Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

This is a list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. This list attempts to summarize prior consensus and consolidate links to the most in-depth and recent discussions. 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 detailed information on a source and its use. Consensus can change, and if more recent discussions considering new evidence or argument reaches a different consensus, this list should be updated to reflect those changes.

How to use this list

Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. 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 information about the subject themselves. Conversely, high quality sources may not be reliable for highly technical subjects that fall well outside their normal circle of competence, 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 others may be merely opinion pieces, that represent mainly the personal views of the author, and depend on their personal reliability as a source.

Consider also the weight of the claim you are supporting, which will greatly affect the reliability of the source needed, with mundane uncontroversial details among the lowest burden of proof, and medical content or that related to biographies of living persons among the highest.

When in doubt, defer to the discussions linked to here, rather than to this list itself as a guide, as they will offer the greatest context about context, how or why a source should be used, and what may or may not be problematic.

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 at the reliable source noticeboard.

Before doing so, please thoroughly familiarize yourself with content of previous discussions, and particularly the reasoning why a 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.

Sources

Source Status (legend) Discussions Usage
List Last Summary
Amazon.com
alt = Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 2017 User reviews on Amazon.com are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Amazon.com is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), although it is unnecessary to cite Amazon.com when the work itself may serve as a source for that information (e.g., authors' names and ISBNs). Future release dates may be unreliable. uses
Ancestry.com
alt = Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2015 Ancestry.com hosts a huge database of primary source documents including marriage records, census records, and marriage records. Some of these sources may be usable in certain circumstances, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred. Ancestry.com also hosts a huge amount of user-submitted content, none of which is reliable. uses
The Blaze
alt = Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2018 The Blaze is generally considered unreliable for facts. In some cases, it may be usable for attributed opinions. uses
Breitbart
alt = Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2016 Breitbart is not a reliable source in most cases. The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories,[6] and intentionally misleading stories.[9] uses
BuzzFeed
alt = No consensus
1 2 3 2018 Distinctions between BuzzFeed and its now separate site, BuzzFeed News, may need to be examined in discussion. uses
CounterPunch
alt = No consensus
1 2 3 4 2016 uses
The Daily Beast
alt = No consensus
1 2 2018 Past discussions regarding The Daily Beast are lacking in depth. Multiple users have expressed the opinion that it is generally reliable, citing a history of editorial oversight and the leadership of those such as Tina Brown. However, it was also described as "largely an opinion piece aggregator", for which special care must be taken for use in supporting controversial statements of fact related to biographies of living persons. uses
The Daily Caller
alt = No consensus
1 2 2013 Discussions on The Daily Caller are dated, with the latest being in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. A number of editors indicated that TDC is a partisan source with regard to US politics. Earlier discussion leaned more toward consideration of TDC as a reliable source, while later discussion leaned more toward unreliability. uses
Daily Express
alt = Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2018 The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail (see below). uses
Daily Kos
alt = No consensus
1 2 2017 There is no consensus about the reliability of the Daily Kos. Some content published on its website is user-submitted. uses
Daily Mail
alt = Generally unreliable
Treffpunkt.svg RfC[a] 2018 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. uses
Discogs
alt = Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2018 The content on Discogs is user-submitted, and is therefore not considered a reliable source.[10] uses
Find a Grave
alt = Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2016 The content on Find a Grave is user-submitted, and is therefore not considered a reliable source.[11] Links to Find a Grave may sometimes be included in the external links section of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia. Use care that the Find a Grave page does not itself contain prohibited content, such as copyright violations. uses
Forbes.com (contributors)
alt = Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2018 Forbes.com includes "contributor" articles, which constitute most content on Forbes.com, and are written without much editorial oversight. This generally means articles by contributors can be considered opinion pieces, although content written by Forbes staff can be considered reliable. The last link (archive 242) mentions that Forbes.com is starting to do some quality control, but in general the consensus seems to be that Forbes "sites" shouldn't be used as sources unless the author is an expert in their field and writing within that field, and that they should be avoided in establishing notability. uses
Forbes.com (staff)
alt = Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2018 Forbes.com includes 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. uses
Fox News
alt = Generally reliable
Treffpunkt.svg RfC 1Treffpunkt.svg RfC 2

