Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/4

• #−A
• B−D
• E−G
• H−L
• M−N
• O−R
• S−T
• U−Z
• Overflow

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Haaretz (Ḥadashot Ha'aretz) WP:HAARETZWP:HAARETZ 📌		11	2025	Haaretz is considered generally reliable. Some editors believe that Haaretz reports with a political slant, particularly with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which makes it biased or opinionated. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline.	1   2
Hansard (UK Parliament transcripts, House of Commons, House of Lords)		1 2 3 4	2019	As a transcript of parliament proceedings in the United Kingdom, Hansard is a primary source and its statements should be attributed to whoever made them. Hansard is considered generally reliable for the British parliamentary proceedings and British government statements. It is not considered reliable as a secondary source as it merely contains the personal opinions of whoever is speaking in Parliament that day, and is subject to Parliamentary privilege. Hansard is not a word-for-word transcript and may omit repetitions and redundancies.	1   2   3   4   5   6
Hardcore Gaming 101		1 2 A B C D	2018	There is a rough consensus that Hardcore Gaming 101 is generally reliable for topics on video games, especially articles written by Kurt Kalata or John Szczepaniak. Exercise caution when citing articles written by any other author, especially in older publications.	1
Healthline WP:HEALTHLINEWP:HEALTHLINE 📌		2023  2023 1 2 3	2025	Healthline is a medical resource that is substantially written by non-expert freelance writers and reviewed by non-expert advisors. The content is frequently incorrect misinformation, sometimes dangerously so. Due to the heightened requirements for biomedical and medical sources on Wikipedia, the consensus of editors in the 2023 RfC was to deprecate Healthline as an unusable source that cannot meet WP:MEDRS and to blacklist Healthline for the safety and well-being of our readers. References to Healthline should be removed from Wikipedia.	1
Heat Street		1 2	2017	Although Heat Street was owned by Dow Jones & Company, a usually reputable publisher, many editors note that Heat Street does not clearly differentiate between its news articles and opinion. There is consensus that Heat Street is a partisan source. Some editors consider Heat Street's opinion pieces and news articles written by its staff to be usable with attribution, though due weight must be considered because Heat Street covers many political topics not as talked about in higher-profile sources.	1
Heavy.com WP:HEAVYWP:HEAVY 📌		1 2 3	2022	There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to read and cite the original source instead.	1
The Heritage Foundation (The Daily Signal) WP:HERITAGEFOUNDATIONWP:HERITAGEFOUNDATION 📌		2025  2025 1 2 3 4	2025	Due to security concerns, The Heritage Foundation is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist: there is evidence that the group has planned to doxx Wikipedia editors, and links to it should be bypassed or whitelisted. Editors who are victimized by doxxing tactics may request assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation, although support is not guaranteed. The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank; editors have found that it promotes disinformation. Heritage and its then-publication The Daily Signal were found generally unreliable due to the presumption of unreliability for think tanks and reporting such as climate change denial; the 2025 RfC deprecated Heritage. However, The Daily Signal was spun off from the Heritage Foundation in June 2024, and the 2025 RfC close did not address its reliability or functional independence.	1
The Hill WP:THEHILLWP:THEHILL 📌		10	2019	The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources. Some editors have expressed concerns about the reliability of Rising, a talk show produced by The Hill.	1
The Hindu WP:THEHINDUWP:THEHINDU 📌		1 2 3 4	2022	There is consensus that The Hindu is generally reliable and should be treated as a newspaper of record. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline.	1
HispanTV WP:HISPANTVWP:HISPANTV 📌		2019	2019	HispanTV was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts outright fabrications. Editors listed multiple examples of HispanTV broadcasting conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda.	1   2
History (History Channel, History.com) WP:RSPHISTORYWP:RSPHISTORY 📌		1 2 3	2021	Most editors consider History Channel generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote conspiracy theories.	1
The Hollywood Reporter (THR) WP:THRWP:THR 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2018	There is consensus that The Hollywood Reporter is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, including its articles and reviews on film, TV and music, as well as its box office figures.	1
