Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

This is a 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.

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.

Reliability is an inquiry that takes place pursuant to the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline. Note that verifiability is only one of Wikipedia's core content policies, which also include neutral point of view and no original research. These policies work together to determine whether information from reliable sources should be included or excluded.

How to use this list[edit]

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 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 subject 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 also the weight of the claims you are supporting, which should be evaluated alongside the reliability of the sources cited. Mundane, uncontroversial details have the lowest burden of proof, while information related to biomedicine and living persons have the highest.

What if my source isn't here?[edit]

Don't panic. If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source you want to use is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious.[a] 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 in particular, you should start a discussion about it at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN). That is, after all, how the entries on this list got here to begin with.

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

How to improve this list[edit]

Consensus can change. If you believe that circumstances have evolved since the most recent discussion, new evidence has emerged that was not available at the time, or there is a new line of argument not previously covered, consider starting a discussion or a 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[edit]

For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions that mention the source's reliability, 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 participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three participants for all other discussions.

Sources[edit]

Source Status
(legend)
Discussions Uses
List Last Summary
Advameg (City-Data)
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019 Spam blacklist request 2019 Request for comment 2019

+14[b]

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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg +43
Al Jazeera (Al Jazeera English, Aljazeera.com)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2019 Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
AlterNet
Generally unreliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Amazon
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 2017 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
5 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
6 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
7 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
8 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
9 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
10 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
11 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
12 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
13 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
14 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
15 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
16 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The American Conservative (TAC)
No consensus
Request for comment 2019

1

2019 There is consensus that The American Conservative is a usable source for attributed opinions. As TAC is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organization, TAC is considered biased or opinionated. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Ancestry.com
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2015 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:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred. Ancestry.com also hosts user-generated content, which is unreliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Answers.com (WikiAnswers)
Generally unreliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Ars Technica
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2012
Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
arXiv
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4

A B

2015 arXiv is a preprint (and sometimes postprint) repository containing papers that have undergone moderation, but not necessarily peer review. There is consensus that arXiv is a self-published source, and is generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts. Verify whether a paper on arXiv is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on arXiv). 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Associated Press (AP)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2018 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Atlantic (The Atlantic Monthly)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2019 The Atlantic is considered generally reliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The A.V. Club
Generally reliable
1 2 3

A

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2014
The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Baidu Baike
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2018 Baidu Baike is considered generally unreliable because 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Ballotpedia
No consensus
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] 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)
Generally reliable
15[c] 2019 BBC is considered generally reliable. This includes BBC News, BBC documentaries, and the BBC History site (on BBC Online). However, this excludes BBC projects that incorporate 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Bellingcat
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4

2019 There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with attribution. Some editors consider Bellingcat a biased source, as it receives funding from the National Endowment for Democracy. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Bild
Generally unreliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2014
Bild is a tabloid that has been unfavourably compared to The Sun. A few editors consider the source usable in some cases. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Biography.com
No consensus
1 2 3 4 2018 There is no consensus on the reliability of Biography.com. Some editors consider the source reliable because of its backing from A&E Networks and references to the website in news media. Others point to discrepancies between information on Biography.com and on more established sources, and an unclear fact-checking process. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Blaze Media (BlazeTV, Conservative Review, CRTV, TheBlaze)
Generally unreliable
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.[2] 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Blogger (blogspot.com)
Generally unreliable
20[d] 2019 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 they cannot be authenticated. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Bloomberg (Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2019 Bloomberg publications, including Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable for news and business topics. See also: Bloomberg profiles. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Bloomberg profiles
No consensus
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Boing Boing
No consensus
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Breitbart News
Blacklisted
Deprecated
Request for comment 2018 Spam blacklist request 2018

+14[e]

