Jump to content

Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.237.134.69 (talk) at 01:09, 21 March 2020 (Moved Skwawkbox to 'No consensus'. Publication is regulated by only PRP-recognised press regulator, with full transparency and independent complaints process. Not right to have it in unreliable.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The purpose of this page is to centralize information about reliable sources for use by new page patrollers when reviewing new articles. It is intended as a supplement to the reliable sources noticeboard and List of Perennial Sources, to help page patrollers unfamiliar with a given subject assess notability and neutrality of an article––entries should focus on whether a specific publication is sufficiently reliable for significant coverage in the publication to count toward notability for a subject. Disagreements with assessments here should be escalated to the reliable sources noticeboard, with a notice also placed on the talk page of this article to notify editors about the discussion.

All information in this page should be written to reflect existing consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia.

This page is organized into sections corresponding to specific topics and regions that share sources in common. Sources may be included in more than one section if they are relevant to more than one section.

How to use and improve this page

Claims about a source's reliability should be cited to either to the perennial sources list or to discussions that demonstrate a consensus that the claim is true. Note that this is a considerably weaker standard than the one employed at the perennial sources list. This is because the purpose of this list is to provide at-a-glance reliability judgments for editors working on unfamiliar subjects, not to be a final arbiter on matters of reliability. While the discussions cited in this page may be useful resources when arguing about a given source's reliability, a source's inclusion in any given category on this page should not be used as an argument in any protracted discussion over a source's reliability.

If you would like to expand this page with the contents of a WikiProject source guide, either format a link to the relevant guide as a citation, or include it using a {{main}} or {{see also}} template.

If you disagree with any assessment listed on this page, either provide citations justifying a change, or start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard in order to establish a more holistic and up to date consensus. However, be mindful of the level of support for the claim that you intend to challenge: for instance, challenging sources listed at the perennial sources list is much less likely to result in a new consensus than challenging sources supported by a single discussion.

Contextual information about sources' affiliations, biases, and other information beyond a reliability judgment is intended to provide information to help contextualize sources, primarily to assess if an article is likely to be missing additional viewpoints.

Newspapers of record are generally considered to be reliable for purposes of notability and uncontroversial topics. However, more care may need to be taken when evaluating an article's neutrality.

By region

International reporting

These sources have extensive coverage of many different countries and regions

Reliable

  • Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera English, Arabic and English respectively, generally reliable with editors perceiving Al Jazeera English as more reliable than Arabic-language reporting. Some editors assert that it is a partisan source for politics in Southwest Asia, describing the source as anti-Israel and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.[1]
  • Amnesty International, many languages, generally reliable, but bear in mind that it is an advocacy organization and they publish a mix of primary and secondary source information.[2]
  • Associated Press, English, generally reliable.[1]
  • Balkan Insight, English, generally reliable although the discussion meanders into irrelevant questions about due weight.[3]
  • BBC, many languages, generally reliable. Some BBC projects are less reliable.[1]
  • Bellingcat, English and Russian, generally reliable, although preferably with attribution.[1]
  • The Christian Science Monitor, English, generally reliable for news reporting.[1]
  • CNN, primarily English, generally reliable for news reporting.[1]
  • Financial Times, English[1]
  • The Guardian, English, reliable for news reporting.[1]
  • N1 (TV channel), English, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, generally reliable although the discussion meanders into irrelevant questions about due weight.[4]
  • The Nation, English, generally reliable, progressive political stance.[1]
  • The New York Times, English, generally reliable,[1]
  • Newsweek (pre-2013) many languages, generally reliable. However, more recent coverage may not be reliable [1]
  • Pew Research Center, English, generally reliable.[1]
  • Reuters, many languages, generally reliable. Note that press releases republished by Reuters are not automatically reliable.[1]
  • Der Spiegel, German, generally reliable. Articles written by Claas Relotius are generally unreliable as this particular journalist has been found to fabricate articles.[1]
  • Time, English, generally reliable. Time's magazine blogs, including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy.[1]
  • The Wall Street Journal, English, generally reliable business publication.[1]

Unreliable

  • Centre for Research on Globalization, generally unreliable. The CRG is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories and lack of editorial oversight. It is a biased or opinionated source, and its content is likely to constitute undue weight. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered. [1]
  • Consortium News, described as an unreliable and fringe outlet in a September 2019 discussion.[5]
  • The Grayzone Report, English, deprecated in a 2020 RfC.[1]
  • HispanTV, deprecated, Spanish language, republishes conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda.[1]
  • Independent Media Center, many languages, insufficient fact checking and effectively self-published.[1]
  • Middle East Forum, specifically its website meforum.org, most editors in a September 2019 discussion argued that it was some shade of unreliable, although there is no consensus on the exact degree.[5]
  • Press TV, English and French, owned by the government of Iran. Usable as a primary source for opinions and official lines from the Iranian government.[1]
  • Sputnik, many languages, Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation, some editors consider Sputnik to be a reliable source for official Russian government statements and positions.[1]
  • Telesur, deprecated. Useful only for statements of opinion from the government of Venezuela.[1]
  • WikiLeaks, a repository of primary source documents leaked by anonymous sources. Most editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the 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 primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source. However, linking to material that violates copyright is prohibited by the external links guideline.[1]
  • Wikinews, insufficient editorial oversight.[1]

