published]] or presenting [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]] are excluded. A change in consensus resulting from changes in the source itself does not apply to publications of the source from before the changes in question. Additionally, while it may be prudent to review these sources before using them, editors should generally assume that the source's previous status is still in effect if there is no reason to believe that the circumstances have changed.
* {{anchor|Discussion in progress}}[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|20px|Discussion in progress|link=WP:RSN]] '''[[WP:RSN|Discussion in progress]]''': The source is currently being discussed on the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]]. Italic numbers represent active discussions (all discussions that are not closed or archived) on the reliable sources noticeboard. Letters represent discussions outside of the reliable sources noticeboard.
* 📌 '''[[WP:SC|Shortcut]]''': Abbreviated [[H:WIKILINK|wikilink]] to the list entry for the source.
{{endplainlist}}

== Sources ==
<!--
  Please refer to the instructions at [[WP:RSPI]] for help editing this list.
  Feel free to ask for help on the talk page ([[Wikipedia talk:RSP]]) if you get stuck.
-->
{{shortcut|WP:RSPSOURCES|WP:RSPSRC|WP:RSPSS}}
{{Hatnote|'''Note:''' If you add/remove a source in the "[[#Generally unreliable|generally unreliable]]", "[[#Deprecated|deprecated]]" or "[[#Blacklisted|blacklisted]]" categories, please update {{slink|WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP/GENERAL|WP:RSP}}, or leave a note at [[Wikipedia talk:CITEWATCH]] if you need help.}}
<templatestyles src="Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/styles.css" />
{{Compact ToC|center=yes|nobreak=yes|num=yes|0-9=[[#112 Ukraine|0–9]]|a=[[#ABC News|A]]|b=[[#Baidu Baike|B]]|c=[[#The California Globe|C]]|d=[[#The Daily Beast|D]]|e=[[#The Economist|E]]|f=[[#Facebook|F]]|g=[[#Game Developer|G]]|h=[[#Haaretz|H]]|i=[[#Idolator|I]]|j=[[#JAMA|J]]|k=[[#Kirkus Reviews|K]]|l=[[#Last.fm|L]]|m=[[#Mail & Guardian|M]]|n=[[#The Nation|N]]|o=[[#Occupy Democrats|O]]|p=[[#PanAm Post|P]]|q=[[#Quackwatch|Q]]|r=[[#Radio Free Asia|R]]|s=[[#Salon|S]]|t=[[#Taki's Magazine|T]]|u=[[#Unz|U]]|v=[[#Vanity Fair|V]]|w=[[#The Wall Street Journal|W]]|x=[[#XBIZ|X]]|y=[[#YouTube|Y]]|z=[[#ZDNet|Z]]|custom1=Legend}}
{| class="wikitable sortable perennial-sources"
|+ Perennial sources
!rowspan="2" | Source
!rowspan="2" | Status<br />{{small|([[#Legend|legend]])}}
!colspan="3" | Discussions
!rowspan="2" class="unsortable" style="width: 4em;" | Uses
|-
! class="unsortable" style="width: 4.5em;" | List
! Last
! class="unsortable" style="min-width: 20em;" | Summary
|- class="s-gu" id="112_Ukraine"
| [[112 Ukraine]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|281|RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites.|2019|rfc=y}} {{sbll|January 2020|State sponsored fake news|2020}} {{rsnl|315|112.ua|rfc=y|2020}}
{{rsnl|281|news-front.info|1}}