2019 Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart News 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. 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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Business Insider (Insider, Markets Insider, Tech Insider)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 2015 There is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Bustle
No consensus
Request for comment 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
BuzzFeed
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2018 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.[3] BuzzFeed may use A/B testing for new articles, which may cause article content to change.[4] BuzzFeed operates a separate news division, BuzzFeed News, which has higher editorial standards and is now hosted on a different website. See also: BuzzFeed News. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
BuzzFeed News
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2019 There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News now operates separately from BuzzFeed, and most news content originally hosted on BuzzFeed was moved to the BuzzFeed News website in 2018.[5] In light of the staff layoffs at BuzzFeed in January 2019, some editors recommend exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after this date. The site's opinion pieces should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. See also: BuzzFeed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Cato Institute
No consensus
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
CelebrityNetWorth
Generally unreliable
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.[6] 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG, Global Research, globalresearch.ca)
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Spam blacklist request 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 Globalization is an 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
CESNUR (Center for Studies on New Religions, Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2019 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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Christian Science Monitor (CSM, CS Monitor)
Generally reliable
20[f] 2016 The Christian Science Monitor is considered generally reliable for news. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
CliffsNotes
No consensus
1 2 2018 CliffsNotes is a study guide. Editors consider CliffsNotes usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing CliffsNotes citations with additional sources. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Climate Feedback
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2019 Climate Feedback is a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
CNET
Generally reliable
16[g] 2015 CNET is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
CNN (Cable News Network)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2019 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 somewhat biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
CoinDesk
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2018 Request for comment 2019

1 2 3

2019 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 (Digital Currency Group) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk.[7] 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Conversation
Generally reliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Cosmopolitan
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
CounterPunch
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2016 There is no consensus regarding the reliability of CounterPunch. As a biased or opinionated source, its statements should be attributed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Cracked.com
Generally unreliable
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 cite that source instead. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Crunchbase
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Daily Beast
No consensus
1 2 3 Discussion in progress
2019
Past discussions regarding The Daily Beast are lacking in depth. Multiple users have expressed the opinion that it is generally reliable, citing a history of editorial oversight and the leadership of those such as Tina Brown. However, it was also described as "largely an opinion piece aggregator", for which special care must be taken for use in supporting controversial statements of fact related to living persons. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Daily Caller
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Discussion in progress
2019
The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. Most editors indicated that The Daily Caller is a partisan source with regard to United States politics and that their statements on this topic should be attributed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Daily Dot
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

A

2018 The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Daily Express
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2018 The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Daily Kos
Generally unreliable
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 far-left bias, many editors consider Daily Kos to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Daily Mail (MailOnline)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2017 Request for comment 2019

+38[h]

Discussion in progress
2019
The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC, and the decision was reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Daily Mirror
No consensus
1 2 3 2018 The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to other British tabloids, such as Daily Mail or The Sun. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Daily Star (UK)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2018 The Daily Star is a tabloid that is generally considered less reliable than the Daily Mail. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Daily Telegraph (The Telegraph)
Generally reliable
16[i] 2018 There is consensus that The Daily Telegraph (also known as The Telegraph) is generally reliable. Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Deadline Hollywood
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2019 Deadline Hollywood is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Democracy Now!
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Deseret News
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2016 The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news. It is owned by a subsidiary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and there is no consensus on whether the Deseret News is 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Digital Spy
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5

A

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Discogs
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Dotdash (About.com, The Balance, Lifewire, The Spruce, ThoughtCo, TripSavvy, Verywell)
No consensus
14[j] Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2014
Dotdash (formerly known as About.com) operates a network of websites. Editors find the quality of articles published by About.com to be inconsistent. Some editors recommend treating About.com articles as 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's current website brands.[8][9] See also: Investopedia.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
5 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
6 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
7 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
E! (E! News, E! Online, Entertainment Television)
No consensus
1 2 3 2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of the E! television network, including its website E! Online. It is generally regarded as usable for celebrity news. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Economist
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2018 Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. The Economist publishes magazine blogs and opinion pieces, which should be handled with the respective guidelines. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Electronic Intifada (EI)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2018 There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be attributed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Encyclopædia Britannica (Encyclopædia Britannica Online)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Discussion in progress
2019
The Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online) is a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available. In January 2009, the Encyclopædia Britannica Online began accepting content submissions from the general public.[10] 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Engadget
Generally reliable
1

A

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2012
Engadget is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Entertainment Weekly (EW)
Generally reliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Epoch Times
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5

2019 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 is the case with Breitbart News and Occupy Democrats, this does not mean that The Epoch Times can no longer be used, just that it can never again be used as a reference for facts. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Evening Standard (London Evening Standard)
No consensus
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Examiner.com
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Spam blacklist request 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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
No consensus
Request for comment 2010

1 2 3 4 5

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
FamilySearch
Generally unreliable
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. When using primary source documents from FamilySearch, follow WP:BLPPRIMARY and avoid interpreting them with original research. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Famous Birthdays
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Spam blacklist request 2018

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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Financial Times
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2018 The Financial Times is considered generally reliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Find a Grave
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2016 The content on Find a Grave is user-generated, and is therefore considered generally unreliable.[11] 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. Use care that the Find a Grave page does not itself contain prohibited content, such as copyright violations. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Findmypast
Generally unreliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Forbes
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 2018 Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. See also: Forbes.com contributors. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Forbes.com contributors
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2019 Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. 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 "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor", and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could be 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Fox News (news and website)
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2010

+19[k]

2019 Fox News news programs are produced by their News department. Shows include America's Newsroom, Shepard Smith Reporting, Special Report with Bret Baier, and The Story with Martha MacCallum. Editors show consensus that news reports from Fox News are generally reliable. The 2010 RfC concluded: "Consensus is that while Fox may not always be reliable it is a Reliable Source", and pointed to the WP:NEWSORG guideline. Most editors consider Fox News a partisan news organization, and defer to the respective guidelines for these types of sources. Editors are advised to exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics, and to attribute statements of opinion. See also: Fox News (talk shows). 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Fox News (talk shows)
No consensus
Request for comment 2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2019 Fox News talk shows are produced by their Programming department. Shows include Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends. Content from these shows is equivalent to opinion pieces and should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Statements from these shows should be attributed. See also: Fox News (news and website). 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Gateway Pundit
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Gawker
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2019 Gawker is an inactive 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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Geni.com
Generally unreliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Genius (Rap Genius)
No consensus
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao)
No consensus
1 2 3 2019 The Global Times is a tabloid operated under the People's Daily and owned by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. There is no consensus on the reliability of the Global Times. It is a biased or opinionated source. Although the Global Times is a state-owned publication, its statements are not necessarily representative of China's official positions, and should be attributed to the Global Times itself, not to the Chinese government. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Goodreads
Generally unreliable
1 2 2018 Goodreads is a social cataloging site comprising user-generated content. As a self-published source, Goodreads is considered generally unreliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Google Maps (Google Street View)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 2017 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 treated preferentially to 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Guardian (TheGuardian.com, The Manchester Guardian, The Observer)
Generally reliable
15[l] 2019 There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Guardian blogs
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2019 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Haaretz (Ḥadashot Ha'aretz)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2018 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Hansard (UK Parliament transcripts, House of Commons, House of Lords)
No consensus
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 UK parliamentary proceedings and UK 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
5 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
6 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Heat Street
Generally unreliable
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 a 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Heavy.com
No consensus
1 2 2019 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 cite the original source instead. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Hill
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
HispanTV
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Hollywood Reporter (THR)
Generally reliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Hope not Hate (Searchlight)
No consensus
Request for comment 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
HuffPost (The Huffington Post)
No consensus
17[m] 2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of HuffPost. As HuffPost is a newer publication, some editors prefer to use reliable sources with more established reputations. Some editors believe the site reports with a political slant, which makes it biased or opinionated. HuffPost's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also: HuffPost contributors.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
5 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
6 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
7 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
8 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
9 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
10 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
11 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
12 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
13 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
14 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
15 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
16 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
HuffPost contributors
Generally unreliable
17[n] 2018 HuffPost includes content written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight. These contributors generally do not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors criticize the quality of their content. 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.[12] 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.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
5 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
6 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
7 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
8 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
9 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
10 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
11 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
12 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
13 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
14 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
15 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
16 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Human Events
No consensus
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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Idolator
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 2017 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
IMDb (Internet Movie Database)
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019

+15[o]

