![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8b/Stop_hand.svg/120px-Stop_hand.svg.png)
Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances. Use of these sources may generate edit filter warnings for registered users and may be automatically reverted for edits from IP addresses.
Deprecation is a formalization that arises from Wikipedia’s normal processes for evaluating sources. It primarily exists to save time by avoiding the endless discussion of the same issues, and to raise awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question. For example, if editors are unfamiliar with either the specific sources or the general sourcing requirements, they can be saved the experience of having their work undone later on. Deprecation can be proposed with a request for comment at the reliable sources noticeboard, and the restrictions are only applied if there is community consensus.[1]
Since there are an endless number of poor sources, there are also an endless number of sources that would be deprecated if we bothered to have discussions on them. These sources have always been de facto deprecated as a normal result of our policies and guidelines that try to ensure that we use reputable sources. A discussion that results in deprecation may involve a change or clarification of editorial consensus (thus resulting in a change of current practice), but the only effect of deprecation alone is to explicitly codify the source’s pre-existing status, as already determined by Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements. It does not inherently change how they are evaluated under those requirements.
Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable. They may be those that are most often cited by unaware editors, or those that come up in discussion the most often – for example, due to real-world controversy, borderline reliability, or a tendency to be promoted on-wiki despite a lack of reliability. Since there are many reasons that a source may be unreliable, the specific reasons for deprecation vary from case to case. The first source to be formally deprecated was the Daily Mail, which was determined by community consensus in a 2017 RfC to have a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". This RfC became a landmark decision, and new deprecation proposals are usually based on language from its closing summary.
Deprecating a source is different from blocking the source (blacklisting), which is generally done to address spam-related issues.
Effects of deprecation
Deprecated sources are restricted in three ways, most of which were discussed in the 2017 Daily Mail RfC:
- The source is designated as generally unreliable.
- Citing the source as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. Images and quotations should also be avoided, since they can be manipulated or fabricated. If the source contains material that cannot be found in more reliable sources, it may be valid to assume that the material in question is incorrect. The source may only be used when there is a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources.
- The source is no longer used to determine notability.
- Typically, the source is listed on User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. XLinkBot automatically reverts links to the source that are added by unregistered users and accounts under seven days old. This behavior is subject to restrictions, which are described in the lists themselves.
- Typically, an edit filter set to "warn" is implemented, which displays a message to editors having contributed more than 7 days and who are attempting to cite the source in an article, notifying them of the existing consensus and asking them if they want to proceed. At this point, the editor may choose to cancel the edit, or dismiss the warning and complete the edit.
- This measure is implemented through filter 869 (hist · log), which marks all edits that trigger the filter with the "use of deprecated (unreliable) source" tag.
Deprecated sources with few valid use cases may be blocked due to persistent abuse. This involves the source being added to the spam blacklist and/or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, which prevents editors from saving contributions containing a link to the source. It is not necessary for a source to be deprecated to be blocked, nor are all deprecated sources blocked.
Acceptable uses of deprecated sources
Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation, contrary to what has been reported in media headlines.[2] In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. While some deprecated sources have been completely eliminated as references, others have not.
Looking forward, however, the addition of new references from deprecated sources is extremely rare. Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. The verifiability policy provides an additional exception: a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in WP:ABOUTSELF (see also WP:SPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB). An external link to the source can be included on an article about the source. Editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia. If an exception applies, the source can be evaluated and used like any other. Deprecation does not change the application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the use of all sources continues to be governed by WP:RS and WP:V.
Additional exceptions may be specific to individual sources as summarized in the RfC: for example, the 2017 closure of the Daily Mail RfC mentioned that participants said it may have been more reliable historically.
What deprecation is and isn't
Deprecation is a status indicating that a source almost always falls below Wikipedia's standards of reliability, and that uses of the source must fall within one of the established acceptable uses. Establishing new types of acceptable use requires a demonstration that the source is uniquely reliable in those particular circumstances compared to other possible uses of the source.
Deprecating a source is a weaker measure than blocking or banning it, and the terms are not comparable to each other. Wikipedia's equivalent to blocking is blacklisting, which is an entirely separate mechanism, and websites are usually only blacklisted if they are involved in spam-related issues, such as external link spamming. Blacklisted sources are listed at the English Wikipedia spam blacklist and the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, with new proposals submitted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. External links to blacklisted sources cannot be included in edits, and editors will be shown an error message. In contrast, deprecated sources can technically be entered by editors as long as they are not on either of the spam blacklists.
How does a source become deprecated?
To start a discussion on deprecation, start a request for comment at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN).[1] Editors will then evaluate the source and determine whether there is a consensus for deprecation. However, if the source is not already de facto deprecated as current practice, or if the source has not already been discussed at length in the past, it may be a better idea to start a regular RSN discussion instead.