[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016)|A]] [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 4#112 Ukraine|B]]
| {{/Last|2020}}
| 112 Ukraine was deprecated following a 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus for the deprecation of a slew of sources associated with Russian disinformation in Ukraine. It was pointed out later in a 2020 RfC that 112 Ukraine had not been explicitly discussed in that first discussion prior to its blacklisting request. Further discussion established a rough consensus that the source is generally unreliable, but did not form a consensus for deprecation or blacklisting. The prior blacklisting was reversed as out of process.
| {{/Uses|112.ua|112.international}}
|- class="s-gr" id="ABC News"
| [[ABC News]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|318|ABC News and FiveThirtyEight|1}} {{rsnl|346|Some reliable sources|2}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ABC News, the news division of the [[American Broadcasting Company]], is generally reliable. It is not to be confused with [[ABC News (disambiguation)|other publications of the same name]].
| {{/Uses|abcnews.com|abcnews.go.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Ad Fontes Media"
| [[Ad Fontes Media]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|258|media_bias_chart_from_adfontes_media|1}} {{rsnl|290|Ad_Fontes_Media_and_AllSides|2}} {{rsnl|298|Ad_Fontes_Media_Bias_Chart|3}} {{rsnl|302|Can_we_call_Wonkette_far-left_on_the_basis_of_adfontesmedia.com|4}} {{rsnl|350|Allsides.com_media_bias_chart,_revisited|5}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that Ad Fontes Media and their Media Bias Chart should not be used in article space in reference to sources' political leaning or reliability. Editors consider it a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]] and have questioned its methodology.
| {{/Uses|adfontesmedia.com}}
|- class="s-b" id="Advameg"
| [[Advameg]] {{small|([[City-Data]])}}
| {{/Status|gu|b=y}}
| {{rsnl|257|Fundinguniverse.com|2019|rfc=y}} {{sbll|April 2019|Advameg sites (city-data.com, filmreference.com, etc.)|2019}} {{rsnl|264|Rfc: company-histories.com|2019|rfc=y}}
+14{{efn|See also these discussions of Advameg:
{{rsnl|26|www.filmreference.com|1}}
{{rsnl|31|www.city-data.com|2}}
{{rsnl|39|filmreference.com|3}}
{{rsnl|48|City-Data.com|4}}
{{rsnl|72|Notable Biographies / Encyclopedia of World Biographies|5}}
{{rsnl|77|Encyclopedia of the Nations (website)|6}}
{{rsnl|93|filmreference.com|7}}
{{rsnl|146|notablebiographies.com|8}}
{{rsnl|164|http://www.deathreference.com/, and a 1918 reference|9}}
{{rsnl|231|Reference for Business's Encyclopedia of Business (Advameg)|10}}
{{rsnl|236|country-data.com as a source for history and ethnogenesis|11}}
{{rsnl|240|americanforeignrelations.com|12}}
{{rsnl|259|referenceforbusiness.com|13}}
[[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2019#Advameg sites (city-data.com, filmreference.com, etc.)|A]]
}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Advameg operates [[content farm]]s, including [[City-Data]], that use [[Web scraping|scraped]] or improperly licensed content. These sites frequently republish content from [[Gale (publisher)|Gale]]'s encyclopedias; many editors can [[WP:Gale|obtain access to Gale]] through [[WP:TWL|The Wikipedia Library]] free of charge. Advameg's sites are on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used.  [[WP:COPYLINK]] prohibits linking to copyright violations.
| {{/Uses|company-histories.com|fundinguniverse.com}} [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2019#Site list|+43]]
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Age"
| data-sort-value="Age, The" | ''[[The Age]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|352|Reliability_of_The_Sydney_Morning_Herald_and_The_Age|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| ''The Age'' is a newspaper based in Melbourne, Australia. There is consensus that it is generally reliable.
| {{/Uses|theage.com.au}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Agence_France-Presse"
| [[Agence France-Presse]] {{small|(AFP)}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|243|Can_“wire”_news_services_such_AP,_Reuters,_or_AFP_ever_report_inaccurate,_misleading,_or_false_information|1}} {{rsnl|294|AFP|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Agence France-Presse is a [[news agency]]. There is consensus that Agence France-Presse is generally reliable. [[WP:SYNDICATED|Syndicated]] reports from Agence France-Presse that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.
| {{/Uses|afp.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Al_Jazeera"
| [[Al Jazeera]] {{small|([[Al Jazeera English]], [[Aljazeera.com]])}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|1|al Jazeera video|1}} {{rsnl|31|Aljazeera.com|2}} {{rsnl|45|Al Jazeera|3}} {{rsnl|92|Is the Aljazeera Live News Blog a Reliable Source?|4}} {{rsnl|129|A quote in aljazeera in regards to two statements|5}} {{rsnl|134|Aljazeera regarding Syria Civil War RS|6}} {{rsnl|150|AlJazeera.com is now with Al Jazeera but probably beware when|7}} {{rsnl|166|Al Jazeera piece a reliable source?|8}} {{rsnl|253|Arizona Border Recon|9}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable [[WP:NEWSORG|news organization]]. Editors perceive [[Al Jazeera English]] (and [[Aljazeera.com]]) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a [[WP:BIASED|partisan]] source with respect to the [[Arab–Israeli conflict]]. Al Jazeera's [[WP:NEWSBLOG|news blogs]] should be handled with the corresponding policy.
| {{/Uses|aljazeera.com|aljazeera.net}}
|- class="s-gu" id="AlterNet"
| [[AlterNet]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|86|Alternet|1}} {{rsnl|125|AlterNet|2}} {{rsnl|147|AlterNet and Truthdig|3}} {{rsnl|251|AlterNet|4}} {{rsnl|264|Should AlterNet be deprecated?|5}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is consensus that AlterNet is generally unreliable. Editors consider AlterNet a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan source]], and its statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. AlterNet's [[WP:SYNDICATED|syndicated content]] should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher.
| {{/Uses|alternet.org}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Amazon"
| [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]] {{/Shortcut|WP:RSPAMAZON}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|20|Citing unverifiable Amazon 'editorial reviews' as book reviews|1}} {{rsnl|21|Is Amazon.com a reliable source?|2}} {{rsnl|43|Amazon.com as an RS for unreleased material|3}} {{rsnl|56|Amazon.com for digital music release info|4}} {{rsnl|232|BuzzFeed and Amazon.com|5}} {{rsnl|286|The elephant in the room – amazon.com|6}} {{rsnl|337|Amazon as a source|7}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| User reviews on Amazon are anonymous, [[WP:SELFPUB|self-published]], and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), although it is unnecessary to cite Amazon when the work itself may serve as a source for that information (e.g., authors' names and ISBNs). Future release dates may be unreliable.
| {{/Uses|amazon.com|amazon.cn|amazon.in|amazon.co.jp|amazon.com.sg|amazon.com.tr|amazon.fr|amazon.de|amazon.it|amazon.nl|amazon.es|amazon.co.uk|amazon.ca|amazon.com.mx|amazon.com.au|amazon.com.br}}
|- class="s-nc" id="The_American_Conservative"
| data-sort-value="American Conservative" | ''[[The American Conservative]]'' {{small|(''TAC'')}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|273|RfC: The American Conservative|2019|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|312|RfC: The American Conservative|2020|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|357|RFC : The American Conservative|2021|rfc=y}} 
{{rsnl|273|An op-ed by Paul Gottfried about the accuracy of a PragerU video|1}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| ''The American Conservative'' is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organisation. It is a self-identified opinionated source whose factual accuracy was questioned and many editors say that ''The American Conservative'' should not be used as a source for facts. There is consensus that [[WP:RSOPINION|opinions]] sourced to it must always be accompanied with [[WP:INTEXT|in-text attribution]].
| {{/Uses|theamericanconservative.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="An_Phoblacht"
| ''[[An Phoblacht]]''
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|299|RfC: An Phoblacht|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|199|An Poblacht as reliable source??|1}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that ''An Phoblacht'' is generally unreliable for news reporting, as it is a publication of [[Sinn Féin]]. Under the conditions of [[WP:ABOUTSELF]], ''An Phoblacht'' is usable for [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]] statements from Sinn Féin and some editors believe that the publication may also be used for attributed statements from the [[Provisional Irish Republican Army]] (IRA).
| {{/Uses|anphoblacht.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Anadolu_Agency"
| {{anchor|Anadolu Agency (general topics)}} [[Anadolu Agency]] (general topics) {{small|(AA)}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|281|RfC: Anadolu Agency|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| The 2019 RfC established no consensus on the reliability of Anadolu Agency. Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of fact. However, Anadolu Agency is frequently described as a mouthpiece of the Turkish government that engages in propaganda, owing to its [[State media|state-run]] status. ''See also: [[#Anadolu Agency (controversial topics)|Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics)]].''
| {{/Uses|aa.com.tr/en|aa.com.tr}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Anadolu_Agency_(controversial_topics)"
| [[Anadolu Agency]] (controversial topics, international politics) {{small|(AA)}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|281|RfC: Anadolu Agency|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| In the 2019 RfC, editors generally agreed that Anadolu Agency is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. ''See also: [[#Anadolu Agency|Anadolu Agency (general topics)]].''
| {{/Uses|aa.com.tr/en|aa.com.tr}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Ancestry.com"
| [[Ancestry.com]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|61|Question about Ancestry.com|1}} {{rsnl|92|Ancestry.com|2}} {{rsnl|150|Ancestry.com|3}} {{rsnl|189|Ancestry.com|4}} {{rsnl|298|Royalcruft again|5}} {{rsnl|335|Ancestry.com|6}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Ancestry.com is a [[genealogy]] site that hosts a database of [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] documents including marriage and census records. Some of these sources may be usable under [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]], but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred. Ancestry.com also hosts [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]], which is unreliable.
| {{/Uses|ancestry.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Answers.com"
| [[Answers.com]] {{small|(WikiAnswers)}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|10|Encyclopedias in Answers.com|1}} {{rsnl|22|Encyclopedia content hosted on Answers.com and Highbeam (encyclopedia.com)|2}} {{rsnl|23|This Answers.com article|3}} {{rsnl|80|Company histories on answers.com|4}}
| {{/Last|2010|stale=n}}
| Answers.com (previously known as WikiAnswers) is a [[Q&A site]] that incorporates [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]]. In the past, Answers.com republished excerpts and summaries of [[WP:TERTIARY|tertiary sources]], including [[D&B Hoovers]], [[Gale (publisher)|Gale]], and [[HighBeam Research]]. Citations of republished content on Answers.com should point to the original source, with a note that the source was accessed "via Answers.com". Answers.com also previously served as a [[WP:MIRROR|Wikipedia mirror]]; using republished Wikipedia content is considered [[WP:CIRCULAR|circular sourcing]].
| {{/Uses|answers.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Anti-Defamation_League"
| [[Anti-Defamation League]] {{small|(ADL)}} {{/Shortcut|WP:RSPADL}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|302|RfC: Anti-Defamation League (ADL)|2020|rfc=yes}}
{{rsnl|9|Are these reliable sources and do they conflict with NPOV?|1}} {{rsnl|58|Anti-Defamation League|2}} {{rsnl|147|ADL website as source on noncontroversial facts|3}} {{rsnl|204|And_the_ADL|4}} {{rsnl|234|ADL is being cited as a reliable source|5}} {{rsnl|336|adl.org/blog (Anti-Defamation League Blog)|6}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that ADL must be attributed in all cases, but there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all.
| {{/Uses|adl.org}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Apple_Daily"
| ''[[Apple Daily]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|297|RfC: Apple Daily|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|346|Apple Daily shutting down|1}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| A 2020 RfC found that ''Apple Daily'' was often but not always reliable, and that it may be appropriate to use it in articles about Hong Kong, but subject to editorial judgment, particularly if the topic is controversial and/or ''Apple Daily'' is the only source for a contested claim. There was concern that historically, it was not necessarily as reliable as it was in 2020. ''Apple Daily'' shut down in June 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-57578926|title=Apple Daily: Hong Kong pro-democracy paper announces closure|website=BBC News|date=June 23, 2021|access-date=June 24, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210624014051/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-57578926|archive-date=June 24, 2021|url-status=live}}</ref>
| {{/Uses|hk.appledaily.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Arab_News"
| ''[[Arab News]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|289|Rfc: Arab news is a reliable source?|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|5|ArabNews|1}} {{rsnl|260|World atlas + Arab news|2}} {{rsnl|305|Arab_News_on_Iran_International|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that ''Arab News'' is a usable source for topics unrelated to the [[Saudi Arabia]]n government. As ''Arab News'' is closely associated with the Saudi Arabian government and is published in a country with low [[press freedom]], editors consider ''Arab News'' [[WP:BIASED|biased]] and [[WP:IS|non-independent]] for Saudi Arabian politics, and recommend [[WP:INTEXT|attribution]] for its coverage in this area. Some editors consider ''Arab News'' unreliable for matters related to the Saudi Arabian government.
| {{/Uses|arabnews.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Ars_Technica"
| ''[[Ars Technica]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|2|Ars Technica news?|1}} {{rsnl|136|Ars Technica a Reliable Source?|2}}
| {{/Last|2012}}
| ''Ars Technica'' is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles.
| {{/Uses|arstechnica.com|arstechnica.co.uk}}
|- class="s-gu" id="arXiv"
| [[arXiv]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|68|ArXiv.org|1}} {{rsnl|93|Arxiv lecture notes|2}} {{rsnl|131|arXiv paper|3}} {{rsnl|134|ARXIV.ORG paper|4}}
[[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 4#ArXiv preprints and conference abstracts|A]] [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 49#Unpublished/SPS/UGC sources and Template:Cite arXiv|B]]
| {{/Last|2015}}
| arXiv is a [[preprint]] (and sometimes [[postprint]]) repository containing papers that have undergone moderation, but not necessarily [[Scholarly peer review|peer review]]. There is consensus that arXiv is a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]], and is generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established [[subject-matter expert]]s. Verify whether a paper on arXiv is also published in a peer-reviewed [[academic journal]]; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an [[open access]] link to the paper (which may be hosted on arXiv).
| {{/Uses|arxiv.org}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Asian_News_International"
| [[Asian News International]] {{small|(ANI)}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|331|RfC: Asian News International (ANI)|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Asian News International is an Indian [[news agency]]. For general reporting, Asian News International is considered to be between [[WP:MREL|marginally reliable]] and [[WP:GUNREL|generally unreliable]], with consensus that it is biased and that it should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed in-text]] for contentious claims. For its coverage related to Indian domestic politics, foreign politics, and other topics in which the [[Government of India]] may have an established stake, there is consensus that Asian News International is [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|questionable]] and generally unreliable due to its reported dissemination of pro-government propaganda.
| {{/Uses|aninews.in}}
|- class="s-nc" id="AskMen"
| [[AskMen]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|25|askmen.com|1}} {{rsnl|34|Askmen.com|2}} {{rsnl|37|AskMen.com|3}} {{rsnl|51|Ask.com|4}} {{rsnl|120|Askmen.com|5}} {{rsnl|284|AskMen|6}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of AskMen. ''See also: {{pslink|IGN}}.''
| {{/Uses|askmen.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Associated_Press"
| [[Associated Press]] {{small|(AP)}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|38|New York Times, Associated Press, etc. as sources on legal questions|1}} {{rsnl|58|Associated Press, reliable?|2}} {{rsnl|129|Brian Bakst [Associated Press] (2012-06-16) "Paul Ryan's Future Could Mean Mitt Romney White House Over U.S. House Of Representatives" Huffington Post on Paul Ryan|3}} {{rsnl|150|PRISM and an Associated Press article discussing the Najibullah Zazi case|4}} {{rsnl|164|Associated Press article being used in Shooting of Trayvon Martin|5}} {{rsnl|243|Can “wire” news services such AP, Reuters, or AFP ever report inaccurate, misleading, or false information|6}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| The Associated Press is a [[news agency]]. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable. [[WP:SYNDICATED|Syndicated]] reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.
| {{/Uses|ap.org|apnews.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Atlantic"
| data-sort-value="Atlantic"| ''[[The Atlantic]]'' {{small|(''The Atlantic Monthly'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|8|The Atlantic Monthly website|1}} {{rsnl|240|Is Conor Friedersdorf and the Atlantic a Reliable Source?|2}} {{rsnl|268|The Kingdom in the Closet by Nadya Labi|3}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| ''The Atlantic'' is considered generally reliable.
| {{/Uses|theatlantic.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Australian"
| data-sort-value="Australian"| ''[[The Australian]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|245|The Australian newspaper|1}} {{rsnl|309|The Australian|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''The Australian'' is considered generally reliable. Some editors consider ''The Australian'' to be a partisan source. Opinion pieces are covered by [[WP:RSOPINION]] and [[WP:NEWSBLOG]]. Several editors expressed concern regarding their coverage of climate change related topics.
| {{/Uses|theaustralian.com.au}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Asian_News_International"
| [[Australian Strategic Policy Institute]] {{small|(ASPI)}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|357|RfC: Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) as Source|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that use of Australian Strategic Policy Institute should be evaluated for [[WP:UNDUE|due weight]] and accompanied with [[WP:INTEXT|in text attribution]] when used. Editors consider the Australian Strategic Policy Institute to be a [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated source]] that is reliable in the topic area of Australian defence and strategic issues but recommend care as it is a think tank associated with the defence industry in Australia and the Australian Government.
| {{/Uses|aspi.org.au}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_A.V._Club"
| data-sort-value="AV Club"| ''[[The A.V. Club]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|9|The A/V Club|1}} {{rsnl|151|The A.V. Club at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film)|2}} {{rsnl|177|Westeros.org. Again|3}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 32#Review site: The A.V. Club|A]]
| {{/Last|2014}}
| ''The A.V. Club'' is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews.
| {{/Uses|avclub.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="AVN"
| data-sort-value="AVN"| ''[[AVN (magazine)]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|349|RfC: Adult industry sources|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| ''Adult Video News (AVN)'' is considered generally reliable for the adult industry. Editors should take care to ensure the content is not a republished press release (which is marked as such in search).
| {{/Uses|avn.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Axios"
| ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|263|Axios (website)|1}} {{rsnl|289|Axios.com as a generally reliable source?|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that ''Axios'' is generally reliable. Some editors consider ''Axios'' to be a [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated source]]. [[WP:RSOPINION|Statements of opinion]] should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]] and evaluated for [[WP:DUE|due weight]].
| {{/Uses|axios.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="Baidu_Baike"
| [[Baidu Baike]]
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|305|RfC: Baidu Baike|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|17|b.baidu.com|1}} {{rsnl|60|Baidu Baike|2}} {{rsnl|249|Baidu Baike – Used extensively as a reference here, it's a Chinese language anonymous wiki|3}} {{rsnl|251|Possible bot removal and blacklisting of Baidu|4}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Baidu Baike was deprecated in the 2020 RfC as it is similar to an [[WP:UGC|open wiki]], which is a type of [[WP:SPS|self-published source]]. Although edits are reviewed by Baidu administrators before they are published, most editors believe the editorial standards of Baidu Baike to be very low, and do not see any evidence of fact-checking. The [[Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures]] [[kuso]] originated from Baidu Baike.
| {{/Uses|baike.baidu.com|b.baidu.com|wapbaike.baidu.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Ballotpedia"
| [[Ballotpedia]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|165|Ballotpedia|1}} {{rsnl|209|ballotpedia.org on Lane Powell|2}} {{rsnl|211|Ballotpedia|3}}
| {{/Last|2016}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of Ballotpedia. The site has an editorial team and accepts error corrections, but some editors do not express strong confidence in the site's editorial process. Discussions indicate that Ballotpedia used to be an [[WP:UGC|open wiki]], but stopped accepting [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]] at some point. Currently, the site claims: "Ballotpedia's articles are 100 percent written by our professional staff of more than 50 writers and researchers."<ref>{{cite web|accessdate=October 23, 2018|title=Ballotpedia: About|url=https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia:About|website=Ballotpedia|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181107064314/https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia:About|archive-date=November 7, 2018|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>
| {{/Uses|ballotpedia.org}}
|- class="s-gr" id="BBC"
| [[BBC]] {{small|(British Broadcasting Corporation)}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| 17{{efn|See these discussions of BBC:
{{rsnl|1|Collective (BBC)|1}}
{{rsnl|28|BBC self-published content?|2}}
{{rsnl|29|Redux: Is "Document" documentary on BBC4 radio RS?|3}}
{{rsnl|34|BBC History|4}}
{{rsnl|97|BBC Domesday Reloaded|5}}
{{rsnl|104|The New York Times BBC vs. academics|6}}
{{rsnl|124|Second Congo War, International Rescue Committee, BBC News|7}}
{{rsnl|129|Can a BBC documentary be cited as a reliable source?|8}}
{{rsnl|133|BBC|9}}
{{rsnl|184|BBC documentary in Lewis Carroll|10}}
{{rsnl|189|BBC misrepresentation of sources|11}}
{{rsnl|224|BBC One – Antiques Roadshow|12}}
{{rsnl|265|BBC article about sexual abuse in MEK camps|13}}
{{rsnl|265|BBC|14}}
{{rsnl|278|BBC on some pro-MEK politicians getting paid by the group|15}}
{{rsnl|301|The BBC|16}}
{{rsnl|347|Reliability of a specific BBC report|17}}
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| BBC is considered generally reliable. This includes [[BBC News]], BBC documentaries, and the BBC History site (on [[BBC Online]]). However, this excludes BBC projects that incorporate [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]] (such as [[h2g2]] and the [[BBC Domesday Project]]) and BBC publications with reduced editorial oversight (such as ''[[Collective (BBC)|Collective]]''). [[WP:RSOPINION|Statements of opinion]] should conform to the corresponding guideline.
| {{/Uses|bbc.co.uk|bbc.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Bellingcat"
| [[Bellingcat]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|274|RfC: Bellingcat (August 2019)|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|184|"Bellingcat"|1}} {{rsnl|193|Bellingcat|2}} {{rsnl|271|Bellingcat used for this|3}} {{rsnl|275|Bellingcat|4}} {{rsnl|330|Bellingcat|5}} {{rsnl|338|Is this Bellingcat article reliable for this specific BLP claim?|6}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with [[WP:INTEXT|attribution]]. Some editors consider Bellingcat a [[WP:BIASED|biased]] source, as it receives funding from the [[National Endowment for Democracy]].
| {{/Uses|bellingcat.com}}
|- class="s-b" id="bestgore.com"
| [[bestgore.com]]
| {{/Status|d|b=y}}
| {{rsnl|337|RfC: Best Gore (bestgore.com)|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that bestgore.com is a shock site with no credibility. It is deprecated and has been added to the [[WP:SPB|spam blacklist]].
| {{/Uses|bestgore.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Bild"
| ''[[Bild]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:BILD}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|25|Bild|1}} {{rsnl|166|Bild|2}} {{rsnl|304|Bild|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''Bild'' is a German tabloid that has been unfavourably compared to ''{{pslink|The Sun}}''. A few editors consider the source usable in some cases.
| {{/Uses|bild.de}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Biography.com"
| [[Biography.com]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|237|It's time to talk about biography.com generally|1}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of Biography.com. Some editors consider the source reliable because of its backing from [[A&E Networks]] and references to the website in news media. Others point to discrepancies between information on Biography.com and on more established sources, and an unclear fact-checking process.
| {{/Uses|biography.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Blaze_Media"
| [[Blaze Media]] {{small|(BlazeTV, [[Conservative Review]], CRTV, TheBlaze)}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|174|Is The Blaze a WP:RS for America (2014 film)|1}} {{rsnl|227|Newsbusters and The Blaze at WP:BLP page Malcolm Nance ?|2}} {{rsnl|239|TheBlaze show Dana etc. w rgd Dana Loesch|3}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts. In some cases, it may be usable for [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]] opinions. In 2018, TheBlaze merged with [[Conservative Review]] (CRTV) to form Blaze Media.<ref>{{cite web|accessdate=December 23, 2018|title=TheBlaze and CRTV Merge to Create Conservative Media Powerhouse (Exclusive)|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/glenn-beck-mark-levin-create-conservative-media-powerhouse-1165665|website=The Hollywood Reporter|first=Paul|last=Bond|date=December 2, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181218035832/https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/glenn-beck-mark-levin-create-conservative-media-powerhouse-1165665|archive-date=December 18, 2018|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>
| {{/Uses|theblaze.com|conservativereview.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Blogger"
| [[Blogger (service)|Blogger]] {{small|(blogspot.com)}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| 21{{efn|See these discussions of Blogger:
{{rsnl|26|Blogspot interview|1}}
{{rsnl|54|Turn of the Century postcard collections on Blogspot|2}}
{{rsnl|61|Sol Bellel, knickerbockervillage.blogspot.com|3}}
{{rsnl|90|wxpn.blogspot.com|4}}
{{rsnl|97|is http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2008 02 01 archive.html a reliable source?|5}}
{{rsnl|116|Is unknownmisandry.blogspot.com a reliable source?|6}}
{{rsnl|122|austchristiannews.blogspot.com.au|7}}
{{rsnl|123|fullecirclestuff.blogspot.com interview|8}}
{{rsnl|126|Riverdale Press blogspot|9}}
{{rsnl|127|Blogspot|10}}
{{rsnl|140|conscience-sociale.blogspot.com, conscience-sociale.blogspot.fr|11}}
{{rsnl|156|Gene-callahan.blogspot.com|12}}
{{rsnl|201|http://thedevilanddanvojir.blogspot.ca/2009 07 02 archive.html et al|13}}
{{rsnl|208|empoprise-mu.blogspot.com meeting RS|14}}
{{rsnl|233|Blogspot a RS?|15}}
{{rsnl|266|Blogspot blog as a source?|16}}
{{rsnl|271|Blogger dismantles watch for tech details, can this be ref'd and reported?|17}}
{{rsnl|273|Are these sources reliable?|18}}
{{rsnl|274|Copies of reliable sources on blogs|19}}
{{rsnl|276|A personal blog of a professional historian as a source for history articles|20}}
{{rsnl|296|Whitelist for batakindonews.blogspot.com|21}}
}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Blogger is a [[WP:BLOGS|blog]] hosting service that owns the blogspot.com domain. As a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]], it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a [[WP:EXPERTSOURCE|subject-matter expert]] or the blog is used for [[WP:ABOUTSELF|uncontroversial self-descriptions]]. Blogger blogs published by a media organization should be evaluated by the reliability of the organization. Newspaper blogs hosted using Blogger should be handled with [[WP:NEWSBLOG]]. Blogger should never be used for third-party claims related to [[WP:BLPSPS|living persons]]; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated.
| {{/Uses|blogspot.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Bloomberg"
| [[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] {{small|([[Bloomberg News]], ''[[Bloomberg Businessweek]]'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|151|Bloomberg on Microsoft|1}} {{rsnl|226|On Bloomberg|2}} {{rsnl|270|Bloomberg|3}} {{rsnl|281|Bloomberg News / Decision not to investigate Michael Bloomberg|4}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Bloomberg publications, including [[Bloomberg News]] and ''[[Bloomberg Businessweek]]'', are considered generally reliable for news and business topics. ''See also: {{pslink|Bloomberg profiles}}.''
| {{/Uses|bloomberg.com|businessweek.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Bloomberg_profiles"
| [[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] profiles
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|226|On Bloomberg|1}} {{rsnl|237|User submitted Executive Profiles on Bloomberg.com|2}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| Bloomberg company and executive profiles are generally considered to be based on company press releases and should only be used as a source for uncontroversial information. There is consensus that these profiles should not be used to establish [[WP:N|notability]]. Some editors consider these profiles to be akin to [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]]. ''See also: {{pslink|Bloomberg}}.''
| {{/Uses|bloomberg.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Boing_Boing"
| ''[[Boing Boing]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|110|Boing Boing editorial used as attribution for editor's opinion?|1}} {{rsnl|241|Boing Boing 2|2}} {{rsnl|259|Boing Boing as a reliable source|3}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of ''Boing Boing''. Although ''Boing Boing'' is a [[WP:BLOGS|group blog]], some of its articles are written by [[WP:EXPERTSOURCE|subject-matter experts]] such as [[Cory Doctorow]], who is considered generally reliable for [[copyright law]].
| {{/Uses|boingboing.net}}
|- class="s-b" id="Breitbart_News"
| ''[[Breitbart News]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:BREITBART}}
| {{/Status|d|b=y}}
| {{rsnl|248|RfC: Breitbart|2018|rfc=y}} {{sbll|October 2018|breitbart.com|2018}}
+15{{efn|See also these discussions of ''Breitbart News'':
{{rsnl|84|Breitbart as News RS|1}}
{{rsnl|122|Breitbart.com|2}}
{{rsnl|174|In most circumstances, is Breitbart.com a WP:RS?|3}}
{{rsnl|176|Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own author's film review?|4}}
{{rsnl|182|Breitbart again|5}}
{{rsnl|190|Update: Breitbart Global News Syndicate – Reliability Dispute|6}}
{{rsnl|199|Is Breitbart reliable for its own opinion.|7}}
{{rsnl|208|Use of Breitbart on Alt-right|8}}
{{rsnl|211|Is Breitbart.com reliable?|9}}
{{rsnl|216|Breitbart News|10}}
{{rsnl|231|Should Breitbart articles be given talkpage PRESS templates|11}}
{{rsnl|265|Breitbart News ... but hear me out|12}}
{{rsnl|268|Breitbart as a source for criticism of Wikipedia|13}}
{{rsnl|300|Citing breitbart.com for their "Never Trump" opinion|14}}
[[Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 4#RfC: Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram?|A]]
}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Due to persistent abuse, ''Breitbart News'' is on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used. The site has published a number of falsehoods, [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]], and intentionally misleading stories. The 2018 RfC showed a very clear consensus that ''Breitbart News'' should be deprecated in the same way as the ''{{pslink|Daily Mail}}''. This does not mean ''Breitbart News'' can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary. ''Breitbart News'' has directly attacked and [[Doxing|doxed]] Wikipedia editors. Posting or linking to another editor's personal information is prohibited under the [[WP:OUTING|outing policy]], unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia.
| {{/Uses|breitbart.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Burke's_Peerage"
| [[Burke's Peerage]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|297|Burke's Peerage|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|114|thepeerage.com|1}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Burke's Peerage is considered generally reliable for genealogy.
| {{/Uses|burkespeerage.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Business_Insider"
| ''[[Business Insider]]'' {{small|(''Insider'', ''Markets Insider'', ''Tech Insider'')}} {{/Shortcut|WP:BI}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|324|RfC: Business Insider|2020|rfc=y}}
11{{efn|See also these discussions of ''Business Insider'':
{{rsnl|83|Is Business Insider reliable?|1}}
{{rsnl|86|Hedge fund returns for Empirica Capital.|2}}
{{rsnl|105|Business Insider|3}}
{{rsnl|116|Business Insider|4}}
{{rsnl|123|Business Insider|5}}
{{rsnl|189|Walter Hickey / Business Insider|6}}
{{rsnl|290|Rich McHugh|7}}
{{rsnl|294|Business Insider|8}}
{{rsnl|296|Is Business Insider reliable for an underrated college?|9}}
{{rsnl|310|Business Insider|10}}
{{rsnl|342|Valid Sources?|11}}
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of ''Business Insider''. The site's [[WP:SYNDICATED|syndicated content]], which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also {{pslink|Insider culture}}.
| {{/Uses|businessinsider.com|www.insider.com|thisisinsider.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Bustle"
| ''[[Bustle (magazine)|Bustle]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|262|RfC: Bustle|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is consensus that the reliability of ''Bustle'' is unclear and that its reliability should be decided on an instance-by-instance basis. Editors noted that it has an editorial policy and that it will issue retractions. Editors also noted previous issues it had around reliability and that its content is written by freelance writers – though there is no consensus on whether this model affects their reliability.
| {{/Uses|bustle.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="BuzzFeed"
| {{anchor|Buzzfeed}}[[BuzzFeed]] {{/Shortcut|WP:BUZZFEED}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|93|BuzzFeed|1}} {{rsnl|179|BuzzFeed|2}} {{rsnl|188|Buzzfeed, Mother Jones for BLP's.|3}} {{rsnl|189|May Buzzfeed sometimes be an RS? (Article about Chris Epps)|4}} {{rsnl|213|Buzzfeed|5}} {{rsnl|231|Beware BuzzFeed articles for at least a day after publication|6}} {{rsnl|232|BuzzFeed and Amazon.com|7}} {{rsnl|245|BuzzFeed (yes, I know – again)|8}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| Editors find the quality of BuzzFeed articles to be highly inconsistent. A 2014 study from the {{pslink|Pew Research Center}} found BuzzFeed to be the least trusted news source in America.<ref>{{cite news|accessdate=October 23, 2018|title=Media Sources: Distinct Favorites Emerge on the Left and Right|url=http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/section-1-media-sources-distinct-favorites-emerge-on-the-left-and-right/|website=Pew Research Center|date=October 21, 2014|first1=Amy|last1=Mitchell|first2=Jeffrey|last2=Gottfried|first3=Jocelyn|last3=Kiley|first4=Katerina Eva|last4=Matsa|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181020233211/http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/section-1-media-sources-distinct-favorites-emerge-on-the-left-and-right/|archive-date=October 20, 2018|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> BuzzFeed may use [[A/B testing]] for new articles, which may cause article content to change.<ref>{{cite news|accessdate=October 23, 2018|title=BuzzFeed’s strategy for getting content to do well on all platforms? Adaptation and a lot of A/B testing|url=http://www.niemanlab.org/2017/09/buzzfeeds-strategy-for-getting-content-to-do-well-on-all-platforms-adaptation-and-a-lot-of-ab-testing/|newspaper=Nieman Lab|date=September 15, 2017|first=Shan|last=Wang|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181121160312/http://www.niemanlab.org/2017/09/buzzfeeds-strategy-for-getting-content-to-do-well-on-all-platforms-adaptation-and-a-lot-of-ab-testing/|archive-date=November 21, 2018|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> BuzzFeed operates a separate news division, ''{{pslink|BuzzFeed News}}'', which has higher editorial standards and is now hosted on a different website. ''See also: {{pslink|BuzzFeed News}}.''
| {{/Uses|buzzfeed.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="BuzzFeed_News"
| ''[[BuzzFeed News]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| 10{{efn|See also these discussions of ''BuzzFeed News'':
{{rsnl|179|BuzzFeed|1}}
{{rsnl|222|Buzzfeed reporting remarks by unnamed senators|2}}
{{rsnl|223|BuzzFeed yet again|3}}
{{rsnl|225|Usage of "serious" articles from Buzzfeed, Teen Vogue, and Cosmopolitan|4}}
{{rsnl|236|Huffington Post and BuzzFeed|5}}
{{rsnl|239|Buzzfeed News as a source for text on PragerU|6}}
{{rsnl|245|BuzzFeed (yes, I know – again)|7}}
{{rsnl|259|BuzzFeed News downgrade?|8}}
{{rsnl|330|Bellingcat|9}}
{{rsnl||BuzzFeed News source on 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit|10}}
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''BuzzFeed News'' is generally reliable. ''BuzzFeed News'' now operates separately from {{pslink|BuzzFeed}}, and most news content originally hosted on BuzzFeed was moved to the ''BuzzFeed News'' website in 2018.<ref>{{cite news|accessdate=October 23, 2018|title=The investigations and reporting of BuzzFeed News – *not* BuzzFeed – are now at their own BuzzFeedNews.com|url=http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/07/the-investigations-and-reporting-of-buzzfeed-news-not-buzzfeed-are-now-at-their-own-buzzfeednews-com/|newspaper=Nieman Lab|first=Shan|last=Wang|date=July 18, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181130182934/http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/07/the-investigations-and-reporting-of-buzzfeed-news-not-buzzfeed-are-now-at-their-own-buzzfeednews-com/|archive-date=November 30, 2018|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> In light of the staff layoffs at BuzzFeed in January 2019, some editors recommend exercising  more caution for ''BuzzFeed News'' articles published after this date. The site's opinion pieces should be handled with [[WP:RSOPINION]]. ''See also: {{pslink|BuzzFeed}}.''
| {{/Uses|buzzfeednews.com|buzzfeed.com}}
|- id="The_California_Globe" class="s-gu"
| data-sort-value="California Globe" | ''[[California Globe]]''
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|336|RfC: California Globe|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''The California Globe'' is generally unreliable. Editors note the lack of substantial editorial process, the lack of evidence for fact-checking, and the bias present in the site's material. Editors also note the highly opinionated nature of the site as evidence against its reliability.
| {{/Uses|californiaglobe.com/}}
|- id="The_Canary" class="s-gu"
| data-sort-value="Canary" | ''[[The Canary (website)|The Canary]]''
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|335|RfC: The Canary (closed)|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|245|Is the Canary a reliable source?|1}} {{rsnl|274|Seeking acceptance of reliability of UK progressive online only news sites – The Canary, Evolve Politics and Skwawkbox|2}} {{rsnl|292|The Canary|3}} {{rsnl|321|The Canary|4}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''The Canary'' is generally unreliable. Its reporting is sensationalist at times; selective reporting, a left-wing bias, and a poor distinction between editorial and news content were also noted.
| {{/Uses|thecanary.co}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Cato_Institute"
| [[Cato Institute]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|76|Cato publications on Rand's centrality to Libertarianism|1}} {{rsnl|197|Cato Institute as a reliable source for BLPs|2}}
| {{/Last|2015}}
| The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on [[libertarianism in the United States]]. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]], so its uses should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]].
| {{/Uses|cato.org}}
|- class="s-gu" id="CelebrityNetWorth"
| [[CelebrityNetWorth]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|90|Celebrity Networth|1}} {{rsnl|113|celebritynetworth.com|2}} {{rsnl|162|CelebrityNetWorth.com and TheRichest.org/TheRichest.com|3}} {{rsnl|167|Celebrity Net Worth|4}} {{rsnl|167|Celebritynetworth.com take 5|5}} {{rsnl|183|Musa I of Mali richest man to have lived|6}} {{rsnl|188|Reliable source for net worth|7}} {{rsnl|207|CelebrityNetWorth (copied from talk page, outside opinions desired)|8}} {{rsnl|249|celebritynetworth.com|9}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| There is consensus that CelebrityNetWorth is generally unreliable. CelebrityNetWorth does not disclose its methodology, and its accuracy has been criticized by ''{{pslink|The New York Times}}''.<ref>{{cite news|accessdate=September 29, 2018|title=The Big Secret of Celebrity Wealth (Is That No One Knows Anything)|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/style/richest-celebrities-in-hollywood.html|last=Harris|first=Malcolm|date=September 19, 2018|newspaper=The New York Times|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180927081208/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/style/richest-celebrities-in-hollywood.html|archive-date=September 27, 2018|url-status=live|url-access=limited|df=mdy-all}}</ref>
| {{/Uses|celebritynetworth.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Center_for_Economic_and_Policy_Research"
| [[Center for Economic and Policy Research]] {{small|(CEPR)}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|283|RfC: Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an [[economic policy]] [[think tank]]. Though its articles are regularly written by subject-matter experts in economics and are frequently cited by reliable sources, most editors consider the CEPR [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]], so its uses should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]].
| {{/Uses|cepr.net}}
|- class="s-b" id="Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization"
| [[Centre for Research on Globalisation]] {{small|(CRG, Global Research, globalresearch.ca)}}
| {{/Status|gu|b=y}}
| {{sbll|August 2019|globalresearch.ca|2019}}
{{rsnl|1|globalresearch.ca|1}} {{rsnl|155|globalresearch.ca|2}} {{rsnl|203|milon.walla.co.il|3}} {{rsnl|212|http://www.globalresearch.ca/|4}} {{rsnl|227|Globalresearch.ca|5}} {{rsnl|265|globalresearch.ca|6}} {{rsnl|272|globalresearch.ca|7}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Due to persistent abuse, Global Research is on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used. The Centre for Research on Globalisation is the organization that operates the Global Research website (globalresearch.ca, not to be confused with {{pslink|GlobalSecurity.org}}). The CRG is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of [[conspiracy theories]] and lack of editorial oversight. It is [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]], and its content is likely to constitute [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]. As it often covers [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] material, [[WP:PARITY|parity of sources]] should be considered.
| {{/Uses|globalresearch.ca|globalresearch.org|mondialisation.ca}}
|- class="s-gu" id="CESNUR"
| [[CESNUR]] {{small|(Center for Studies on New Religions, Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni)}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|24|CESNUR / Its proponents|1}} {{rsnl|278|CESNUR as a source for articles on New religious movements|2}} {{rsnl|278|Massimo Introvigne and CESNUR|3}} {{rsnl|278|CESNUR as a source for articles on New religious movements|4}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| CESNUR is an [[apologia]] site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to [[WP:COI|conflicts of interest]]. There is also consensus that its content is unreliable on its own merits.
| {{/Uses|cesnur.net}}
|- class="s-nc" id="China_Daily"
| ''[[China Daily]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|332|RfC: China Daily|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|305|China Daily|1}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| ''[[China Daily]]'' is a publication owned by the [[Chinese Communist Party]]. The 2021 RfC found narrow consensus against deprecating ''China Daily'', owing to the lack of available usable sources for Chinese topics. There is consensus that ''China Daily'' may be used, cautiously and with good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of ''China Daily'' itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) ''China Daily''{{'}}s interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) ''China Daily's'' omission of details from a story should not be used to determine that such details are untruthful; and, with great caution, as a supplementary (but not sole) source for facts about political events of mainland China. Editors agree that when using this source, [[WP:RSCONTEXT|context matters]] a great deal and the facts should be separated from ''China Daily''{{'}}s view about those facts. It is best practice to use [[WP:INTEXT|in-text attribution]] and [[WP:IC|inline citations]] when sourcing content to ''China Daily''.
| {{/Uses|chinadaily.com.cn|chinadailyasia.com|chinadailyhk.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="China_Global_Television_Network"
| [[China Global Television Network]] {{small|(CGTN, CCTV International)}} {{/Shortcut|WP:CGTN}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|312|RFC: China Global Television Network|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|293|CGTN (China Global Television Network)|1}} {{rsnl|311|"CGTN" and "CGTN America", both Chinese media outlets|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| China Global Television Network was deprecated in the 2020 RfC for publishing false or fabricated information. Many editors consider CGTN a propaganda outlet, and some editors express concern over CGTN's airing of [[forced confession]]s.
| {{/Uses|cgtn.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Christian_Science_Monitor"
| data-sort-value="Christian Science Monitor"| ''[[The Christian Science Monitor]]'' {{small|(''CSM'', ''CS Monitor'')}} {{/Shortcut|WP:CSMONITOR}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| 20{{efn|See these discussions of ''The Christian Science Monitor'':
{{rsnl|8|Anti-Christian sentiment|1}}
{{rsnl|26|Christian Science Monitor|2}}
{{rsnl|32|Memri|3}}
{{rsnl|48|United Press International|4}}
{{rsnl|51|ChristianityToday, LifeNews, Charisma, ChristianTimes|5}}
{{rsnl|61|Washington Times column RS?|6}}
{{rsnl|65|Is LiveScience.com a reliable source?|7}}
{{rsnl|73|Request for Comment on Fox News Channel|8}}
{{rsnl|80|Charlie Chaplin and time travel|9}}
{{rsnl|115|Christian Science Monitor|10}}
{{rsnl|122|Deseret News|11}}
{{rsnl|135|Haaretz and poll results|12}}
{{rsnl|139|Best source for reliability concerns|13}}
{{rsnl|156|Cassandra Clare Controversies|14}}
{{rsnl|188|Huffington Post|15}}
{{rsnl|189|www.christiandaily.com|16}}
{{rsnl|197|Steven Levy / Backchannel|17}}
{{rsnl|198|Lions' Gate stabbings|18}}
{{rsnl|204|bulk removal of WashTimes|19}}
{{rsnl|210|Deseret News|20}}
}}
| {{/Last|2016}}
| ''The Christian Science Monitor'' is considered generally reliable for news.
| {{/Uses|csmonitor.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="CliffsNotes"
| [[CliffsNotes]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|227|Reliability of Cliffsnotes, Sparknotes and study guides in general|1}} {{rsnl|236|Reliability of CliffsNotes and SparkNotes?|2}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| CliffsNotes is a [[study guide]]. Editors consider CliffsNotes usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing CliffsNotes citations with additional sources.
| {{/Uses|cliffsnotes.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Climate_Feedback"
| [[Climate Feedback]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|250|Are we allowed to cite climate scientists?|1}} {{rsnl|252|Climatefeedback.org (a climate science fact-checking website)|2}} {{rsnl|274|Factcheck from climatefeedback.org as a source at Guus Berkhout|3}} {{rsnl|284|Climate Feedback and similar blog sources being treated differently?|4}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Climate Feedback is a [[fact-checking]] website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to [[climate change]]. It discloses its methodologies, is certified by the {{pslink|International Fact-Checking Network}}, and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]] due to its high reviewer requirements.
| {{/Uses|climatefeedback.org}}
|- class="s-gr" id="CNET"
| [[CNET]] {{small|(Computer Network)}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| 16{{efn|See these discussions of CNET: {{rsnl|4|GameSpot and CNET|1}} {{rsnl|24|Media Awareness Network|2}} {{rsnl|30|AV-comparatives|3}} {{rsnl|40|Download pages as source for notability?|4}} {{rsnl|52|Sources for information on the theft|5}} {{rsnl|63|TorrentFreak|6}} {{rsnl|66|Rumor sites such as MacRumors and AppleInsider|7}} {{rsnl|71|Bose References|8}} {{rsnl|75|National Names Database|9}} {{rsnl|101|CNET|10}} {{rsnl|120|TorrentFreak|11}} {{rsnl|134|The Pirate Bay is said in wiki-voice that it is an commercial website|12}} {{rsnl|162|Can videos be RS in a BLP?|13}} {{rsnl|165|Sources at Nokia Lumia 1520|14}} {{rsnl|180|"Editor Reviews" and affiliate marketing (on CNET)|15}} {{rsnl|197|TorrentFreak, again|16}}}}
| {{/Last|2015}}
| CNET is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles.
| {{/Uses|cnet.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="CNN"
| [[CNN]] {{small|(Cable News Network)}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|274|RfC: "CNN" (October)|2019|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|307|RFC on CNN|2020|rfc=y}}
15{{efn|See these discussions of CNN:
{{rsnl|29|CNN, People for the American Way, Kathryn Kolbert|1}}
{{rsnl|72|Is CNN a reliable source?|2}}
{{rsnl|98|CNN Poll 2011|3}}
{{rsnl|140|Russia Today verus CNN|4}}
{{rsnl|147|CNN Transcripts|5}}
{{rsnl|165|CNN iReport being used to spoof CNN reliability|6}}
{{rsnl|212|Priceonomics.com, CNN, and selfie-related death.|7}}
{{rsnl|217|yournewswire.com as a source for adding CNN to List of fake news websites ?|8}}
{{rsnl|287|CNN|9}}
{{rsnl|303|Is CNN usable as a source for unflattering information about Fox News?|10}}
{{rsnl|322|RfC: CNN|11}}
{{rsnl|334|CNN|12}}
{{rsnl|334|Washington Post and CNN|13}}
{{rsnl|341|CNN – Video piece from Brian Stelter|14}}
{{rsnl|341|CNN|15}}
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable. However, [[iReport]] consists solely of [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]], and talk show content should be treated as [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]]. Some editors consider CNN [[WP:BIASED|biased]], though not to the extent that it affects reliability.
| {{/Uses|cnn.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Coda_Media"
| [[Coda Media]] {{small|(Coda Story)}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|337|RfC: Coda Story|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| A 2021 RfC found consensus that Coda Media is generally reliable for factual reporting. A few editors consider Coda Media a [[WP:BIASED|biased]] source for international politics related to the US, as it has received funding from the [[National Endowment for Democracy]], though not to the extent that it affects reliability.
| {{/Uses|codastory.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="CoinDesk"
| [[CoinDesk]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|251|RfC on use of CoinDesk|2018|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|273|RfC – CoinDesk as a source|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|190|CoinDesk|1}} {{rsnl|212|CoinDesk and CoinTelegraph on the article Ethereum|2}} {{rsnl|236|CoinDesk|3}}
| {{/Last|2019|}}
| There is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establish [[WP:N|notability]] for article topics, and that it should be avoided in favor of more mainstream sources. Check CoinDesk articles for [[conflict of interest]] disclosures, and verify whether their parent company ([[Digital Currency Group]]) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk.<ref>{{cite news|accessdate=November 21, 2018|title=Our Portfolio|url=https://dcg.co/portfolio/|website=Digital Currency Group|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180823172706/https://dcg.co/portfolio/|archive-date=August 23, 2018|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>
| {{/Uses|coindesk.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Common_Sense_Media"
| [[Common Sense Media]] {{small|(CSM)}} {{/Shortcut|WP:CSM}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|152|Common Sense Media|1}} {{rsnl|271|Common Sense Media|2}} {{rsnl|294|Common Sense Media|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that Common Sense Media is generally reliable for entertainment reviews. As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]], and its statements should generally be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]].
| {{/Uses|commonsensemedia.org}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Consortium_News"
| [[Consortiumnews|''Consortium News'']]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|159|"Consortium_News" at October Surprise conspiracy theory|1}} {{rsnl|156|Robert Parry|2}} {{rsnl|174|Robert Parry again|3}} {{rsnl|217|Is consortiumnews.com a reliable source at article 2016 United States election interference by Russia ?|4}} {{rsnl|272|Are meforum.org , consortiumnews.com, and theguardian.com/commentisfree RSs?|5}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is consensus that ''Consortium News'' is generally unreliable. Certain articles (particularly those by [[Robert Parry (journalist)|Robert Parry]]) may be considered [[WP:SPS|self-published]], as it is unclear if any independent editorial review occurred. The outlet is known to lean towards uncritically repeating claims that are [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]], demonstrably false, or have been described by mainstream outlets as "conspiracy theories."
| {{/Uses|consortiumnews.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Conversation"
| data-sort-value="Conversation" | ''[[The Conversation (website)|The Conversation]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:THECONVERSATION}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|99|The Conversation (website)|1}} {{rsnl|169|The Conversation|2}} {{rsnl|275|theconversation.com|3}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| ''The Conversation'' publishes articles from academics who are [[subject-matter experts]]. It is generally reliable for subjects in the authors' [[areas of expertise]]. Opinions published in ''The Conversation'' should be handled with [[WP:RSOPINION]].
| {{/Uses|theconversation.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Cosmopolitan"
| ''[[Cosmopolitan (magazine)|Cosmopolitan]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|3|IMDb Publicity|1}} {{rsnl|109|Tell me if I'm in the right place|2}} {{rsnl|225|Usage of "serious" articles from Buzzfeed, Teen Vogue, and Cosmopolitan|3}} {{rsnl|249|Threesome|4}} {{rsnl|256|Is Cosmopolitan a reliable source?|5}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of ''Cosmopolitan''. It is generally regarded as a situational source, which means context is important. The treatment of ''Cosmopolitan'' as a source should be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the article and the information to be verified.
| {{/Uses|cosmopolitan.com}}
|- id="CounterPunch"
| ''[[CounterPunch]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:COUNTERPUNCH}}
| Disputed
{{small|([[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Deprecation_RfC:_CounterPunch|under discussion]])}}
| {{rsnl|355|RfC: CounterPunch|2021|rfc=y}}{{rsnl||Deprecation RfC: CounterPunch|2022|rfc=y|active=yes}}
10{{efn|See also these discussions of ''CounterPunch'':
{{rsnl|2|Counterpunch|1}}
{{rsnl|10|CounterPunch|2}}
{{rsnl|84|Democracy Now! and CounterPunch|3}}
{{rsnl|110|CounterPunch reliability|4}}
{{rsnl|126|CounterPunch|5}}
{{rsnl|181|What is the verdict of the 2008 discussion on Counterpunch|6}}
{{rsnl|216|Counterpunch & The Daily Beast|7}}
{{rsnl|217|Is CounterPunch a reliable source ?|8}}
{{rsnl|289|CounterPunch BLP|9}}
{{rsnl||CounterPunch and Al Bawaba|10}}
}}
| {{/Last|2022}}
| ''The entry is disputed due to past disruption and may not be accurate.'' The 2021 RFC found a clear consensus to deprecate ''CounterPunch''. Multiple examples were provided of misleading, fringe, or downright false statements published on the site. Many users agreed that the site itself leans towards favoring fringe viewpoints, and publishes such viewpoints preferentially, not indiscriminately.
| {{/Uses|counterpunch.org|counterpunch.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Cracked.com"
| [[Cracked.com]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|36|Cracked.com|1}} {{rsnl|95|Cracked.com Children's toys/characters and profane reviews|2}} {{rsnl|147|Cracked.com|3}} {{rsnl|195|Cracked|4}} {{rsnl|196|Cracked.com on Fifty Shades of Grey|5}}
| {{/Last|2015}}
| Cracked.com is a humor website. There is consensus that Cracked.com is generally unreliable. When Cracked.com cites another source for an article, it is preferable for editors to read and cite that source instead.
| {{/Uses|cracked.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="Crunchbase"
| [[Crunchbase]] {{/Shortcut|WP:CRUNCHBASE}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|261|RfC: Crunchbase|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|218|Crunchbase|1}} {{rsnl|252|Is Crunchbase a reliable source?|2}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate Crunchbase, but also to continue allowing [[WP:EL|external links]] to the website. A significant proportion of Crunchbase's data is [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]].
| {{/Uses|crunchbase.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="The_Daily_Beast"
| data-sort-value="Daily Beast" | ''[[The Daily Beast]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:DAILYBEAST}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|39|The Daily Beast as a source|1}} {{rsnl|242|The Daily Beast as a source for a denial|2}} {{rsnl|281|Is The Daily Beast a reliable source|3}} {{rsnl|285|The daily beast|4}} {{rsnl|331|Daily Beast Tabloid Reporting|5}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of ''The Daily Beast''. Most editors consider ''The Daily Beast'' a [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated source]]. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to [[WP:BLP|living persons]].
| {{/Uses|thedailybeast.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="The_Daily_Caller"
| data-sort-value="Daily Caller" | ''[[The Daily Caller]]''
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|258|RfC: The Daily Caller|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|71|The Daily Caller|1}} {{rsnl|145|The Daily Caller is not a reliable source|2}} {{rsnl|109|Daily Caller as source of opinion refuting a technical white paper + secondary sources|3}} {{rsnl|149|The Daily Caller as a source|4}} {{rsnl|158|Timmerman of Daily Caller: "sources with access to intelligence reports had told him that intelligence reports from French and Jordanian military intelligence show..."|5}} {{rsnl|242|The Hill, Fox News, and Daily Caller reliable sources?|6}} {{rsnl|278|Correct action when someone persistently adds back a deprecated source?|7}} {{rsnl|280|Interviews & opinion pieces (The Daily Caller)|8}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| ''The Daily Caller'' was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.
| {{/Uses|dailycaller.com|dailycallernewsfoundation.org}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Daily_Dot"
| data-sort-value="Daily Dot"| ''[[The Daily Dot]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|102|The Daily Dot|1}} {{rsnl|105|Daily Dot revisited|2}} {{rsnl|156|Cassandra Clare Controversies|3}} {{rsnl|162|Several websites as reliable sources for information on cryptocurrency|4}} {{rsnl|174|Journalist connected to the subject|5}} {{rsnl|211|The Daily Dot|6}} {{rsnl|240|Involuntary celibacy|7}} {{rsnl|245|Are The Daily Dot and Tubefilter reliable sources?|8}} {{rsnl|321|The Daily Dot, what qualifies as internet culture, and whether it's only reliable for that.|9}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 16#Regarding the following eSports sites.|A]]
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''The Daily Dot'' is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes [[WP:DUE|due weight]] before citing it in an article.
| {{/Uses|dailydot.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Daily_Express"
| ''[[Daily Express]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:DAILYEXPRESS}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|239|If we're going to declare the Daily Mail an unreliable source (and I think we should) we should do the same to the Daily Express|1}} {{rsnl|224|Daily Express RfC|2}} {{rsnl|236|Reliability of Daily Express, Brexit Central and BuzzFeed|3}} {{rsnl|281|Bad source to show reporting in bad sources?|4}} {{rsnl|289|Daily Express and Daily Mirror|5}} {{rsnl|299|Daily Express 2000-2017 (Desmond era)|6}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| The ''Daily Express'' is a [[Tabloid journalism|tabloid]] with a number of similarities to the ''{{pslink|Daily Mail}}''. It is considered generally unreliable.
| {{/Uses|express.co.uk|pressreader.com/uk/daily-express}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Daily_Kos"
| [[Daily Kos]] {{/Shortcut|WP:DAILYKOS}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|182|Breitbart again|1}} {{rsnl|185|Daily Kos Elections|2}} {{rsnl|232|Daily Kos|3}}
| {{/Last|2017}}
| There is consensus that Daily Kos should generally be avoided as a source, especially for controversial political topics where better sources are available. As an [[Internet activism|activism blog]] that publishes [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]] with a [[progressivism|progressive]] [[WP:BIASED|point of view]], many editors consider Daily Kos to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion.
| {{/Uses|dailykos.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="Daily_Mail"
| ''[[Daily Mail]]'' {{small|([[MailOnline]])}}{{/Shortcut|WP:DAILYMAIL}}{{/Shortcut|WP:RSPDM}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|220|Daily Mail RfC|2017|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|255|2nd RfC: The Daily Mail|2019|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|299|(Infomercial voice) But Wait! There's still more!! (News about The Daily Mail)|2020|rfc=y}}
49{{efn|See also these discussions of the ''Daily Mail'':
{{rsnl|2|Daily Mail? (UK)|1}}
{{rsnl|15|Daily Mail|2}}
{{rsnl|23|Is the Daily Mail a reliable source|3}}
{{rsnl|35|Should this particular Daily Mail article be used as a WP:RS?|4}}
{{rsnl|46|Is Daily Mail UK RS?|5}}
{{rsnl|78|Unreliable sources: Daily Mail and Fox News|6}}
{{rsnl|85|Unite Against Fascism and The Times et al|7}}
{{rsnl|96|Daily Mail, Digital Spy, Daily Express, and reliability for Doctor Who|8}}
{{rsnl|102|Daily Mail in race-related matters|9}}
{{rsnl|105|The Daily Mail?|10}}
{{rsnl|106|Time to axe the Daily Mail|11}}
{{rsnl|112|Daily Mail|12}}
{{rsnl|122|Daily Mail|13}}
{{rsnl|134|Is Daily Mail a reliable source for Lord Ahmed's views?|14}}
{{rsnl|151|Daily Mail (UK): use in BLPs|15}}
{{rsnl|163|Reliability of the Daily Mail|16}}
{{rsnl|168|Daily Mail|17}}
{{rsnl|175|Can we clarify when the Daily Mail can be used as a source?|18}}
{{rsnl|184|Irish Daily Mail|19}}
{{rsnl|192|Daily Mail|20}}
{{rsnl|193|The Daily Mail|21}}
{{rsnl|196|Daily Mail as a source for a sexual assault stat|22}}
{{rsnl|201|The Daily Mail: When are we finally going to decide that enough is enough?|23}}
{{rsnl|204|Daily Mail again|24}}
{{rsnl|209|Daily Mail / Mirror use as sources on Battle of Fallujah|25}}
{{rsnl|210|Daily Mail|26}}
{{rsnl|218|Daily Mail|27}}
{{rsnl|221|Material sourced to Daily Mail in "St Paul's Survives"|28}}
{{rsnl|231|The Daily Mail: where does reliability end and censorship begin?|29}}
{{rsnl|240|Edit filter for the Daily Mail|30}}
{{rsnl|241|Daily Mail|31}}
{{rsnl|242|Is it okay to use the Daily Mail as a source for a benign, non-political article?|32}}
{{rsnl|253|Is it OK to use the Daily Mail as a source in the article Eilean (yacht)?|33}}
{{rsnl|254|Proposal to revisit Daily Mail ban|34}}
{{rsnl|257|A question related to the Daily Mail|35}}
{{rsnl|268|The Daily Mail is apparently the sole source for the Kim Darroch memo leaks.|36}}
{{rsnl|278|Does WP:Dailymail apply to the Mail on Sunday|37}}
{{rsnl|280|Daily Mail (sigh, yes, again)|38}}
{{rsnl|283|Daily Mail reliable source or not?|39}}
{{rsnl|289|Daily Mail and RSOPINION|40}}
{{rsnl|290|Use of Daily Mail|41}}
{{rsnl|292|That dreaded Daily Mail|42}}
{{rsnl|298|thisismoney: just Daily Mail reprints?|43}}
{{rsnl|298|Use of extended quotation solely from Daily Mail on Death of Keith Blakelock|44}}
{{rsnl|298|Is it a problem that Wikipedia's own article on the Mail doesn't seem to justify depreciation as a source?|45}}
{{rsnl|311|Clarification: Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday?|46}}
{{rsnl|321|Daily Mail part 874|47}}
{{rsnl|334|Daily Mail article for specific claim|48}}
{{rsnl|346|Upcoming magazine article on this noticeboard and The Daily Mail|49}}
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| The ''Daily Mail'' was deprecated in the 2017 RfC, and the decision was reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the ''Daily Mail'' (including its online version, [[MailOnline]]) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. As a result, the ''Daily Mail'' should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The ''Daily Mail'' may be used in rare cases in an [[WP:ABOUTSELF|about-self fashion]]. Some editors regard the ''Daily Mail'' as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. (Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the ''Daily Mail''.) The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the ''Daily Mail''. The UK ''Daily Mail'' is not to be confused with [[Daily Mail (disambiguation)|other publications named ''Daily Mail'']]. The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated ''[[Charleston Daily Mail]]'', and reference links to that publication are still present.
| {{/Uses|dailymail.co.uk|thisismoney.co.uk|pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail|pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail|pressreader.com/ireland/irish-daily-mail|mailplus.co.uk|dailym.ai|dailymail.com.au|travelmail.co.uk|findarticles.com/p/news-articles/daily-mail-london-england-the/|mailonline.pressreader.com|mailpictures.newsprints.co.uk|dailymail.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Daily_Mirror"
| ''[[Daily Mirror]]'' {{small|(''Mirror'')}} {{/Shortcut|WP:DAILYMIRROR}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|19|Daily Mirror|1}} {{rsnl|160|Huffington Post/Daily Mirror|2}} {{rsnl|248|The Daily Mirror|3}} {{rsnl|289|Daily Express and Daily Mirror|4}} {{rsnl|296|Daily Mirror|5}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| The ''Daily Mirror'' is a [[tabloid newspaper]] that publishes [[tabloid journalism]]. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to that of British tabloids such as the ''{{pslink|Daily Mail}}'' and ''{{pslink|The Sun}}''.
| {{/Uses|mirror.co.uk}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Daily_Sabah"
| [[Daily Sabah]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|321|RfC: Daily Sabah|1}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Daily Sabah is considered to be a propaganda outlet that publishes pro-Turkish government news which aims to strengthen Erdoğan's rule, spread Westernophobia, and promote Turkish government policies. Editors also pointed out that Daily Sabah publishes unfactual information such as Armenian genocide denial, and mispresenting statements. Some editors consider it to be reliable enough to cite POV of the Turkish government with in-text attribution, and uncontroversial Turkey-related events.
| {{/Uses|dailysabah.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="Daily_Star"
| [[Daily Star (United Kingdom)|''Daily Star'' (UK)]] {{/Shortcut|WP:DAILYSTAR}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|311|RFC: Daily Star|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|37|reliable sources for music sales and chart positions|1}} {{rsnl|90|Daily Star|2}} {{rsnl|210|Daily Mail|3}} {{rsnl|251|Daily Star (United Kingdom)|4}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| The ''Daily Star'' was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its reputation of publishing false or fabricated information.
| {{/Uses|dailystar.co.uk|thestar.ie}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Daily_Telegraph"
| data-sort-value="Daily Telegraph" | ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' (UK) {{small|(''[[The Sunday Telegraph]]'', ''The Telegraph'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| 17{{efn|See these discussions of ''The Daily Telegraph'': {{rsnl|40|Jude Law and the Telegraph|1}} {{rsnl|45|Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Daily Telegraph|2}} {{rsnl|50|Obituaries|3}} {{rsnl|74|The Daily Telegraph and badscience.net|4}} {{rsnl|159|http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/celebritynews/7984944/Mike-Edwards-hay-bale-death-celebrities-in-freak-killings.html|5}} {{rsnl|80|the blog published on the website of the daily broadsheet, the telegraph by tim blair|6}} {{rsnl|134|Is Daily Mail a reliable source for Lord Ahmed's views?|7}} {{rsnl|150|Accuracy of transcripts|8}} {{rsnl|159|http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/celebritynews/7984944/Mike-Edwards-hay-bale-death-celebrities-in-freak-killings.html|9}} {{rsnl|163|Reliability of the Daily Telegraph?|10}} {{rsnl|170|The Telegraph (UK)|11}} {{rsnl|192|Is the Telegraph a reliable source|12}} {{rsnl|195|What criteria are used to judge newspapers as being RS?|13}} {{rsnl|213|The Telegraph|14}} {{rsnl|247|Incels' race|15}} {{rsnl|248|RfC: Breitbart|16}} {{rsnl|352|Is The Telegraph a reliable source for the fact that Adrian Zenz speaks Mandarin Chinese?|17}}}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''The Daily Telegraph'' (also known as ''The Telegraph'') is generally reliable. Some editors believe that ''The Daily Telegraph'' is [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]] for politics. Unrelated to [[The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)|''The Daily Telegraph'' (Sydney)]].
| {{/Uses|telegraph.co.uk}}
|- class="s-gu" id="The_Daily_Wire"
| data-sort-value="Daily Wire" | ''[[The Daily Wire]]''
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|358|RfC: The Daily Wire|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|241|The Daily Wire|1}} {{rsnl|279|The Daily Wire|2}} {{rsnl|285|The Daily Wire|3}} [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6#Upgrading The Daily Wire's rating to No Consensus WP:MREL|4]]
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is a strong consensus that ''The Daily Wire'' is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Detractors note the site's tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-mohammed-popular-name-netherlands/ |title=Fact Check: Is Mohammed the Most Popular Name for Newborn Boys in the Netherlands? |work=Snopes.com |accessdate=April 29, 2018 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/carson-didnt-find-hud-errors/ |title=Carson Didn't Find HUD Errors |date=April 19, 2017 |work=FactCheck.org |accessdate=April 29, 2018 }}</ref>
| {{/Uses|dailywire.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Deadline_Hollywood"
| ''[[Deadline Hollywood]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:RSPDEADLINE}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|17|AccessDeadline Hollywood|1}} {{rsnl|102|Desperate Housewives|2}} {{rsnl|108|TV Line|3}} {{rsnl|171|NikkiFinke.com|4}} {{rsnl|179|Deadline.com|5}} {{rsnl|253|deadline.com|6}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| ''Deadline Hollywood'' is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles.
| {{/Uses|deadline.com|deadlinehollywooddaily.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Debrett's"
| [[Debrett's]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|297|Debrett's|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|60|"Debrett's People of Today"|1}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that Debrett's is reliable for genealogical information. However, their defunct "People of Today" section is considered similar to {{pslink|Who's Who (UK)}} as the details were solicited from the subjects. Editors have also raised concerns that this section included paid coverage.
| {{/Uses|debretts.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Democracy_Now!"
| ''[[Democracy Now!]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|40|Democracy Now!|1}} {{rsnl|71|Democracy Now source article "Cheering Movers and Art Student Spies"|2}} {{rsnl|84|Democracy Now! and CounterPunch|3}} {{rsnl|96|Democracy Now|4}} {{rsnl|144|Democracy Now! in general|5}}
| {{/Last|2013}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of ''Democracy Now!''. Most editors consider ''Democracy Now!'' a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan source]] whose statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. [[WP:SYNDICATED|Syndicated content]] published by ''Democracy Now!'' should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.
| {{/Uses|democracynow.org}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Deseret_News"
| ''[[Deseret News]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|122|Deseret News|1}} {{rsnl|210|Deseret News|2}} {{rsnl|212|Deseret News as a source for LDS-related subjects|3}}
| {{/Last|2016}}
| The ''Deseret News'' is considered generally reliable for local news. It is owned by a subsidiary of [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]], and there is no consensus on whether the ''Deseret News'' is [[WP:IS|independent]] of the [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|LDS Church]]. The publication's statements on topics regarding the LDS Church should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. The ''Deseret News'' includes a [[Supplement (publishing)|supplement]], the ''[[Church News]]'', which is considered a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] as an official publication of the LDS Church.
| {{/Uses|deseretnews.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Digital_Spy"
| [[Digital Spy]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|34|are music reviews from digital spy reliable?|1}} {{rsnl|47|digitalspy.co.uk|2}} {{rsnl|57|Digital Spy|3}} {{rsnl|62|Digital spy|4}} {{rsnl|96|Daily Mail, Digital Spy, Daily Express, and reliability for Doctor Who|5}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5#Digital Spy|A]]
| {{/Last|2012}}
| There is consensus that Digital Spy is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes [[WP:DUE|due or undue weight]].
| {{/Uses|digitalspy.co.uk|digitalspy.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Diplomat"
| ''[[The Diplomat]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|193|The Diplomat|1}} {{rsnl|298|thediplomat.com|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that ''The Diplomat'' is generally reliable. Opinion pieces should be evaluated by [[WP:RSOPINION]] and [[WP:NEWSBLOG]]. Some editors have expressed concern on their reliability for North Korea-related topics.
| {{/Uses|thediplomat.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Discogs"
| [[Discogs]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|259|RfC: Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and Last.fm|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|48|Discogs|1}} {{rsnl|171|www.discogs.com|2}} {{rsnl|201|Discogs|3}} {{rsnl|247|Discogs|4}} {{rsnl|271|Musician Discographies from Allmusic and/or Discogs|5}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| The content on Discogs is [[WP:UGC|user-generated]], and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that [[WP:EL|external links]] to the site may be appropriate.
| {{/Uses|discogs.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Dotdash"
| [[Dotdash]] {{small|(About.com, The Balance, [[Lifewire]], The Spruce, ThoughtCo, TripSavvy, [[Verywell]])}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{sbll|December 2018|verywellmind.com|2018}} {{sbll|June 2020|Verywell, 2|2020}}
+16{{efn|See these discussions of Dotdash:
{{rsnl|16|Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com|1}}
{{rsnl|22|About.com|2}}
{{rsnl|24|About.com for cannabis info|3}}
{{rsnl|27|About.com|4}}
{{rsnl|40|About.com news articles|5}}
{{rsnl|77|About.com sources from Hyde Flippo|6}}
{{rsnl|104|About.com a reliable source?|7}}
{{rsnl|107|About.com article on the Superman Curse|8}}
{{rsnl|112|About.com (again)|9}}
{{rsnl|123|Shooting of Trayvon Martin – is about.com an RS for a transcript?|10}}
{{rsnl|141|Kim Jones at About.com on Christian music|11}}
{{rsnl|162|About.com|12}}
{{rsnl|168|About.com poll in comfort food article|13}}
{{rsnl|170|About.com reviews usable?|14}}
{{rsnl|281|ThoughtCo.|15}}
{{rsnl|292|Verywell|16}}
}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Dotdash (formerly known as About.com) operates a network of websites. Editors find the quality of articles published by About.com to be inconsistent. Some editors recommend treating About.com articles as [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]], and only using articles published by established experts. About.com also previously served as a [[WP:MIRROR|Wikipedia mirror]]; using republished Wikipedia content is considered [[WP:CIRCULAR|circular sourcing]]. In 2017, the About.com website became defunct and some of its content was moved to Dotdash's current website brands.<ref>{{cite news|first1=Emily|last1=Dreyfuss|accessdate=December 29, 2018|title=RIP About.com|url=https://www.wired.com/2017/05/rip-com-look-tumultuous-life-web-legend/|newspaper=Wired|date=May 3, 2017|issn=1059-1028|via=www.wired.com|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180825163605/https://www.wired.com/2017/05/rip-com-look-tumultuous-life-web-legend/|archive-date=August 25, 2018|url-status=live|url-access=limited|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|first1=Mike|last1=Shields|accessdate=December 29, 2018|title=About.com had become a web relic, so its owner blew it up – and now it's enjoying a surge in revenue|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/aboutcom-had-become-a-relic-of-the-web-so-its-owner-blew-it-up-now-its-enjoying-a-surge-in-revenue-2017-12|website=Business Insider|date=December 18, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180625171227/http://www.businessinsider.com/aboutcom-had-become-a-relic-of-the-web-so-its-owner-blew-it-up-now-its-enjoying-a-surge-in-revenue-2017-12|archive-date=June 25, 2018|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Due to persistent abuse, verywellfamily.com, verywellhealth.com, and verywellmind.com are on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used. ''See also: {{pslink|Investopedia}}.''
| {{/Uses|about.com|thebalance.com|lifewire.com|thespruce.com|thoughtco.com|tripsavvy.com|verywell.com|verywellfamily.com|verywellhealth.com|verywellmind.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Economist"
| data-sort-value="Economist" | ''[[The Economist]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|91|The Economist and Hindus victims in Gujarat and Kashmir, India|1}} {{rsnl|109|Economist blogs and New York Times opinion pieces|2}} {{rsnl|190|Economist versus letter to local paper|3}} {{rsnl|247|Economist on changes in public trust in various US media enterprises 2016 -> 2018|4}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| Most editors consider ''The Economist'' generally reliable. ''The Economist'' publishes [[WP:NEWSBLOG|magazine blogs]] and [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]], which should be handled with the respective guidelines.
| {{/Uses|economist.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="The_Electronic_Intifada"
| data-sort-value="Electronic Intifada" | {{anchor|Electronic Intifada}}''[[The Electronic Intifada]]'' {{small|(EI)}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|20|The Electronic Intifada|1}} {{rsnl|37|Electronic Intifada|2}} {{rsnl|51|Palestine Telegraph; Adallah's Newsletter, Electronic Intifada, Journal of Refugee Studies, Dissident Voice, and Islam Online|3}} {{rsnl|136|Electronic Intifada|4}} {{rsnl|140|Electronic Intifada and allegations of Mossad relationship|5}} {{rsnl|156|Is electronic intifada a a reliable source regarding issues related to Israeli-Arab conflict, Zionism, Holocaust Anti-Semitism and relationship between Arab world and Nazi Germany|6}} {{rsnl|172|Electronic Intifada|7}} {{rsnl|250|Electronic Intifada (Again)|8}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| There is consensus that ''The Electronic Intifada'' is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider ''The Electronic Intifada'' a [[WP:BIASED|biased and opinionated source]], so their statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]].
| {{/Uses|electronicintifada.net}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Encyclopædia_Britannica"
| {{anchor|Encyclopaedia Britannica}} ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' {{small|([[Encyclopædia Britannica Online|''Encyclopædia Britannica'' Online]])}} {{/Shortcut|WP:BRITANNICA}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| 14{{efn|See these discussions of ''Encyclopædia Britannica'':
{{rsnl|29|online Encyclopedia Britannica|1}}
{{rsnl|58|Encyclopædia Britannica|2}}
{{rsnl|115|Is Encyclopedia Britannica a reliable source?|3}}
{{rsnl|196|britannica.com|4}}
{{rsnl|211|Britannica articles|5}}
{{rsnl|215|Is Encylopedia Britannica creditable when User in Wikipedia debate is submitting corrects|6}}
{{rsnl|232|some articles of Encyclopædia Britannica|7}}
{{rsnl|237|A Britannica article edited by a long term sock puppet|8}}
{{rsnl|256|Is the Britannica a reliable source for this text at Timeline of the history of the region of Palestine?|9}}
{{rsnl|260|Encyclopaedia Britannica|10}}
{{rsnl|281|Britannica.com|11}}
{{rsnl|298|Encyclopedia Britannica|12}}
{{rsnl|334|Encyclopedia Britannica website|13}}
{{rsnl|364|Britannica: a "strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?|14}}
}}
| {{/Last|2022}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' (including its online edition, [[Encyclopædia Britannica Online|''Encyclopædia Britannica'' Online]]). ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' is a [[WP:TERTIARY|tertiary source]]. Most editors prefer reliable [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]] over the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' when available. From 2009 to 2010, the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' Online accepted a small number of content submissions from the general public. Although these submissions undergo the encyclopedia's editorial process, some editors believe that content from non-staff contributors is less reliable than the encyclopedia's staff-authored content. Content authorship is disclosed in the article history.
| {{/Uses|britannica.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Encyclopædia_Iranica"
| {{anchor|Encyclopaedia Iranica}} ''[[Encyclopædia Iranica]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
|{{rsnl|57|Encyclopedia Iranica|1}} {{rsnl|79|Encyclopedia Iranica|2}} {{rsnl|305|Encyclopædia Iranica|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| The ''Encyclopædia Iranica'' is considered generally reliable for Iran-related topics.
| {{/Uses|iranicaonline.org}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Encyclopaedia_Metallum"
| [[Encyclopaedia Metallum]] {{small|(Metal Archives, MA)}} {{/Shortcut|WP:METALLUM}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|32|www.spirit-of-metal.com|1}} {{rsnl|207|www.metal-archives.com|2}}
| {{/Last|2016}}
| Encyclopaedia Metallum is [[WP:USERGENERATED|user-generated]] and so best avoided. It is listed at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Unreliable sources]].
| {{/Uses|metal-archives.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Engadget"
| [[Engadget]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|110|TechCrunch and Engadget|1}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5#Engadget|A]]
| {{/Last|2012}}
| Engadget is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Its statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]].
| {{/Uses|engadget.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Entertainment_Weekly"
| ''[[Entertainment Weekly]]'' {{small|(''EW'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|66|Allmovie|1}} {{rsnl|170|Celebrity sources and distinguishing tabloid (newspaper format) from tabloid journalism|2}} {{rsnl|246|Entertainment Weekly and David Duke|3}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5#Entertainment Weekly|A]]
| {{/Last|2018}}
| ''Entertainment Weekly'' is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics.
| {{/Uses|ew.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Entrepreneur"
|''[[Entrepreneur (magazine)|Entrepreneur]]'' {{small|(''Entrepreneur India'')}}
|{{/Status|nc}}
|{{rsnl|314|RFC: Reliability of Entrepreneur (magazine)|2020|rfc=yes}} {{rsnl|343|No Consensus on Platforms – Need Assistance|1}}
|{{/Last|2021}}
|There is no consensus for the reliability of ''Entrepreneur Magazine'', although there is a consensus that "contributor" pieces in the publication should be treated as [[WP:SPS|self-published]], similar to {{pslink|Forbes.com contributors}}. Editors did not provide much evidence of fabrication in their articles, but were concerned that its coverage tends toward churnalism and may include improperly disclosed paid pieces.
|{{/Uses|entrepreneur.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="The_Epoch_Times"
| data-sort-value="Epoch Times" | ''[[The Epoch Times]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:EPOCHTIMES}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|279|The Epoch Times, once again|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|15|The Epoch Times|1}} {{rsnl|19|Is "The Epoch Times" a reliable source|2}} {{rsnl|34|The Epoch Times|3}} {{rsnl|191|Epoch Times for story on Monsanto lawsuit|4}} {{rsnl|251|The Epoch Times for anything related to political controversies involving Falun Gong|5}} {{rsnl|295|Expert interview in Epoch Times spinoff channel|6}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''The Epoch Times'' was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Most editors classify ''The Epoch Times'' as an advocacy group for the [[Falun Gong]], and consider the publication a [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated source]] that frequently publishes [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]]. As is the case with ''{{pslink|Breitbart News}}'' and {{pslink|Occupy Democrats}}, this does not mean that ''The Epoch Times'' can no longer be used, just that it cannot be used as a reference for facts.
| {{/Uses|theepochtimes.com|epochtimes.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Evening_Standard"
| ''[[Evening Standard]]'' {{small|(''London Evening Standard'')}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|26|The Sun/Matt Smith|1}} {{rsnl|85|Unite Against Fascism and The Times et al|2}} {{rsnl|102|The London Evening Standard|3}} {{rsnl|105|The Daily Mail?|4}} {{rsnl|242|Should The Evening Standard be considered an unreliable source?|5}} {{rsnl|254|Discussion (The Sun)|6}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of the ''Evening Standard''. Despite being a free newspaper, it is generally considered more reliable than most British tabloids and [[middle-market newspaper]]s.
| {{/Uses|standard.co.uk}}
|- class="s-b" id="Examiner.com"
| [[Examiner.com]]
| {{/Status|gu|b=y}}
| {{sbll|October 2009|Examiner.com|2009}}
{{rsnl|35|examiner.com {{=}} paid blogging, no editorial oversight|1}} {{rsnl|38|Request to reopen discussion on examiner.com|2}} {{rsnl|39|Examiner.com|3}} {{rsnl|47|Examiner.com|4}} {{rsnl|100|Examiner.com and essay contests as sources on subject for which ample scholarly literature exists|5}} {{rsnl|139|Examiner.com|6}} {{rsnl|164|Why is Examiner.com blacklisted?|7}}
| {{/Last|2014|stale=n}}
| Due to persistent abuse, Examiner.com is on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used. Examiner.com is considered a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]], as it has minimal editorial oversight. Most editors believe the site has a poor reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Prior to 2004, the examiner.com domain was used by ''[[The San Francisco Examiner]]'', which has moved to a different domain. Examiner.com was shut down in 2016; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.
| {{/Uses|examiner.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Facebook"
| [[Facebook]] {{/Shortcut|WP:RSPFB}}{{/Shortcut|WP:RSPFACEBOOK}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|299|RfC: Facebook|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|82|Facebook as a source|1}} {{rsnl|154|Using Facebook as a source, revisited|2}} {{rsnl|260|Facebook Reliability|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a [[WP:self-published source|self-published source]] with no editorial oversight. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to add an [[WP:EF|edit filter]] to warn users who attempt to cite Facebook as a source, and no consensus on whether Facebook citations should be automatically reverted with {{u|XLinkBot}}.
| {{/Uses|facebook.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting"
| [[Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting|Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]] {{small|(FAIR)}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|59|Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters|2010|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|16|FAIR.org|1}} {{rsnl|64|FAIR (again); article that has already led to one defamation lawsuit being used as a reference|2}} {{rsnl|64|FAIR; RS for contentious BLP edits and statements of fact?|3}} {{rsnl|112|FAIR.org|4}} {{rsnl|169|Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)|5}}
| {{/Last|2014}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. However, there is strong consensus that publications from FAIR should not be used to support [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL|exceptional claims]] regarding [[WP:BLP|living persons]]. Most editors consider FAIR a [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated source]] whose statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]] and generally treated as [[WP:RSOPINION|opinions]].
| {{/Uses|fair.org}}
|- class="s-gu" id="FamilySearch"
| [[FamilySearch]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|115|familysearch.org|1}} {{rsnl|193|need to prove familysearch.org can be used as a source for birth records on Wikipedia|2}} {{rsnl|207|Census documents from FamilySearch|3}} {{rsnl|225|FamilySearch|4}} {{rsnl|229|prabook/geni.com/Familysearch|5}} {{rsnl|250|FamilySearch and LDS historical figures|6}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| FamilySearch operates a [[genealogy]] site that incorporates a large amount of [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]]. Editors see no evidence that FamilySearch performs fact-checking, and believe that the site has a questionable reputation for accuracy. FamilySearch also hosts [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] documents, such as birth certificates, which may be usable in limited situations, as well as a large collection of digitized books, which should be evaluated on their own for reliability. When using primary source documents from FamilySearch, follow [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]] and avoid interpreting them with [[WP:OR|original research]].
| {{/Uses|familysearch.org}}
|- class="s-b" id="Famous_Birthdays"
| [[Famous Birthdays]]
| {{/Status|gu|b=y}}
| {{sbll|May 2019|Famous Birthdays (famousbirthdays.com)|2019}}
{{rsnl|153|Is famousbirthdays.com a reliable source for personal information|1}} {{rsnl|178|Famous Birthdays for birth info in a BLP|2}} {{rsnl|224|Why famousbirthdays.com is a reliable source for birth dates|3}} {{rsnl|249|famousbirthdays.com|4}} {{rsnl|266|famousbirthdays.com|5}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Due to persistent abuse, Famous Birthdays is on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used. There is consensus that Famous Birthdays is generally unreliable. Famous Birthdays does not provide sources for its content, claim to have an editorial team, or claim to perform fact-checking. Do not use this site for information regarding [[WP:BLP|living persons]].
| {{/Uses|famousbirthdays.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Fandom"
| {{anchor|Fandom|Wikia}} [[Fandom (website)|Fandom]] wikis {{small|(Wikia, Wikicities)}} {{/Shortcut|WP:FANDOM}} {{/Shortcut|WP:RSPWIKIA}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|75|Using Wikia.com|1}} {{rsnl|128|Marvel Comics Database wikia reliability and use as a reference|2}} {{rsnl|186|Fan-made wikia site – RS?|3}} {{rsnl|207|Tractors Wikia as a reliable source?|4}} {{rsnl|212|Content Usage from WIKIA to Wikipedia|5}} {{rsnl|283|fandom.com|6}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 2#Everything2.com, Wikia, Wikipedia|A]]
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Fandom (formerly Wikia and Wikicities) wikis are considered generally unreliable because [[WP:UGC|open wiki]]s are [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]]. Although citing Wikia as a source is against policy, copying Fandom content into Wikipedia is permissible if it is published under a compatible license (some wikis may use licenses like CC BY-NC and CC BY-NC-ND, which are incompatible). Use the {{tl|Wikia content}} template to provide the necessary attribution in these cases, and ensure the article meets Wikipedia's [[WP:PG|policies and guidelines]] after copying.
| {{/Uses|fandom.com|wikia.com|wikia.org|wikicities.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="The_Federalist"
| ''[[The Federalist (website)|The Federalist]]''
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|336|RFC: The Federalist|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| ''The Federalist'' is generally unreliable for facts due to its [[Media bias|partisan nature]] and its promotion of [[conspiracy theories]]. However, it may be usable for [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]] opinions.
| {{/Uses|thefederalist.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Financial_Times"
| ''[[Financial Times]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|29|Sakhalin-II|1}} {{rsnl|45|Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Daily Telegraph|2}} {{rsnl|67|G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island" book|3}} {{rsnl|74|Central bank|4}} {{rsnl|94|Carola Hoyos / Financial Times on history of slavery|5}} {{rsnl|248|Opinions (Breitbart)|6}} {{rsnl|249|Using the term "chess prodigy"|7}} {{rsnl|251|RfC on use of CoinDesk|8}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| The ''Financial Times'' is considered generally reliable.
| {{/Uses|ft.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Find_a_Grave"
| [[Find a Grave]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|93|Find a Grave as a reliable source or reference|1}} {{rsnl|117|B./d. dates refrncd to prim. source of grave stone pic hosted @ FindAGrave.com|2}} {{rsnl|149|findagrave.com redux|3}} {{rsnl|214|Findagrave redux|4}} {{rsnl|314|Find a Grave as a reliable source|5}} {{rsnl|326|Find A Grave|6}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| The content on Find a Grave is [[WP:UGC|user-generated]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.findagrave.com/contribute|title=Contribute – Find A Grave|website=www.findagrave.com|access-date=July 30, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180731175920/https://www.findagrave.com/contribute|archive-date=July 31, 2018|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> and is therefore considered generally unreliable. Links to Find a Grave [[WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL|may sometimes be included]] in the [[WP:EL|external links section]] of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia. Take care that the Find a Grave page does not itself contain prohibited content, such as [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright violations]].
| {{/Uses|findagrave.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Findmypast"
| [[Findmypast]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|84|Personal data on findmypast.co.uk|1}} {{rsnl|114|Findmypast.co.uk|2}} {{rsnl|169|UK births database search.findmypast.co.uk|3}} {{rsnl|191|Findmypast.com|4}} {{rsnl|256|genealogy site – FindMyPast|5}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Findmypast is a [[genealogy]] site that hosts transcribed [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] documents, which is covered under [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]]. The site's [[Birth certificate|birth]] and [[death certificate]] records include the event's date of registration, not the date of the event itself. Editors caution against interpreting the documents with [[WP:OR|original research]] and note that the transcription process may introduce errors. Findmypast also hosts [[WP:UGC|user-generated]] family trees, which are unreliable. [[WP:TWL|The Wikipedia Library]] previously [[WP:FindMyPast|offered access]] to Findmypast.
| {{/Uses|findmypast.co.uk}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Flickr"
| [[Flickr]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|95|Is Flickr a reliable source as to photo contents|1}} {{rsnl|149|flickr and "travel-around-japan.com" as reliable sources|2}} {{rsnl|322|Flickr as a reliable source|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Most photos on Flickr are anonymous, [[WP:SPS|self-published]], and unverifiable, and should not be used at all for verifying information in articles (although properly-licensed photos from Flickr ''can'' be used to ''illustrate'' articles). Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. Note that one ''cannot'' make interpretations from Flickr photos, even from verified sources.
| {{/Uses|flickr.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Forbes"
| data-sort-value="Forbes" | ''[[Forbes]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:FORBES}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|10|Are Forbes and International Herald Tribune reliable sources?|1}} {{rsnl|36|Questionable article at List of best-selling music artists coming from Forbes %5B52%5D|2}} {{rsnl|195|Is Forbes a Reliable Source for Net Worth of Biographies?|3}} {{rsnl|221|Forbes.com|4}} {{rsnl|239|Forbes site subdomains as reference|5}} {{rsnl|301|forbes.net.ua|6}} {{rsnl|341|Forbes|7}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| ''Forbes'' and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. ''Forbes'' also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. ''See also: {{pslink|Forbes.com contributors}}.''
| {{/Uses|forbes.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Forbes.com_contributors"
| {{anchor|Forbes contributors}} [[Forbes.com]] contributors {{/Shortcut|WP:FORBESCON}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| 14{{efn|See these discussions of Forbes.com contributors:
{{rsnl|96|Is a Forbes invited contributor a reliable source for whether the War on Terror may be over etc|1}}
{{rsnl|138|Scientists in Forbes article|2}}
{{rsnl|159|Forbes/Forbes.com|3}}
{{rsnl|176|Forbes.com blogs|4}}
{{rsnl|207|Forbes article by credible contributor|5}}
{{rsnl|214|Has anyone written up something referenceable on the problem with Forbes blogs?|6}}
{{rsnl|221|Forbes.com|7}}
{{rsnl|246|Forbes.com|8}}
{{rsnl|256|Determining importance of Forbes contributors and their opinions|9}}
{{rsnl|278|(My opinion) Forbes is an unreliable source.|10}}
{{rsnl|284|Climate Feedback and similar blog sources being treated differently?|11}}
{{rsnl|299|Forbes.com contributor for Trollz (song)|12}}
{{rsnl|335|Forbes.com contributors yet again – editors' pick|13}}
{{rsnl|341|Forbes|14}}
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]], unless the article was written by a [[WP:EXPERTSOURCE|subject-matter expert]]. Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about [[WP:BLPSPS|living persons]]. Articles that have also been published in the print edition of ''[[Forbes]]'' are excluded, and are considered [[WP:GREL|generally reliable]]. Check the [[byline]] to determine whether an article is written by "[[#Forbes|Forbes Staff]]" or a "Contributor", and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of ''Forbes''. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their [[URL]] beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as ''Forbes'' staff articles have also been moved under "/sites". ''See also: {{pslink|Forbes}}.''
| {{/Uses|forbes.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Fox_News"
| [[Fox News]]{{efn|name=Fox News|[[List of Fox television affiliates (by U.S. state)|Local Fox affiliates]] are considered distinct from Fox News, and are covered by [[WP:NEWSORG]].}} (news excluding politics and science) {{/Shortcut|WP:FOXNEWS}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|73|Request for Comment on Fox News Channel|2010|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|303|RfC: Fox News|2020|rfc=y}}
10{{efn|See also these discussions of Fox News (news excluding politics and science):
{{rsnl|138|Is Fox News reliable?|1}}
{{rsnl|237|Is Fox News a WP:RS|2}}
{{rsnl|238|Fox News reliability RfC|3}}
{{rsnl|242|The Hill, Fox News, and Daily Caller reliable sources?|4}}
{{rsnl|250|Should Fox News be considered a Reliable Source or should it be considered in the same category as Daily Mail and Breitbart?|5}}
{{rsnl|257|Fox News|6}}
{{rsnl|261|Fox News redux|7}}
{{rsnl|264|Fox News – sources for future discussion|8}}
{{rsnl|287|Fox News, 9/11 topic|9}}
{{rsnl|339|How do we deal with opinion pieces published in both reliable and unreliable sources? (Fox News and New York Post)|10}}
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. ''See also: {{pslink|Fox News (politics and science)}}, {{pslink|Fox News (talk shows)}}.''
| {{/Uses|foxnews.com|foxbusiness.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Fox_News_(politics_and_science)"
| [[Fox News]]{{efn|name=Fox News}} (politics and science)
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|73|Request for Comment on Fox News Channel|2010|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|303|RfC: Fox News|2020|rfc=y|}}
20{{efn|See also these discussions of Fox News (politics and science):
{{rsnl|33|Fox News website reliable source?|1}}
{{rsnl|43|Fox News on Lawrence Solomon|2}}
{{rsnl|78|Unreliable sources: Daily Mail and Fox News|3}}
{{rsnl|97|Fox News is an unreliable source|4}}
{{rsnl|126|Fox news as an reliable third-party source for July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike|5}}
{{rsnl|226|The status of Fox News|6}}
{{rsnl|233|Is Fox News a RS on issues related to Hillary Clinton?|7}}
{{rsnl|237|Is Fox News a WP:RS|8}}
{{rsnl|238|Fox News reliability RfC|9}}
{{rsnl|250|Should Fox News be considered a Reliable Source or should it be considered in the same category as Daily Mail and Breitbart?|10}}
{{rsnl|257|Fox News|11}}
{{rsnl|261|Fox News redux|12}}
{{rsnl|264|Fox News – sources for future discussion|13}}
{{rsnl|267|RfC: Is Fox News a generally reliable source for reporting related to climate change?|14}}
{{rsnl|267|Strange Fox News story about AOC and climate change|15}}
{{rsnl|276|Litmus test for source reliability in the AmPol2 area|16}}
{{rsnl|278|Suggestion: comparing Fox News real-time coverage of the impeachment inquiry with other outlets'|17}}
{{rsnl|289|Fox News and COVID-19|18}}
{{rsnl|315|Political endorsements: Fox|19}}
{{rsnl|332|Fox News CEO declares his network will be opposed to Biden|20}}
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]] for politics; use [[WP:INTEXT|in-text attribution]] for opinions. ''See also: [[#Fox News|Fox News (news excluding politics and science)]], {{pslink|Fox News (talk shows)}}.''
| {{WP:RSPUSES|foxnews.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Fox_News_(talk_shows)"
| [[Fox News]]{{efn|name=Fox News}} (talk shows)
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|226|The status of Fox News|1}} {{rsnl|237|Is Fox News a WP:RS|2}} {{rsnl|257|Fox News|3}} {{rsnl|261|Fox News redux|4}} {{rsnl|264|Fox News – sources for future discussion|5}} {{rsnl|276|Litmus test for source reliability in the AmPol2 area|6}} {{rsnl|278|Suggestion: comparing Fox News real-time coverage of the impeachment inquiry with other outlets'|7}} {{rsnl|289|Fox News and COVID-19|8}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Fox News talk shows, including ''[[Hannity]]'', ''[[Tucker Carlson Tonight]]'', ''[[The Ingraham Angle]]'', and ''[[Fox & Friends]]'', should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]] [[WP:RSOPINION|opinions]]. ''See also: [[#Fox News|Fox News (news excluding politics and science)]], {{pslink|Fox News (politics and science)}}.''
| {{/Uses|foxnews.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="FrontPage_Magazine"
| ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' {{small|(FPM, ''FrontPageMag.com'')}}{{/Shortcut|WP:FPM}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|301|RFC: FrontPage Magazine|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|3|Is FrontPageMag.com a reliable source?|1}} {{rsnl|3|FrontPage Magazine (again)|2}} {{rsnl|4|FrontPage Magazine and WorldNetDaily|3}} {{rsnl|14|RE:FPM|4}} {{rsnl|15|David Horowitz Freedom Center|5}} {{rsnl|138|Are Frontpage Magazine and Steven Plaut reliable sources on Bolshevik?|6}} {{rsnl|226|FrontPage Magazine|7}} {{rsnl|291|FrontPage Magazine|8}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| In the 2020 RfC, there was unanimous consensus to deprecate ''FrontPage Magazine''. Editors consider the publication generally unreliable, and believe that its opinions should be assigned little to no [[WP:DUE|weight]]. The publication is considered [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]].
| {{/Uses|frontpagemag.com|frontpagemagazine.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Game Developer"
| ''[[Game Developer (website)|Game Developer]]'' {{small|(''Gamasutra'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|83|gamasutra.com|1}} {{rsnl|301|gamasutra.com|2}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 67#Are these credible secondary sources|A]]
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''Game Developer'' is considered generally reliable for subjects related to video games.
| {{/Uses|gamedeveloper.com|gamasutra.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Game Informer"
| ''[[Game Informer]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|32|Youtube|1}} {{rsnl|346|Some reliable sources|2}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5#Screwattack again|A]] [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 79#VG reviews publications|B]] [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 86#Videogame Magazines Should Not Automatically Be Regarded as a Reliable Source|C]] [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 38#VGChartz re-visited|D]]
| {{/Last|2021}}
| ''Game Informer'' is considered generally reliable for video games.
| {{/Uses|gameinformer.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="The_Gateway_Pundit"
| data-sort-value="Gateway Pundit" | ''[[The Gateway Pundit]]'' {{small|(TGP)}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|278|RfC: "The Gateway Pundit" (October)|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|256|Among low-quality sources, the most popular websites are right-wing sources|1}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| ''The Gateway Pundit'' was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site is unacceptable as a source. It is unreliable for statements of fact, and given to publishing hoax articles and reporting conspiracy theories as fact.
| {{/Uses|thegatewaypundit.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Gawker"
| [[Gawker]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|262|RfC: Gawker|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|16|Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com|1}} {{rsnl|37|Gawker.com|2}} {{rsnl|77|Is Gawker a reliable source?|3}} {{rsnl|152|Is Gawker a reliable source?|4}} {{rsnl|180|Media as RS for their own controversies (GamerGate)|5}} {{rsnl|220|Impact assessment ?|6}} {{rsnl|221|Can we have clearer guidance on what sort of sourcing from the Mail is and isn't OK?|7}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Gawker (2002-2016) was a gossip blog that frequently published articles on rumors and speculation without named authors. When Gawker is the only source for a piece of information, the information would likely constitute [[WP:DUE|undue weight]], especially when the subject is a [[WP:BLP|living person]]. When another reliable source quotes information from Gawker, it is preferable to cite that source instead. In the 2019 RfC, there was no consensus on whether Gawker should be deprecated. In 2021, the publication was relaunched under Bustle Digital Group. The current incarnation has not been discussed at RSN.
| {{/Uses|gawker.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Geni.com"
| [[Geni.com]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|106|Geni.com? Reliable source?|1}} {{rsnl|126|Geni.com for Brian Haberlin birth info|2}} {{rsnl|229|prabook/geni.com/Familysearch|3}} {{rsnl|251|Geni.com|4}} {{rsnl|268|Geni.com|5}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| [[Geni.com]] is a [[genealogy]] site that is considered generally unreliable because it is an [[WP:UGC|open wiki]], which is a type of [[WP:SPS|self-published source]]. [[WP:PRIMARY|Primary source]] documents from Geni.com may be usable under [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]] to support reliable [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]], but avoid interpreting them with [[WP:OR|original research]].
| {{/Uses|geni.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Genius"
| [[Genius (website)|Genius]] {{small|(Rap Genius)}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|206|Genius as a source?|1}} {{rsnl|258|Genius.com|2}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Song lyrics, annotations and descriptions on Genius are mostly [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]] and are thus generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of articles, interviews and videos produced by Genius. Verified commentary from musicians fall under [[WP:BLPSELFPUB]], and usage of such commentary should conform to that policy.
| {{/Uses|genius.com|rapgenius.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="gnis-coord"
| [[Geographic Names Information System]] {{small|(GNIS)}} (names and locations)
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|357|RfC: GNIS|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates.
| {{/Uses|geonames.usgs.gov}}
|- class="s-gu" id="gnis-class"
| [[Geographic Names Information System]] {{small|(GNIS)}} (feature classes)
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|357|RfC: GNIS|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the [[WP:NGEO|notability of geographic features]] as it does not meet the [[WP:GEOLAND|legal recognition requirement]].
| {{/Uses|geonames.usgs.gov}}
|- class="s-nc" id="gns-coord"
| [[GEOnet Names Server]] {{small|(GNS)}} (names and locations)
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|362|GEOnet Names Server (GNS)|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| The GEOnet Names Server is an United States-based geographical database that covers non-US countries. It is considered to be close to generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates, though there are concerns that GNS may not always be accurate and sometimes report the existence of places that do not even exist. Editors are advised to exercise caution when using it.
| {{/Uses|geonames.nga.mil}}
|- class="s-gu" id="gns-class"
| [[GEOnet Names Server]] {{small|(GNS)}} (feature classes)
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|362|GEOnet Names Server (GNS)|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| The GEOnet Names Server is a United States-based geographical database that covers non-US countries. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the [[WP:NGEO|notability of geographic features]] as it does not meet the [[WP:GEOLAND|legal recognition requirement]].
| {{/Uses|geonames.nga.mil}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Gizmodo"
| ''[[Gizmodo]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|221|paleofuture.gizmodo.com in Napoleon Hill|1}} {{rsnl|270|Is Gizmodo considered a reliable source?|2}} {{rsnl|346|Some reliable sources|3}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''Gizmodo'' is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.
| {{/Uses|gizmodo.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="Global_Times"
| ''[[Global Times]]'' {{small|(''Huanqiu Shibao'')}} {{/Shortcut|WP:GLOBALTIMES}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|311|RfC: Global Times|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|149|Global times as in Kennedy tragedies|1}} {{rsnl|165|PRC's Global Times|2}} {{rsnl|271|Chinese news sources|3}} {{rsnl|294|Global Times|4}} {{rsnl|348|Global Times article can't be used even if it's critical of Chinese govt?|5}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| The ''Global Times'' is a [[Tabloid journalism|tabloid]] owned by the [[Chinese Communist Party]]. It was deprecated near-unanimously in a 2020 RfC which found that it publishes false or fabricated information, including pro-Chinese government propaganda and conspiracy theories.
| {{/Uses|globaltimes.cn|huanqiu.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="GlobalSecurity.org"
| [[GlobalSecurity.org]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| 11{{efn|See these discussions of GlobalSecurity.org:
{{rsnl|2|Antiwar.com and Globalsecurity.org|1}}
{{rsnl|33|Encarta, Globalsecurity.org and Onwar.com|2}}
{{rsnl|91|www.globalsecurity.org|3}}
{{rsnl|112|globalsecurity.org|4}}
{{rsnl|129|Globalsecurity.org|5}}
{{rsnl|148|global security.org|6}}
{{rsnl|196|GlobalSecurity.org|7}}
{{rsnl|216|globalsecurity.org|8}}
{{rsnl|217|globalsecurity.org as a source on Philippine Prehistory and Protohistory|9}}
{{rsnl|218|globalsecurity.org|10}}
{{rsnl|285|GlobalSecurity.org|11}}
}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of GlobalSecurity.org. It is not to be confused with [[#Centre for Research on Globalization|globalresearch.ca]].
| {{/Uses|globalsecurity.org}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The Globe and Mail"
| ''[[The Globe and Mail]]''
|{{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|340|RfC: The Globe and Mail|2021|rfc=y}}