2019 The content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors. WP:Citing IMDb describes two exceptions, both of which do not require citations because the film itself is implied to be the primary source. Although certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, editors criticize the quality of IMDb's fact-checking. A number of editors have pointed out that IMDb content has been copied from other sites, including Wikipedia, and that there have been a number of notable hoaxes in the past. The use of IMDb as an external link is generally considered appropriate (see WP:ELP). 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Independent
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2019 The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Independent Journal Review (IJR)
No consensus
1 2 3 2018 There is no consensus on the reliability of the Independent Journal Review. Posts from "community" members are considered self-published sources. The site's "news" section consists mostly of syndicated stories from Reuters, and citations of these stories should preferably point to Reuters. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Independent Media Center (Indymedia, IMC)
Generally unreliable
1 2 2019 The Independent Media Center is an open publishing network. Editors express low confidence in Indymedia's reputation for fact-checking, and consider Indymedia a self-published source.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
5 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
6 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
7 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
8 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
9 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
10 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
11 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
12 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
13 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
14 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
15 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
16 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
17 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
InfoWars (NewsWars)
Blacklisted
Deprecated
Spam blacklist request 2018 Request for comment 2018 Spam blacklist request 2018

1

2018 Due to persistent abuse, InfoWars is on both the Wikipedia spam blacklist and the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. InfoWars is a conspiracy theory and fake news website. InfoWars was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. The use of InfoWars as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. InfoWars should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Inter Press Service (IPS)
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2011
The Inter Press Service is a news agency. There is consensus that the Inter Press Service is generally reliable for news. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Intercept
Generally reliable
1 2 2019 There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
International Business Times (IBT, IBTimes)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2019 There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. Editors note that the publication's editorial practices have been criticized by other reliable sources, and point to the inconsistent quality of the site's articles. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
5 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
6 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Investopedia
No consensus
1 2 3 2018 Investopedia is owned by Dotdash (formerly known as About.com). There is no consensus on the reliability of Investopedia. It is a tertiary source. See also: Dotdash. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association)
Generally reliable
1 2 2018 JAMA is a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the American Medical Association. It is considered generally reliable. Opinion pieces from JAMA, including articles from The Jama Forum, are subject to WP:RSOPINION and might not qualify under WP:MEDRS. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Jewish Virtual Library (JVL)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5

A

2015 The Jewish Virtual Library is a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Jewish Virtual Library when available. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Jezebel
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2016 There is consensus that Jezebel should generally be avoided as a source, especially on biographies of living persons. Many editors consider Jezebel to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion. Some editors say that Jezebel is biased or opinionated. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Know Your Meme (KYM)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2013
Know Your Meme "submissions" are user-generated content and thus are generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of their video series and "confirmed" entries. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Last.fm
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1

2019 Last.fm was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Last.fm is user-generated, and is considered generally unreliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
LifeSiteNews (Campaign Life Coalition)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4

2019 LifeSiteNews was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
LiveJournal
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2012 LiveJournal is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable. LiveJournal can be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions and content from subject-matter experts, but not as a secondary source for living persons. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Los Angeles Times
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2016 Most editors consider the Los Angeles Times generally reliable. Refer to WP:NEWSBLOG for the newspaper's blog. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Lulu.com (Lulu Press)
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Spam blacklist request 2008

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2019 Due to persistent abuse, Lulu.com is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Lulu.com is a print-on-demand publisher, which is a type of self-published source. Books published through Lulu.com can be used if they are written by a subject-matter expert. Occasionally, a reputable publisher uses Lulu.com as a printer; in this case, cite the original publisher instead of Lulu.com. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Marquis Who's Who (Who's Who in America)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 2017 Marquis Who's Who, including its publication Who's Who in America, is considered generally unreliable. As most of its content is provided by the person concerned, editors generally consider Marquis Who's Who comparable to a self-published source. There is a broad consensus that Marquis Who's Who should not be used to establish notability for article topics. See also: Who's Who (UK). 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Mary Sue
No consensus
1 2

A B

2016 There is no consensus on the reliability of The Mary Sue. It is generally regarded as usable for reviews and opinion, though not for its reblogged content. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Media Bias/Fact Check
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2019 There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Media Matters for America (MMfA)
No consensus
Request for comment 2010 Request for comment 2019

+10[p]

2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Media Research Center (CNSNews.com, MRCTV, NewsBusters)
No consensus
Request for comment 2010 Request for comment 2019

