Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

The reliability of a source greatly affects what information it can be used to support, or whether it should be used at all.

↓ Jump to the list of frequently discussed sources. ↓

The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whose 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 reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on Wikipedia.

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. 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.

How to use this list

Refer to the 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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment (RfCs). This list indexes discussions that reflect community consensus, and is intended as a useful summary.

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 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 sponsored content, because while it is usually unreliable as a source, it is designed to appear otherwise.

Consider the type of content being referenced, alongside the reliability of the sources cited. Mundane, uncontroversial claims can be supported by lightweight sources, while information related to biomedicine and living persons typically require the most weighty ones.

What if my source is not here?

If your source is not listed here, it only means that it has not been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it is so obviously reliable, or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. It could mean that the source covers a niche topic, or that it simply fell through the cracks. If you're concerned about any source being used on Wikipedia, you should review the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), following the instructions at the top of that page, where you can "Search the noticeboard archives":

If you do not find what you're looking for, please start a discussion about it there. That is, after all, how the entries on this list got here to begin with.

You can also find a much longer list of previously discussed sources on various topics at Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide.

A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability has not been the subject of serious questioning yet. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

How to improve this list

Consensus can change. If 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 request for comment (RfC) at the 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 disruptive and a type of forum shopping.

If you feel that this list inadequately summarizes the content of the linked discussions, please help to improve it, or start a discussion on the talk page, especially 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

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 request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the 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.

Instructions

Any editor may improve this list. Please refer to the instructions for details, and ask for help on the talk page if you get stuck.

Legend

•    Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors show consensus that the source is 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 weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments that entirely exclude such a source 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 (e.g. a well-established news organization would be 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 exceptional claim, or a different standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP) for the statement in question.
•    No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable 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.
•    Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a 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 uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable.
•    Deprecated: There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred. An edit filter, 869 (hist · log), may be in place to 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 tagged.
•    Blacklisted: Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of external link spamming, the source is registered on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. Edits that attempt to add this source are automatically prevented on a technical level, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the spam whitelist.
• Auto-reverted: The source is listed on User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. XLinkBot automatically reverts links to the source that are added by unregistered users and accounts under seven days old. This behavior is subject to restrictions, which are described in the lists themselves. Refer to the Notes column for additional exceptions.
• Edit-filtered: An edit filter, 869 (hist · log), is in place to 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 tagged.
• Request for comment: The linked discussion is an uninterrupted request for comment on the reliable sources noticeboard or another centralized venue suitable for determining the source's 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.
• Stale discussions: The source has not been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard for four calendar years, and the consensus may have changed since the most recent discussion. However, sources that are considered generally unreliable for being self-published or presenting 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.
• Discussion in progress: The source is currently being discussed on the 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.
• 📌 Shortcut: Abbreviated wikilink to the list entry for the source.

Sources

Note: If you add/remove a source in the "generally unreliable", "deprecated" or "blacklisted" categories, please update WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP/GENERAL § WP:RSP, or leave a note at Wikipedia talk:CITEWATCH if you need help.