[b]

2018 The first RfC in 2010 concluded: "Consensus is that while Fox may not always be reliable it is a Reliable Source", and pointed to the WP:NEWSORG guideline. The second RfC was withdrawn. Most editors consider Fox News a partisan news organization, and defer to the respective guidelines for these types of sources. Editors are advised to exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics, and to properly attribute statements of opinion. uses
Hope not Hate (Searchlight)
alt = No consensus
Treffpunkt.svg RfC

1 2 3 4

2018 Most commenters declined to make a general statement about publications from Hope not Hate. Reliability should be assessed on a case by case basis, while taking context into account. Because they are an advocacy group, they are a biased and opinionated source and any use should be attributed. uses
HuffPost (The Huffington Post)
alt = Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2017 HuffPost is a Pulitzer Prize winning news website.[12] It is generally considered a reliable source, however it also publishes syndicated content and guest blog material, which should be scrutinized accordingly. uses
IMDb
alt = Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2018 The content on IMDb is user submitted, and the site is therefore considered unreliable by the majority of editors. Some have argued that certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, although there is no broad agreement as to whether this constitutes bona fide fact checking, or what portions of the site, if any, should be considered reliable. 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 also WP:ELPEREN). uses
Independent Journal Review
alt = No consensus
1 2 2018 There is no consensus about the reliability of the Independent Journal Review. uses
InfoWars
alt = Generally unreliable
Treffpunkt.svg RfC

1

2018 InfoWars is a conspiracy theorist and fake news website.[25] It is a generally unreliable source. The use of InfoWars as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. InfoWars should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles. InfoWars is on the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. uses
Media Matters for America
alt = No consensus
1 2 3 4 2018 There is no consensus about the reliability of Media Matters for America. uses
Media Research Center (Newsbusters)
alt = No consensus
1 2 3 2017 There is no consensus about the reliability of Newsbusters. uses
Newsmax
alt = No consensus
1 2 2013 Discussions regarding Newsmax are dated, with the most recent occurring in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Discussions are also lacking in depth, and in focus on evaluating this source specifically. Newsmax has been cited in discussions of other sources as a low benchmark for a partisan outlet with regard to US politics, and for a propensity for comparatively fringe viewpoints. uses
The New York Times
alt = Generally reliable
1 2 3 2018 Per this discussion and guidance at WP:MEDPOP, popular press sources such as the New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims. uses
PolitiFact
alt = Generally reliable
Treffpunkt.svg RfC 2016 PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates. PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate (of the statements checked by PolitiFact), provided that attribution is given, as a primary source. uses
Press TV
alt = No consensus
1 2 2012 There is no consensus about the reliability of Press TV. Like other state-run media in countries with low press freedom, it may be reliable for uncontroversial statements of fact, or for describing the viewpoint of the Iranian government. Press TV is particularly known for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including Holocaust denial.[26] uses
Quackwatch
alt = Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2015 Quackwatch is generally considered a reliable source. Attribution may be necessary. In some cases, it's preferable to cite the sources cited by Quackwatch. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant. uses
RT (Russia Today)
alt = No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 2017 There is no consensus about the reliability of RT (formerly Russia Today). Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of fact. However, RT is frequently described as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation,[30] including the promotion of conspiracy theories.[35] It is not generally reliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. The only RSN discussion that was formally closed (the third link to the left) discussed whether it was acceptable in more general circumstances and found no consensus.[36] uses
Salon
alt = No consensus
1 2 3 2018 There is no consensus about the reliability of Salon. It is generally regarded as an opinion source. uses
The Skeptic's Dictionary
alt = Generally reliable
1 2 3 2008 The Skeptic's Dictionary is generally considered a reliable source. Attribution may be necessary. In some cases, it's preferable to cite the sources cited by The Skeptic's Dictionary. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant. uses
SPLC
alt = Generally reliable
1 2 3 2018 The Southern Poverty Law Center is generally considered a reliable source, but their views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be properly attributed. uses
The Sun
alt = Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2017 This sensationalist tabloid is often compared unfavorably to the Daily Mail (!). uses
TheWrap
alt = Generally reliable
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. uses
ThinkProgress
alt = No consensus
Treffpunkt.svg RfC