1 2 3

Discussion in progress
2019
There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Research Center publications, including NewsBusters. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Mediaite
No consensus
1 2 3 2019 There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Medium
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2019 Medium is a blog hosting service. 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. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
MetalSucks
No consensus
1 2

A

2018 MetalSucks is considered usable for its reviews and news articles. Avoid its overly satirical content and exercise caution when MetalSucks is the only source making a statement. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Metro (British newspaper)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2017 The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper (accessible via metro.news domain) are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
MintPress News
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019 2019 MintPress News was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Mondoweiss
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2019 Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Morning Star (UK)
No consensus
1 2 3

A B

2019 The Morning Star is a British tabloid with a low circulation and readership that the New Statesman has described as "Britain's last communist newspaper".[13] There is no consensus on whether the Morning Star engages in factual reporting, and broad consensus that it is a biased and partisan source. All uses of the Morning Star should be attributed. Take care to ensure that content from the Morning Star constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Mother Jones (MoJo)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 2019 There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
MyLife (Reunion.com)
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Spam blacklist request 2019 Spam blacklist request 2019

1

2019 Due to persistent abuse, MyLife is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. MyLife (formerly known as Reunion.com) is an information broker that publishes user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Nation
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2009
There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
National Enquirer
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6

2019 The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid that is considered generally unreliable. In the 2019 RfC, there was weak consensus to deprecate the National Enquirer as a source, but no consensus to create an edit filter to warn editors against using the publication. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
National Review (NR)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 2018 There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Natural News (NewsTarget)
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Spam blacklist request 2019

1
A B

2019 Due to persistent abuse, Natural News is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. There is a near-unanimous consensus that the site repeatedly publishes false or fabricated information, including a large number of conspiracy theories. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
New York (Vulture, The Cut, Grub Street, Daily Intelligencer)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2016 There is consensus that New York magazine, including its subsidiary publication Vulture, is generally reliable. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
New York Daily News (Illustrated Daily News)
No consensus
1 2 3 2017 There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Daily News. The New York Daily News is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
New York Post (New York Evening Post, Page Six)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 2019 There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper with high circulation, and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available. The New York Post operates Page Six, its gossip section. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The New York Times (NYT)
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2018

+33[q]

2019 Most editors consider The New York Times generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The New Yorker
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2011
There is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
News of the World
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019 2019 News of the World was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that News of the World is generally unreliable. As is the case with The Sun, News of the World should not be used as a reference in most cases aside from about-self usage, and should not be used to determine notability. Some editors consider News of the World usable for uncontroversial film reviews if attribution is provided. News of the World shut down in 2011. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Newsmax
No consensus
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2013
Discussions regarding Newsmax are dated, with the most recent occurring in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Discussions are also lacking in depth, and in focus on evaluating this source specifically. Newsmax has been cited in discussions of other sources as a low benchmark for a partisan outlet with regard to US politics, and for a propensity for comparatively fringe viewpoints. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Newsweek (pre-2013)
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5

2019 There is consensus that articles from Newsweek pre-2013 are generally reliable for news covered during that time. In 2011, Newsweek was a reputable magazine with only some minor problems while it was owned by The Newsweek Daily Beast Company (which also owned The Daily Beast). Blogs under Newsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy, though. See also: Newsweek (2013–present). 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Newsweek (2013–present)
No consensus
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4

2019 Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. See also: Newsweek (pre-2013). 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Next Web (TNW)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of The Next Web. Articles written by contributors may be subject to reduced or no editorial oversight. Avoid using The Next Web's sponsored content. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
NNDB (Notable Names Database)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4

2019 NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company of shock site Rotten.com. It was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Editors note NNDB's poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, despite the site claiming to have an editorial process. Editors have also found instances of NNDB incorporating content from Wikipedia, which would make the use of the affected pages circular sourcing. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Occupy Democrats
Deprecated
Request for comment 2018 2018 In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source a la the Daily Mail. As with Breitbart News, this does not mean it cannot ever be used on Wikipedia; it means it cannot be used as a reference for facts. It can still be used as a primary source for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Onion
Generally unreliable
1 2 2019 The Onion is a satirical news website, and should not be used as a source for facts. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Patheos
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2015 Patheos is a website that hosts a collection of blogs. These blogs receive little editorial oversight and should be treated as self-published sources. Some editors have shown support for including Patheos articles as a source when cited together with other more reliable sources. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
People
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2013