No consensus

  • Anadolu Agency, many languages, reliable for uncontroversial news reporting, not reliable for international or politically controversial topics.[1]
  • International Business Times, many languages, quality is inconsistent, significant amounts of content are syndicated and not clearly marked.[1]
  • Mondoweiss, English, largely reports on issues related to Israel/Palestine. Opinionated source backed by an advocacy group, statements should be attributed.[1]
  • Newsweek (2013–present), many languages, changes in editorial leadership have led to a decline in the magazine's reliability, evaluate on a case-by-case basis. [1]
  • RIA Novosti, many languages, official news agency of the Russian government. It is generally considered a usable source for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability.[1]
  • RT (Russia Today), no consensus, described as a mouthpiece for the Russian government that at times has promoted conspiracy theories. Not reliable for controversial or political topics, no consensus about broader reliability.[1]
  • TRT World, English, an RfC closed in June 2019 reached a consensus that it is not reliable for anything with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest, but that it is likely reliable for unrelated reporting and statements about the official positions of the Turkish government.[6]
  • Vice Media (Garage, i-D, Motherboard, Vice, Vice News) There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice magazine or Vice Media websites, including Motherboard and Vice News. It is generally regarded as more reliable for arts and entertainment than for politics.[1]

Africa

See also: WP:WikiProject Arab world § Notability

Ghana

No consensus
  • Graphic Ghana, a 2019 discussion on reliability was closed as no consensus due to insufficient participation. Most participants seemed to think it was reliable for most news coverage, although some concerns remain due to its unclear relationship to the Ghanaian government.[7]

Nigeria

This section is based on a September 2018 NPP discussion[8] unless otherwise noted.

Reliable sources
Not reliable
Reliability unclear, proceed with caution

Somalia

Reliable
No consensus

Uganda

Reliable
  • New Vision, large national newspaper, cited frequently by scholarly sources. Unclear if it has a conflict of interest with the government of Uganda. [11]
No consensus
  • PML Daily, raised for discussion in June 2019, no editors made any claims to its reliability or lack thereof.[11]

Asia

See also: WP:WikiProject Arab world § Notability

China

Reliable
  • Hong Kong Free Press, the majority of participants in a 2019 discussion consider it as reliable as any other news source in Hong Kong.[12]
Unreliable
  • Baidu Baike, crowd-sourced with minimal fact checking.[1]
  • Epoch Times, English, published in US, bias toward Falun Gong, may not give appropriate weight to controversial issues.[1]
  • Sixth Tone, English, not reliable for news but usable for articles about Chinese society or culture.[1]
No consensus
  • Bitter Winter, English, based in Italy, insufficient discussion for consensus. Editors raised concerns that it is published by the advocacy group CESNUR, see entry for CESNUR.[13]
  • China Central Television may be usable in certain contexts with attribution. [14]
  • China Daily may be usable in certain contexts with attribution.[14]
  • China Global Television Network may be usable in certain contexts with attribution. [14]
  • Global Times, less reliable than other Chinese state media and includes hyperbolic editorials and unreliable editorials reporting on news outside of China.[1]
  • Guancha.cn, a 2020 RfC was split between editors saying that it varied from case to case and editors saying that it was generally unreliable.[15]
  • People's Daily may be usable in certain contexts with attribution.[14][16]
  • Qiushi, no consensus in a 2019 discussion. Some editors argued that the source is reliable despite its bias and widely used in academic research, others insisted that its bias is too significant for the publication to be reliable.[16]
  • South China Morning Post, English, editorial bias toward the Chinese government since its buyout by Alibaba in 2016. Editors disagree on whether it should be considered an RS on political topics relating to China, but editors generally agree that its articles on other subjects, and its coverage prior to the Alibaba buyout (and particularly its coverage from before the cession of Hong Kong to China), is reliable.[17]
  • What's on Weibo, likely reliable for claims related to Chinese social media and pop culture but not general reliable per a 2020 RfC.[18]
  • Xinhua News Agency may be usable in certain contexts with attribution. Prefer over other Chinese state media sources, comparable to TASS. [14][13]

India

Editors have argued that the state of Indian English-language journalism as a whole is quite poor. There have been significant paid news scandals in major newspapers, and the industry as a whole has been criticized as lacking in journalistic ethics.[19] Sources listed here in the reliable section also run questionable content from time to time; caution is advised when evaluating Indian news sources.