| {{/Last|2021}}
| In a 2021 RfC, editors found a strong consensus that ''[[The Globe and Mail]]'' is generally reliable for news coverage and is considered a [[newspaper of record]].
| {{/Uses|theglobeandmail.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Goodreads"
| [[Goodreads]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|204|Goodreads|1}} {{rsnl|249|goodreads.com|2}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| Goodreads is a [[social cataloging]] site comprising [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]]. As a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]], Goodreads is considered generally unreliable.
| {{/Uses|goodreads.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Google_Maps"
| [[Google Maps]] {{small|([[Google Street View]])}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|30|Google Maps for calculating distances in an article|1}} {{rsnl|88|Using Google Maps to determine where a property line is|2}} {{rsnl|97|Google maps?|3}} {{rsnl|149|Google street view|4}} {{rsnl|221|Is Google Maps a reliable source for boundaries of a neighborhood?|5}} {{rsnl|318|Google Maps|6}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Google Maps and Google Street View may be useful for some purposes, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information like street names. However, especially for objects like boundaries (of neighborhoods, allotments, etc.), where other reliable sources are available they should be preferred over Google Maps and Google Street View. It can also be difficult or impossible to determine the veracity of past citations, since Google Maps data is not publicly archived, and may be removed or replaced as soon as it is not current. Inferring information solely from Street View pictures may be considered [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. Note that due to [[restrictions on geographic data in China]], [[OpenStreetMap]] coordinates for places in [[mainland China]] are almost always much more accurate than Google's – despite OpenStreetMap being user-generated – due to the severe distortion introduced by most commercial map providers. (References, in any case, are usually not required for geographic coordinates.)
| {{/Uses|maps.google.com|google.com/maps}}
|- class="s-d" id="The_Grayzone"
| data-sort-value="Grayzone" | ''[[The Grayzone]]''
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|287|RfC: Grayzone|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|272|On the reliability of The Grayzone|1}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''The Grayzone'' was deprecated in the 2020 RfC. There is consensus that ''The Grayzone'' publishes false or fabricated information. Some editors describe ''The Grayzone'' as [[Max Blumenthal]]'s blog, and question the website's editorial oversight.
| {{/Uses|thegrayzone.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="The_Green_Papers"
| data-sort-value="Green Papers" | ''[[The Green Papers]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|290|RfC: Is The Green Papers a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information?|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|206|The Green Papers|1}}<br />
[[Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses/Archive 1#Poll: Should The Green Papers estimates for pledged delegates be used in place of those from major sources like the New York Times?|A]]
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of ''The Green Papers''. As a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]] that publishes [[United States election]] results, some editors question the site's editorial oversight.
| {{/Uses|thegreenpapers.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Guardian"
| data-sort-value="Guardian" | ''[[The Guardian]]'' {{small|([[TheGuardian.com]], ''The Manchester Guardian'', ''[[The Observer]]'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| 15{{efn|See these discussions of ''The Guardian'':
{{rsnl|18|Using Newsweek, The Guardian and Haaretz as reliable sources|1}}
{{rsnl|82|Twitter, Rolling Stone magazine and The Guardian|2}}
{{rsnl|109|The Guardian data blog|3}}
{{rsnl|139|Guardian article titled "Israel's colonisation of Palestine..."|4}}
{{rsnl|175|The Guardian|5}}
{{rsnl|180|Times, Washington Post and Guardian Reliability regarding GamerGate|6}}
{{rsnl|201|Is the UK paper The Guardian a reliable source for feminist smear campaigns?|7}}
{{rsnl|181|Spurious claim from Urban Dictionary makes its through Wikipedia into The Guardian|8}}
{{rsnl|183|The Guardian, Alex Hern, Wikipedia as the Topic|9}}
{{rsnl|186|Use of commercial locksmith site as ref versus a ref from The Guardian|10}}
{{rsnl|211|The Guardian, UK|11}}
{{rsnl|272|Are meforum.org , consortiumnews.com, and theguardian.com/commentisfree RSs?|12}}
{{rsnl|274|The Guardian|13}}
{{rsnl|277|The Guardian|14}}
{{rsnl|277|The Guardian on Hong Kong protests|15}}
}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is consensus that ''The Guardian'' is generally reliable. ''The Guardian''{{'}}s op-eds should be handled with [[WP:RSOPINION]]. Some editors believe ''The Guardian'' is [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]] for politics. ''See also: {{pslink|The Guardian blogs}}.''
| {{/Uses|theguardian.com|guardian.co.uk|theguardian.co.uk}}
|- class="s-nc" id="The_Guardian_blogs"
| data-sort-value="Guardian blogs" | ''[[The Guardian]]'' blogs
| {{/Status|nc}}
| 10{{efn|See these discussions of ''The Guardian'' blogs:
{{rsnl|22|guardian.co.uk/blog|1}}
{{rsnl|25|Guardian Science blog|2}}
{{rsnl|46|Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Guardian Comment is Free commentary and collaborative blog|3}}
{{rsnl|48|Guardian blog articles|4}}
{{rsnl|60|Guardian Games Blog and CVG|5}}
{{rsnl|86|Guardian Lost in showbiz blog|6}}
{{rsnl|171|The Guardian Blog a reliable source for BLP?|7}}
{{rsnl|216|The Guardian's Pop and rock Music blog and chemtrails|8}}
{{rsnl|272|Are meforum.org , consortiumnews.com, and theguardian.com/commentisfree RSs?|9}}
{{rsnl|284|Climate Feedback and similar blog sources being treated differently?|10}}
}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Most editors say that ''The Guardian'' blogs should be treated as [[WP:NEWSBLOG|newspaper blogs]] or [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a [[#The Guardian|non-blog article]]. ''See also: {{pslink|The Guardian}}.''
| {{/Uses|theguardian.com|guardian.co.uk|theguardian.co.uk}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Guido_Fawkes"
| [[Guido Fawkes (website)|Guido Fawkes]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|55|Guido_Fawkes|1}} {{rsnl|78|Matthew_Offord|2}} {{rsnl|270|Order-order.com_on_a_BLP_(Laura_Smith)|3}} {{rsnl|288|Guido Fawkes|4}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| The Guido Fawkes website (order-order.com) is considered generally unreliable because it is a [[WP:SPS|self-published]] blog. It may be used for uncontroversial descriptions of itself and its own content according to [[WP:ABOUTSELF]], but not for claims related to [[WP:BLPSPS|living persons]].
| {{/Uses|order-order.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Guinness_World_Records"
| ''[[Guinness World Records]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
|{{rsnl|120|Reliability of Guinness World Records|1}} {{rsnl|129|Guinness Book of Records|2}} {{rsnl|171|Guinness World Records website a valid reference?|3}} {{rsnl|204|Is being awarded the Guinness World Record a significant award?|4}} {{rsnl|305|Guinness World Records|5}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that world records verified by ''Guinness World Records'' should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage.
| {{/Uses|guinnessworldrecords.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Haaretz"
| ''[[Haaretz]]'' {{small|(''Ḥadashot Ha'aretz'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| 10{{efn|See these discussions of ''Haaretz'':
{{rsnl|18|Using Newsweek, The Guardian and Haaretz as reliable sources|1}}
{{rsnl|76|Spiral Dynamics: ABC Radio, Haaretz|2}}
{{rsnl|77|haaretz.com is no longer a reliable source|3}}
{{rsnl|87|Haaretz and Dershowitz|4}}
{{rsnl|135|Haaretz and poll results|5}}
{{rsnl|174|Haaretz, The Independent, Le Monde Diplomatique, Ukrainian Helsink Human Rights Union (UHHRU)|6}}
{{rsnl|228|Haaretz headlines|7}}
{{rsnl|240|Haaretz unattributed for BLP|8}}
{{rsnl|253|Amira Hass writing in Ha'aretz used in Halamish|9}}
{{rsnl|350|Another unreliable Haaretz article|10}}
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| ''Haaretz'' is considered generally reliable. Some editors believe that ''Haaretz'' reports with a political slant, particularly with respect to the [[Arab–Israeli conflict]], which makes it [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]]. The publication's [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] should be handled with the appropriate guideline.
| {{/Uses|haaretz.com|haaretz.co.il}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Hansard"
| ''[[Hansard]]'' {{small|([[UK Parliament]] transcripts, [[House of Commons]], [[House of Lords]])}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|63|Hansard: a reliable source? A primary source?|1}} {{rsnl|70|Use of Hansard|2}} {{rsnl|135|Is Hansard the UK parliaments minutes a reliable source?|3}} {{rsnl|265|House of Lords member statement about MEK targets (People's Mujahedin of Iran)|4}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| As a transcript of parliament proceedings in the United Kingdom, ''Hansard'' is a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] and its statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]] to whoever made them. ''Hansard'' is considered generally reliable for UK parliamentary proceedings and UK government statements. It is not considered reliable as a [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary source]] as it merely contains the personal opinions of whoever is speaking in Parliament that day, and is subject to [[Parliamentary privilege]]. ''Hansard'' is not a word-for-word transcript and may omit repetitions and redundancies.
| {{/Uses|parliament.uk|hansard.parliament.uk|api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard|hansard.millbanksystems.com|cmhansrd|ldhansrd}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Heat_Street"
| ''[[Heat Street]]''
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|213|Is Heatstreet a reliable source for attributed opinion?|1}} {{rsnl|228|Heat Street|2}}
| {{/Last|2017}}
| Although ''Heat Street'' was owned by [[Dow Jones & Company]], a usually reputable publisher, many editors note that ''Heat Street'' does not clearly differentiate between its news articles and opinion. There is consensus that ''Heat Street'' is a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan source]]. Some editors consider ''Heat Street''{{'}}s [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] and news articles written by its staff to be usable with attribution, though [[WP:DUE|due weight]] must be considered because ''Heat Street'' covers many political topics not as talked about in higher-profile sources.
| {{/Uses|heatst.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Heavy.com"
| [[Heavy.com]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|226|Murder of Seth Rich article and source Heavy.com|1}} {{rsnl|263|Heavy.com used as source for birthdate at Katie Bouman|2}} {{rsnl||Heavy.com quoting IMDB|3|active=yes}}
| {{/Last|2022}}
| There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to read and cite the original source instead.
| {{/Uses|heavy.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Hill"
| data-sort-value="Hill"| ''[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| 10{{efn|See these discussions of ''The Hill'':
{{rsnl|125|The "Independent Political Report"|1}}
{{rsnl|174|NRA PAC contributions to Congressional candidates|2}}
{{rsnl|192|Political wrangling on article: Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016|3}}
{{rsnl|216|Need help to fix an article that is seen as NPOV by several editors|4}}
{{rsnl|233|Is there any support for having an annual cull of RS acceptable for Wikipedia?|5}}
{{rsnl|242|The Hill, Fox News, and Daily Caller reliable sources?|6}}
{{rsnl|248|Discussion (Breitbart)|7}}
{{rsnl|253|Washington Examiner|8}}
{{rsnl|265|John Solomon|9}}
{{rsnl|271|Sources at Media bias in the United States for claims of censorship of conservative content|10}}
}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| ''The Hill'' is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication's [[WP:CONTRIBUTOR|contributor]] pieces, labeled in their [[byline]]s, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]].
| {{/Uses|thehill.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Hindu"
| data-sort-value="Hindu"| ''[[The Hindu]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:THEHINDU}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|67|The Hindu|1}} {{rsnl|284|The Hindu mirroring misinformation from WP|2}} {{rsnl|305|The Hindu|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that ''The Hindu'' is generally reliable and should be treated as a [[newspaper of record]]. The publication's [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] should be handled with the appropriate guideline.
| {{/Uses|thehindu.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="HispanTV"
| [[HispanTV]]
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|265|RfC: HispanTV|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| HispanTV was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts outright fabrications. Editors listed multiple examples of HispanTV broadcasting [[conspiracy theories]] and [[Propaganda in Iran|Iranian propaganda]].
| {{/Uses|hispantv.com|hispantv.ir}}
|- class="s-gu" id="History"
| [[History (American TV network)|History]] {{small|(The History Channel)}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|26|Is a Discovery or History Channel documentary considered a reliable source?|1}} {{rsnl|294|Is History.com (formerly History Channel) generally reliable?|2}} {{rsnl|330|Reliability of History (channel) pre-2010|3}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Most editors consider [[History (American TV network)|The History Channel]] generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote [[conspiracy theories]].
| {{/Uses|history.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Hollywood_Reporter"
| data-sort-value="Hollywood Reporter" | ''[[The Hollywood Reporter]]'' {{small|(''THR'')}} {{/Shortcut|WP:THR}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|20|Are Variety and The Hollywood Reporter reliable sources for film reviews?|1}} {{rsnl|135|Hollywood Reporter|2}} {{rsnl|148|Box Office Mojo and Boxoffice.com|3}} {{rsnl|182|Hollywood Reporter & Pumped Up Kicks|4}} {{rsnl|250|The Biggest Loser (U.S. TV series)|5}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| There is consensus that ''The Hollywood Reporter'' is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, including its articles and reviews on film, TV and music, as well as its box office figures.
| {{/Uses|hollywoodreporter.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Hope_not_Hate"
| [[Hope not Hate]] {{small|([[Searchlight (magazine)|''Searchlight'']])}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|247|RfC: Should Hope not Hate publications be considered reliable sources?|2018|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|47|Searchlight Magazine|1}} {{rsnl|89|Searchlight|2}} {{rsnl|105|Searchlight Magazine|3}} {{rsnl|154|Hope not hate as source.|4}} {{rsnl|263|Hope Not Hate as a WP:SPS|5}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Most commenters declined to make a general statement about publications from Hope not Hate. Reliability should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, while taking context into account. Because they are an advocacy group, they are a [[WP:BIASED|biased and opinionated source]] and their statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]].
| {{/Uses|hopenothate.org.uk|searchlightmagazine.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="HuffPost"
| ''[[HuffPost]]'' (excluding politics) {{small|(''The Huffington Post'')}}{{/Shortcut|WP:HUFFPO}}{{/Shortcut|WP:HUFFPOST}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|313|RFC: HuffPost|2020|rfc=y}}
13{{efn|See these discussions of ''HuffPost'' (excluding politics):
{{rsnl|16|Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com|1}}
{{rsnl|51|Media Matters for America, Huffington Post, and NewsHounds|2}}
{{rsnl|129|The Huffington Post|3}}
{{rsnl|160|Huffington Post/Daily Mirror|4}}
{{rsnl|162|Huffington Post article for Janet Jackson's religion|5}}
{{rsnl|165|Huffington Post|6}}
{{rsnl|188|Huffington Post|7}}
{{rsnl|193|The Huffington Post|8}}
{{rsnl|219|Vox.com and Huffington Post at Smith & Wesson M&P15|9}}
{{rsnl|221|Daily Mail vs Huffington Post|10}}
{{rsnl|263|HuffPost for paid editing at Axios (website), NBC News, Caryn Marooney, and other articles|11}}
{{rsnl|264|Huff Post UK|12}}
{{rsnl|339|Huffpost|13}}
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| A 2020 RfC found ''HuffPost'' staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their political [[WP:BIASED|bias]] and less prominence to, or omit, things that contradict it. ''HuffPost''{{'}}s reliability has increased since 2012; articles before 2012 are less reliable and should be treated with more caution. ''HuffPost'' uses [[clickbait]] headlines to attract attention to its articles, thus the body text of any ''HuffPost'' article is considered more reliable than its [[WP:HEADLINE|headline]]. ''See also: {{pslink|HuffPost (politics)}}, {{pslink|HuffPost contributors}}.''
| {{/Uses|huffpost.com|huffingtonpost.com|huffingtonpost.co.uk|huffingtonpost.ca|huffingtonpost.com.au|huffpostbrasil.com|huffingtonpost.de|huffingtonpost.es|huffingtonpost.fr|huffingtonpost.gr|huffingtonpost.in|huffingtonpost.it|huffingtonpost.jp|huffingtonpost.kr|huffpostmaghreb.com|huffingtonpost.com.mx}}
|- class="s-nc" id="HuffPost (politics)"
| ''[[HuffPost]]'' (politics) {{small|(''The Huffington Post'')}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|313|RFC: HuffPost|2020|rfc=y}}
10{{efn|See these discussions of ''HuffPost'' (politics):
{{rsnl|16|Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com|1}}
{{rsnl|26|Huffington Post|2}}
{{rsnl|51|Media Matters for America, Huffington Post, and NewsHounds|3}}
{{rsnl|129|The Huffington Post|4}}
{{rsnl|165|Huffington Post|5}}
{{rsnl|193|The Huffington Post|6}}
{{rsnl|219|Vox.com and Huffington Post at Smith & Wesson M&P15|7}}
{{rsnl|221|Daily Mail vs Huffington Post|8}}
{{rsnl|294|HuffPost for quotations|9}}
{{rsnl|296|The Huffington post|10}}
}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on ''HuffPost'' staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers ''HuffPost'' openly [[WP:BIASED|biased]] on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. ''See also: [[#HuffPost|HuffPost (excluding politics)]], {{pslink|HuffPost contributors}}.''
| {{/Uses|huffpost.com|huffingtonpost.com|huffingtonpost.co.uk|huffingtonpost.ca|huffingtonpost.com.au|huffpostbrasil.com|huffingtonpost.de|huffingtonpost.es|huffingtonpost.fr|huffingtonpost.gr|huffingtonpost.in|huffingtonpost.it|huffingtonpost.jp|huffingtonpost.kr|huffpostmaghreb.com|huffingtonpost.com.mx}}
|- class="s-gu" id="HuffPost contributors"
| ''[[HuffPost]]'' contributors {{small|(''The Huffington Post'')}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|313|RFC: HuffPost|2020|rfc=y}}
18{{efn|See these discussions of ''HuffPost'' contributors:
{{rsnl|16|Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com|1}}
{{rsnl|17|Is the Huffington Post a reliable source?|2}}
{{rsnl|19|Huffington Post, AJC, & E&P|3}}
{{rsnl|35|The Huffington Post Again|4}}
{{rsnl|50|Michael Savage (commentator) & Huffington Post article|5}}
{{rsnl|51|Media Matters for America, Huffington Post, and NewsHounds|6}}
{{rsnl|113|Question regarding Huffington Post and relability|7}}
{{rsnl|129|The Huffington Post|8}}
{{rsnl|152|The Huffington Post|9}}
{{rsnl|165|Huffington Post|10}}
{{rsnl|181|Huffington Post and Vox and WP:BLP|11}}
{{rsnl|191|Huffington Post HuffPost Green blog by Travis Walter Donovan per WP:NEWSBLOG|12}}
{{rsnl|193|The Huffington Post|13}}
{{rsnl|202|Is the Huffington Post (original content) a reliable source? (2016)|14}}
{{rsnl|208|Is the Huffington Post a RS?|15}}
{{rsnl|218|Huffington Post article|16}}
{{rsnl|234|Huffington Post's "contributor platform"|17}}
{{rsnl|236|Huffington Post and BuzzFeed|18}}
}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Until 2018, the US edition of ''HuffPost'' published content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight. These contributors generally did not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors consider them highly variable in quality. Editors show consensus for treating ''HuffPost'' contributor articles as [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]], unless the article was written by a [[WP:EXPERTSOURCE|subject-matter expert]]. In 2018, ''HuffPost'' discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online. Check the [[byline]] to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a "Contributor" (also referred to as an "Editorial Partner"). ''See also: [[#HuffPost|HuffPost (excluding politics)]], {{pslink|HuffPost (politics)}}.''
| {{/Uses|huffpost.com|huffingtonpost.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Human_Events"
| ''[[Human Events]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|80|Humanevents.com|1}} {{rsnl|140|humanevents.com reference in War on Women|2}} {{rsnl|266|Human Events|3}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Editors consider ''Human Events'' [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]], and its statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. In May 2019, a former editor-in-chief of ''{{pslink|Breitbart News}}'' became the editor-in-chief of ''Human Events''; articles published after the leadership change are considered generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of ''Human Events''<nowiki />'s older content.
| {{/Uses|humanevents.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Idolator"
| [[Idolator (website)|Idolator]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|166|Idolator|1}} {{rsnl|170|Idolator|2}}
| {{/Last|2014}}
| There is consensus that Idolator is generally reliable for popular music. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes [[WP:DUE|due weight]] before citing it in an article.
| {{/Uses|idolator.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="IGN"
| ''[[IGN]]'' {{small|(''Imagine Games Network'')}} {{/Shortcut|WP:IGN}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| 12{{efn|See these discussions of ''IGN'':
{{rsnl|12|Is ign.com a RS ?|1}}
{{rsnl|16|Help!!!|2}}
{{rsnl|47|IGN – Awards|3}}
{{rsnl|58|IGN's "Pokemon of the Day Chick"|4}}
{{rsnl|88|Feature articles and what they can be used for|5}}
{{rsnl|118|Mass Effect 3 IGN Review/Jessica Chobot|6}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 75#Help on confirming IGN as a reliable source|A]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 81#IGN Review scores|B]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 83#What to do with conflicting IGN scores?|C]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 4#N-Sider as situational source (2nd)|D]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5#IGN editorials|E]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 17#IGN|F]]
}}
| {{/Last|2017}}
| There is consensus that ''IGN'' is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture, as well as for film and video game reviews given that attribution is provided. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes [[WP:DUE|due weight]] before citing it in an article. In addition, articles written by N-Sider are generally unreliable as this particular group of journalists have been found to fabricate articles and pass off speculation as fact. The site's blogs should be handled with [[WP:RSBLOG]]. ''See also: {{pslink|AskMen}}.''
| {{/Uses|ign.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="IMDb"
| [[IMDb]] {{small|(Internet Movie Database)}}{{/Shortcut|WP:IMDB}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|267|RfC: IMDb|2019|rfc=y}}
+32{{efn|See also these discussions of IMDb:
{{rsnl|3|IMDb Publicity|1}}
{{rsnl|5|IMDB|2}}
{{rsnl|16|IMDB|3}}
{{rsnl|17|IMDb – is there any common result if IMDb is reliable or not?|4}}
{{rsnl|17|The Internet Movie Database Bio Pages|5}}
{{rsnl|20|Are IMDB and personal websites reliable sources|6}}
{{rsnl|22|IMDb|7}}
{{rsnl|23|IMDB.com for plot synopsis|8}}
{{rsnl|24|Is IMDb an unreliable source?|9}}
{{rsnl|37|IMDB|10}}
{{rsnl|40|IMDB, again|11}}
{{rsnl|47|IMDB?|12}}
{{rsnl|50|TV.com and IMDB|13}}
{{rsnl|58|IMDB as a source; List of documentary films|14}}
{{rsnl|68|IMDB lacking corroboration|15}}
{{rsnl|77|Max's of Manila – a number of source issues including IMDB as a source for BLP|16}}
{{rsnl|96|IMDB|17}}
{{rsnl|105|IMDB and a sex tape|18}}
{{rsnl|117|Awarding body using IMDB's "past winners" lists as their own|19}}
{{rsnl|164|IMDB reliable source for awards?|20}}
{{rsnl|188|Is IMDb reliable for filmography credits?|21}}
{{rsnl|201|IMDB for some things, but not for others?|22}}
{{rsnl|266|imdb|23}}
{{rsnl|272|IMDb|24}}
{{rsnl|276|The mystery of Street Fighter II: The World Warrior's release date|25}}
{{rsnl|287|Limited reliable use for IMDB – DoB and DoD|26}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 5#IMDB links|A]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 20#IMDb links|B]]
[[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 1#IMDB User Ratings|C]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 51#IMDb but reliable?|D]]
[[Talk:Pauley Perrette/Archive 1#Reliable sources.|E]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 87#IMDB links|F]]
}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| The content on IMDb is [[WP:UGC|user-generated]], and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors. [[WP:Citing IMDb]] describes two exceptions, both of which do not require [[WP:CS|citations]] because the film itself is implied to be the primary source. Although certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, editors criticize the quality of IMDb's fact-checking. A number of editors have pointed out that IMDb content has been copied from other sites, including Wikipedia, and that there have been a number of notable hoaxes in the past. The use of IMDb as an external link is generally considered appropriate (see [[WP:IMDB-EL]]).
| {{/Uses|imdb.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Independent"
| data-sort-value="Independent" | ''[[The Independent]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|345|RFC: The Independent|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|65|How Islamic Inventors Changed the World article in The Independent|1}} {{rsnl|140|Is the UK paper, "The Independent" a "tabloid journalism" source for BLP references?|2}} {{rsnl|174|Haaretz, The Independent, Le Monde Diplomatique, Ukrainian Helsink Human Rights Union (UHHRU)|3}} {{rsnl|219|Can The Independent online newspaper still be considered a Reliable Source?|4}} {{rsnl|268|The Independent|5}} {{rsnl|321|The Independent, again|6}} {{rsnl|325|The Independent|7}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| ''The Independent'', a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an [[online newspaper]]; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date.
| {{/Uses|independent.co.uk}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Independent_Journal_Review"
| ''[[Independent Journal Review]]'' {{small|(IJR)}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|221|IJR.com / "Independent Journal Review"|1}} {{rsnl|242|Independent Journal Review|2}} {{rsnl|253|Independent Journal Review|3}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of the ''Independent Journal Review''. Posts from "community" members are considered [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]]. The site's "news" section consists mostly of [[WP:SYNDICATED|syndicated stories]] from {{pslink|Reuters}}, and citations of these stories should preferably point to Reuters.
| {{/Uses|ijr.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Independent_Media_Center"
| [[Independent Media Center]] {{small|(Indymedia, IMC)}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|275|Indymedia|1}} {{rsnl|316|Indymedia|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| The [[Independent Media Center]] is an [[open publishing]] network. Editors express low confidence in Indymedia's reputation for fact-checking, and consider Indymedia a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]].
| {{/Uses|indymedia.org|imc-africa.mayfirst.org|indymedia.ie|indymedia.nl|indymedia.no|indymedia.org.uk|midiaindependente.org|indymediapr.org|bigmuddyimc.org|phillyimc.org|rogueimc.org|indybay.org|indymedia.us|ucimc.org|antwerpen-indymedia.be|michiganimc.org|tnimc.org}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Indian_Express"
| data-sort-value="Indian Express" | ''[[The Indian Express]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:INDIANEXP}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|293|RfC: The Indian Express|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''The Indian Express'' is considered generally reliable under the [[WP:NEWSORG|news organizations guideline]].
| {{/Uses|indianexpress.com}}
|- class="s-b" id="InfoWars"
| ''[[InfoWars]]'' {{small|(''NewsWars'')}}{{/Shortcut|WP:INFOWARS}}
| {{/Status|d|b=y}}
| [[File:X-circle.svg|20px|alt=Spam blacklist request|link=m:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2018-02#Beta Cluster spamming of 2018-02-18]]&nbsp;[[m:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2018-02#Beta Cluster spamming of 2018-02-18|2018]] {{rsnl|247|RfC on reliability of InfoWars|2018|rfc=y}} {{sbll|September 2018|InfoWars|2018}}
{{rsnl|106|Alex Jones' Infowars.com|1}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| Due to persistent abuse, ''InfoWars'' is on both the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]] and the [[m:Spam blacklist|Wikimedia global spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used. ''InfoWars'' was deprecated in the 2018 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishes [[fake news]] and [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]]. The use of ''InfoWars'' as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more [[WP:RS|reliable]]. ''InfoWars'' should not be used for determining [[WP:N|notability]], or used as a [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary source]] in articles.
| {{/Uses|infowars.com|infowars.net|infowars.tv|newswars.com|banned.video}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Inquisitr"
| [[Inquisitr]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|223|The Inquisitr|1}} {{rsnl|240|Inquisitr|2}} {{rsnl|324|Inquisitr revisited|3}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Inquisitr is a [[news aggregator]], although it does publish some original reporting. There is consensus that Inquisitr is a generally unreliable source. Editors note that where Inquisitr has aggregated news from other sources, it is better to cite the original sources of information.
| {{/Uses|inquisitr.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Insider_culture"
| ''[[Insider Inc.]]'' (culture)
| {{/Status|gr}}
|{{rsnl|354|RfC:_Business_Insider_culture_reporting|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''Insider'' is generally reliable for its coverage in its culture section. See also ''{{pslink|Business Insider}}''.
| {{/Uses|www.insider.com|thisisinsider.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Inter_Press_Service"
| [[Inter Press Service]] {{small|(IPS)}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|48|(IPS) Inter Press Service – a reliable news organization?|1}} {{rsnl|87|Inter Press Service--Reliable Source?|2}}
| {{/Last|2011}}
| The Inter Press Service is a [[news agency]]. There is consensus that the Inter Press Service is generally reliable for news.
| {{/Uses|ipsnews.net|ipsnoticias.net|ipscuba.net}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Intercept"
| data-sort-value="Intercept" | ''[[The Intercept]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|218|The Intercept as a source|1}} {{rsnl|272|The Intercept|2}} {{rsnl|302|The Intercept and politics|3}} {{rsnl|315|The Intercept (non-staff articles)|4}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that ''The Intercept'' is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider ''The Intercept'' a [[WP:BIASED|biased source]], so uses may need to be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. For science, editors prefer [[Scholarly peer review|peer-reviewed journals]] over news sources like ''The Intercept''.
| {{/Uses|theintercept.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="International_Business_Times"
| ''[[International Business Times]]'' {{small|(''{{vanchor|IBT}}'', ''{{vanchor|IBTimes}}'')}}{{/Shortcut|WP:IBTIMES}}{{anchor|IBTIMES}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|83|Times and IBTimes RS?|1}} {{rsnl|104|International Business Times|2}} {{rsnl|195|Slate, WGN, International Business Times|3}} {{rsnl|218|International Business Times as a reliable source?|4}} {{rsnl|222|International Business Times|5}} {{rsnl|262|International Business Times|6}} {{rsnl|262|Use of blogs for sourcing height in BLPs|7}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is consensus that the ''International Business Times'' is generally unreliable. Editors note that the publication's editorial practices have been criticized by other reliable sources, and point to the inconsistent quality of the site's articles. The site's [[WP:SYNDICATED|syndicated content]], which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.
| {{/Uses|ibtimes.com|ibtimes.com.au|ibtimes.com.cn|ibtimes.co.in|ibtimes.sg|ibtimes.co.uk}}
|- class="s-gr" id="International_Fact-Checking_Network"
| [[International Fact-Checking Network]] {{small|(IFCN)}} {{/Shortcut|WP:IFCN}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|291|RfC: Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking_Network (IFCN)|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| The [[Poynter Institute]]'s International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) reviews [[fact-checking]] organizations according to a code of principles. There is consensus that it is generally reliable for determining the [[WP:RS|reliability]] of fact-checking organizations.
| {{/Uses|ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Investopedia"
| [[Investopedia]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|100|Investopedia|1}} {{rsnl|205|Investopedia|2}} {{rsnl|238|Investopedia?|3}} {{rsnl|330|Investopedia|4}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Investopedia is owned by {{pslink|Dotdash}} (formerly known as About.com). There is no consensus on the reliability of Investopedia. It is a [[WP:TERTIARY|tertiary source]]. ''See also: {{pslink|Dotdash}}.''
| {{/Uses|investopedia.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="JAMA"
| ''[[JAMA]]'' {{small|(''Journal of the [[American Medical Association]]'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|13|Is the American Medical Association a reliable source?|1}} {{rsnl|244|RfC: JAMA opinion piece at Trump-related article|2}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| ''JAMA'' is a [[peer-reviewed]] [[medical journal]] published by the [[American Medical Association]]. It is considered generally reliable. Opinion pieces from ''JAMA'', including articles from The Jama Forum, are subject to [[WP:RSOPINION]] and might not qualify under [[WP:MEDRS]].
| {{/Uses|jamanetwork.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Jewish_Chronicle"
| data-sort-value="Jewish Chronicle" | ''[[The Jewish Chronicle]]'' {{small|(''The JC'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|337|Jewish Chronicle|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|60|The Jewish Chronicle|1}} {{rsnl|98|The Jewish Chronicle -- not reliable for Jewish topics?|2}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''The Jewish Chronicle'' is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting. There is no consensus on whether ''The Jewish Chronicle'' is reliable for topics related to the [[British Left]], [[Muslims]], [[Islam]], and [[Palestine]]/[[Palestinians]]; there is also a rough consensus it is [[WP:BIASED|biased]] in these topics. Where used, [[WP:INTEXT|in-text attribution]] is recommended for its coverage of these topics.
| {{/Uses|thejc.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Jewish_Virtual_Library"
| [[Jewish Virtual Library]] {{small|(JVL)}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|295|RfC: Jewish Virtual Library|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|24|Jewish Virtual Library|1}} {{rsnl|59|http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/|2}} {{rsnl|73|Jewish Virtual Library|3}} {{rsnl|82|Jewish Virtual Library|4}} {{rsnl|182|Jewish Virtual Library|5}} {{rsnl|348|Jewish Virtual Library|6}}
[[Talk:Jewish Virtual Library#Reliable source?|A]]
| {{/Last|2021}}
| The Jewish Virtual Library is a [[WP:BIASEDSOURCES|partisan source]] which sometimes [[WP:CIRCULAR|cites Wikipedia]] and it is mostly unreliable, especially in its "Myths & Facts" section. When it cites sources, those should preferably be read and then cited directly instead. Some exceptions on a case-by-case basis are possible.
| {{/Uses|jewishvirtuallibrary.org}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Jezebel"
| ''[[Jezebel (website)|Jezebel]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:JEZEBEL}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|149|FetLife|1}} {{rsnl|209|Is Jezebel.com (online news magazine) an RS?|2}}
| {{/Last|2016}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of ''Jezebel''. Most editors believe that ''Jezebel'' is [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]], and that its claims should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. ''Jezebel'' should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially ones about [[WP:BLP|living persons]].
| {{/Uses|jezebel.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="Jihad_Watch"
| [[Jihad Watch]]
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|325|RFC: "Jihad Watch", should it be deprecated as a source?|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|228|Jihad Watch|1}} {{rsnl|277|Jihad Watch, the Middle East Forum and "Global muslim brotherhood daily watch" in articles about Islam|2}} {{rsnl|293|Jihad Watch|3}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| [[Jihad Watch]] was deprecated in the 2021 RfC; of the editors who commented on the substance of the proposal, they were unanimous that the source is unreliable. It is a blog generally regarded as propagating [[Islamophobia|anti-Muslim]] [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]].
| {{/Uses|jihadwatch.org}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Joshua_Project"
| [[Joshua Project]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|15|Joshua Project|1}} {{rsnl|27|Is Joshua Project reliable?|2}} {{rsnl|74|Joshua Project|3}} {{rsnl|80|Reliability of the Joshua Project as source|4}} {{rsnl|163|Joshuaproject.net|5}} {{rsnl|350|Joshuaproject.net|6}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| The Joshua Project is an ethnological database created to support Christian missions. It is considered to be generally unreliable due to the lack of any academic recognition or an adequate editorial process. The Joshua Project provides a list of sources from which they gather their data, many of which are related evangelical groups and they too should not be used for ethnological data as they are [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|questionable sources]].
| {{/Uses|joshuaproject.net}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Kirkus_Reviews"
| [[Kirkus Reviews]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|180|Kirkus Reviews|1}} {{rsnl|190|Kirkus Reviews|2}} {{rsnl|330|Kirkus Indie|3}} {{rsnl|356|Kirkus Reviews, again|4}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Most content by Kirkus Reviews is considered to be generally reliable. Kirkus Indie is a pay for review program for independent authors, its content is considered to be questionable and to not count towards notability, in part because the author can choose whether or not the review is published.
| {{/Uses|kirkusreviews.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Know_Your_Meme"
| ''[[Know Your Meme]]'' {{small|(''KYM'')}} {{/Shortcut|WP:KNOWYOURMEME}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|61|Is Know Your Meme a reliable source on viral videos?|1}} {{rsnl|97|Know your Meme|2}} {{rsnl|158|Know your Meme|3}} {{rsnl|293|Citing individual Youtube reviews and Know Your Meme|4}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''Know Your Meme'' entries, including "confirmed" entries, are [[WP:UGC|user-generated]] and generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of their video series.
| {{/Uses|knowyourmeme.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Kommersant"
| ''[[Kommersant]]'' {{small|(Коммерса́нтъ)}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|335|RfC: Kommersant|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|108|Alex Jones, Mathaba, Pravda, and PressTV|1}} {{rsnl|158|Religious demographic data in Russia|2}} {{rsnl|298|Rbc.ru and rbc.ua|3}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| ''Kommersant'' ({{lang-ru|Коммерса́нтъ}}, often abbreviated as '''[[Ъ]]''') is a liberal business [[broadsheet]] [[newspaper]] with nationwide distribution in the [[Russian Federation]]. Editors generally believed that ''Kommersant'' is one of the better publications in Russia and believe its reporting is generally reliable on most matters. However, editors have expressed concerns regarding how limited [[media freedom in Russia]] may affect the source's reporting, and as such caution should be applied when the source is used in relation to events in which the Russian government has a close interest. In such contexts, use of the source should generally be accompanied with [[WP:INTEXT|intext attribution]].
| {{/Uses|kommersant.ru|kommersant.com|kommersant.uk}}
|- class="s-d" id="Last.fm"
| [[Last.fm]]
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|259|RfC: Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and Last.fm|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|57|Last.fm|1}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Last.fm was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Last.fm is [[WP:UGC|user-generated]], and is considered generally unreliable.
| {{/Uses|last.fm}}
|- class="s-b" id="Lenta.ru"
| ''[[Lenta.ru]]'' (12 March 2014–present)
| {{/Status|d|b=y}}
| {{rsnl|281|RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites.|2019|rfc=y}} [[File:X-circle.svg|20px|alt=Spam blacklist request|link=MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2020/03#Pre-2014 Lenta.ru articles links]] [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2020/03#Pre-2014 Lenta.ru articles links|2020]]
{{rsnl|281|news-front.info|1}} {{rsnl|286|lenta.ru|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Due to persistent abuse, ''Lenta.ru'' is on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links to articles published on or after 12 March 2014 must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used. ''Lenta.ru'' was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site frequently publishes [[conspiracy theories]] and [[Propaganda in Russia|Russian propaganda]], owing to a mass dismissal of staff on 12 March 2014. The use of ''Lenta.ru'' articles published since 12 March 2014 as references should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more [[WP:RS|reliable]]. ''Lenta.ru'' should not be used for determining [[WP:N|notability]], or used as a [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary source]] in articles.
| {{/Uses|lenta.ru}}
|- class="s-d" id="LifeSiteNews"
| [[LifeSiteNews]] {{small|([[Campaign Life Coalition]])}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|268|RfC: LifeSiteNews|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|64|lifesitenews.com|1}} {{rsnl|210|Lifesitenews|2}} {{rsnl|277|Life Site News (again)- or rather Crux News|3}} {{rsnl|277|LifeSiteNews|4}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| LifeSiteNews was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.
| {{/Uses|lifesitenews.com|lifesite.net}}
|- class="s-gu" id="LinkedIn"
| [[LinkedIn]] {{small|([[LinkedIn Pulse]])}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|46|linkedin|1}} {{rsnl|74|Is a person's LinkedIn profile a good enough source for what school the person attended?|2}} {{rsnl|76|Linkedin BLP|3}} {{rsnl|148|LinkedIn profile of Dan Abnett for years at Oxford|4}} {{rsnl|159|linkedin profile of a site founder|5}} {{rsnl|196|Linked In's "Pulse" as source|6}} {{rsnl|198|Linkedin / Zoolink|7}} {{rsnl|222|LinkedIn|8}} {{rsnl|287|Linkedin|9}}
| {{/Last|2020|stale=n}}
| LinkedIn is a social network. As a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]], it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the post is used for an [[WP:ABOUTSELF|uncontroversial self-description]]. Articles on [[LinkedIn Pulse]] written by LinkedIn users are also self-published. LinkedIn accounts should only be cited if they are [[Account verification|verified accounts]] or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Posts that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]. LinkedIn should never be used for third-party claims related to [[WP:BLPSPS|living persons]].
| {{/Uses|linkedin.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="LiveJournal"
| [[LiveJournal]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|4|LiveJournal|1}} {{rsnl|9|Livejournal|2}} {{rsnl|117|Does this blog qualify for an expert exception?|3}} {{rsnl|286|bmpd.livejournal.com|4}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| LiveJournal is a [[blog]] hosting service. As a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]], it is considered generally unreliable. LiveJournal can be used for [[WP:ABOUTSELF|uncontroversial self-descriptions]] and content from [[WP:EXPERTSOURCE|subject-matter experts]], but not as a [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary source]] for [[WP:BLPSPS|living persons]].
| {{/Uses|livejournal.com}}
|- class="s-b" id="LiveLeak"
| [[LiveLeak]]
| {{/Status|gu|b=y}}
| {{sbll|December 2019|liveleak.com|2019}}
{{rsnl|175|Is liveleak a reliable source?|1}} {{rsnl|272|Holy shitballs|2}} {{rsnl|278|Liveleak|3}} {{rsnl|283|LiveLeak|4}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Due to persistent abuse, LiveLeak is on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used. LiveLeak is an [[online video platform]] that hosts [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]]. Many of the videos on LiveLeak are [[WP:CV|copyright violations]], and should not be linked to per [[WP:COPYLINK]]. The use of LiveLeak as a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] is questionable in most cases, as the provenance of most of the videos is unclear. LiveLeak shut down in May 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/7/22424356/liveleak-shock-site-shuts-down-itemfix|title=LiveLeak, the internet's font of gore and violence, has shut down|first=James|last=Vincent|website=The Verge|date=May 7, 2021|access-date=May 15, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210515070233/https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/7/22424356/liveleak-shock-site-shuts-down-itemfix|archive-date=May 15, 2021|url-status=live}}</ref>
| {{/Uses|liveleak.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Los_Angeles_Times"
| ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:LATIMES}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|9|Los Angeles Times as reference for Prem Rawat|1}} {{rsnl|45|LA times reliable source?|2}} {{rsnl|81|Los Angeles Times Blog|3}} {{rsnl|148|LA Times article|4}} {{rsnl|179|Los Angeles Times as RS for statement about event|5}} {{rsnl|216|LA Times and Biocom|6}}
| {{/Last|2016}}
| Most editors consider the ''Los Angeles Times'' generally reliable. Refer to [[WP:NEWSBLOG]] for the newspaper's blog.
| {{/Uses|latimes.com}}
|- class="s-b" id="Lulu.com"
| [[Lulu.com]] {{small|(Lulu Press)}}
| {{/Status|gu|b=y}}
| [[File:X-circle.svg|20px|alt=Spam blacklist request|link=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive133#Getting paid to spam – other sites]]&nbsp;[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive133#Getting paid to spam – other sites|2008]]
{{rsnl|24|Lulu.com published books|1}} {{rsnl|51|Book published by Lulu.com|2}} {{rsnl|80|Lulu.com and Academic Associations|3}} {{rsnl|117|LuLu journals|4}} {{rsnl|138|Lulu-published sources|5}} {{rsnl|152|Books published through Lulu not being used as "sources" per se...|6}} {{rsnl|214|Blanket ban on all lulu.com sources?|7}} {{rsnl|250|Subgenres of the Beast|8}} {{rsnl|270|P. D. Stemp|9}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Due to persistent abuse, Lulu.com is on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used. Lulu.com is a [[print-on-demand]] publisher, which is a type of [[WP:SPS|self-published source]]. Books published through Lulu.com can be used if they are written by a [[WP:EXPERTSOURCE|subject-matter expert]]. Occasionally, a reputable publisher uses Lulu.com as a [[Printer (publishing)|printer]]; in this case, cite the original publisher instead of Lulu.com.
| {{/Uses|lulu.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Mail_&_Guardian"
| data-sort-value="Mail & Guardian" | ''[[Mail & Guardian]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|352|Reliability_of_the_Mail_&_Guardian|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| The ''Mail & Guardian'' is a South African newspaper. There is consensus that it is generally reliable.
| {{/Uses|mg.co.za}}
|- class="s-d" id="The_Mail_on_Sunday"
| data-sort-value="Mail on Sunday" | ''[[The Mail on Sunday]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:MAILONSUNDAY}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|318|Can we please adapt the Daily Mail consensus to reflect a position on Mail on Sunday?|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|278|Does WP:Dailymail apply to the Mail on Sunday|1}} {{rsnl|311|Clarification: Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday?|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is clear and substantial consensus that the ''Mail on Sunday'' is generally unreliable, and a slightly narrower consensus that the source should be deprecated. Those supporting deprecation point to factual errors, asserted fabrications, and biased reporting identified on the part of the source, with reference to specific instances, and to common ownership of the source with [[#Daily Mail|a previously deprecated source]].
| {{/Uses|mailonsunday.co.uk|pressreader.com/uk/the-mail-on-sunday/|pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/|dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Marquis_Who's_Who"
| ''[[Marquis Who's Who]]'' {{small|(''Who's Who in America'')}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|9|Marquis' "Who's Who" as RS?|1}} {{rsnl|24|Who's Who in America|2}} {{rsnl|53|Is Who's Who a reliable source?|3}} {{rsnl|56|Who's Who not RS?|4}} {{rsnl|229|Use of Who's Who for list of awards.|5}}
| {{/Last|2017}}
| ''Marquis Who's Who'', including its publication ''Who's Who in America'', is considered generally unreliable. As most of its content is provided by the person concerned, editors generally consider ''Marquis Who's Who'' comparable to a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]]. There is a broad consensus that ''Marquis Who's Who'' should not be used to establish [[WP:N|notability]] for article topics. ''See also: {{pslink|Who's Who (UK)}}.''
| {{/Uses|marquiswhoswho.com|whoswhoinamerica.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Mashable"
| [[Mashable]] (non-sponsored content){{/Shortcut|WP:MASHABLE}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|334|Mashable|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|4|Techblogs|1}} {{rsnl|16|Blogs?|2}} {{rsnl|41|Mashable.com as a reference for Facebook|3}} {{rsnl|88|Blogs as sources|4}} {{rsnl|240|Request: RS check on BLP|5}} {{rsnl|264|Reliability of sources that put affiliate links in their reviews|6}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| In a 2021 RfC, editors achieved a consensus while non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine, Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus. Extra attention needs to be paid when it comes to [[WP:SPONSORED|sponsored]] content, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves.
| {{/Uses|mashable.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Mashable sponsored content"
| [[Mashable]] (sponsored content)
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|334|Mashable|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|4|Techblogs|1}} {{rsnl|16|Blogs?|2}} {{rsnl|41|Mashable.com as a reference for Facebook|3}} {{rsnl|88|Blogs as sources|4}} {{rsnl|240|Request: RS check on BLP|5}} {{rsnl|264|Reliability of sources that put affiliate links in their reviews|6}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| In a 2021 RfC, editors achieved a consensus while non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine, Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus. Extra attention needs to be paid when it comes to [[WP:SPONSORED|sponsored]] content, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves.
| {{/Uses|mashable.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="The_Mary_Sue"
| data-sort-value="Mary Sue"| [[The Mary Sue]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|189|The Mary Sue Disclaims Itself as an Unreliable Source|1}} {{rsnl|213|Crash Override Network|2}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 9#The Mary Sue|A]] [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 11#The Mary Sue revisited|B]]
| {{/Last|2016}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of The Mary Sue. It is generally regarded as usable for reviews and [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion]], though not for its reblogged content.
| {{/Uses|themarysue.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="MDPI"
| [[MDPI]] {{small|(Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute)}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|196|MDPI journals|1}} {{rsnl|197|Vanity press or MEDRS-compliant source?|2}} {{rsnl|205|Other predatory journals|3}} {{rsnl|265|Reliability of a MDPI article|4}} {{rsnl|306|Is Religions a reliable source?|5}} {{rsnl|329|MDPI journals|6}} {{rsnl|351|MDPI/Entropy Journal?|7}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Publications in MDPI journals are considered questionable. Editors have raised concerns about the robustness of MDPI's peer review process and their lack of selectivity in what they publish. Originally placed on [[Beall's List]] of predatory open journals in 2014, MDPI was removed from the list in 2015. Since 2021 some MDPI journals are listed as predatory in the [[Norwegian Scientific Index]].
| {{/Uses|mdpi.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Media_Bias/Fact_Check"