Hope not Hate (Searchlight)		2018  2026 1 2 3 4 5 A	2026	There is a clear consensus that Hope Not Hate (HNH) is generally reliable for factual content. It is undisputed that, as an advocacy organisation they are biased.	1   2
HuffPost (excluding politics) (The Huffington Post) WP:HUFFWP:HUFF 📌 WP:HUFFPOSTWP:HUFFPOST 📌		2020 +13	2021	A 2020 RfC found HuffPost staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their political bias and less prominence to, or omit, things that contradict it. HuffPost's reliability has increased since 2012; articles before 2012 are less reliable and should be treated with more caution. HuffPost uses clickbait headlines to attract attention to its articles, thus the body text of any HuffPost article is considered more reliable than its headline. See also: HuffPost (politics), HuffPost contributors.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
HuffPost (politics) (The Huffington Post) WP:HUFFPOLITICSWP:HUFFPOLITICS 📌		2020 +11	2024	In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on American politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
HuffPost contributors (The Huffington Post) WP:HUFFPOCONWP:HUFFPOCON 📌		2020 +18	2020	Until 2018, the U.S. edition of HuffPost published content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight. These contributors generally did not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors consider them highly variable in quality. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. HuffPost contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a "Contributor" (also referred to as an "Editorial Partner"). See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost (politics).	1   2
Human Events		1 2 3	2019	Editors consider Human Events biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. In May 2019, a former editor-in-chief of Breitbart News became the editor-in-chief of Human Events; articles published after the leadership change are considered generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of Human Events's older content. See also: The Post Millennial.	1
Idolator		1 2	2014	There is consensus that Idolator is generally reliable for popular music. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.	1
IGN (Imagine Games Network) WP:IGNWP:IGN 📌		12	2017	There is consensus that IGN is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture, as well as for film and video game reviews given that attribution is provided. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. In addition, articles written by N-Sider are generally unreliable as this particular group of journalists have been found to fabricate articles and pass off speculation as fact. The site's blogs should be handled with WP:RSBLOG. See also: AskMen.	1
IMDb (Internet Movie Database) WP:IMDBWP:IMDB 📌		2019 +33	2020	The content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors. WP:Citing IMDb describes two exceptions. Although certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, editors criticize the quality of IMDb's fact-checking. A number of editors have pointed out that IMDb content has been copied from other sites, including Wikipedia, and that there have been a number of notable hoaxes in the past. The use of IMDb as an external link is generally considered appropriate (see WP:IMDB-EL).	1
iNaturalist WP:INATURALISTWP:INATURALIST 📌		1 2 3 4	2025	iNaturalist, a "social network of naturalists, citizen scientists, and biologists built on the concept of mapping and sharing observations of biodiversity across the globe", is not considered a reliable source for taxonomy or names, though it may be a good source for photographs. "WP:INATURALIST" redirects here. For iNaturalist as a source of open-licensed images, see c:Commons:iNaturalist.	1
The Independent WP:THEINDEPENDENTWP:THEINDEPENDENT 📌 WP:INDYUKWP:INDYUK 📌		2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2024	The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date.	1
Independent Journal Review (IJR) WP:IJRWP:IJR 📌		1 2 3	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of the Independent Journal Review. Posts from "community" members are considered self-published sources. The site's "news" section consists mostly of syndicated stories from Reuters, and citations of these stories should preferably point to Reuters.	1
The Indian Express WP:INDIANEXPWP:INDIANEXP 📌		2020	2020	The Indian Express is considered generally reliable under the news organizations guideline.	1
Indiegogo WP:INDIEGOGOWP:INDIEGOGO 📌		2020  2020	2020	Indiegogo is a crowdfunding website specializing in funding for start-up charities or businesses. As a primary source, it should usually be avoided for topics involving crowdfunding campaigns where better sources are available. The 2020 RfC gained a consensus for Indiegogo to be placed on the Wikipedia spam blacklist; links must be whitelisted before they can be used.	1