1

2013 Discussions of ThinkProgress are dated, with the most recent in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Some consider ThinkProgress a form of WP:NEWSBLOG, and reliable for attributed statements of opinion. Others argue that ThinkProgress is a generally reliable source under WP:NEWSORG, albeit with due consideration for their political leanings. ThinkProgress may be considered a partisan source for the purposes of US politics. uses
TechCrunch
alt = No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 2018 Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying WP:V, but may be less useful for purpose of determining WP:N. uses
TMZ
alt = No consensus
1 2 3 4 2015 There is no consensus about the reliability of TMZ. uses
Townhall
alt = No consensus
1 2 2010 Discussions regarding Townhall are dated, with the most recent occurring in 2010. Circumstances may have changed, but editors at the time indicated that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece, although they may not be reliable for unattributed statements of fact, and context will dictate whether the opinion of the author as such, meets the standard of WP:DUEWEIGHT. Reprinting of otherwise reliable sources, such as stories from the Associated Press were considered reliable, but may be better sourced to the AP directly, rather than to the reprinting in Townhall. uses
Venezuelanalysis
alt = No consensus
1 2 3 2015 There is no consensus about the reliability of Venezuelanalysis. Though it can be useful for some news related to Venezuela, Venezuelanalysis states that "it is clearly pro-Bolivarian Revolution" and supports the Venezuelan government. Because of this, it is recommended that this source be properly attributed.[37] uses
The Verge
alt = Generally reliable
Treffpunkt.svg RfC 2018 There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. There is no consensus regarding The Verge's articles on "culture". uses
The Washington Examiner
alt = No consensus
1 2 3 4 2017 There is no consensus about the reliability of The Washington Examiner. uses
The Washington Times
alt = No consensus
1 2 2017 There is a general consensus that if the The Washington Times is to be considered reliable, it is only marginally so, and is to be avoided when better sourcing is available. TWT may be considered partisan with regard to US politics, with particular care given to issues of Climate Change and US race relations in general. However, the nature of TWT with regard to US politics has been a contentious issue among editors, with both its proponents and detractors. uses
The Weekly Standard
alt = Generally reliable
1 2 2014 The Weekly Standard is generally considered a reliable source, but much of their published content is opinion and should be attributed as such. uses
WorldNetDaily
alt = Generally unreliable
1 2 2010 WorldNetDaily is not considered a reliable source for most purposes. The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[47] uses
YouTube
alt = Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 2016 Most videos on youtube.com are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos not from official accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia at all. See also WP:Youtube and WP:Video links. uses

See also

Notes

  1. ^ See also these prior discussions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
  2. ^ See also these prior discussions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