In general, a source that is proposed for deprecation should be either frequently used or frequently discussed. Additionally, in order to prevent instruction creep, sources that should be particularly obvious (for example, satire sites such as The Onion or The Babylon Bee) are unlikely to be formally deprecated unless there are editors seriously arguing for their reliability. Similarly, the fact that there may be non-deprecated sources which are just as bad as (or even worse than) a source under consideration is not considered to be a valid argument against deprecation.[3]
What sources are de facto deprecated?
Any source that fails the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances. While we will never have an exhaustive list, most deprecation to date has focused on sources that promote known falsehoods, particularly debunked conspiracy theories. This does not have to be intentional and may be a result of factors such as poor fact checking or sensationalism. One might assume, for instance, that fake news websites are effectively deprecated, as are sources that promote pseudoscience or denialism. The pages on potentially unreliable sources and perennially discussed sources may also be helpful.
In a highly-attended 2020 discussion, there was consensus to deprecate OpIndia and Swarajya. For procedural reasons, these sources were not formally deprecated (because the discussion was not a request for comment), but they can be assumed to have essentially the same status. In another case, de facto deprecation was subsequently formalized by RfC for the category of state-sponsored disinformation, in order to confirm the use of measures such as edit filtering.[4]
Currently deprecated sources
Since each source proposed for deprecation has to be discussed separately, we cannot formally deprecate all possible sources that deserve it. As described above, the fact that an unreliable source is listed here does not make it inherently different from an unreliable source that is not listed here.
Source | Status (legend) |
Discussions | Uses | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
List | Last | Summary | |||
Al Mayadeen WP:ALMAYADEEN 📌 |
![]() |
![]()
|
2023 |
Al Mayadeen is a Lebanese pan-Arabist news channel. It was deprecated in a 2023 RFC. Some editors believe it publishes lies or misrepresents sources, some describe it as propaganda. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
ANNA News (Abkhazian Network News Agency, Analytical Network News Agency) | ![]() |
![]() |
2022 |
ANNA News was deprecated in the 2022 RfC. It is a pro-Kremlin news agency that has been described as propaganda and has published fabricated information. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
Baidu Baike WP:BAIDUBAIKE 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2020 |
Baidu Baike was deprecated in the 2020 RfC as it is similar to an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source. Although edits are reviewed by Baidu administrators before they are published, most editors believe the editorial standards of Baidu Baike to be very low, and do not see any evidence of fact-checking. The Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures kuso originated from Baidu Baike. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() 3 ![]() ![]() 4 ![]() ![]() |
bestgore.com | ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
2021 |
There is consensus that bestgore.com is a shock site with no credibility. It is deprecated and has been added to the spam blacklist. bestgore.com was shut down in 2020; website content is no longer accessible unless archived. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
Breitbart News WP:BREITBART 📌 |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
2023 |
Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart.com is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories as fact. The 2018 RfC showed a very clear consensus that Breitbart News should be deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail. This does not mean Breitbart News can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary. Breitbart News has directly attacked and doxed Wikipedia editors. Posting or linking to another editor's personal information is prohibited under the outing policy, unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() |
China Global Television Network (CGTN, CCTV International) WP:CGTN 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2020 |
China Global Television Network was deprecated in the 2020 RfC for publishing false or fabricated information. Many editors consider CGTN a propaganda outlet, and some editors express concern over CGTN's airing of forced confessions. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
The Cradle WP:THECRADLE 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2024 |
The Cradle is an online magazine focusing on West Asia/Middle East-related topics. It was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to a history of publishing conspiracy theories and wide referencing of other deprecated sources while doing so. Editors consider The Cradle to have a poor reputation for fact-checking. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
Crunchbase WP:CRUNCHBASE 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2019 |
In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate Crunchbase, but also to continue allowing external links to the website. A significant proportion of Crunchbase's data is user-generated content. The technical details are that it is only listed on User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, so citations to Crunchbase are only automatically reverted if they are in ref tags in addition to meeting the standard criteria. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
The Daily Caller WP:DAILYCALLER 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2019 |
The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() 3 ![]() ![]() |
Daily Mail (MailOnline) WP:DAILYMAIL 📌 WP:RSPDM 📌 |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
2022 |
In the 2017 RfC, the Daily Mail was the first source to be deprecated on Wikipedia, and the decision was challenged and reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. (Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail.) The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail. The deprecation includes other editions of the UK Daily Mail, such as the Irish and Scottish editions. The UK Daily Mail is not to be confused with other publications named Daily Mail that are unaffiliated with the UK paper. The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated Charleston Daily Mail, and reference links to that publication are still present. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() 3 ![]() ![]() 4 ![]() ![]() 5 ![]() ![]() 6 ![]() ![]() 7 ![]() ![]() 8 ![]() ![]() 9 ![]() ![]() 10 ![]() ![]() 11 ![]() ![]() 12 ![]() ![]() 13 ![]() ![]() |
