, to help page reviewers unfamiliar with a given subject assess notability and neutrality of an article––entries should focus on whether a specific publication is sufficiently reliable for significant coverage in the publication to count toward notability for a subject. Disagreements with assessments here should be escalated to the reliable sources noticeboard, with a notice also placed on the talk page of this article to notify editors about the discussion.
This page is organized into sections corresponding to specific topics and regions that share sources in common. Sources may be included in more than one section if they are relevant to more than one section.
Instructions
How to use and improve this page
The reliability of a source depends on context. This page is only a quick reference to previous discussions and cannot tell you whether a particular source is reliable in a specific context.
Claims about a source's reliability should be cited either to the
perennial sources list or to discussions that demonstrate a consensus that the claim is true. Note that this is a considerably weaker standard than the one employed at the perennial sources list
. This is because the purpose of this list is to provide at-a-glance reliability judgments for editors working on unfamiliar subjects, not to be a final arbiter on matters of reliability. While the discussions cited in this page may be useful resources when discussing a given source's reliability, a source's inclusion in any given category on this page should not be used as an argument in any protracted discussion over a source's reliability.
If you would like to expand this page with the contents of a WikiProject source guide, either format a link to the relevant guide as a citation, or include it using a {{main}} or {{see also}} template. Entries should ideally mention when and where the cited discussion was held, and the level of participation. When listing a date, simply mention the month that the discussion was closed in, as this is sufficient context while also being easy to note when listing a new entry.
If you disagree with any assessment listed on this page, either provide citations to Wikipedia discussions justifying a change in the listing, or start a new discussion on the
reliable sources noticeboard
in order to establish a more holistic and up to date consensus. However, be mindful of the level of support for the claim that you intend to challenge: for instance, challenging sources listed at the perennial sources list is much less likely to result in a new consensus than challenging sources supported by a single discussion.
Contextual information about sources' affiliations, biases, and other information beyond a reliability judgment is intended to provide information to help contextualize sources, primarily to assess if an article is likely to be missing additional viewpoints.
neutrality
.
Adding entries
All information in this page should be written to reflect existing
WP:RSN
, but Wikiprojects and other places are also acceptable).
Please include a reference with every entry.
This list should mostly be secondary sources, but a few important primary sources are acceptable. Just make sure to mention in its entry that it is a primary source.
Entries based on discussions where only one editor assessed the source, should always be listed as "no consensus", although it may be appropriate to mention briefly what the editor said about the source, even if categorical.
Formatting
Sub-headings should be titled "Reliable", "Unreliable", or "No consensus". Entries should use the following format.
Write the common name first, and wikilink it if it has an article. Then include a compact external link to the source's website. These external links are important, as they allow the listing to be processed by external tools, and help decisively disambiguate it from similarly-named publlications. Then include a description of the source's reliability, and any concerns or caveats that were mentioned during the original source discussion. Finally, include a reference to the original source or source discussion whether at
WP:RSP
, or a WikiProject resource page.
By region
International reporting
These sources have extensive coverage of many different countries and regions
Reliable
.coda [2] English and Russian, generally reliable per an April 2021 RfC.[2]
Agence France-Presse (AFP) [3], several languages, reliable international news agency per a May 2020 RSN discussion. Note that it does also publish clearly-marked sponsored content.[3]
The Africa Report[4], English, small consensus for reliability in a May 2023 RSN discussion.[4]
Al Jazeera [5] and Al Jazeera English[6], Arabic and English respectively, generally reliable with editors perceiving Al Jazeera English as more reliable than Arabic-language reporting. Some editors assert that it is a partisan source for politics in Southwest Asia, describing the source as anti-Israel and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.[5]
Amnesty International[7], many languages, generally reliable, may need to attribute opinions for controversial topics.[5]
Jeune Afrique, [25] French, described as an above average source for coverage of francophone Africa per a June 2021 RSN discussion. Note that it also carries sponsored content, which is indicated at the bottom of the page.[10]
N1 (TV channel)[26], English, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, generally reliable although the discussion meanders into irrelevant questions about due weight.[11]
The Nation[27], English, generally reliable, progressive political stance.[5]
WP:NEWSORG per a July 2020 RSN discussion,[12] reaffirmed in October 2020.[13]
Radio Free Asia[33], English, generally reliable, although it may need attribution for politically controversial topics.[5]
Reuters[34], many languages, generally reliable. Note that press releases republished by Reuters are not automatically reliable.[5]
Der Spiegel[35], German, generally reliable. Articles written by Claas Relotius are generally unreliable as this particular journalist has been found to fabricate articles.[5]
magazine blogs, including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy.[5]
Genocide Watch [41], English, advocacy group, should be attributed. Broad consensus in an October RSN discussion that the outlet is influential, but several editors raised concerns about its reliability.[16]
Mondoweiss[44], English, largely reports on issues related to Israel/Palestine. Opinionated source backed by an advocacy group, statements should be attributed.[5]
Newsweek (2013–present) [45], many languages, changes in editorial leadership have led to a decline in the magazine's reliability, evaluate on a case-by-case basis.[5]
Resumen Latinoamericano, [46] English and Spanish, no clear consensus in a September 2021 RSN discussion.[19]
RIA Novosti[47], many languages, official news agency of the Russian government. It is generally considered a usable source for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability.[5]
TRT World[48], English, an RfC closed in June 2019 reached a consensus that it is not reliable for anything with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest, but that it is likely reliable for unrelated reporting and statements about the official positions of the Turkish government.[20]
Garage Magazine, i-D, Motherboard, Vice (magazine), Vice News) [49], There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice (magazine) or Vice Media websites, including Motherboard and Vice News. It is generally regarded as more reliable for arts and entertainment than for politics.[5]
Worldcrunch[50], primarily an aggregator, no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[21]
World Christian Database, World Christian Encyclopedia, and World Religion Database (WCD, WCE, WRD) [51][52], additional considerations apply, see RSP listing.[5]
World Socialist Website [53], no consensus in a September 2021 RSN discussion.[22] Previously considererd unreliable, although individuals writing pieces for it or stories that it republishes may be usable.[23]
Meaww [63], tabloid with no positive reputation to speak of per an April 2020 RSN discussion.[5][28]
Middle East Forum[64], specifically its website meforum.org, most editors in a September 2019 discussion argued that it was some shade of unreliable, although there is no consensus on the exact degree.[26]
Middle East Monitor, [65] consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion that it is a partisan think tank, with opinions ranging from "sometimes usable with attribution" to "unreliable".[29]
Modern Diplomacy[66], unreliable per a November 2022 RSN discussion.[30]
Press TV[68], English and French, owned by the government of Iran. Usable as a primary source for opinions and official lines from the Iranian government.[5]
RT (TV network) (Russia Today, ANO TV-Novosti, Ruptly, Redfish, Maffick) [69], unreliable and deprecated for publishing fabricated information.[5]
Sputnik (news agency)[70], many languages, Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation, some editors consider Sputnik to be a reliable source for official Russian government statements and positions.[5]
Stalkerzone [71], described as marginal and unreliable in a July 2020 RSN discussion that specifically focused on its coverage of bellingcat.[31]
TakeToNews [72], consists of machine translations of other non-English sources that may violate copyright. Unreliable per October 2022 RSN discussion.[32]
Telesur (TV channel) [73][74], deprecated. Useful only for statements of opinion from the government of Venezuela.[5]
Today News Africa[75], small consensus for unreliability in a July 2023 RSN discussion.[33]
CamerounWeb[78], one editor made a case for reliability in a June 2023 RSN discussion.[34]
Ethiopia
Unreliable
Tghat, [79] reliable only for its own perspectives per a January 2022 RSN discussion,[35] previously no consensus in an August 2021 RSN discussion as to whether they provide sufficient editorial oversight for their publications.
Ghana
No consensus
Graphic Ghana[80], a 2019 discussion on reliability was closed as no consensus due to insufficient participation. Most participants seemed to think it was reliable for most news coverage, although some concerns remain due to its unclear relationship to the Ghanaian government.[36]
Who's Who in Ghana, reliable for statements of fact but not an indicator of notability due to pay-to-play nature of Who's Who publications per a June 2023 RSN discussion.[37]
Yen.com.gh[81], one editor described it as generally unreliable in a November 2023 RSN discussion.[38]
Nigeria
Reliable
Allure [82], pull out fashion magazine inside Sunday Vanguard[39]
The Guardian (Nigeria)[83], major Nigerian newspaper, generally reliable per a November 2020 RSN discussion.[40] A December 2022 RSN discussion noted that unbylined articles or those attributed to "Editor" are likely promotional and should not be considered reliable.[41]
TimesLIVE[117], reliable NEWSORG per an October 2023 RSN discussion.[50]
Uganda
Reliable
New Vision (newspaper) [118], large national newspaper, cited frequently by scholarly sources. Unclear if it has a conflict of interest with the government of Uganda.[51]
No consensus
PML Daily [119], raised for discussion in June 2019, no editors made any claims to its reliability or lack thereof.[51]
Hasht e Subh[121], no consensus in an April 2023 RSN discussion.[53]
Armenia
Unreliable
Panarmenian.net [122], disparaged as overly biased on topics related to Armenia in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[54]
Azerbaijan
No consensus
APA [123], consensus in a February 2022 RFC that it should not be used for controversial claims relating to Nagorno-Karabakh, no discussion of reliability in other contexts.[55]
GunazTV, [124] no consensus in a 2022 RSN discussion.[56]
Bangladesh
No consensus
OurTimeBD [125], no consensus in an April 2023 RSN discussion.[57]
Hong Kong Free Press[130], the majority of participants in a 2019 discussion consider it as reliable as any other news source in Hong Kong.[60]
South China Morning Post[131], English, editorial bias toward the Chinese government since its buyout by Alibaba in 2016. Rough consensus for reliability in an August 2020 RfC.[61]
No consensus
Apple Daily[132], a June 2020 RfC did not reach any sort of consensus on this source's reliability.[62]
Bamboo Works [133], promotional site per one editor in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[63]
Guancha.cn [139], a 2020 RfC was split between editors saying that it varied from case to case and editors saying that it was generally unreliable.[67]
Qiushi[141], no consensus in a 2019 discussion. Some editors argued that the source is reliable despite its bias and widely used in academic research, others insisted that its bias is too significant for the publication to be reliable.[68]
Sixth Tone[142], English, not reliable for politics but usable for general non-political topics, such as Chinese society or culture.[5]
What's on Weibo[143], likely reliable for claims related to Chinese social media and pop culture, but not generally reliable, per a 2020 RfC.[69]
Xinhua News Agency[144], may be usable in certain contexts with attribution. Prefer over other Chinese state media sources, comparable to TASS.[65][70]
Unreliable
Baidu Baike, crowd-sourced with minimal fact checking.[5]
China Global Television Network[146], while it may be usable in certain uncontroversial contexts with attribution,[65] a majority of editors in a May 2020 RSN discussion felt that it is generally not reliable and serves primarily as a propaganda outlet.[72]
Douban [147], user generated source per an October 2020 RSN discussion.[73]
Epoch Times [148], English, published in US, bias toward Falun Gong, may not give appropriate weight to controversial issues.[5]
faluninfo.net [149], usable for ABOUTSELF claims about Falun Gong but otherwise unreliable per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[74]
Global Times[150], less reliable than other Chinese state media and includes hyperbolic editorials and unreliable editorials reporting on news outside of China.[5]
Wen Wei Po[153], all participants in an August 2020 RFC considered it unreliable in most contexts, with many advocating deprecation.[76]
Georgia
No consensus
Georgia Today[154], one editor argued that it is reliable per
WP:NEWSORG in a small January 2023 discussion.[77]
India
Editors have argued that the state of Indian English-language journalism as a whole is quite poor. There have been significant paid news scandals in major newspapers, and the industry as a whole has been criticized as lacking in journalistic ethics.[78] Sources listed here in the reliable section also run questionable content from time to time; caution is advised when evaluating Indian news sources.