References

  1. ^ *Jessica Roy (November 14, 2016). "What is the alt-right? A refresher course on Steve Bannon's fringe brand of conservatism". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Under Bannon's leadership, Breitbart published ... articles regurgitating conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton and her staff. 
    • Ken Thomas, Catherine Lucey & Julie Pace (November 17, 2016). "Trump picks national security adviser". Associated Press. Bannon's news website has peddled conspiracy theories 
    • Benjy Sarlin (November 14, 2016). "Analysis: Breitbart's Steve Bannon leads the 'alt right' to the White House". NBC News. [A] major question moving forward will be how the Breitbart wing gets along with more traditional Republican leaders uncomfortable with its emphasis on race-baiting headlines and conspiracy theories. 
    • Gregory Krieg (August 22, 2016). "The new birthers: Debunking the Hillary Clinton health conspiracy". CNN. Breitbart News ... has also been among the most consistent and highly trafficked peddlers of the conspiracy theories surrounding Clinton's health. 
    • Robert Farley (November 14, 2013). "The Keg Stand Obamacare Ads". FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. A story on the conservative website Breitbart.com also claimed it was a 'taxpayer-funded' campaign. But the ads are not taxpayer-funded. 
  2. ^ Lori Robertson (June 16, 2016). "Trump's ISIS Conspiracy Theory". FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Donald Trump said a report on a conservative news site proved he was 'right' in suggesting President Obama supported terrorists. It doesn't. ... It's the kind of claim that we'd debunk in an article on viral conspiracy theories. 
  3. ^ Louis Jacobson (June 15, 2016). "Donald Trump suggests Barack Obama supported ISIS, but that's a conspiracy theory". PolitiFact. 
  4. ^ "Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?". Snopes.com. Retrieved July 14, 2017. 
  5. ^ Bhat, Prashanth (January 19, 2018). "Advertisements in the Age of Hyper-Partisan Media". The Trump Presidency, Journalism, and Democracy. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-39201-3 – via Google Books. 
  6. ^ [1][2][3][4][5]
  7. ^ Viveca Novak (July 21, 2010). "Shirley Sherrod's Contextual Nightmare". FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. We've posted no shortage of pieces on political attacks that leave context on the cutting room floor to give the public a misleading impression. ... The latest victim of the missing context trick is U.S. Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod. ... a clip of several minutes of her roughly 45-minute speech surfaced on conservative Andrew Breitbart's website, where he labeled her remarks 'racist' and proof of "bigotry" on the part of the NAACP. ... It quickly became clear that the climax, not to mention the moral, of Sherrod's tale had been edited out of the version Breitbart posted. 
  8. ^ II, Scott A. Eldridge (September 26, 2017). Online Journalism from the Periphery: Interloper Media and the Journalistic Field. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-37005-5 – via Google Books. 
  9. ^ [7][8]
  10. ^ "About us". Discogs. 
  11. ^ "Contribute – Find A Grave". www.findagrave.com. 
  12. ^ Flamm, Matthew (April 16, 2012). "Digital media takes home a Pulitzer". Crain's New York Business. Retrieved April 17, 2012. 
  13. ^ Oppenheim, Maya (2018-03-04). "Dozens of leading brands pull ads from far right conspiracy site InfoWars' YouTube channel". Independent. 
  14. ^ Hafner, Josh (2018-05-24). "Sandy Hook families suing Alex Jones aren't the only ones to threaten conspiracy theorist". USA Today. 
  15. ^ Murphy, Paul P. (2018-03-03). "Advertisers flee InfoWars founder Alex Jones' YouTube channel". CNN tech. 
  16. ^ Lima, Cristiano (2018-03-13). "InfoWars, Alex Jones sued for defamation over Charlottesville claims". Politico. 
  17. ^ "Families of Sandy Hook victims could force Alex Jones to admit his outrageous lie". Boston Globe. 
  18. ^ "Why Tommy Robinson Was Jailed, and Why U.S. Rightwingers Care". TIME. 
  19. ^ "Republicans press social media giants on anti-conservative 'bias' that Dems call 'nonsense'". CBS19. 
  20. ^ Shantz, Jeff (2016). Manufacturing Phobias: The Political Production of Fear in Theory and Practice. p. 231. ISBN 978-1-4426-2884-7. 
  21. ^ Sandlin, Jennifer (2017). Paranoid Pedagogies: Education, Culture, and Paranoia. p. 170. ISBN 978-3-319-64764-7. 
  22. ^ "Free Speech Systems LLC". Bloomberg L.P. 
  23. ^ "Roger Stone, former Donald Trump adviser, lands InfoWars gig with Alex Jones". The Washington Times. December 31, 2017. 
  24. ^ "The Lost Art of Privacy". National Review. December 15, 2017. 
  25. ^ [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]
  26. ^ Anti-Defamation League (17 October 2013). "Iran's Press TV: Broadcasting Anti-Semitism to the English-Speaking World" (PDF). Retrieved 2018-08-08. 