Reliable
  • Altnews.in, has reputation for fake news-busting backed by RS such as the BBC. May be biased or cherrypick in which articles it chooses to run, but nevertheless reliable for the information that it reports. [20]
  • Business Line, English, described favorably in a broad discussion of Indian sources.[20]
  • Business Standard, English, described favorably in a broad discussion of Indian sources.[20]
  • Dina Thanthi, Tamil, paper of record?
  • Financial Express, English, described favorably in a broad discussion of Indian sources.[20]
  • The Caravan, English, one of the most premier magazines in India[21]
  • The Hindu, English, liberal secular, described by editors as one of the only truly reliable English language sources in India.[22]
  • Hindustan Times, English, not much discussion but generally considered reliable by editors,[23]
  • The Indian Express', English, described by editors as one of the only truly reliable English language sources in India. Not to be confused with the New Indian Express below.[24]
  • Malayala Manorama, Malayalam paper of record?
  • The Milli Gazette, suggested in an RSN discssion as reliable for Indian Muslim news.[25]
  • The Print, rough consensus that it is reliable, while noting a left wing editorial slant.[20]
Unreliable
  • DailyO.in, primarily opinion pieces.[20]
  • Insistposthindi.in, self-described marketing website.[20]
  • Opindia.com, described by an editor as a right-wing propaganda mill.[20] They also doxx people, including Wikipedia editors.
  • Post-card News, regarded as completely unreliable by several editors.[20]
  • Rightlog.in, described by one editor as a fringe source with no editorial policies.[20]
No consensus
  • ABP News, some editors consider it to be NEWSORG RS, others consider them to be biased to the point of unreliability.[20]
  • National Herald, may be WP:NEWSORG but is also effectively a mouthpiece of the Indian National Congress.[20][26]
  • New Indian Express, briefly described by one editor as unreliable in a broad discussion of Indian sources.[20]
  • Orissapost.com, ok for non-controversial news reporting [27]
  • The Quint, some editors assert that it is unreliable, others that it is usable for verifiability but not notability, and yet others with a more favorable impression of the source.[20]
  • Radiance Weekly, published by Jamaat-e-Islami, likely not independent for most subjects where it would be relevant to cite it.[25]
  • Republic TV, compared by one editor to Fox News, denounced as unreliable by others.[20]
  • Scroll.in, fails to distinguish news reporting and opinion, a poor source for controversial topics.[20]
  • The Statesman, English, no consensus in a broad discussion of Indian sources.[20]
  • The Telegraph, English, no consensus in a broad discussion of Indian sources.[20]
  • Times of India, English, major Indian news publication with a pro-government slant, frequently includes rather promotional articles and interviews for individuals in the film industry.[28] Most participants in a 2020 RfC considered its reliability to be unclear.[29][1]
  • Times Now, compared by one editor to Fox News, denounced as unreliable by others.[20]
  • The Wire, asserted by editors to meet NEWSORG, while others were concerned that it should not be used for notability.[20]
  • Zee News, some editors consider it to be NEWSORG RS, others consider them to be biased to the point of unreliability.[20]

Iran

Unreliable
  • Press TV, owned by the government of Iran. Usable as a primary source for opinions and official lines from the Iranian government.[1]
  • HispanTV, deprecated, Spanish language, republishes conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda.[1]

Iraq

No consensus
  • Kurdistan Human Rights Network, may be usable with attribution[30]

Israel/Palestine

Reliable
Unreliable
No consensus
  • Mondoweiss, English, largely reports on issues related to Israel/Palestine. Opinionated source backed by an advocacy group, statements should be attributed.[1]

Japan

Reliable
  • Japan Times, English and Japanese, while editors raised some concerns over the English language edition's fact checking, ultimately editors agreed that it is comparable to other reliable newspapers.[31]
No consensus
  • Asahi Shimbun, Japanese, a reliability assessment was requested in an RSN discussion but no input was provided.[31]
  • Mainichi Shimbun, Japanese, a reliability assessment was requested in an RSN discussion but no input was provided.[31]
  • Yomiuri Shimbun, Japanese, a reliability assessment was requested in an RSN discussion but no input was provided.[31]

Nepal

No consensus

Singapore

No consensus

South Korea

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources
Reliable

Syria

Reliable
  • Al-Masdar News, reliable for statements of fact despite its pro-Syrian government bias. Editors have raised concerns about whether claims supported by this source should be cited without attribution, see the cited discussion for more information.[34]
No consensus
  • ARA News, accused of unreliability having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[35]
  • ANF News, accused of unreliability having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[35]
  • Hawar News, accused of unreliability having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[35]
  • Kurdistan24, accused of unreliability having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[35]
  • Kurdistan Human Rights Network, insufficient discussion for consensus[30]
  • New Compass, accused of unreliability having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[35]

Turkey

No consensus
  • Anadolu Agency, reliable for uncontroversial news reporting, not reliable for international or politically controversial topics.[1]
  • TRT World, an RfC closed in June 2019 reached a consensus that it is not reliable for anything with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest, but that it is likely reliable for unrelated reporting and statements about the official positions of the Turkish government.[36]
  • Kurdistan Human Rights Network, may be usable with attribution[30]

Europe

Czech Republic

Reliable
Unreliable
  • Aeronet (aka AE News), described by an editor as "fake news" with respect to its coverage of Czech politics.[37]
  • Aha!, described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[37]
  • Blesk, described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[37]
  • Parlamentní listy, described by editors as "horseshit" and "fake news" with respect to its coverage of Czech politics.[37]
  • Super, described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[37]
No consensus

France

Reliable

Germany

Reliable
Unreliable
No consensus

The Netherlands

Reliable
Unreliable
No consensus
  • NRC Handelsblad described as one editor as considered at least mostly reliable.[43]

Russia

Unreliable
  • peoples.ru[44]
  • South Front, described as a Russian government-backed disinformation site.[45]
No consensus
  • RIA Novosti, official news agency of the Russian government. It is generally considered a usable source for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability.[1]
  • TASS (ТАСС, ITAR-TASS, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union), 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.[1]