Reliable
Altnews.in [155], has reputation for fake news-busting backed by RS such as the BBC. May be biased or cherrypick in which articles it chooses to run, but nevertheless reliable for the information that it reports.[79]
Boom! [156], small consensus for reliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion, citing an IFCN certification.[80]
Business Line[157], English, described favorably in a broad discussion of Indian sources.[79]
Cinestaan, [160], usable for uncontroversial claims and media coverage, no consensus on its usage for contentious BLP claims per a November 2022 RSN discussion.[82]
Deepika, [161], Malayalam, oldest Malayalam newspaper now in circulation. Generally considered reliable.
The Hindu[165], English, liberal secular, described by editors as one of the only truly reliable English language sources in India. An August 2020 RfC was closed with a consensus that it is generally reliable.[84][85]
Hindustan Times[166], English, not much discussion but generally considered reliable by editors,[86]
New Indian Express below.[87] Reaffirmed in a May 2020 RfC.[88]
Newslaundry[176], a May 2020 RSN discussion was closed with a consensus for general reliability, although in some cases it may need attribution.[91]
ThePrint[177], rough consensus that it is reliable, while noting a left wing editorial slant.[79]
Rajasthan Patrika[178], described by one editor in an October 2020 RSN discussion as one of the more reliable Hindi papers.[92]
Sahapedia [179], consensus in a November 2022 RSN discussion that the clearly-marked, non-crowdsourced articles are reliable and more akin to an academic journal than a wiki.[93]
The Wire (India)[183], generally reliable per a March 2023 RfC.[96] Previously asserted by editors to meet NEWSORG, while others were concerned that it should not be used for notability.[79]
No consensus
123Telugu [184], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[97]
ABP News[185], some editors consider it to be NEWSORG RS, others consider them to be biased to the point of unreliability.[79]
FirstPost [189], no consensus in a January 2024 RSN discussion.[101]
FullHyderabad [190], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[97]
Heritage Times ,[191] no consensus in an April 2023 RSN discussion.[102]
Idlebrain [192], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[97]
Indiaglitz [193] described by one editor in a September 2021 RSN discussion as usable for coverage of films.[103]
Jant Ka Reporter[194], two participants in a December 2020 RSN discussion describe it as a borderline source, with one leaning towards reliable and the other leaning towards unreliable.[104]
The Quint[201], some editors assert that it is unreliable, others that it is usable for verifiability but not notability, and yet others with a more favorable impression of the source.[79]
Radiance Weekly[202], published by Jamaat-e-Islami, likely not independent for most subjects where it would be relevant to cite it.[90]
Scroll.in[203], fails to distinguish news reporting and opinion, a poor source for controversial topics.[79]
Sify.com, [204] described by one editor in a September 2021 RSN discussion as usable for coverage of scifi/fantasy films.[103]
Times of Assam, [206] a February 2022 RSN discussion noted a few reasons to be wary of the source but did not come to a firm consensus.[111]
Times of India [207], English, major Indian news publication with a pro-government slant, frequently includes rather promotional articles and interviews for individuals in the film industry.[112] Most participants in a 2020 RfC considered its reliability to be unclear.[113][5]
Times Now[208], compared by one editor to Fox News, denounced as unreliable by others.[79]
WION [209], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[114]
Zee News[210], some editors consider it to be NEWSORG RS, others consider them to be biased to the point of unreliability.[79]
Unreliable
Connexionblog [211], consensus that it is an unreliable group blog in a small December 2023 RSN discussion.[115]
Live History India [219], small consensus for unreliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[122]
The Logical Indian[220], news aggregator, consider citing the original piece if originally published in a reliable outlet.[123]
Masala! [221], small consensus for unreliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[124]
Moneylife[222], an August 2021 RSN discussion, two editors raised concerns about the degree of editorial oversight, noting both factual and copyediting errors.[125]
onefivenine.com considered a hobbyist site with numerous issues per January 2016 discussion.[126]
OpIndia described by an editor as a right-wing propaganda mill.[79] They also doxx people, including Wikipedia editors.[127] It is currently blacklisted.[5]
Postcard News [223], possibly defunct, regarded as completely unreliable by several editors.[79][118]
Sarup & Sons publishing house, a September 2020 RSN discussion had a consensus that the source has published copyright-violating material and thus cannot be trusted to generally practice appropriate editorial oversight.[128]
Swarajya (magazine), vast majority of editors in a 2020 discussion voted to deprecate it.[127] It is currently blacklisted.[5]
TimesNext, [225], described as overwhelmingly trading in sponsored content in a November 2022 RSN discussion.[129]
Yuva TV, a BJP internet TV channel and generally unreliable per a December 2020 RSN discussion.[131]
Indonesia
No consensus
Tapol Bulletin [227], small consensus for reliability in a January 2021 RSN discussion, although some concerns of bias and advocacy were noted.[132]
Iran
Reliable
Encyclopaedia Iranica [228], generally reliable per an August 2020 RSN discussion.[133] Reaffirmed in a February 2022 RSN discussion.[134]
No consensus
Fars News Agency[229], state-backed, weak consensus that it can be used for statements of fact but unreliable for political affairs, according to a July 2014 discussion.[135]
Islamic Republic News Agency[230], small consensus in a March 2021 RSN discussion that it is usable for non-controversial claims and claims of the official views of the Iranian government as a major state-run news outlet in a country with low press freedom.[136]
Tehran Times, [232] an April 2021 RSN discussion raised concerns about citogenesis related to this source.[138]
Unreliable
Press TV[233], owned by the government of Iran. Usable as a primary source for opinions and official lines from the Iranian government.[5]
HispanTV[234], deprecated, Spanish language, republishes conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda.[5]
Iraq
No consensus
Kurdistan Human Rights Network [235], may be usable with attribution[139]
Israel/Palestine
Reliable
B'Tselem[236], weak consensus for general reliability for their reporting, with several editors suggesting that they should be cited with attribution.[140]
Debka [240], no consensus in a small April 2021 RSN discussion.[143]
Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) [241], no consensus in a July 2020 RfC, with many editors voting either Option 1 or Option 4. The crux of the discussion was over whether the source's translations of Arabic sources were reliably accurate, with editors broadly acknowledging that MEMRI's coverage is generally primary in nature and that the institute has a clear political agenda when it comes to its decisions of which content to translate.[144]
The Jerusalem Post[242], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.[141] a September 2023 discussion implicitly considered it generally reliable for news reporting, but focused on determining a consensus that the publications' "Special Content" section is paid advertising and generally unreliable.[145]
Mondoweiss[243], English, largely reports on issues related to Israel/Palestine. Opinionated source backed by an advocacy group, statements should be attributed.[5]
NRG360[244], closed in 2018, no consensus on its reliability for I/P topics in a May 2020 RSN discussion.[146]
WP:NEWSORG with a patriotic bias,[141] previously no consensus in a large 2015 RSN discussion. Concerned editors pointed out that the Times of Israel is strongly biased on Arab-Israeli relations and colonization, and mis-quoted someone.[147]
Wafa[246], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion, although there was a bit more agreement that it's likely reliable for the perspectives and statements .of the Palestinian Authority.[148]
Israelunwired.com [248], unreputable and possibly self-published per a 2020 RSN discussion.[149]
Israel-Palestine conflict. Some editors also express concern about past attempts by NGO Monitor staff to manipulate coverage of itself on Wikipedia.[5]
Japan Times [251], English and Japanese, while editors raised some concerns over the English language edition's fact checking, ultimately editors agreed that it is comparable to other reliable newspapers.[151]
NHK World-Japan, [252] reliable as a major news organization per a March 2021 RSN discussion.[152] Discussion reaffirmed in a November 2022 RSN discussion.[153]
Nikkei[253], reliable but shy of controversial stories per an August 2020 RSN discussion.[154]
No consensus
Chara Biz [254], editors in a November 2022 RSN discussion agreed that it is a major industry publication, and produces both reliable analysis and republished press releases.[155]
Kazakhstan
No consensus
The Astana Times[255], described as not independent of the Kazakhstan government in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[156]
Edge.kz [256], possibly defunct, described as not independent of the Kazakhstan government in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[156]
EU Reporter [257], described as not independent of the Kazakhstan government in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[156]
Tahawolat, [259], no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[157]
Unreliable
Al-Mayadeen [260][261], generally unreliable per a small November 2023 RSN discussion.[158]
Malaysia
No consensus
newsarawaktribune.com.my [262], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[159]
The Sun, [263], no consensus in a small January 2023 discussion. Previously consensus leaned towards generally unreliable in a June 2021 RSN discussion.[160]
Unreliable
Mongolia
Reliable
Монголын Туухын Тайлбар Толь Dictionary of Mongolian History [264], small consensus for reliability for noncontroversial historical details in a November 2023 RSN discussion.[161]
No consensus
Mongoltoli.mn [265], described by one editor as a reliable, Mongolian government-endorsed source for Mongolian history in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[162]
WP:NEWSORG, but also apparently runs sponsored content without proper disclosure.[169]
FactFocus [271], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.[170]
Geo TV, [272] no firm consensus but leaning towards reliable in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[171]
Global Village Space [273], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.[172]
Hipinpakistan [274], no consensus in a November 2022 RSN discussion.[173]
MM News, [275] cautiously positively appraised by one editor in a July 2022 RSN discussion.[174]
Propakistani.pk [276], no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[175]
Unreliable
Dispatch News Desk (DND) [277], a few editors expressed doubts that DND is reliable in an August 2020 RSN discussion.[176]
The Philippines
Reliable
Tempo, [278], described as one of the better tabloids in the Philippines in an October 2022 RSN discussion.[177]
No consensus
Adobo Magazine[279], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[178]
Pilipino Mirror, [280] disparaged in an October 2022 RSN discussion that did not reach firm consensus.[177]
Unreliable
Hataw!, [281] disparaged in an October 2022 RSN discussion that did not reach firm consensus. Editors noted libel cases and dubious advertising practices.[177]
PinoyParazzi, [282] described as unreliable in an October 2022 RSN discussion.[179]
Saudi Arabia
Reliable
WP:NEWSORG, with a caveat about its connections to the Saudi government in an April 2023 RSN discussion.[180]
No consensus
Al Arabiya[284], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[181] Previously no consensus in an October 2023 RSN discussion.[182]
Arab News[285], an April 2020 RfC was closed as "maybe reliable" with concerns raised about its connections to the Saudi government.[183]
Singapore
No consensus
Straits Times [286], major newspaper in Singapore but further concerns persist regarding its ability to cover Singaporean news topics.[5]
Unreliable
Vulcan Post[287], promotional outlet per a February 2024 RSN discussion. May be reliable for uncontroversial factual information.[184]
The Chosun Ilbo[290], major newsorg but has had reliability controversies. No consensus in a small December 2023 discussion about its North Korea coverage.[185]
Sri Lanka
No consensus
Colombo Page[291], largely reprints material from other sources per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[186]
Unreliable
amazinglanka.com [292], unreliable per a small December 2023 RSN discussion.[187]
Syria
Reliable
Al-Masdar News[293], reliable for statements of fact despite its pro-Syrian government bias. Editors have raised concerns about whether claims supported by this source should be cited without attribution, see the cited discussion for more information.[188]
No consensus