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
112 Ukraine		2019  2020  2020 1 A B	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. 112 Ukraine closed in 2021.	1   2
ABC News (United States)		1 2	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 other publications of the same name.	1   2
Academic repositories WP:ACADREP 📌 WP:ACADEMIA.EDU 📌 WP:RGATE 📌 WP:ZENODO 📌		16	2024	General repositories like Academia.edu, HAL Open Archives, ResearchGate, Semantic Scholar, and Zenodo host academic papers, conference proceedings, book chapters, preprints, technical reports, etc. No filters exist for quality, and will host several unreviewed preprints, retracted papers not marked as such, unreviewed manuscripts, and even papers from predatory journals. Determine the original source of what is being cited to establish reliability. When possible, cite the original source in preference to the repository.	1   2   3
Ad Fontes Media WP:ADFONTES 📌		1 2 3 4 5	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 self-published source and have questioned its methodology.	1
Advameg (City-Data)		2019  2019  2019 +14	2019	Advameg operates content farms, including City-Data, that use scraped or improperly licensed content. These sites frequently republish content from Gale's encyclopedias; many editors can obtain access to Gale through The Wikipedia Library free of charge. Advameg's sites are on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. WP:COPYLINK prohibits linking to copyright violations.	1   2   +43
The Age		2021	2021	The Age is a newspaper based in Melbourne, Australia. There is consensus that it is generally reliable.	1
Agence France-Presse (AFP)		1 2 3	2021	Agence France-Presse is a news agency. There is consensus that Agence France-Presse is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from Agence France-Presse that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.	1
Al Jazeera WP:ALJAZEERA 📌		+13	2024	Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-funded news organization that is considered generally reliable. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English to be more reliable than Al Jazeera Arabic. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly Al Jazeera Arabic, is a partisan source on the Arab–Israeli conflict and on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest. Al Jazeera's live blogs should be treated with caution, per the policy on news blogs. Note that the domain name "aljazeera.com" only started hosting Al Jazeera English content in 2011; links to aljazeera.com prior to 2011 pointed to the unaffiliated Al Jazeera Magazine.	1   2
Al Mayadeen WP:ALMAYADEEN 📌		2023  2023  2023	2023	Al Mayadeen is a Lebanese pan-Arabist news channel. It was deprecated in a 2023 RFC. Some editors believe it publishes lies or misrepresents sources, some describe it as propaganda.	1
Alexa Internet		2022 1 2 3 A	2022	Alexa Internet was a web traffic analysis company owned by Amazon and discontinued as of May 2022. There is no consensus on the reliability of Alexa Internet's website rankings. According to Alexa Internet, rankings of low-traffic websites are less reliable than rankings of high-traffic websites, and rankings of 100,000 and above are unreliable. A March 2022 RfC found no consensus on whether citations of Alexa Internet should be removed now that the service is defunct. Due to their instability, Alexa rankings should be excluded from infoboxes.	1
AllSides WP:ALLSIDES 📌		2022 1 2 3 4 5 6	2023	In a 2022 RfC, editors found no consensus on the reliability of AllSides as a whole. A significant minority of users noted that AllSides has been referenced in reliable sources as an accurate source for media bias ratings, while another significant minority argued that its methodology, which is partly based on the opinions of users, makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia. There is general consensus that reliability varies among the website's articles and should be determined on a case-by-case basis; while the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts, others depend on blind user surveys that some editors consider opinionated and less reliable.	1
AlterNet		1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is consensus that AlterNet is generally unreliable. Editors consider AlterNet a partisan source, and its statements should be attributed. AlterNet's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher.	1
Amazon WP:RSPAMAZON 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2021	User reviews on Amazon are anonymous, 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.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
The American Conservative (TAC)		2019  2020  2021 1 2	2023	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 opinions sourced to it must always be accompanied with in-text attribution.	1
Amnesty International (Amnesty, AI)		2022 1 2 3	2023	Amnesty International is a human rights advocacy organisation. There is consensus that Amnesty International is generally reliable for facts. Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Amnesty and in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion.	1
Anadolu Agency (general topics) (AA) WP:ANADOLU 📌		2019 1 2	2023	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-run status. See also: Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics).	1   2
Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics) (AA)		2019	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 (general topics).	1   2
Ancestry.com WP:ANCESTRY 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	Ancestry.com is a genealogy site that hosts a database of primary source documents including marriage and census records. Some of these sources may be usable under WP:PRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred; further, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. Ancestry.com also hosts user-generated content, which is unreliable.	1
ANNA News (Abkhazian Network News Agency, Analytical Network News Agency)		2022  2022  2022 1	2022	ANNA News was deprecated in the 2022 RfC. It is a pro-Kremlin news agency that has been described as propaganda and has published fabricated information.	1
Answers.com (WikiAnswers)		1 2 3 4	2010	Answers.com (previously known as WikiAnswers) is a Q&A site that incorporates user-generated content. In the past, Answers.com republished excerpts and summaries of tertiary sources, including D&B Hoovers, 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 Wikipedia mirror; using republished Wikipedia content is considered circular sourcing.	1
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (excluding the Israel/Palestine conflict and antisemitism) WP:RSPADL 📌 WP:ADLHSD 📌		2020  2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2024	There is consensus that outside of the topic of the Israel/Palestine conflict, the 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. In the 2024 RfC, there was rough consensus that the hate symbol database is reliable for the existence of a symbol and for straightforward facts about it, but not reliable for more complex details, such as symbols' history. In-text attribution to the ADL may be advisable when it is cited in such cases.	1   2