Switzerland

Reliable

United Kingdom

Reliable
Unreliable
No consensus
  • The Canary (website), no consensus, may be useful for sourcing left-wing quotes and opinions.[49]
  • The Skwawkbox, essentially a self-published source, with significant bias as well.[49]
  • Castlewales.com , editors in a 2020 discussion noted that it is written by recognized experts, insufficient discussion to declare a clear consensus.[51]
  • Daily Mirror, tabloid.[1]
  • Desmog Blogs desmog.uk, desmog.co.uk, dsmogblog.com Editors in a 2020 discussion generally agreed that the source has a significant bias but did not agree on whether it is generally reliable. Editors noted that it likely has more editorial control than a typical blog, but could be unreliable due to other reasons. [52]
  • Evening Standard, despite being a free newspaper, considered more reliable than British tabloids.[1]
  • Hope not Hate, advocacy group for anti-racism and anti-fascism, reliability must be assessed on a case by case basis.[1]
  • Morning Star, no consensus, communist political line.[1]
  • openDemocracy, editors raised concerns that there is insufficient fact checking, but suggested that it's likely usable for attributed opinions. Insufficient participation in the discussion for a consensus.[53]
  • PinkNews, no consensus, LGBT-oriented editorial stance.[1]
  • Hansard, primary source of transcripts from Parliament, use with attribution.[1]

North America

Canada

Unreliable

United States

Reliable sources
Unreliable sources
  • Allsides.com, may be usable with attribution but not reliable enough to be used to support claims in Wikipedia's voice.[60]
  • AlterNet, generally unreliable partisan source that also aggregates articles from other sources.[1]
  • Blaze Media, including Conservative Review, is considered generally unreliable for facts, sometimes reliable for opinions.[1]
  • Breitbart News, may be ok for opinion but in that case the specific article needs to be whitelisted.[1]
  • Cato Institute, reliable for opinion statements.[1]
  • CNSNews.com (Cybercast News Service) unanimous consensus for unreliability in a 2019 RfC.[1]
  • The Daily Caller deprecated for publishing false information.[1]
  • The Daily Wire, primarily publishes opinion, usable as attributed primary source for opinions.[61]
  • Daily Kos, activism blog, consensus to avoid it when better sources are available.[1]
  • Epoch Times, also contains lots of reporting on China, bias toward Falun Gong, may not give appropriate weight to controversial issues.[1]
  • Forbes.com contributors, no editorial oversight[1]
  • Frontpage Mag, uncontestedly described as fringe with a poor record of factual reporting by one editor with several examples in a September 2019 discussion[5]
  • Gawker, rumors and speculation without attribution. Defunct.[1]
  • Heat Street, usable with attribution, but does not sufficiently distinguish news reporting and opinion pieces.[1]
  • HuffPost contributors, minimal editorial oversight.[1]
  • InfoWars, did you really need to look this one up?[1]
  • Media Bias/Fact Check, generally unreliable, questionable methodology.[1]
  • National Enquirer, supermarket tabloid.[1]
  • Occupy Democrats, deprecated.[1]
  • PragerU, in a discussion closed January 2020, there was consensus that PragerU is generally unusable.[62]
  • VDARE, deprecated, consensus that it is generally unusable as a source.[1]
  • Western Journal two 2019 discussions elicited only strong condemnations of the source's reliability.[1]
  • WorldNetDaily, deprecated, there is a 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.[1]
No consensus
  • The American Conservative, usable for attributed opinions, opinionated/biased source. [1]
  • Ballotpedia, election website with editorial team, but Wikipedia editors have expressed concern with their editorial process.[1]
  • Brookings Institute, think tank, albeit a relatively highly regarded one. Should be considered a primary source for its analysis of subjects.[63]
  • BuzzFeed, not to be confused with BuzzFeed News[1]
  • Cosmopolitan, evaluate on a case by case basis.[1]
  • Council on Foreign Relations, think tank. Should be considered a primary source for its analysis of subjects.[63]
  • CounterPunch, biased/opinionated [1]
  • The Daily Wire, largely an opinion publication. Reliable for their own opinions, but not clear if or when it would be DUE.[64]
  • Democracy Now!, partisan source, no consensus on reliability.[1]
  • Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, progressive bias, do not use to support controversial claims in BLPs[1]
  • The Federalist (website), conservative bias, described similarly to Washington Examiner.[65]
  • HuffPost, no consensus with most editors preferring to use more established sources.[1]
  • Independent Journal Review, news reporting is largely syndicated from Reuters, "community member" posts are self-published.[1]
  • Jamestown Foundation think tank. Should be considered a primary source for its analysis of subjects.[63]
  • Media Matters for America, progressive media-watchdog.[1]
  • Media Research Center, conservative media-watchdog.[1]
  • National Review, no consensus, partisan source (American conservative).[1]
  • New York Daily News (Illustrated Daily News), no consensus, tabloid newspaper.[1]
  • New York Post (New York Evening Post, Page Six), no consensus, tabloid newspaper.[1]
  • Newsmax, no consensus, discussions on Wikipedia are dated.[1]
  • Newsweek (2013–present), many languages, changes in editorial leadership have led to a decline in the magazine's reliability, evaluate on a case-by-case basis. [1]
  • Paste, no consensus for reliability on political topics.[66]
  • Right Wing Watch, a July 2019 discussion yielded no consensus.[67]
  • Salon, largely an opinion publication, no consensus on reliability.[1]
  • ThinkProgress, 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 attributed statements of opinion. Others argue that ThinkProgress is generally reliable under WP:NEWSORG, albeit with due consideration for their political leanings.[1]
  • Townhall, 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 unattributed statements of fact.[1]
  • Washington Examiner, no consensus about general reliability. There is consensus that opinions in the Washington Examiner should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims regarding living persons.[1]
  • The Washington Times, marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. Its reporting is considered to be particularly biased for climate change and US race relations.[1]