  27. ^ Julia Ioffe (October 2010). "What Is Russia Today?". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2018-08-08. 
  28. ^ Paul C, Matthews M (2016). "The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model". 
  29. ^ *Bidder B (13 August 2013). "Russia Today: Putin's Weapon in the War of Images". Spiegel Online. Retrieved 2018-08-08. 
    • Gillette F (14 March 2014). "On the Kremlin's Overseas Propaganda News Channel, Putin Really Rules". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 2018-08-08. 
    • "RT: News channel or propaganda tool?". Al Jazeera. 26 Jan 2012. Retrieved 2018-08-08. 
    • Brown E (20 March 2014). "Russia Today Drops All Pretense of Editorial Independence, Publishes Pro-Putin Propaganda". Internation Business Times. Retrieved 2018-08-08. 
    • Harding L (18 Dec 2009). "Russia Today launches first UK ad blitz". The Guardian. Retrieved 2018-08-08. 
    • MacFarquhar N (28 August 2016). "A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories". New York Times. Retrieved 2018-08-08. 
    • Rutenberg J (13 September 2017). "RT, Sputnik and Russia's New Theory of War". New York Times. Retrieved 2018-08-08. 
  30. ^ [27][28][29]
  31. ^ Bidder B (13 August 2013). "Russia Today: Putin's Weapon in the War of Images". Spiegel Online. Retrieved 2018-08-08. 
  32. ^ Rutenberg J (13 September 2017). "RT, Sputnik and Russia's New Theory of War". New York Times. Retrieved 2018-08-08. 
  33. ^ Scherr S (August 2010). "Russian TV Channel Pushes 'Patriot' Conspiracy Theories". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2018-08-08. 
  34. ^ Altman A (22 July 2014). "Russian Television Under Spotlight After Malaysia Airlines Crash in Ukraine". Time. Retrieved 2018-08-08. 
  35. ^ [31][32][33][34]
  36. ^ One 2012 RfC at the article talk page found that RT was generally reliable in these cases. However, this result occurred before most of the previously cited sources were published, and it was generally disregarded during the subsequent discussions.
  37. ^ "Tackling Institutions One By One: An Interview With Gregory Wilpert". the main success of Venezuelanalysis.com has been that it provides a left social movement perspective on the Bolivarian Revolution in the English language. It's a fairly rare perspective, in that it is clearly pro-Bolivarian Revolution, 
  38. ^ Bruno, Debra; Bruno, Debra (February 21, 2016). "There's the major media. And then there's the 'other' White House press corps" – via washingtonpost.com. Les Kinsolving, a reporter for the far-right World Net Daily, was a familiar White House gadfly from the days of the Nixon administration on. 
  39. ^ Massing, Michael. "Un-American". Columbia Journalism Review. Far-right Web sites like World Net Daily and Newsmax.com floated all kinds of specious stories about Obama that quickly careened around the blogosphere and onto talk radio. 
  40. ^ Burns, John F. (May 5, 2009). "Britain Identifies 16 Barred From Entering U.K." The New York Times. New York City, NY: Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. Retrieved Mar 26, 2010. according to WorldNetDaily.com, a conservative Web site. 
  41. ^ "Fact-checking President-elect Trump's news conference". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-05-26. He frequently claimed that Obama had spent $2 million to cover this up — a number he plucked out of World Net Daily, which promotes conservative-leaning conspiracy theories. 
  42. ^ "The highly reliable, definitely-not-crazy places where Donald Trump gets his news". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-05-26. WND is a leader in preserving murder cover-up theories, publishing 'exclusive reports' linking the Clintons to a plot to kill their longtime friend. 
  43. ^ CNN, Gregory Krieg. "Trump's supporters and their bloody words of war". CNN. Retrieved 2017-05-26. Writing in the right-wing site WorldNetDaily, Pat Buchanan... 
  44. ^ "Our Politics Enables Donald Trump to Lie and Get Away With It". April 15, 2016. This isolates conservative news seekers to Fox News, conservative talk radio, Breitbart.com, or even websites further out on the fringe such as World Net Daily. 
  45. ^ Michael Brendan, Dougherty. "Conservative Radio Host Says Andrew Breitbart Might Have Been Assassinated". Business Insider. Retrieved 2017-02-17. The report comes from WorldNetDaily, a right-wing website that periodically promotes conspiracy theories about Obama's birth certificate. 
  46. ^ Selk, Avi. "In rumors around a DNC staffer's death, a whiff of a Clinton-era conspiracy theory". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-05-17. One of Starr’s investigators had been “threatened to short-circuit the probe,” Joseph Farah wrote in 2003 on his website, WorldNetDaily.com, which would become an incubator for birther conspiracy theories in the Obama era. 
  47. ^ [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&oldid=860548990"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA