Jump to content

Wikipedia:New pages patrol source guide: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Poland: no such consensus, have the accounts commenting there were brand new violating the 500/30 restriction
Line 519: Line 519:
;Reliable
;Reliable
*''[[Gazeta Wyborcza]]'' [https://wyborcza.pl/], rough consensus for reliability in a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name=":gazetawyborcza01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO.press|WP:RSN/Archive 329#Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO.press]] </ref>
*''[[Gazeta Wyborcza]]'' [https://wyborcza.pl/], rough consensus for reliability in a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name=":gazetawyborcza01">[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO.press|WP:RSN/Archive 329#Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO.press]] </ref>
*[[OKO.press]] [https://oko.press/], rough consensus for reliability in a February 2021 RSN discussion.<ref name=":gazetawyborcza01" />


;No consensus
;No consensus

Revision as of 01:40, 18 June 2021

The purpose of this page is to centralize information about reliable sources for use by new page reviewers when reviewing new articles. It is intended as a supplement to the reliable sources noticeboard and List of Perennial Sources, 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

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

If you would like to expand this page with the contents of a WikiProject source guide, either format a link to the relevant guide as a citation, or include it using a {{main}} or {{see also}} template. 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 justifying a change, or start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard in order to establish a more holistic and up to date consensus. However, be mindful of the level of support for the claim that you intend to challenge: for instance, challenging sources listed at the perennial sources list is much less likely to result in a new consensus than challenging sources supported by a single discussion.

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

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

Adding entries

  • All information in this page should be written to reflect existing consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia.
  • 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 should have a consensus of two editors or more somewhere else on Wikipedia (usually WP:RSN, but Wikiprojects and other places are also acceptable).
  • If you add an entry that only has one editor that discussed it, put it in the "no consensus" category, and mention that there was not enough discussion to generate a consensus. Also mention what the editor said about the source.

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. 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. For example, WP:RSN, WP:RSP, or a WikiProject resource page.

By region

International reporting

These sources have extensive coverage of many different countries and regions

Reliable
No consensus
  • Anadolu Agency [33], many languages, reliable for uncontroversial news reporting, not reliable for international or politically controversial topics.[4]
  • Asharq Al-Awsat [34], Arabic, no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[13]
  • Genocide Watch [35], 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.[14]
  • Global Voices [36], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[15]
  • Middle East Eye [37], English, no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[16]
  • Mondoweiss [38], English, largely reports on issues related to Israel/Palestine. Opinionated source backed by an advocacy group, statements should be attributed.[4]
  • Newsweek (2013–present) [39], many languages, changes in editorial leadership have led to a decline in the magazine's reliability, evaluate on a case-by-case basis. [4]
  • RIA Novosti [40], 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.[4]
  • TRT World [41], 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.[17]
  • Vice Media (Garage Magazine, i-D, Motherboard, Vice (magazine), Vice News) [42], 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.[4]
Unreliable
  • Centre for Research on Globalization, generally unreliable. The CRG is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories and lack of editorial oversight. It is a biased or opinionated source, and its content is likely to constitute undue weight. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered. [4]
  • Consortium News [43], described as an unreliable and fringe outlet in a September 2019 discussion.[18]
  • The Grayzone Report [44], English, deprecated in a 2020 RfC.[4]
  • HispanTV [45], deprecated, Spanish language, republishes conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda.[4]
  • Independent Media Center (IndyMedia) [46], many languages, insufficient fact checking and effectively self-published.[4]
  • International Business Times [47], many languages, quality is inconsistent, significant amounts of content are syndicated and not clearly marked.[4]
  • Meaww, tabloid with no positive reputation to speak of per an April 2020 RSN discussion.[19]
  • Middle East Forum [48], 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.[18]
  • Middle East Monitor, [49] consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion that it is a partisan think tank, with opinions ranging from "sometimes usable with attribution" to "unreliable".[20]
  • Press TV [50], English and French, owned by the government of Iran. Usable as a primary source for opinions and official lines from the Iranian government.[4]
  • RT (TV network) (Russia Today) [51], no consensus, described as a mouthpiece for the Russian government that at times has promoted conspiracy theories. Not reliable for controversial or political topics, no consensus about broader reliability.[4]
  • Sputnik (news agency) [52], 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.[4]
  • Stalkerzone [53], described as marginal and unreliable in a July 2020 RSN discussion that specifically focused on its coverage of bellingcat.[21]
  • Telesur (TV channel) [54][55], deprecated. Useful only for statements of opinion from the government of Venezuela.[4]
  • WikiLeaks [56], a repository of primary source documents leaked by anonymous sources. Most editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the verifiability policy, because WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate them, and there are concerns regarding whether the documents are genuine or tampered. It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source. However, linking to material that violates copyright is prohibited by the external links guideline.[4]
  • Wikinews [57], insufficient editorial oversight.[4]
  • World Socialist Website [58], as a fringe source it is not reliable, although individuals writing pieces for it or stories that it republishes may be usable.[22]

Africa

See also: WP:WikiProject Arab world § Notability, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Africa Sources List

Ghana

No consensus
  • Graphic Ghana [59], 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.[23]

Nigeria

Reliable
No consensus
  • Bella Naija [69], gossip blog[24], reaffirmed in a June 2021 RSN discussion.[26]
  • Pulse.ng [70], mostly gossip; sometimes serious reporting; known corporate headquarters and other publications/broadcast[24]
Unreliable
  • African Prints in Fashion [71][24]
  • Austine Media [72], gossip blog[24]
  • Buzz Nigeria [73], gossip[24]
  • Chioma Jesus [74], one man blog. May be defunct.[24]
  • G Music Plus [75], unreliable blog[24]
  • Gospel Music Naija [76], fan blog. May be defunct.[24]
  • Information Nigeria [77], gossip blog[24]
  • Linda Ikeji's Blog [78][24]
  • Loudest Gist [79], gossip, nonsense compilation blog. May be defunct.[24]
  • Nairaland Forum, forum[27]
  • Ono Bello [80], one man blog[24]
  • Stargist [81], celeb gossip blog. May be defunct.[24]
  • STARS [82], unreliable blog[24]
  • Youth Village [83], a "youth magazine", unreliable blog[24]

Namibia

No consensus

Somalia

Reliable
  • Horseed Media [86], probably reliable.[29]
No consensus
Unreliable
  • Somali Dispatch [90], no indication of reliability per a January 2021 RSN discussion.[30]

South Africa

Reliable
  • African Independent [91], deemed to likely be reliable in a May 2020 RfC.[31]
  • Cape Times [92], implicitly treated as reliable in a May 2020 RfC about African Independent.[31]

Uganda

Reliable
  • New Vision (newspaper) [93], large national newspaper, cited frequently by scholarly sources. Unclear if it has a conflict of interest with the government of Uganda.[32]
No consensus
  • PML Daily [94], raised for discussion in June 2019, no editors made any claims to its reliability or lack thereof.[32]

Zambia

No consensus

Asia

See also: WP:WikiProject Arab world § Notability

Armenia

Unreliable
  • Panarmenian.net [96], disparaged as overly biased on topics related to Armenia in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[34]

Bangladesh

Unreliable

China

Reliable
  • Hong Kong Free Press [99], the majority of participants in a 2019 discussion consider it as reliable as any other news source in Hong Kong.[36]
  • South China Morning Post [100], English, editorial bias toward the Chinese government since its buyout by Alibaba in 2016. Rough consensus for reliability in an August 2020 RfC.[37]
No consensus
  • Apple Daily [101], a June 2020 RfC did not reach any sort of consensus on this source's reliability.[38]
  • Bitter Winter [102], English, based in Italy, insufficient discussion for consensus. Editors raised concerns that it is published by the advocacy group CESNUR, see entry for CESNUR.[39]
  • Central Tibetan Administration [103], no consensus in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[40]
  • China Central Television [104], may be usable in certain contexts with attribution.[41]
  • China Daily [105], may be usable in certain contexts with attribution.[41] No consensus in a March 2021 RfC. [42]
  • Guancha.cn [106], a 2020 RfC was split between editors saying that it varied from case to case and editors saying that it was generally unreliable.[43]
  • People's Daily [107], may be usable in certain contexts with attribution.[41][44]
  • Qiushi [108], 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.[44]
  • What's on Weibo [109], likely reliable for claims related to Chinese social media and pop culture, but not generally reliable, per a 2020 RfC.[45]
  • Xinhua News Agency [110], may be usable in certain contexts with attribution. Prefer over other Chinese state media sources, comparable to TASS. [41][39]
Unreliable
  • Baidu Baike [111], crowd-sourced with minimal fact checking.[4]
  • China Global Television Network [112], while it may be usable in certain uncontroversial contexts with attribution, [41] a majority of editors in a May 2020 RSN discussion felt that it is generally not reliable and serves primarily as a propaganda outlet.[46]
  • Douban [113], user generated source per an October 2020 RSN discussion.[47]
  • Epoch Times [114], English, published in US, bias toward Falun Gong, may not give appropriate weight to controversial issues.[4]
  • faluninfo.net [115], usable for ABOUTSELF claims about Falun Gong but otherwise unreliable per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[48]
  • Global Times [116], less reliable than other Chinese state media and includes hyperbolic editorials and unreliable editorials reporting on news outside of China.[4]
  • Sixth Tone [117], English, not reliable for news but usable for articles about Chinese society or culture.[4]
  • New Tang Dynasty Television [118][119], deemed to be equivalent to other Falun Gong publications such as Epoch Times in a May 2020 RSN discussion.[49]
  • Sina.com [120], although it is mostly a news aggregator, its original content was deemed unreliable in a June 2020 RfC due to the lack of any reputation for fact checking.[50]
  • Wen Wei Po [121], all participants in an August 2020 RFC considered it unreliable in most contexts, with many advocating deprecation.[51]

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.[52] Sources listed here in the reliable section also run questionable content from time to time; caution is advised when evaluating Indian news sources.