Oceania

Australia

Reliable
Unreliable
  • Independent Australia, editors disagreed on the exact degree of spin and misinformation published by this source, but agreed that it should be generally considered unreliable and that most of their good-quality reporting is largely lifted from more reliable sources that can be cited instead.[69]
  • Independent Media Center, insufficient fact checking and effectively self-published.[1]
  • Quadrant Magazine, generally unreliable for factual reporting.[70] Note that it is a literary magazine, and thus may still be reliable for literary reviews.
No consensus

South America

Venezuela

Unreliable
  • Telesur, deprecated.[1]
  • Venezuelanalysis, not reliable. Though it can be useful for some news related to Venezuela, Venezuelanalysis states that "it is clearly pro-Bolivarian Revolution" and supports the Venezuelan government..[1]

By topic

Generally speaking, significant independent coverage in any reliable news source contributes to the notability of any topic (however, they may be less than authoritative for supporting claims for specialized topics like science or religion).

In addition, here are some source breakdowns of sources that are specific to certain topics.

Biography

Reliable

  • People, generally reliable for BLPs, do not use for particularly contentious claims.[1]

Unreliable

No consensus

  • BabyNames.com one editor has argued that this website has insufficient editorial oversight.[76]
  • Biography.com[1]
  • E!, generally usable for celebrity news but may not represent due weight.[1]
  • TMZ, no consensus about 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 properly attribute statements from TMZ. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person.[1]
  • Us Weekly, no consensus. Consensus that it is less reliable than People.[1]
  • Who's Who (UK), editors are divided on whether sufficient editorial control exists, and whether it is an independent source. It is generally considered more reliable than Marquis Who's Who, which is published in the United States.[1]

Books, fashion, film, music, television, video games and other pop culture

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources

Reliable

  • The A.V. Club [1]
  • Blender (magazine), reliable for music.[77]
  • Boing Boing, however there is no consensus regarding their reliability for topics other than pop culture.[1]
  • Common Sense Media generally reliable for film reviews, although they are an advocacy organization.[78]
  • The Daily Dot, reliable for content about internet culture.[1]
  • Deadline Hollywood reliable for entertainment-related articles.[1]
  • Entertainment Weekly, reliable for entertainment-related articles, no consensus for other topics.[1]
  • Exclaim!, reliable for music reviews.[79]
  • GQ, an August 2019 discussion had a unanimous consensus that GQ is reliable for fashion-related topics, and a less unanimous consensus that it is reliable for other topics as well.[80]
  • Gizmodo, reliable for pop culture and tech, discouraged for more controversial topics based on a July 2019 discussion.[81]
  • The Hollywood Reporter, reliable for entertainment-related articles.[1]
  • Idolator, reliable for music, evaluate for due weight on a case-by-case basis.[1]
  • IGN, reliable for entertainment-related subjects, although they also host blogs which should be treated as regular blogs.[1]'
  • io9, reliable for critical reviews as a Tomatometer-approved publication.[82]
  • The Mary Sue, reliable for reviews and opinion, not reliable for reblogged content.[1]
  • Rolling Stone, There is consensus that Rolling Stone is generally reliable. Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with proper attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking.[1]
  • Rotten Tomatoes, 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 a consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. 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.[1]
  • TheWrap, 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's articles on other topics.[1]
  • TV Guide, generally reliable, some consider it to be a primary source.[1]
  • Variety, generally reliable entertainment trade magazine.[1]
  • Vice Media (Garage, i-D, Motherboard, Vice, Vice News), while there is no consensus for general reliability, it is reliable for arts and entertainment.[1]
  • Vogue, generally reliable.[1]
  • CliffsNotes is a study guide. Editors consider CliffsNotes to be usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing CliffsNotes citations with additional sources. Reliable for notability.[1]
  • SparkNotes, same as CliffsNotes.[1]
  • Uproxx, weak consensus for reliability in a 2020 RSN discussion.[83]
  • Vanity Fair, [1]

Unreliable

  • Alternative Vision, an August 2019 discussion had a small consensus that it is not reliable[84]
  • Amazon, content is provided by sellers.[1]
  • AskMen, editors in a 2020 discussion were concerned that the publication does not distinguish between sponsored and independent content, and that it engages in churnalism.[85]
  • Discogs, user-generated content.[1]
  • Filmreference.com, weak consensus for being unreliable due to unclear editorial standards.[86]
  • Genius, song lyrics and annotations are user-generated. No consensus about articles with bylines published on the website.[1]
  • Goodreads, user-generated.[1]
  • IMDb, user-generated.[1]
  • Last.fm, user-generated, deprecated.[1]
  • Metalheadzone, insufficient editorial oversight.[87]
  • Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic), user-generated, deprecated.[1]
  • songmeaningsandfacts.com, no editorial oversight.[88]
  • Tunefind, user-generated.[1]
  • TV Tropes, user-generated.[1]
  • VGChartz[1]
  • WhoSampled, user-generated.[1]
  • Wikia (Fandom), open-wiki. Note that while Wikia should not be cited, when published under a compatible license it may be permissible to copy information from there.[1]

