Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/reliable

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

These are all the reliable sources extracted from subpages 1 – 8. (There might be a few stragglers missing, especially if they were the last row on a subpage.)

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
ABC News (US)		1 2	2021	There is consensus that ABC News, the news division of the American Broadcasting Company, is generally reliable. It is not to be confused with other publications of the same name.	1   2
The Age WP:THEAGEWP:THEAGE 📌		2021	2021	The Age is a newspaper based in Melbourne, Australia. There is consensus that it is generally reliable.	1
Agence France-Presse (AFP) WP:RSPAFPWP:RSPAFP 📌		1 2 3	2021	Agence France-Presse is a news agency. There is consensus that Agence France-Presse is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from Agence France-Presse that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.	1
Al Jazeera WP:ALJAZEERAWP:ALJAZEERA 📌		2024 +16	2024	Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-funded news organization and in the 2024 RfC there was consensus that it is generally reliable. Most editors seem to agree that Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic are biased sources on the Arab–Israeli conflict and on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English to be more reliable than Al Jazeera Arabic. Al Jazeera's live blogs should be treated with caution, per the policy on news blogs. Note that the domain name "aljazeera.com" only started hosting Al Jazeera English content in 2011; links to aljazeera.com prior to 2011 pointed to the unaffiliated Al Jazeera Magazine.	1   2
Amnesty International (Amnesty, AI) WP:RSPAIWP:RSPAI 📌		2022 1 2 3	2023	Amnesty International is a human rights advocacy organisation. There is consensus that Amnesty International is generally reliable for facts. Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Amnesty and in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion.	1
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (excluding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and antisemitism) WP:RSPADLWP:RSPADL 📌 WP:ADLHSDWP:ADLHSD 📌		2020  2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2024	There is consensus that, outside the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the ADL is generally a reliable source, particularly for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that the ADL must always be attributed, but there is consensus that its labelling of organisations and individuals (especially as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors regard the ADL's opinion pieces as unreliable and should only be used with attribution. In the 2024 RfC, there was rough consensus that the ADL's hate symbol database is reliable for identifying the existence of a symbol and for straightforward descriptive facts, but not for more complex details such as a symbol's history. In such cases, in-text attribution to the ADL may be advisable.	1   2
Aon WP:RSPAONWP:RSPAON 📌		2022 1	2022	In a 2022 RfC, there was consensus that Aon is generally reliable for weather-related articles. Editors pointed out that Aon often provides data not found in other sources, and care should be taken when using the source as it may be providing a different estimate than other sources, e.g. total economic damages, rather than property damage.	1
Ars Technica WP:ARSTECHNICAWP:ARSTECHNICA 📌		1 2 3	2022	Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles.	1   2
Associated Press (AP) WP:RSPAPWP:RSPAP 📌		12	2024	The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.	1   2
The Atlantic (The Atlantic Monthly) WP:THEATLANTICWP:THEATLANTIC 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2024	The Atlantic is considered generally reliable. Editors should beware that The Atlantic does not always clearly delineate between reporting and opinion content; opinion pieces, including all articles in the "Ideas" column (theatlantic.com/ideas/), are governed by WP:RSOPINION.	1
Atlas Obscura "articles" articles WP:AOARTICLESWP:AOARTICLES 📌		1 2 3 4	2023	Atlas Obscura's "articles" articles are professionally authored with editor oversight, and generally reliable. However, other areas of the site operate as a commercial travel service vendor, and the site hosts user-generated content in its "places" articles (see WP:AOPLACES)	1
The Australian WP:THEAUSTRALIANWP:THEAUSTRALIAN 📌		1 2 3	2024	The Australian is considered generally reliable. Some editors consider The Australian to be a partisan source. Opinion pieces are covered by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Several editors expressed concern regarding their coverage of climate change related topics.	1