Reliable
No consensus
  • 123Telugu [142], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[66]
  • ABP News [143], some editors consider it to be NEWSORG RS, others consider them to be biased to the point of unreliability.[53]
  • Asian News International [144], no consensus in a March 2021 RfC, with many editors !voting for either 1 or 4 in the poll.[67]
  • Bollywood Hungama [145], one editor described them as sometimes reliable in a July 2020 RSN discussion.[68]
  • FullHyderabad [146], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[66]
  • Idlebrain [147], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[66]
  • Jant Ka Reporter [148], 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.[69]
  • National Herald (India) [149], may be WP:NEWSORG but is also effectively a mouthpiece of the Indian National Congress.[53][70]
  • New Indian Express [150], briefly described by one editor as unreliable in a broad discussion of Indian sources.[53]
  • Orissapost.com [151], ok for non-controversial news reporting [71]
  • The Quint [152], 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.[53]
  • Radiance Weekly [153], published by Jamaat-e-Islami, likely not independent for most subjects where it would be relevant to cite it.[62]
  • Republic TV [154], general consensus that it is unreliable for politics and other controversial topics, no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics.[72]
  • Scroll.in [155], fails to distinguish news reporting and opinion, a poor source for controversial topics.[53]
  • The Sunday Guardian [156], English, no consensus in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[73]
  • Times of India [157], English, major Indian news publication with a pro-government slant, frequently includes rather promotional articles and interviews for individuals in the film industry.[74] Most participants in a 2020 RfC considered its reliability to be unclear.[75][4]
  • Times Now [158], compared by one editor to Fox News, denounced as unreliable by others.[53]
  • WION, no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[76]
  • The Wire (India) [159], asserted by editors to meet NEWSORG, while others were concerned that it should not be used for notability.[53]
  • Zee News [160], some editors consider it to be NEWSORG RS, others consider them to be biased to the point of unreliability.[53]
Unreliable
  • DailyO.in [161], primarily opinion pieces.[53]
  • The Frustrated Indian, TFIpost, Rightlog.in, described by one editor as a fringe source with no editorial policies.[53][77]
  • Hindi 2News [162], an April 2020 RSN discussion concluded that it is unusable per WP:COPYLINK.[78]
  • Insistposthindi.in [163], possibly defunct, self-described marketing website.[53]
  • Live History India [164], small consensus for unreliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[79]
  • The Logical Indian [165], news aggregator, consider citing the original piece if originally published in a reliable outlet.[80]
  • Masala! [166], small consensus for unreliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[81]
  • Opindia.com, described by an editor as a right-wing propaganda mill.[53] They also doxx people, including Wikipedia editors.[82]
  • Postcard News [167], possibly defunct, regarded as completely unreliable by several editors.[53][77]
  • 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.[83]
  • Swarajya (magazine), vast majority of editors in a 2020 discussion voted to deprecate it.[82]
  • Youth Ki Awaaz [168], user generated content.[84]
  • Yuva TV, a BJP internet TV channel and generally unreliable per a December 2020 RSN discussion.[85]

Indonesia

No consensus
  • Tapol Bulletin [169], small consensus for reliability in a January 2021 RSN discussion, although some concerns of bias and advocacy were noted.[86]

Iran

Reliable
No consensus
  • Islamic Republic News Agency [171], 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.[88]
  • Tehran Times, [172] an April 2021 RSN discussion raised concerns about citogenesis related to this source.[89]
Unreliable
  • Press TV [173], owned by the government of Iran. Usable as a primary source for opinions and official lines from the Iranian government.[4]
  • HispanTV [174], deprecated, Spanish language, republishes conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda.[4]

Iraq

No consensus
  • Kurdistan Human Rights Network [175], may be usable with attribution[90]

Israel/Palestine

Reliable
  • B'Tselem [176], weak consensus for general reliability for their reporting, with several editors suggesting that they should be cited with attribution.[91]
  • Haaretz [177], reliable for news reporting.[4]
No consensus
  • Debka [178], no consensus in a small April 2021 RSN discussion.[92]
  • Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) [179], 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.[93]
  • Mondoweiss [180], English, largely reports on issues related to Israel/Palestine. Opinionated source backed by an advocacy group, statements should be attributed.[4]
  • NRG360 [181], closed in 2018, no consensus on its reliability for I/P topics in a May 2020 RSN discussion.[94]
  • The Times of Israel [182], 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.[95]
  • Wafa [183], 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.[96]
Unreliable
  • The Electronic Intifada [184], there is a consensus that EI does insufficient fact checking and error correction.[4]
  • Israelunwired.com [185], unreputable and possibly self-published per a 2020 RSN discussion.[97]

Japan

Reliable
  • Japan Times [186], 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.[98]
  • NHK World-Japan, [187] reliable as a major news organization per a March 2021 RSN discussion.[99]
  • Nikkei [188], reliable but shy of controversial stories per an August 2020 RSN discussion.[100]

Kazakhstan

No consensus
  • The Astana Times [189], described as not independent of the Kazakhstan government in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[101]
  • Edge.kz [190], possibly defunct, described as not independent of the Kazakhstan government in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[101]
  • EU Reporter [191], described as not independent of the Kazakhstan government in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[101]


Lebanon

No consensus

Malaysia

No consensus
  • newsarawaktribune.com.my [193], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[102]
Unreliable

The Sun, [194], consensus leaned towards generally unreliable in a June 2021 RSN discussion.[103]

Nepal

No consensus
  • Kathmandu Tribune [195], no consensus, editors raised concerns about paid content and syndicated content from Xinhua.[104]

Pakistan

Reliable
No consensus
  • Geo TV, [197] no firm consensus but leaning towards reliable in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[107]
Unreliable
  • Dispatch News Desk (DND) [198], a few editors expressed doubts that DND is reliable in an August 2020 RSN discussion.[108]

Saudi Arabia

No consensus
  • Arab News [199], an April 2020 RfC was closed as "maybe reliable" with concerns raised about its connections to the Saudi government.[109]

Singapore

No consensus

South Korea

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources
Reliable

Sri Lanka

No consensus
  • Colombo Page [203], largely reprints material from other sources per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[111]

Syria

Reliable
  • Al-Masdar News [204], 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.[112]
No consensus
  • ARA News [205][206], defunct, accused of unreliability and having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[113]
  • ANF News [207][208], accused of unreliability having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[113]
  • Hawar News [209], accused of unreliability and having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[113]
  • Kurdistan24 [210], accused of unreliability and having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[113]
  • Kurdistan Human Rights Network [211], insufficient discussion for consensus[90]
  • KurdWatch [212], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion, editors suggested that it has an anti-YPG bias.[114]
  • New Compass [213], accused of unreliability having a bias, insufficient discussion for consensus.[113]

Taiwan

Reliable
Unreliable
  • Peopo.org [217], may be defunct, a May 2020 RfC considered this to be a self-published citizen journalism source.[119]

Turkey

No consensus
  • A Haber, [218] no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion which raised concerns about disinformation.[120]
  • Ahval [219], 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.[121]
  • Anadolu Agency [220], reliable for uncontroversial news reporting, not reliable for international or politically controversial topics.[4]
  • Aydınlık [221], disparaged as tabloidy in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[122]
  • Daily Sabah [222], marginally reliable for uncontroversial new reporting and the Turkish government's official perspectives, not reliable for anything controversial per a December 2020 RfC. A few editors argued for outright deprecation, comparing it to RT. [123]
  • Kurdistan Human Rights Network [223], may be usable with attribution[90]
  • İnternethaber [224], disparaged as tabloidy in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[122]
  • TRT World [225], 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.[124]
  • Yeniçağ [226], disparaged as tabloidy in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[122]

United Arab Emirates

No consensus
  • Gulf News [227], 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.[125]
  • The National News [228], 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.[125]

Vietnam

No consensus
  • VietnamNet.vn [229], government outlet in a low press freedom country per a December 2020 RSN discussion.[126]

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. [127]

Croatia

No consensus
  • HKV.hr [230], 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.[128]

Czech Republic

Reliable
No consensus
Unreliable
  • Aeronet (aka AE News) [236], described by an editor as "fake news" with respect to its coverage of Czech politics.[129]
  • Aha! (tabloid) [237], described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[129]
  • Blesk [238], described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[129]
  • Parlamentní listy [239], described by editors as "horseshit" and "fake news" with respect to its coverage of Czech politics.[129]
  • Super [240], defunct, described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[129]

Finland

No consensus
  • GB Times [241], probably defunct. Insufficient RSN discussion, one editor expressed concern that they might be a PR mill.[130]

France

Reliable

Germany

Reliable
No consensus
Unreliable

Greece

Unreliable
  • Greek City Times [251], a November 2020 RSN discussion established that the editor in chief has neo-nazi affiliations.[135]
No consensus
  • Kathimerini [252][253], no consensus in a November 2020 RSN discussion. Editors noted that it has a conservative political bias. [136]

Ireland

Reliable
Unreliable
  • An Phoblacht [256], usable only for WP:ABOUTSELF cases for Sinn Feinn and maybe the IRA per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[138]
  • Gript Media [257], opinion publication, a January 2021 RSN discussion had a rough consensus that it is not usable for factual claims.[139]

Latvia

No consensus
  • Meduza [258], briefly described as reliable in a June 2020 RSN discussion but did not receive sufficient discussion.[140]

The Netherlands

No consensus
  • NRC Handelsblad [259], described as one editor as considered at least mostly reliable.[141]

Poland

Reliable
No consensus
  • Do Rzeczy [261], no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion, with a majority of editors arguing that it was unreliable.[143]
  • Gazeta Polska [262], no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion with a majority of editors arguing that it was unreliable.[144]
  • niezalezna.pl [263], no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion, with a majority of editors arguing that it was unreliable.[145]
  • Polskie Radio, [264] state run media, no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion.[146]
  • TV Republika [265], no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion with a majority of editors arguing that it was unreliable.[144]
Unreliable

Russia

No consensus
  • Kommersant [278], no consensus between "generally reliable" and "unclear/additional considerations" in an April 2021 RfC.[151] Previously briefly described as reliable in a June 2020 RSN discussion but did not receive sufficient discussion.[140]
  • Meduza [279], briefly described as reliable in a June 2020 RSN discussion but did not receive sufficient discussion.[140]
  • Novaya Gazeta [280], briefly described as reliable in a June 2020 RSN discussion but did not receive sufficient discussion.[140]
  • RBK Group (rbc.ru, rbc.ua, RBC Group, RosBiznessConsulting) [281][282], no consensus in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[140]
  • Reframing Russia [283], British university research project, no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[152]
  • RIA Novosti [284], 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.[4]
  • TASS (ТАСС, ITAR-TASS, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union) [285], reliability of TASS varies based on the subject matter. Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but also agree that there are deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues.[4]
Unreliable
  • hrvc.net (Human rights violations Chechnya) [286], possibly defunct, described as self-published by one editor at RSN in May 2020. [153]
  • peoples.ru [287][154]
  • The Siberian Times [288], editors in a 2020 RSN discussion came to a consensus that it is not a reliable source.[155]
  • South Front, described as a Russian government-backed disinformation site.[156]
  • Vzglyad, Russian state propaganda outlet per a May 2021 RSN discussion.[157]

Switzerland

Reliable

Ukraine

No consensus
  • RBK Group (rbc.ru, rbc.ua, RBC Group, RosBiznessConsulting) [290][291], no consensus in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[140]
  • UNIAN.ua [292], described as relatively reliable for reporting on topics other than Ukraine–Russia relations in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[159]
Unreliable

United Kingdom

Reliable
No consensus
  • Asian Express [311], assessed as unreliable by one editor in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[166]
  • Byline Times [312], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[167] Previously no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[168]
  • Castlewales.com [313], 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.[169]
  • Daily Mirror [314], tabloid.[4]
  • Desmog Blogs desmog.uk, desmog.co.uk, desmogblog.com [315][316][317], 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. [170]
  • Encyclopedia Britannica [318], 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.[4]
  • Evening Standard [319], despite being a free newspaper, considered more reliable than British tabloids.[4]
  • The Eye (Wales) [320], a June 2020 RSN discussion was mostly dismissive of the source's coverage but did not come to a clear condemnation.[171]
  • Hansard [321], primary source of transcripts from Parliament, use with attribution.[4]
  • Hope not Hate [322], advocacy group for anti-racism and anti-fascism, reliability must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.[4]
  • Morning Star (British newspaper) [323], no consensus, communist political line.[4]
  • The National (Scotland) [324], no consensus in a brief October 2020 RSN discussion.[161]
  • The New European [325], a July 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a firm consensus.[172]
  • openDemocracy [326], 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.[173]
  • Scottish-places.info [327], no consensus in an April 2021 RSN discussion.[174]
  • The Skeptic (UK magazine) [328], 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.[175]
  • The Spectator [329], a June 2020 RSN discussion came to a rough consensus that it is usable for attributable opinion.[176]
  • Spiked (magazine) [330], no consensus in an April 2020 RSN discussion.[177]
  • The Tab [331], a January 2021 RSN discussion roughly agreed that it is not a good source, but some editors argued that it may occasionally be usable.[178]
  • ukrailnews, [332] no firm consensus, leaning towards unreliable, in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[179]
Unreliable