No consensus

  • Know Your Meme, "submissions" are user-generated, no consensus for video series and "confirmed" entries.[1]
  • MetalSucks, 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.[1]
  • News of the World, while deprecated as unreliable for general news reporting, some editors hold that it is usable with attribution for film reviews.[1]
  • TMZ, no consensus about 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 properly attribute statements from TMZ. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person.[1]
  • TohoKingdom, self-published but has some claim to being an expert for Godzilla-franchise related subjects.[89]

Business, companies and products

Reliable

Unreliable

No consensus

  • Business Insider, in 2015 their site had a disclaimer saying information therein may not be correct.[1]
  • International Business Times, many languages, quality is inconsistent, significant amounts of content are syndicated and not clearly marked.[1]
  • Investopedia, no consensus, tertiary source.[1]
  • PitchBook Data (Pitchbook, Pitchbook Platform, Pitchbook News and Analysis. no consensus due to insufficient discussion, reliability may not be consistent across the company's publications[91]
  • The Next Web, no consensus, 2014 and 2016 discussions considered it reliable, 2018 discussions leaned toward unreliable.[1]
  • TechCrunch, 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 verifiability, but may be less useful for purpose of determining notability.[1]

Geography and history

Google Maps is useful for some purposes, but can also be considered original research. For China, OpenStreetMap is preferable.[1]

Reliable

  • Worldatlas.com, considered trustworthy by Yale University.[92]

Unreliable

  • Works, particularly encyclopedias, by James B. Minahan.[93]

No consensus

  • Världens Historia, one editor described them as generally reliable, but less so than actual history books.[94]
  • NCERT textbooks, generally geared for grade school education, may be oversimplified and thus inferior to academic sources for Wikipedia. Editors noted that their quality varies considerably. [95]

Medicine and health

Reliable

Unreliable

  • Leafly.com, promotional, not a MEDRS-quality source for cannabis or health.[96]

No consensus

  • Quackwatch, no consensus, self-published site run by an expert in the field.[1]

Military topics and firearms

No consensus

  • defensereview.com leaning toward unreliable on the basis of being self-published, but insufficient discussion to reach a consensus.[97]
  • Globalsecurity.org, in a 2020 discussion, one editor considered it a think tank only suitable as a primary source, while another considered it reliable and disputed its status as a think tank.[98]
  • uboat.net, editors are divided on its reliability in two discussions. Editors allege a local consensus at WP:MILHIST that it is reliable up to GA level, but not for FA.[99][100]

Unreliable

Religion

Reliable

  • Encyclopedia of Women in World Religions, editors at RSN raised no objections in a brief 2019 discussion.[102]
  • The Milli Gazette, suggested in an RSN discssion as reliable for Indian Muslim news.[25]

Unreliable

  • Amir Taheri, has been caught promoting hoaxes and fabricating quotes, particularly relating to Islam, on multiple occasions.[103]
  • AnsweringMuslims.com, an RSN discussion closed in 2020 had a consensus that the website's roots in an anti-Muslim organization render it unreliable for claims about Islam.[104]
  • CESNUR, editors agree that it has a bias toward New religious movements and that its conflicts of interest make the source unusable.[1]
  • catholicism.org, reliable for own opinion but not much else according to an RSN discussion.[105]
  • Church Militant (website), not a publication with a reputation for factual reporting, may be usable with attribution for Traditionalist Catholic perspectives. [106]
  • Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch, fringe publication.[107]
  • IslamQA, self-published fringe source.[108]
  • Jihad Watch, fringe anti-Muslim conspiracy blog.[107]
  • LifeSiteNews, deprecated in a 2019 RfC. [1]
  • Monergism.com, small consensus in a 2020 discussion that its POV and lack of clear editorial policy means that it is not reliable for anything other than WP:ABOUTSELF.[109]
  • Patheos, collection of blogs.[1]
  • Robert B. Spencer, fringe anti-Islam author[103]

No consensus

  • Crux (cruxnow.com), a 2019 RSN discussion appeared to treat Crux as a potentially reliable source, noting its pedigree as a Boston Globe spinoff, but did not extensively discuss the source as the focus of the discussion pivoted to questions of UNDUE.[110]
  • Deseret News, while reliable for local news, it is owned by the LDS church, with no consensus on its reliability on matters related to the church.[1]
  • Encounter Books, American conservative publishing house. Briefly disparaged in an RSN discussion where a book published by it was deemed unreliable for claims relating to Ayatollah Khomeini, insufficient discussion for consensus.[103]
  • Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online (gameo.org) Editorial access is restricted, but editors also voiced concerns that it is run by an advocacy group.[111]
  • Hymnary.org, weak consensus that it can be reliable for basic facts about hymns but that it is not a good source for establishing notability or assigning DUE.[112]
  • Jewish Virtual Library, tertiary source with strong fact checking, but secondary sources preferable. [1]
  • Middle East Quarterly, (published by Middle East Forum) some editors hold that it is a respectable publication and note its citations in academic literature. Others maintain that it is fringe and/or unreliable, and dispute that the examples of citations provided in the discussion comprise proof of reliability.[107]
  • Radiance Weekly, published by Jamaat-e-Islami, likely not independent for most subjects where it would be relevant to cite it.[25]