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (antisemitism, excluding Israel or Zionism) WP:ADLAS 📌		2020  2024 1	2024	The ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned, and the reliability is a case-by-case matter. There is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL as antisemitic should be attributed. The ADL has also demonstrated a habit of conflating criticism of the Israeli government's actions with antisemitism.	1
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (Israel/Palestine conflict, including related antisemitism) WP:ADLPIA 📌 WP:ADLIPA 📌		2024 1	2024	There is consensus that the ADL is a generally unreliable source for the Israel/Palestine conflict, due to significant evidence that the ADL acts as a pro-Israeli advocacy group and has repeatedly published false and misleading statements as fact, un-retracted, regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. The general unreliability of the ADL extends to the intersection of the topics of antisemitism and the Israel/Palestine conflict.	1
Antiwar.com		1 2 3 4	2011	There is consensus that Antiwar.com is generally unreliable. Editors consider Antiwar.com to be biased or opinionated.	1   2
Aon		2022 1	2022	In a 2022 RfC, there was consensus that Aon is generally reliable for weather-related articles. Editors pointed out that Aon often provides data not found in other sources, and care should be taken when using the source as it may be providing a different estimate than other sources, e.g. total economic damages, rather than property damage.	1
Apple Daily		2020 1	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. Editors with access to Dow Jones Factiva can access articles published by them in print between 2012 January 1 and 2018 March 15; simplified Chinese has source code APPLDS and traditional is APPLOT.	1
Arab News		2020 1 2 3 4	2021	There is consensus that Arab News is a usable source for topics unrelated to the Saudi Arabian 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 biased and non-independent for Saudi Arabian politics, and recommend attribution for its coverage in this area. Some editors consider Arab News unreliable for matters related to the Saudi Arabian government.	1
Army Recognition WP:ARMYRECOGNITION 📌		1 2	2021	The website reproduces press release material without any original reportage. In at least one example it has copied content without attribution from other sources. Editors allege that Army Recognition operates on a pay-for-coverage basis, providing "online marketing and advertising solutions" for the defense industry. This model may raise questions about the impartiality and independence of its content.	1   1
Ars Technica		1 2 3	2022	Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles.	1   2
Asian News International (ANI) WP:RSPANI 📌		2021	2021	Asian News International is an Indian news agency. For general reporting, Asian News International is considered to be between marginally reliable and generally unreliable, with consensus that it is biased and that it should be 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 questionable and generally unreliable due to its reported dissemination of pro-government propaganda.	1
AskMen		1 2 3 4 5 6	2020	There is no consensus on the reliability of AskMen. See also: IGN.	1
Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA, Pew–Templeton Global Religious Futures) WP:THEARDA 📌 WP:GORDONCONWELL 📌 WP:GLOBALRELIGIOUSFUTURES 📌		2022 1 2	2022	No consensus on reliability; rough consensus to use the sources with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources.	1   1   1   1   1
Associated Press (AP)		11	2024	The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.	1   2
The Atlantic (The Atlantic Monthly)		1 2 3 4 5	2024	The Atlantic is considered generally reliable. Editors should beware that The Atlantic does not always clearly delineate between reporting and opinion content; opinion pieces, including all articles in the "Ideas" column (theatlantic.com/ideas/), are governed by WP:RSOPINION.	1
Atlas Obscura "places" articles WP:AOPLACES 📌		1 2 3 4	2023	Atlas Obscura's "places" articles are user-generated and user-editable with minimal oversight, and the site's terms of use includes disclaimers about user submissions. Many of the "places" articles cite Wikipedia as a source of their information or otherwise lack clear or reliable sourcing. These articles should generally not be referenced on Wikipedia.	1
Atlas Obscura "articles" articles WP:AOARTICLES 📌		1 2 3 4	2023	Atlas Obscura's "articles" articles are professionally authored with editor oversight, and generally reliable. However, other areas of the site operate as a commercial travel service vendor, and the site hosts user-generated content in its "places" articles (see WP:AOPLACES)	1
The Australian		1 2 3	2024	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.	1
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)		2021	2021	There is consensus that use of Australian Strategic Policy Institute should be evaluated for due weight and accompanied with in text attribution when used. Editors consider the Australian Strategic Policy Institute to be a 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.	1
The A.V. Club		1 2 3 4 A	2023	The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews. There is consensus that AI-generated articles are generally unreliable; The A.V. Club's parent company, G/O Media, began releasing such pieces in July 2023, usually under the byline "The A.V. Club Bot".	1
AVN (Adult Video News, AVN Magazine)		2021	2021	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).	1
Axios		1 2	2020	There is consensus that Axios is generally reliable. Some editors consider Axios to be a biased or opinionated source. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.	1
Baidu Baike WP:BAIDUBAIKE 📌		2020  2021  2024  2020  2024 1 2 3 4	2020	Baidu Baike was deprecated in the 2020 RfC as it is similar to an open wiki, which is a type of 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.	1   2   3   4
Ballotpedia WP:BALLOTPEDIA 📌		1 2 3	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 open wiki, but stopped accepting 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."	1
BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) WP:RSPBBC 📌		+21	2024	BBC is a British publicly funded broadcaster. It 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 user-generated content (such as h2g2 and the BBC Domesday Project) and BBC publications with reduced editorial oversight (such as Collective). Statements of opinion should conform to the corresponding guideline.	1   2
Behind the Voice Actors (BTVA) WP:RSPBTVA 📌		2022 +10	2024	There is consensus that Behind the Voice Actors is generally reliable for roles credits. Editors agree that its coverage is routine and does not contribute to notability.	1
Bellingcat		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with attribution. Some editors consider Bellingcat a biased source.	1
