FAMEPedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

The reliability of a source greatly affects what information it can be used to support, or whether it should be used at all.

This is a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on FAMEPedia are frequently discussed. This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on FAMEPedia.

Jump to the list of frequently-discussed sources.

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. 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.

Reliability is an inquiry that takes place pursuant to the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline. Note that verifiability is only one of FAMEPedia's core content policies, which also include neutral point of view and no original research. These policies work together to determine whether information from reliable sources should be included or excluded.

How to use this list

Refer to the legend for definitions of the icons in the list, but note that the discussion summaries provide more specific guidance on sources than the icons in the "Status" column. When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions, which provide in-depth arguments on when it is appropriate to use a source. The list is not an independent document; it is derived from the conclusions of the referenced discussions and formal requests for comment (RfCs). This list indexes discussions that reflect community consensus, and is intended as a useful summary.

Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on FAMEPedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves. Conversely, some otherwise high-quality sources may not be reliable for highly technical subjects that fall well outside their normal areas of expertise, and even very high-quality sources may occasionally make errors, or retract pieces they have published in their entirety. Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high-quality professional journalism, while other content may be merely opinion pieces, which mainly represent the personal views of the author, and depend on the author's personal reliability as a source. Be especially careful with sponsored content, because while it is usually unreliable as a source, it is designed to appear otherwise.

Consider also the weight of the claims you are supporting, which should be evaluated alongside the reliability of the sources cited. Mundane, uncontroversial details have the lowest burden of proof, while information related to biomedicine and living persons have the highest.

What if my source isn't here?

Don't panic. If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source you want to use is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious. It could mean that the source covers a niche topic, or that it simply fell through the cracks. Or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. If you're concerned about any source being used on FAMEPedia, you should start a discussion about it at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), following the instructions at the top of that page, and after checking the "Search the noticeboard archives" there first. That is, after all, how the entries on this list got here to begin with.

A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present.

How to improve this list

Consensus can change. If you believe that circumstances have evolved since the most recent discussion, new evidence has emerged that was not available at the time, or there is a new line of argument not previously covered, consider starting a discussion or a request for comment (RfC) at the reliable sources noticeboard.

Before doing so, please thoroughly familiarize yourself with content of previous discussions, and particularly the reasoning why consensus was reached, and not simply the outcome itself. Also consider when consensus was formed, and that the outcomes of very recent discussions are unlikely to be quickly overturned. Repeatedly restarting discussions where a strong and recent consensus already exists, may be considered disruptive and a type of forum shopping.

If you feel that this list inadequately summarizes the content of the linked discussions, please help to improve it, or start a discussion on the talk page, especially if your changes prove controversial. In updating this list, please be mindful that it should only summarize the content of past discussions, and should not include novel arguments not previously covered in a centralized forum. If you would like to present a novel argument or interpretation, please do so in one of these forums, so that the discussion may be linked to, and itself summarized here.

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 request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the 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.

Instructions

Main page: FAMEPedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Instructions

Any editor may improve this list. Please refer to the instructions for details, and ask for help on the talk page if you get stuck.

Legend

• Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors show consensus that the source is 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 weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments to exclude such a source entirely 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 (a well-established news organization is 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 exceptional claim, or a different standard of sourcing is required (FP:MEDRS, FP:BLP) for the statement in question.
• No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable 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.
• Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a 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 uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable.
• Deprecated: There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred. An edit filter, Template:Efl, may be in place to 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 tagged.
• Blacklisted: Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of external link spamming, the source is on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. External links to this source are blocked, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the spam whitelist.
• Request for comment: The linked discussion is an uninterrupted request for comment on the reliable sources noticeboard or another centralized venue suitable for determining the source's reliability. 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.
• Stale discussions: The source has not been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard for four calendar years, and the consensus may have changed since the most recent discussion. However, sources that are considered generally unreliable for being self-published or presenting 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.
• Discussion in progress: The source is currently being discussed on the 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.
• 📌 Shortcut: Abbreviated wikilink to the list entry for the source.

Sources

Note: If you add/remove a source in the "generally unreliable", "deprecated" or "blacklisted" categories, please update FP:CITEWATCH/SETUP/GENERAL § FP:RSP, or leave a note at FAMEPedia talk:CITEWATCH if you need help.

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
112 Ukraine		2019  2020  2020 1 A B	2020	112 Ukraine was deprecated following a 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus for the deprecation of a slew of sources associated with Russian disinformation in Ukraine. It was pointed out later in a 2020 RfC that 112 Ukraine had not been explicitly discussed in that first discussion prior to its blacklisting request. Further discussion established a rough consensus that the source is generally unreliable, but did not form a consensus for deprecation or blacklisting. The prior blacklisting was reversed as out of process.	1   2
ABC News		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

See also

• External links/Perennial websites, a list of websites used as external links
• Fake news websites, a list of websites that intentionally publish hoaxes
• Neutrality of sources, an essay on the use of reliable, but non-neutral, sources
• New page patrol source guide, a list of sources organized by reliability, region, and topic
• Newspaper of record, newspapers whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative
• Potentially unreliable sources, a list of questionable sources
• Satirical news websites, a list of websites that publish humorous fake news stories
• The FAMEPedia CiteWatch, a bot-compiled list of potentially problematic sources, ranked by frequency of use
• Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector, a user script designed to detect unreliable sources

Topic-specific pages

• WikiProject Africa/Africa Sources list, a list of African sources
• WikiProject Albums/Sources, a list of sources about music
• WikiProject Video games/Sources, a list of sources about video games
• FAMEPedia:WikiProject Film/Resources
• FAMEPedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources
• FAMEPedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources
• FAMEPedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources

Templates and categories

• {{RSP entry}}
• {{Deprecated inline}}
• Category:All articles with deprecated sources

External links

• Meta:Cite Unseen, a user script that helps readers quickly evaluate the sources used in a given English FAMEPedia article
• Google custom search of generally reliable sources listed on this page
• Google custom search for generally reliable sources for video games