ARA News [294][295], defunct, accused of unreliability and having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[189]
ANF News [296][297], accused of unreliability having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[189]
Hawar News [298], accused of unreliability and having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[189]
Kurdistan24 [299], no consensus in a July 2021 RSN discussion.[190] Previously no consensus in a discussion where it was accused of unreliability and having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[189]
Kurdistan Human Rights Network [300], insufficient discussion for consensus[139]
KurdWatch [301], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion, editors suggested that it has an anti-YPG bias.[191]
New Compass [302], accused of unreliability having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[189]
Taiwan News[305], a February 2021 RfC was split between generally reliable and marginally reliable.[193] Previously, there was a small consensus for reliability in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[194][195]
Unreliable
Peopo.org [306], may be defunct, a May 2020 RfC considered this to be a self-published citizen journalism source.[196]
Thailand
Unreliable
The Thaiger [307], small consensus for unreliability in a November 2023 RSN discussion.[197]
Turkey
No consensus
A Haber, [308] no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion which raised concerns about disinformation.[198]
Ahval[309], editors in a December 2020 RSN discussion described it as an opposition outlet with ties to the UAE, but did not make any firm statements about its reliability.[199]
Aydınlık [310], disparaged as tabloidy in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[200]
Demokrat Haber [311], no consensus in an August 2023 RSN discussion.[201]
Hürseda Haber [312], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion where one editor claimed the publication is propaganda outlet for Free Cause Party.[202]
Kurdistan Human Rights Network [313], may be usable with attribution[139]
İnternethaber [314], disparaged as tabloidy in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[200]
TRT World[315], an RfC closed in June 2019 reached a consensus that it is not reliable for anything with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest, but that it is likely reliable for unrelated reporting and statements about the official positions of the Turkish government.[203]
Yeniçağ [316], disparaged as tabloidy in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[200]
Onedio.com [319], small consensus for unreliability in a November 2023 RSN discussion.[205]
United Arab Emirates
No consensus
Gulf News[320], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion. Editors suggested that it is probably usable for uncontroversial claims but may lack impartiality for sensitive topics.[206]
The National News[321], no consensus in a September 2023 RSN discussion.[207] Previously no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion. Editors suggested that it is probably usable for uncontroversial claims but may lack impartiality for sensitive topics.[206]
Vietnam
No consensus
Thanh Nien, [322] no consensus in a January 2022 RSN discussion.[208]
VietnamNet.vn [323], government outlet in a low press freedom country per a December 2020 RSN discussion.[209]
Europe
Albania
Unreliable
Works by Edwin E Jacques, particularly The Albanians: An Ethnic History from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Despite its popularity in the Albanian diaspora, it has been heavily criticized by historians and is not reliable for historical statements.[210]
Croatia
No consensus
HKV.hr [324], a June 2020 RSN discussion established that HKV.hr republishes content from unreliable sources such as RT, but an editor argued that its coverage for "cultural" topics is nevertheless usable.[211]
Mladá fronta DNES (iDNES.cz) [327], generally reliable as a major newspaper, note that it is owned by current PM Andrej Babiš' company Agrofert, and may not be reliable for controversial political topics. Note that it shares a name with a socialist-era newspaper, but has no connection to it.[212]
Blesk[332], described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[212]
Parlamentní listy[333], described by editors as "horseshit" and "fake news" with respect to its coverage of Czech politics.[212]
Super[334], defunct, described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[212]
Finland
No consensus
GB Times [335], probably defunct. Insufficient RSN discussion, one editor expressed concern that they might be a PR mill.[213]
France
Reliable
Agence France-Presse (AFP) [336], several languages, reliable international news agency per a May 2020 RSN discussion. Note that it does also publish clearly-marked sponsored content.[3]
Der Spiegel[339], generally reliable. Articles written by Claas Relotius are generally unreliable as this particular journalist has been found to fabricate articles.[5]
Kathimerini[349][350], no consensus in a November 2020 RSN discussion. Editors noted that it has a conservative political bias.[220]
Proto Thema[351], disparaged by one editor in a November 2021 RSN discussion that did not draw broader participation.[221]
Unreliable
Greek City Times[352], unreliable due to a lack of a reputation for fact-checking and connections to neo-nazi groups per a July 2021 RSN discussion.[222] Previously discussed in November 2020 with a similar outcome.[223]
Ireland
Reliable
WP:NEWSORG per a January 2021 RSN discussion.[224]
WP:NEWSORG per a January 2021 RSN discussion.[224]
Meduza[362], described as generally reliable in a January 2023 RSN discussion.[232] Previously briefly described as reliable in a June 2020 RSN discussion but did not receive sufficient discussion for consensus.[233]
Malta
Reliable
Malta Today[363], small consensus for reliability in a December 2022 RSN discussion.[234]
Gazeta.pl, [366], consensus for reliability in an October 2021 RfC.[236]
Gazeta Wyborcza[367], consensus for general reliability in a February 2021 RSN discussion.[5]
OKO.press[368], reliable per a March 2024 RfC.[237] Previously no consensus in an October 2021 RfC,[236] no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion.[238]
Trojmiasto.pl, [370], small consensus in a November 2022 RSN discussion that it is reliable for local news.[239]
No consensus
NaTemat [371], consensus that it is a tabloid and should not be used for controversial topics.[236]
Polskie Radio, [372] state run media, no consensus in an October 2021 RfC.[236] Previously no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion.[240]
Telewizja Polska, [373] no consensus in an October 2021 RfC.[236] Previously no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion.[241]
Unreliable
Do Rzeczy[374], rough consensus for unreliability in an October 2021 RfC,[236] previously no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion, with a majority of editors arguing that it was unreliable.[242]
Gazeta Polska[375], unreliable per an October 2021 RfC,[236] previously no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion with a majority of editors arguing that it was unreliable.[243]
niezalezna.pl [378], unreliable per an October 2021 RfC,[236] previously no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion, with a majority of editors arguing that it was unreliable.[246]
TV Republika [387], unreliable per an October 2021 RfC,[236] previously no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion with a majority of editors arguing that it was unreliable.[243]
TV Trwam [388] unreliable per a February 2021 RSN discussion.[245]
Meduza[390], described as generally reliable in a January 2023 RSN discussion.[232] Previously briefly described as reliable in a June 2020 RSN discussion but did not receive sufficient discussion for consensus.[233]
Novaya Gazeta[391], small consensus for reliability in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[248] Previously briefly described as reliable in a June 2020 RSN discussion but did not receive sufficient discussion.[233]
No consensus
Donbass Today [donbasstoday.ru], no consensus in a September 2023 RSN discussion.[249]
Great Russian Encyclopedia[392], no consensus on general usage in a December 2023 RSN discussion, although there was general agreement that it is not reliable for claims relating to Ukraine or other topics of political interest to the Russian government.[250]
RBK Group (rbc.ru, rbc.ua, RBC Group, RosBiznessConsulting) [393][394], no consensus in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[233]
Reframing Russia [395], British university research project, no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[251]
RIA Novosti[396], official news agency of the Russian government. It is generally considered a usable source for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability.[5]
proza.ru [401], self-publishing platform per a March 2023 RSN discussion.[255]
The Siberian Times[402], editors in a 2020 RSN discussion came to a consensus that it is not a reliable source.[256]
South Front, described as a Russian government-backed disinformation site.[257][5]
Vzglyad[403], Russian state propaganda outlet per a May 2021 RSN discussion.[258]
biased source with respect to topics in which the Russian government may have an interest and that the source is generally unreliable for providing contentious facts in that context. Editors attained a rough consensus that TASS should not be deprecated at this time and a rough consensus that TASS is generally unreliable more broadly for facts, with the caveat that it is considered reliable for quotes of statements made by the Kremlin, the Russian State, and pro-Kremlin politicians. A previous 2019 RfC had concluded that reliability is unclear or additional considerations apply.[5]
Switzerland
Reliable
Neue Zürcher Zeitung[405], minimal discussion in a 2019 RSN discussion was unanimous that NZZ is generally reliable.[259]
RBK Group (rbc.ru, rbc.ua, RBC Group, RosBiznessConsulting) [409][410], no consensus in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[233]
UNIAN.ua [411], described as relatively reliable for reporting on topics other than Ukraine–Russia relations in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[263]
Kyiv Post[412], described in a March 2022 RSN discussion as being reliable prior to firing its staff in November 2021, with the implication that quality may have dropped sharply since then.[264]
Kyiv Independent [413], no consensus in a March 2022 RSN discussion.[264]
Byline Times[419], weak consensus for reliability in a January 2022 RSN discussion. Previously, no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[266], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[267]
The Jewish Chronicle[426], generally reliable for news reporting, particularly pre-2010 per an April 2021 RfC, no consensus regarding its coverage of the British Left, Islam, Palestine/Palestinians, and related topics.[5]
LBC News, [427] rough consensus for reliability as a professional news organization in a November 2022 RSN discussion.[270]
Nation.Cymru[428], weak consensus for reliability as a professional news organization in a discussion that quickly pivoted to due weight concerns.[271]
New Statesman[429], reliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion, although editors note that it is primarily a journal of opinion.[272]
Asian Express[438], assessed as unreliable by one editor in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[277]
Castlewales.com [439], covers medieval castles of Wales, editors in a 2020 discussion noted that it is written by recognized experts, insufficient discussion to declare a clear consensus.[278]
Desmog Blogs desmog.uk, desmog.co.uk, desmogblog.com [441][442][443], Editors in a 2020 discussion generally agreed that the source has a significant bias but did not agree on whether it is generally reliable. Editors noted that it likely has more editorial control than a typical blog, but could be unreliable due to other reasons.[279]
Encyclopedia Britannica [444], a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available. From 2009 to 2010, the Encyclopædia Britannica Online accepted a small number of content submissions from the general public. Although these submissions undergo the encyclopedia's editorial process, some editors believe that content from non-staff contributors is less reliable than the encyclopedia's staff-authored content.[5]
Evening Standard[445], despite being a free newspaper, considered more reliable than British tabloids.[5]
The Eye (Wales)[446], a June 2020 RSN discussion was mostly dismissive of the source's coverage but did not come to a clear condemnation.[280]
Gauchoworld [447], no consensus in an August 2023 RSN discussion.[281]
Hansard[448], primary source of transcripts from Parliament, use with attribution.[5]
Hope not Hate[449], advocacy group for anti-racism and anti-fascism, reliability must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.[5]
openDemocracy[453], no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion.[284] In a prior discussion, editors raised concerns that there is insufficient fact checking, but suggested that it's likely usable for attributed opinions. Insufficient participation in the discussion for a consensus.[285]
Scottish-places.info [454], no consensus in an April 2021 RSN discussion.[286]