North America

Canada

Reliable
No consensus
Unreliable

Cuba

Unreliable
  • TheCubanHistory.com, [362] probably unreliable per a June 2021 RSN discussion.[198]

United States

Reliable
No consensus
  • Algemeiner [437], 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.[236]
  • American Community Survey, [438], described as reliable but primary in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[237]
  • The American Conservative [439], 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. [4]
  • American-rails.com [440], editors expressed doubts about its reliability in an August 2020 RSN discussion but did not come to a firm consensus.[238]
  • Ballotpedia [441], election website with editorial team, but Wikipedia editors have expressed concern with their editorial process.[4]
  • BET [442], 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.[239]
  • The Boston Herald [443], 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.[240][241][242]
  • Brookings Institute [444], think tank, albeit a relatively highly regarded one. Should be considered a primary source for its analysis of subjects.[243]
  • BuzzFeed [445], not to be confused with BuzzFeed News[4]
  • Cato Institute [446], reliable for opinion statements.[4]
  • Center for Economic and Policy Research [447], an economic policy think tank. Biased or opinionated, use attribution.[4]
  • Cosmopolitan (magazine) [448], evaluate on a case-by-case basis.[4]
  • Council on Foreign Relations [449], think tank. Should be considered a primary source for its analysis of subjects.[243]
  • CounterPunch [450], biased/opinionated [4]
  • COURIER [451], no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[244]
  • Deseret News [452], Salt Lake City, Utah newspaper. Reliable for local news. Owned by the LDS church, no consensus on its reliability on matters related to it.[4]
  • Democracy Now! [453], partisan source, no consensus on reliability.[4]
  • The Dispatch [454], 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.[245]
  • Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [455], progressive bias, do not use to support controversial claims in BLPs[4]
  • FITSNews [456], no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[246]
  • Fox News [457], no consensus on political and science coverage, other news coverage is generally reliable.'[4]
  • Gay City News [458], no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[247]
  • The Green Papers [459], April 2020 RfC closed as no consensus, with a slightly stronger case for unreliability.[248]
  • HuffPost [460], no consensus with most editors preferring to use more established sources.[4]
  • The Hustle [461], no clear consensus in a 2020 RSN discussion. Note that much of its material is tertiary summaries of other sources.[249]
  • Independent Journal Review [462], news reporting is largely syndicated from Reuters, "community member" posts are self-published.[4]
  • Jacobin (magazine) [463], 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. [250] A January 2021 RSN discussion had a rough consensus for marginal reliability.[251]
  • Jamestown Foundation [464], a think tank. Should be considered a primary source for its analysis of subjects.[243]
  • Jewish News Syndicate [465], 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.[236]
  • Local Government Information Services [466][467][468][469][470][471][472][473][474][475][476][477][478][479][480][481][482][483][484][485][486][487][488][489][490][491][492][493][494][495][496][497][498][499][500], umbrella group of political outlets operated by Dan Proft masquerading as local news sources per a January 2021 RSN discussion. There has been no analysis on a paper by paper level, but editors expressed concern about the group as a whole.[252]
  • Media Matters for America [501], progressive media-watchdog.[4]
  • Mental Floss, their history trivia section was described as a poor quality source in a June 2021 RSN discussion, no discussion of other topics or sections.[253]
  • Monkey Cage, opinion publication. Largely staffed by certified experts per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[254]
  • National Review [502], no consensus, partisan source (American conservative).[4]
  • New York Daily News [503], (Illustrated Daily News), no consensus, tabloid newspaper.[4]
  • Newsweek (2013–present) [504], many languages, changes in editorial leadership have led to a decline in the magazine's reliability, evaluate on a case-by-case basis. [4]
  • Oregon Encyclopedia [505], no consensus in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[255]
  • Our Town St. James, [506] local newspaper, no consensus regarding its reliability in a March 2021 RSN discussion.[256]
  • Paste (magazine) [507], no consensus for reliability on political topics.[257]
  • Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [508], 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.[258]
  • Pride.com [509], 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.[259]
  • RealClear media [510] (RealClearPolitics, RealClearInvestigations]]), no consensus in an April 2021 RfC.[260]
  • Reason (magazine) [511], editors in an April 2020 RSN were split on whether the source can be considered generally reliable.[261]
  • Right Wing Watch [512], a July 2019 discussion yielded no consensus.[262]
  • Salon (website) [513], largely an opinion publication, no consensus on reliability.[4]
  • Skeptic (US magazine) [514], 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.[175]
  • Skeptical Inquirer [515], 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.[175]
  • Star Media publications Michigan Star, Tennessee Star, Ohio Star, Minnesota Sun [516][517][518][519], editors in a 2020 RSN discussion identified reasons to suspect unreliability for these publications, but discussion was a bit too sparse to call consensus.[263]
  • Sludge [520], 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. [264]
  • Talking Points Memo [521], 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.[265]
  • ThinkProgress [thinkprogress.org], defunct. Discussions of ThinkProgress are dated, with the most recent in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Some consider ThinkProgress a form of WP:NEWSBLOG, and reliable for attributed statements of opinion. Others argue that ThinkProgress is generally reliable under WP:NEWSORG, albeit with due consideration for their political leanings.[4]
  • Toledo Blade [522], 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.[258]
  • Townhall [523], 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.[4]
  • Washington Examiner [524], no consensus about general reliability. There is consensus that opinions in the Washington Examiner should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims regarding living persons.[4]
  • The Washington Times [525], 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.[4]
  • The Week [526], editors in a June 2020 RSN discussion raised concerns that it is primarily a publisher of opinion.[266]
Unreliable
  • Ad Fontes Media [527], 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.[267] 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.[268]
  • Allsides.com [528], may be usable with attribution but not reliable enough to be used to support claims in Wikipedia's voice.[269][267]
  • AlterNet [529], generally unreliable partisan source that also aggregates articles from other sources.[4]
  • Blaze Media [530], including Conservative Review [531], is considered generally unreliable for facts, sometimes reliable for opinions.[4]
  • Breitbart News, may be ok for opinion but in that case the specific article needs to be whitelisted.[4]
  • The California Globe [532], generally unreliable per an April 2021 RfC.[270]
  • Capital Research Center [533], deemed an unreliable advocacy think tank in a May 2020 RSN discussion. May be usable as a primary source.[271]
  • CNSNews.com (Cybercast News Service) [534], unanimous consensus for unreliability in a 2019 RfC.[4]
  • The Daily Caller [535], deprecated for publishing false information.[4]
  • The Daily Wire [536], primarily publishes opinion, usable as attributed primary source for opinions.[272]
  • Daily Kos [537], activism blog, consensus to avoid it when better sources are available.[4]
  • Epoch Times [538], also contains lots of reporting on China, bias toward Falun Gong, may not give appropriate weight to controversial issues.[4]
  • The Federalist (website) [539], generally unreliable per an April 2021 RfC.[4] Previously no consensus.[273]
  • Forbes.com contributors [540], no editorial oversight[4]
  • Frontpage Mag [541], consensus for unreliability in an April 2020 discussion,[274] previously disparaged in a September 2019 discussion[18] Deprecated in July 2020 RfC.[275]
  • Gawker [542], rumors and speculation without attribution. Defunct.[4]
  • Heat Street, usable with attribution, but does not sufficiently distinguish news reporting and opinion pieces.[4]
  • HuffPost contributors [543], minimal editorial oversight.[4]
  • HS Insider [544], probably unreliable according to one editor due to the publication's student-driven nature.[276]
  • InfoWars, did you really need to look this one up?[4]
  • Inquisitr [545], a January 2021 RfC had a rough consensus for being generally unreliable.[277]
  • Law Officer Magazine lawofficer.com [546][547], unreliable and self-published per a December 2020 RSN discussion, possibly not even a real magazine.[278]
  • Lifehacker [548], weak consensus for unreliability in the absence of expert writers in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[279]
  • Media Bias/Fact Check [549], generally unreliable, questionable methodology.[4]
  • Media Research Center [550], conservative media-watchdog.[4]
  • Mises Institute [551], 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.[280]
  • Money Inc [552], an April 2020 RSN discussion described the source as a self-published group blog.[281]
  • National Enquirer [553], supermarket tabloid.[4]
  • The National Pulse thenationalpulse.com, small consensus for unreliability in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[282] Reaffirmed as unreliable in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[283]
  • New Tang Dynasty Television [554], deemed to be equivalent to other Falun Gong publications such as Epoch Times in a May 2020 RSN discussion.[49]
  • New York Post (New York Evening Post, Page Six) [555][556], generally unreliable per a September 2020 RfC.[4]
  • Newsmax [557], deprecated at RSP.[4]
  • Occupy Democrats [558], deprecated.[4]
  • Ourcampaigns.com [559], unreliable per RfCs in April 2021[284] and February 2021 RfC.[285]
  • PanAm Post [560], 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.[286]
  • PETA [561], consensus that its publications are generally unreliable in an August 2020 RfC.[287]
  • Politics USA, in a May 2020 RfC, one editor stated flatly that the source is not reliable.[288]
  • PragerU [562], in a discussion closed January 2020, there was consensus that PragerU is generally unusable.[289]
  • The Raw Story [563], A January 2021 RfC found this source generally unreliable.[290]
  • RedState [564], rough consensus for unreliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[291]
  • VDARE [565], deprecated, consensus that it is generally unusable as a source.[4]
  • The Washington Free Beacon [566], rough consensus in a May 2020 discussion that it is not reliable, with a minority dissenting opinion.[292]
  • Western Journal [567], two 2019 discussions elicited only strong condemnations of the source's reliability.[4]
  • WorldNetDaily [568], 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.[4]

Oceania

Australia

Reliable
No consensus
  • Creative Spirits [575], a May 2020 RSN discussion suggested caution but didn't come to a solid consensus on reliability.[299]
  • The Latin Australian Times [576], disparaged by one editor in a January 2021 RSN discussion that did not draw further participation.[300]
Unreliable
  • Independent Australia [577], 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.[301]
  • Independent Media Center [578], insufficient fact checking and effectively self-published.[4]
  • News Weekly [579], described by editors as a newsletter run by an advocacy organization. May be usable for WP:ABOUTSELF for claims related to the National Civic Council.[302]
  • Quadrant Magazine [580], generally unreliable for factual reporting.[303] Note that it is a literary magazine, and thus may still be reliable for literary reviews.
  • Quillette [581][4]

New Zealand

Reliable
  • The Spinoff [582], described as reliable by an editor in a November 2020 RSN discussion.[304]

South America

Argentina

Unreliable
  • El Rompehielos, [583] one editor in a June 2021 RSN discussion made a case for it being unreliable.[305]

Brazil

No consensus
  • Instituto Mises Brazil [584], 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.[306]

Venezuela

Unreliable
  • Telesur [585][586], deprecated.[4]
  • Venezuelanalysis [587], 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..[4]

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.