The A.V. Club WP:AVCLUBWP:AVCLUB 📌		1 2 3 4 A	2023	The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews. There is consensus that AI-generated articles are generally unreliable; The A.V. Club's parent company, G/O Media, began releasing such pieces in July 2023, usually under the byline "The A.V. Club Bot".	1
AVN (Adult Video News, AVN Magazine) WP:AVNWP:AVN 📌		2021	2021	AVN is considered generally reliable for the adult industry. Editors should take care to ensure the content is not a republished press release (which is marked as such in search).	1
BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) WP:RSPBBCWP:RSPBBC 📌		22	2024	BBC is a British publicly funded broadcaster. It is considered generally reliable. This includes BBC News, BBC documentaries, and the BBC History site (on BBC Online). However, this excludes BBC projects that incorporate user-generated content (such as h2g2 and the BBC Domesday Project) and BBC publications with reduced editorial oversight (such as Collective). Statements of opinion should conform to the corresponding guideline.	1   2
Behind the Voice Actors (BTVA) WP:RSPBTVAWP:RSPBTVA 📌 WP:BTVAWP:BTVA 📌		2022 +10	2024	There is consensus that Behind the Voice Actors is generally reliable for roles credits. Editors agree that its coverage is routine and does not contribute to notability.	1
Bellingcat WP:BELLINGCATWP:BELLINGCAT 📌		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with attribution. Some editors consider Bellingcat a biased source.	1
Bloomberg (Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek) WP:BLOOMBERGWP:BLOOMBERG 📌 WP:BLOOMBERGPUBLICATIONSWP:BLOOMBERGPUBLICATIONS 📌		1 2 3 4	2019	Bloomberg publications, including Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable for news and business topics. See also: Bloomberg profiles.	1   2
Burke's Peerage WP:BURKESWP:BURKES 📌		2020 1	2020	Burke's Peerage is considered generally reliable for genealogy.	1
BuzzFeed News WP:BUZZFEEDNEWSWP:BUZZFEEDNEWS 📌		12	2023	There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News operated separately from BuzzFeed, and most news content originally hosted on BuzzFeed was moved to the BuzzFeed News website in 2018. In light of the staff layoffs at BuzzFeed in January 2019, some editors recommend exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after this date. The site's opinion pieces should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. BuzzFeed News shut down in May 2023, and its archives remain accessible. See also: BuzzFeed.	1   2
CBS News (CBS) WP:CBSWP:CBS 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2023	CBS News is the news division of CBS. It is considered generally reliable. Some editors note, however, that its television content may include superficial coverage, which might not qualify under WP:MEDRS.	1
Check Your Fact WP:CHECKYOURFACTWP:CHECKYOURFACT 📌		2024 1 2	2024	Check Your Fact is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network and considered generally reliable; despite its ownership under the deprecated Daily Caller, it has an independent newsroom with some use by others. Editors prefer reliable secondary sources over Check Your Fact when available.	1
The Christian Science Monitor (CSM, CS Monitor) WP:CSMONITORWP:CSMONITOR 📌		20	2016	The Christian Science Monitor is considered generally reliable for news.	1
Climate Feedback WP:CLIMATEFEEDBACKWP:CLIMATEFEEDBACK 📌		1 2 3 4	2020	Climate Feedback is a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies, is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network, and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements.	1
CNET (pre-October 2020)		17	2023	CNET is considered generally reliable for its technology-related articles prior to its acquisition by Red Ventures in October 2020. In 2023, Red Ventures began deleting thousands of old CNET articles; website content may no longer be available unless archived.	1
CNN (Cable News Network) WP:CNNWP:CNN 📌 WP:RSPCNNWP:RSPCNN 📌		2019  2020 +20	2024	There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable. However, iReport consists solely of user-generated content, and talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.	1
Coda Media (Coda Story) WP:CODAWP:CODA 📌		2021	2021	A 2021 RfC found consensus that Coda Media is generally reliable for factual reporting. A few editors consider Coda Media a biased source for international politics related to the U.S., as it has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.	1