The Skeptic (UK magazine) [455], no clear consensus on general reliability in an October 2020 RSN discussion, leaning towards reliability, particularly for claims about perspectives of the mainstream scientific community.[287]
The Spectator[456], a June 2020 RSN discussion came to a rough consensus that it is usable for attributable opinion.[288]
Spiked (magazine)[457], no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[289] Previously no consensus in an April 2020 RSN discussion.[290]
The Tab[458], a January 2021 RSN discussion roughly agreed that it is not a good source, but some editors argued that it may occasionally be usable.[291]
UnHerd[459], no consensus, leaning towards unreliability, in an August 2023 RSN discussion.[292]
The Canary (website)[461], an April 2021 RfC was closed with a consensus of generally unreliable for factual reporting.[294] Prior discussions had resulted in no consensus.[295] A May 2020 discussion continued to fail to reach a consensus with editors divided on reliability.[296]
ConservativeHome[462], a May 2020 RSN discussion had a consensus that it should be considered a group blog, usable only for attributed opinions in certain contexts.[297]
Daily Mail[464][465][466][467], the unofficial yardstick for bad British sources. Per a November 2020 RfC[298], this assessment also applies to the Mail on Sunday[5]
Lesbian and Gay News, [473], rough consensus in a March 2021 RSN discussion for unreliability, with a minority in dissent. Possibly usable for attributed opinions of authors published therein.[301]
GB News, [474], rough consensus for unreliability in an August 2022 RSN discussion.[302]
Heat Street[476], merged with MarketWatch and shut down in 2017, usable with attribution, but does not sufficiently distinguish news reporting and opinion pieces.[5]
Jacobite Magazine[478], opinion publication described as fringe in a November 2020 RSN discussion. Occasionally publishes well-known authors who may be citable.[304]
The Dorchester Review, [497], not reliable for subject matter related to the indigenous peoples of Canada per a February 2022 RSN discussion, no significant discussion of general reliability.[315]
Toronto Guardian[502], an August 2020 RSN discussion had a consensus that there's no evidence that this publication engages in proper editorial practices.[319]
Anti Defamation League [508], generally reliable, although their labeling of groups and individuals should generally be attributed and some editors have cautioned against its use for I/P subjects.[5]
Atlanta Black Star[510], described by one editor in a May 2020 RSN discussion as reliable but needing attribution due to bordering on advocacy at times.[323]
Attractions Magazine, [512], reliable for coverage of theme parks per a small January 2022 RSN discussion.[324]
Axios[513], There is consensus that Axios is generally reliable. Some editors consider Axios to be a biased or opinionated source. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.[5]
Courthouse News Service, [526], rough consensus for reliability in a June 2021 RSN discussion; a minority opinion held that the source's reporting is too close to primary for BLP claims.[332]
LDS church, no consensus on whether it is independent of the LDS church.[5]
The Diplomat[529], reputable current affairs magazine per a June 2020 RSN discussion.[333]
Jacobin (magazine)[539], generally reliable but not always DUE per a July 2020 RSN discussion. It presents a biased perspective but editors seemed generally satisfied with its fact-checking.[342] A January 2021 RSN discussion had a rough consensus for marginal reliability.[343] A September 2021 RfC had a rough consensus for reliability.[344][5]
New York (Vulture, The Cut, Grub Street, Daily Intelligencer) [554][555][556][557][558], generally reliable, no consensus for particularly contentious statements.[5]
ProPublica[574], There is a strong consensus that ProPublica is generally reliable for all purposes because of it has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[5]
Roll Call[576], described as generally reliable in a January 2021 RSN discussion that focused on its reporting of income for government officials.[359]
WP:NEWSORG reliability per an April 2023 RSN discussion.[366]
WP:NEWSORG in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[330]
Star Tribune[587], the largest newspaper in Minnesota. Mentioned as reliable by two editors in a 2012 RSN discussion.[367]
WP:NEWSORG in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[330]
Street Roots[589], rough consensus that it is reliable if biased for its news reporting per an August 2020 RSN discussion.[368]
TaxProf Blog[590], generally reliable for US tax law and related expertise, but not DUE for controversial BLP reporting per an April 2023 RSN discussion.[369]
Teen Vogue[591], a discussion archived in July 2019 had several editors speak favorably for its news coverage since ~2015, with positive comparisons to Buzzfeed News.[370]
Voice of America[597], had a slight majority for being reliable in a 2021 RSN discussion. The other editors were concerned that it was funded by the US government, had past connections with the CIA, and portrayed Iran in a negative light, and recommended attribution for any stories where the US government might have a conflict of interest.[374]
Algemeiner [602], no consensus in a July 2020 RfC. Editors agreed that it is generally reliable for uncontroversial Jewish community news, but were divided on whether it is usable for controversial claims.[375]
The American Conservative[606], usable for attributed opinions, opinionated/biased source. A September 2020 RfC was split between editors that felt that it was unreliable due to promotion of conspiracy theories, and editors who felt that it was situationally reliable.[5]
Ballotpedia[607], election website with editorial team, but Wikipedia editors have expressed concern with their editorial process.[5]
BET[608], a small January 2021 RSN discussion suggested that while it may be usable in some cases as a major news network, its tendency towards sensationalism may make it less appropriate for BLP claims.[378]
The Boston Herald [609], no consensus. Described as an "old school conservative tabloid rag" by one editor, but referred to as having a tabloid appearance but reliable by other editors.[379][380][381]
Brookings Institution[610], think tank, albeit a relatively highly regarded one. Should be considered a primary source for its analysis of subjects.[382]
Catholic Standard[613], likely reliable for basic reporting of facts, no consensus on its reliability or independence from other Catholic institutions per a small April 2023 RSN discussion.[383]
Dirt.com [622], no consensus in a June 2023 RSN discussion.[386]
The Dispatch[623], no consensus in a November 2020 RSN discussion. Editors noted that the writing appears to be thorough, but raised concerns about ownership and editorial independence, as well as opining that the publication is too new to allow for a proper assessment.[387]
Jewish News Syndicate [639], no consensus in a July 2020 RfC. Some editors vouched for its reliability, while others said that the publication was very new and thus hard to evaluate.[375]
LA Weekly[640], a December 2022 RSN discussion raised concerns about their editorial policies in relation to articles apparently commissioned by a long-term Wikipedia abuser, but did not come to a firm consensus regarding its content overall.[397]
Law & Crime[641], no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion that recapped prior discussions.[398]
LawSites (Lawnext.com) [642], self-published source, no consensus on its status as potential US legal
Lifehacker[680] run by G/O Media, weak consensus for unreliability in October 2020 RSN discussion, but later discussions highlighted that the site has (some) editorial oversight.[403][404]
Mental Floss[683], their history trivia section was described as a poor quality source in a June 2021 RSN discussion, no discussion of other topics or sections.[405]
Newsweek (2013–present) [690], many languages, changes in editorial leadership have led to a decline in the magazine's reliability, evaluate on a case-by-case basis.[5]
Nosh.com [691], no consensus on reliability in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[412]
Oregon Encyclopedia [692], no consensus in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[413]
Our Town St. James, [693] local newspaper, no consensus regarding its reliability in a March 2021 RSN discussion.[414]
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[696], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion. Concerns were raised that stories had been manipulated to push pro-Trump narratives, but it's not clear that this extended to factual reporting.[417]
Pride.com [697], an LGBT-oriented media company, editors in a May 2020 RfC were unable to discern clear editorial policies, and asserted the quality varied from article to article.[418]
RealClear media [698] (RealClearPolitics, RealClearInvestigations]]), no consensus in an April 2021 RfC.[419]
Right Wing Watch [699], a July 2019 discussion yielded no consensus.[420]
Rolling Stone[700], generally reliable for pop culture topics, generally unreliable for politics, see RSP for more details.[5]
Salon (website) [701], largely an opinion publication, no consensus on reliability.[5]
Skeptic (US magazine) [702], no clear consensus on general reliability in an October 2020 RSN discussion, leaning towards reliability, particularly for claims about perspectives of the mainstream scientific community.[287]
Skeptical Inquirer[703], no clear consensus on general reliability in an October 2020 RSN discussion, leaning towards reliability, particularly for claims about perspectives of the mainstream scientific community.[287]
Sludge[704], reports on lobbying and money in politics. A 2020 RSN discussion had concerns that there were only two employees, and that other RS's don't reference them.[421]
Star Media publications Michigan Star, Tennessee Star, Ohio Star, Minnesota Sun[706][707][708][709], editors in a 2020 RSN discussion identified reasons to suspect unreliability for these publications, but discussion was a bit too sparse to call consensus.[423]Tennessee Star specifically was described as marginal, and at most usable for the sourcing of uncontroversial facts in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[424]
Talking Points Memo[710], no consensus in a 2013 RSN discussion. Editors described them as "a professional news organization with editorial oversight", but were also concerned about their far left bias.[425]
WP:NEWSORG, albeit with due consideration for their political leanings.[5]
Toledo Blade [712], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion. Concerns were raised that stories had been manipulated to push pro-Trump narratives, but it's not clear that this extended to factual reporting.[417]
Townhall[713], 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.[5]
The Washington Times[715], marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. Its reporting is considered to be particularly biased for climate change and US race relations.[5]
The Week[716][717][718], editors in a June 2020 RSN discussion raised concerns that it is primarily a publisher of opinion.[426]
Unreliable
Ad Fontes Media[719], in an April 2020 discussion about its use for a specific claim, most editors felt that it was not usable due to being self-published.[427] A June 2020 RSN discussion had no consensus between editors who felt that it was unreliable and editors who felt that it would sometimes be usable with attribution.[428]
AlterNet[720], generally unreliable partisan source that also aggregates articles from other sources.[5]
The American Bazaar [721], small consensus for unreliability in an October 2023 RSN discussion.[429]
The American Mail[722], unreliable per a February 2023 RSN discussion.[430]
Forbes.com contributors [746], no editorial oversight[5]
Frontpage Mag [747][748], consensus for unreliability in an April 2020 discussion,[441] previously disparaged in a September 2019 discussion[26] Deprecated in July 2020 RfC.[442]
Fuchsia Magazine[749], small consensus for unreliability in a March 2023 RSN discussion.[443]
Gawker[750], rumors and speculation without attribution.[5]
Heat Street, usable with attribution, but does not sufficiently distinguish news reporting and opinion pieces.[5]
HS Insider [752], probably unreliable according to one editor due to the publication's student-driven nature.[444]
Idavox [753], generally unreliable per a February 2023 RSN discussion.[445]
InfoWars, did you really need to look this one up?[5]
Inquisitr[754], a January 2021 RfC had a rough consensus for being generally unreliable.[446]
InsideSources [insidesources.com], self-published conspiracy site per a small December 2023 RSN discussion.[447]
Law Officer Magazine lawofficer.com [755][756], unreliable and self-published per a December 2020 RSN discussion, possibly not even a real magazine.[448]
Mises Institute[759], rough consensus for unreliability in an October 2020 RSN discussion, with the majority of editors considering it a fringe publisher of opinion, and minorities arguing that it was either contextually reliable or generally reliable.[449]
Money Inc [760], an April 2020 RSN discussion described the source as a self-published group blog.[450]
The National Pulse [762], small consensus for unreliability in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[451] Reaffirmed as unreliable in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[452]