1 2 3 4

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2014
There is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons, but the magazine should not be used for contentious facts. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Pew Research Center
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2012
There is consensus that the Pew Research Center is generally reliable.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
5 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
6 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
7 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
8 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
PinkNews (Pink News)
No consensus
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2011
There is no consensus on the reliability of PinkNews. It is generally regarded as biased or opinionated. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Playboy
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2015 There is consensus that Playboy is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's reputation for high-quality interviews and fact-checking. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Points Guy (news and reviews) (TPG)
Blacklisted
No consensus
Spam blacklist request 2018 Request for comment 2019

A B C

2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of news articles and reviews on The Points Guy. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, and content involving these companies should be avoided as sources. The Points Guy is currently on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. See also: The Points Guy (sponsored content). 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Points Guy (sponsored content) (TPG)
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Spam blacklist request 2018 Request for comment 2019

A B C

2019 There is consensus that sponsored content on The Points Guy, including content involving credit cards, should not be used as sources. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, receiving compensation from readers signing up for credit cards via the website's links. The Points Guy is currently on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. See also: The Points Guy (news and reviews). 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Politico
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2018 Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that Politico is a biased source. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
PolitiFact (PunditFact)
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2016 Request for comment 2019 2019 PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates. PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate (of the statements checked by PolitiFact), provided that attribution is given, as a primary source. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Press TV
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2019 There is consensus that Press TV is generally unreliable. As a state-owned media network in a country with low press freedom, Press TV may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Iranian government, although due weight should be considered. Press TV is biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. Press TV is particularly known for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including Holocaust denial.[14] 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
ProPublica
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2019

1

2019 There is a strong consensus that ProPublica is generally reliable for all purposes because it has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, is widely cited by reliable sources, and has received multiple Pulitzer Prizes. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Quackwatch
No consensus
Request for comment 2019

+13[r]

Discussion in progress
2019
Quackwatch is a self-published source (disputed) written by a subject-matter expert. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should be attributed. Some editors consider Quackwatch a partisan source (disputed). As it is a tertiary source, it may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Quadrant
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019 2019 Most editors consider Quadrant generally unreliable for factual reporting. The publication is a biased and opinionated source. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Quillette
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2019 There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts. Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Quora
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2019 Quora is a Q&A site. As an Internet forum, it is a self-published source that incorporates user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable. Posts from verified accounts on Quora can be used as primary sources for statements about themselves. Posts from verified accounts of established experts may also be used to substantiate statements in their field of expertise, in accordance with the policy on self-published sources. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1
A

2019 Rate Your Music was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Rate Your Music is user-generated, and is considered generally unreliable.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Register (El Reg)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5

A

2017 The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Some editors say that The Register is biased or opinionated on topics involving Wikipedia. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
ResearchGate
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2019 ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate). 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Reuters
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2018 Reuters is a news agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from Reuters that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. Press releases published by Reuters are not automatically reliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
RhythmOne (AllMusic, AllMovie, AllGame, All Media Guide, AllRovi)
No consensus
25[s] 2019 RhythmOne (who acquired All Media Guide, formerly AllRovi) operates the websites AllMusic, AllMovie, and AllGame (defunct). There is consensus that RhythmOne websites are usable for entertainment reviews with in-text attribution. Some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available. Editors also advise against using AllMusic's genre classifications from the website's sidebar. Listings without accompanying prose do not count toward notability. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
RIA Novosti
No consensus
1 2 3 4 2016 RIA Novosti is an official news agency of the Russian government. There is a broad consensus that it is a biased and opinionated source. It is generally considered usable for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability. See also: Sputnik, which replaced the international edition of RIA Novosti. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Rolling Stone
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2019 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 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. Some editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should also be attributed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Rotten Tomatoes
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4

