Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:05, 21 March 2025

Revision as of 19:55, 27 August 2025

(43 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Use mdy dates|date=December 2018}}

{{Short description|List of frequently discussed sources}}

{{for|the encyclopedia article about this list|Perennial sources list}}

{{Information page|interprets=[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] guideline|shortcut1=WP:RSP|shortcut2=WP:RS/P|shortcut3=WP:RSPS}}

{{nutshell|This is a list of repeatedly discussed sources, collected and summarized for convenience. [[WP:Consensus can change|Consensus can change]], and [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS|context matters]] tremendously when determining how to use this list. ''Only'' sources that have been ''repeatedly'' raised for discussion are listed here, it is ''not'' a general or comprehensive list of all generally reliable or unreliable sources in the world, it is a ''summarization of discussions'' about the listed sources.}}

Line 7 ⟶ 8:

{{bi|<big>[[#Sources|↓{{pad|0.6em}}''Jump to the list of frequently discussed sources.''{{pad|0.6em}}↓]]</big>}}

TheThis following presentsis a non-exhaustive list of sources whose [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliability]] and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|reliable sources noticeboard]] and elsewhere on Wikipedia.

[[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS|Context matters]] tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation. When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions for more detailed information on a particular source and its use. [[WP:Consensus can change|Consensus can change]], and if more recent discussions considering new evidence or arguments reach a different consensus, this list should be updated to reflect those changes.

Line 21 ⟶ 22:

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

===What if mya source is not here?===

{{shortcut|WP:RSPMISSING}}

If youra source is not listed here, it only means that it has not been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source is a ''stellar'' source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it is so obviously reliable,{{efn|This is the case for some of the most prestigious academic journals in the world, like ''[[NatureThe (journal)|NatureLancet]]'', ''[[TheNature Lancet(journal)|Nature]]'', and ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]''.}} or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. It could mean that the source covers a niche topic,{{efn|For sources in a specific field, more information about their reliability might be provided by specific WikiProjects, such as the lists shown at [[Wikipedia:Category:WikiProject Videolists games/Sourcesof reliable sources]].}} or that it simply fell through the cracks. If you're concerned about any source being used on Wikipedia, you should review the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]] (RSN), following the instructions at the top of that page, where you can "Search the noticeboard archives":

{{mbox

Line 44 ⟶ 45:

* {{tick}} a list of sources whose general suitability for most purposes has been <em>discussed repeatedly</em>

* {{tick}} a very brief and simple summary of the consensus found in such discussions

{{-}}

=== What this page is not ===

{{shortcut|WP:RSPISNOT|WP:RSPIN|WP:RSPNOT}}

* {{cross}} a [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policy or guideline]]

* {{cross}} a list of pre-approved sources that can always be used without regard for the [[Wikipedia:Core content policies|ordinary rules of editing]]

* {{cross}} a list of banned sources that can never be used or should be removed on sight

Line 71 ⟶ 75:

<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|Inclusion criteria}}}|Inclusion criteria|

For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect '''two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] on the source's reliability that took place on the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]]'''. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.

Please do not mass-create shortcuts. Only shortcuts with at least one use should be included on this list.

}}</onlyinclude>

Line 80 ⟶ 86:

}}</onlyinclude>

* {{anchor|Generally reliable}}{{shortcut|WP:GREL}}{{legend|#DDFFDD|[[File:Yes Check Circle.svg|20px|Generally reliable|link=WP:RELIABLE]] '''[[WP:RELIABLE|Generally reliable]] in its [[areas of expertise]]''': Editors show [[WP:CON|consensus]] that the source is [[WP:RS|reliable]] in most cases on subject matters in its [[areas of expertise]]. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much [[WP:WEIGHT|weight]] to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments that entirely exclude such a source must be strong and convincing, e.g., the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (e.g. a [[WP:NEWSORG|well-established news organization]] would be normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL|exceptional claim]], or a different standard of sourcing is required ([[WP:MEDRS]], [[WP:BLP]]) for the statement in question.}}