Ourcampaigns.com [770], unreliable per RfCs in April 2021[454] and February 2021 RfC.[455]
PanAm Post[771], a June 2020 RSN discussion had a rough consensus that this source is generally unreliable, with some early voters arguing that it could be sometimes reliable.[456]
PETA [772], consensus that its publications are generally unreliable in an August 2020 RfC.[457]
Politics USA [773], in a May 2020 RfC, one editor stated flatly that the source is not reliable.[458]
PragerU[774], in a discussion closed January 2020, there was consensus that PragerU is generally unusable.[459]
The Raw Story [775], A January 2021 RfC found this source generally unreliable.[460]
RedState [776], rough consensus for unreliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[461]
Thought Catalog[777], A March 2019 discussion determined that this source has poor editorial oversight and sometimes publishes fiction.[462]
We Hunted the Mammoth, [782] described as a self-published blog in an August 2021 RSN discussion. The authors were considered almost-experts by some participants, but the general consensus is that better sources should be preferred.[465]
Western Journal [783], two 2019 discussions elicited only strong condemnations of the source's reliability.[5]
WorldNetDaily[784], deprecated, there is a clear consensus that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source, and that it should not be used because of its particularly poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[5]
Creative Spirits[793], a May 2020 RSN discussion suggested caution but didn't come to a solid consensus on reliability.[474]
The Latin Australian Times[794], disparaged by one editor in a January 2021 RSN discussion that did not draw further participation.[475]
news.com.au, [795] described as a Murdoch tabloid, "treat with caution" by one editor in a June 2023 RSN discussion.[476]
Queensland Places[796], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[477]
Sky News Australia, [797] a September 2022 RfC about the reliability of this source's web articles ended inconclusively, with a significant portion of participants voting for either "generally reliable" or "deprecate".[478]
Victorian Places[798], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[477]
Independent Australia [800], editors disagreed on the exact degree of spin and misinformation published by this source, but agreed that it should be generally considered unreliable and that most of their good-quality reporting is largely lifted from more reliable sources that can be cited instead.[480]
Independent Media Center [801], insufficient fact checking and effectively self-published.[5]
NewsHub, [806] described as reliable by two editors in a November 2022 RSN discussion.[484]
The Spinoff [807], described as reliable by an editor in a November 2020 RSN discussion.[485]
No consensus
Scoop NZ, [808], no consensus in a small March 2022 RSN discussion.[486]
South America
Argentina
Unreliable
El Rompehielos, [809] one editor in a June 2021 RSN discussion made a case for it being unreliable.[487]
Brazil
No consensus
Instituto Mises Brazil [810], think tank, disparaged by one editor in an August 2020 RSN discussion that did not form a consensus. No relation to the US-based Mises Institute.[488]
Guyana
No consensus
Guyana Times International[811], disparaged by one editor in a May 2023 RSN discussion.[489]
Trinidad and Tobago
No consensus
WP:NEWSORG in a May 2023 RSN discussion as Trinidad and Tobago's oldest print newspaper.[490]
Venezuelanalysis[816], not reliable. Though it can be useful for some news related to Venezuela, Venezuelanalysis states that "it is clearly pro-Bolivarian Revolution" and supports the Venezuelan government..[5]
By topic
Generally speaking, significant independent coverage in any reliable news source contributes to the notability of any topic (however, they may be less than authoritative for supporting claims for specialized topics like science or religion).
In addition, here are some source breakdowns of sources that are specific to certain topics.
World Spider Catalog [817], no consensus in an April 2023 RSN discussion.[492]
Unreliable
animals24-7.org [818], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[493]
daxtonsfriends.com [819], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[493]
dogbitelaw.com [820], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[493]
Dogsbite.org [821], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[493]
fatalpitbullattacks.com [822], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[493]
nationalpitbullvictimawareness.org [823], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[493]
Biography
Reliable
BurkesPeerage.com [824], consensus for reliability for genealogical information in a June 2020 RSN discussion, but most of its other content is not independent of the subjects.[5][494]
E![830], generally usable for celebrity news but may not represent due weight.[5]
Entrepreneur (magazine)[831], There is no consensus for the reliability of Entrepreneur Magazine, although there is a consensus that "contributor" pieces in the publication should be treated as self-published, similar to Forbes contributors. Editors did not provide much evidence of fabrication in their articles, but were concerned that its coverage tends toward churnalism and may include improperly disclosed paid pieces.[5]
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [832], no consensus on general reliability, do not use to support controversial claims in BLPs[5]
Jezebel (website)[833], news and cultural commentary geared towards women, many editors agree that it inappropriately blurs opinion and factual reporting.[5]
Pando.com [834], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[497]
Us Weekly[836], no consensus. Consensus that it is less reliable than People.[5]
Unreliable
Almanach de Saxe Gotha http://almanachdegotha.org, editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion. Not to be confused with gotha1763.com or the print version of the Almanac de Gotha.[494]
Chivalricorders.com [842], may be defunct, editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[494]
Countere.com [843], small consensus for unreliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[500]
Cracroft's Peerage [844], unreliable per a June 2020 RSN discussion.[494]
EarnTheNecklace [845], unfavorably compared to CelebrityNetWorth.[501]
Enciclopedia d'arte italiana, [846] small consensus in a December 2021 RSN discussion that the biographical entries are submitted by the subjects with little to no editorial review.[502]
englishmonarchs.co.uk [847], editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[494]
The Hustler's Digest[856], assessed to include both self-published and pay-to-play material with insufficient editorial oversight in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[505]
Internet Speculative Fiction Database[857], not reliable for biographical data or most notability concerns as biographical content is taken from bibliographic copy provided by the subjects. However, strictly bibliographic information is likely reliable.[506]
jacobite.ca [858], editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[494]
Looktothestars.org [859], described as a PR site in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[507]
MarriedCeleb.com [861], consensus that there is no evidence that it is reliable.[508]
Media Entertainment Arts WorldWide, [862], small consensus that it is a gossip tabloid in a March 2021 RSN discussion.[509]
Medium (website)[863], self-publishing site, do not use for BLPs. (See also the entry for Cuepoint, a Medium-owned publication with editorial oversight)[5]
NetWorthPost [864], unreliable per a June 2023 RSN discussion.[510]
NNDB (Notable Names Database) [865], poor reputation for fact checking, sometimes sources from Wikipedia.[5]
odssf.com [867], consists of unsourced articles and has a blank "about us" page. Unreliable per January 2018 RSN discussion.[512]
PopSugar[868], disparaged as a gossip site in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[513] Described as potentially usable for non-BLP content in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[514]
Royal Central, [869], deprecated per a September 2022 RfC.[5]
ArtNet, [872], consensus that its art news coverage is generally reliable in a July 2021 RSN discussion.[515] Also described by one editor as a good source in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[516]
Automaton media [873], small consensus for reliability in a January 2023 RSN discussion.[517]
Den Fami Nico Gamer[882], small consensus for reliability in a January 2023 RSN discussion.[517]
Dicebreaker[883], marginally reliable for reviews per a July 2022 RSN discussion.[522] Previous consensus was that they are reliable for claims related to board games per a May 2021 RSN discussion.[523]
Filmcompanion.in [890], generally reliable for entertainment, not including the crowdsourced Readers Write segments, per a July 2023 RSN discussion.[527]
Foreword Reviews[891], rough consensus for general reliability in a January 2024 RSN discussion that noted that they also publish clearly-marked promotional reviews, which would not confer notability.[528]
GQ[894], an August 2019 discussion had a unanimous consensus that GQ is reliable for fashion-related topics, and a less unanimous consensus that it is reliable for other topics as well.[529]
Gizmodo[895], generally reliable for techonology, pop culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.[5]
Glamour, [896] well-established fashion magazine per a July 2021 RSN discussion.[530]
HighSnobiety [897], described favorably by one editor in a November 2020 RSN discussion.[531]
HorrorNews.net [899], consensus for reliability in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[532]
Igromania, [900] reliable according to one editor in a June 2021 RSN discussion.[533]
Idolator (website) [901], reliable for music, evaluate for due weight on a case-by-case basis.[5]
IGN[902], reliable for entertainment-related subjects, although they also host blogs which should be treated as regular blogs.[5]'
io9[903], reliable for critical reviews as a Tomatometer-approved publication.[534]
Kirkus Reviews[904], most content by Kirkus Reviews is considered to be generally reliable, except for its paid content Kirkus Indie.[5]
The Mary Sue [905], reliable for reviews and opinion, not reliable for reblogged content.[5]
self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Metacritic are not automatically reliable for their reviews.[5]
New Musical Express (NME) [907], generally reliable per a November 2020 RSN discussion.[535]
People Make Games[908], generally reliable in a February 2023 RfC that elicited responses between "generally reliable" and "considerations apply".[536]
Polygon (website)[909], generally reliable per a July 2020 RSN discussion. Note that the discussion was focused on whether it is specifically reliable for sexual misconduct allegations in BLPs, with the consensus affirming that it is reliable even for this sensitive subject.[537]
less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking.[5]
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.[5]
Soap Hub[912], small consensus for reliability for claims about soap operas outside BLP content, no consensus on reliability for BLP content, per a December 2020 RSN discussion.[538]
Stylist (magazine)[913], reliable for uncontroversial pop culture reviews per a small consensus in a February 2022 discussion about its reliability for TV/film reviews.[539]
Sweety High [914], one editor described it as marginally reliable in a February 2021 RSN discussion.[540]
Tatler[915], small consensus for reliability on fashion topics in a 2020 RSN discussion.[541]
TheWrap[916], 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.[5]
TubeFilter [917], generally reliable per an October 2023 RSN discussion, but also hosts sponsored content.[542]
TV Guide[918], generally reliable, some consider it to be a primary source.[5]
AfterEllen[924], a July 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a consensus, with a majority arguing that it was generally reliable and usable as attributable opinion.[544]
allaccess.com [925], reliable for some information such as release dates per a July 2020 RSN discussion, may not be sufficiently independent for notability.[545]
Allmusic, [926] rough consensus in a March 2021 RSN discussion for the reliability of their prose text, not reliable for their infoboxes which are user-generated, no consensus on whether it should count towards establishing notability.[546]
AskMen[927], editors in a 2020 discussion were concerned that the publication does not distinguish between sponsored and independent content, and that it engages in churnalism.[547]
Beebom.com, [928] no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[548][5]
AwardsWatch [929], no consensus in a small December 2023 RSN discussion.[549]
Boing Boing[930], however there is no consensus regarding their reliability for topics other than pop culture.[5]
Bounding Into Comics [931], no consensus in a May 2020 RSN discussion, some several editors suggesting that article quality varies.[550]
British Comedy Guide [932], no consensus in a November 2023 RSN discussion.[551]
Chortle[934], described by one editor in a February 2024 RSN discussion as reliable for their reviews but not for their tour details and listings.[553]