Science and technology

Reliable

Unreliable

  • arXiv, self-published source. Papers hosted here may or may not have also been published in a peer-reviewed journal–if so, cite that journal but provide a link to arXiv.[1]
  • CoinDesk there is a consensus that it is not reliable for evaluating notability on the basis of its coverage, and should be avoided in favor of mainstream sources.[1]
  • Crunchbase, user generated content.[1]
  • KenRockwell.com, self-published source without credentials.[118]
  • Phoronix, self-published source.[119]
  • Proprivacy.com, appears to be a corporate-affiliate news site and is thus not reliable.[120]
  • ResearchGate, user generated content. Papers hosted there may also be published elsewhere, in which case they may be reliable.[1]
  • Stack Exchange (Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, Ask Ubuntu), user generated.[1]
  • VPNPro.com, native advertising and sponsored content.[121]

No consensus

  • Hackaday, no consensus as to whether its editorial oversight is sufficient to rise above WP:BLOGS.[122]
  • The Next Web, no consensus, 2014 and 2016 discussions considered it reliable, 2018 discussions leaned toward unreliable.[1]
  • Psychology Today blogs, no consensus, while often written by experts, may not necessarily be experts in fields sufficiently relevant to claims that they may make.[123]
  • ScienceBlogs, no consensus, network of invite-only blogs run by experts. However, some blogs may write about subjects outside of their author's expertise.[1]
  • Softpedia, reliable for reviews, no consensus for news articles.[1]
  • TechCrunch, 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 verifiability, but may be less useful for purpose of determining notability.[1]

Sports

Reliable

Unreliable
  • Rocketrobinsoccerintoronto – blog compiling primary source information.[124]

No consensus

  • SBNation, all editors involved in a 2020 discussion agree that articles published in this source should be evaluated on a case by case basis.[125]

Unclassifiable

Unreliable

  • Cracked (magazine), humor publication.[1]
  • LiveJournal, self-published.[1]
  • The Onion, satire.[1]
  • Quora, crowd-sourced.[1]
  • Wikidata, user-generated. However, uniquely among WMF sites, Wikidata's statements can be directly transcluded into articles; this is usually done to provide external links or infobox data. [1]
  • Wikipedia, user-generated.[1]
  • WordPress.com, self-published blogs.[1]
  • YouTube, self-published. 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 the external links guideline.[1]
  • Examiner.com, spam blacklist.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs ct cu cv cw cx cy cz da db dc dd de df dg dh di dj dk dl dm dn do dp dq dr ds dt du dv dw dx dy dz ea eb ec ed ee ef eg eh ei ej ek el em en eo ep eq er es et eu ev ew ex ey ez fa fb fc fd fe ff fg fh fi fj fk fl fm fn fo fp fq fr fs ft fu fv fw fx fy fz ga gb gc gd ge gf gg gh gi gj gk gl gm gn go gp gq gr gs gt gu gv gw gx gy gz ha hb hc hd he hf hg hh hi hj hk hl hm hn ho hp hq hr hs ht hu hv hw hx hy hz ia ib ic id ie if ig ih ii ij ik il im in io ip iq ir Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
  2. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_276#Is_research_by_Amnesty_International_a_valid_source_for_Wikipedia?
  3. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Balkan_Insight,_N1
  4. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Balkan_Insight,_N1
  5. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_272#Are_meforum.org_,_consortiumnews.com,_and_theguardian.com/commentisfree_RSs?
  6. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_267#RfC:_TRT_World
  7. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#RfC: Daily Graphic and graphic.com.gh
  8. ^ Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 26#Expertise in Nigerian sources?
  9. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 272#Nairaland
  10. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 263#Somalia news sources
  11. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_267#PML_Daily_article_about_political_bloggers
  12. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_279#Is_the_Hong_Kong_Free_Press_a_reliable_source?
  13. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_274#Xinhua_reliability
  14. ^ a b c d e Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#Chinese_news_sources
  15. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#RfC:_guancha.cn
  16. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_279#People's_Daily_and_Qiushi_as_opinion_pieces_and_non_CoI_BLP_realiable_sources
  17. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#South_China_Morning_Post_reliability
  18. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#RfC:_What's_on_Weibo
  19. ^ Biswas, Soutik (2012-01-12). "Why are India's media under fire?". BBC News. Retrieved 2020-03-06.
  20. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#Scroll,_OpIndia,_The_Wire,_The_Quint,_The_Print,_DailyO,_postcardnews,_rightlog_etc.
  21. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Use_of_caravanmagazine_in_Asaram_article
  22. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 67#The Hindu
  23. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 145#News rack: Is it a reliable source
  24. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#General_discussions
  25. ^ a b c d Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Radiance_Veiwsweekly_(radianceweekly.in)
  26. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#National_Herald
  27. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_268#Orissapost.com
  28. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 158#Times of India
  29. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Times_of_India_RFC
  30. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#Kurdish_Press
  31. ^ a b c d Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Reliability_for_Japanese_newspapers
  32. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_266#Is_Kathmandu_Tribune_a_Reliable_Source
  33. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Straits_Times_and_the_South_China_Morning_Post
  34. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#Al_Masdar_news
  35. ^ a b c d e Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_274#Sources_used_in_Rojava_and_related_articles
  36. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_267#RfC:_TRT_World
  37. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_268#Post-Velvet_Revolution_Mladá_fronta_DNES
  38. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_250#Le_Monde_Diplomatique
  39. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#FAZ
  40. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Die_Welt
  41. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Die_Welt
  42. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Die_Welt
  43. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#nrc.nl
  44. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_272#Russian_websites_gimn1567.ru_,_elib.biblioatom.ru_,_www.famhist.ru,_and_www.peoples.ru
  45. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#South_Front
  46. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#NZZ_as_generally_reliable
  47. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_270#RfC:_The_Herald_(Glasgow)
  48. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Nation.Cymru
  49. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_274#Seeking_acceptance_of_reliability_of_UK_progressive_online_only_news_sites_-_The_Canary,_Evolve_Politics_and_Skwawkbox
  50. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_279#Hello!_magazine_(again)
  51. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283
  52. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#DeSmog_Blogs_(aka_desmog.uk,_desmog.co.uk,_dsmogblog.com)
  53. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_262#Antony_Lerman_at_openDemocracy
  54. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#CIA_factbook
  55. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Is_The_Daily_Beast_a_reliable_source
  56. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#RfC:_Is_The_Green_Papers_a_generally_reliable_source_for_reporting_election-related_information?
  57. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#Honolulu_Civil_Beat
  58. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#The_News-Press
  59. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_269#Teen_Vogue_for_political_or_crime_news?
  60. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Is_Allsides.com_a_reliable_source?
  61. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_279#The_Daily_Wire
  62. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#PragerU_-_an_unreliable_source?
  63. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_253#Are_Think_Tanks_considered_reliable_sources_for_politically_controversial_articles?
  64. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#The_Daily_Wire
  65. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_274#The_Federalist_(website)
  66. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#RfC:_Is_Paste_a_generally_reliable_source_for_politics-related_topics?
  67. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#Right_Wing_Watch
  68. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 58
  69. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#RFC:_Independent_Australia
  70. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#RfC: Quadrant Magazine
  71. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_275#Celebitchy.com_-_Reliable?
  72. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#EarnTheNecklace.com
  73. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_273#The_Internet_Speculative_Fiction_Database_as_a_source_for_BLP_data
  74. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#Potential_reliability_of_marriedceleb.com
  75. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_272#Nickiswift.com
  76. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#BabyNames.com
  77. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_284#Blender
  78. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#Common_Sense_Media
  79. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_284#Exclaim!
  80. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#GQ
  81. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_270#Is_Gizmodo_considered_a_reliable_source?
  82. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_277#Kissyfur
  83. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_284#Uproxx_again
  84. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#Alternative_Vision
  85. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_284#AskMen
  86. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#www.filmreference.com_reliable_or_not
  87. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#RfC:_Metalheadzone
  88. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#songmeaningsandfacts.com_in_Party_Favor_(song)
  89. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#TohoKingdom
  90. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#Is_Fortune_(magazine)_considered_reliable?_it_is_not_covered_in_WP:RSP
  91. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#PitchBook
  92. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#worldatlas.com
  93. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Encyclopedias_of_James_B._Minahan
  94. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Världens_Historia
  95. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#NCERT_(Indian_educational_board)
  96. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#Leafly
  97. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_272#defensereview.com
  98. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#GlobalSecurity.org
  99. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#uboat.net
  100. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_75#Uboat.net
  101. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#weaponsandwarfare.com
  102. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Encyclopedia of Women in World Religions
  103. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_277#Encounter_Books_and_Adler_&_Adler_Publication_reliable?
  104. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#AnsweringMuslims.com
  105. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_277#catholicism.org
  106. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_277#Church_Militant
  107. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_277#Jihad_Watch,_the_Middle_East_Forum_and_"Global_muslim_brotherhood_daily_watch"_in_articles_about_Islam
  108. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#IslamQA
  109. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#monergism.com
  110. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_277#Life_Site_News_(again)-_or_rather_Crux_News
  111. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#Global_Anabaptist_Mennonite_Encyclopedia_Online
  112. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#hymnary.org
  113. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#Books_from_Cambridge_University_Press
  114. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena
  115. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_272#Lambda_Alpha_Journal_for_Man_-_published_by_an_international_student_honors_society
  116. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_272#Science_journal_magazines_(e.g._Nature,_Scientific_American_(SciAm),_Science,_etc.)
  117. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#ThoughtCo.
  118. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#RfC:_KenRockwell.com
  119. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Phoronix
  120. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_277#Should_proprivacy_dot_com_be_considered_a_reliable_source?
  121. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_275#Should_vpnpro_dot_com_be_considered_a_reliable_source?
  122. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Hackaday
  123. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Psychology_Today
  124. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Rocket_Robin_Soccer_in_Toronto_rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com
  125. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Is_it_appropriate_to_use_SBNation_as_a_reference?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide&oldid=946571392"