* {{anchor|No consensus|Marginally reliable}}{{shortcut|WP:MREL}}{{legend|#FFFFDD|[[File:Achtung-orange.svg|20px|No consensus|link=WP:NOCON]] '''[[WP:NOCON|No consensus]], unclear, or additional considerations apply''': The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither [[#Generally reliable|generally reliable]] nor [[#Generally unreliable|generally unreliable]]), and may be usable [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS|depending on context]]. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered. For additional information, see [[WP:RSP/Further classification]].}}

* {{anchor|Generally unreliable}}{{shortcut|WP:GUNREL}}{{legend|#FFDDDD|[[File:Argentina - NO symbol.svg|20px|Generally unreliable|link=WP:QUESTIONABLE]] '''[[WP:QUESTIONABLE|Generally unreliable]]''': Editors show [[WP:CON|consensus]] that the source is [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|questionable]] in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be [[WP:SPS|self-published]], or present [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]]. Outside [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|exceptional circumstances]], the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a [[WP:BLP|living person]]. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for [[WP:ABOUTSELF|uncontroversial self-descriptions]], and self-published or user-generated content authored by established [[subject-matter expert]]s is also acceptable.}}

<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|DEPS legend}}}|DEPS legend|* {{anchor|Deprecated}}{{shortcut|WP:DEPREC}}{{legend|#FFBBBB|2=[[File:Stop hand.svg|20px|Deprecated|link=WP:DEPS]] '''[[WP:DEPS|Deprecated]]''': There is community [[WP:CON|consensus]] from a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] to [[WP:DEPS|deprecate]] the source. The source is considered [[#Generally unreliable|generally unreliable]], and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for [[WP:ABOUTSELF|uncontroversial self-descriptions]], although reliable [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]] are still preferred. An [[WP:EF|edit filter]], {{efl|869}}, may be in place to [[WP:EF#Basics of usage|warn]] editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter are <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:RecentChanges|tagfilter=deprecated+source}} tagged]</span>.}}

* {{anchor|Blacklisted}}{{legend|#DDDDDD|[[File:X-circle.svg|20px|Blacklisted|link=WP:SPB]] '''[[WP:SPB|Blacklisted]]''': Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of [[WP:LINKSPAM|external link spamming]], the source is registered on the [[WP:SPB|spam blacklist]] or the [[m:Spam blacklist|Wikimedia global spam blacklist]]. Edits that attempt to add this source are automatically prevented on a technical level, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the [[Wikipedia talk:WHITELIST|spam whitelist]].}}

* {{anchor|Edit-filtered}}[[File:OOjs UI icon funnel-ltr-progressive.svg|20px|float|alt=Edit-filtered|link=WP:EF]] '''[[WP:EF|Edit-filtered]]:''' An [[WP:EF|edit filter]], {{efl|869}}, is in place to [[WP:EF#Basics of usage|warn]] editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:RecentChanges|tagfilter=deprecated+source}} Edits that trigger the filter]</span> are tagged with "deprecated source". This icon links to the diff that added the source to the edit filter.

* [[File:Treffpunkt.svg|20px|Request for comment|link=WP:RFC]] '''[[WP:RFC|Request for comment]]''': The linked discussion is an uninterrupted [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] for determining the source's [[WP:RS|reliability]] on the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]] or another centralized venue suitable forand determiningcentralized the source's [[WP:RS|reliability]]venue. The closing statement of any RfC that is not clearly outdated should normally be considered authoritative and can only be overturned by a newer RfC.

* {{anchor|Stale discussions}}[[File:Farm-Fresh hourglass delete.png|20px|Stale discussions|link=WP:CCC]] '''[[WP:CCC|Stale discussions]]''': The source has not been discussed on the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]] for four or more [[calendar year]]s, and the [[WP:CCC|consensus may have changed]] since the most recent discussion. However, sources that are considered [[#Generally unreliable|generally unreliable]] for being [[WP:SPS|self-published]] or presenting [[WP:UGC|user-generated content]] are excluded. A change in consensus resulting from changes in the source itself does not apply to publications of the source from before the changes in question. Additionally, while it may be prudent to review these sources before using them, editors should generally assume that the source's previous status is still in effect if there is no reason to believe that the circumstances have changed.