CliffsNotes[935], a study guide. Editors consider CliffsNotes to be usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing CliffsNotes citations with additional sources. Reliable for notability.[5]
Collider (website), [936] no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[554] Previously no consensus in a March 2021 RSN discussion.[555]
Comic Book Resources (CBR)[937] a July 2022 RSN discussion included a variety of opinions on the site's reliability, with a rough consensus that coverage since 2016 was of lower quality and tends towards sensationalism.[556]
Comingsoon.net [938], described by one editor as unreliable in a January 2024 RSN discussion.[557]
Cuepoint, [939] consensus in an August 2022 RfC that it should be judged on a case-by-case basis, particularly dependent on the authors of the specific cited articles in question.[558]
Daily.bandcamp.com [940], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[559]
The Daily Dot[941], no community consensus on reliability in a September 2022 RSN discussion, though generally considered fine for non-contentious claims of fact.[5]
The Daily Game[942], described by one editor as unreliable in a May 2023 RSN discussion.[560]
datatransmission.co [944], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[559]
The Deli Magazine [945], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[559]
Dexerto[946][947][948][949], no consensus (option 2) per an October 2023 RfC. Previously considered unreliable.[562]. Also listed at WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources, where outright errors have been discussed.[563]. A May 2019 RfC deemed that its Dexerto was not unreliable enough to be deprecated.[564]
Dusted Magazine [950],[951], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[565]
EDM.com [952], no consensus, leaning towards unreliability in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[561]
Flamesrising.com, [953] no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion.[566]
Fryderyk Chopin Institute[954], described as reliable for claims related to classical music by one editor in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[567]
Genius (website) [955], song lyrics and annotations are user-generated. No consensus about articles with bylines published on the website.[5]
Metalmaidens.com [961], consensus that further considerations apply in a November 2021 RfC.[571]
Metalreviews.com [962], no consensus in a November 2020 RSN discussion.[572]
MetalSucks[963], 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.[5]
The Needle Drop [964], no consensus in a January 2021 RfC.[573][5]
News of the World[965], defunct, while deprecated as unreliable for general news reporting, some editors hold that it is usable with attribution for film reviews.[5]
Player.One [966], no consensus in a September 2019 WP:Video Games/Sources discussion.[574]
Popspoken [967], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.[575]
Public Art in Public Places [968], no consensus in an August 2023 RfC.[576]
Punknews, [969], no consensus in a February 2022 RSN discussion.[577]
The Ronin[971], no consensus in a November 2021 RfC.[579]
Screen Rant[972], might not be appropriate for controversial statements in BLPs, but it is reliable enough for other uses.[5]
Singersroom[973], small, rough consensus that it is unreliable following an unclear cutoff date ~2019 per a March 2023 RSN discussion.[580]
Soap Opera News [974], one editor argued that it is likely not reliable in a January 2023 RSN discussion.[581]
Social Blade[975], usable primary source for Youtube statistics but not a reliable source of analysis or evidence of notability per a January 2024 RSN discussion.[582]
WeRaveYou [981], no consensus, leaning towards unreliability in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[561]
Winteriscoming.net [982], no consensus in a December 2023 RSN discussion.[586]
Worldofwonder.net [983], possibly marginally reliable as a primary source for information about World of Wonder (company) productions per a May 2020 discussion.[587]
XBIZ, [984] no consensus in an August 2021 RfC.[5]
YourEDM [985], no consensus, leaning towards unreliability in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[561]
Youth Time [986], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[559]
Unreliable
Album of the Year [987], consensus in a 2020 RSN discussion that the site's review aggregation incorporates reviews from unreliable sources.[588]
Alternative Vision[988], an August 2019 discussion had a small consensus that it is not reliable[589]
Arcade Heroes [990], deemed a fansite without editorial controls in an RSN discussion.[590]
Art of Manliness [991], non-expert blog per an April 2021 RSN discussion.[591]
beatportal.com [992], unreliable per a May 2021 RSN discussion.[559]
Broadway World[993], primarily prints PR per a February 2023 RSN discussion.[592] Previously described similarly by one editor in a January 2023 RSN discussion.[593]
Cinema Cats [994], self-published non-expert website per an October 2020 RSN discussion.[594]
Daily-beat.com [995], disparaged by one editor in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[559]
Distractify, [997] There is consensus that Distractify is generally unreliable. Editors believe Distractify runs run-of-the-mill gossip that is unclearly either user-generated or written by staff members and should not be used in BLPs.[5]
The Electric Hawk [998], not a journalistic source per a May 2021 RSN discussion.[559]
electronicbeats.net [999], described as a promotional site in a May 2021 RSN discussion, may be usable as a primary source.[559]
Film Music Reporter [1,001], treated skeptically at a September 2020 RSN discussion.[596] May be usable for basic information such as track listings for films per an April 2021 RSN discussion.[597]
Future Mag Music [1,002], described as a promotional site in a May 2021 RSN discussion, may be usable as a primary source.[559]
Game Skinny, [1,003] generally unreliable per a May 2021 RSN discussion.[598]
Geek Girl Authority [1,004], small consensus that it is a group blog in a small January 2024 RSN discussion.[599]
Insight music [1,007], described as a promotional site in a May 2021 RSN discussion, may be usable as a primary source.[559]
Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music[1,008][1,009], self-published and generally unreliable per an August 2020 RSN discussion. Editors note that the source includes satire, is self-published, and includes articles that claim to cite Wikipedia.[600]
Kirkus Indie, paid publisher that should not be used to assess notability per a March 2021 RSN discussion.[601][5]
Know Your Meme[1,010], "submissions" are user-generated, as are "confirmed" entries. There is no consensus on whether their video series is reliable.[5]
Vinylized, [1,043], crowdfunding website per one editor in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[559]
The Von Pip Musical Express[1,044], self published non-expert blog per an October 2020 RSN discussion.[618]
WatchMojo[1,045], content farm with no clear editorial oversight per a May 2020 RSN discussion.[619]
We Got This Covered [1,046], the lack of its editoral oversight, publication of unsubstantiated or false rumors, speculations claiming as fact, and contributions accepting from non-staff contributors.[5]
Wikia (Fandom) [1,048][1,049], open-wiki. Note that while Wikia should not be cited, when published under a compatible license it may be permissible to copy information from there.[5]
The Business Journals / bizjournals.com [1,051], consensus that their original reporting is generally reliable, but be aware that they also run native advertisements, which are generally not reliable.[620]
Better Business Bureau[1,058], a May 2020 RSN discussion had a small consensus that while its analysis and rankings of businesses may not be reliable, it is likely reliable for basic factual information about companies.[622]
Bitcoin Magazine [1,059], a July 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a firm consensus regarding reliability.[623]
WP:NEWSORG, but editors also had concerns about their promotion of non-notable cryptocurrencies, their talk show hosts, and the poor clarity of one of their articles.[624]
PitchBook Data (Pitchbook, Pitchbook Platform, Pitchbook News and Analysis [1,065], no consensus due to insufficient discussion, reliability may not be consistent across the company's publications, non-premium content may not be reliable.[625]
The Motley Fool, [1,066], no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion, with editors leaning describing it as a source to avoid but noting its popularity.[626]
NASDAQ News [1,067], no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion, largely publishes reprints.[627]
The Next Web [1,068], no consensus, 2014 and 2016 discussions considered it reliable, 2018 discussions leaned toward unreliable.[5]
Realtor.com [1,069], a July 2020 RSN discussion had a consensus that the websites hosts a wide variety of content, ranging from reliable well-researched articles to promotional fluff.[628]
RetailDive.com [1,070], an August 2021 RSN discussion assessed that it is a trade magazine with clearly delineated sponsored and non-sponsored content, but did not reach a firm assessment of the reliability of its independent reporting.[629]
Ain't It Cool News[1,081], Articles and reviews. Dedicated to news, rumors and reviews of upcoming and current films, television and comic projects, with an emphasis on science fiction, fantasy, horror, and action genres[633]
Boxoffice [1,086], Box office performance, home video sales, news, budget figures[633]
Boxoffice.com[1,087], is the official web presence of Boxoffice magazine, a journal serving the exhibition industry since the silent era. Care should be exercised in regards to their budget figures, since it is not clear what they cover, and are usually inconsistent with other published budget figures; if you decide to use them in this capacity, it would be prudent to corroborate the data with another reliable source.[633]
The Cinemaholic, [1,094], generally reliable for film according to one editor in a September 2021 RSN discussion.[634]
Common Sense Media[1,095], generally reliable for film reviews, although they are an advocacy organization.[635] Reaffirmed with a similar consensus in May 2020.[636]
Ontario Film Commission [1,116], Productions (filming dates) currently ongoing in Ontario, Also productions from 1998-2008. Updated every few weeks[633]
VFX World [1,127], Articles on visual effects, news[633]
No consensus
DiscussingFilm [1,128], insufficient discussion in a 2020 RSN discussion.[639]
Film Threat, [1,129], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.[640] Previously no consensus in a May 2022 RSN discussion, which noted that some of its content is paid.[641]
The Filmik [1,130], one editor in a May 2022 RSN discussion opined that they are not reliable based on their newness and lack of listed editorial staff or policies.[642]
Unreliable
Blu-ray.com [1,131], database is provided by its userbase.[633]
FilmAffinity [1,133], a social media site with a film database.[633]
Filmdaily.co [1,134], user-generated per an April 2023 RSN discussion.[643]
Film Reference http://www.filmreference.com/, weak consensus for being unreliable due to unclear editorial standards.[644]
Filmibeat [1,135], described as churnalism in a May 2022 RSN discussion.[645]
IMDB [1,136], content is mostly user submitted.[633]
TV.com (MovieTome, GameFAQs) [1,137][1,138], database information is user-submitted and reviewed by an "editor" (usually a person who has contributed the most) or a staff member.[633]
Wikipedia[1,140], non-English Wikipedias, and sites that mirror them, are not considered reliable sources for the content taken from the articles themselves, even when such articles are sourced by reliable sources. Use the sources instead.[633]
Food
Reliable
Beer Business Daily [1,141], hesitant consensus in an April 2023 RSN discussion that it appears to be a well-established industry publication with use by others.[646]
Craft Coffee Spot [1,142], commercial blog per an April 2023 RSN discussion.[648]
TasteAtlas[1,143], small consensus for unreliability in a December 2023 RSN discussion.[649]
Geography and history
Reliable
Ancient Asia[1,144], peer-reviewed academic journal per a November 2021 RSN discussion.[650]
CIA Factbook [1,145], usable for uncontroversial facts, be cautious of bias.[651]
E-Perimetron [1,146], reliable per a small February 2024 RSN discussion.[652]
Marxist Internet Archive Encyclopedia of Marxism[1,147], a May 2023 RSN discussion had a cautious, small consensus for reliability while noting the obvious biases. N.b. that the rest of the Marxist Internet Archive website mostly comprises primary sources.[653]
Ronen Bergman, rough consensus in a September 2021 RSN discussion that their work is generally reliable, although attribution may be necessary.[654]
Smarthistory [1,148], small consensus for reliability in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[655]
No consensus
WP:ABOUTSELF-type statements, other sources preferred, per a November 2020 RSN discussion.[656]
Arcadia Publishing[1,150], described as "use with caution" and little better than self-publication in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[657]
The Art Story [1,151], no consensus on overall reliability in a April 2023 RSN discussion that did agree on describing it as appropriate for grade school students but inferior to genuine scholarly sources.[658]