Animals

Unreliable
  • animals24-7.org [588], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[307]
  • daxtonsfriends.com [589], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[307]
  • dogbitelaw.com [590], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[307]
  • Dogsbite.org [591], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[307]
  • fatalpitbullattacks.com [592], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[307]
  • nationalpitbullvictimawareness.org [593], unreliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[307]

Biography

Reliable
No consensus
  • Arlingtoncemetery.net [595], self-published, may have some usable information per an editor in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[308]
  • BabyNames.com [596], one editor has argued that this website has insufficient editorial oversight.[309]
  • Biography.com [597][4]
  • BurkesPeerage.com [598], consensus for reliability for genealogical information in a June 2020 RSN discussion, but most of its other content is not independent of the subjects.[310]
  • debretts.com [599], no consensus in a June 2020 RSN discussion, with some concerns of pay-to-play.[310]
  • E! [600], generally usable for celebrity news but may not represent due weight.[4]
  • Entrepreneur (magazine) [601], 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. [4]
  • Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [602], no consensus on general reliability, do not use to support controversial claims in BLPs[4]
  • Pando.com [603], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[311]
  • TMZ [604], no consensus about the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles on rumors and speculation without named authors, it is recommended to properly attribute statements from TMZ. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person.[4]
  • Us Weekly [605], no consensus. Consensus that it is less reliable than People.[4]
  • Who's Who (UK) [606], editors are divided on whether sufficient editorial control exists, and whether it is an independent source. It is generally considered more reliable than Marquis Who's Who, which is published in the United States.[4]
Unreliable
  • 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.[310]
  • Ancestry.com [607][4]
  • angelfire.com/realm/gotha [608], editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[310]
  • Bradysnario.com [609], may be defunct, disparaged by an editor in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[312]
  • Celebitchy.com [610], unreliable gossip site based on 1 discussion.[313]
  • CelebrityNetWorth [611][4]
  • Chivalricorders.com [612], may be defunct, editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[310]
  • Countere.com [613], small consensus for unreliability in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[314]
  • Cracroft's Peerage [614], unreliable per a June 2020 RSN discussion.[310]
  • EarnTheNecklace [615], unfavorably compared to CelebrityNetWorth.[315]
  • englishmonarchs.co.uk [616], editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[310]
  • FamilySearch [617], user-generated.[4]
  • Famous Birthdays, no fact checking.[4]
  • FamousBirthsDeaths.com [618], self published.[316]
  • Find a Grave [619], user-generated.[4]
  • Findmypast [620], primary source[4]
  • Geni.com [621], open wiki.[4]
  • Guide2WomenLeaders.com [622], disparaged as self-published and unreliable in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[317]
  • Hello! (magazine) [623], celebrity tabloid with a reputation for fabrication.[188]
  • The Hustler's Digest [624], assessed to include both self-published and pay-to-play material with insufficient editorial oversight in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[318]
  • Internet Speculative Fiction Database [625], 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.[319]
  • jacobite.ca [626], editors advocated for deprecation in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[310]
  • Jezebel (website) [627], news and cultural commentary geared towards women, many editors agree that it inappropriately blurs opinion and factual reporting.[4]
  • Looktothestars.org [628], described as a PR site in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[320]
  • Marquis Who's Who [629], content is not independent of subjects.[4]
  • MarriedCeleb.com [630], consensus that there is no evidence that it is reliable.[321]
  • Media Entertainment Arts WorldWide, [631], small consensus that it is a gossip tabloid in a March 2021 RSN discussion.[322]
  • Medium (website) [632], self-publishing site, do not use for BLPs.[4]
  • NNDB (Notable Names Database) [633], poor reputation for fact checking, sometimes sources from Wikipedia.[4]
  • NickiSwift.com [634], gossip blog.[323]
  • PopSugar [635], disparaged as a gossip site in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[324] Described as potentially usable for non-BLP content in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[325]

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

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

Google custom search for generally reliable sources for video games (External link)

Reliable
  • The A.V. Club [636][4]
  • Billboard (magazine) [637], generally reliable for music news per a September 2020 RSN discussion. Major publisher of US record charts.[326]
  • Blender (magazine) [638], defunct, reliable for music.[327]
  • CliffsNotes [639], 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.[4]
  • The Daily Dot [640], reliable for content about internet culture.[4]
  • Deadline Hollywood [641], reliable for entertainment-related articles.[4]
  • Dicebreaker [642], reliable for claims related to board games per a May 2021 RSN discussion.[328]
  • Entertainment Weekly [643], reliable for entertainment-related articles, no consensus for other topics.[4]
  • Exclaim! [644], reliable for music reviews.[329]
  • Film School Rejects, [645] reliable with attribution per a June 2021 RSN discussion.[330]
  • GQ [646], 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.[331]
  • Gizmodo [647], reliable for pop culture and tech, discouraged for more controversial topics based on a July 2019 discussion.[332]
  • HighSnobiety [648], described favorably by one editor in a November 2020 RSN discussion.[333]
  • The Hollywood Reporter [649], reliable for entertainment-related articles.[4]
  • HorrorNews.net [650], consensus for reliability in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[334]
  • Igromania, [651] reliable according to one editor in a June 2021 RSN discussion.[335]
  • Idolator (website) [652], reliable for music, evaluate for due weight on a case-by-case basis.[4]
  • IGN [653], reliable for entertainment-related subjects, although they also host blogs which should be treated as regular blogs.[4]'
  • io9 [654], reliable for critical reviews as a Tomatometer-approved publication.[336]
  • The Mary Sue [655], reliable for reviews and opinion, not reliable for reblogged content.[4]
  • Mashable, [656] a March 2021 RfC had a rough consensus for reliability [337]
  • Metacritic [657], generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film, TV, and video games. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Metacritic are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Metacritic are not automatically reliable for their reviews.[4]
  • The Needle Drop [658], self-published source with a rough consensus for being a subject-matter expert on music.[338]
  • New Musical Express (NME) [659], generally reliable per a November 2020 RSN discussion.[339]
  • Polygon (website) [660], 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.[340]
  • Rolling Stone [661], There is consensus that Rolling Stone is generally reliable. Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with proper attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking.[4]
  • Rotten Tomatoes [662], Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is a consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable.[4]
  • Soap Hub [663], 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.[341]
  • Sweety High [664], one editor described it as marginally reliable in a February 2021 RSN discussion.[342]
  • Tatler [665], small consensus for reliability on fashion topics in a 2020 RSN discussion.[343]
  • TheWrap [666], 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.[4]
  • TV Guide [667], generally reliable, some consider it to be a primary source.[4]
  • Variety (magazine) [668], generally reliable entertainment trade magazine.[4]
  • Vice Media (Garage, i-D, Motherboard, Vice, Vice News) [669], while there is no consensus for general reliability, it is reliable for arts and entertainment.[4]
  • Vogue (magazine) [670], generally reliable.[4]
  • SparkNotes [671], same as CliffsNotes.[4]
  • Uproxx [672], weak consensus for reliability in a 2020 RSN discussion.[344]
  • Vanity Fair (magazine) [673], [4]
No consensus
  • AfterEllen [674], 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.[345]
  • allaccess.com [675], reliable for some information such as release dates per a July 2020 RSN discussion, may not be sufficiently independent for notability.[346]
  • Allmusic, [676] 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. [347]
  • Beebom.com, [677] no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[348]
  • Boing Boing [678], however there is no consensus regarding their reliability for topics other than pop culture.[4]
  • Bounding Into Comics [679], no consensus in a May 2020 RSN discussion, some several editors suggesting that article quality varies.[349]
  • Collider (website), [680] no consensus in a March 2021 RSN discussion.[350]
  • Daily.bandcamp.com [681], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[351]
  • datatransmission.co [682], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[351]
  • The Deli Magazine [683], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[351]
  • Distractify, [684] an April 2021 RSN discussion raised some concerns about the publication's reliability but did not come to a firm consensus.[352]
  • Flamesrising.com, [685] no consensus in a June 2021 RSN discussion.[353]
  • Fryderyk Chopin Institute [686], described as reliable for claims related to classical music by one editor in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[354]
  • Hype Beast, [687], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[351]
  • Metalreviews.com [688], no consensus in a November 2020 RSN discussion.[355]
  • MetalSucks [689], 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.[4]
  • The Needle Drop [690], no consensus in a January 2021 RfC.[356]
  • News of the World [691], defunct, while deprecated as unreliable for general news reporting, some editors hold that it is usable with attribution for film reviews.[4]
  • Screen Rant [692], might not be appropriate for controversial statements in BLPs, but it is reliable enough for other uses.[4]
  • TMZ [693], no consensus about the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles on rumors and speculation without named authors, it is recommended to properly attribute statements from TMZ. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person.[4]
  • TohoKingdom [694], self-published but has some claim to being an expert for Godzilla-franchise related subjects.[357]
  • Worldofwonder.net [695], possibly marginally reliable as a primary source for information about World of Wonder (company) productions per a May 2020 discussion.[358]
  • Youth Time [696], no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[351]
Unreliable
  • Album of the Year [697], consensus in a 2020 RSN discussion that the site's review aggregation incorporates reviews from unreliable sources.[359]
  • Alternative Vision [698], an August 2019 discussion had a small consensus that it is not reliable[360]
  • Amazon (company) [699], content is provided by sellers.[4]
  • Arcade Heroes [700], deemed a fansite without editorial controls in an RSN discussion.[361]
  • Art of Manliness [701], non-expert blog per an April 2021 RSN discussion. [362]
  • AskMen [702], editors in a 2020 discussion were concerned that the publication does not distinguish between sponsored and independent content, and that it engages in churnalism.[363]
  • beatportal.com [703], unreliable per a May 2021 RSN discussion.[351]
  • Cinema Cats [704], self-published non-expert website per an October 2020 RSN discussion.[364]
  • Daily-beat.com [705], disparaged by one editor in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[351]
  • Discogs [706], user-generated content.[4]
  • The Electric Hawk [707], not a journalistic source per a May 2021 RSN discussion.[351]
  • electronicbeats.net [708], described as a promotional site in a May 2021 RSN discussion, may be usable as a primary source.[351]
  • Film Music Reporter [709], treated skeptically at a September 2020 RSN discussion.[365] May be usable for basic information such as track listings for films per an April 2021 RSN discussion.[366]
  • Future Mag Music [710], described as a promotional site in a May 2021 RSN discussion, may be usable as a primary source.[351]
  • Game Skinny, [711] generally unreliable per a May 2021 RSN discussion.[367]
  • Genius (website) [712], song lyrics and annotations are user-generated. No consensus about articles with bylines published on the website.[4]
  • Goodreads [713], user-generated.[4]
  • IMDb [714], user-generated.[4]
  • Insight music [715], described as a promotional site in a May 2021 RSN discussion, may be usable as a primary source.[351]
  • Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music [716][717], 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.[368]
  • Kirkus Indie, paid publisher that should not be used to assess notability per a March 2021 RSN discussion.[369]
  • Know Your Meme [718], "submissions" are user-generated, as are "confirmed" entries. There is no consensus on whether their video series is reliable.[4]
  • Last.fm [719], user-generated, deprecated.[4]
  • metal-experience.com, [720] consensus for unreliability due to insufficient fact checking per an April 2021 RfC.[370]
  • Metalheadzone [721], insufficient editorial oversight.[371]
  • Nine to Five Records [722], promotional website in a May 2021 RSN discussion, may be usable as a primary source.[351]
  • Plastic Mag [723], described as likely self-published in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[351]
  • The Playground [724], promotional site according to one editor in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[351]
  • Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic) [725][726][727], user-generated, deprecated.[4]
  • Rollingout.com [728], small consensus in an RSN discussion that it is not reliable.[372]
  • Secret Shores music [729], likely self-published according to an editor in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[351]
  • SongMeaningsAndFacts.com [730], no editorial oversight.[373]
  • SoundCloud [731], self published.[374]
  • Thrashocore.com, [732] generally unreliable per an April 2021 RfC.[375]
  • TrekNation (Trek Today, Trek BBS, Jammers Reviews)[733][734][735][736], described as a self-published source by an editor in a May 2020 RSN discussion.[376]
  • Tunefind [737], user-generated.[4]
  • TV.com [738], described as primarily user generated and low quality in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[377]
  • TV Tropes [739], user-generated.[4]
  • VGChartz [740][4]
  • Vinylized, [741], crowdfunding website per one editor in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[351]
  • The Von Pip Musical Express [742], self published non-expert blog per an October 2020 RSN discussion.[378]
  • WatchMojo [743], content farm with no clear editorial oversight per a May 2020 RSN discussion.[379]
  • We Got This Covered [744], the lack of its editoral oversight, publication of unsubstantiated or false rumors, speculations claiming as fact, and contributions accepting from non-staff contributors.[4]
  • WhoSampled [745], user-generated.[4]
  • Wikia (Fandom) [746][747], 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.[4]