bestgore.com		2021  2021	2021	There is consensus that bestgore.com is a shock site with no credibility. It is deprecated and has been added to the spam blacklist. bestgore.com was shut down in 2020; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.	1
Bild WP:BILD 📌		1 2 3	2020	Bild is a German tabloid that has been unfavourably compared to The Sun. A few editors consider the source usable in some cases.	1
Blaze Media (BlazeTV, Conservative Review, CRTV, TheBlaze)		1 2 3	2018	Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts. In some cases, it may be usable for attributed opinions. In 2018, TheBlaze merged with Conservative Review (CRTV) to form Blaze Media.	1   2
Blogger (blogspot.com)		21	2020	Blogger is a blog hosting service that owns the blogspot.com domain. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for 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 living persons; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated.	1
Bloomberg (Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek)		1 2 3 4	2019	Bloomberg publications, including Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable for news and business topics. See also: Bloomberg profiles.	1   2
Bloomberg profiles		1 2	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 notability. Some editors consider these profiles to be akin to self-published sources. See also: Bloomberg.	1
Boing Boing		1 2 3	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of Boing Boing. Although Boing Boing is a group blog, some of its articles are written by subject-matter experts such as Cory Doctorow, who is considered generally reliable for copyright law.	1
Breitbart News WP:BREITBART 📌		2018 +16  2018	2023	Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart.com is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories as fact. The 2018 RfC showed a very clear consensus that Breitbart News should be deprecated in the same way as the 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 primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary. Breitbart News has directly attacked and doxed Wikipedia editors. Posting or linking to another editor's personal information is prohibited under the outing policy, unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia.	1   2
BroadwayWorld		1 2 3 4	2023	BroadwayWorld is considered generally unreliable, as it contains many articles that reproduce press releases, disguising this as authentic journalism. As the site has limited editorial oversight, and the true author of the content of press releases is obscured, this website should generally not be used for facts about living persons.	1
Burke's Peerage		2020 1	2020	Burke's Peerage is considered generally reliable for genealogy.	1
Bustle		2019	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.	1
BuzzFeed WP:BUZZFEED 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2023	Editors find the quality of BuzzFeed articles to be highly inconsistent. A 2014 study from the Pew Research Center found BuzzFeed to be the least trusted news source in America. BuzzFeed may use A/B testing for new articles, which may cause article content to change. BuzzFeed operated a separate news division, BuzzFeed News, which had higher editorial standards and was hosted on a different website. See also: BuzzFeed News.	1
BuzzFeed News WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS 📌		12	2023	There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News operated separately from BuzzFeed, and most news content originally hosted on BuzzFeed was moved to the BuzzFeed News website in 2018. 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. BuzzFeed News shut down in May 2023, and its archives remain accessible. See also: BuzzFeed.	1   2
California Globe		2021	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.	1
The Canary		2021 1 2 3 4	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.	1
Cato Institute		1 2	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 biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.	1
CBS News (CBS)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2023	CBS News is the news division of CBS. It is considered generally reliable. Some editors note, however, that its television content may include superficial coverage, which might not qualify under WP:MEDRS.	1
CelebrityNetWorth (CNW) WP:CELEBRITYNETWORTH 📌 WP:CNW 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2018	There is consensus that CelebrityNetWorth is generally unreliable. CelebrityNetWorth does not disclose its methodology, and its accuracy has been criticized by The New York Times.	1
Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)		2020	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 biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.	1
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG, Global Research, globalresearch.ca)		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Global Research is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be 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 GlobalSecurity.org). The CRG is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories and lack of editorial oversight. It is biased or opinionated, and its content is likely to constitute undue weight. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered.	1   2   3
CESNUR (Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni, Center for Studies on New Religions, Bitter Winter) WP:CESNUR 📌		2022 1 2 3 4	2022	CESNUR is an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest. There is also consensus that its content is unreliable on its own merits. CESNUR has an online magazine, Bitter Winter, that is also considered generally unreliable.	1   2   3
China Daily WP:CHINADAILY 📌		2021 1	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, 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 in-text attribution and inline citations when sourcing content to China Daily.	1   2   3
China Global Television Network (CGTN, CCTV International) WP:CGTN 📌		2020  2020  2020 1 2	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 confessions.	1
The Christian Science Monitor (CSM, CS Monitor) WP:CSMONITOR 📌		20	2016	The Christian Science Monitor is considered generally reliable for news.	1
Climate Feedback		1 2 3 4	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 International Fact-Checking Network, and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements.	1
CNET (pre–October 2020)		2023 17	2023	CNET is considered generally reliable for its technology-related articles prior to its acquisition by Red Ventures in October 2020. In 2023, Red Ventures began deleting thousands of old CNET articles; you may have to use the Internet Archive to access this content.	1
CNET (October 2020–October 2022)		2023	2023	CNET was acquired by digital marketing company Red Ventures in October 2020, leading to a deterioration in editorial standards. Staff writers were pressured by company executives to publish content more favorably to advertisers in order to benefit Red Ventures' business dealings; this included both news stories and reviews.	1