A

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2014
Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
RT (general topics) (Russia Today)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 2018 There is no consensus on the reliability of RT (formerly Russia Today). Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of fact. However, RT is frequently described as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation,[23] including the promotion of conspiracy theories.[26] It is not generally reliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. The only discussion that was formally closed (discussion #3) examined whether RT is acceptable in more general circumstances and found no consensus.[27] See also: RT (controversial topics, international politics). 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
RT (controversial topics, international politics) (Russia Today)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2018 RT is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. See also: RT (general topics). 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Salon
No consensus
1 2 3 2018 There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Science-Based Medicine
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2019

1 2

2019 Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
ScienceBlogs
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2012
ScienceBlogs is an invitation-only network of blogs. There is no consensus on the reliability of ScienceBlogs articles in general, or whether it is a self-published source. Most editors consider ScienceBlogs articles written by subject-matter experts reliable, though articles outside the writer's relevant field are not. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Scribd
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2016 Scribd operates a self-publishing platform for documents and audiobooks. It is considered generally unreliable, especially for biographies of living persons. Anyone can upload any document they'd like and there is no assurance that it hasn't been manipulated. Many documents on Scribd's self-publishing platform violate copyrights, so linking to them from Wikipedia would also violate the WP:COPYVIOEL guideline and the WP:COPYVIO policy. If a particular document hosted on the platform is in itself reliable, editors are advised to cite the source without linking to the Scribd entry. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Skeptic's Dictionary
Generally reliable
1 2 3 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2008
The Skeptic's Dictionary is considered generally reliable. Attribution may be necessary. In some cases, it's preferable to cite the sources cited by The Skeptic's Dictionary. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Snopes
Generally reliable
13[t] 2019 Snopes is considered generally reliable. Attribution may be necessary. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Softpedia
No consensus
1 2

A

2019 Softpedia is considered reliable for its software and product reviews. There is no consensus on whether Softpedia news articles are generally reliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
Generally reliable
16[u] Discussion in progress
2019
The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
SparkNotes
No consensus
1 2 2018 SparkNotes is a study guide. Editors consider SparkNotes usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing SparkNotes citations with additional sources. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Spectator
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2018 Most editors consider The Spectator (not to be confused with the unrelated American Spectator) generally reliable. Use WP:NEWSBLOG to evaluate the magazine's blogs and WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces. The magazine is usually considered a partisan source with regard to UK politics. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Der Spiegel (Spiegel Online, SPON)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2018 There is consensus that Der Spiegel is generally reliable. Articles written by Claas Relotius are generally unreliable as this particular journalist has been found to fabricate articles. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Sputnik
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2018 There is clear consensus that Sputnik News is generally unreliable. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation,[28] with some editors considering it less reliable than Breitbart News. Some editors consider Sputnik a reliable source for official Russian government statements and positions. See also: RIA Novosti, whose international edition was replaced by Sputnik. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Stack Exchange (Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, Ask Ubuntu)
Generally unreliable
1 2

A

2018 Stack Exchange is a network of Q&A sites, including Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, and Ask Ubuntu. As an Internet forum, it is a self-published source that incorporates user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
5 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
6 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Sun (UK) (The Sun on Sunday, The Irish Sun, The Scottish Sun)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

+12[v]

Discussion in progress
2019
The Sun was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject. The RfC does not override WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use of The Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Taki's Magazine (Takimag, Taki's Top Drawer)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1

2019 Taki's Magazine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that it is an unreliable opinion magazine that should be avoided outside of very limited exceptions (e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF). 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
TASS (ТАСС, ITAR-TASS, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union)
No consensus
Request for comment 2019 2019 In the 2019 RfC, editors argued that the reliability of TASS varies based on the subject matter. Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but also agree that there are deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
TechCrunch
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 2018 Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for purpose of determining notability. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Telesur
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1 2

2019 Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information. As a state-owned media network in a country with low press freedom, Telesur may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government, although due weight should be considered. Telesur is biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
TheWrap
Generally reliable
1 2 2017 As an industry trade publication, there is consensus that TheWrap is a good source for entertainment news and media analysis. There is no consensus regarding the reliability of TheWrap's articles on other topics. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
ThinkProgress
No consensus
Request for comment 2013