Common Sense Media (CSM) WP:CSMWP:CSM 📌		1 2 3	2020	There is consensus that Common Sense Media is generally reliable for entertainment reviews. As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is biased or opinionated, and its statements should generally be attributed.	1
The Conversation WP:THECONVERSATIONWP:THECONVERSATION 📌		1 2 3	2019	The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts. It is generally reliable for subjects in the authors' areas of expertise. Opinions published in The Conversation should be handled with WP:RSOPINION.	1
The Daily Telegraph (UK) (excluding transgender topics) (The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph) WP:TELEGRAPHWP:TELEGRAPH 📌		2022 +22	2024	There is consensus that The Daily Telegraph (also known as The Telegraph) is generally reliable. Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics. Unrelated to The Daily Telegraph (Sydney).	1
Deadline Hollywood WP:RSPDEADLINEWP:RSPDEADLINE 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	Deadline Hollywood is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles.	1   2
Debrett's WP:DEBRETTSWP:DEBRETTS 📌		2020 1	2020	There is consensus that Debrett's is reliable for genealogical information. However, their defunct "People of Today" section is considered to be not adequately independent as the details were solicited from the subjects. Editors have also raised concerns that this section included paid coverage.	1
Den of Geek WP:DENOFGEEKWP:DENOFGEEK 📌		1 2 A B C	2020	There is a rough consensus that Den of Geek is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics.	1
Deseret News WP:DESERETWP:DESERET 📌		1 2 3 4	2022	The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news. It is owned by a subsidiary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and there is no consensus on whether the Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church. The publication's statements on topics regarding the LDS Church should be attributed. The Deseret News includes a supplement, the Church News, which is considered a primary source as an official publication of the LDS Church.	1   2
Deutsche Welle (DW, DW-TV) WP:DEUTSCHEWELLEWP:DEUTSCHEWELLE 📌		1 2 3	2022	Deutsche Welle is a German state-owned international broadcaster. It is considered generally reliable. Some editors consider that the quality of DW depends on the language edition.	1
Digital Spy WP:DIGITALSPYWP:DIGITALSPY 📌		1 2 3 4 5 A	2012	There is consensus that Digital Spy is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes due or undue weight.	1   2
Digital Trends WP:DIGITALTRENDSWP:DIGITALTRENDS 📌		1 A	2023	There is consensus that Digital Trends is generally reliable due to its editorial standards and reputation. This does not apply to sponsored content, which is marked with fine print below the headline image's caption. Some editors expressed concern over the site's connection to Valnet, which runs several content farms.	1
The Diplomat WP:THEDIPLOMATWP:THEDIPLOMAT 📌		1 2	2020	There is consensus that The Diplomat is generally reliable. Opinion pieces should be evaluated by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Some editors have expressed concern on their reliability for North Korea-related topics.	1
The Economist WP:THEECONOMISTWP:THEECONOMIST 📌		2022 1 2 3 4 5	2024	Most editors consider The Economist a generally reliable news magazine focused on data journalism. Distinctively, its news articles appear without bylines and mixed with commentary. Within these news articles, Wikipedia editors should use their judgement to discern factual content – which can be generally relied upon – from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources. Its pseudonymous commentary columns and other opinion pieces should also be handled according to this guideline.	1
Encyclopædia Iranica		1 2 3 4 5	2022	The Encyclopædia Iranica is considered generally reliable for Iran-related topics.	1
Engadget		1 A	2012	Engadget is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Its statements should be attributed.	1
Entertainment Weekly (EW)		1 2 3 A	2018	Entertainment Weekly is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics.	1
Eurogamer (USgamer)		1 2 A B	2023	There is a consensus that Eurogamer is generally reliable for topics on video games.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8
Financial Times (FT) WP:FINANCIALTIMESWP:FINANCIALTIMES 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	The Financial Times is considered generally reliable.	1