| ''[[Media Bias/Fact Check]]'' {{small|(MBFC)}} {{/Shortcut|WP:MBFC}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|248|Should we use mediabiasfactcheck.com to determine what sources are reliable?|1}} {{rsnl|253|Media Bias Fact Check|2}} {{rsnl|271|Media Bias/Fact Check at Toronto Sun|3}} {{rsnl|346|News Guard + Media Bias Fact Check Redux|4}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''Media Bias/Fact Check'' is generally unreliable, as it is [[WP:SPS|self-published]]. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings.
| {{/Uses|mediabiasfactcheck.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Media_Matters_for_America"
| [[Media Matters for America]] {{small|(MMfA)}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|59|Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters|2010|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|280|RfC: Media Matters for America|2019|rfc=y}}
10{{efn|See also these discussions of Media Matters for America:
{{rsnl|7|MMFA – Media Matters for America|1}}
{{rsnl|35|Media Matters and News Hounds|2}}
{{rsnl|51|Media Matters for America, Huffington Post, and NewsHounds|3}}
{{rsnl|65|Media matters (25th time asked)|4}}
{{rsnl|70|Media Matters yet again|5}}
{{rsnl|88|Media Matters Blogs|6}}
{{rsnl|101|User-generated blog posts and an unattributed Media Matters post as criticism of a peer-reviewed journal article|7}}
{{rsnl|121|Reliability of Media Matters|8}}
{{rsnl|163|Unpublished/non-peer Reviewed Study by Media Matters|9}}
{{rsnl|236|Media Matters|10}}
}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is consensus that Media Matters is [[WP:MREL|marginally reliable]] and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a [[WP:BIASED|partisan advocacy group]], their statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]].
| {{/Uses|mediamatters.org}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Media_Research_Center"
| {{anchor|CNSNews.com}} [[Media Research Center]] {{small|(MRC, [[CNSNews.com]], Cybercast News Service, [[MRCTV]], NewsBusters)}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|59|Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters|2010|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|281|RfC: CNSNews.com|2019|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|295|RfC: Media Research Center and its arms (CNS, Newsbusters, MRCTV)|2020|rfc=y}}
6{{efn|See also these discussions of the Media Research Center:
{{rsnl|3|What about "Cybercast News Service" (CNSnews)?|1}}
{{rsnl|18|CNSnews.com aka cybercast|2}}
{{rsnl|65|Media Research Center / Newsbusters|3}}
{{rsnl|109|Can a blog on newsbusters.org be a reliable source?|4}}
{{rsnl|227|Newsbusters and The Blaze at WP:BLP page Malcolm Nance ?|5}}
{{rsnl|283|Newsbusters and The Washington Examiner as sources for facts in the lead of CNN|6}}
}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that the Media Research Center and its subdivisions (e.g. CNSNews.com, MRCTV, and NewsBusters) are generally unreliable for factual reporting. Some editors believe these sources publish false or fabricated information. As [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated sources]], their statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]].
| {{/Uses|mrc.org|cnsnews.com|mrctv.org|newsbusters.org}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Mediaite"
| [[Mediaite]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|225|Mediaite|1}} {{rsnl|239|TheBlaze show Dana etc. w rgd Dana Loesch|2}} {{rsnl|260|Consensus on Mediaite as reliable source?|3}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and [[WP:DUE|due weight]] should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement.
| {{/Uses|mediaite.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Medium"
| [[Medium (website)|Medium]] {{/Shortcut|WP:MEDIUM}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|192|Article by established journalist in Medium publication with editorial staff|1}} {{rsnl|232|Medium as a reference|2}} {{rsnl|260|Bob Pitt at Medium sourced for Jeremy Corbyn|3}} {{rsnl|336|Pauline Montagna|4}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Medium is a [[WP:BLOGS|blog]] hosting service. As a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]], it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a [[WP:EXPERTSOURCE|subject-matter expert]] or the blog is used for [[WP:ABOUTSELF|uncontroversial self-descriptions]]. Medium should never be used as a [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary source]] for [[WP:BLPSPS|living persons]].
| {{/Uses|medium.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Metacritic"
| [[Metacritic]] {{small|([[GameRankings]])}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| 10{{efn|See these discussions of Metacritic:
{{rsnl|27|Metacritic|1}}
{{rsnl|45|Review aggregator sites|2}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 33#When it is fair to state "game is|A]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 34#Potential issue with GameRankings/MetaCritic -- add language to guidelines?|B]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 44#Metacritic missing reviews|C]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 70#Metacritic, GameRankings, MobyGames, TopTenReviews, GameTab, GameStats & Game Ratio|D]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 93#Mass Effect 3 Metacritic User Reviews|E]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 44#Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic 2012|F]]
[[Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 52#Review score aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and OpenCritic|G]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 17#Metacritic / Play Zine|H]]
}}
| {{/Last|2017}}
| Metacritic is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film, TV, and video games. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Metacritic are generally unreliable, as they are [[WP:SPS|self-published source]]s. Reviewers tracked by Metacritic are not automatically reliable for their reviews. In December 2019, video game aggregate site [[GameRankings]] shut down and merged with Metacritic; GameRankings's content is no longer accessible unless archived.<ref>{{cite web|last=Plunkett|first=Luke|title=RIP Gamerankings.com|url=https://kotaku.com/rip-gamerankings-com-1840250954|website=[[Kotaku]]|publisher=[[G/O Media]]|accessdate=2019-12-06|date=2019-12-05|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=GameRankings Shutting down |url=https://www.gamerankings.com/news.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191204051348/https://www.gamerankings.com/news.html |archive-date=2019-12-04}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://gamasutra.com/view/news/355254/Review_aggregator_site_GameRankings_is_shutting_down.php|title=Review aggregator site GameRankings is shutting down |last=McAloon|first=Alissa|work=[[Gamasutra]]|date=December 5, 2019|accessdate=December 5, 2019}}</ref>
| {{/Uses|metacritic.com|gamerankings.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="metal-experience"
| Metal-experience.com {{/Shortcut|WP:METALEXPERIENCE}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|334|RfC: metal-experience.com|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Metal-experience.com was determined to be generally unreliable for factual reporting. It is not [[WP:N|notable]] enough to have a Wikipedia article.
| {{/Uses|metal-experience.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="MetalSucks"
| [[MetalSucks]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|146|MetalSucks|1}} {{rsnl|251|Metal Sucks|2}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 50#MetalSucks – reliable?|A]]
| {{/Last|2018}}
| MetalSucks is considered usable for its reviews and news articles. Avoid its overly satirical content and exercise caution when MetalSucks is the only source making a statement.
| {{/Uses|metalsucks.net}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Metro"
| [[Metro (British newspaper)|''Metro'' (UK)]] {{/Shortcut|WP:METRO}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|19|Daily Mirror|1}} {{rsnl|156|tabloids|2}} {{rsnl|163|Reliability of the Daily Mail|3}} {{rsnl|192|Daily Mail|4}} {{rsnl|220|Survey|5}} {{rsnl|223|Scotland and the Daily Record|6}} {{rsnl|226|The Metro|7}}
| {{/Last|2017}}
| The reliability of ''Metro'' has been compared to that of the ''{{pslink|Daily Mail}}'' and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website. The newspaper articles were previously segregated online via the metro.news domain and are presently tagged under "metro newspaper" at the metro.co.uk domain.
| {{/Uses|metro.co.uk|metro.news}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute"
| [[Middle East Media Research Institute]] {{small|(MEMRI)}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|305|RfC: Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)|2020|rfc=yes}}
{{rsnl|8|MEMRI|1|}} {{rsnl|16|MEMRI, again|2}} {{rsnl|32|Memri|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of Middle East Media Research Institute or the accuracy of their translations. Editors are polarised between those who consider it to be a reliable source and those who consider it unreliable. Some editors consider MEMRI selective in what it chooses to translate.
| {{/Uses|memri.org|memritv.org}}
|- class="s-d" id="MintPress_News"
| ''[[MintPress News]]''
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|268|RfC: MintPress News|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| ''MintPress News'' was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.
| {{/Uses|mintpressnews.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Le_Monde_diplomatique"
| ''[[Le Monde diplomatique]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
|{{rsnl|76|Le Monde Diplomatique|1}} {{rsnl|83|Le Monde diplomatique and "mondediplo.com"|2}} {{rsnl|235|Fringe newspaper's map sourced only to a literary critic used for wiki ethnographic map|3}}  {{rsnl|250|Le Monde Diplomatique|4}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| There is consensus that ''Le Monde diplomatique'' is generally reliable. Editors consider ''Le Monde diplomatique'' to be a biased and opinionated source.
| {{/Uses|monde-diplomatique.fr|mondediplo.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Mondoweiss"
| ''[[Mondoweiss]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|130|Mondoweiss+Jessie Benjamin|1}} {{rsnl|192|Mondoweiss|2}} {{rsnl|204|Mondoweiss article on Noam Chomsky and criticism thereof?|3}} {{rsnl|214|Is this article acceptable for a report on an obscure Israeli village?|4}} {{rsnl|221|Mondoweiss|5}} {{rsnl|222|Jonathan Ofir as translator|6}} {{rsnl|223|Mondoweiss again|7}} {{rsnl|265|Mondoweiss again|8}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| ''Mondoweiss'' is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of ''Mondoweiss''. Editors consider the site [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]], and its statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]].
| {{/Uses|mondoweiss.net}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Morning_Star"
| [[Morning Star (British newspaper)|''Morning Star'' (UK)]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|66|Status of Morning Star (UK newspaper)|1}} {{rsnl|84|Morning Star (UK newspaper)|2}} {{rsnl|275|Morning Star (British newspaper)|3}}
[[Talk:English Defence League/Archive 4#Morning Star|A]] [[Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 16#RfC on use of Morning Star as a source|B]]
| {{/Last|2019}}
| The ''Morning Star'' is a British tabloid with a low circulation and readership that the ''[[New Statesman]]'' has described as "Britain's last [[communist]] newspaper".<ref>{{cite news|last=Platt|first=Edward|url=http://www.newstatesman.com/2015/07/red-all-over-article|title=Inside the Morning Star, Britain's last communist newspaper|work=New Statesman|date=4 August 2015|accessdate=31 January 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190207072212/https://www.newstatesman.com/2015/07/red-all-over-article|archive-date=February 7, 2019|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|df=mdy-all}}</ref> There is no consensus on whether the ''Morning Star'' engages in factual reporting, and broad consensus that it is a [[WP:BIASED|biased and partisan]] source. All uses of the ''Morning Star'' should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. Take care to ensure that content from the ''Morning Star'' constitutes [[WP:DUE|due weight]] in the article and conforms to the [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] policy.
| {{/Uses|morningstaronline.co.uk}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Mother_Jones"
| ''[[Mother Jones (magazine)|Mother Jones]]'' {{small|(''MoJo'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|132|[Mother Jones and Rolling Stone articles as RS sources in a BLP for a contentious claim|1}} {{rsnl|149|Opinion column by Stephanie Mencimer in Mother Jones|2}} {{rsnl|188|Buzzfeed, Mother Jones for BLP's.|3}} {{rsnl|229|Is Mother Jones magazine a reliable source for investigative reporting?|4}} {{rsnl|274|Does this Mother Jones article accurately summarize the arguments made by the PragerU videos it cites?|5}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is consensus that ''Mother Jones'' is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider ''Mother Jones'' a [[WP:BIASED|biased source]], so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes [[WP:DUE|due weight]] before citing it in an article.
| {{/Uses|motherjones.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="MSNBC"
| [[MSNBC]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|307|RFC on MSNBC|2020|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|303|Also_CNN_&_MSNBC|1}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that MSNBC is generally reliable. Talk show content should be treated as [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]]. ''See also: {{pslink|NBC News}}''
| {{/Uses|msnbc.com}}
|- class="s-b" id="MyLife"
| [[MyLife]] {{small|(Reunion.com)}}
| {{/Status|gu|b=y}}
| [[File:X-circle.svg|20px|alt=Spam blacklist request|link=Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 265#mylife.com]]&nbsp;[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 265#mylife.com|2019]] {{sbll|June 2019|reunion.com|2019}}
{{rsnl|233|Instantcheckmate and mylife|1}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Due to persistent abuse, MyLife is on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used. MyLife (formerly known as Reunion.com) is an [[information broker]] that publishes [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]], and is considered generally unreliable.
| {{/Uses|mylife.com|reunion.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Nation"
| data-sort-value="Nation"| ''[[The Nation]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|5|The Nation|1}} {{rsnl|9|The Nation article re: Daniel Pipes|2}} {{rsnl|11|Further Discussion of the Nation|3}} {{rsnl|30|Article about William Timmons in The Nation|4}} {{rsnl|39|Is The Nation a reliable source?|5}} {{rsnl|40|The Nation|6}} {{rsnl|283|The Nation|7}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that ''The Nation'' is generally reliable. In the "About" section of their website, they identify as progressive. Most editors consider ''The Nation'' a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan source]] whose statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. The publication's [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from ''The Nation'' constitutes [[WP:DUE|due weight]] in the article and conforms to the [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] policy.
| {{/Uses|thenation.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="National_Enquirer"
| ''[[National Enquirer]]''
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|261|RfC: National Enquirer|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|35|National Enquirer|1}} {{rsnl|85|Tabloid Newspapers|2}} {{rsnl|114|Contactmusic.com on marital breakup|3}} {{rsnl|204|Daily Mail again|4}} {{rsnl|218|New York Daily News unreliable?|5}} {{rsnl|232|List of banned UK newspapers?|6}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| The ''National Enquirer'' is a [[supermarket tabloid]] that is considered generally unreliable. In the 2019 RfC, there was weak consensus to [[WP:DEPS|deprecate]] the ''National Enquirer'' as a source, but no consensus to create an [[WP:EF|edit filter]] to warn editors against using the publication.
| {{/Uses|nationalenquirer.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="National_Geographic"
| ''[[National Geographic]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|126|National Geographic|1}} {{rsnl|240|National Geographic website, Krampus, and Hel|2}} {{rsnl|313|National Geographic and Adam Weishaupt (the Illuminati guy)|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that ''National Geographic'' is generally reliable. For coverage by ''National Geographic'' of [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] topics and ideas, [[WP:DUE|due weight]] and [[WP:PARITY|parity of sources]] should be considered.
| {{/Uses|nationalgeographic.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="National_Review"
| ''[[National Review]]'' {{small|(''NR'')}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|60|National Review a reliable source on China? MA thesis cites primary sources--okay or not?|1}} {{rsnl|82|Ion Mihai Pacepa, National Review Online, Pave the Way Foundation|2}} {{rsnl|128|Stanley Kurtz National Review article about Obama and the New Party|3}} {{rsnl|153|National Review opinion rant|4}} {{rsnl|214|Can National Review be considered a RS in the following context re Hillary Clinton's cattle trading?|5}} {{rsnl|253|RFC: National Review|6}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of ''National Review''. Most editors consider ''National Review'' a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan source]] whose statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. The publication's [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the ''National Review'' constitutes [[WP:DUE|due weight]] in the article and conforms to the [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] policy.
| {{/Uses|nationalreview.com}}
|- class="s-b" id="Natural_News"
| [[Natural News]] {{small|(NewsTarget)}}
| {{/Status|gu|b=y}}
| {{sbll|October 2019|Natural News|2019}}
{{rsnl|273|Natural News|1}}
<br>[[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 47#Incoming|A]] [[Talk:Natural News/Archive 1#Fake news|B]]
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Due to persistent abuse, Natural News is on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used. There is a near-unanimous consensus that the site repeatedly publishes false or fabricated information, including a large number of [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]].
| {{/Uses|naturalnews.com|newstarget.com}}
[https://www.isdglobal.org/isd-publications/investigating-natural-news/ +494]
|- class="s-gr" id="NBC_News"
| [[NBC News]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|186|Column on Donors Trust on (but not by) NBC|1}} {{rsnl|296|Is NBC a reliable sources for the Wikipedia The Epoch Times (ET) article?|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news. ''See also: {{pslink|MSNBC}}''
| {{/Uses|nbcnews.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="The Needle Drop"
| data-sort-value="Needle Drop" | ''[[The Needle Drop]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|326|RfC: The Needle Drop|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|228|The Needle Drop|1}}
<br>[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 50#The Needle Drop|A]] [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 54#Anthony Fantano responded with his take on the debate if his reviews on The Needle Drop are "professional" or not|B]]
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that additional considerations apply when considering whether the use of ''[[The Needle Drop]]'' as a source is appropriate. There is currently strong consensus that [[Anthony Fantano]]'s reviews that are published via ''The Needle Drop'' are [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]]. There is currently rough consensus that Fantano is considered to be an established subject-matter expert as it pertains to music reviews and that these reviews may be used in an article as ''attributed opinion''. However, per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party sources about living people. There is also currently a rough consensus that Fantano's reviews do not always constitute [[WP:DUE|due weight]] and that discretion should be applied on a case-by-case basis when determining if a review from ''The Needle Drop'' is appropriate to include in a given article.
| {{/Uses|theneedledrop.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="The_New_American"
| data-sort-value="New American" | ''[[The New American]]''
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|39|The New American reliable source and is this appropriate for Immigration Equality (organization)|1}} {{rsnl|82|Use of thenewamerican.com|2}} {{rsnl|84|Disappearing page|3}} {{rsnl|134|The New American usable as a RS?|4}} {{rsnl|175|The New American (John Birch Society]) as a source|5}} {{rsnl|201|Glenn Beck usable as a RS?|6}}
| {{/Last|2016}}
| There is consensus that ''The New American'' is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Some editors consider it usable for attributed opinions regarding the [[John Birch Society]].
| {{/Uses|thenewamerican.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_New_Republic"
| data-sort-value="New Republic" | ''[[The New Republic]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|287|RfC: The New Republic|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|157|Types of abortion restrictions in the United States|1}} {{rsnl|277|The New Republic on Quillette|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that ''The New Republic'' is generally reliable. Most editors consider ''The New Republic'' [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]]. Opinions in the magazine should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]].
| {{/Uses|newrepublic.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="New_Scientist"
| ''[[New Scientist]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:NEWSCIENTIST}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|159|Wind direction on the night of Syrian gas attacks, and the source supporting it|1}} {{rsnl|288|Is New Scientist a reliable source for 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak?|2}} {{rsnl|331|Daily Mail has bought RS New Scientist|3}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''New Scientist'' magazine is generally reliable for science coverage. Use ''New Scientist'' with caution to verify contentious claims.
| {{/Uses|newscientist.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="New_York"
| {{anchor|Vulture|Intelligencer}} ''[[New York (magazine)|New York]]'' {{small|(''Vulture'', ''The Cut'', ''Grub Street'', ''Daily Intelligencer'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|63|David Lynch Foundation|1}} {{rsnl|159|Vulture.com|2}} {{rsnl|187|Unreliable Sources used in the GamerGate Article|3}} {{rsnl|216|New York Magazine/"New Journalism"|4}}
| {{/Last|2016}}
| There is consensus that ''New York'' magazine, including its subsidiary website ''Vulture'', is generally reliable. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements. ''See also: {{pslink|Polygon}}, {{pslink|The Verge}}, {{pslink|Vox}}''
| {{/Uses|nymag.com|vulture.com|thecut.com|grubstreet.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="New_York_Daily_News"
| [[New York Daily News|New York ''Daily News'']] {{small|(''Illustrated Daily News'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|127|New York Daily News – reliable source for attribution of "Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012"|1}} {{rsnl|218|New York Daily News unreliable?|2}} {{rsnl|289|NY Daily News on NYC coronavirus outbreak|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Most editors consider the content of New York ''Daily News'' articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of its [[Tabloid journalism|tabloid-style]] headlines.
| {{/Uses|nydailynews.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="New_York_Post"
| ''[[New York Post]]'' {{small|(''New York Evening Post'', Page Six)}}{{/Shortcut|WP:NYPOST}} {{/Shortcut|WP:PAGESIX}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|312|RFC: New York Post (nypost.com)|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|14|New York Post|1}} {{rsnl|40|Unreliable source at Rebecca Quick|2}} {{rsnl|194|Are Fire.org and New York Post Reliable Sources.|3}} {{rsnl|200|New York Post|4}} {{rsnl|267|New York Post|5}} {{rsnl|339|New York Post|6}} {{rsnl|339|How do we deal with opinion pieces published in both reliable and unreliable sources? (Fox News and New York Post)|7}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that the ''New York Post'' is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly [[New York City politics]]. A [[Tabloid journalism|tabloid newspaper]], editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the ''New York Post'' more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the [[New York City Police Department]].
| {{/Uses|nypost.com|pagesix.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_New_York_Times"
| data-sort-value="New York Times" | ''[[The New York Times]]'' {{small|(NYT)}} {{/Shortcut|WP:NYT}} {{/Shortcut|WP:NYTIMES}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|244|RfC: Wound characteristics of military-style rifles|2018|rfc=y}}
39{{efn|See also these discussions of ''The New York Times'':
{{rsnl|3|Hexayurt – the New York Times not a reliable source?|1}}
{{rsnl|3|Is the NYT an acceptable source on Blackwater USA?|2}}
{{rsnl|8|Is the New York Times a WP:RS?|3}}
{{rsnl|22|Is the New York Times Reliable?|4}}
{{rsnl|23|Joe the Plumber New York Times "rejected" as a source|5}}
{{rsnl|33|New York Times|6}}
{{rsnl|37|NYTs Green Inc. Blog|7}}
{{rsnl|38|New York Times, Associated Press, etc. as sources on legal questions|8}}
{{rsnl|42|New York Times Article on Alternative Minimum Tax|9}}
{{rsnl|46|Race Intelligence, NYT and bloggers|10}}
{{rsnl|50|About two studies re-stated by The New York Times and Las Vegas Sun|11}}
{{rsnl|53|New York Times news articles not RS?|12}}
{{rsnl|71|The New York Times a "local" source?|13}}
{{rsnl|74|The New York Times and The New Yorker magazine as sources in a WP:BLP|14}}
{{rsnl|92|is movies.nyt.com a relibale source?|15}}
{{rsnl|105|NYT blogs-Krugman specifically|16}}
{{rsnl|107|NYT reliable as the NYT and not the U.S. government on the ISI?|17}}
{{rsnl|109|Economist blogs and New York Times opinion pieces|18}}
{{rsnl|117|Published letter to the editor of the New York Times|19}}
{{rsnl|122|New York Times summary|20}}
{{rsnl|122|Electric knife and NYT obit|21}}
{{rsnl|140|Obituaries and Sun Myung Moon|22}}
{{rsnl|145|New York Times wrong in 1983 article describing late Laura Branigan's vocal range.|23}}
{{rsnl|174|New York Times|24}}
{{rsnl|206|Are the New York Times, etc. reliable sources for information they do not give?|25}}
{{rsnl|217|New York Times' "The Interpreter"|26}}
{{rsnl|235|Is The New York Times a reliable source for american politics?|27}}
{{rsnl|244|Is the NY Times a reliable source?|28}}
{{rsnl|252|New York Times RfC|29}}
{{rsnl|252|Updated RfC: The New York Times|30}}
{{rsnl|260|The New York Times|31}}
{{rsnl|268|New York Times: 5G reporting partnership with Verizon|32}}
{{rsnl|275|New York Times' – Epstein reporting|33}}
{{rsnl|284|Should the NYT best seller list be deprecated?|34}}
{{rsnl|287|New York Times|35}}
{{rsnl|290|Rich McHugh|36}}
{{rsnl|292|NYT Tara Reade coverage|37}}
{{rsnl|302|https://int.nyt.com/|38}}
{{rsnl||New York Times|39}}
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Most editors consider ''The New York Times'' generally reliable. [[WP:RSOPINION]] should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while [[WP:NEWSBLOG]] should be used for the blogs on ''The New York Times''<nowiki />'s website. The 2018 RfC cites [[WP:MEDPOP]] to establish that popular press sources such as ''The New York Times'' should generally not be used to support [[WP:Biomedical information|medical claims]].
| {{/Uses|nytimes.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_New_Yorker"
| data-sort-value="New Yorker" | ''[[The New Yorker]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|74|The New York Times and The New Yorker magazine as sources in a WP:BLP|1}} {{rsnl|92|The New Yorker, Jane Mayer, and the Koch brothers|2}}
| {{/Last|2011}}
| There is consensus that ''The New Yorker'' is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process.
| {{/Uses|newyorker.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_New Zealand Herald"
| data-sort-value="New Zealand Herald, The" | ''[[The New Zealand Herald]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|350|Reliability_of_The_New_Zealand_Herald|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''The New Zealand Herald'' is generally reliable.
| {{/Uses|nzherald.co.nz}}
|- class="s-d" id="News_Break"
| [[News Break]]
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|301|News Break|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| News Break is a [[news aggregator]] that publishes snippets of articles from other sources. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate News Break in favor of the original sources.
| {{/Uses|newsbreak.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="NewsBlaze"
| NewsBlaze
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|353|RfC: Newsblaze|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|352|Consensus for NewsBlaze.com|1}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| NewsBlaze was unanimously deprecated by [[WP:SNOW|snowball clause]] consensus in the 2021 RFC. Editors cite NewsBlaze's publication of false and/or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, the site's sourcing practices, and copyright concerns.
| {{/Uses|newsblaze.com|newsblaze.com.au}}
|- class="s-d" id="News_of_the_World"
| ''[[News of the World]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:NEWSOFTHEWORLD}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|279|News of the World|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| ''News of the World'' was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that ''News of the World'' is generally unreliable. As is the case with ''{{pslink|The Sun}}'', ''News of the World'' should not be used as a reference in most cases aside from [[WP:ABOUTSELF|about-self]] usage, and should not be used to determine [[WP:GNG|notability]]. Some editors consider ''News of the World'' usable for uncontroversial film reviews if attribution is provided. ''News of the World'' shut down in 2011; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.
| {{/Uses|newsoftheworld.co.uk|newsoftheworld.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="Newsmax"
| [[Newsmax]] {{/Shortcut|WP:NEWSMAX}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|319|Newsmax|2020|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|159|Newsmax|1}} {{rsnl|297|Is Newsmax reliable for the best Catholic Colleges?|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Newsmax was deprecated by [[WP:SNOW|snowball clause]] consensus in the November 2020 RfC. Concerns of editors included that Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such as [[COVID-19]]-related falsehoods, climate change denialism, conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccination propaganda.
| {{/Uses|newsmax.com|newsmaxtv.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Newsweek_(pre-2013)"
| data-sort-value="Newsweek 1933" | ''[[Newsweek]]'' (pre-2013) {{anchor|Newsweek (pre-2013)}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|280|Newsweek RfC|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|18|Using Newsweek, The Guardian and Haaretz as reliable sources|1}} {{rsnl|68|Newsweek's "The gaggle" blog|2}} {{rsnl|262|International Business Times|3}} {{rsnl|270|Newsweek|4}} {{rsnl|274|Newsweek|5}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is consensus that articles from ''Newsweek'' pre-2013 are generally reliable for news covered during that time. In 2011, ''Newsweek'' was a reputable magazine with only some minor problems while it was owned by [[The Newsweek Daily Beast Company]] (which also owned ''{{pslink|The Daily Beast}}''). Blogs under ''Newsweek'', including The Gaggle, should be handled with the [[WP:NEWSBLOG]] policy. ''See also: [[#Newsweek (2013-present)|Newsweek (2013–present)]].''
| {{/Uses|newsweek.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Newsweek_(2013-present)"
| data-sort-value="Newsweek 2013" | ''[[Newsweek]]'' (2013–present) {{anchor|Newsweek (2013–present)|Newsweek (2013-present)}} {{/Shortcut|WP:NEWSWEEK}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|280|Newsweek RfC|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|179|Newsweek statistics article|1}} {{rsnl|210|Newsweek|2}} {{rsnl|262|International Business Times|3}} {{rsnl|270|Newsweek|4}} {{rsnl|301|Newsweek reports on exclusive reporting from The Daily Mail|5}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 ''Newsweek'' articles are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, ''Newsweek'' was owned and operated by [[IBT Media]], the parent company of ''{{pslink|International Business Times}}''. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on [[clickbait]] headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and ''Newsweek'''s quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate ''Newsweek'' content on a case-by-case basis. ''See also: {{pslink|Newsweek (pre-2013)}}.''
| {{/Uses|newsweek.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="The_Next_Web"
| data-sort-value="Next Web"| [[The Next Web]] {{small|(TNW)}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|177|The Next Web|1}} {{rsnl|204|Popcorn Time|2}} {{rsnl|250|About The Next Web|3}} {{rsnl|266|The Next Web for ProProfs|4}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of The Next Web. Articles written by [[WP:CONTRIBUTOR|contributors]] may be subject to reduced or no editorial oversight. Avoid using The Next Web's [[WP:SPONSORED|sponsored content]].
| {{/Uses|thenextweb.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="NNDB"
| [[NNDB]] {{small|(Notable Names Database)}} {{/Shortcut|WP:NNDB}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|259|RfC: Notable Names Database|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|3|NNDB|1}} {{rsnl|26|NNDB|2}} {{rsnl|101|NNDB|3}} {{rsnl|155|http://www.nndb.com/|4}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company of [[shock site]] [[Rotten.com]]. It was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Editors note NNDB's poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, despite the site claiming to have an editorial process. Editors have also found instances of NNDB incorporating content from Wikipedia, which would make the use of the affected pages [[WP:CIRCULAR|circular sourcing]].
| {{/Uses|nndb.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="NPR"
| [[NPR]] {{small|(National Public Radio)}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|139|NPR reference in War On Women|1}} {{rsnl|149|NPR religion program claim from Judy Valente about membership estimate from Christian Science church|2}} {{rsnl|292|NPR|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPR's [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] should only be used with [[WP:INTEXT|attribution]].
| {{/Uses|npr.org}}
|- class="s-d" id="Occupy_Democrats"
| [[Occupy Democrats]]
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|249|RfC: Occupy Democrats|2018|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source à la the ''{{pslink|Daily Mail}}''. As with ''{{pslink|Breitbart News}}'', this does not mean it cannot ever be used on Wikipedia; it means it cannot be used as a reference for facts. It can still be used as a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like.
| {{/Uses|occupydemocrats.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="One America News Network"
| [[One America News Network]] {{small|(OANN)}} {{/Shortcut|WP:OANN}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|281|RfC: One America News Network|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|241|One America News Network|1}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| In the 2019 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate One America News Network as a source à la the ''{{pslink|Daily Mail}}''. Editors noted that One America News Network published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories. One America News Network should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary, meaning that it should not be used as a source outside of its own article.
| {{/Uses|oann.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="The_Onion"
| data-sort-value="Onion" | ''[[The Onion]]''
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|221|The Onion|1}} {{rsnl|260|Can we talk about The Onion?|2}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| ''The Onion'' is a [[List of satirical news websites|satirical news website]], and should not be used as a source for facts.
| {{/Uses|theonion.com}}
|- class="s-b" id="OpIndia"
| [[OpIndia]] {{/Shortcut|WP:OPINDIA}}
| {{/Status|gu|b=y}}
| {{rsnl|248|Scroll, OpIndia, The Wire, The Quint, The Print, DailyO, postcardnews, rightlog etc.|1}} {{rsnl|288|OpIndia and Swarajya|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Due to persistent abuse, OpIndia is on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used. OpIndia is considered generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. OpIndia was rejected by the {{pslink|International Fact-Checking Network}} when it applied for accreditation in 2019. In the {{rsnl|288|OpIndia and Swarajya|2020 discussion}}, most editors expressed support for [[WP:DEPREC|deprecating]] OpIndia. Editors consider the site [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]]. OpIndia has directly attacked and [[Doxing|doxed]] Wikipedia editors who edit India-related articles. Posting or linking to another editor's personal information is prohibited under the [[WP:OUTING|outing policy]], unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia. Editors who are subject to legal risks due to their activity on Wikipedia may [[:m:Legal/Legal Policies#Defense of Contributors|request assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation]], although support is not guaranteed. ''See also: {{pslink|Swarajya}}.''
| {{/Uses|opindia.com|opindia.in}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Our_Campaigns"
| Our Campaigns
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|335|RfC – ourcampaigns.com|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Our Campaigns is considered generally unreliable due to its publishing of [[WP:USERG|user-generated content]].
| {{/Uses|ourcampaigns.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="PanAm Post"
| ''[[PanAm Post]]''
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|296|RfC: PanAm Post|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that the ''PanAm Post'' is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Most editors consider the publication [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]]. Some editors note that the ''PanAm Post'' is [[WP:UBO|used by other sources that are reliable]] and only believe that its opinion section should be avoided.
| {{/Uses|panampost.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Patheos"
| [[Patheos]] {{/Shortcut|WP:PATHEOS}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl||Request for comment on citing Patheos|2022|rfc=y|active=yes}}
{{rsnl|167|Patheos blogs|1}} {{rsnl|182|Patheos.com|2}} {{rsnl|185|Patheos|3}}
| {{/Last|2022}}
| Patheos is a website that hosts a collection of blogs. These blogs receive little editorial oversight and should be treated as [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]]. Some editors have shown support for including a Patheos article as a source when cited together with a source that is more reliable.
| {{/Uses|patheos.com}}
|-class="s-d" id="Peerage_websites"
| [[Peerage]] websites ([[WP:SPS|self-published]])
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|295|Two genealogy sites|2020|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|297|More nobility fansites|2020|rfc=y}}
12{{efn|See also these discussions of peerage websites (self-published):
{{rsnl|52|worldstatesmen.org|1}}
{{rsnl|103|Self-published_royalty_websites|2}}
{{rsnl|112|Worldstatesmen.org|3}}
{{rsnl|114|thepeerage.com|4}}
{{rsnl|121|thepeerage.com_(update)|5}}
{{rsnl|132|thepeerage.com|6}}
{{rsnl|158|Worldstatesmen.org|7}}
{{rsnl|224|Rulers.org_and_Worldstatesmen.org|8}}
{{rsnl|233|worldstatesmen.org|9}}
{{rsnl|263|Royalark|10}}
{{rsnl|266|thepeerage.com|11}}
{{rsnl|298|Deprecated site question|12}}
}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Two RfCs found consensus that certain [[WP:SPS|self-published]] peerage websites are not reliable for genealogical information and should be deprecated. See {{slink||Self-published peerage websites}} for the full list.
| [[#Self-published peerage websites|List]]
|- class="s-gr" id="People"
| ''[[People (magazine)|People]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|157|RfC: Is People magazine a reliable source for BLPs?|2013|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|27|Tabloid Magazines, e.g. People Magazine|1}} {{rsnl|44|Mackenzie Phillips|2}} {{rsnl|112|US Weekly and People magazine|3}}
{{rsnl|170|Celebrity sources and distinguishing tabloid (newspaper format) from tabloid journalism|4}}
| {{/Last|2014}}
| There is consensus that ''People'' magazine can be a reliable source in [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]], but the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source.
| {{/Uses|people.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Pew_Research_Center"
| [[Pew Research Center]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|78|UNHCR and PEW Research Center|1}} {{rsnl|123|Pew Research Center|2}}
| {{/Last|2012}}
| There is consensus that the [[Pew Research Center]] is generally reliable.
| {{/Uses|pewresearch.org|people-press.org|journalism.org|pewsocialtrends.org|pewforum.org|pewinternet.org|pewhispanic.org|pewglobal.org}}
|- class="s-gr" id="PinkNews"
| ''[[PinkNews]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|305|PinkNews|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|47|Pink News|1}} {{rsnl|110|Multiple sources offered to label a person as being "Bigot of the Year"|2}} {{rsnl|292|PinkNews AKA Pink News|3}} {{rsnl|359|PinkNews needs to be reevaluated|4}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is rough consensus that ''[[PinkNews]]'' is ''generally'' reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on ''PinkNews''' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject.
| {{/Uses|pinknews.co.uk}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Playboy"
|  ''[[Playboy]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|22|Marjoe Gortner in Oui|1}} {{rsnl|24|Hustler magazine a reliable source for World Affairs?|2}} {{rsnl|42|Adult industry|3}} {{rsnl|74|Hustler magazine as a source|4}} {{rsnl|104|Xrentdvd|5}} {{rsnl|120|Askmen.com|6}} {{rsnl|123|Wim Dankbaar – Is this a notability issue or is this a reliable source issue?|7}} {{rsnl|184|wekinglypigs.com|8}}
| {{/Last|2015}}
| There is consensus that ''Playboy'' is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's reputation for high-quality interviews and fact-checking.
| {{/Uses|playboy.com}}
|- class="s-b" id="The_Points_Guy"
| data-sort-value="Points Guy news" | [[The Points Guy]] (news and reviews) {{small|(TPG)}}
| {{/Status|nc|b=y}}
| {{sbll|December 2018|Sponsored consumer finance blogs|2018}} {{rsnl|263|RfC: The Points Guy|2019|rfc=y}}
[[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2019#thepointsguy.com|A]] [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/03#"News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (thepointsguy.com/news, thepointsguy.com/reviews)|B]] [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/04#"News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (thepointsguy.com/news, thepointsguy.com/reviews)|C]]
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of news articles and reviews on The Points Guy. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, and content involving these companies should be avoided as sources. The Points Guy is currently on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used. ''See also: {{pslink|The Points Guy (sponsored content)}}.''
| {{/Uses|thepointsguy.com/news|thepointsguy.com/reviews}}
|- class="s-b" id="The_Points_Guy_(sponsored_content)"
| data-sort-value="Points Guy sponsored" | [[The Points Guy]] (sponsored content) {{small|(TPG)}}
| {{/Status|gu|b=y}}
| {{sbll|December 2018|Sponsored consumer finance blogs|2018}} {{rsnl|263|RfC: The Points Guy|2019|rfc=y}}
[[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2019#thepointsguy.com|A]] [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/03#"News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (thepointsguy.com/news, thepointsguy.com/reviews)|B]] [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/04#"News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (thepointsguy.com/news, thepointsguy.com/reviews)|C]]
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is consensus that sponsored content on The Points Guy, including content involving credit cards, should not be used as sources. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, receiving compensation from readers signing up for credit cards via the website's links. The Points Guy is currently on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used. ''See also: [[#The Points Guy|The Points Guy (news and reviews)]].''
| {{/Uses|thepointsguy.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Politico"
| ''[[Politico]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|363|2021|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|11|Politico.com|1}} {{rsnl|19|DataTreasury|2}} {{rsnl|50|Politico; Also for Book reviews: New Engish Review and Pajamas Media|3}} {{rsnl|65|self-published?|4}} {{rsnl|232|Is an SPLC report a reliable source for List of Confederate monuments and memorials?|5}} {{rsnl|241|Statements of Fact Based on One Report from One Media Outlet, Sourced to Anonymous Sources|6}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| ''Politico'' is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that ''Politico'' is a [[WP:BIASED|biased]] source.
| {{/Uses|politico.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="PolitiFact"
| [[PolitiFact]] {{small|(PunditFact)}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|215|Is PolitiFact a reliable source for fact checking?|2016|rfc=y}} {{rsnl|279|RfC: PolitiFact|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates. PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate (of the statements checked by PolitiFact), provided that [[WP:INTEXT|attribution]] is given, as a primary source.
| {{/Uses|politifact.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Polygon"
| ''[[Polygon (website)|Polygon]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|218|Tweet as a reliable source|1}} {{rsnl|302|Is video game website polygon.com a RS for information on allegations of sexual misconduct against BLPs?|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''Polygon'' is considered generally reliable for video games and pop culture related topics. ''See also: {{pslink|The Verge}}, {{pslink|Vox}}, {{pslink|New York}}''
| {{/Uses|polygon.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="The_Post_Millennial"
| ''[[The Post Millennial]]''
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|308|RfC: The Post Millennial|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|296|The_Post_Millennial_for_article_Supervised_injection_site|1}} {{rsnl|320|The Post Millennial, again|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that ''The Post Millennial'' is generally unreliable. Editors have noted multiple instances of inaccurate reporting, and consider the publication to be strongly biased.
| {{/Uses|thepostmillennial.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="PR_Newswire"
| [[PR Newswire]] {{/Shortcut|WP:PRNEWSWIRE}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
|{{rsnl|56|PR newswire and Ajax world magazine|1}} {{rsnl|88|PR Newswire|2}} {{rsnl|149|is PRweb/PR NewsWire OK for use as citation?|3}} {{rsnl|214|Online Business News Sources which use PR:Newswire – WP:PROMOTION concerns|4}} {{rsnl|260|PR Newswire and SYZYGY for Millennials WP article|5}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is consensus that PR Newswire is generally unreliable, as press releases published on the site are not subject to editorial oversight. Some articles may be used for uncontroversial claims [[WP:ABOUTSELF|about the article's author]].
| {{/Uses|prnewswire.com|prnewswire.co.uk}}
|- class="s-d" id="Press_TV"
| [[Press TV]] {{/Shortcut|WP:PRESSTV}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|346|RfC: Press TV on Saudi Arabian protests|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|346|RfC: PressTV|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|42|Press TV|1}} {{rsnl|108|Alex Jones, Mathaba, Pravda, and PressTV|2}} {{rsnl|139|Press TV and Veterans Today RS for their contibutors|3}} {{rsnl|175|Using Press TV for reporting Hamas claims|4}} {{rsnl|190|Press TV|5}} {{rsnl|259|PressTV|6}} {{rsnl|346|Press TV's website|7}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| In a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: PressTV|request for comment]] that had discussion in 2020, editors found a clear consensus to [[WP:DEPREC|deprecate]] Press TV, owing to Press TV's status as a government propaganda outlet that publishes disinformation, conspiracy theories, antisemitic content including holocaust denial,<ref name="ADL2013">{{Cite web| title = Iran's Press TV: Broadcasting Anti-Semitism to the English-Speaking World| author = Anti-Defamation League| date = October 17, 2013| accessdate = August 8, 2018| url = https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/anti-semitism/united-states/Press-TV-Report-2013-10-17.pdf| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190103013606/https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/anti-semitism/united-states/Press-TV-Report-2013-10-17.pdf| archive-date = January 3, 2019| url-status = live| df = mdy-all}}</ref> and a host of other problematic content.
| {{/Uses|presstv.com|presstv.ir|presstv.co.uk|presstv.tv}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Pride.com"
| [[Pride.com]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|299|RfC: Pride.com|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that Pride.com is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. Editors consider Pride.com comparable to {{pslink|BuzzFeed}} in its presentation.
| {{/Uses|pride.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Project_Veritas"
| [[Project Veritas]] {{/Shortcut|WP:VERITAS}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|271|Sources at Media bias in the United States for claims of censorship of conservative content|1}} {{rsnl|322|RfC: CNN|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that Project Veritas is generally unreliable due to its reputation for selectively editing its videos. As an activist group, Project Veritas is a [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]] source.
| {{/Uses|projectveritas.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="ProPublica"
| [[ProPublica]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|279|RfC: "ProPublica" (October)|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|213|News organizations using a third-party fact checking service|1}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is a strong consensus that ProPublica is generally reliable for all purposes because it has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, is widely cited by reliable sources, and has received multiple [[Pulitzer Prize]]s.
| {{/Uses|propublica.org}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Quackwatch"
| [[Quackwatch]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|282|Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?|2019|rfc=y}}
+13{{efn|See also these discussions of Quackwatch:
{{rsnl|2|QuackWatch|1}}
{{rsnl|4|Quackwatch|2}}
{{rsnl|14|Plural medicine, tradition and modernity|3}}
{{rsnl|15|Quackwatch|4}}
{{rsnl|22|Quackwatch etc|5}}
{{rsnl|32|Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery|6}}
{{rsnl|55|How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"?|7}}
{{rsnl|118|Quackwatch|8}}
{{rsnl|146|Could Quackwatch, Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer be used to affirm that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist?|9}}
{{rsnl|148|Quackwatch|10}}
{{rsnl|223|Two sources in the lede of Alkaline diet|11}}
[[Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 13#Is Quackwatch a reliable source?|A]]
[[Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 16#Proposal to address Quackwatch by name in this guideline|B]]
}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Articles written by [[Stephen Barrett]] on Quackwatch are considered generally reliable (as Barrett is a [[WP:EXPERTSOURCE|subject-matter expert]]) and [[WP:SPS|self-published]] (as there is disagreement on the comprehensiveness of Quackwatch's editorial process); Barrett's articles should not be used as a source of information on [[WP:BLPSPS|other living persons]]. Articles written by other authors on Quackwatch are not considered self-published. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. It may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself. Since it often covers [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] material, [[WP:PARITY|parity of sources]] should be considered.
| {{/Uses|quackwatch.org}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Quadrant"
| ''[[Quadrant (magazine)|Quadrant]]''
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|269|RfC: Quadrant Magazine|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Most editors consider ''Quadrant'' generally unreliable for factual reporting. The publication is a [[WP:BIASED|biased and opinionated source]].
| {{/Uses|quadrant.org.au}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Quartz"
| ''[[Quartz (website)|Quartz]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|301|Quartz|1}} {{rsnl|316|Quartz|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''Quartz'' is considered generally reliable for factual reporting, although some editors argue that caution should be used for science and bitcoin topics.
| {{/Uses|qz.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Quillette"
| ''[[Quillette]]''
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|314|Quillette|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|240|Is Quillette and Spencer Case a reliable source?|1}} {{rsnl|249|"Greviance Studies" scandal – use of peer-reviewed journals as RS|2}} {{rsnl|271|Quillette|3}} {{rsnl||Expert opinion on Quilette|4}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''Quillette'' is generally unreliable for facts, with non-trivial minorities arguing for either full deprecation or "considerations apply". ''Quillette'' is primarily a publication of opinion, and thus actual usage in articles will usually be a question of whether or not it is [[WP:DUE]] for an attributed opinion rather than whether it is reliable for a factual claim.
| {{/Uses|quillette.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Quora"