CNET (November 2022–present) WP:CNET 📌		2023	2023	In November 2022, CNET began deploying an experimental AI tool to rapidly generate articles riddled with factual inaccuracies and affiliate links, with the purpose of increasing SEO rankings. CNET never formally disclosed of its use of AI until Futurism and The Verge published reports exposing its actions. More than 70 finance-related articles written by the AI tool were published under the byline "CNET Money Staff", and Red Ventures issued corrections to over half of them amidst mounting pressure. CNET has since announced it would pause the use of its AI tool "for now", but concerns over its advertiser-driven editorial content remain unresolved.	1
CNN (Cable News Network) WP:RSPCNN 📌		2019  2020 +19	2024	There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable. However, iReport consists solely of user-generated content, and talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.	1
Coda Media (Coda Story)		2021	2021	A 2021 RfC found consensus that Coda Media is generally reliable for factual reporting. A few editors consider Coda Media a biased source for international politics related to the U.S., as it has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.	1
CoinDesk WP:COINDESK 📌		2018  2019 1 2 3 4	2023	There is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establish 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 at the time (previously Digital Currency Group, now Bullion) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk.	1
Common Sense Media (CSM) WP:CSM 📌		1 2 3	2020	There is consensus that Common Sense Media is generally reliable for entertainment reviews. As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is biased or opinionated, and its statements should generally be attributed.	1
Consortium News		1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is consensus that Consortium News is generally unreliable. Certain articles (particularly those by Robert Parry) may be considered self-published, as it is unclear if any independent editorial review occurred. The outlet is known to lean towards uncritically repeating claims that are fringe, demonstrably false, or have been described by mainstream outlets as "conspiracy theories."	1
The Conversation WP:THECONVERSATION 📌		1 2 3	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.	1
Cosmopolitan		1 2 3 4 5	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.	1
Correo del Orinoco		2023	2023	There is consensus that Correo del Orinoco is generally unreliable because it is used to amplify misleading and/or false information. Many editors consider Correo del Orinoco to be used by the Venezuelan government to promulgate propaganda due to its connection to the Bolivarian Communication and Information System.	1
CounterPunch WP:COUNTERPUNCH 📌		2021  2022 12	2022	CounterPunch is a left-wing political opinion magazine. Despite the fact that the publication has an editorial board, there is no effective editorial control over the content of the publication, so articles should be treated as self-published sources. As a consequence, the articles should generally be avoided and should not be used to establish notability unless published by subject-matter experts writing about subjects within their domain of expertise, in which case they may be considered reliable for facts. Citing CounterPunch for third-party claims about living persons is not allowed. All articles on CounterPunch must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in particular for due weight, and opinions must be attributed. Some articles in the publication promote conspiracy theories and historical denialism, but there was no consensus to deprecate the outlet based on the most recent RfC.	1   2
Cracked.com		1 2 3 4 5	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.	1
The Cradle WP:THECRADLE 📌		2024  2024  2024 1	2024	The Cradle is an online magazine focusing on West Asia/Middle East-related topics. It was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to a history of publishing conspiracy theories and wide referencing of other deprecated sources while doing so. Editors consider The Cradle to have a poor reputation for fact-checking.	1
Crunchbase WP:CRUNCHBASE 📌		2019  2019  2021 1 2	2019	In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate Crunchbase, but also to continue allowing external links to the website. A significant proportion of Crunchbase's data is user-generated content. The technical details are that it is only listed on User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, so citations to Crunchbase are only automatically reverted if they are in ref tags in addition to meeting the standard criteria.	1
The Daily Beast WP:DAILYBEAST 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2023	There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.	1
The Daily Caller WP:DAILYCALLER 📌		2019  2019  2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2019	The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.	1   2   3
The Daily Dot WP:DAILYDOT 📌		2022 10	2022	There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated; there is community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.	1
Daily Express WP:DAILYEXPRESS 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2020	The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail. It is considered generally unreliable.	1   2
Daily Kos WP:DAILYKOS 📌		1 2 3	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 activism blog that publishes user-generated content with a progressive point of view, many editors consider Daily Kos to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion.	1
Daily Mail (MailOnline) WP:DAILYMAIL 📌 WP:RSPDM 📌		2017  2019  2020 52  2018 6	2022	In the 2017 RfC, the Daily Mail was the first source to be deprecated on Wikipedia, and the decision was challenged and 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 has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an 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 deprecation includes other editions of the UK Daily Mail, such as the Irish and Scottish editions. The UK Daily Mail is not to be confused with other publications named Daily Mail that are unaffiliated with the UK paper. The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated Charleston Daily Mail, and reference links to that publication are still present.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13
Daily Mirror (Mirror) WP:DAILYMIRROR 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2020	The Daily Mirror, also known just as the 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 Daily Mail and The Sun.	1
Daily NK WP:DAILYNK 📌		2022	2022	The Daily NK is an online newspaper based in South Korea that reports on stories based inside of North Korea. There is no consensus as to if it should be deprecated or used with attribution. There is a consensus that this source, as well as all other sources reporting on North Korea, is generally unreliable. However, due to a paucity of readily accessible information on North Korea, as well as a perception that Daily NK is not more unreliable than other sources on the topic, it can be used as a source, albeit with great caution.	1
