Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
 | This project page is actively undergoing a major edit for a little while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. This page was last edited at 13:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC) (6 years ago) – this estimate is cached, . Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited for a significant time. If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Under construction}} between editing sessions. |
 | This is an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources page. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. |
This is a list of sources that editors frequently discuss on Wikipedia. Some of these are currently accepted, some are currently opposed, and some depend on the circumstances. Consensus can change.
| Status | Source | Discussion(s) | Date of discussion | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Generally unreliable
|
Breitbart | |||
| Generally unreliable
|
Daily Mail | Daily Mail RfC | February 8, 2017 | The Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. |
 Possibly reliable
|
Salon | |||
 Generally reliable
|
The New York Times |
What if I disagree?
Lorem ipsum here are your options...