| [[Quora]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|229|Quora.com|1}} {{rsnl|247|Is this an RS?|2}} {{rsnl|267|A wake-up call|3}} {{rsnl|269|Question about Quora|4}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Quora is a [[Q&A site]]. As an Internet forum, it is a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]] that incorporates [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]], and is considered generally unreliable. Posts from [[verified account]]s on Quora can be used as [[WP:PRIMARY|primary sources]] for [[WP:ABOUTSELF|statements about themselves]]. Posts from verified accounts of established experts may also be used to substantiate statements in their field of expertise, in accordance with the [[WP:SPS|policy on self-published sources]].
| {{/Uses|quora.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Radio Free Asia"
| [[Radio Free Asia]] {{small|(RFA)}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|333|RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA)|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|313|Views on International Campaign for Tibet, UNESCO, Tibet Post International/The Tibet Post, Tibet Watch, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, Free Tibet, Radio Free Asia|1}}  {{rsnl|329|Reliability of Radio Free Asia|2}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically-charged areas, [[WP:INTEXT|attribution]] of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use.
| {{/Uses|rfa.org}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Rappler"
| [[Rappler]] {{/Shortcut|WP:RAPPLER}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|185|Rappler|1}}  {{rsnl|215|Rappler.com?|2}} {{rsnl|236|Rappler|3}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| There is consensus that staff content by Rappler is generally reliable. The IMHO section consists of opinions by readers, and not by paid staff. The defunct x.rappler.com section functioned as a self-published blogging service, and is therefore considered generally unreliable.
| {{/Uses|rappler.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="Rate_Your_Music"
| [[Rate Your Music]] {{small|(RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic)}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|259|RfC: Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and Last.fm|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|212|rateyourmusic.com|1}}
<br />[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 33#Rate Your Music|A]]
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Rate Your Music was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Rate Your Music is [[WP:UGC|user-generated]], and is considered generally unreliable.
| {{/Uses|rateyourmusic.com|cinemos.com|glitchwave.com|sonemic.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="The_Raw_Story"
| ''[[The Raw Story]]''
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|324|RfC_-_The_Raw_Story|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|12|Raw Story|1}} {{rsnl|17|Raw Story|2}} {{rsnl|112|The Raw Story|3}} {{rsnl|202|Raw Story|4}} {{rsnl|226|Raw story a RS for details on this obscure death?|5}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''The Raw Story'' is generally unreliable for factual reporting, based upon a pattern of publishing false and sensationalized stories. Editors almost unanimously agree that the source is [[WP:BIASED|biased]] and that [[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV|in-text attribution]] should accompany each use of the source.
| {{/Uses|rawstory.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="RealClearPolitics"
| [[RealClearPolitics]] {{small|(RCP, RealClearInvestigations)}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|278|RealClear media|1|rfc=n}} {{rsnl|336|RealClear media|2|rfc=n}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability. They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided.
| {{/Uses|realclearpolitics.com|realclearinvestigations.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Reason"
| ''[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|200|Reason Magazine at David Lisak|1}} {{rsnl|291|Reason Magazine and reason.com|2}} {{rsnl|352|Reason.com|3}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''Reason'' is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider ''Reason'' to be a [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated source]] that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. [[WP:RSOPINION|Statements of opinion]] should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]] and evaluated for [[WP:DUE|due weight]].
| {{/Uses|reason.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Reddit"
| | {{anchor|RSPREDDIT}} [[Reddit]] {{/Shortcut|WP:RSPREDDIT}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|156|Reddit (IAmA)|1}} {{rsnl|159|Reddit|2}} {{rsnl|189|Would an answer in a Reddit AMA be admissible as a reliable primary source?|3}} {{rsnl|241|Can reddit comments from article subjects be cited as reliable self-published sources?|4}} {{rsnl|285|Reddit as a source|5}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Reddit is a [[social news]] and discussion website. Reddit contains mostly [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]], and is considered both [[WP:SPS|self-published]] and generally unreliable. Interview responses written by [[Account verification|verified]] interviewees on the [[r/IAmA]] subreddit are [[WP:PRIMARY|primary sources]], and editors disagree on their reliability. The policy on the use of [[WP:REDDIT|sources about themselves]] applies.
| {{/Uses|reddit.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="RedState"
| [[RedState]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|259|RedState|1}} {{rsnl|313|RedState|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that RedState should not be used as a source of facts. Opinion pieces from RedState are likely to be undue.
| {{/Uses|redstate.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Register"
| data-sort-value="Register"| ''[[The Register]]'' {{small|(''"El Reg"'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|4|The Register|1}} {{rsnl|79|The Register article on physicist's resignation from the American Physical Society|2}} {{rsnl|102|The Register at Santorum (neologism)|3}} {{rsnl|194|The Register as a reliable source for quotations|4}} {{rsnl|229|The Register|5}}
[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive58#Do The Register and The London Telegraph (among others) meet WP:RS for quoting an individual?|A]]
| {{/Last|2017}}
| ''The Register'' is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Some editors say that ''The Register'' is [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]] on topics involving [[Wikipedia]].
| {{/Uses|theregister.co.uk}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Religion_News_Service"
| data-sort-value="Religion_News_Service"| [[Religion News Service]] {{small|(RNS)}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|290|Religion News and Christian Post|1}} {{rsnl|306|Religion News Service / religionnews.com|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Religion News Service is considered generally reliable. Use RNS with caution to verify contentious claims.
| {{/Uses|religionnews.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="ResearchGate"
| [[ResearchGate]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|178|Is ResearchGate reliable?|1}} {{rsnl|184|ResearchGate|2}} {{rsnl|271|DOI: 10.13140|3}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of [[WP:UGC|user-generated]] publications, including [[preprints]]. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]]. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed [[academic journal]]; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an [[open access]] link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate).
| {{/Uses|researchgate.net}}
|- class="s-d" id="Republic TV"
| {{anchor|REPUBLICTV}}  [[Republic TV]]  {{small|(Republic World)}} {{/Shortcut|WP:REPUBLICTV}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|357|RfC:_Republic_TV|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|248|Republic TV and Times Now|1}} {{rsnl|321|Republic TV|2}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| In the 2021 RfC, there was a consistent and overwhelming consensus to deprecate Republic TV. Editors cite hoaxes, fake news, fabrication, misinformation and conspiracy theories.
| {{/Uses|republicworld.com|bharat.republicworld.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Reuters"
| [[Reuters]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|107|Can this review from reuters be used?|1}} {{rsnl|130|Thomson Reuters|2}} {{rsnl|243|Can “wire” news services such AP, Reuters, or AFP ever report inaccurate, misleading, or false information|3}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| Reuters is a [[news agency]]. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable. [[WP:SYNDICATED|Syndicated]] reports from Reuters that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. [[Press release]]s published by Reuters are not automatically reliable.
| {{/Uses|reuters.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="RhythmOne"
| [[RhythmOne]] {{small|([[AllMusic]], [[AllMovie]], AllGame, All Media Guide, AllRovi)}}{{/Shortcut|WP:ALLMUSIC}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| 26{{efn|See these discussions of RhythmOne:
{{rsnl|3|All music guide as a genre source|1}}
{{rsnl|14|Allmusic not a reliable source on heavy metal music|2}}
{{rsnl|16|Allmusic.com continued|3}}
{{rsnl|19|The Black Parade genre|4}}
{{rsnl|24|Are allmusic.com, punkbands.com, www.roomthirteen.com etc. reliable sources for asserting notability of rock bands?|5}}
{{rsnl|30|allmusic.com|6}}
{{rsnl|46|Allmusic|7}}
{{rsnl|47|DVDverdict and ALLmovie|8}}
{{rsnl|66|Allmovie|9}}
{{rsnl|70|Allmovie biography section|10}}
{{rsnl|75|Allgame.com|11}}
{{rsnl|78|is Allmusic.com a reliable source?|12}}
{{rsnl|105|AllRovi|13}}
{{rsnl|112|Allrovi and BLPs?|14}}
{{rsnl|122|Soundtrack reviews|15}}
{{rsnl|124|Allmusic.com|16}}
{{rsnl|128|Allrovi|17}}
{{rsnl|129|California Birth Index and WP:BLPPRIMARY|18}}
{{rsnl|149|AllMusic review and This War Is Ours|19}}
{{rsnl|160|AllMusic/AMG as a source for biographical info|20}}
{{rsnl|166|BLP info sourced from All Movie Guide|21}}
{{rsnl|188|http://www.allmusic.com/|22}}
{{rsnl|231|AllMusic|23}}
{{rsnl|258|All Music Reviews|24}}
{{rsnl|271|Musician Discographies from Allmusic and/or Discogs|25}}
{{rsnl|331|AllMusic (allmusic.com): summary of previous AllMusic and/or "All Music" discussions|26}}
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| RhythmOne (who acquired All Media Guide, formerly AllRovi) operates the websites [[AllMusic]], [[AllMovie]], and AllGame (defunct). There is consensus that RhythmOne websites are usable for entertainment reviews with [[WP:INTEXT|attribution]]. Some editors question the accuracy of these websites for [[WP:BLP|biographical details]] and recommend more reliable sources when available. Editors also advise against using AllMusic's [[Music genre|genre]] classifications from the website's [[Sidebar (computing)|sidebar]]. Listings without accompanying prose do not count toward [[WP:N|notability]].
| {{/Uses|allmusic.com|allmovie.com|allgame.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="RIA_Novosti"
| [[RIA Novosti]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|84|RIA Novosti|1}} {{rsnl|95|RIA Novosti and the official Russian position in areas of geopolitical and historical contention|2}} {{rsnl|180|Russian Media|3}} {{rsnl|212|Source being used in the S-400 article|4}}
| {{/Last|2016}}
| RIA Novosti was an official news agency of the Russian government. There is a broad consensus that it is a [[WP:BIASED|biased and opinionated]] source. It is generally considered usable for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability. ''See also: {{pslink|Sputnik}}, which replaced the international edition of RIA Novosti.''
| {{/Uses|rian.ru|rian.com.ua}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Rolling Stone"
| ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' (culture)
| {{/Status|gr}}
|{{rsnl|353|Rolling Stone|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|17|Rolling Stone|1}} {{rsnl|26|Rolling Stone, NME, Popmatters and Metal-Observer|2}} {{rsnl|39|Rolling Stone review|3}} {{rsnl|82|Twitter, Rolling Stone magazine and The Guardian|4}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''Rolling Stone'' has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). ''Rolling Stone''<nowiki/>'s [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding [[WP:BLP|living persons]], should only be used with [[WP:INTEXT|attribution]]. The publication's [[capsule reviews]] deserve [[WP:DUE|less weight]] than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also {{pslink|Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011-present}}, {{pslink|Rolling Stone (Culture Council)}}.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|rollingstone.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Rolling Stone (politics and society, 2011–present)"
| ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' (politics and society, 2011–present) {{/Shortcut|WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|353|Rolling Stone|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|41|Is opinion piece in Rolling Stone a reliable source on Goldman Sachs?|1}} {{rsnl|106|Is this piece from the Rolling Stone Culture Section a RS?|2}} {{rsnl|132|[Mother Jones and Rolling Stone articles as RS sources in a BLP for a contentious claim|3}} {{rsnl|197|Gun show loophole (Rolling Stone & Washington Post)|4}} {{rsnl|274|Is Rolling Stone's 'Useful Idiots' podcast a RS?|5}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that ''Rolling Stone'' is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive), though it must be borne in mind that this date is an estimate and not a definitive cutoff, as the deterioration of journalistic practices happened gradually. Some editors have said that low-quality reporting also appeared in some preceding years, but a specific date after which the articles are considered generally unreliable has not been proposed. Previous consensus was that ''Rolling Stone'' was generally reliable for political and societal topics before 2011. Most editors say that ''Rolling Stone'' is a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan source]] in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. Moreover, [[WP:MEDRS|medical]] or [[WP:SCIRS|scientific]] claims should not be sourced to the publication.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|rollingstone.com/politics}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Rolling Stone (Culture Council)"
| ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' (''Culture Council'')
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|353|Rolling Stone|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is unanimous consensus among editors that ''Culture Council'' articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) are [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]] and are, in most aspects, equivalent to ''[[WP:FORBESCON|Forbes]]'' and ''[[WP:RSP#HuffPost contributors|HuffPost]]'' contributors. Editors, however, have also expressed concern that at least some of the content published is [[WP:PROMO|promotional]] and thus not usable. Editors should thus determine on a case-by-case basis whether the opinions published there are [[WP:IS|independent]] and also if they constitute [[WP:DUE|due weight]]. Usage of these sources for third-party claims in [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] as well as [[WP:MEDRS|medical or scientific claims]] is not allowed.
| {{/Uses|council.rollingstone.com|rollingstone.com/culture-council}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Rotten Tomatoes"
| [[Rotten Tomatoes]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|7|Rotten Tomatoes Critic Blogs|1}} {{rsnl|45|Review aggregator sites|2}} {{rsnl|135|Atlas Shrugged – Rotten Tomatoes user rating|3}} {{rsnl|179|Are Rotten Tomatoes reviewers automatically reliable sources/reviews?|4}}
[[Talk:Apocalypse Now/Archive 2#Rotten Tomatoes|A]] [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 44#Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic 2012|B]] [[Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 52#Review score aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and OpenCritic|C]]
| {{/Last|2015}}
| Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are [[WP:SPS|self-published source]]s. Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable.
| {{/Uses|rottentomatoes.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="RT"
| {{anchor|RT (general topics)|RT (controversial topics)}} [[RT (TV network)|RT]] {{small|(Russia Today)}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|295|RfC: RT (Russia Today)|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|159|Enquiry concerning the RT Network|1}} {{rsnl|168|RT news and Crimean status referendum, 2014|2}} {{rsnl|173|Russia Today|3}} {{rsnl|192|Attributed statement sourced by RT news article|4}} {{rsnl|231|RT news|5}} {{rsnl|253|On Contact / RT|6}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated along the lines of the ''{{pslink|Daily Mail}}''. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation.
| {{/Uses|rt.com|russiatoday.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Salon"
| ''[[Salon (website)|Salon]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:SALON.COM}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|200|Salon.com|1}} {{rsnl|235|Salon Newspaper an Opinion website ?|2}} {{rsnl|238|Salon Newspaper an Opinion website ?|3}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of ''Salon''. Editors consider ''Salon'' [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]], and its statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]].
| {{/Uses|salon.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Science-Based_Medicine"
| ''[[Science-Based Medicine]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|256|RfC on sciencebasedmedicine.org|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|141|Film review by David Gorski at ScienceBasedMedicine.org of Gabriel Cousens documentary Simply Raw|1}} {{rsnl|247|sciencebasedmedicine.org|2}}  {{rsnl|351|Science-Based Medicine|3}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| ''Science-Based Medicine'' is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider ''Science-Based Medicine'' a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]], but it is also not a [[Scholarly peer review|peer-reviewed]] publication with respect to [[WP:MEDRS]]. Since it often covers [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] material, [[WP:PARITY|parity of sources]] may be relevant.
| {{/Uses|sciencebasedmedicine.org}}
|- class="s-nc" id="ScienceBlogs"
| [[ScienceBlogs]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|48|Guardian blog articles|1}} {{rsnl|58|Scienceblogs.com/Deltoid AKA timlambert.org is not a Reliable Source|2}} {{rsnl|77|Deep Sea News|3}} {{rsnl|105|Journal of Cosmology|4}} {{rsnl|113|Few body systems|5}} {{rsnl|117|Blog posts and personal websites in the AAH article|6}} {{rsnl|133|PZ Myers on Stuart Pivar's Lifecode|7}}
[[Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 10#'ScienceBlogs' article on the E-Cat|A]]
| {{/Last|2012}}
| ScienceBlogs is an invitation-only network of blogs. There is no consensus on the reliability of ScienceBlogs articles in general. Most editors consider ScienceBlogs articles written by [[WP:EXPERTSOURCE|subject-matter experts]] reliable, though articles outside the writer's relevant field are not. As a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]] it should not be used as a source of information on [[WP:BLPSPS|other living persons]]. Since it often covers [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] material, [[WP:PARITY|parity of sources]] may be relevant.
| {{/Uses|scienceblogs.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Scientific_American"
| ''[[Scientific American]]'' {{small|(''SA'', ''SciAm'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|51|Scientific American (editorial) quote in RealClimate|1}} {{rsnl|301|Scientific American|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''Scientific American'' is considered generally reliable for [[popular science]] content. Use [[WP:MEDPOP]] to determine whether the publication's medical coverage should be used.
| {{/Uses|scientificamerican.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="SCOTUSblog"
| ''[[SCOTUSblog]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|326|RfC on SCOTUSblog|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|38|Tom Goldstein and SCOTUSblog as sources for Supreme Court articles|1}} {{rsnl|301|Determining whether a source is SPS in deciding whether BLPSPS applies|2}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| In a 2021 RfC, there was strong consensus that ''SCOTUSblog'' is [[WP:GREL|generally reliable]] for law-related topics. Some authors on ''SCOTUSblog'' are [[subject-matter experts]], but editors do not consider the website an [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP|academic source]]. Editors recommend [[WP:INTEXT|in-text attribution]] for ''SCOTUSblog''{{'}}s [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion]] and analysis articles.
| {{/Uses|scotusblog.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Screen Rant"
| ''[[Screen Rant]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|328|RfC – Screen Rant|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|266|Screen Rant|1}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''Screen Rant'' is a marginally reliable source. It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to [[WP:BLP|living persons]].
| {{/Uses|https://screenrant.com/}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Scribd"
| data-sort-value="Scribd" | [[Scribd]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|33|Is Scribd.com a Reliable Source?|1}} {{rsnl|151|Court documents hosted on Scribd|2}} {{rsnl|184|Scribd.com|3}} {{rsnl|206|Documents uploaded to ScribD|4}}
| {{/Last|2016}}
| Scribd operates a self-publishing platform for documents and audiobooks. It is considered generally unreliable, especially for [[WP:BLPSPS|biographies of living persons]]. Anyone can upload any document they like and there is no assurance that it hasn't been manipulated. Many documents on Scribd's self-publishing platform violate copyrights, so linking to them from Wikipedia would also violate the [[WP:COPYVIOEL]] guideline and the [[WP:COPYVIO]] policy. If a particular document hosted on the platform is in itself reliable, editors are advised to cite the source without linking to the Scribd entry.
| {{/Uses|scribd.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Scriptural_texts"
| [[Scriptural texts]] {{small|([[Bible]], [[Quran]])}}{{/Shortcut|WP:RSPSCRIPTURE}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|327|Scriptural texts (WP:RSPSCRIPTURE)|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|25|Bible as a reliable source|1}} {{rsnl|35|Is The Bible (or other religious scripture) a reliable source?|2}} {{rsnl|244|Gospel of John|3}} {{rsnl|209|Quotes from primary sources?|4}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Scriptural texts, like the [[Bible]] and the [[Quran]], are [[WP:PRIMARY|primary sources]] only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of [[religious studies]]) and [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]] when appropriate. Analysis of scriptural content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the [[WP:NOR|Wikipedia policy regarding original research]], and a 2020 discussion found no consensus on whether unsourced summaries of scriptual texts should be allowed under [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]].
| —
|- class="s-nc" id="Sherdog"
| [[Sherdog]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|rfc=y|318|RfC: Sherdog.com|2020}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| In the 2020 RfC, Sherdog was determined to be not [[WP:SPS|self-published]] and can be used for basic information on MMA fighters and matches. However, it is considered less reliable than [[ESPN]] and other generally reliable sources, so use with caution.
| {{/Uses|sherdog.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Sixth_Tone"
| ''[[Sixth Tone]]'' (general topics)
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|287|RfC: Sixth Tone|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''Sixth Tone'' is usable for general non-political topics, such as Chinese society and culture. ''See also: {{pslink|Sixth Tone (politics)}}.''
| {{/Uses|sixthtone.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Sixth_Tone_(politics)"
| ''[[Sixth Tone]]'' (politics)
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|287|RfC: Sixth Tone|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''Sixth Tone'' is published by the [[Shanghai United Media Group]], which is government-controlled. Editors consider ''Sixth Tone'' generally unreliable for politics. ''See also: [[#Sixth Tone|Sixth Tone (general topics)]].''
| {{/Uses|sixthtone.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="The_Skeptic's_Dictionary"
| data-sort-value="Skeptic's Dictionary" | ''[[The Skeptic's Dictionary]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|9|The Skeptic's Dictionary|1}} {{rsnl|8|Skeptic's dictionary|2}} {{rsnl|14|Is skepdic.com a reliable source?|3}} {{rsnl|285|Skeptic's Dictionary and Skeptoid are they self-published sources?|4}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''The Skeptic's Dictionary'' is a book by [[Robert Todd Carroll]] that expanded into a website. The website is a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]] (by a subject-matter expert) and should not be used as a source of information on [[WP:BLPSPS|other living persons]]. [[WP:INTEXT|Attribution]] may be necessary. In some cases, it's preferable to read and cite the sources cited by ''The Skeptic's Dictionary''. As it often covers [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] material, [[WP:PARITY|parity of sources]] may be relevant.
| {{/Uses|skepdic.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="The_Skwawkbox"
| data-sort-value="Skwawkbox" | ''[[The Skwawkbox]]''
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|274|Seeking acceptance of reliability of UK progressive online only news sites – The Canary, Evolve Politics and Skwawkbox|1}} {{rsnl|288|Move Skwawkbox to at least 'no consensus' section|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''The Skwawkbox'' is considered generally unreliable because it is [[WP:SPS|self-published]]. Most editors describe ''The Skwawkbox'' as [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]].
| {{/Uses|skwawkbox.org}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Slate"
| ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|46|Slate magazine as a reliable source for the Taliban website|1}} {{rsnl|133|Slate article about Republican tax policy|2}} {{rsnl|195|Slate, WGN, International Business Times|3}}
[[Talk:Slate (magazine)#Wikipedia on Slate|A]] [[Talk:Slate (magazine)#Editorial Stance|B]]
| {{/Last|2015}}
| ''Slate'' is considered generally reliable for its areas of expertise. [[Contrarian]] news articles may need to be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]].
| {{/Uses|slate.com|slate.fr}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Snopes"
| [[Snopes]] {{/Shortcut|WP:SNOPES}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| 14{{efn|See these discussions of Snopes:
{{rsnl|24|Media Awareness Network|1}}
{{rsnl|25|Snopes.com|2}}
{{rsnl|109|forgetomori|3}}
{{rsnl|127|Snopes.com|4}}
{{rsnl|141|Snopes.com again|5}}
{{rsnl|209|Is the Washington Times an acceptable source for statements of face related to student protesters/black lives matter/Milo Yiannopoulos?|6}}
{{rsnl|213|The Telegraph|7}}
{{rsnl|221|Can we have clearer guidance on what sort of sourcing from the Mail is and isn't OK?|8}}
{{rsnl|237|Is Fox News a WP:RS|9}}
{{rsnl|244|Can we attribute statements to Snopes?|10}}
{{rsnl|245|Are The Daily Dot and Tubefilter reliable sources?|11}}
{{rsnl|248|A selection from Snopes|12}}
{{rsnl|268|Revisiting Snopes|13}}
{{rsnl|294|Sentence check (Snopes)|14}}
}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Snopes is certified by the {{pslink|International Fact-Checking Network}}, and is considered generally reliable. [[WP:INTEXT|Attribution]] may be necessary. Since it often covers [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] material, [[WP:PARITY|parity of sources]] may be relevant.
| {{/Uses|snopes.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="SourceWatch"
| [[SourceWatch]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|60|Sourcewatch|1}} {{rsnl|75|Sourcewatch|2}} {{rsnl|214|Is SourceWatch a reliable source under the Exceptions section of UGC?|3}}
| {{/Last|2016}}
| As an [[WP:UGC|open wiki]], SourceWatch is considered generally unreliable. SourceWatch is operated by the [[Center for Media and Democracy]].
| {{/Uses|sourcewatch.org}}
|- class="s-gr" id="SCMP"
| ''[[South China Morning Post]]'' {{small|(''SCMP'', ''Sunday Morning Post'')}}{{/Shortcut|WP:SCMP}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|319|RfC: South China Morning Post (SCMP)|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|268|Minnie Chan's reports on the Chinese military|1}}
{{rsnl|285|South China Morning Post reliability|2}}
{{rsnl|309|South China Morning Post (and Lin Nguyen, a fabricated writer)|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| The ''South China Morning Post'' is widely considered to be the English-language [[newspaper of record]] in Hong Kong. In the 2020 RFC, there was consensus that the ''SCMP'' is generally reliable. However, in addition, there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics, including the [[Chinese Communist Party]] and the ''SCMP''{{'}}s current owner, [[Alibaba Group|Alibaba]]. Editors may apply higher scrutiny when dealing with the ''SCMP''{{'}}s coverage of such topics.
| {{/Uses|scmp.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Southern_Poverty_Law_Center"
| [[Southern Poverty Law Center]] {{small|(SPLC)}}{{/Shortcut|WP:SPLC}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| +19{{efn|See these discussions of the Southern Poverty Law Center:
{{rsnl|22|Southern Poverty Law Center|1}}
{{rsnl|26|Southern Poverty Law Center|2}}
{{rsnl|48|Southern Poverty Law Center (again) & Rousas John Rushdoony|3}}
{{rsnl|70|Southern Poverty Law Center Blog Reliability|4}}
{{rsnl|127|Is an SPLC intelligence report a reliable source for information about the men's rights movement?|5}}
{{rsnl|128|Southern Poverty Law Center|6}}
{{rsnl|130|Southern Poverty Law Center|7}}
{{rsnl|148|SPLC & Men's Right: Is this article speaking for the SPLC or Arthur Goldwag?|8}}
{{rsnl|208|Southern Poverty Law Center on Debbie Schlussel's Anti-Muslim stance|9}}
{{rsnl|230|Southern Poverty Law Center As Source For Labeling Someone a White Supremacist|10}}
{{rsnl|232|Is an SPLC report a reliable source for List of Confederate monuments and memorials?|11}}
{{rsnl|245|Southern Poverty Law Center|12}}
{{rsnl|247|SPLC: not a reliable source|13}}
{{rsnl|260|Is the SPLC reliable? It is reliable|14}}
{{rsnl|270|Black Sun (symbol)|15}}
{{rsnl|280|Southern Poverty Law Center|16}}
{{rsnl|339|RSP wording for SPLC|17}}
{{rsnl|347|When can SPLC be treated as a 3rd party RS vs a primary source that needs to be first mentioned by a independent RS?|18}}
[[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 20#RFC: Should an SPLC classification as a hate group be automatically leadworthy?|A]]
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to [[hate group]]s and [[extremism]] in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a [[WP:BIASED|biased and opinionated source]]. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]] per [[WP:RSOPINION]]. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes [[WP:DUE|due weight]] in the article and conforms to the [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis.
| {{/Uses|splcenter.org}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Space.com"
| [[Space.com]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|125|Space.com claim that Iran plans moon program|1}} {{rsnl|335|RfC: Space.com|2}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Space.com may be reliable for astronomy and spaceflight news, and has a reputation of being generally accurate. Space.com articles often have a sensational tone, which might degrade their quality, so it is necessary to check author's qualification below the article. Care should also be taken as the site publishes a lot of syndicated material and is prone to occasional churnalism.
| {{/Uses|space.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="SparkNotes"
| [[SparkNotes]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|227|Reliability of Cliffsnotes, Sparknotes and study guides in general|1}} {{rsnl|236|Reliability of CliffsNotes and SparkNotes?|2}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| SparkNotes is a [[study guide]]. Editors consider SparkNotes usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing SparkNotes citations with additional sources.
| {{/Uses|sparknotes.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="The_Spectator"
| {{anchor|Spectator}} ''[[The Spectator]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:SPECTATOR}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|203|Is Alex Massie in the Spectator a reliable source for a known and unchallenged legal distinction?|1}} {{rsnl|298|The Spectator|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''The Spectator'' primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by [[WP:RSOPINION]], [[WP:RSEDITORIAL]], and [[WP:NEWSBLOG]].
| {{/Uses|spectator.co.uk|spectator.us}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Der_Spiegel"
| data-sort-value="Spiegel" | ''[[Der Spiegel]]'' {{small|(''[[Spiegel Online]]'', ''SPON'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| 10{{efn|See these discussions of ''Der Spiegel'':
{{rsnl|45|Is an anonymous op-ed in a smallish newspaper a reliable source for a BLP?|1}}
{{rsnl|54|The Indian Institute of Planning and Management|2}}
{{rsnl|104|Martina Hingis|3}}
{{rsnl|112|Der Spiegel|4}}
{{rsnl|136|Electronic Intifada|5}}
{{rsnl|157|Survey (second question "If Yes, under what circumstances should People not be used...")|6}}
{{rsnl|159|Enquiry concerning the RT Network|7}}
{{rsnl|193|Bellingcat|8}}
{{rsnl|245|BuzzFeed (yes, I know – again)|9}}
{{rsnl|253|Claas Relotius in Der Spiegel|10}}
}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| There is consensus that ''Der Spiegel'' is generally reliable. Articles written by [[Claas Relotius]] are fabrications, and are thus unreliable.
| {{/Uses|spiegel.de}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Spirit of Metal"
| [[Spirit of Metal]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|32|www.spirit-of-metal.com|1}} {{rsnl|66|Amazon & spirit of metal|2}}
| {{/Last|2010}}
| Spirit of Metal is considered a [[WP:SELFPUBLISHED|self-published source]] and generally unreliable.
| {{/Uses|spirit-of-metal.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="Sputnik"
| [[Sputnik (news agency)|Sputnik]]
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|296|RfC: Sputnik|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|205|Sputnik News|1}} {{rsnl|212|Source being used in the S-400 article|2}} {{rsnl|246|Sputnik (news agency)|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information, and should be [[WP:DEPS|deprecated]] as in the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC|2017 RfC]] of the ''[[Daily Mail]]''. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation,<ref name="MacFarquhar">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.html|title=A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories|last=MacFarquhar|first=Neil|date=August 28, 2016|work=The New York Times|accessdate=29 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170221063555/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.html|archive-date=February 21, 2017|url-status=live|url-access=limited|df=mdy-all}}</ref> a significant proportion of editors endorse that view, with some editors considering it less reliable than ''{{pslink|Breitbart News}}''. ''See also: {{pslink|RIA Novosti}}, whose international edition was replaced by Sputnik.''
| {{/Uses|sputniknews.com|voiceofrussia.com|sputniknews.ru|sputnik.by|armeniasputnik.am|sputnik.kz|sputniknews.cn|sputnik.md|sputnik-georgia.com|sputnik-georgia.ru|sputnik-abkhazia.ru|sputnik-ossetia.com|sputnik-ossetia.ru|sputniknewslv.com|sputniknews.lt|sputniknews.gr|sputniknews-uz.com|sputnik-tj.com|sputnik.az|sputnik.kg}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Stack_Exchange"
| [[Stack Exchange]] {{small|([[Stack Overflow]], [[MathOverflow]], [[Ask Ubuntu]])}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|168|Stack Overflow a reliable source for an algorithm?|1}} {{rsnl|228|Can the Stack Exchange Network be considered reliable?|2}}
[[Talk:Leap year#RfC: use "peer-reviewed" in connection with stackoverflow.com|A]]
| {{/Last|2018}}
| Stack Exchange is a network of [[Q&A site]]s, including [[Stack Overflow]], [[MathOverflow]], and [[Ask Ubuntu]]. As an Internet forum, it is a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]] that incorporates [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]], and is considered generally unreliable.
| {{/Uses|stackexchange.com|stackoverflow.com|serverfault.com|superuser.com|askubuntu.com|mathoverflow.net}}
|- class="s-gu" id="starsunfolded.com"
| StarsUnfolded
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|214|starsunfolded.com|1}} {{rsnl|256|Starsunfolded.com|2}} {{rsnl|303|Recommend deprecating starsunfolded.com|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that StarsUnfolded is unreliable as it is a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]]. It is not [[WP:N|notable]] enough to have a Wikipedia article.
| {{/Uses|starsunfolded.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="The_Straits_Times"
| data-sort-value="Straits Times, The" | ''[[The Straits Times]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|350|Reliability_of_The_Straits_Times|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| ''The Straits Times'' is the largest newspaper in Singapore. There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage. However, since Singapore has a poor record on freedom of speech and press, and given known practices of self-censorship and political meddling into coverage, news related to Singapore politics, particularly for contentious claims, should be taken with a grain of salt.
| {{/Uses|straitstimes.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="The_Sun"
| data-sort-value="Sun" | [[The Sun (United Kingdom)|''The Sun'' (UK)]] {{small|(''The Sun on Sunday'', ''The Irish Sun'', ''The Scottish Sun'', ''The U.S. Sun'')}}{{/Shortcut|WP:THESUN}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|254|RfC: The Sun|2019|rfc=y}}
15{{efn|See also these discussions of ''The Sun'' (UK):
{{rsnl|8|Amy Winehouse/The Sun & British tabloids|1}}
{{rsnl|26|The Sun/Matt Smith|2}}
{{rsnl|53|The Sun|3}}
{{rsnl|85|Tabloid Newspapers|4}}
{{rsnl|100|Query|5}}
{{rsnl|134|Is the British tabloid newspaper "The Sun" a reliable source?|6}}
{{rsnl|156|tabloids|7}}
{{rsnl|226|The Sun RfC|8}}
{{rsnl|277|Regional editions of The Sun|9}}
{{rsnl|277|The Sun being used for content on living people again|10}}
{{rsnl|278|Correct action when someone persistently adds back a deprecated source?|11}}
{{rsnl|280|Use of The Sun in Team Trees article|12}}
{{rsnl|284|RfC on The Sun|13}}
{{rsnl|288|The Sun on BLPs|14}}
{{rsnl|314|Use of The Sun interview of a music group as a source|15}}
}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''The Sun'' was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that ''The Sun'' is generally unreliable. [[WP:CITE|References]] from ''The Sun'' are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the [[WP:N|notability]] of any subject. The RfC does not override [[WP:ABOUTSELF]], which allows the use of ''The Sun'' for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Some editors consider ''The Sun'' usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended.
| {{/Uses|thesun.co.uk|thesun.ie|thescottishsun.co.uk|the-sun.com|thesun.mobi|sunnation.co.uk|dreamteamfc.com|page3.com}}
|- class="s-b" id="Swarajya"
| ''[[Swarajya (magazine)|Swarajya]]''
| {{/Status|gu|b=y}}
| {{rsnl|278|I searched for Swarajya magzine in archives or its reliability but cannot find either.|1}} {{rsnl|288|OpIndia and Swarajya|2}} {{rsnl|347|Laundering Swarajya and citing opinion articles|3}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Due to persistent abuse, ''Swarajya'' is on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used. ''Swarajya'' is considered generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In the {{rsnl|288|OpIndia and Swarajya|2020 discussion}}, most editors expressed support for [[WP:DEPREC|deprecating]] ''Swarajya''. Editors consider the publication [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]]. ''Swarajya'' was formerly the parent publication of {{pslink|OpIndia}}, and frequently republishes content from OpIndia under the "Swarajya Staff" [[byline]]. ''See also: {{pslink|OpIndia}}.''
| {{/Uses|swarajyamag.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Sydney_Morning_Herald"
| data-sort-value="Sydney Morning Herald, The" | ''[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|352|Reliability_of_The_Sydney_Morning_Herald_and_The_Age|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''The Sydney Morning Herald'' is generally reliable.
| {{/Uses|smh.com.au}}
|- class="s-d" id="Taki's_Magazine"
| ''[[Taki's Magazine]]'' {{small|(''Takimag'', ''Taki's Top Drawer'')}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|273|RfC: Taki's Magazine|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|112|Taki's Magazine used as a source at James Kirchick|1}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| ''Taki's Magazine'' was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that it is an unreliable opinion magazine that should be avoided outside of very limited exceptions (e.g. [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]).
| {{/Uses|takimag.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="TASS"
| [[TASS]] {{small|(ТАСС, ITAR-TASS, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union)}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|260|RfC: TASS|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| In the 2019 RfC, editors argued that the reliability of TASS varies based on the subject matter. Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but also agree that there are deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues.
| {{/Uses|tass.com|tass.ru}}
|- class="s-nc" id="TechCrunch"
| [[TechCrunch]] {{/Shortcut|WP:TECHCRUNCH}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|110|TechCrunch and Engadget|1}} {{rsnl|87|techcrunch.com|2}} {{rsnl|221|Are news articles written by TechCrunch staff considered RS?|3}} {{rsnl|246|Is TechCrunch a reliable source?|4}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying [[WP:V|verifiability]], but may be less useful for the purpose of determining [[WP:N|notability]].
| {{/Uses|techcrunch.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="Telesur"
| [[Telesur]]
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|262|RfC: Telesur|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|46|TeleSUR|1}} {{rsnl|211|TeleSur English|2}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a [[Bolivarian propaganda]] outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information. As a [[state-owned media]] network in a country with low [[press freedom]], Telesur may be a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government, although [[WP:DUE|due weight]] should be considered. Telesur is [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]], and its statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]].
| {{/Uses|telesurtv.net|telesurenglish.net}}
|- class="s-gr" id="TheWrap"
| ''[[TheWrap]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|149|The Wrap (thewrap.com)|1}} {{rsnl|222|TheWrap|2}}
| {{/Last|2017}}
| As an industry trade publication, there is consensus that ''TheWrap'' is a good source for entertainment news and media analysis. There is no consensus regarding the reliability of ''TheWrap''<nowiki />'s articles on other topics.
| {{/Uses|thewrap.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="ThinkProgress"
| ''[[ThinkProgress]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|153|RFC ThinkProgress|2013|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|78|Thinkprogress.org|1}} {{rsnl|153|thinkprogress.org as a generally accepted WP:RS|2}}
| {{/Last|2013}}
| Discussions of ''ThinkProgress'' are dated, with the most recent in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Some consider ''ThinkProgress'' a form of [[WP:NEWSBLOG]], and reliable for [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]] statements of opinion. Others argue that ''ThinkProgress'' is generally reliable under [[WP:NEWSORG]], albeit with due consideration for their political leanings. ''ThinkProgress'' is generally considered a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan source]] for the purposes of US politics.
| {{/Uses|thinkprogress.org}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Time"
| ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|8|Christopher Hitchens, "Time" magazine and "Washington Post" as RS|1}} {{rsnl|103|TIME Techland|2}} {{rsnl|109|TIME magazine|3}} {{rsnl|120|Unresolved situation: Is Time Magazine a RS? Is IMDB a RS?|4}} {{rsnl|266|Karol Markowicz writing for TIME|5}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is consensus that ''Time'' is generally reliable. ''Time''<nowiki />'s [[WP:NEWSBLOG|magazine blogs]], including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy. Refer to [[WP:NEWSORG]] for guidance on [[op-ed]]s, which should only be used with [[WP:INTEXT|attribution]].
| {{/Uses|time.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Times"
| data-sort-value="Times"| ''[[The Times]]'' {{small|(''[[The Sunday Times]]'', ''The Times of London'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|38|The Times of London|1}} {{rsnl|58|Times identified as "unreliable"|2}} {{rsnl|83|Times and IBTimes RS?|3}} {{rsnl|85|Unite Against Fascism and The Times et al|4}} {{rsnl|97|Times Guide to the House of Commons 2010|5}} {{rsnl|130|The Times of London is no more accessible free of charge!|6}} {{rsnl|136|The "London Daily Times"; January 23, 1994, supposedly cited by Stringer and McKie (Robin), 1997; page 190|7}}
[[Talk:Edward Snowden/Archive 7#Sunday Times story|A]]
| {{/Last|2015}}
| ''The Times'', including its sister paper ''[[The Sunday Times]]'', is considered generally reliable.
| {{/Uses|thetimes.co.uk|thesundaytimes.co.uk|timesonline.co.uk}}
|- class="s-nc" id="The Times of India"
|data-sort-value="Times of India"| ''[[The Times of India]]'' {{small|(''TOI'')}}{{/Shortcut|WP:TOI}}
|  {{/Status|nc}}
|{{rsnl|287|Times of India RFC|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|320|The Times of India|1}} {{rsnl|342|Valid Sources?|2}} {{rsnl|353|Circular references from The Times of India|3}}
|{{/Last|2021}}
| ''The Times of India'' is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government.
| {{/Uses|timesofindia.com|timesofindia.indiatimes.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="TMZ"
| [[TMZ]] {{/Shortcut|WP:TMZ}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| 13{{efn|See these discussions of TMZ:
{{rsnl|4|TMZ.com|1}}
{{rsnl|34|TMZ.com|2}}
{{rsnl|37|TMZ|3}}
{{rsnl|51|TMZ|4}}
{{rsnl|72|Is TMZ a reliable source?|5}}
{{rsnl|91|Question about TMZ|6}}
{{rsnl|101|TMZ and WP:Circular|7}}
{{rsnl|112|Is TMZ.com reliable|8}}
{{rsnl|115|TMZ for info in Celebrity Rehab article|9}}
{{rsnl|127|TMZ|10}}
{{rsnl|184|TMZ|11}}
{{rsnl|200|Re-examining TMZ|12}}
{{rsnl|214|TMZ on NBC's role in Bush/Trump controversy|13}}
}}
| {{/Last|2016}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles on rumors and speculation without named authors, it is recommended to [[WP:INTEXT|attribute]] statements from TMZ. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider whether the information constitutes [[WP:DUE|due or undue weight]], especially when the subject is a [[WP:BLP|living person]].
| {{/Uses|tmz.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="TorrentFreak"
| [[TorrentFreak]] {{small|(TF)}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|28|Using a blog to reference information on illegal online activity?|1}} {{rsnl|34|Reliability check on TorrentFreak|2}} {{rsnl|63|TorrentFreak|3}} {{rsnl|118|Sources at Web Sheriff|4}} {{rsnl|120|TorrentFreak|5}} {{rsnl|197|TorrentFreak, again|6}} {{rsnl|204|Popcorn Time|7}} {{rsnl|268|TorrentFreak for Web Sheriff|8}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing. Editors note references to the website in mainstream media. The source may or may not be reliable for other topics.
| {{/Uses|torrentfreak.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Townhall"
| [[Townhall]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|23|http://townhall.com/|1}} {{rsnl|69|Is Townhall.com a reliable source for proving opposing opinions?|2}}
| {{/Last|2010}}
| As of 2010, a few editors commented that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece, although they may not be reliable for [[WP:INTEXT|unattributed]] statements of fact, and context will dictate whether the opinion of the author as such, meets the standard of [[WP:DUEWEIGHT]].
| {{/Uses|townhall.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="TRT_World"
| [[TRT World]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|267|RfC: TRT World|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough.
| {{/Uses|trtworld.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="The_Truth_About_Guns"
| data-sort-value="Truth About Guns" | [[The Truth About Guns]] {{small|(TTAG)}} {{/Shortcut|WP:TTAG}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|259|thetruthaboutguns.com|1}} {{rsnl|270|thetruthaboutguns.com|2}} {{rsnl|272|thetruthaboutguns.com|3}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| The Truth About Guns is a [[WP:BLOGS|group blog]]. There is consensus that TTAG does not have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. TTAG has promoted [[conspiracy theories]], and does not clearly label its [[WP:SPONSORED|sponsored content]]. Editors agree that TTAG is [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]]. Opinions in TTAG are likely to constitute [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]].
| {{/Uses|thetruthaboutguns.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="TV.com"
| [[TV.com]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|34|TV.com|1}} {{rsnl|42|Channel 4 TV edit|2}} {{rsnl|50|TV.com and IMDB|3}} {{rsnl|57|Is TV.com a reliable source or wikipedia mirror?|4}} {{rsnl|131|TV.com|5}} {{rsnl|313|TV.com|6}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| TV.com is largely [[WP:USERGENERATED|user-generated]] and generally unreliable. Some editors believe material published by its own staff may be cited.
| {{/Uses|TV.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="TV_Guide"
| ''[[TV Guide]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|88|TV Guide.com|1}} {{rsnl|120|TV Guide|2}}
| {{/Last|2012}}
| ''TV Guide'' is considered generally reliable for television-related topics. Some editors consider ''TV Guide'' a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] for air dates.
| {{/Uses|tvguide.com|tvguidemagazine.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="TV_Tropes"
| [[TV Tropes]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|80|tvtropes.org|1}} {{rsnl|211|TVTropes|2}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 16#I would like to know your opinion on these sites.|A]]
| {{/Last|2016}}
| TV Tropes is considered generally unreliable because it is an [[WP:UGC|open wiki]], which is a type of [[WP:SPS|self-published source]].
| {{/Uses|tvtropes.org}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Twitter"
| [[Twitter]] {{/Shortcut|WP:RSPTWITTER}} {{/Shortcut|WP:ELONMUSK}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| 42{{efn|See these discussions of Twitter:
{{rsnl|29|Twitter.com?|1}}
{{rsnl|34|Stephen Fry's twitter|2}}
{{rsnl|35|Facebook or Twitter?|3}}
{{rsnl|44|Twitter|4}}
{{rsnl|52|Twitter feeds from RELIABLE sources|5}}
{{rsnl|54|Twitter, Facebook, Youtube|6}}
{{rsnl|60|Using twitter as a source for BLP info|7}}
{{rsnl|61|Kylie and twitter|8}}
{{rsnl|79|Is @WestWingReport on Twitter a reliable source for the First Transcontinental Telegraph?|9}}
{{rsnl|80|Twitter as a source|10}}
{{rsnl|82|Twitter, Rolling Stone magazine and The Guardian|11}}
{{rsnl|111|Twitter updates for bio information|12}}
{{rsnl|114|twitter references|13}}
{{rsnl|117|Twitter as a source|14}}
{{rsnl|128|Chart News (Twitter)|15}}
{{rsnl|130|Images posted to Twitter as reliable sources|16}}
{{rsnl|167|Are Facebook and Twitter a RS for an alternate name?|17}}
{{rsnl|174|use of Twitter, etc in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Equipment|18}}
{{rsnl|177|When exactly is Twitter appropriate for self-published biographical claims?|19}}
{{rsnl|178|Request opinion on a couple of Twitter cites|20}}
{{rsnl|192|Twitter|21}}
{{rsnl|216|Twitter on SpongeBob SquarePants (season 9)|22}}
{{rsnl|218|Tweets as a RS on an article about something other than the Twitter user?|23}}
{{rsnl|226|Twitter|24}}
{{rsnl|239|Ratings from a twitter account|25}}
{{rsnl|245|WP:DOB and thanking people for birthday wishes on Twitter|26}}
{{rsnl|251|Article sourced primarily to Twitter|27}}
{{rsnl|256|Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Blogger and Tumblr, etc.|28}}
{{rsnl|265|Twitter|29}}
{{rsnl|269|Twitter of a family/close friend for a factual claim on deceased BLP?|30}}
{{rsnl|270|A politician’s tweet of their political position|31}}
{{rsnl|271|The "if the user's identity is confirmed in some way" part of Twitter as WP:RS|32}}
{{rsnl|273|Most of reaction is tweet|33}}
{{rsnl|274|Teller|34}}
{{rsnl|280|Twitter posts and John Nicolson|35}}
{{rsnl|289|Twitter account of the Ministry of Health of Poland|36}}
{{rsnl|290|Twitter as a source in a BLP|37}}
{{rsnl|302|Twitter|38}}
{{rsnl|346|Using an anonymous Twitter account that translates announcements by the Taliban as a source for a live situation map of the war in Afghanistan|39}}
{{rsnl|346|File/image sources|40}}
{{rsnl|347|Elon Musk's Tweets|41}}
{{rsnl|348|The @Suriyak Twitter account for occupation of various locations on the Syrian Civil War situation map|42}}
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Twitter is a social network. As a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]], it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a [[WP:EXPERTSOURCE|subject-matter expert]] or the tweet is used for an [[WP:ABOUTSELF|uncontroversial self-description]]. In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are [[Account verification|verified accounts]] or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]. Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to [[WP:BLPSPS|living persons]].
| {{/Uses|twitter.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="Unz"
| ''[[Unz Review]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:UNZ}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|356|The Unz Review|2021|rfc=y}}