Daily Star (UK) WP:DAILYSTAR 📌		2020  2020 1 2 3 4	2020	The Daily Star was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its reputation for publishing false or fabricated information.	1   2
The Daily Telegraph (UK) (The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph)		2022  2024 22	2024	There is consensus that The Daily Telegraph (also known as The Telegraph) is generally reliable. This consensus does not apply to coverage of transgender and gender-critical issues, where its reliability has been disputed. Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics. Unrelated to The Daily Telegraph (Sydney).	1
The Daily Wire		2021 1 2 3 4	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.	1
Deadline Hollywood WP:RSPDEADLINE 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	Deadline Hollywood is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles.	1   2
Debrett's		2020 1	2020	There is consensus that Debrett's is reliable for genealogical information. However, their defunct "People of Today" section is considered to be not adequately independent as the details were solicited from the subjects. Editors have also raised concerns that this section included paid coverage.	1
Democracy Now!		1 2 3 4 5	2013	There is no consensus on the reliability of Democracy Now!. Most editors consider Democracy Now! a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. Syndicated content published by Democracy Now! should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	1
Deseret News		1 2 3 4	2022	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 independent of the LDS Church. The publication's statements on topics regarding the LDS Church should be attributed. The Deseret News includes a supplement, the Church News, which is considered a primary source as an official publication of the LDS Church.	1   2
Deutsche Welle (DW, DW-TV)		1 2 3	2022	Deutsche Welle is a German state-owned international broadcaster. It is considered generally reliable. Some editors consider that the quality of DW depends on the language edition.	1
Dexerto WP:DEXERTO 📌		2019  2023 1 2	2023	Dexerto is a website covering gaming news, internet personalities, and entertainment. Editors agree that it is a tabloid publication that rarely engages in serious journalism; while it may be used as a source on a case-by-case basis (with some editors arguing for the reliability of its esports coverage), it is usually better to find an alternative source, and it is rarely suitable for use on BLPs or to establish notability.	1
Digital Spy		1 2 3 4 5 A	2012	There is consensus that Digital Spy is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes due or undue weight.	1   2
The Diplomat WP:THEDIPLOMAT 📌		1 2	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.	1
Discogs WP:DISCOGS 📌 WP:RSDISCOGS 📌		2019 1 2 3 4 5	2019	The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate.	1
Distractify		1 2 3	2023	There is consensus that Distractify is generally unreliable. Editors believe Distractify runs run-of-the-mill gossip that is unclearly either user-generated or written by staff members. Editors should especially refrain from using it in BLPs.	1
Dotdash Meredith (About.com, The Balance, Lifewire, The Spruce, ThoughtCo, TripSavvy, Verywell)		2018 +17	2020	Dotdash Meredith (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 self-published sources, and only using articles published by established experts. About.com also previously served as a Wikipedia mirror; using republished Wikipedia content is considered circular sourcing. In 2017, the About.com website became defunct and some of its content was moved to Dotdash Meredith's current website brands. Due to persistent abuse, verywellfamily.com, verywellhealth.com, and verywellmind.com are on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. See also: Investopedia.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10
The Economist		2022 1 2 3 4	2022	Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. The Economist publishes exclusively articles in editorial voice with no byline, with a few featured commentary pieces by pseudonymous bylines, and publishes magazine blogs and several podcasts, which should be handled by following the respective guidelines.	1
The Electronic Intifada (EI)		2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2024	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 biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be attributed.	1
Encyclopædia Britannica (Encyclopædia Britannica Online) WP:BRITANNICA 📌		15	2022	There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online). Its editorial process includes fact checking and publishing corrections. Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source. Some online entries are written by subject matter experts, while others are written by freelancers or editors, and entries should be evaluated on an individual basis. Editors prefer reliable 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.	1
Encyclopædia Iranica		1 2 3 4 5	2022	The Encyclopædia Iranica is considered generally reliable for Iran-related topics.	1
Encyclopaedia Metallum (Metal Archives, MA) WP:METALLUM 📌		1 2	2016	Encyclopaedia Metallum is user-generated and so best avoided. It is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources § Unreliable sources.	1
Encyclopedia Astronautica		2023	2023	Encyclopedia Astronautica is a website on space history. A 2023 RfC found no consensus on the reliability of the site. There appears to be a consensus that this is a valuable resource, but it lacks editorial oversight, contains errors, and is no longer updated. Caution needs to taken in using this source.	1
Engadget		1 A	2012	Engadget is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Its statements should be attributed.	1
Entertainment Weekly (EW)		1 2 3 A	2018	Entertainment Weekly is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics.	1
Entrepreneur (Entrepreneur India)		2020 1	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 self-published, similar to 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.	1
The Epoch Times (New Tang Dynasty Television, Vision Times, Vision China Times) WP:EPOCHTIMES 📌		2019  2019  2020  2023  2023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2022	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 biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories as fact.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25
Ethnicity of Celebs		1 2 3 4	2024	There is consensus that Ethnicity of Celebs (ethnicelebs.com) is generally unreliable as user-generated content with no claim of accuracy or fact-checking.	1
Evening Standard (London Evening Standard)		1 2 3 4 5 6	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 newspapers.	1
Examiner.com		2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2014	Due to persistent abuse, Examiner.com is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Examiner.com is considered a 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.	1