1

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2013
Discussions of ThinkProgress are dated, with the most recent in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Some consider ThinkProgress a form of WP:NEWSBLOG, and reliable for attributed statements of opinion. Others argue that ThinkProgress is generally reliable under WP:NEWSORG, albeit with due consideration for their political leanings. ThinkProgress is generally considered a partisan source for the purposes of US politics. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Time
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 2019 There is consensus that Time is generally reliable. Time's magazine blogs, including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy. Refer to WP:NEWSORG for guidance on op-eds, which should only be used with attribution. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Times (The Sunday Times, The Times of London)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

2015 The Times, including its sister paper The Sunday Times, is considered generally reliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
TMZ
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2016 There is no consensus on the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles on rumors and speculation without named authors, it is recommended to 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
TorrentFreak (TF)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2019 Most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing. Editors note references to the website in mainstream media. The source may or may not be reliable for other topics. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Townhall
No consensus
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2010
As of 2010, a few editors commented that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece, although they may not be reliable for unattributed statements of fact, and context will dictate whether the opinion of the author as such, meets the standard of WP:DUEWEIGHT. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
TRT World
No consensus
Request for comment 2019 2019 Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Truth About Guns (TTAG)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2019 The Truth About Guns is a group blog. There is consensus that TTAG does not have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. TTAG has promoted conspiracy theories, and does not clearly label its sponsored content. Editors agree that TTAG is biased or opinionated. Opinions in TTAG are likely to constitute undue weight. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Tunefind
Generally unreliable
1 2 2019 Tunefind is almost entirely composed of user-generated content, and is a self-published source. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
TV Guide
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2012
TV Guide is considered generally reliable for television-related topics. Some editors consider TV Guide a primary source for air dates. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
TV Tropes
Generally unreliable
1 2 2016 TV Tropes is considered generally unreliable because it is an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Twitter
Generally unreliable
35[w] Discussion in progress
2019
Twitter is a social network. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description. In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Urban Dictionary
Generally unreliable
1 2 2009 Urban Dictionary is considered generally unreliable, because it consists solely of user-generated content. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Us Weekly
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 2018 There is no consensus on the reliability of Us Weekly. It is often considered less reliable than People magazine. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Vanity Fair
Generally reliable
1 2 2019 Vanity Fair is considered generally reliable for popular culture. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Variety
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 2016 As an entertainment trade magazine, Variety is considered a reliable source in its field. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
VDARE
Deprecated
Request for comment 2018

1

2019 VDARE was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. Editors agree that it is generally unusable as a source, although there may be rare exceptions such as in identifying its writers in an about-self fashion. Such limited instances will only be under careful and guided ("filtered") discretion. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Venezuelanalysis
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019

1
A B

2019 There is consensus that Venezuelanalysis is generally unreliable. Some editors consider Venezuelanalysis a Bolivarian propaganda outlet, and most editors question its accuracy. Almost all editors describe the site as biased or opinionated, so its claims should be attributed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
VentureBeat
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2011
VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for business- and technology-related articles. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Verge
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2018

1

2019 There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. Some editors question the quality of The Verge's instructional content on computer hardware. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
VGChartz
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019

A B C D E F G H I

2019 In the 2019 RfC, editors unanimously agreed that VGChartz is generally unreliable. The site consists mainly of news articles that qualify as user-generated content. In addition, editors heavily criticize VGChartz for poor accuracy standards in its video game sales data, and its methodology page consists of wholly unverified claims.[29] If other reliable sources publish video game sales data for certain regions (usually The NPD Group, Chart-Track, and/or Media Create), it is strongly advised that editors cite those sources instead. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Vice Media (Garage, i-D, Refinery29, Vice, Vice News)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Vogue
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2018 Vogue is considered generally reliable. Potentially contentious statements made by Vogue interview subjects can be attributed to the individual. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Vox (Recode)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2017 Vox is considered generally reliable. It is often considered a partisan source, particularly regarding American politics. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 2019 Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news. Use WP:NEWSBLOG to evaluate the newspaper's blogs, including Washington Wire. Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Washington Examiner
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled with the appropriate guideline. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Washington Post (WaPo)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2019 Most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable. Some editors note that WP:NEWSBLOG should be used to evaluate blog posts on The Washington Post's website. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Washington Times
No consensus
1 2 3 2019 There is consensus that The Washington Times is marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics, especially with regard to climate change and US race relations. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Weekly Standard