{{rsnl|349|The_Unz_Review|1}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| The Unz Review was deprecated by [[WP:SNOW|snowball clause]] in the 2021 discussion. Editors cite racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content. The site's extensive archive of journal reprints includes many apparent [[WP:COPYLINK|copyright violations]].
| {{/Uses|unz.com|unz.org}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Urban_Dictionary"
| [[Urban Dictionary]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|24|Urban Dictionary|1}} {{rsnl|37|Urban Dictionary is/is not a Reliable Source.|2}} {{rsnl|293|Urban Dictionary|3}}
| {{/Last|2020|stale=n}}
| Urban Dictionary is considered generally unreliable, because it consists solely of [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]].
| {{/Uses|urbandictionary.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="U.S._News_&_World_Report"
| ''[[U.S. News & World Report]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|45|Using_US_News_and_World_Report_as_an_academic_authority.|1}} {{rsnl|120|U.S._News_and_World_Report_as_source_for_criticism|2}} {{rsnl|298|U.S. News|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is consensus that ''U.S. News & World Report'' is generally reliable.
| {{/Uses|usnews.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Us_Weekly"
| ''[[Us Weekly]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|10|accesshollywood – Reliable source?|1}} {{rsnl|112|US Weekly and People magazine|2}} {{rsnl|168|US Weekly|3}} {{rsnl|170|Celebrity sources and distinguishing tabloid (newspaper format) from tabloid journalism|4}} {{rsnl|238|Absence of evidence as evidence of absence|5}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of ''Us Weekly''. It is often considered less reliable than ''{{pslink|People}}'' magazine.
| {{/Uses|usmagazine.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="USA_Today"
| ''[[USA Today]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|9|USA Today|1}} {{rsnl|44|MLM, USAToday quoting a trade organisation in a lifestyle section|2}} {{rsnl|141|MMA reliability|3}} {{rsnl|238|USA Today article on a book|4}}
[[Talk:USA Today/Archive 1#Is USA Today centrist?|A]] [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5#USA Today|B]]
| {{/Last|2018}}
| There is consensus that ''USA Today'' is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust editorial process and its [[centrism|centrist]] alignment.
| {{/Uses|usatoday.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Vanity_Fair"
| ''[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:VANITYFAIR}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|18|Using a partially disputed Vanity Fair article as a source?|1}} {{rsnl|262|Use of blogs for sourcing height in BLPs|2}} {{rsnl|319|Vanity Fair partisanship|3}} {{rsnl||MEDRS required for amount of grant money received?|4}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| ''Vanity Fair'' is considered generally reliable, including for [[popular culture]] topics. Some editors say it is [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]].
| {{/Uses|vanityfair.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Variety"
| ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' {{/Shortcut|WP:VARIETY}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|2|Variety on Dragon Ball Z|1}} {{rsnl|20|Are Variety and The Hollywood Reporter reliable sources for film reviews?|2}} {{rsnl|29|Tucker Max and questions about 2 sources|3}} {{rsnl|160|imdb as a source for credits|4}} {{rsnl|207|Forbes article by credible contributor|5}}
| {{/Last|2016}}
| As an entertainment trade magazine, ''Variety'' is considered a reliable source in its field.
| {{/Uses|variety.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="VDARE"
| [[VDARE]]
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|254|RFC: VDARE|2018|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|271|VDARE|1}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| VDARE was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. Editors agree that it is generally unusable as a source, although there may be rare exceptions such as in identifying its writers in an [[WP:ABOUTSELF|about-self fashion]]. Such limited instances will only be under careful and guided ("filtered") discretion.
| {{/Uses|vdare.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Venezuelanalysis"
| [[Venezuelanalysis]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|262|RfC: Venezuelanalysis|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|55|Venezuelanalysis|1}}
<br />[[Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 19#Sources|A]] [[Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 29#Venezuelanalysis.com not WP:RS|B]]
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is consensus that Venezuelanalysis is generally unreliable. Some editors consider Venezuelanalysis a [[Bolivarian propaganda]] outlet, and most editors question its accuracy. Almost all editors describe the site as [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]], so its claims should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]].
| {{/Uses|venezuelanalysis.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="VentureBeat"
| [[VentureBeat]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|91|Venturebeat.com, aumag.org, uscops.com, and positivelyaware.com|1}} {{rsnl|105|VentureBeat|2}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 6#Venture Beat|A]] [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 12#Venturebeat/Gamesbeat|B]]
| {{/Last|2015}}
| VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games.
| {{/Uses|venturebeat.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Verge"
| data-sort-value="Verge" | ''[[The Verge]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|247|RfC about the reliability of The Verge as a source for use in articles relating to tech, science, culture, and cars|2018|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|259|Should The Verge be considered unreliable for topics involving computer hardware?|1}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is broad consensus that ''The Verge'' is a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. Some editors question the quality of ''The Verge''<nowiki />'s instructional content on [[computer hardware]]. ''See also: {{pslink|Vox}}, {{pslink|Polygon}}, {{pslink|New York}}''
| {{/Uses|theverge.com}}
|- class="s-b" id="Veterans_Today"
| ''[[Veterans Today]]''
| {{/Status|d|b=y}}
| {{rsnl|281|RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites.|2019|rfc=y}} {{sbll|December 2019|More disinformation sites|2019}}
{{rsnl|139|Press TV and Veterans Today RS for their contibutors|1}} {{rsnl|182|Veterans Today|2}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Due to persistent abuse, ''Veterans Today'' is on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used. ''Veterans Today'' was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishes [[fake news]] and [[antisemitism|antisemitic]] [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]]. The use of ''Veterans Today'' as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more [[WP:RS|reliable]]. ''Veterans Today'' should not be used for determining [[WP:N|notability]], or used as a [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary source]] in articles.
| {{/Uses|veteranstoday.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="VGChartz"
| [[VGChartz]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|277|RfC: VGChartz|2019|rfc=y}}
+10{{efn|See also these discussions of VGChartz:
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 18#VGCharts|A]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 35#Video Game sales charts|B]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 1#VG Chartz|C]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 38#VGChartz re-visited|D]]
[[Talk:VGChartz/Archive 1#lack of credibility|E]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 1#VGChartz|F]]
[[Talk:VGChartz/Archive 1#Just to be clear|G]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 55#VG Chartz|H]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 3#VGChartz|I]]
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 96#VGChartz Inquiry|J]]
}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| In the 2019 RfC, editors unanimously agreed that VGChartz is generally unreliable. The site consists mainly of news articles that qualify as [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]]. In addition, editors heavily criticize VGChartz for poor accuracy standards in its video game sales data, and its methodology page consists of wholly unverified claims.<ref>{{cite web|last=Carless|first=Simon|date=June 23, 2008|df=mdy|url=https://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18919|title=Analysis: What VGChartz Does (And Doesn't) Do For The Game Biz|work=[[Gamasutra]]|accessdate=October 3, 2014}}</ref> If sources that are more reliable publish video game sales data for certain regions (usually [[The NPD Group]], [[GfK Chart-Track|Chart-Track]], and/or [[Media Create]]), it is strongly advised that editors cite those sources instead.
| {{/Uses|vgchartz.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Vice_Media"
| {{anchor|VICE|Vice}} [[Vice Media]] {{small|(''[[Garage Magazine|Garage]]'', ''[[i-D]]'', [[Refinery29]], ''[[Vice (magazine)|Vice]]'', [[Vice News]], ''Motherboard'')}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|177|Reviews section of The Weight of Chains|1}} {{rsnl|178|Isha Foundation and Vice|2}} {{rsnl|189|Vice magazine usable?|3}} {{rsnl|250|Motherboard|4}} {{rsnl|269|Refinery29|5}} {{rsnl|335|Vice and Dazed|6}} {{rsnl|347|Vice on Bret Weinstein|7}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of [[Vice Media]] publications.
| {{/Uses|vice.com|refinery29.com|vicetv.com|sbs.com.au}}
|- class="s-gu" id="VoC"
| [[Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|329|Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation|1}} {{rsnl|362|victimsofcommunism.org|2}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is an American [[anti-communist]] think tank and [[WP:SPS|blog]], considered to be an unreliable source due to misinformation and a generally poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy.
| {{/Uses|victimsofcommunism.org}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Vogue"
| ''[[Vogue (magazine)|Vogue]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|30|Problematic source on Hak Ja Han|1}} {{rsnl|81|Sources with Quotes|2}} {{rsnl|83|Quote in News Article as a Source|3}} {{rsnl|237|It's time to talk about biography.com generally|4}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| ''Vogue'' is considered generally reliable. Potentially contentious statements made by ''Vogue'' interview subjects can be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]] to the individual.
| {{/Uses|vogue.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="Voltaire_Network"
| [[Voltaire Network]]
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|297|voltairenet.org|2020|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| The Voltaire Network is considered unreliable due to its affiliation with conspiracy theorist [[Thierry Meyssan]] and its republication of articles from [[#Centre for Research on Globalization|Global Research]]. Editors unanimously agreed to deprecate the Voltaire Network in the 2020 RfC.
| {{/Uses|voltairenet.org}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Vox"
| ''[[Vox (website)|Vox]]'' {{small|(''[[Recode]]'')}} {{/Shortcut|WP:RSPVOX}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|170|is quoting someone's calculations based on four year old outdated information allowed?|1}} {{rsnl|181|Huffington Post and Vox and WP:BLP|2}} {{rsnl|219|Vox.com and Huffington Post at Smith & Wesson M&P15|3}} {{rsnl|285|Vox article containing a factually wrong claim is used in an article|4}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| ''Vox'' is considered generally reliable. Some editors say that ''Vox'' is a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan source]] in the field of politics. ''See also: {{pslink|Polygon}}, {{pslink|The Verge}}, {{pslink|New York}} ''
| {{/Uses|vox.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Wall_Street_Journal"
| data-sort-value="Wall Street Journal" | ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' {{small|(''WSJ'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|48|Alleged Wall Street Journal Publication|1}} {{rsnl|80|Washington Wire by WSJ?|2}} {{rsnl|96|Wall Street Journal is usually bogus|3}} {{rsnl|180|Wall Street Journal "Saturday Essay"|4}} {{rsnl|273|Dubious report by the Wall Street Journal|5}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| Most editors consider ''The Wall Street Journal'' generally reliable for news. Use [[WP:NEWSBLOG]] to evaluate the newspaper's blogs, including Washington Wire. Use [[WP:RSOPINION]] for opinion pieces.
| {{/Uses|wsj.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Washington_Examiner"
| ''[[Washington Examiner]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|213|Reliability of the Washington Examiner|1}} {{rsnl|218|Washington Examiner|2}} {{rsnl|229|Erick Erickson and The Washington Examiner|3}} {{rsnl|192|Washington Examiner op-eds|4}} {{rsnl|253|Washington Examiner|5}} {{rsnl|271|Sources at Media bias in the United States for claims of censorship of conservative content|6}} {{rsnl|283|Newsbusters and The Washington Examiner as sources for facts in the lead of CNN|7}} {{rsnl|285|Washington Examiner on John McAfee|8}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of the ''Washington Examiner'', but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL|exceptional claims]]. Almost all editors consider the ''Washington Examiner'' a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan source]] and believe that statements from this publication should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. The ''Washington Examiner'' publishes [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion columns]], which should be handled with the appropriate guideline.
| {{/Uses|washingtonexaminer.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Washington_Post"
| data-sort-value="Washington Post" | ''[[The Washington Post]]'' {{small|(''WaPo'')}} {{/Shortcut|WP:WAPO}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| 17{{efn|See these discussions of ''The Washington Post'':
{{rsnl|8|Christopher Hitchens, "Time" magazine and "Washington Post" as RS|1}}
{{rsnl|72|A Washington Post Article...|2}}
{{rsnl|165|Washington Post blog at Tor (anonymity network)|3}}
{{rsnl|179|Volokh Conspiracy (now at washingtonpost.com)|4}}
{{rsnl|180|Times, Washington Post and Guardian Reliability regarding GamerGate|5}}
{{rsnl|180|Is "Speaking of Science" at the Washington Post a WP:NEWSBLOG?|6}}
{{rsnl|184|Cambridge University Press and Washington Post on Islamophobia in Steven Emerson article|7}}
{{rsnl|191|Americans for Prosperity funding proposed addition from Washington Post|8}}
{{rsnl|197|Gun show loophole (Rolling Stone & Washington Post)|9}}
{{rsnl|227|Erik Wemple of The Washington Post|10}}
{{rsnl|246|Formalizing the addition of the Washington Post to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources|11}}
{{rsnl|258|Washington Post editorial|12}}
{{rsnl|271|Washington Post article on LGBT rights|13}}
{{rsnl|301|Monkey Cage|14}}
{{rsnl|323|The reliability of an article in the Washington Post has been questioned|15}}
{{rsnl|334|Washington Post and CNN|16}}
{{rsnl|336|Washington Post have its rating downgraded like Fox News|17}}
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Most editors consider ''The Washington Post'' generally reliable. Some editors note that [[WP:NEWSBLOG]] should be used to evaluate blog posts on ''The Washington Post''<nowiki />'s website.
| {{/Uses|washingtonpost.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="The_Washington_Times"
| data-sort-value="Washington Times" | ''[[The Washington Times]]''
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|328|RfC: The Washington Times|2021|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|232|Washington Times|1}} {{rsnl|209|Is the Washington Times an acceptable source for statements of fact related to student protesters/black lives matter/Milo Yiannopoulos?|2}} {{rsnl|261|The Washington Times|3}} {{rsnl|285|The Washington Times|4}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''The Washington Times'' is a marginally reliable source for politics and science. Most editors agree that it is a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan]] source. Some editors noted a history of publishing inaccurate or false information, of being slow to issue retractions or corrections, and of sometimes only doing so under the threat of legal action; a considerable minority favored deprecation on these grounds. ''The Washington Times'' is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available. ''The Washington Times'' should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially about [[WP:BLP|living persons]]. A majority of editors regard ''The Washington Times'' as generally reliable for topics other than politics and science. Opinion columns are governed by [[WP:RSOPINION]] and [[WP:NEWSBLOG]]. Some editors observed that ''The Washington Times'' has a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] regarding the [[Unification movement]] and related topics.
| {{/Uses|washingtontimes.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Weather2Travel"
| Weather2Travel.com
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|123|Weather2travel.com|1}} {{rsnl|131|weather2travel|2}}
| {{/Last|2012}}
| Weather2Travel is a website operated by UK-based Global Support Limited. It expressly disclaims all content as indicative only and unfit to be relied upon. Some editors expressed concerns it may have a conflict of interest by way of some commercial ties.
| {{/Uses|weather2travel.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="The_Weekly_Standard"
| data-sort-value="Weekly Standard" | ''[[The Weekly Standard]]''
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|54|Is Weekly Standard a Reliable Source for Facts in a BLP?|1}} {{rsnl|149|Is the Weekly Standard a Reliable Source?|2}} {{rsnl|178|Weekly Standard redux|3}}
| {{/Last|2014}}
| ''The Weekly Standard'' is considered generally reliable, but much of their published content is [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion]] and should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]] as such. Most editors say this magazine is a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan source]].
| {{/Uses|weeklystandard.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="The_Western_Journal"
| data-sort-value="Western Journal" | ''[[The Western Journal]]''<br>{{small|(''Western Journalism'')}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|275|RfC: "The Western Journal" (September)|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|271|Western Journal|1}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus that ''The Western Journal'' is generally unreliable, but no consensus on whether ''The Western Journal'' should be deprecated. The publication's [[WP:SYNDICATED|syndicated content]] should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.
| {{/Uses|westernjournal.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="We_Got_This_Covered"
| We Got This Covered {{/Shortcut|WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|281|Omigosh, are Cheatsheet.com and WeGotThisCovered.com reliable?|1}} {{rsnl|290|WeGotThisCovered.com is unreliable|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| We Got This Covered is generally unreliable due to the lack of its editoral oversight, publication of unsubstantiated or false rumors, speculations claiming as fact, and contributions accepting from non-staff contributors.
| {{/Uses|wegotthiscovered.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="WhatCulture"
| [[WhatCulture]] {{/Shortcut|WP:WHATCULTURE}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|171|WhatCulture|1}} {{rsnl|296|WhatCulture|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| WhatCulture is considered generally unreliable. Contributors "do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications" and editors note a poor record of fact checking. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Unreliable sources|It is listed as an unreliable source by WikiProject Professional wrestling]].
| {{/Uses|whatculture.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Who's_Who_(UK)"
| [[Who's Who (UK)|''Who's Who'' (UK)]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|53|Is Who's Who a reliable source?|1}} {{rsnl|89|Who's Who U.K.|2}} {{rsnl|257|Who's Who and UK politicians|3}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of ''Who's Who'' UK. It is a reference work with information mainly collected from the people concerned. Editors are divided on whether sufficient editorial control exists, and whether it is an [[WP:IS|independent source]]. It is generally considered more reliable than ''[[Marquis Who's Who]]'', which is published in the United States. ''See also: {{pslink|Marquis Who's Who}}.''
| {{/Uses|ukwhoswho.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="WhoSampled"
| [[WhoSampled]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|120|whosampled.com|1}} {{rsnl|206|WhoSampled|2}}
| {{/Last|2016}}
| WhoSampled is almost entirely composed of [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]], and is a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]].
| {{/Uses|whosampled.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Wikidata"
| [[Wikidata]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| [[File:Treffpunkt.svg|20px|alt=Request for comment|link=Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2]] [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2|2013]] [[File:Treffpunkt.svg|20px|alt=Request for comment|link=Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC#Discussion]] [[Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC#Discussion|2018]]
{{rsnl|187|Is Wikidata a 'reliable source' ?|1}} {{rsnl|242|WikiData source|2}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source (just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources). ''See also: {{pslink|Wikidata transcluded statements}}.''
| {{/Uses|wikidata.org}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Wikidata_transcluded_statements"
| [[Wikidata]] transcluded statements
| {{/Status|nc}}
| [[File:Treffpunkt.svg|20px|alt=Request for comment|link=Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2]] [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2|2013]] [[File:Treffpunkt.svg|20px|alt=Request for comment|link=Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC#Discussion]] [[Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC#Discussion|2018]]
{{rsnl|187|Is Wikidata a 'reliable source' ?|1}} {{rsnl|242|WikiData source|2}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| Uniquely among WMF sites, Wikidata's statements can be directly transcluded into articles; this is usually done to provide external links or infobox data. For example, more than two million external links from Wikidata are shown through the {{tl|Authority control}} template. There has been controversy over the use of Wikidata in the English Wikipedia due to its infancy, its vandalism issues and its sourcing. While there is no consensus on whether information from Wikidata should be used at all, there is general agreement that any Wikidata statements transcluded need to be just as – or more – reliable compared to Wikipedia content. As such, [[Module:WikidataIB]] and some related modules and templates filter unsourced Wikidata statements by default; however, other modules and templates, such as [[Module:Wikidata]], do not. ''See also: {{pslink|Wikidata}} (direct citations).''
| style="text-align: center;" | —
|- class="s-gu" id="WikiLeaks"
| {{anchor|AnchorWikileaks}}[[WikiLeaks]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|348|RfC: WikiLeaks|2021|rfc=y}}
14{{efn|See these discussions of WikiLeaks:
{{rsnl|45|Wikileaks|1}}
{{rsnl|47|Wikileaks?|2}}
{{rsnl|78|Wikileaks Homeland Security Memo|3}}
{{rsnl|132|WikiLeaks Cablegate documents|4}}
{{rsnl|150|Is WikiLeaks a RS or OR?|5}}
{{rsnl|158|WikiLeaks webpage as reliable source on exiled persons|6}}
{{rsnl|177|Ali Khamenei wikileaks as a source|7}}
{{rsnl|187|Wikileaks source?|8}}
{{rsnl|206|Wikileaks|9}}
{{rsnl|239|Wikileaks|10}}
{{rsnl|246|Is a document from Wikileaks reliable?|11}}
{{rsnl|288|Wikileaks|12}}
{{rsnl|288|WikiLeaks cable|13}}
{{rsnl|339|US diplomatic cables on Wikileaks|14}}
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| WikiLeaks is a repository of [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] documents [[News leak|leaked]] by [[anonymous sources]]. No consensus exists on its reliability. Some editors questioned the applicability of reliability ratings to Wikileaks. Some editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the [[WP:V|verifiability policy]], because WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate them, and there are concerns regarding whether the documents are genuine or tampered. It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]], but only if it is discussed by a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. However, linking to material that violates copyright is prohibited by [[WP:COPYLINK]].
| {{/Uses|wikileaks.org}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Wikinews"
| [[Wikinews]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|3|Wikinews|1}} {{rsnl|4|Wikinews redux|2}} {{rsnl|5|Wikinews: Please post definite answer|3}} {{rsnl|20|Wikinews being used as a source for UFO sightings|4}} {{rsnl|27|Wikinews|5}} {{rsnl|40|Wikinews as a reference|6}} {{rsnl|125|Wikinews|7}} {{rsnl|126|Wikinews is reliable.|8}}
| {{/Last|2012|stale=n}}
| Most editors believe that Wikinews articles do not meet Wikipedia's [[WP:V|verifiability standards]]. As Wikinews does not enforce a strong editorial policy, many editors consider the site equivalent to a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]], which is generally unreliable.
| {{/Uses|wikinews.org}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Wikipedia"
| [[Wikipedia]] {{small|(''[[The Signpost]]'')}}{{/Shortcut|WP:RSPWP}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| +21{{efn|See these discussions of Wikipedia:
{{rsnl|5|Wikipedia/Wikinews research arm|1}}
{{rsnl|13|Is Wikipedia a reliable source?|2}}
{{rsnl|18|Polish Wikipedia useable as a source|3}}
{{rsnl|26|Is ArbCom a reliable source?|4}}
{{rsnl|37|Using Wikipedia software notices to confirm that high traffic to Michael Jackson's article caused server upsets|5}}
{{rsnl|96|Image of Wikipedia in series' opening|6}}
{{rsnl|107|References to non-English Wikipedias|7}}
{{rsnl|113|List of books that plagiarize from Wikipedia|8}}
{{rsnl|146|Is Wikipedia a reliable source?|9}}
{{rsnl|154|Can Wikipedia be used as a reference when describing its own actions?|10}}
{{rsnl|158|Use of wikipedia talk page as primary source on Chelsea Manning|11}}
{{rsnl|166|Signpost as source for Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia|12}}
{{rsnl|178|Wikipedia will eat itself?|13}}
{{rsnl|193|Stupid Wikipedia mirrors and Wikipedia Books!!!|14}}
{{rsnl|198|Linking to a Wikipedia Article|15}}
{{rsnl|211|A Wikipedia RfA|16}}
{{rsnl|221|Changing a bizarre Wiki rule on sourcing|17}}
{{rsnl|244|Wikipedia as a self-source.|18}}
{{rsnl|290|Is The Signpost a RS?|19}}
{{rsnl|339|Wikipedia fork|20}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 2#Everything2.com, Wikia, Wikipedia|A]]
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| [[WP:WINARS|Wikipedia is not a reliable source]] because [[WP:UGC|open wiki]]s are [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]]. This includes articles, non-article pages, ''[[The Signpost]]'', non-English Wikipedias, [[Wikipedia:Books|Wikipedia Books]], and [[WP:MIRROR|Wikipedia mirrors]]; see [[WP:CIRCULAR]] for guidance.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/wikipedia-explained-what-is-it-trustworthy-how-work-wikimedia-2030-a8213446.html|title=Can we trust Wikipedia? 1.4 billion people can't be wrong|date=February 19, 2018|website=The Independent|accessdate=February 22, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190211185638/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/wikipedia-explained-what-is-it-trustworthy-how-work-wikimedia-2030-a8213446.html|archive-date=February 11, 2019|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Occasionally, inexperienced editors may unintentionally cite the Wikipedia article about a publication instead of the publication itself; in these cases, fix the citation instead of removing it. Although citing Wikipedia as a source is against policy, content can be copied between articles with proper attribution; see [[WP:COPYWITHIN]] for instructions.
| {{/Uses|wikipedia.org}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Wired"
| ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' {{small|(''[[Wired UK]]'')}}
| {{/Status|gr}}
| +10{{efn|See these discussions of ''Wired'':
{{rsnl|3|leaked documents?|1}}
{{rsnl|79|Wired.com|2}}
{{rsnl|103|wired.com and whosnews.usaweekend.com|3}}
{{rsnl|109|Wired 1998|4}}
{{rsnl|199|Wired magazine story and insistence by editors to follow apparent misrepresentation|5}}
{{rsnl|200|Wired re: time travel|6}}
{{rsnl|207|Orangecounty.com|7}}
{{rsnl|220|Survey|8}}
{{rsnl|251|Sequential Tart|9}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 4#Wired|A]]
}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| ''Wired'' magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology.
| {{/Uses|wired.com|wired.co.uk}}
|- class="s-gu" id="WordPress.com"
| [[WordPress.com]]
| {{/Status|gu}}
| 15{{efn|See these discussions of WordPress.com:
{{rsnl|9|justice4lebanon.wordpress.com|1}}
{{rsnl|36|Wordpress|2}}
{{rsnl|45|A Wordpress.com interview as a source|3}}
{{rsnl|51|wordpress.com|4}}
{{rsnl|53|counterjihadeuropa.wordpress|5}}
{{rsnl|72|wordpress|6}}
{{rsnl|124|Three Irish wordpress sources|7}}
{{rsnl|162|http://tiananmenstremendousachievements.wordpress.com/|8}}
{{rsnl|169|Are these two Wordpress-hosted blog posts reliable sources for Speyer wine bottle?|9}}
{{rsnl|174|http://tbjoshuawatch.wordpress.com/|10}}
{{rsnl|218|Box Office Bangladesh (boxofficebangladesh.wordpress.com)|11}}
{{rsnl|239|If a reliable source relies solely on a Wordpress blog which is unreliable ...|12}}
{{rsnl|249|kannadamoviesinfo.wordpress.com|13}}
{{rsnl|288|Birthday Cake for Breakfast|14}}
{{rsnl|339|Wordpress on critical reception from writer already quoted in page|15}}
}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| WordPress.com is a [[WP:BLOGS|blog]] hosting service that runs on the [[WordPress]] software. As a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]], it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a [[WP:EXPERTSOURCE|subject-matter expert]] or the blog is used for [[WP:ABOUTSELF|uncontroversial self-descriptions]]. WordPress.com should never be used for claims related to [[WP:BLPSPS|living persons]]; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated.
| {{/Uses|wordpress.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="WorldNetDaily"
| ''[[WorldNetDaily]]'' {{small|(''WND'')}}{{/Shortcut|WP:WND}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|253|RfC: WorldNetDaily|2018|rfc=y}}
16{{efn|See also these discussions of ''WorldNetDaily'':
{{rsnl|4|FrontPage Magazine and WorldNetDaily|1}}
{{rsnl|22|WorldNetDaily|2}}
{{rsnl|38|World Net Daily|3}}
{{rsnl|45|Open source intelligence websites as reliable sources – WorldNetDaily|4}}
{{rsnl|49|Statement in book published by WND Books--Purpose: to reflect that author warned of risk before event happened|5}}
{{rsnl|52|WorldNetDaily|6}}
{{rsnl|59|WorldNetDaily books|7}}
{{rsnl|62|WORLD NET DAILY final answer needed|8}}
{{rsnl|80|World Net Daily – RS citation?|9}}
{{rsnl|113|WND (WorldNetDaily?, WorldNetWeekly?, not sure what the acronym stands for)|10}}
{{rsnl|188|Is WND.com RS|11}}
{{rsnl|200|Are Xinhau and WND reliable sources for information on Islamism in the Gaza Strip|12}}
{{rsnl|229|wnd.com (i.e. World Net Daily) and citizenwells.net (i.e. Citizen News) for use in Suicide of Vince Foster (third listing)|13}}
{{rsnl|251|Billy Graham interview on WorldNetDaily|14}}
{{rsnl|252|Opinions sourced to WorldNetDaily|15}}
{{rsnl|252|Is an article in World Net Daily reliable source?|16}}
}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| ''WorldNetDaily'' was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. There is clear consensus that ''WorldNetDaily'' is not a reliable source, and that it should not be used because of its particularly poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The website is known for promoting falsehoods and [[conspiracy theories]]. Most editors consider ''WorldNetDaily'' a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan source]]. ''WorldNetDaily''<nowiki />'s [[WP:SYNDICATED|syndicated content]] should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher.
| {{/Uses|wnd.com|worldnetdaily.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Worldometer"
| [[Worldometer]] {{small|(Worldometers)}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|287|https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries|1}} {{rsnl|288|worldometers.info coronavirus statistics|2}} {{rsnl|299|Worldometers.info|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Worldometer is a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]] and editors have questioned its accuracy and methodology. It is [[Template:Current COVID-19 Project Consensus|disallowed]] by [[WP:COVID-19|WikiProject COVID-19]] as a source for statistics on the [[COVID-19 pandemic]] and is considered generally unreliable for other topics.
| {{/Uses|worldometers.info}}
|- class="s-nc" id="World Socialist Web Site"
| [[World Socialist Web Site]] (WSWS) {{/Shortcut|WP:WSWS}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|15|Reliability of WSWS|1}} {{rsnl|24|IsraelInsider|2}} {{rsnl|24|Valkyrie|3}} {{rsnl|67|Boxun.com|4}} {{rsnl|145|Biased Editing of Kevyn Orr biography?|5}} {{rsnl|194|World Socialist Web Site|6}} {{rsnl|292|The 1619 Project and the World Socialist Web Site|7}} {{rsnl|341|World Socialist Web Site denying Uyghur Genocide|8}} {{rsnl|353|World Socialist Web Site|9}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| The World Socialist Web Site is the online news and information publication of the [[International Committee of the Fourth International]], a [[Trotskyist]] political organisation. Most editors consider it to be reliable for the [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]] [[WP:RSOPINION|opinions]] of its authors. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for factual reporting. If used, it must be evaluated for [[WP:UNDUE|due weight]] as it is an [[WP:BIASED|opinionated source]]. Some editors suggest that it may be more reliable for news related to labor issues.
| {{/Uses|wsws.org}}
|- class="s-nc" id="XBIZ"
| data-sort-value="XBIZ"| [[XBIZ]]
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|349|RfC: Adult industry sources|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| ''XBIZ'' is considered generally reliable for the adult industry. However, it publishes press releases/sponsored content without clearly delineating the distinction between their own journalism and the promotional content of others. Thus, editors should take care that the source is not used for content obviously or likely to be promotional.
| {{/Uses|xbiz.com}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Xinhua_News_Agency"
| [[Xinhua News Agency]] {{small|(New China News Agency)}} {{/Shortcut|WP:XINHUA}}
| {{/Status|nc}}
| {{rsnl|312|RfC: Xinhua News Agency|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|38|Is Xinhua News reliable?|1}} {{rsnl|288|Xinhua News Agency|2}} {{rsnl|341|Xinhua|3}}
| {{/Last|2021}}
| Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of [[WP:IS|editorial independence]]. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of [[WP:REDFLAG|extraordinary claims]] on controversial subjects or [[WP:BLP|biographies of living people]]. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use [[WP:INTEXT|inline attribution]] if you must use Xinhua.
| {{/Uses|xinhuanet.com|news.cn}}
|- class="s-gu" id="YouTube"
| [[YouTube]] {{/Shortcut|WP:RSPYT}}
| {{/Status|gu}}
| {{rsnl|307|RfC: YouTube|2020|rfc=y}}
+21{{efn|See also these discussions of YouTube:
{{rsnl|19|YouTube|1}}
{{rsnl|79|YouTube used as source on Deadwood (TV series)|2}}
{{rsnl|122|Youtube again|3}}
{{rsnl|117|When is YouTube a good source?|4}}
{{rsnl|212|Youtube video used as a source in the lead section of the Blockchain (database) article.|5}}
{{rsnl|256|YouTube official music video as a reference for that video|6}}
{{rsnl|259|Is a YouTube video sufficient to call James Allsup a holocaust denier|7}}
{{rsnl|267|Youtube – ABCs of attraction channel|8}}
{{rsnl|268|Fan created content on YouTube|9}}
{{rsnl|286|USS Nimitz UFO incident youtube interviews of witnesses|10}}
{{rsnl|288|YouTube video and COVID-19|11}}
{{rsnl|289|Youtube|12}}
{{rsnl|291|Official meeting videos posted to YouTube|13}}
{{rsnl|293|Citing individual Youtube reviews and Know Your Meme|14}}
{{rsnl|293|EEVblog|15}}
{{rsnl|293|Allow a small number of YouTube channels as reliable sources?|16}}
{{rsnl|296|Can YouTube video (having more than 100K views) be used as references for notability|17}}
{{rsnl|296|Patric Cagle and Broken People YouTube sources, and groundlings.com|18}}
{{rsnl|300|Workshopping a YouTube RfC|19}}
{{rsnl|301|YouTube personality subscriber and viewing figures in BLPs|20}}
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 10#YouTube add?|A]]
}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, [[WP:SPS|self-published]], and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to [[WP:COPYLINK]]. See also [[WP:YOUTUBE]] and [[WP:VIDEOLINK]].
| {{/Uses|youtube.com}}
|- class="s-gr" id="ZDNet"
| [[ZDNet]]
| {{/Status|gr}}
| {{rsnl|40|Download pages as source for notability?|1}} {{rsnl|55|Reliability of Virgin Media|2}} {{rsnl|109|Daily Caller as source of opinion refuting a technical white paper + secondary sources|3}} {{rsnl|158|http://desktoplinuxreviews.com and http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk|4}} {{rsnl|181|Reliable sources for identifying malware|5}} {{rsnl|197|TorrentFreak, again|6}} {{rsnl|239|Tweet as an RS|7}}
| {{/Last|2018}}
| ZDNet is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles.
| {{/Uses|zdnet.com}}
|- class="s-d" id="Zero_Hedge"
| [[Zero Hedge]] {{small|(ZH)}}{{/Shortcut|WP:ZEROHEDGE}}
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl|302|RfC: Zero Hedge|2020|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|199|ZeroHedge Blog post by "Tyler Durden"|1}} {{rsnl|238|Zero Hedge|2}} {{rsnl|259|rate "Zero Hedge"|3}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Zero Hedge was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its propagation of [[conspiracy theories]]. It is a [[WP:BLOGS|self-published blog]] that is [[WP:BIASED|biased or opinionated]].
| {{/Uses|zerohedge.com}}
|- class="s-b" id="ZoomInfo"
| [[ZoomInfo]]
| {{/Status|gu|b=y}}
| {{sbll|January 2020|Zoominfo.com|2020}}
{{rsnl|198|Linkedin / Zoolink|1}} {{rsnl|283|zoominfo|2}}
| {{/Last|2020}}
| Due to persistent abuse, ZoomInfo is currently on the [[WP:SPB|Wikipedia spam blacklist]], and links must be [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|whitelisted]] before they can be used.
| {{/Uses|zoominfo.com}}
|}