Forbes WP:FORBESWP:FORBES 📌		10	2024	Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. Per below, this excludes articles written by Forbes.com contributors (or "Senior Contributors") and Forbes Advisor.	1
Game Developer (Gamasutra) WP:GAMEDEVELOPERWP:GAMEDEVELOPER 📌 WP:GAMASUTRAWP:GAMASUTRA 📌		1 2 A	2020	Game Developer is considered generally reliable for subjects related to video games.	1   2
Game Informer WP:GAMEINFORMERWP:GAMEINFORMER 📌		1 2 A B C D	2021	Game Informer is considered generally reliable for video games. Originally shut down by GameStop in August 2024 with website content no longer accessible unless archived, Neill Blomkamp's company Gunzilla Games purchased the brand and site, which went back up in March 2025, with all staff returning from time at closing, and an aim for the publication to retain total editorial independence.	1
GameSpot WP:GAMESPOTWP:GAMESPOT 📌		16	2024	GameSpot is considered generally reliable for topics on video games. The site's forum content qualifies as user-generated content and thus generally unreliable. Some editors have expressed concerns that release date information may not be reliable due to the site sharing a database with GameFAQs. Some older articles released in the 1990s may have incorrect publication dates.	1   2
Gazeta Wyborcza		1 2	2021	There is consensus that Gazeta Wyborcza is generally reliable. Some editors express concern about its sensationalist tendency in recent years.	1
Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (names and locations)		2021 1	2022	The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates. Editors should take care that GNIS uses a different convention for its coordinates, using a particular feature of a location rather than the geometric center that most WikiProjects use.	1
Gizmodo WP:GIZMODOWP:GIZMODO 📌		1 2 3 4	2023	There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements. There is consensus that AI-generated articles are generally unreliable; Gizmodo's parent company, G/O Media, began releasing such pieces in July 2023, usually under the byline "Gizmodo Bot".	1
GLAAD WP:GLAADWP:GLAAD 📌		1 2	2024	GLAAD is generally considered reliable for their area of expertise on LGBTQ topics. Some editors consider GLAAD biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.	1
The Globe and Mail		2021	2021	In a 2021 RfC, editors found a strong consensus that The Globe and Mail is generally reliable for news coverage and is considered a newspaper of record.	1
GQ (GQ Magazine) WP:RSPGQWP:RSPGQ 📌		1 2	2019	There is consensus that GQ is generally reliable. It is noted by editors for having quality editorial oversight for non-contentious topics.	1   2
The Guardian (TheGuardian.com, The Manchester Guardian, The Observer) WP:GUARDIANWP:GUARDIAN 📌 WP:THEGUARDIANWP:THEGUARDIAN 📌		20	2024	There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.	1   2   3
Haaretz (Ḥadashot Ha'aretz) WP:HAARETZWP:HAARETZ 📌		10	2021	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
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
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.	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
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
HuffPost (excluding politics) (The Huffington Post) WP:HUFFWP:HUFF 📌 WP:HUFFPOWP:HUFFPO 📌 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
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
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
The Indian Express WP:INDIANEXPWP:INDIANEXP 📌		2020	2020	The Indian Express is considered generally reliable under the news organizations guideline.	1
Insider (culture) WP:BICULTUREWP:BICULTURE 📌		2021  2021	2021	There is consensus that Insider is generally reliable for its coverage in its culture section. See also: Insider (excluding culture).	1   2
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 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
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	2024	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
Kirkus Reviews WP:KIRKUSWP:KIRKUS 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2023	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
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
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
Mail & Guardian		2021	2021	The Mail & Guardian is a South African newspaper. There is consensus that it is generally reliable.	1
The Mary Sue		1 2 3 A B	2022	There is consensus that The Mary Sue is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Mary Sue biased or opinionated. Opinions should be attributed.	1
Meduza		2025	2025	Meduza is a news outlet run by Russian dissidents. There is consensus that it is generally reliable.	1
Metacritic (GameRankings) WP:METACRITICWP:METACRITIC 📌		10	2017	Metacritic is considered 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. In December 2019, video game aggregate site GameRankings shut down and merged with Metacritic; GameRankings's content is no longer accessible unless archived.	1   2
Metro (UK) (soap operas) WP:METROSOAPSWP:METROSOAPS 📌		1 2 3 A	2025	There is consensus that the Metro is reliable as a source on soap operas.	1   2
Le Monde diplomatique WP:LEMONDEDIPLOMATIQUEWP:LEMONDEDIPLOMATIQUE 📌		1 2 3 4	2018	There is consensus that Le Monde diplomatique is generally reliable. Some editors consider Le Monde diplomatique to be a biased and opinionated source.	1   2
Mother Jones (MoJo) WP:MOTHERJONESWP:MOTHERJONES 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.	1
MSNBC WP:MSNBCWP:MSNBC 📌		2020 1 2 3 4	2022	There is consensus that MSNBC is generally reliable. Talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. See also: NBC News	1
The Nation WP:THENATIONWP:THENATION 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2022	There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. In the "About" section of their website, they identify as progressive. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.	1
National Geographic (Nat Geo) WP:NATGEOWP:NATGEO 📌		1 2 3 4	2023	There is consensus that National Geographic is generally reliable. For coverage by National Geographic of fringe topics and ideas, due weight and parity of sources should be considered.	1
National Post (Postmedia Network) WP:NATIONALPOSTWP:NATIONALPOST 📌		2024 1 2 3 4 5 6	2024	National Post is considered to be a generally reliable newspaper.	1
NBC News WP:NBCWP:NBC 📌		1 2 3 4	2024	There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news. See also: MSNBC	1
The New Republic WP:NEWREPUBLICWP:NEWREPUBLIC 📌		2020 1 2 3 4	2024	There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable. Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should be attributed.	1
New York (Vulture, The Cut, Grub Street, Daily Intelligencer) WP:RSPNEWYORKWP:RSPNEWYORK 📌 WP:RSPVULTUREWP:RSPVULTURE 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2021	There is consensus that New York magazine, including its subsidiary website Vulture, is generally reliable. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements. See also: Polygon (pre-2025), The Verge, Vox	1   2   3   4
New York Daily News (Illustrated Daily News) WP:NYDNWP:NYDN 📌		1 2 3	2020	Most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines.	1
The New York Times (NYT) WP:NYTWP:NYT 📌 WP:NYTIMESWP:NYTIMES 📌		2018 +46	2024	There is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims.	1
The New Yorker		1 2	2011	There is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process.	1
The New Zealand Herald (NZ Herald)		2021 1	2023	There is consensus that The New Zealand Herald is generally reliable.	1
Newslaundry		2020	2020	There is consensus that Newslaundry is generally reliable. Some editors have expressed concerns regarding possible bias in its political narratives and reporting on rival publications; in cases where this could reasonably apply, attribution is recommended, and sufficient.	1
NewsNation (general topics) WP:NEWSNATIONWP:NEWSNATION 📌		2025	2025	There is a consensus that NewsNation is generally reliable for matters not related to UFOs or UAPs. See also: NewsNation (UFOs, UAPs).	1
Newsweek (pre-2013)		2019 +11	2019	There is consensus that articles from Newsweek pre-2013 are generally reliable for news covered during that time. In 2011, Newsweek was a reputable magazine with only some minor problems while it was owned by The Newsweek Daily Beast Company (which also owned The Daily Beast). Blogs under Newsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy. See also: Newsweek (2013–present).	1
NME (New Musical Express) WP:RSPNMEWP:RSPNME 📌		1 2	2020	There is consensus that British publication NME is generally reliable for content related to its areas of expertise, which include music.	1
NPR (National Public Radio) WP:RSPNPRWP:RSPNPR 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2024	There is consensus that NPR, an American public service broadcaster, is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPR's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution.	1
OKO.press WP:OKOWP:OKO 📌		2021  2024 1 2	2024	OKO.press is a Polish investigative journalism and fact-checking website. There is consensus that it is generally reliable in its reporting, though some editors consider it a biased source.	1
PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) WP:RSPPBSWP:RSPPBS 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	The Public Broadcasting Service is an American public broadcaster. It is considered generally reliable by editors.	1
People WP:PEOPLEMAGWP:PEOPLEMAG 📌		2013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2022	There is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons, but the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source.	1
People Make Games		2023	2023	There is consensus that People Make Games is generally reliable for the topic of video games, although care should be taken if using the source for WP:BLP-related information due to concerns that they have no clear editorial policy, and they are a WP:EXPERTSPS.	—
Pew Research Center		1 2	2012	There is consensus that the Pew Research Center is generally reliable.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8
PinkNews WP:PINKNEWSWP:PINKNEWS 📌		2020 +10	2024	There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject.	1
Playboy		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2015	There is consensus that Playboy is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's reputation for high-quality interviews and fact-checking.	1
Politico WP:POLITICOWP:POLITICO 📌		2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2024	Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that Politico is a biased source.	1
PolitiFact (PunditFact)		2016  2019	2019	PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates as well as the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate (of the statements checked by PolitiFact), provided that attribution is given.	1
Polygon (pre-May 2025)		1 2 A B C D	2020	Polygon is considered generally reliable for video games and pop culture related topics during its ownership by Vox Media. See also: The Verge, Vox, New York	1
ProPublica WP:PROPUBLICAWP:PROPUBLICA 📌		2019 1	2019	There is a strong consensus that ProPublica is generally reliable for all purposes because it has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, is widely cited by reliable sources, and has received multiple Pulitzer Prizes.	1
Radio Free Asia (RFA) WP:RSPRFAWP:RSPRFA 📌 WP:RADIOFREEASIAWP:RADIOFREEASIA 📌		2021 1 2 3 4	2022	Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use.	1
Rappler WP:RAPPLERWP:RAPPLER 📌		1 2 3	2018	There is consensus that staff content by Rappler is generally reliable. The IMHO section consists of opinions by readers, and not by paid staff. The defunct x.rappler.com section functioned as a self-published blogging service, and is therefore considered generally unreliable.	1
Reason WP:REASONMAGAZINEWP:REASONMAGAZINE 📌 WP:REASONNEWSWP:REASONNEWS 📌		1 2 3	2021	There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.	1
The Register ("El Reg")		1 2 3 4 5 A	2017	The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Some editors say that The Register is biased or opinionated on topics involving Wikipedia.	1   2
Reuters WP:REUTERSWP:REUTERS 📌		1 2 3	2018	Reuters is a news agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from Reuters that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. Press releases published by Reuters are not automatically reliable.	1
Rolling Stone (culture) WP:ROLLINGSTONEWP:ROLLINGSTONE 📌 WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTUREWP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE 📌		2021 1 2 3 4 A	2021	There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council).	1
Rotten Tomatoes WP:ROTTENTOMATOESWP:ROTTENTOMATOES 📌		2023 +16	2024	Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable. There is consensus that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for biographical information, cast and crew data, or other film and television data, as it is sourced from user-generated and user-provided content with a lack of oversight and verification.	1
RTÉ (Raidió Teilifís Éireann)		2023	2023	RTÉ is an Irish public service broadcaster. There is consensus that RTÉ is generally reliable.	1
Scientific American (SA, SciAm)		1 2	2020	Scientific American is considered generally reliable for popular science content. Use WP:MEDPOP to determine whether the publication's medical coverage should be used.	1
SCOTUSblog WP:RSPSCOTUSBLOGWP:RSPSCOTUSBLOG 📌		2021 1 2	2021	In a 2021 RfC, there was strong consensus that SCOTUSblog is generally reliable for law-related topics. Some authors on SCOTUSblog are subject-matter experts, but editors do not consider the website an academic source. Editors recommend in-text attribution for SCOTUSblog's opinion and analysis articles.	1