Indymedia (Independent Media Center, IMC) WP:IMCWP:IMC 📌 WP:INDYMEDIAWP:INDYMEDIA 📌		1 2	2020	The Independent Media Center is an open publishing network. Editors express low confidence in Indymedia's reputation for fact-checking, and consider Indymedia a self-published source.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17
Infowars (NewsWars, Banned.video, National File) WP:INFOWARSWP:INFOWARS 📌		2018  2018  2018  2024 1 2	2024	Due to persistent abuse, Infowars is on both the Wikipedia spam blacklist and the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Infowars was deprecated in the 2018 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and conspiracy theories. The use of Infowars as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. Infowars should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles. In November 2024, The Onion (see RSP entry) attempted to buy the site at its bankruptcy auction, but was subsequently blocked by a judge citing concerns over the auction. The families accuse Jones of engineering the closure of the website as part of an effort to profit from Infowars content on other online platforms. Infowars has been offline since April 30, 2026.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7
Inquisitr		1 2 3	2021	Inquisitr is a news aggregator, although it does publish some original reporting. There is consensus that Inquisitr is a generally unreliable source. Editors note that where Inquisitr has aggregated news from other sources, it is better to cite the original sources of information.	1
Instagram (IG, Insta, The Gram) WP:RSPIGWP:RSPIG 📌 WP:RSPINSTAGRAMWP:RSPINSTAGRAM 📌		2023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2026	As a social networking service, Instagram is covered by the following policies and guidelines: WP:SOCIALMEDIA, WP:RSSELF, WP:SPS and WP:UGC.	1
Inter Press Service (IPS)		1 2	2011	The Inter Press Service is a news agency. There is consensus that the Inter Press Service is generally reliable for news.	1   2   3
The Intercept		1 2 3 4	2020	There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept.	1
International Business Times (IBT, IBTimes) WP:IBTIMESWP:IBTIMES 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2019	There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. Editors note that the publication's editorial practices have been criticized by other reliable sources, and point to the inconsistent quality of the site's articles. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	1   2   3   4   5   6
International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) WP:IFCNWP:IFCN 📌		2020	2020	The Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) reviews fact-checking organizations according to a code of principles. There is consensus that it is generally reliable for determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations.	1
Investopedia WP:INVESTOPEDIAWP:INVESTOPEDIA 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2023	Investopedia is a tertiary source on finances, owned by Dotdash. A number of users have reported inaccurate and low-quality content on this website. It is advised not to use Investopedia, and to cite other, higher quality sources instead.	1
IslamQA.info (Islam Question & Answer)		1 2	2022	IslamQA.info is a Q&A site on Salafism founded and supervised by Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid. There is no consensus on whether it could be used for the Salaf Movement, with more reliable secondary sources recommended and in-text attribution if utilised. It is considered generally unreliable for broader Islam-related topics due to it representing a minor viewpoint. Some editors also consider the website a self-published source due to the lack of editorial control.	1
Jacobin WP:JACOBINWP:JACOBIN 📌		2021  2025 1 2 3 4 5	2025	Jacobin is a U.S.-based magazine that describes itself as a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture and predominantly publishes analysis and opinion pieces. Per WP:RSEDITORIAL, editors should prefer citing straight news over citing such pieces whenever possible and take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions and by ensuring that due weight is given to Jacobin's perspective amongst others'. Information from Jacobin not covered under RSEDITORIAL is considered generally reliable albeit WP:BIASED, while the reliability of articles authored by Branko Marcetic has been considered questionable.	1   2
JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) WP:JAMAWP:JAMA 📌		1 2	2018	JAMA is a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the American Medical Association. It is considered generally reliable. Opinion pieces from JAMA, including articles from The Jama Forum, are subject to WP:RSOPINION and might not qualify under WP:MEDRS.	1
Jeff Sneider (The InSneider) WP:JEFFSNEIDERWP:JEFFSNEIDER 📌 WP:THEINSNEIDERWP:THEINSNEIDER 📌		1 A B C D	2025	Jeff Sneider is an American entertainment journalist with tenure at trades Variety and TheWrap. Currently reporting as a self-published source through the newsletter The InSneider and via The Hot Mic podcast, consensus has determined he is generally reliable in the field, fulfilling the criteria of subject-matter expert. When using Sneider's self-published reports as a source, they must be accompanied with intext attribution, especially concerning reporting on casting of productions, respecting WP:BLP, and where additional considerations may apply on a case-by-case basis. See also: WP:MCURS.	1   2
The Jerusalem Post WP:JERUSALEMPOSTWP:JERUSALEMPOST 📌		2024 1 2 3 4	2025	The Jerusalem Post is generally reliable but should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It should be used as a source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict only to cite basic facts or if its reporting is validated by additional reporting from another source not similarly limited.	1
The Jewish Chronicle (The JC) WP:THEJCWP:THEJC 📌 WP:RSPJCWP:RSPJC 📌		2021  2024 1 2 3 4 5 6	2024	In the 2024 RfC, there was consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news until 2015. Additional considerations apply for Palestine/Israel topics between 2015 and 2020, with some concern that related topics may also require further considerations. Post-2020, The Jewish Chronicle is considered generally unreliable regarding Palestine/Israel topics, and requires caution regarding related topics. In the 2021 RfC, there was no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, and Islam; there is otherwise a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics.	1
Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) WP:RSPJVLWP:RSPJVL 📌		2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 A	2021	The Jewish Virtual Library is a partisan source which sometimes cites Wikipedia and it is mostly unreliable, especially in its "Myths & Facts" section. When it cites sources, those should preferably be read and then cited directly instead. Some exceptions on a case-by-case basis are possible.	1
Jezebel WP:JEZEBELWP:JEZEBEL 📌		1 2 3 4	2023	There is no consensus on the reliability of Jezebel. Most editors believe that Jezebel is biased or opinionated, and that its claims should be attributed. Jezebel should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially ones about living persons. The website shut down in November 2023 but was relaunched in December 2023.	1
Jihad Watch WP:JIHADWATCHWP:JIHADWATCH 📌		2021 1 2 3	2021	Jihad Watch was deprecated in the 2021 RfC; of the editors who commented on the substance of the proposal, they were unanimous that the source is unreliable. It is a blog generally regarded as propagating anti-Muslim conspiracy theories.	1
Joshua Project (Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census, WEC International) WP:JOSHUAPROJECTWP:JOSHUAPROJECT 📌		2021 +12	2022	The Joshua Project is an ethnological database created to support Christian missions. It is considered to be generally unreliable due to the lack of any academic recognition or an adequate editorial process. The Joshua Project provides a list of sources from which they gather their data, many of which are related evangelical groups and they too should not be used for ethnological data as they are questionable sources.	1   2
Journal of Scientific Exploration		2025 1 2	2025	The Journal of Scientific Exploration is published by the Society for Scientific Exploration, which has been criticized for advancing fringe ideas. The journal itself has been accused of publishing pseudoscience, including speculative studies presuming the existence of ghosts and magic.	1   2
JRank		1 2 3 4 5 6	2022	JRank is considered a search engine or content farm, and is thus considered generally unreliable. Numerous concerns have been raised about copyright violations.	1
Kickstarter WP:KICKSTARTERWP:KICKSTARTER 📌		2020  2020 A	2020	Kickstarter is a crowdfunding website specializing in funding for new works of fiction. As a primary source, it should usually be avoided for topics involving crowdfunding campaigns where better sources are available. The 2020 RfC gained a consensus for Kickstarter to be placed on the Wikipedia spam blacklist; links must be whitelisted before they can be used.	1
Kirkus Reviews WP:KIRKUSWP:KIRKUS 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2025	Most content by Kirkus Reviews is considered to be generally reliable. Kirkus Indie is a pay-for-review program for independent authors: its content is considered to be questionable and to not count towards notability, in part because the author can choose whether or not the review is published. Whether or not a review is a "Kirkus Indie" can be determined by the presence of a "Review Program: KIRKUS INDIE" tag at the end of the article.	1
Know Your Meme (KYM) WP:KNOWYOURMEMEWP:KNOWYOURMEME 📌 WP:KYMWP:KYM 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2022	Know Your Meme entries, including "confirmed" entries, are user-generated and generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of their video series.	1
Kommersant		2021 1 2 3	2021	Kommersant is a liberal business broadsheet newspaper with nationwide distribution in the Russian Federation. Editors generally believed that Kommersant is one of the better publications in Russia and believe its reporting is generally reliable on most matters. However, editors have expressed concerns regarding how limited media freedom in Russia may affect the source's reporting, and as such caution should be applied when the source is used in relation to events in which the Russian government has a close interest. In such contexts, use of the source should generally be accompanied with intext attribution.	1   2   3
LADbible WP:LADBIBLEWP:LADBIBLE 📌		1 2	2025	Along with sister sites GAMINGbible, SPORTbible, Tyla, and UNILAD, LADbible publishes news, entertainment, and celebrity interviews. The site is considered to be generally unreliable and of poor quality, posting repackaged clickbait content with unclear editorial oversight and little fact-checking.	1
Land Transport Guru		1 2 3	2024	Due to it being a self-published source, Land Transport Guru is considered generally unreliable.	1
Last.fm WP:LASTFMWP:LASTFM 📌		2019 1	2019	Last.fm was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Last.fm is user-generated, and is considered generally unreliable.	1
Lenta.ru (March 2014 – present) WP:LENTA.RUWP:LENTA.RU 📌		2019 2020 1 2	2020	Due to persistent abuse, Lenta.ru is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links to articles published on or after 12 March 2014 must be whitelisted before they can be used. Lenta.ru was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site frequently publishes conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, owing to a mass dismissal of staff on 12 March 2014. The use of Lenta.ru articles published since 12 March 2014 as references should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. Lenta.ru should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles. Lenta.ru's reliability pre-March 2014 was not discussed in the RfC.	1
LifeSiteNews (Campaign Life Coalition) WP:LIFESITENEWSWP:LIFESITENEWS 📌		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	LifeSiteNews was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.	1   2
LinkedIn (LinkedIn Pulse) WP:RSPLINKEDINWP:RSPLINKEDIN 📌		10	2023	LinkedIn is a social network. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the post is used for an uncontroversial self-description. Articles on LinkedIn Pulse written by LinkedIn users are also self-published. LinkedIn accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Posts that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. LinkedIn should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons.	1
LionhearTV WP:LIONHEARTVWP:LIONHEARTV 📌		2025 1	2025	LionhearTV is a blog owned by eMVP Digital. The 2025 RfC deemed it generally unreliable as a self-published source. However, there was no consensus to deprecate the source at the time.	1
LiveJournal		1 2 3 4	2020	LiveJournal is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable. LiveJournal can be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions and content from subject-matter experts, but not as a secondary source for living persons.	1
LiveLeak		2019 1 2 3 4	2019	Due to persistent abuse, LiveLeak is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. LiveLeak was an online video platform that hosted user-generated content. Many of the videos on LiveLeak are copyright violations, and should not be linked to per WP:COPYLINK. The use of LiveLeak as a primary source is questionable in most cases, as the provenance of most of the videos is unclear. LiveLeak shut down in May 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.	1
Los Angeles Times (L.A. Times) WP:LATIMESWP:LATIMES 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2023	Most editors consider the Los Angeles Times generally reliable. Refer to WP:NEWSBLOG for the newspaper's blog.	1
Lulu.com (Lulu Press) WP:LULUWP:LULU 📌		2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Lulu.com is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Lulu.com is a print-on-demand publisher, which is a type of self-published source. Books published through Lulu.com can be used if they are written by a subject-matter expert. Occasionally, a reputable publisher uses Lulu.com as a printer; in this case, cite the original publisher instead of Lulu.com.	1
LWN.net (Linux Weekly News)		1 2 3	2023	Journalistic articles written for LWN.net are generally considered reliable as a source of information on free and open source software and issues of interest to that community of users and developers. However, the website also hosts archives of some mailing lists for free software, which is user-generated content and a primary source.	1