Defending History, [1,152] self-published blog written by Dovid Katz. No consensus on whether Katz's academic expertise applies to history or whether there is sufficient USEBYOTHERS to establish reliability.[659]
WP:UGC by one editor in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[660]
Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies[1,154], no consensus in an August 2023 RSN discussion.[661]
Encyklopedia II wojny światowej (book), editors were divided on whether this source is unreliable due to its close connection to the military and communist party of the Polish People's Republic, or whether it can be used with caution in some contexts.[662]
Flag Institute [1,155], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[162]
GEOnet Names Server (GNIS) [1,156], reliable for locations and coordinates, not reliable for feature classes, does not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement of GEOLAND on its own per a December 2021 RfC.[663]
Google Maps[1,157], is useful for some purposes, but can also be considered original research. For China, OpenStreetMap is preferable.[5]
Historynet.com [1,158], disparaged by one editor in a July 2022 RSN discussion.[664]
Monthly Review, [1,162] no consensus regarding general quality in a July 2022 RSN discussion concerning its reprint of content from deprecated source The Grayzone.[670]
Peakbagger.com, [1,163], no consensus in a January 2022 RSN discussion.[671]
PeopleGroups.org [1,164], described as unreliable by one editor in a December 2023 RSN discussion.[672]
Världens Historia[1,165], one editor described them as generally reliable, but less so than actual history books.[673]
NCERT textbooks [1,166], generally geared for grade school education, may be oversimplified and thus inferior to academic sources for Wikipedia. Editors noted that their quality varies considerably.[674]
rulers.org [1,167], no consensus in a June 2021 discussion that raised concerns about its reliability.[675]
spanamwar.com [1,168], no consensus in a small January 2023 discussion where one editor argued that the blog's editor is a subject-matter expert.[676]
Vexilla Mundi [1,169], non-expert blog per 1 editor in an October 2023 RSN discussion.[677]
World Economics [1,170], no consensus in a July 2023 RSN discussion.[678]
Unreliable
Archaeology-World.com [1,171], consensus for unreliability in a January 2023 RSN discussion.[679]
Archontology.org, [1,172], small consensus that it is written by non-experts in an October 2022 RSN discussion.[680]
Atlas Obscura[1,173], unreliable due to crowdsourced format per a March 2023 RSN discussion.[681] Previously, editors in an October 2020 RSN discussion thought that its magazine articles are likely reliable, but that its location entries may not be due to crowdsourcing concerns.[682]
Books by Allan W. Eckert, a 2020 RSN discussion largely agreed that his books, while entertaining, mix an unacceptable amount of fiction into their accounts.[683]
Books, particularly encyclopedias, by James B. Minahan.[684]
EuropeanHeraldry.org [1,174], descirbed as a self-published source in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[685]
Flags of the World (FOTW) [1,175], unreliable per a November 2022 RSN discussion.[686]
Glaukopis[1,176], consensus for unreliability in a March 2023 RSN discussion.[687] Previously rough consensus for unreliability regarding the topic of antisemitism in Poland in a February 2021 RSN discussion, without consensus on its general reliability.[688]
Geneaology Trails [1,177], effectively user-generated per a small April 2024 discussion.[689]
History (American TV network) (The History Channel) [1,178], most editors consider it to be unreliable due to its promotion of conspiracy theories.[5]
HistoryOfRoyalWomen.org [1,179], may be defunct, self-published non-expert source per an October 2020 RSN discussion. May have citations to better sources.[690]
International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research[1,180], predatory journal per a March 2024 RSN discussion.[691]
Jadovno.com [1,181], Russian? Editors in an April 2020 RSN discussion raised concerns that it does not have clear editorial policies and advised against using it.[692]
partylike1660.com [1,183], small consensus for unreliability in a December 2022 RSN discussion.[694]
Tibetan Political Review[1,184], a January 2021 RSN discussion was closed as being not generally reliable as an academic source.[695]
touregypt.net [1,185], self-published and promotional content per March 2019 RSN discussion.[696]
Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation[1,186], a February 2021 RSN discussion had a consensus that their website is not a reliable source for claims about mass killings under Communist regimes.[697] Reaffirmed in a January 2022 RSN discussion.[698]
Weather2Travel.com [1,187], website has a disclaimer that it should not be relied upon.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
Preprints are not peer reviewed, and are not a reliable source.
Journal articles should be from a journal that is related to the subject. Citing a journal article about epilepsy that was published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research is probably not appropriate.
World Health Organization[1,205], rough consensus in an April 2020 discussion that the WHO's publications are generally reliable, although care should be taken with claims that involve speculation. Depending on the nature of the claims in question, it may or may not meet MEDRS.[703][701]
Frontiers Media[1,207], they publish around 140 peer reviewed journals that are titled Frontiers in [...]. No consensus in a March 2023 RfC, with opinions expressed for "generally unreliable" and "considerations apply".[704] Previously, consensus that it is unreliable in a 2021 RSN discussion.[705][706]
Quackwatch[1,211], no consensus, self-published site run by an expert in the field.[5]
Verywell[1,212] (including https://www.verywellhealth.com/ https://www.verywellfamily.com/ https://www.verywellmind.com/), considered marginally reliable in a May 2020 RSN discussion[709] but are currently on the blacklist due to having been spammed.
H. I. Sutton hisutton.com[1,223], subject matter expert for naval warfare per a November 2020 RSN discussion.[717]
Oryxspioenkop (Oryx) oryxspioenkop.com [1,224],Consensus reached in a September 2022 Wikiproject discussion that it is a Subject-matter expert for military topics.[718]
No consensus
The Arkenstone [1,225], no clear consensus in a September 2020 RSN discussion. It has been cited by the US Department of Defense, and might qualify as a self-published expert source.[719]
defensereview.com [1,226], leaning toward unreliable on the basis of being self-published, but insufficient discussion to reach a consensus.[720]
GlobalSecurity.org [1,227], in a 2020 discussion, one editor considered it a think tank only suitable as a primary source, while another considered it reliable and disputed its status as a think tank.[721]
guns.com [1,228], weak consensus that the News section is reliable in a July 2020 RSN discussion.[722]
Militant Wire [1,230], no consensus in a July 2023 RSN discussion.[724]
Military Watch Magazine [1,231], one editor described it as unreliable in a July 2023 RSN discussion.[725]
Pak Military Monitor [1,232], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[726]
uboat.net [1,233], editors are divided on its reliability in two discussions. Editors allege a local consensus at
WP:MILHIST that it is reliable up to GA level, but not for FA.[727][728]
War is Boring [1,234], no clear consensus in a September 2020 RSN discussion. Some evidence of use by reliable sources and might be an expert self-published source, although editors also note that it has recently reduced the amount of original content that it publishes and largely just reprints other publications.[719]
defence-blog.com [1,236], unreliable per a March 2024 RSN discussion.[730] Previously described as self-published in a November 2020 RSN discussion.[731]
Defseca.com ([1,237], [1,238], unreliable blog per a February 2021 RSN discussion.[732]
forces-war-records.co.uk [1,239], unreliable due to circular referencing with Wikipedia per an October 2020 RfC.[733]
War History Online [1,246], rough consensus that the authors are not established subject-matter experts and that the source does not have an established record of accuracy.[741]
weaponsandwarfare.com [1,247], blog with no clear editorial oversight, no relation to Weapons and Warfare, a defunct magazine.[742]
Publishers
In many discussions, users clarified that no publisher's works can be considered always reliable for everything.
University presses, in a discussion, some users felt that they should be considered de facto reliable, while others advocated for a case-by-case basis.[752]
Sarup & Sons publishing house, based in India, a September 2020 RSN discussion had a consensus that the source has published copyright-violating material and thus cannot be trusted to generally practice appropriate editorial oversight.[758]
Anti-Defamation League[1,259], generally reliable with attribution per a July 2020 RfC. Editors raised concerns that it may be less reliable for subjects related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[759]
Catholic Culture[1,270], no consensus in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[765]
Catholic News Agency[1,271], editors in a June 2020 RSN discussion raised concerns about its role as an advocacy platform for the Catholic church.[766]
China Buddhism Encyclopedia [1,272], disparaged by an editor in a July 2020 RSN post that did not draw any further discussion, insufficient discussion.[767]
Christian Post [1,273], an April 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a clear consensus on this source's reliability.[762]
Church Executive[1,274], no consensus in a small February 2024 RSN discussion.[768]
Crux (online newspaper) (cruxnow.com) [1,275], a 2019 RSN discussion appeared to treat Crux as a potentially reliable source, noting its pedigree as a Boston Globe spinoff, but did not extensively discuss the source as the focus of the discussion pivoted to questions of UNDUE.[769] No consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[770]
Hymnary.org [1,280], weak consensus that it can be reliable for basic facts about hymns but that it is not a good source for establishing notability or assigning DUE.[774]
Islamansiklopedisi.org.tr [1,281], no consensus in a November 2020 RSN discussion.[775]
IslamQA.info [1,282], not to be confused with IslamQA.org, no consensus in a February 2022 RSN discussion that noted that it may be reliable for Salafist perspectives.[776] Previously considered self-published fringe source in a January 2020 RSN discussion.[777]
Middle East Quarterly [1,283], a journal published by Middle East Forum, some editors hold that it is a respectable publication and note its citations in academic literature. Others maintain that it is fringe and/or unreliable, and dispute that the examples of citations provided in the discussion are proof of reliability.[778]
Radiance Weekly[1,284], published by Jamaat-e-Islami, likely not independent for most subjects where it would be relevant to cite it.[90]
Reasonablefaith.org [1,285], biased source, other sources preferred per a January 2021 RSN discussion.[779]
TalkOrigins Archive[1,286], no clear consensus in an August 2020 RSN discussion, with some editors considering it a reliable source for coverage of Creationist perspectives, and others describing it as "not the best source".[780]
Thesunniway.com [1,287], self-described advocacy platform, has ties to individuals who have been identified as "hate preachers".[781]
Thetorah.com,[1,288] no consensus in a November 2022 RSN discussion.[782]
Unreliable
Aleteia[1,289], described as low quality by one editor in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[783]
Amir Taheri books and blog, has been caught promoting hoaxes and fabricating quotes, particularly relating to Islam, on multiple occasions.[749]
AnsweringMuslims.com [1,290], possibly defunct, an RSN discussion closed in 2020 had a consensus that the website's roots in an anti-Muslim organization render it unreliable for claims about Islam.[784]
catholic-hierarchy.org, self-published source per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[786]
New religious movements and that its conflicts of interest make the source unusable.[5]
catholicism.org [1,294], reliable for own opinion but not much else according to an RSN discussion.[787]
Chabad.org [1,295], usable for Chabad's perspectives on ABOUTSELF grounds but otherwise not reliable per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[788] Reaffirmed in an August 2020 RFC, with some editors considering it usable for basic non-controversial claims.[789]
Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch [1,298], fringe publication.[778]
haribhakt.com [1,299], editors were unable to identify its publisher in a 2020 RSN discussion and cast doubts on its reliability based on content on the site.[781]
International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, [1,300] editors in a March 2021 RSN discussion held that it is a religious organization without expert credentials and that its publications are equivalent to a self-published blog. Usable for ABOUTSELF claims.[792]