== Categories ==
=== Self-published peerage websites ===
The following [[WP:SPS|self-published]] [[peerage]] websites have been deprecated in requests for comment:
{{div col}}
* {{duses|almanach.be}}
* {{duses|almanachdegotha.org}}
* {{duses|angelfire.com/realm/gotha}}
* {{duses|chivalricorders.org}}
* {{duses|cracroftspeerage.co.uk}}
* {{duses|englishmonarchs.co.uk}}
* {{duses|jacobite.ca}}
* {{duses|royalark.net}}
* {{duses|thepeerage.com}}
* {{duses|worldstatesmen.org}}
{{div col end}}

See {{slink||Peerage websites}} for the corresponding entry.

=== State-sponsored fake news sites ===
A limited number of sites are identified by credible sources (e.g. the EU's anti-disinformation [https://euvsdisinfo.eu East Stratcom Task Force]) as disseminators of fake news. Many of these are state-sponsored. These sites are considered unreliable and should be blacklisted when identified. See {{section link|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281|RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites.}}
{{div col}}
* {{duses|dan-news.info}}
* {{duses|news-front.info}}
* {{duses|rusdialog.ru}}
* {{duses|southfront.org}}
* {{duses|topwar.ru}}
* {{duses|ukraina.ru}}
* {{duses|veteransnewsnow.com}}
{{div col end}}