Sixth Tone (general topics) WP:SIXTHTONEWP:SIXTHTONE 📌		2020	2020	Sixth Tone is usable for general non-political topics, such as Chinese society and culture. See also: Sixth Tone (politics).	1
Skeptical Inquirer		2022 1 A	2022	A 2022 RfC established reasonably clear consensus that Skeptical Inquirer is generally reliable. ArbCom previously found that it is not considered a self-published source, and that it should be used in a manner similar to other opinion sources.	1
Sky News (UK) WP:SKYNEWSUKWP:SKYNEWSUK 📌		1 2 3 4	2024	Sky News (UK) is considered an ordinary WP:NEWSORG and is thus presumed generally reliable. Sky News UK is unaffiliated with Sky News Australia. Sky News UK has partial ownership of Sky News Arabia.	1
Snopes WP:SNOPESWP:SNOPES 📌		15	2021	Snopes is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network, and is considered generally reliable. Attribution may be necessary. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.	1
South China Morning Post (SCMP, Sunday Morning Post) WP:SCMPWP:SCMP 📌		2020 1 2 3	2020	The South China Morning Post is widely considered to be the English-language newspaper of record in Hong Kong. In the 2020 RFC, there was consensus that the SCMP is generally reliable. However, in addition, there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics, including the Chinese Communist Party and the SCMP's current owner, Alibaba. Editors may apply higher scrutiny when dealing with the SCMP's coverage of such topics.	1
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) WP:SPLCWP:SPLC 📌		2025 +20	2025	The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis.	1
Space.com WP:SPACE.COMWP:SPACE.COM 📌		1 2	2021	Space.com may be reliable for astronomy and spaceflight news, and has a reputation for being generally accurate. Space.com articles often have a sensational tone, which might degrade their quality, so it is necessary to check the author's qualification below the article. Care should also be taken as the site publishes a lot of syndicated material and is prone to occasional churnalism.	1
Der Spiegel (Spiegel Online, SPON)		10	2018	There is consensus that Der Spiegel is generally reliable. Articles written by Claas Relotius are fabrications, and are thus unreliable.	1
Sports Illustrated (pre-June 2019)		1 2 3 4	2025	There is a general consensus that work by Sports Illustrated pre-acquisition by Maven Networks in June 2019 is considered generally reliable for sports-related news.	1
The Straits Times WP:STRAITSTIMESWP:STRAITSTIMES 📌		2021 1 2	2024	The Straits Times is Singapore's English-language newspaper of record and is considered generally reliable. However, its coverage of politically sensitive topics such as local politics, government policy and the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) should be approached with additional considerations, due to Singapore's poor record on freedom of speech and press. Editors are encouraged to critically assess material from this source, especially (but not limited to) the period between 1982 and 2021.	1
The Sydney Morning Herald		2021 1	2022	There is consensus that The Sydney Morning Herald is generally reliable.	1
Time WP:TIMEMAGAZINEWP:TIMEMAGAZINE 📌 WP:RSPTIMEWP:RSPTIME 📌		1 2 3 4 5 A	2024	There is consensus that Time is generally reliable. Time's magazine blogs, including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy. Refer to WP:NEWSORG for guidance on op-eds, which should only be used with attribution.	1
The Times (The Times of London, The London Times, The Sunday Times) WP:THETIMESWP:THETIMES 📌		2022 +10	2023	The Times, including its sister paper The Sunday Times, is considered generally reliable.	1   2   3
The Times of Israel (ToI) WP:TIMESOFISRAELWP:TIMESOFISRAEL 📌		2024 1 2 3 4 5	2024	In the 2024 RfC, there was consensus that The Times of Israel is generally reliable, although potentially biased in certain topics like the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. ToI disclaims responsibility for the contents of the blogs section (which is written by third parties) though experts' blog posts may be sometimes usable per the guidance at WP:BLOGS.	1
TorrentFreak (TF)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2019	Most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing. Editors note references to the website in mainstream media. The source may or may not be reliable for other topics.	1
TV Guide		1 2 3 4 5	2024	TV Guide is considered generally reliable for television-related topics. Some editors consider TV Guide a primary source for air dates.	1   2
U.S. News & World Report		1 2 3	2020	There is consensus that U.S. News & World Report is generally reliable.	1