Facebook WP:RSPFB 📌 WP:RSPFACEBOOK 📌		2020 27	2021	Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a self-published source with no editorial oversight. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to add an 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 XLinkBot.	1
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)		2010 1 2 3 4 5	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 exceptional claims regarding living persons. Most editors consider FAIR a biased or opinionated source whose statements should be attributed and generally treated as opinions.	1
FamilySearch		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	FamilySearch operates a genealogy site that incorporates a large amount of 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 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 original research.	1
Famous Birthdays WP:FAMOUSBIRTHDAYS 📌 WP:FAMOUS BIRTHDAYS 📌		2019 1 2 3 4 5	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Famous Birthdays is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be 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 living persons.	1
Fandom wikis (Wikia, Wikicities) WP:FANDOM 📌 WP:RSPWIKIA 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A	2019	Fandom (formerly Wikia and Wikicities) wikis are considered generally unreliable because open wikis are 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 {{Fandom content}} template to provide the necessary attribution in these cases, and ensure the article meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines after copying.	1   2   3   4
The Federalist		2021	2021	The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories. However, it may be usable for attributed opinions.	1
Financial Times (FT)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2018	The Financial Times is considered generally reliable.	1
Find a Grave		1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	The content on Find a Grave is user-generated, and is therefore considered generally unreliable. Links to Find a Grave may sometimes be included in the 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 copyright violations.	1
Findmypast		1 2 3 4 5	2019	Findmypast is a genealogy site that hosts transcribed primary source documents, which is covered under WP:BLPPRIMARY. The site's 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 original research and note that the transcription process may introduce errors. Findmypast also hosts user-generated family trees, which are unreliable. The Wikipedia Library previously offered access to Findmypast.	1   2
Flags of the World (FOTW) WP:FOTW 📌		1 2 3 4 A	2013	Flags of the World has been written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight, and the hosts "disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website."	1   2
Flickr		1 2 3	2020	Most photos on Flickr are anonymous, 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, because that is original research.	1
Forbes WP:FORBES 📌		+10	2024	Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. This excludes articles written by Forbes.com contributors or "Senior Contributors". Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles.	1
Forbes.com contributors WP:FORBESCON 📌		16	2022	Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors or "Senior Contributors" with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. Forbes Councils, being pay-to-publish and similarly lacking oversight, also fall into this category. Articles that have also been published in the print edition of Forbes are excluded, and are considered generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a "Forbes Staff" member, "Contributor", "Senior Contributor", or "Subscriber". In addition, 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: Forbes.	1
Fox News (news excluding politics and science) WP:FOXNEWS 📌		2010  2020  2023 14	2024	Historically, there has been consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. However, many editors expressed concerns about the reliability of Fox News for any topic in a 2023 RFC. No formal consensus was reached on the matter, though. See also: Fox News (politics and science), Fox News (talk shows).	1   2
Fox News (politics and science) WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS 📌		2010  2020  2022  2023 26	2024	There is consensus Fox News is generally unreliable for the reporting of politics, especially from November 2020 onwards. On the matter of science, and on the matter of pre-November 2020 politics, there is a consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use. As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (talk shows).	1
Fox News (talk shows)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	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 attributed opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (politics and science).	1
FrontPage Magazine (FPM, FrontPageMag.com) WP:FPM 📌		2020  2020  2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2022	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 weight. The publication is considered biased or opinionated.	1   2
Game Developer (Gamasutra)		1 2 A	2020	Game Developer is considered generally reliable for subjects related to video games.	1   2
Game Informer		1 2 A B C D	2021	Game Informer is considered generally reliable for video games.	1
The Gateway Pundit (TGP)		2019  2019  2020 1	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.	1
Gawker WP:GAWKER 📌		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	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 undue weight, especially when the subject is a 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, and subsequently closed in 2023. The second incarnation has not been discussed at RSN.	1
Gazeta Wyborcza		1 2	2021	There is consensus that Gazeta Wyborcza is generally reliable. Some editors express concern about its sensationalist tendency in recent years.	1
Geni.com		1 2 3 4 5	2019	Geni.com is a genealogy site that is considered generally unreliable because it is an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source. Primary source documents from Geni.com may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY to support reliable secondary sources, but avoid interpreting them with original research.	1
Genius (Rap Genius) WP:GENIUS 📌		1 2	2019	Song lyrics, annotations and descriptions on Genius are mostly 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.	1   2
Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (names and locations)		2021 1	2022	The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates. Editors should take care that GNIS uses a different convention for its coordinates, using a particular feature of a location rather than the geometric center that most WikiProjects use.	1
Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (feature classes)		2021	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 notability of geographic features as it does not meet the legal recognition requirement.	1
GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (names and locations)		2021	2021	The GEOnet Names Server is a 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.	1
GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (feature classes)		2021	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 notability of geographic features as it does not meet the legal recognition requirement.	1
Gizmodo		1 2 3 4	2023	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. There is consensus that AI-generated articles are generally unreliable; Gizmodo's parent company, G/O Media, began releasing such pieces in July 2023, usually under the byline "Gizmodo Bot".	1
Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao) WP:GLOBALTIMES 📌		2020  2020  2020 1 2 3 4 5	2021	The Global Times is a 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. As with other Chinese news sites, the Global Times website may host announcements from government agencies not written by the tabloid. Authors are advised to find alternate web pages with the same content.	1   2
GlobalSecurity.org WP:GLOBALSECURITY 📌		2022 11	2022	globalsecurity.org is an unreliable user-contributed and scraper site given to plagiarism. In the 2022 deprecation RFC, a slight majority of editors held that globalsecurity.org should be regarded as generally unreliable, with a significant minority arguing for deprecation. The site should not be used to back factual claims on Wikipedia. GlobalSecurity.org should not be confused with globalresearch.ca.	1
The Globe and Mail		2021	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.	1
Goodreads WP:GOODREADS 📌		1 2	2018	Goodreads is a social cataloging site comprising user-generated content. As a self-published source, Goodreads is considered generally unreliable.	1
Google Maps (Google Street View) WP:GOOGLEMAPS 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2022	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 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.)	1   2
GQ (GQ Magazine)		1 2	2019	There is consensus that GQ is generally reliable. It is noted by editors for having quality editorial oversight for non-contentious topics.	1   2
The Grayzone WP:GRAYZONE 📌		2020  2020  2020 1	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.	1
The Green Papers		2020 1 A	2020	There is no consensus on the reliability of The Green Papers. As a self-published source that publishes United States election results, some editors question the site's editorial oversight.	1
The Guardian (TheGuardian.com, The Manchester Guardian, The Observer) WP:GUARDIAN 📌 WP:THEGUARDIAN 📌		18	2023	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 biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.	1   2   3
The Guardian blogs		10	2020	Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or 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 non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.	1   2   3
Guido Fawkes		1 2 3 4	2020	The Guido Fawkes website (order-order.com) is considered generally unreliable because it is a 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 living persons.	1
Guinness World Records		1 2 3 4 5	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.	1
Haaretz (Ḥadashot Ha'aretz) WP:HAARETZ 📌		10	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 biased or opinionated. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline.	1   2
Hansard (UK Parliament transcripts, House of Commons, House of Lords)		1 2 3 4	2019	As a transcript of parliament proceedings in the United Kingdom, Hansard is a primary source and its statements should be attributed to whoever made them. Hansard is considered generally reliable for the British parliamentary proceedings and British government statements. It is not considered reliable as a 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.	1   2   3   4   5   6
Healthline WP:HEALTHLINE 📌		2023  2023 1 2	2023	Healthline is a medical resource that is substantially written by non-expert freelance writers and reviewed by non-expert advisors. The content is frequently incorrect misinformation, sometimes dangerously so. Due to the heightened requirements for biomedical and medical sources on Wikipedia, the consensus of editors in the 2023 RFC was to deprecate Healthline as an unusable source that cannot meet WP:MEDRS and to blacklist Healthline as a hazard to readers. References to Healthline should be removed from Wikipedia.	1
Heat Street		1 2	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 partisan source. Some editors consider Heat Street's opinion pieces and news articles written by its staff to be usable with attribution, though due weight must be considered because Heat Street covers many political topics not as talked about in higher-profile sources.	1
Heavy.com		1 2 3	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.	1
The Hill WP:THEHILL 📌		10	2019	The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources.	1
The Hindu WP:THEHINDU 📌		1 2 3 4	2022	There is consensus that The Hindu is generally reliable and should be treated as a newspaper of record. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline.	1
HispanTV WP:HISPANTV 📌		2019  2019  2020	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 Iranian propaganda.	1   2
History (The History Channel) WP:RSPHISTORY 📌		1 2 3	2021	Most editors consider The History Channel generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote conspiracy theories.	1
The Hollywood Reporter (THR) WP:THR 📌		1 2 3 4 5	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.	1
Hope not Hate (Searchlight)		2018 1 2 3 4 5	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 biased and opinionated source and their statements should be attributed.	1   2
HuffPost (excluding politics) (The Huffington Post) WP:HUFF 📌 WP:HUFFPO 📌 WP:HUFFPOST 📌		2020 13	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 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 headline. See also: HuffPost (politics), HuffPost contributors.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
HuffPost (politics) (The Huffington Post) WP:HUFFPOLITICS 📌		2020 11	2024	In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on American politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
HuffPost contributors (The Huffington Post) WP:HUFFPOCON 📌		2020 18	2020	Until 2018, the U.S. 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 self-published sources, unless the article was written by a 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 (excluding politics), HuffPost (politics).	1   2
Human Events		1 2 3	2019	Editors consider Human Events biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. In May 2019, a former editor-in-chief of 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's older content. See also: The Post Millennial.	1
Idolator		1 2	2014	There is consensus that Idolator is generally reliable for popular music. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.	1
IGN (Imagine Games Network) WP:IGN 📌		12	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 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: AskMen.	1
IMDb (Internet Movie Database) WP:IMDB 📌		2019 +32	2020	The content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors. WP:Citing IMDb describes two exceptions. 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).	1