IslamicStudies.org [1,301], possibly defunct, appears to be a one-person blog per a 2020 RSN discussion.[781]
Jewish Virtual Library[1,302], editors raised concerns about a propensity to cite Wikipedia, a lack of clear editorial controls, and bias related to Israel-Palestine in a May 2020 RfC.[5]
The Legal Culture [1,304], journal and news website, advocacy publication published by the Polish fringe Traditionalist Catholic group Ordo Iuris, not reliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[794]
Legends of America [1,305], small consensus for unreliability in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[795]
Madain Project [1,307], an October 2020 RSN discussion had a small consensus for unreliability due to lack of credentials and use by RS.[796]
Monergism.com [1,308], small consensus in a 2020 discussion that its POV and lack of clear editorial policy means that it is not reliable for anything other than
TheReligionOfPeace.com https://thereligionofpeace.com/, per a May 2020 RSN diiscussion.[802]
Saints.ru [1,315], unreliable per a June 2023 RSN discussion.[803]
SikhiWiki [1,316], open wiki per March 2019 discussion[804]
wrldrels.org [1,317], discussed at RSN in July 2020 by two editors, whose positions were "garbage source" and "possibly usable, but with caution", respectively. The source has ties to CESNUR, see its entry above.[805]
Science and technology
Reliable
9to5Mac [1,318], small consensus for reliability in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[806]
Gizmodo[1,329], generally reliable for techonology, pop culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.[5]
GSMArena [1,330], widely cited by reliable sources for cell-phone coverage. Note that they also host database entries, which are not indicative of notability.[814]
Space.com[1,348], generally reliable for astronomy and spaceflight, but can have a sensational tone. May publish syndicated content and churnalism.[828]
The Verge[1,352], generally reliable for technology, science, and automobiles. Some editors question the quality of The Verge's instructional content on computer hardware.[5]
ZDNet [1,356], generally reliable for technology.[5]
No consensus
9to5Google [1,357], while there was a significant disagreement in a RSN discussion spanning from December 2022 to February 2023, the general idea is that other considerations apply.[832]
All About Circuits,[1,359] "probably fine" per one editor in a March 2021 RSN discussion.[833]
Carnot-Cournot Netwerk [1,360], Swiss nuclear energy lobby group. Editors in a 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a consensus regarding the reliability of its publications.[834]
CleanTechnica[1,361], editors were divided over the source's general level of reliability in a May 2020 RSN discussion; there was some level of agreement that it could be used for minor technical details and uncontroversial claims, but editors were divided as to whether their more in depth coverage is reliable.[835]
CNET[1,362], reliable prior to a 2020 sale of the publication, clearly unreliable following a 2022 decision to publish content written by AI without sufficient oversight, no consensus for the 2020-2022 period.[5]
The Debrief [1,363], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[836]
Encyclopedia Astronautica [1,365], no consensus in a September 2023 RSN discussion.[5]
FossForce [1,366], no consensus in a July 2023 RfC.[838]
Grit Daily [1,367], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion where editors disagreed on whether the publication provided enough editorial oversight. Not to be confused with Grit (newspaper).[839]
MakeUseOf.com [1,370][1,371], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[842]
Mantleplumes.org [1,372], no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion.[843]
MathWorld [1,373], no consensus in an April 2024 RSN discussion.[844]
MobileSyrup, [1,374] no consensus in a July 2022 RSN discussion.[845]
Neowin[1,375], insufficient discussion for a consensus, mentioned by one editor as reliable in a 2015 RSN discussion.[846]
The Next Web [1,376], no consensus, 2014 and 2016 discussions considered it reliable, 2018 discussions leaned toward unreliable.[5]
WP:FRINGE, with minimal discussion about its general reliability.[847]
Psychology Today blogs [1,378], no consensus, while often written by experts, may not necessarily be experts in fields sufficiently relevant to claims that they may make.[848]
ScienceBlogs[1,379], no consensus, network of invite-only blogs run by experts. However, some blogs may write about subjects outside of their author's expertise.[5]
The Shortcut [1,380], no consensus in a March 2024 RSN discussion.[849]
SlashGear [1,381], insufficient discussion, but mentioned as reliable by an editor in a 2015 RSN discussion.[850]
Space News [1,382], insufficient discussion for a consensus, one editor did not speak highly of them, noting that they're an aggregator, they reprint press releases, have a small staff, and no experts.[851]
Tom's Guide [1,388], mentioned in passing by one editor as reliable. Not enough mentions to generate a consensus.[855]
Unreliable
arXiv[1,389], self-published source. Papers hosted here may or may not have also been published in a peer-reviewed journal–if so, cite that journal but provide a link to arXiv.[5]
chemicalbook.com [chemicalbook.com], commercial marketplace without sufficient editorial oversight per a June 2023 RSN discussion.[856]
CoinDesk[1,390], there is a consensus that it is not reliable for evaluating notability on the basis of its coverage, and should be avoided in favor of mainstream sources.[5]
EconStor [1,392], self-publishing site which may host material by reliable subject-matter experts but which confers no reliability of its own per one editor in a June 2023 RSN discussion.[857]
Ed-Tech Press [1,393], disreputable and likely predatory per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[858]
Encycolorpedia.com [1,394], in an April 2020 discussion, an editor concluded that it is not reliable because it does not publish any information about who runs the site.[859]
Followchain [1,395], described by 2 editors as unreliable in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[860]
Garden.org [1,396], crowdsourced wiki per an August 2021 RSN discussion.[861]
Journal of Novel Applied Sciences [1,397], likely predatory per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[862]
KenRockwell.com [1,398], self-published source without credentials.[863]
Liliputing.com [1,399], self-published per a November 2019 RFC.[864]
Omniglot[1,400], possibly self-published, no consensus on reliability but consensus that it is not a good indication of notability due to its indiscriminate information in a July 2020 RSN discussion.[865]
Pc.net [1,401], unreliable per one editor in a February 2023 RSN discussion.[866]
Bluff (magazine)[1,417], stopped publishing in 2015. Reliable for poker information per an August 2020 RSN discussion.[874]
CardsChat News [1,418], reliable for poker information per an August 2020 RSN discussion.[874]
ESPN[1,419][1,420][1,421], sports publication of record, doesn't appear to have ever been seriously challenged as a source for sports information.[875]
Extratime.ie [1,422][1,423], reliable for association football coverage per a January 2021 RSN discussion.[876]
Chris Turner's Snooker Archive, reliable expert source per an August 2022 RSN discussion.[877]
SBNation [1,431], no consensus in an August 2023 RSN discussion.[882] Previously, all editors involved in a 2020 discussion agree that articles published in this source should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.[883]
Sherdog.com [1,432], opinions varied wildly at a November 2020 RfC, with a plurality considering it to be one of the best MMA-focused sources, if not necessarily as good as major outlets like ESPN.[884][5]
SoccerBible [1,433], no consensus in a September 2023 RSN discussion.[885]
Unreliable
Footballdatabase.eu [1,434], user generated and unreliable per a December 2023 RSN discussion.[886]
Highstakesdb [1,435], self-published poker blog, but may be usable for tournament results per an August 2020 RSN discussion.[874]
Rocket Robin's Soccer In Toronto http://rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com/, blog compiling primary source information.[887]
Sportskeeda [1,436], generally unreliable per a June 2021 RSN discussion.[888]
WP:WikiProject Professional Wrestling due to a lack of proper fact checking.[889]
Transfermarkt[1,438][1,439], player profiles and statistics can be edited by registered users, making this source unreliable.
Vehicles (cars, aircraft, trains, ships)
Reliable
Car and Driver[1,440], generally reliable for non-technical claims per a January 2021 RSN discussion.[890]
One Mile at a Time [1,441], an editor in a December 2020 RSN discussion suggested that the source's author is a subject-matter expert for civil aviation.[891]
Outandaboutlive, [1,442], generally reliable for coverage of motor homes per a May 2022 RSN discussion[892]
tcawestern.org [1,443], rough consensus in a 2020 RSN discussion for reliability for model-train related claims as a self-published expert source.[893]
American-rails.com [1,445], editors expressed doubts about its reliability in an August 2020 RSN discussion but did not come to a firm consensus.[895]
Ch-aviation [1,446], described as a reliable trade publication by one editor in an August 2023 RSN discussion.[896]
The Drive The War Zone[1,447], one editor made a case for unreliability in a July 2023 RSN discussion that did not receive further participation.[897]
Hotairengines.org [1,448], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[898]
roads.org.uk [1,449], typically-reliable but self-published source per an October 2022 RSN discussion.[899]
Supercars.net [1,450], editors in a May 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a clear consensus, with several suggesting it was unreliable and no one defending it as a high quality source.[900]
Superyacht Times[1,451], no consensus on whether it can be used for notability purposes in an August 2020 RSN discussion, although there was a consensus that it is usable for simple statements of fact confirming the sale of boats.[901]
ukrailnews, [1,452] no firm consensus, leaning towards unreliable, in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[902]
Zamaaero [1,453], no consensus in a February 2024 RSN discussion.[903]
Unreliable
The Aerodrome [1,454], self-published per a December 2021 RfC.[904]
Belgian Wings [1,455], not reliable per a December 2019 RSN discussion.[905]
bozhdynsky.com [1,456], self-published and non-expert source per a July 2019 RSN discussion.[906]
Carfolio [1,457], small consensus for unreliability in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[907]
cahighways.org [1,458], considered a hobbyist website that is not published by a subject-matter expert per April 2022 RSN discussion.[908]
f-16.net [1,459], not reliable per a March 2022 RSN discussion.[909]
Fighter Jets World [1,460], not reliable, caught passing off photohopped images as real per a March 2022 RSN discussion.[910]
Land Transport Guru [1,461] consensus in a December 2023 RSN discussion that it is a self-published enthusiast site.[911]
Planespotters.net [1,462], consensus that it is self-published in a March 2023 RSN discussion.[912]
etymonline [1,467], self-published but possibly a subject-matter expert per an August 2020 RSN discussion. Editors agreed that better sources will generally be available for the subject matter, nevertheless.[916]
Goodreads[1,475], a social cataloging site comprising user-generated content.[5]
Guinness World Records[1,476], should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage.[5]
The Joshua Project [1,478], self-published blog by Christian missionary group per an August 2021 RSN discussion.[920]
Jrank [1,479], considered a content farm. Has been caught plagiarizing from other sources. Unreliable per numerous past discussions.[921]
LinkedIn[1,480], business-oriented social networking site. Self-published.[5]
Listverse [1,481], denounced as unreliable clickbait by editors after an IP suggested that it should be considered a reliable source in a May 2020 RSN discussion.[922]
The Signpost (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost), an April 2020 RSN discussion had a rough consensus that it should not be cited in Wikipedia articles except in very rare circumstances as a primary source.[925]
Urban Dictionary[1,493], described as unreliable due to its crowdsourced nature in a May 2020 RSN discussion.[927]
Wikidata[1,494], user-generated. However, uniquely among WMF sites, Wikidata's statements can be directly transcluded into articles; this is usually done to provide external links or infobox data.[5]
These websites usually pull their news reports from other websites. When possible, references to these websites should be replaced with links to the original website. These are often web portal websites.
Several scripts and tools exist that will flag issues and problems with sources.
Scripts
User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen – a user script that adds categorical icons to Wikipedia citations, to help guide users on the nature and reliability of sources at just a glance
^For journal articles, need to also check if it is a secondary source. That is, a review, systematic review, meta-analysis, guideline, or practice guideline.
![[1,033]](https://www.svg.com){kind=link}