USA Today WP:USATODAYWP:USATODAY 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 A B	2024	There is consensus that staff-written articles on USA Today are generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust editorial process and its centrist alignment. Some content is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable.	1   2
Vanity Fair WP:VANITYFAIRWP:VANITYFAIR 📌		1 2 3 4	2021	Vanity Fair is considered generally reliable, including for popular culture topics. Some editors say it is biased or opinionated.	1
Variety WP:VARIETYWP:VARIETY 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2016	As an entertainment trade magazine, Variety is considered a reliable source in its field.	1
The Verge WP:THEVERGEWP:THEVERGE 📌		2018 1 2 3	2024	There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. Some editors question the quality of The Verge's instructional content on computer hardware. See also: Vox, Polygon (pre-2025), New York	1
The Village Voice		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2024	There is consensus among editors that The Village Voice is generally reliable. It is an alternative newsweekly that has received multiple Pulitzer Prizes.	1
Vogue WP:VOGUEWP:VOGUE 📌		1 2 3 4	2018	Vogue is considered generally reliable. Potentially contentious statements made by Vogue interview subjects can be attributed to the individual.	1
Voice of America (VOA, VoA) WP:RSPVOAWP:RSPVOA 📌		2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2024	Voice of America is an American state-owned international radio broadcaster. It is considered to be generally reliable, though some editors express concerns regarding its neutrality and editorial independence from the U.S. government.	1
Vox (Recode) WP:RSPVOXWP:RSPVOX 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2024	Vox is considered generally reliable. Some editors say that Vox is a partisan source in the field of politics. See also: Polygon (pre-2025), The Verge, New York	1
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) WP:WSJWP:WSJ 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2024	Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news. Use WP:NEWSBLOG to evaluate the newspaper's blogs, including Washington Wire. Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces.	1
The Washington Free Beacon (2019–present) WP:FREEBEACONWP:FREEBEACON 📌		2025 1 2	2025	Most editors considered the Washington Free Beacon to have become generally reliable during the editorship of Eliana Johnson. However, some editors consider it a partisan source. All editors should be aware that the Free Beacon sometimes publishes satirical or humorous articles which should be distinguished from their usual journalistic work. Some editors found articles by Andrew Stiles (The Stiles Section) generally unreliable.	1
The Washington Post (The Post, WaPo, TWP) WP:WAPOWP:WAPO 📌		20	2024	Most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable. Some editors note that WP:NEWSBLOG should be used to evaluate blog posts on The Washington Post's website.	1
The Weekly Standard		1 2 3	2014	The Weekly Standard was considered generally reliable, but much of their published content was opinion and should be attributed as such. Most editors say this magazine was a partisan source. The Weekly Standard shut down in 2018; website content is no longer available unless archived.	1
The Wire (India)		2023 1 2 3 4 5	2023	The Wire is considered generally reliable under the news organizations guideline.	1   2   3
Wired (Wired UK)		1 2 3 4 5 6 A	2018	Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology.	1   2
TheWrap WP:THEWRAPWP:THEWRAP 📌		1 2	2017	As an industry trade publication, there is consensus that TheWrap is a good source for entertainment news and media analysis. There is no consensus regarding the reliability of TheWrap's articles on other topics.	1
Yahoo! News WP:YAHOONEWSWP:YAHOONEWS 📌		12	2024	Yahoo! News runs both original reporting and syndicated feeds of other sources. Editors have treated the original reporting as an ordinary WP:NEWSORG, and thus presumed generally reliable. Take care with syndicated content, which varies from highly reliable sources to very unreliable sources. Syndicated content should be evaluated as you would evaluate the original source. Syndicated content will have the original source's name and/or logo at the top.	1
ZDNET (pre-October 2020)		2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2024	ZDNet is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles prior to its acquisition by Red Ventures in October 2020.	1