* {{anchor|Discussion in progress}}[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|20px|Discussion in progress|link=WP:RSN]] '''[[WP:RSN|Discussion in progress]]''': The source is currently being discussed on the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]]. Italic numbers represent active discussions (all discussions that are not closed or archived) on the reliable sources noticeboard. Letters represent discussions outside of the reliable sources noticeboard.

Line 101 ⟶ 107:

-->

{{shortcut|WP:RSPSOURCES|WP:RSPSS|WP:RSPLIST}}

{{Hatnote|'''Note:''' If you add/remove a source in the "[[#Generally unreliable|generally unreliable]]", "[[#Deprecated|deprecated]]", or "[[#Blacklisted|blacklisted]]" categories, please update {{slink|WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP/GENERAL|WP:RSP}}, or leave a note at [[Wikipedia talk:CITEWATCH]] if you need help.}}

<templatestyles src="Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/styles.css" />

{{Compact ToC|center=yes|nobreak=yes|num=yes|0-9=[[#112 Ukraine|0–9]]|a=[[#ABC News|A]]|b=[[#Baidu Baike|B]]|c=[[#The California Globe|C]]|d=[[#The Daily Beast|D]]|e=[[#EADaily|E]]|f=[[#Facebook|F]]|g=[[#Game Developer|G]]|h=[[#Haaretz|H]]|i=[[#Idolator|I]]|j=[[#Jacobin|J]]|k=[[#Kirkus Reviews|K]]|l=[[#Land Transport Guru|L]]|m=[[#Mail & Guardian|M]]|n=[[#The Nation|N]]|o=[[#Occupy Democrats|O]]|p=[[#PanAm Post|P]]|q=[[#Quackwatch|Q]]|r=[[#Radio Free Asia|R]]|s=[[#Salon|S]]|t=[[#Taki's Magazine|T]]|u=[[#Unz|U]]|v=[[#Vanity Fair|V]]|w=[[#The Wall Street Journal|W]]|x=[[#XBIZ|X]]|y=[[#Yahoo News|Y]]|z=[[#ZDNet (pre-October 2020)|Z]]|custom1=Legend}}

Line 126 ⟶ 133:

==Categories==

===Large language models<span class="anchor" id="ChatGPT"></span>===

{{shortcut|WP:RSPLLM|WP:RSPCHATGPT}}

{{See also|Wikipedia:Large language models}}

Per the [[WP:RSML|guideline on sources produced by machine learning]], [[Largelarge language model]]s (LLMs), such as [[ChatGPT]], and other [[AI chatbot]]s are unreliable. While LLMs are trained on a vast amount of data and generate responses based on that, they can often provide [[Hallucination (artificial intelligence)|inaccurate or fictitious]] information. The essay [[Wikipedia:Large language models]] recommends against using LLMs to generate references. See {{slink|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 408|ChatGPT}}.

===Paid reporting in Indian news organizations===

{{shortcut|WP:NEWSORGINDIA|WP:RSNOI}}

Paid news and undisclosed advertorials are a [[Paid news in India|pervasive]] and deeply integrated practice within many Indian commercial news organizations (print, television, and web). They often disguise [[WP:SPONSORED|sponsored content]] and paid [[press release]]–based write-ups as regular news with inadequate or no disclosure. This is especially the case in reviews, articles about celebrities, and profiles of people, companies and entities of borderline [[WP:N|notability]]. Coverage related to the above-mentioned entities requires extra vigilance given the diverse systemic [[User:Ms Sarah Welch/sandbox/Paid news and private treaties|approaches]] to paid news. Exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability. Look at the tone and language of the article, its placement in the publication, use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer, and overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites.