Business, companies and products

Reliable
No consensus
  • Better Business Bureau [756], 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.[382]
  • Bitcoin Magazine [757], a July 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a firm consensus regarding reliability.[383]
  • Business Insider [758][759], in 2015 their site had a disclaimer saying information therein may not be correct.[4]
  • CNBC [760], no consensus. Mentioned as a typical 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.[384]
  • Investopedia [761], no consensus, tertiary source.[4]
  • PitchBook Data (Pitchbook, Pitchbook Platform, Pitchbook News and Analysis [762], no consensus due to insufficient discussion, reliability may not be consistent across the company's publications, non-premium content may not be reliable.[385]
  • The Motley Fool, [763], no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion, with editors leaning describing it as a source to avoid but noting its popularity.[386]
  • NASDAQ News [764], no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion, largely publishes reprints.[387]
  • The Next Web [765], no consensus, 2014 and 2016 discussions considered it reliable, 2018 discussions leaned toward unreliable.[4]
  • Realtor.com [766], 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.[388]
  • TechCrunch [767], careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for purpose of determining notability.[4]
Unreliable

Film

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources

Google custom search for generally reliable sources for film (External link)

Reliable
No consensus
  • DiscussingFilm [818], insufficient discussion in a 2020 RSN discussion.[393]
Unreliable
  • Blu-ray.com [819], database is provided by its userbase.[389]
  • Comicbookmovie.com [820], user-submitted content.[389]
  • FilmAffinity [821], a social media site with a film database.[389]
  • Filmreference.com, weak consensus for being unreliable due to unclear editorial standards.[394]
  • IMDB [822], content is mostly user submitted.[389]
  • TV.com (MovieTome, GameFAQs) [823][824], database information is user-submitted and reviewed by an "editor" (usually a person who has contributed the most) or a staff member.[389]
  • Wikia [825], user generated.[389]
  • Wikipedia [826], 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.[389]

Geography and history

Reliable
No consensus
  • An Anarchist FAQ (book), reliable for attributed WP:ABOUTSELF-type statements, other sources preferred, per a November 2020 RSN discussion.[397]
  • Arcadia Publishing [829], described as "use with caution" and little better than self-publication in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[398]
  • Atlas Obscura [830], 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.[399]
  • Defending History, [831] 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.[400]
  • 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.[401]
  • Glaukopis Journal, rough consensus for unreliability regarding the topic of antisemitism in Poland in a February 2021 RSN discussion, no clear consensus on its general reliability.[402]
  • Google Maps [832], is useful for some purposes, but can also be considered original research. For China, OpenStreetMap is preferable.[4]
  • Joshua Project [833], two saying unreliable, one saying unsure, one saying reliable across 3 different old RSN discussions.[403][404][405]
  • Libcom.org [834], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[406]
  • Världens Historia [835], one editor described them as generally reliable, but less so than actual history books.[407]
  • NCERT textbooks [836], generally geared for grade school education, may be oversimplified and thus inferior to academic sources for Wikipedia. Editors noted that their quality varies considerably.[408]
Unreliable
  • 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.[409]
  • Books, particularly encyclopedias, by James B. Minahan.[410]
  • EuropeanHeraldry.org [837], descirbed as a self-published source in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[411]
  • History (American TV network) (The History Channel) [838], most editors consider it to be unreliable due to its promotion of conspiracy theories.[4]
  • HistoryOfRoyalWomen.org [839], may be defunct, self-published non-expert source per an October 2020 RSN discussion. May have citations to better sources.[412]
  • Jadovno.com [840], Russian? Editors in an April 2020 RSN discussion raised concerns that it does not have clear editorial policies and advised against using it.[413]
  • Tibetan Political Review [841], a January 2021 RSN discussion was closed as being not generally reliable as an academic source.[414]
  • Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation [842], a February 2021 RSN discussion had a consensus that their website is not a reliable source for claims about mass killings under Communist regimes.[415]
  • Wordspy.com [843], an April 2020 RSN discussion concluded that the source is self-published and did not consider its author a sufficiently prominent expert to confer reliability.[416]

Medicine and health

See also: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Keep in mind that even if a journal is reliable, WP:MEDRS usually requires using a secondary source. So that means the article needs to be marked as a review, systematic review, meta-analysis, guideline, or practice guideline. It is not usually appropriate to cite a paper describing a single study or experiment, which is a primary source.

Peer reviewed is not the same thing as a review article. Most journal articles are peer reviewed.

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.

Reliable and WP:MEDRS[417]
Reliable
No consensus
Unreliable
  • bioRxiv [868], a preprint repository.
  • Frontiers Media [869], they publish around 140 peer reviewed journals that are titled Frontiers in [...]. Will accept almost anything (80-90% of submissions), and have sacked editors for being too selective. Consensus that it is unreliable in a 2021 RSN discussion.[426][427]
  • Journal of Complementary Medicine Research [870], predatory journal per a February 2021 RSN discussion.[428]
  • Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine [871], predatory journal per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[429]
  • Leafly.com [872], promotional, not a MEDRS-quality source for cannabis or health.[430]
  • medRxiv [873], distributes unpublished eprints.
  • Preprints.org [874], scientific papers that have not undergone peer review.
  • Social Science Research Network [875], a repository for preprints.

Military topics and firearms

Reliable
  • H. I. Sutton hisutton.com[876], subject matter expert for naval warfare per a November 2020 RSN discussion.[431]
No consensus
  • The Arkenstone [877], 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.[432]
  • defensereview.com [878], leaning toward unreliable on the basis of being self-published, but insufficient discussion to reach a consensus.[433]
  • GlobalSecurity.org [879], 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.[434]
  • guns.com [880], weak consensus that the News section is reliable in a July 2020 RSN discussion.[435]
  • Oryx Blog oryxspioenkop.com [881], no consensus in a December 2020 RSN discussion, possibly subject-matter experts for military topics.[436]
  • uboat.net [882], 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.[437][438]
  • War is Boring [883], 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.[432]
Unreliable
  • defence-blog.com [884], self-published per a November 2020 RSN discussion.[439]
  • forces-war-records.co.uk [885], unreliable due to circular referencing with Wikipedia per an October 2020 RfC.[440]
  • Defseca.com ([886], [887], unreliable blog per a February 2021 RSN discussion.[441]
  • Military Today, [888] unreliable self-published source per a February 2021 RSN discussion.[442]
  • The Truth About Guns [889], group blog, not reliable for factual reporting.[4]
  • weaponsandwarfare.com [890], blog with no clear editorial oversight, no relation to Weapons and Warfare, a defunct magazine.[443]

Publishers

In many discussions, users clarified that no publisher's works can be considered always reliable for everything.

Reliable
No consensus
  • Arcadia Publishing [896], described as "use with caution" and little better than self-publication in a December 2020 RSN discussion.[449]
  • Encounter Books [897], American conservative publishing house. Briefly disparaged in an RSN discussion where a book published by it was deemed unreliable for claims relating to Ayatollah Khomeini, insufficient discussion for consensus.[450]
  • Jessica Kingsley Publishers [898], history of publishing plagiarized content[451]
  • New Leaf Publishing Group [899], WP:FRINGE applies[452]
  • 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.[453]
Unreliable
  • Cambridge Scholars Publishing [900], vanity press (a publishing house where authors pay to have their books published, anybody can publish)[454]
  • Creative Crayon Publishers[455]
  • Dharma Publications, self-published per one editor in a March 2021 RSN discussion.[456]
  • Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd., vanity press according to a March 2021 RSN discussion. [457]
  • Lulu.com, self-publishing; deprecated[4]
  • Pentland Press, vanity press[458]
  • 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.[459]
  • Scribd [901], self-publishing[4]

Religion

Reliable
  • Anti-Defamation League [902], 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.[460]
  • Catholic News Service [903], generally reliable per a May 2020 RfC.[461]
  • Encyclopedia of Women in World Religions (2 books), editors at RSN raised no objections in a brief 2019 discussion.[462]
  • The Milli Gazette [904], suggested in an RSN discssion as reliable for Indian Muslim news.[62]
  • Religion News Service [905], an April 2020 RSN discussion considered them to be generally reliable.[463]
  • The Tablet, [906] generally reliable per a March 2021 RSN discussion, although editors noted that it may not always be DUE.[464]
No consensus
  • Catholic News Agency [907], editors in a June 2020 RSN discussion raised concerns about its role as an advocacy platform for the Catholic church.[465]
  • China Buddhism Encyclopedia [908], disparaged by an editor in a July 2020 RSN post that did not draw any further discussion, insufficient discussion.[466]
  • Christian Post [909], an April 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a clear consensus on this source's reliability.[467]
  • Crux (online newspaper) (cruxnow.com) [910], 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.[468] No consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[469]
  • Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah [911], no consensus in an August 2020 RSN discussion.[470]
  • Deseret News [912], while reliable for local news, it is owned by the LDS church, with no consensus on its reliability on matters related to the church.[4]
  • Encounter Books [913], American conservative publishing house. Briefly disparaged in an RSN discussion where a book published by it was deemed unreliable for claims relating to Ayatollah Khomeini, insufficient discussion for consensus.[450]
  • GCatholic [914], no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[471]
  • Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online (gameo.org)[915], Editorial access is restricted, but editors also voiced concerns that it is run by an advocacy group.[472]
  • Hymnary.org [916], 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.[473]
  • Islamansiklopedisi.org.tr [917], no consensus in a November 2020 RSN discussion. [474]
  • Middle East Quarterly, 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.[475]
  • Radiance Weekly [918], published by Jamaat-e-Islami, likely not independent for most subjects where it would be relevant to cite it.[62]
  • Reasonablefaith.org [919], biased source, other sources preferred per a January 2021 RSN discussion.[476]
  • TalkOrigins Archive [920], 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".[477]
  • Thesunniway.com [921], self-described advocacy platform, has ties to individuals who have been identified as "hate preachers".[478]
Unreliable
  • Aleteia [922], described as low quality by one editor in an October 2020 RSN discussion.[479]
  • Amir Taheri books and blog, has been caught promoting hoaxes and fabricating quotes, particularly relating to Islam, on multiple occasions.[450]
  • AnsweringMuslims.com [923], 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.[480]
  • catholic-hierarchy.org, self-published source per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[481]
  • CESNUR [924], an academic journal, editors agree that it has a bias toward New religious movements and that its conflicts of interest make the source unusable.[4]
  • catholicism.org [925], reliable for own opinion but not much else according to an RSN discussion.[482]
  • Chabad.org [926], usable for Chabad's perspectives on ABOUTSELF grounds but otherwise not reliable per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[483] Reaffirmed in an August 2020 RFC, with some editors considering it usable for basic non-controversial claims. [484]
  • Church Militant (website) [927], not a publication with a reputation for factual reporting, may be usable with attribution for Traditionalist Catholic perspectives. [485]
  • Daniel Pipes's website [928], editors identified it as promoting conspiracy theories in a 2020 RSN discussion.[478]
  • Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch [929], fringe publication.[475]
  • haribhakt.com [930], editors were unable to identify its publisher in a 2020 RSN discussion and cast doubts on its reliability based on content on the site.[478]
  • International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, [931] 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.[486]
  • IslamicStudies.org [932], possibly defunct, appears to be a one-person blog per a 2020 RSN discussion.[478]
  • IslamQA [933], self-published fringe source.[487]
  • Jewish Virtual Library [934], 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. [4]
  • Jihad Watch [935], fringe anti-Muslim conspiracy blog.[475][488]
  • The Legal Culture [936], journal and news website, advocacy publication published by the Polish fringe Traditionalist Catholic group Ordo Iuris, not reliable per a September 2020 RSN discussion.[489]
  • LifeSiteNews [937], deprecated in a 2019 RfC. [4]
  • Madain Project [938], an October 2020 RSN discussion had a small consensus for unreliability due to lack of credentials and use by RS.[490]
  • Monergism.com [939], small consensus in a 2020 discussion that its POV and lack of clear editorial policy means that it is not reliable for anything other than WP:ABOUTSELF.[491]
  • Muflihun.com [940], self-published source.[492]
  • Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe [941], not reliable per an August 2020 RSN discussion[493]
  • Patheos [942], collection of blogs.[4]
  • PoliticalIslam.com [943], run by Center for the Study of Political Islam, small consensus for unreliable per a 2020 RSN discussion.[478]
  • Robert B. Spencer, fringe anti-Islam author[450][488]
  • TheReligionOfPeace.com, per a May 2020 RSN diiscussion.[494]
  • wrldrels.org [944], 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.[495]

Science and technology

Reliable
No consensus
  • All About Circuits,[977] "probably fine" per one editor in a March 2021 RSN discussion.[517]
  • Carnot-Cournot Netwerk [978], Swiss nuclear energy lobby group. Editors in a 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a consensus regarding the reliability of its publications.[518]
  • CleanTechnica [979], 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.[519]
  • Grit Daily [980], 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).[520]
  • Hackaday [981], no consensus as to whether its editorial oversight is sufficient to rise above WP:BLOGS.[521]
  • HowStuffWorks [982], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[522]
  • MakeUseOf.com [983][984], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[523]
  • Mantleplumes.org [985], no consensus in a February 2021 RSN discussion.[524]
  • Neowin [986], insufficient discussion for a consensus, mentioned by one editor as reliable in a 2015 RSN discussion.[525]
  • The Next Web [987], no consensus, 2014 and 2016 discussions considered it reliable, 2018 discussions leaned toward unreliable.[4]
  • Popular Mechanics [988], a January 2021 RSN discussion narrowly focused on its usability for UFO topics had consensus that it is not reliable for WP:FRINGE, with minimal discussion about its general reliability.[526]
  • Psychology Today blogs [989], no consensus, while often written by experts, may not necessarily be experts in fields sufficiently relevant to claims that they may make.[527]
  • ScienceBlogs [990], no consensus, network of invite-only blogs run by experts. However, some blogs may write about subjects outside of their author's expertise.[4]
  • SlashGear [991], insufficient discussion, but mentioned as reliable by an editor in a 2015 RSN discussion.[528]
  • Space.com [992], no consensus (2 to 1) in a 2012 RSN discussion. The dissenting editor points out that Space.com ran an article that Iran was planning a moon mission, but the Iranian government has never said that.[529]
  • Space News [993], 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.[530]
  • Softpedia [994], reliable for reviews, no consensus for news articles.[4]
  • TechCaball, [995] no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion.[531]
  • TechCrunch [996], careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for purpose of determining notability.[4]
  • Tom's Guide [997], mentioned in passing by one editor as reliable. Not enough mentions to generate a consensus.[532]
Unreliable
  • arXiv [998], 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.[4]
  • CoinDesk [999], 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.[4]
  • Crunchbase [1,000], user generated content.[4]
  • Ed-Tech Press [1,001], disreputable and likely predatory per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[533]
  • Encycolorpedia.com [1,002], 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.[534]
  • Journal of Novel Applied Sciences [1,003], likely predatory per a July 2020 RSN discussion.[535]
  • KenRockwell.com [1,004], self-published source without credentials.[536]
  • Liliputing.com [1,005], self-published per a November 2019 RFC.[537]
  • Omniglot [1,006], 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.[538]
  • Phoronix [1,007], self-published source.[539]
  • Proprivacy.com [1,008], appears to be a corporate-affiliate news site and is thus not reliable.[540]
  • ResearchGate [1,009], user generated content. Papers hosted there may also be published elsewhere, in which case they may be reliable.[4]
  • Stack Exchange (Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, Ask Ubuntu)[1,010][1,011][1,012][1,013][1,014][1,015], user generated.[4]
  • TuttoAndroid [1,016], editors in a September 2020 RSN discussion found evidence that it plagiarizes from unreliable sources.[541]
  • VPNPro.com [1,017], native advertising and sponsored content.[542]

Sports

Reliable
No consensus
  • Baseball in Wartime [1,031], one editor called the source an expert blog in a September 2020 RSN discussion.[547]
  • Lacancha.com [1,032], defunct, called an WP:SPS by one editor in July 2020.[548]
  • SBNation [1,033], all editors involved in a 2020 discussion agree that articles published in this source should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.[549]
  • Sherdog.com [1,034], 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.[550]
Unreliable
  • Highstakesdb [1,035], self-published poker blog, but may be usable for tournament results per an August 2020 RSN discussion.[543]
  • RocketRobinSoccerInToronto, blog compiling primary source information.[551]
  • Sportskeeda, [1,036] generally unreliable per a June 2021 RSN discussion.[552]

Vehicles (cars, aircraft, trains, ships)

Reliable
  • Car and Driver [1,037], generally reliable for non-technical claims per a January 2021 RSN discussion.[553]
  • One Mile at a Time [1,038], an editor in a December 2020 RSN discussion suggested that the source's author is a subject-matter expert for civil aviation.[554]
  • tcawestern.org [1,039], rough consensus in a 2020 RSN discussion for reliability for model-train related claims as a self-published expert source.[555]
Unreliable
  • Carfolio [1,040], small consensus for unreliability in a June 2020 RSN discussion.[556]
No consensus
  • Hotairengines.org [1,041], no consensus in a January 2021 RSN discussion.[557]
  • Supercars.net [1,042], 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.[558]
  • Superyacht Times [1,043], 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.[559]

Unclassifiable

Reliable
No consensus
  • etymonline [1,045], 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.[561]
Unreliable

News aggregators

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.

Scripts and tools

Main page: Wikipedia:User scripts/List § References

Several scripts and tools exist that will flag issues and problems with sources.

Scripts
Tools
Wikipedia:CiteWatch (see Signpost article)

References

  1. ^ Link to WP:RSN discussion or other location
  2. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_337#RfC:_Coda_Story
  3. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 294#AFP
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs ct cu cv cw cx cy cz da db dc dd de df dg dh di dj dk dl dm dn do dp dq dr ds dt du dv dw dx dy dz ea eb ec ed ee ef eg eh ei ej ek el em en eo ep eq er es et eu ev ew ex ey ez fa fb fc fd fe ff fg fh fi fj fk fl fm fn fo fp fq fr fs ft fu fv fw fx fy fz ga gb gc gd ge gf gg gh gi gj gk gl gm gn go gp gq gr gs gt gu gv gw gx gy gz ha hb hc hd he hf hg hh hi hj hk hl hm hn ho hp hq hr hs ht hu hv hw hx hy hz ia ib ic id ie if ig ih ii ij ik il im in io ip iq ir is it iu iv iw ix iy iz ja jb jc jd je jf jg jh ji jj jk jl jm jn jo jp jq jr js jt ju jv jw jx Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
  5. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 276#Is research by Amnesty International a valid source for Wikipedia?
  6. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Balkan Insight, N1
  7. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 15#Human Rights Watch
  8. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_342#Some_organizations_I_wanted_to_talk_about.
  9. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_342#Jeune_Afrique
  10. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Balkan Insight, N1
  11. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Quartz
  12. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#Quartz
  13. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_339#Reports_in_Al_Akhbar_and_Asharq_Al-Awsat_for_an_alleged_Israeli_massacre
  14. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#Genocide Watch: Unreliable source?
  15. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#GlobalVoices.org
  16. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 324#Is Middle East Eye a reliable source for contentious claims about a BLP
  17. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 267#RfC: TRT World
  18. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 272#Are meforum.org , consortiumnews.com, and theguardian.com/commentisfree RSs?
  19. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#Is Meaww a reliable source?
  20. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#Middle_East_Monitor
  21. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#stalkerzone as a source for claim about Bellingcat
  22. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 292#The 1619 Project and the World Socialist Web Site
  23. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 269#RfC: Daily Graphic and graphic.com.gh
  24. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 26#Expertise in Nigerian sources?
  25. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 319#The Guardian (Nigeria)
  26. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#Bellanaija.com
  27. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 272#Nairaland
  28. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 317#New Era
  29. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 263#Somalia news sources
  30. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Somali Dispatch
  31. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 293#RfC: Is African Independent a reliable source?
  32. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 267#PML Daily article about political bloggers
  33. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#Zambia Daily Mail
  34. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#Panarmenian.net and pan.am (PanARMENIAN.Net)
  35. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_340#Reliability_of_Somoy_News
  36. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 279#Is the Hong Kong Free Press a reliable source?
  37. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 309#South China Morning Post (and Lin Nguyen, a fabricated writer)
  38. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 297#RfC: Apple Daily
  39. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 274#Xinhua reliability
  40. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#Views on Central Tibetan Administration
  41. ^ a b c d e WP:RSN/Archive 271#Chinese news sources
  42. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 332#RfC: China Daily
  43. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#RfC: guancha.cn
  44. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 279#People's Daily and Qiushi as opinion pieces and non CoI BLP realiable sources
  45. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#RfC: What's on Weibo
  46. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#CGTN (China Global Television Network)
  47. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#Douban
  48. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 302#faluninfo.net
  49. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 294#Should we be using this Falun Gong media outfit as a source for BLPs, politics, China, etc?
  50. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 297#RfC: Sina.com
  51. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 306#RfC: Wen Wei Po
  52. ^ Biswas, Soutik (2012-01-12). "Why are India's media under fire?". BBC News. Retrieved 2020-03-06.
  53. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Cite error: The named reference :"manyindia01" was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  54. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#Boom! ( www.boomlive.in )
  55. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 280#Use of caravanmagazine in Asaram article
  56. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 67#The Hindu
  57. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 305#The Hindu
  58. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 145#News rack: Is it a reliable source
  59. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 248#General discussions
  60. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#RfC: The Indian Express
  61. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 307#LiveMint - increasingly used in India. Reliability disputed
  62. ^ a b c d WP:RSN/Archive 285#Radiance Veiwsweekly (radianceweekly.in)
  63. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 296#Newslaundry on OpIndia
  64. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#Rajasthan Patrika
  65. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Nithyananda
  66. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 314#123 Telugu, Idlebrain, and FullHyderabad
  67. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 331#RfC: Asian News International (ANI)
  68. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Bollywood Hungama
  69. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 320#Janta Ka Reporter
  70. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#National Herald
  71. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 268#Orissapost.com
  72. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 321#Republic TV
  73. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 310#The Sunday Guardian
  74. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 158#Times of India
  75. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Times of India RFC
  76. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 315#Is WION a reliable source?
  77. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 292#postcard.news and tfipost.com
  78. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#Is Hindi 2News a reliable source?
  79. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#Live History India
  80. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#The Logical Indian for Jai Shri Ram
  81. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#Masala!
  82. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 288#OpIndia and Swarajya
  83. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#Sarup & Sons
  84. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#Youth Ki Awaaz
  85. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#Yuva TV
  86. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Tapol bulletin
  87. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 305#Encyclopædia Iranica
  88. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 332#Islamic Republic News Agency
  89. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_337#Possible_citogenesis_from_the_Tehran_Times
  90. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 271#Kurdish Press
  91. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 296#Is B'Tselem a RS?
  92. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_337#Debka.com
  93. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 305#RfC: Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
  94. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#NRG360 - formerly nrg
  95. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 192#Times of Israel
  96. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 315#Is Wafa.ps a RS?
  97. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#israelunwired.com
  98. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Reliability for Japanese newspapers
  99. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 334#Is NHK World-Japan reliable?
  100. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 306#Nikkei
  101. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 315#Kazakh-government funded outlets
  102. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#newsarawaktribune.com.my
  103. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_342#The_Sun_(Malaysia)
  104. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 266#Is Kathmandu Tribune a Reliable Source
  105. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 57#Pakistani and Iranian media, and Cageprisoners
  106. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 236#Are Indian news outlets "always" RS about Pakistani weapons
  107. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_339#Questions_regarding_Geo_TV_/_Geo_News_(geo.tv)
  108. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 306#DND
  109. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#Rfc: Arab news is a reliable source?
  110. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Straits Times and the South China Morning Post
  111. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#Colombo Page
  112. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#Al Masdar news
  113. ^ a b c d e WP:RSN/Archive 274#Sources used in Rojava and related articles
  114. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 324#KurdWatch
  115. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#ettoday.net
  116. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 329#RfC: Taiwan News
  117. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 320#Taiwan News
  118. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#Taiwan News Online
  119. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#RfC: PeoPo.org
  120. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_344#Is_"A_Haber"_a_reliable_source?
  121. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 321#Ahval
  122. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_340#Turkish_News_Sites
  123. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 321#RfC: Daily Sabah
  124. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 267#RfC: TRT World
  125. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_341#UAE_news_outlets:_Gulf_News_and_thenationalnews.com
  126. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#Talk: 2020 Pacific typhoon season#Linfa split-RS concerns if death toll is 148
  127. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#Edwin E. Jacques
  128. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#HKV.hr
  129. ^ a b c d e f g h i j WP:RSN/Archive 268#Post-Velvet Revolution Mladá fronta DNES
  130. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 236#GB Times (gbtimes.com)
  131. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#FAZ
  132. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#Die Welt
  133. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#Die Welt
  134. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#Die Welt
  135. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 320#greekcitytimes.com
  136. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 317#Is Kathimerini reliable on this page?
  137. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 323#Irish Times and Irish Examiner
  138. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 299#RfC: An Phoblacht
  139. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#Is Gript Media a reliable source for Irish/international news and/or current affairs?
  140. ^ a b c d e f WP:RSN/Archive 298#Rbc.ru and rbc.ua
  141. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#nrc.nl
  142. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 329#Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO.press
  143. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 328#Do Rzeczy
  144. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 328#Gazeta Polska & TV Republika
  145. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 328#niezalezna.pl
  146. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 329#Polskie Radio
  147. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 328#Najwyższy Czas!
  148. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 328#Rydzyk's media empire
  149. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 328#Sieci & wpolityce.pl & associated portals
  150. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 329#Telewizja Polska
  151. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_335#RfC:_Kommersant
  152. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#Reframing Russia about East StratCom Task Force
  153. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#Hrvc.net
  154. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 272#Russian websites gimn1567.ru , elib.biblioatom.ru , www.famhist.ru, and www.peoples.ru
  155. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#The Siberian Times
  156. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#South Front
  157. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_338#Vzglyad_(newspaper)
  158. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#NZZ as generally reliable
  159. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Ukrainian sources
  160. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 270#RfC: The Herald (Glasgow)
  161. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 316#Assessment of Scotland's newspapers
  162. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Nation.Cymru
  163. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#The New Statesman
  164. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 334#Sky News
  165. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#TheyWorkForYou
  166. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 312#Asianexpress.co.uk
  167. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_338#Byline_Times_(bylinetimes.com,_NOT_byline.com)
  168. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#Byline Times
  169. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#castlewales
  170. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#DeSmog Blogs (aka desmog.uk, desmog.co.uk, dsmogblog.com)
  171. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#The Eye Wales
  172. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#The New European
  173. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 262#Antony Lerman at openDemocracy
  174. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_337#scottish-places.info:_A_great_source_dressed_up_like_a_bad_one?
  175. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 315#Skeptic and Skeptic Inquirer
  176. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#The Spectator
  177. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#Spiked
  178. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 324#Deprecate The Tab?
  179. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_339#ukrailnews.com
  180. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335
  181. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 274#Seeking acceptance of reliability of UK progressive online only news sites - The Canary, Evolve Politics and Skwawkbox
  182. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 292#The Canary
  183. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 296#ConservativeHome
  184. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 318#Can we please adapt the Daily Mail consensus to reflect a position on Mail on Sunday?
  185. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 310#Daily Sport
  186. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#Epistle News for Dean Schneider
  187. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 334#Lesbian and Gay News
  188. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 279#Hello! magazine (again)
  189. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 317#Jacobite Magazine
  190. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#Move Skwawkbox to at least 'no consensus' section
  191. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 63#Bloody-Disgusting
  192. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 292#RfC: Is Global News generally a reliable source for news and current affairs coverage?
  193. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_340#RfC:_The_Globe_and_Mail
  194. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 320#Taiwan News
  195. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 296#The Post Millennial for article Supervised injection site
  196. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#Rebel News
  197. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 307#Toronto Guardian
  198. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#TheCubanHistory.com
  199. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 318#ABC News and FiveThirtyEight
  200. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 294#Atlanta Black Star
  201. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#Boston Globe
  202. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RealClear media
  203. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Chicago Tribune
  204. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 280#CIA factbook
  205. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 117#Using Congressional Research Service reports at National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
  206. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#Healthgrades_and_Courthouse_News
  207. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#thediplomat.com
  208. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 77#Fast Company
  209. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 275#theconversation.com
  210. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#Federal News Network Comment
  211. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 187#Foreign Policy magazine
  212. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#Honolulu Civil Beat
  213. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#PopSugar
  214. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 188#Huffington Post
  215. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#The Jewish Journal
  216. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#The Jewish Week reliability?
  217. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 326#Lawfare Blog
  218. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 321#Lead Stories fact checker - reliable?
  219. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#Mainer News
  220. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#Soap Hub as a reliable source
  221. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 296#Is NBC a reliable sources for the Wikipedia The Epoch Times (ET) article?
  222. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#The News-Press
  223. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 260#Citation for Breitbart News WP article: sufficiently direct?
  224. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 275#theconversation.com
  225. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Is Rollcall a reliable source for Rob Portman's wealth?
  226. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 58#Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle
  227. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 188#Huffington Post
  228. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 326#RfC on SCOTUSblog
  229. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 284#Obituary
  230. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 188#Huffington Post
  231. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 121#Blogs at Shooting of Trayvon Martin
  232. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 309#Street Roots
  233. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 269#Teen Vogue for political or crime news?
  234. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#U.S. News
  235. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 330#Voice of America (VOA)
  236. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 302#Algemeiner Journal & The Jewish News Syndicate
  237. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#American_Community_Survey
  238. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 305#american-rails.com
  239. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#BET
  240. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 309#What are the absolute least reliable liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning sources?
  241. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 222#All newspapers that publish in tabloid format are not reliable sources?
  242. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 156#tabloids
  243. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 253#Are Think Tanks considered reliable sources for politically controversial articles?
  244. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 321#COURIER
  245. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 317#The Dispatch on Guo Wengui
  246. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#FITSNews - reliable?
  247. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#Gay City News
  248. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#RfC: Is The Green Papers a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information?
  249. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#The Hustle
  250. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 302#Jacobin
  251. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 324#Jacobin
  252. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Local Government Information Services
  253. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#Mental_Floss
  254. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Monkey Cage
  255. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 312#Oregon Encyclopedia
  256. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 334#Our Town St James
  257. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#RfC: Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?
  258. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 324#Pittsburg Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade
  259. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#RfC: Pride.com
  260. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_336#RealClear_media
  261. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 291#Reason Magazine and reason.com
  262. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 271#Right Wing Watch
  263. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#Tennessee Star, Michigan Star, etc.
  264. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#'Sludge' magazine article on Douglas Murray's video for PragerU
  265. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 159#Talking Points Memo as RS for documenting a Senator's vote
  266. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#The Week ( theweek.co.uk / theweek.com )
  267. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 290#Ad Fontes Media and AllSides
  268. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart
  269. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#Is Allsides.com a reliable source?
  270. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_336#RfC:_California_Globe
  271. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 294#Capital Research Center / InfluenceWatch / Dangerous Documentaries
  272. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 279#The Daily Wire
  273. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 274#The Federalist (website)
  274. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 291#FrontPage Magazine
  275. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#RFC: FrontPage Magazine
  276. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_340#HS_Insider_(Los_Angeles_Times)
  277. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 324#Inquisitr revisited
  278. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#Law Officer Magazine ( lawofficer.com )
  279. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 315#Lifehacker
  280. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#Mises Institute articles
  281. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#Money Inc
  282. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 315#Raheem Kassam and https://thenationalpulse.com/ - can they be used for BLPs?
  283. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 326#The National Pulse
  284. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_335#RfC_-_ourcampaigns.com
  285. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 328#RfC - ourcampaigns.com
  286. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 296#RfC: PanAm Post
  287. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 310#RfC: Reliability of PETA
  288. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#RfC: Is PoliticusUSA a reliable source?
  289. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#PragerU - an unreliable source?
  290. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 324#RfC - The Raw Story
  291. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#RedState
  292. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 291#Using The Washington Free Beacon in politically related BLPs - is it an RS?
  293. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#Is France 24 a reliable source?
  294. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 275#theconversation.com
  295. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 321#The Advertiser (Adelaide)
  296. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 309#The Australian
  297. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#The Australian Financial Review and paywalled content
  298. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 58#Nash Information Services
  299. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 292#Should this one be added as RS?
  300. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#The Latin Australian Times
  301. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#RFC: Independent Australia
  302. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#newsweekly.com.au
  303. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 269#RfC: Quadrant Magazine
  304. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 317#The Spinoff / thespinoff.co.nz
  305. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_342#El_Rompehielos
  306. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 305#mises.org.br
  307. ^ a b c d e f WP:RSN/Archive 313#Dogsbite.org, other dog attack-related advocacy websites
  308. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 320#arlingtoncemetery dot net
  309. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#BabyNames.com
  310. ^ a b c d e f g h WP:RSN/Archive 297#More nobility fansites
  311. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Pando.com
  312. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 315#Is brandsynario.com a reliable source?
  313. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 275#Celebitchy.com - Reliable?
  314. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#Countere.com
  315. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#EarnTheNecklace.com
  316. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 257#famousbirthsdeaths.com
  317. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#guide2womenleaders.com
  318. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#The Hustler's Digest
  319. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 273#The Internet Speculative Fiction Database as a source for BLP data
  320. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#Look to the Stars
  321. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#Potential reliability of marriedceleb.com
  322. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 332#News Website MEAWW Reliable or Unreliable Source?
  323. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 272#Nickiswift.com
  324. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#PopSugar?
  325. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#PopSugar
  326. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 312#Question about Billboard
  327. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 284#Blender
  328. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_337#Dicebreaker
  329. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 284#Exclaim!
  330. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_344#Film_School_Rejects?
  331. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 271#GQ
  332. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 270#Is Gizmodo considered a reliable source?
  333. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 317#Highsnobiety
  334. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#HORRORNEWS.NET
  335. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#Igromania_as_a_reliable_Gaming_Source
  336. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 277#Kissyfur
  337. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 334#Mashable
  338. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 326#RfC: The Needle Drop
  339. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 318#New Musical Express / NME / www.nme.com
  340. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 302#Is video game website polygon.com a RS for information on allegations of sexual misconduct against BLPs?
  341. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#Soap Hub as a reliable source
  342. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 328#Sweety High
  343. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#Tatler
  344. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 284#Uproxx again
  345. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 302#AfterEllen
  346. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#allaccess.com
  347. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 331#AllMusic (allmusic.com): summary of previous AllMusic and/or "All Music" discussions
  348. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_338#Beebom.com
  349. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#The Reliability of "Bounding into Comics"
  350. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 334#Collider
  351. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_340#Help_identifying_these_sources_as_reliable_or_unreliable
  352. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_335#Distractify
  353. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_344#Flamesrising.com
  354. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Fryderyk Chopin Institute
  355. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 319#Is Metalreviews.com a reliable source
  356. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 326#The Needle Drop
  357. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#TohoKingdom
  358. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 294#Video Vs review
  359. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#Album of the Year
  360. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 271#Alternative Vision
  361. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#Arcade Heroes
  362. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_337#Is_The_Art_of_Manliness_a_reliable_source,_and_is_Brett_McKay_an_expert_source?
  363. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 284#AskMen
  364. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#Cinema cats
  365. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#Film Music Reporter
  366. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_335#Film_Music_Reporter
  367. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_339#Game_Skinny
  368. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 309#RfC : Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music
  369. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 331#Kirkus Indie
  370. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 334#RfC: metal-experience.com
  371. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#RfC: Metalheadzone
  372. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#Rolling Out
  373. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#songmeaningsandfacts.com in Party Favor (song)
  374. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 201#Drop the Pilot
  375. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_336#RfC:_thrashocore.com
  376. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#TrekNation
  377. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#TV.com
  378. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#The Von Pip Musical Express
  379. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 294#WatchMojo
  380. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#Business Journals / bizjournals.com
  381. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#Is Fortune (magazine) considered reliable? it is not covered in WP:RSP
  382. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 292#Better Business Bureau
  383. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Bitcoin Magazine reputable
  384. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 321#CNBC / Cryptocurrency
  385. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#PitchBook
  386. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 329#The Motley Fool
  387. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 320#NASDAQ News
  388. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 304#Realtor.com as RS for edits in articles
  389. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#General
  390. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 271#Common Sense Media
  391. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 294#Common Sense Media
  392. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#The Futon Critic - is it reliable
  393. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#DiscussingFilm
  394. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#www.filmreference.com reliable or not
  395. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 280#CIA factbook
  396. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#worldatlas.com
  397. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 318#Anarchist FAQ used in various -ism articles.
  398. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 321#Reliability of Arcadia publishing
  399. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 313#Atlas Obscura
  400. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_337#Defending_History
  401. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 295#Encyklopedia II wojny światowej
  402. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 328#Glaukopis journal
  403. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 80#Reliability of the Joshua Project as source
  404. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 27#Is Joshua Project reliable?
  405. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 74#Joshua Project
  406. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 324#Libcom.org
  407. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Världens Historia
  408. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#NCERT (Indian educational board)
  409. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#Allan W. Eckert
  410. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 281#Encyclopedias of James B. Minahan
  411. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#europeanheraldry.org
  412. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#historyofroyalwomen.com
  413. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#Is Jadovno.com an RS?
  414. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#Tibetan Political Review
  415. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 329#Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation
  416. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#Word Spy
  417. ^ 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.
  418. ^ a b c d e Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?#About sources again
  419. ^ a b c d e f g WP:MEDORG
  420. ^ a b c d e f g Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#List of core journals
  421. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 291#World Health Organization
  422. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 268#Mayo Clinic
  423. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 304#National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH)
  424. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 292#Verywell
  425. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#WebMD
  426. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 329#Sourcing with Frontiers Journal in Public Health
  427. ^ WP:CITEWATCH
  428. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 326#Is this journal a reliable source? Would its use be a violation of WP:MEDRS?
  429. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Journal of Natural Science Biology and Medicine
  430. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#Leafly
  431. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 319#www.hisutton.com
  432. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 311#War is Boring and The Arkenstone
  433. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 272#defensereview.com
  434. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#GlobalSecurity.org
  435. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 304#guns.com
  436. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#Oryx blog
  437. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 271#uboat.net
  438. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 75#Uboat.net
  439. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 320#defence-blog.com
  440. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 315#RfC: forces-war-records.co.uk
  441. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 329#defseca.com
  442. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 330#Military Today
  443. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#weaponsandwarfare.com
  444. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#Books from Cambridge University Press
  445. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 266#The Greenwood Publishing Group
  446. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 163#HarperCollins Canada - are reliable publisher%3F
  447. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 163#Springer are reliable publisher%3F
  448. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 247#University of Chicago Press
  449. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 321#Reliability of Arcadia publishing
  450. ^ a b c d WP:RSN/Archive 277#Encounter Books and Adler & Adler Publication reliable?
  451. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#Jessica Kingsley Publishers
  452. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 284#New Leaf Publishing Group %28publisher%29
  453. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 251#Are university presses legally affiliated with the Univ. independent of the parent ORG of the University%3F
  454. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 209#Cambridge Scholars
  455. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 265#Creative Crayon Publishers
  456. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 331#Dharma Publications
  457. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 331#Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd.
  458. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 147#Vanity press publication okay%3F
  459. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#Sarup & Sons
  460. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 302#RfC: Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
  461. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 294#RFC: Is Catholic News Service a reliable source?
  462. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#Encyclopedia of Women in World Religions
  463. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#Religion News and Christian Post
  464. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 331#The Tablet
  465. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 298#Catholic News Agency
  466. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 305#China Buddhism Encyclopedia
  467. ^ Cite error: The named reference religionnews01 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  468. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 277#Life Site News (again)- or rather Crux News
  469. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Crux (Online Newspaper)
  470. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 309#Dar al-Ifta al Misriyyah / www.dar-alifta.org
  471. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 316#GCatholic.org
  472. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online
  473. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#hymnary.org
  474. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 318#islamansiklopedisi.org.tr
  475. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 277#Jihad Watch, the Middle East Forum and "Global muslim brotherhood daily watch" in articles about Islam
  476. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#Is reasonablefaith.org a reliable source or not?
  477. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 305#Are TalkOrigins and rationalrevolution RS for Scientific racism#Charles Darwin?
  478. ^ a b c d e WP:RSN/Archive 289#Reliable sources?
  479. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#Is Aleteia a reliable source?
  480. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#AnsweringMuslims.com
  481. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Catholic-Hierarchy.org
  482. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 277#catholicism.org
  483. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 303#chabad.org
  484. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 309#RfC: Chabad.org
  485. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 277#Church Militant
  486. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 330#International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, https://www.ifcj.org
  487. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#IslamQA
  488. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 293#Publications by Robert B. Spencer
  489. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#The Legal Culture - The Journal of Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture
  490. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 314#Is the "Madain Project" a reliable source? It investigates "Abrahamic faith" sites
  491. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 283#monergism.com
  492. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 288#Muflihun.com
  493. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 306#Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe
  494. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 294#Blacklisting thereligionofpeace.com
  495. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 305#wrldrels.org
  496. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Thoughts on reliability of apple fan sources 9to5Mac, AppleInsider, and MacRumors
  497. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#Books from Cambridge University Press
  498. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 306#Question about PubChem , Sigma Aldrich and ChemSpider
  499. ^ Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science)
  500. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 292#Ethiopian Journal of Biological Sciences
  501. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 200#GeekWire
  502. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena
  503. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 272#Lambda Alpha Journal for Man - published by an international student honors society
  504. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 97#Narrow focus
  505. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 112#Use of reliable media reports as secondary sources to support primary sources
  506. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 40#NASASpaceFlight.com
  507. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 272#Science journal magazines (e.g. Nature, Scientific American (SciAm), Science, etc.)
  508. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 2#Bose Corporation and the intellexual web page
  509. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 70#Analysis of reliability needed at this AfD
  510. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena
  511. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 306#Popular Science magazine
  512. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_337#Brian_Dunning_(Skeptoid_Media):_Reliability_as_a_source
  513. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Scientific American
  514. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena
  515. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 197#Nokia Lumia 920T GPU
  516. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 281#ThoughtCo.
  517. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 331#All About Circuits (allaboutcircuits.com)
  518. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 289#Carnot-Cournot Netwerk
  519. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 295#CleanTechnica, again
  520. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#Grit Daily
  521. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 281#Hackaday
  522. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#How Stuff Works
  523. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 326#Should MakeUseOf.com be considered a reliable source?
  524. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 327#mantleplumes.org
  525. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 197#Nokia Lumia 920T GPU
  526. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#Popular Mechanics for UFO claims
  527. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Psychology Today
  528. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 197#Nokia Lumia 920T GPU
  529. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 125#Space.com claim that Iran plans moon program
  530. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 251#SpaceNews
  531. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_338#Techcabal
  532. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 287#Reliability of GSMArena
  533. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 304#Odd publisher: Ed-Tech Press
  534. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#Encycolorpedia
  535. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Journal of Novel Applied Sciences
  536. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 286#RfC: KenRockwell.com
  537. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 278#Liliputing.com blog as a reliable source?
  538. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#Omniglot
  539. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 281#Phoronix
  540. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 277#Should proprivacy dot com be considered a reliable source?
  541. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#TuttoAndroid.net as a reliable source?
  542. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 275#Should vpnpro dot com be considered a reliable source?
  543. ^ a b c WP:RSN/Archive 306#Poker publications
  544. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 318#ESPN
  545. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 325#Extratime.ie
  546. ^ a b WP:RSN/Archive 314#SwimSwam
  547. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 311#Website Wartime in Baseball
  548. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 302#lacancha.com
  549. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Is it appropriate to use SBNation as a reference?
  550. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 318#Sherdog.com
  551. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 285#Rocket Robin Soccer in Toronto rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com
  552. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#Sportskeeda_generally_unreliable?
  553. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 326#Car and Driver
  554. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 322#One Mile at a Time
  555. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 318#Train Collectors Association website?
  556. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 296#Request for comment: Carfolio.com
  557. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#hotairengines.org
  558. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 294#Supercars.net
  559. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 306#Superyacht Times
  560. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 101#The Weather Channel
  561. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 306#etymonline
  562. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 297#boredpanda.com
  563. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable sources#User-generated content
  564. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 295#Listverse as a reliable source
  565. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 323#MobileReference/MobileReference.com
  566. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#News Break
  567. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#Is The Signpost a RS?
  568. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 293#Urban Dictionary
  569. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 290#The Logical Indian for Jai Shri Ram
  570. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 301#News Break
  571. ^ WP:RSN/Archive 297#RfC: Sina.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol_source_guide&oldid=1029121994"