=== Student media ===
{{shortcut|WP:RSSM}}
Reputable student media outlets, such as ''[[The Harvard Crimson]]'', are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community.<ref name="CrimsonStatue">{{cite web |title=Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 134 |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_134#The_Harvard_Crimson_at_John_Harvard_statue |website=Wikipedia |accessdate=22 April 2020 |language=en |date=23 July 2017}}</ref><ref name="IowaState">{{cite news |title=Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288 |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_288#God's_Not_Dead |accessdate=22 April 2020 |work=Wikipedia |date=21 April 2020 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="StudentNews">{{cite web |title=Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46 |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_46#Are_student-run_college_newspapers_considered_reliable_sources? |website=Wikipedia |language=en |date=13 February 2020}}</ref> They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available.<ref name="IowaState"/> However, given their local audience, student media may be challenged or discounted during notability discussions about topics related to home institutions. A topic which can be sourced exclusively to student media, with no evidence of wider coverage in mass market general interest media, is not likely to be viewed as notable.

== See also ==
{{div col}}
* [[Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites|External links/Perennial websites]], a list of websites used as external links
* [[List of fake news websites|Fake news websites]], a list of websites that intentionally publish hoaxes
* [[Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources|Neutrality of sources]], an essay on the use of reliable, but non-neutral, sources
* [[Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide|New page patrol source guide]], a list of sources organized by reliability, region, and topic
* [[Newspaper of record]], newspapers whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative
* [[Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources|Potentially unreliable sources]], a list of questionable sources
* [[List of satirical news websites|Satirical news websites]], a list of websites that publish humorous fake news stories
* ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1|The Wikipedia CiteWatch]]'', a bot-compiled list of potentially problematic sources, ranked by frequency of use
* [[WP:UPSD|Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector]], a user script designed to detect unreliable sources
{{div col end}}

===Topic-specific pages===
{{div col}}
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Africa Sources List|WikiProject Africa/Africa Sources list]], a list of African sources
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources|WikiProject Albums/Sources]], a list of sources about music
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources|WikiProject Video games/Sources]], a list of sources about video games
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources]]
{{div col end}}

===Templates and categories===
{{div col}}
* {{tl|RSP entry}}
* {{tl|Deprecated inline}}
* [[:Category:All articles with deprecated sources]]

{{div col end}}

== Notes ==
{{notelist}}

== References ==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* [[:Meta:Cite Unseen]], a user script that helps readers quickly evaluate the sources used in a given English Wikipedia article
* [//cse.google.com/cse?cx=007070770218907550030:2te8fbobqno Google custom search of generally reliable sources listed on this page]
* [//cse.google.com/cse?cx=003516479746865699832:leawcwkqifq Google custom search for generally reliable sources for video games]

[[Category:Wikipedia culture]]
[[Category:WikiProject lists of online reliable sources]]
[[Category:Wikipedia perennial sources]]