Examples of sponsored content include supplements published by ''[[The Times of India]]''; the [https://www.dailypioneer.com/special/page/1 Special] section of the ''[[Daily Pioneer]]''; the [https://news.abplive.com/brand-wire Brand Wire] section of [[ABP Live]]; the [https://www.firstpost.com/category/press-release Press Release News] or the [https://www.firstpost.com/author/digpu-news-network Digpu News Network] sections of ''[[Firstpost]]''; the [https://www.outlookindia.com/business-spotlight Business Spotlight] section of ''[[Outlook (Indian magazine)|Outlook]]''; the [https://www.hindustantimes.com/brand-post Brand Post] section of ''[[Hindustan Times]]''; [https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature Impact feature] section of ''[[India Today]]''; the [https://www.forbesindia.com/brand-connect/1613/1 Brand Connect] section of ''[[Forbes India]]''; certain publishers may provide disclosures through terms such as "brand content" although advertorial content may not be restricted to such sections for many and may not contain any disclosures. If in doubt about any source, consult the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]].

Line 138 ⟶ 145:

===Nigerian news organisations===

{{shortcut|WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA}}

Concerns have been repeatedly raised by editors regarding the quality of reporting by [[Nigeria]]n news organisations, even that by historically reputable newspapers. Similar concerns have been reflected by news coverage of the Nigerian media.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Olowogboyega |first=Olumuyiwa |date=2020-07-29 |title=The long road to paywalls in Nigerian media |url=https://techcabal.com/2020/07/29/nigerian-media-paywalls/ |access-date=2024-12-21 |website=TechCabal |language=en-US}}</ref> Concern has been raised in particular about undisclosed or unclearly disclosed promotional articles. Nigerian journalists are known to give news coverage to individuals and organisations in exchange for payment, a long-standing practice called [[brown envelope journalism]].<ref>{{Cite news |date=2015-03-05 |title=Nigeria's 'brown envelope' journalism |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-31748257 |access-date=2024-12-21 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Nwaubani |first=Adaobi Tricia |date=5 February 2024 |title=How one Nigerian newspaper took on outrage fatigue |url=https://www.cjr.org/first_person/nigeria-next-newspaper-yaradua-retrospective.php |access-date=2025-06-12 |website=Columbia Journalism Review |language=en |quote=It was also unique, even shocking, for [a Nigerian news organisation] declining to accept payment in exchange for publishing stories. Nigerian journalists are known to prowl to and fro in search of anyone whose pay will inspire their pens. It is standard for brown envelopes containing cash to be handed out during press briefings. Many young journalists I meet do not have the slightest idea that this practice is unethical. Their bosses encourage it.}}</ref> Consequently, some editors suggest that Nigerian newspaper coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability, particularly for biographies.

===Religious scriptures texts===

See {{slink|#Religious scriptures texts}}.

===ReligiousGreco-Roman scripturesliterary sources===

See {{slink|#ScripturalGreco-Roman textsliterary sources}}.

===Self-published peerage websites===

Line 177 ⟶ 187:

===Tabloids===

[[Tabloid journalism|Tabloids]] are types of news reporting characterized by sensationalistic stories. General consensus is that well-established tabloids should be used with care. They often repeat unverified rumors, have questionable fact-checking, and are often unsuitable for information about living people. When judging reliability of tabloids, editors often first assume its reliability to be mixed and then work it up or down. ([[Tabloid journalism]] should not be confused with [[tabloid (newspaper format)]]. Many publications that are not tabloid journalism use the tabloid format (and many that are do not).

{{Redirect|WP:TABLOID|text=You may be looking for [[WP:NOTTABLOID]]}}

[[Tabloid journalism|Tabloids]] are types of news reporting characterized by sensationalistic stories. General consensus is that well-established tabloids should be used with care. They often repeat unverified rumors, have questionable fact-checking, and are often unsuitable for information about living people. When judging reliability of tabloids, editors often first assume its reliability to be mixed and then work it up or down. ([[Tabloid journalism]] should not be confused with [[tabloid (newspaper format)]]. Many publications that are not tabloid journalism use the tabloid format (and many that are do not).

==See also==