Daily Star (UK) WP:DAILYSTAR 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2020 |
The Daily Star was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its reputation for publishing false or fabricated information. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() |
The Epoch Times (New Tang Dynasty Television, Vision Times, Vision China Times) WP:EPOCHTIMES 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2022 |
The Epoch Times was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Most editors classify The Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the Falun Gong, and consider the publication a biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories as fact. | 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 ![]() ![]() |
FrontPage Magazine (FPM, FrontPageMag.com) WP:FPM 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2022 |
In the 2020 RfC, there was unanimous consensus to deprecate FrontPage Magazine. Editors consider the publication generally unreliable, and believe that its opinions should be assigned little to no weight. The publication is considered biased or opinionated. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() |
The Gateway Pundit (TGP) | ![]() |
![]() |
2019 |
The Gateway Pundit was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site is unacceptable as a source. It is unreliable for statements of fact, and given to publishing hoax articles and reporting conspiracy theories as fact. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao) WP:GLOBALTIMES 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2021 |
The Global Times is a tabloid owned by the Chinese Communist Party. It was deprecated near-unanimously in a 2020 RfC which found that it publishes false or fabricated information, including pro-Chinese government propaganda and conspiracy theories.
As with other Chinese news sites, the Global Times website may host announcements from government agencies not written by the tabloid. Authors are advised to find alternate web pages with the same content. |
1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() |
Healthline WP:HEALTHLINE 📌 |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
2023 |
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 as a hazard to readers. References to Healthline should be removed from Wikipedia. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
HispanTV WP:HISPANTV 📌 |
![]() |
![]()
|
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 ![]() ![]() |
InfoWars (NewsWars, Banned.video, National File) WP:INFOWARS 📌 |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
2018 |
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. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() 3 ![]() ![]() 4 ![]() ![]() 5 ![]() ![]() 6 ![]() ![]() |
Jihad Watch | ![]() |
![]() |
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 ![]() ![]() |
Last.fm WP:LASTFM 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
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 (12 March 2014–present) | ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
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. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
LifeSiteNews (Campaign Life Coalition) WP:LIFESITENEWS 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2019 |
LifeSiteNews was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() |
The Mail on Sunday WP:MAILONSUNDAY 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2020 |
There is clear and substantial consensus that the Mail on Sunday is generally unreliable, and a slightly narrower consensus that the source should be deprecated. Those supporting deprecation point to factual errors, asserted fabrications, and biased reporting identified on the part of the source, with reference to specific instances, and to common ownership of the source with a previously deprecated source. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() 3 ![]() ![]() 4 ![]() ![]() |
MintPress News | ![]() |
![]() |
2019 |
MintPress News was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() 3 ![]() ![]() 4 ![]() ![]() |
National Enquirer | ![]() |
![]() |
2019 |
The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid that is considered generally unreliable. In the 2019 RfC, there was weak consensus to deprecate the National Enquirer as a source, but no consensus to create an edit filter to warn editors against using the publication. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
New Eastern Outlook | ![]() |
![]()
|
2022 |
In the 2022 RfC, there is consensus to deprecate New Eastern Outlook. Editors note that it is considered a Russian propaganda outlet by multiple reliable sources, and numerous examples of publishing false content. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
NewsBreak (News Break) | ![]() |
![]()
|
2020 |
News Break is a news aggregator that publishes snippets of articles from other sources. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate News Break in favor of the original sources. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
NewsBlaze | ![]() |
![]() |
2021 |
NewsBlaze was unanimously deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the 2021 RFC. Editors cite NewsBlaze's publication of false and/or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, the site's sourcing practices, and copyright concerns. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() |
News of the World WP:NEWSOFTHEWORLD 📌 |
![]() |
![]()
|
2021 |
News of the World was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that News of the World is generally unreliable. As is the case with The Sun, News of the World should not be used as a reference in most cases aside from about-self usage, and should not be used to determine notability. Some editors consider News of the World usable for uncontroversial film reviews if attribution is provided. News of the World shut down in 2011; website content is no longer accessible unless archived. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() |
Newsmax WP:NEWSMAX 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2022 |
Newsmax was deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the November 2020 RfC. Concerns of editors included that Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such as COVID-19-related falsehoods, climate change denialism, conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccination propaganda. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() |
NNDB (Notable Names Database) WP:NNDB 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2019 |
NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company of shock site Rotten.com. It was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Editors note NNDB's poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, despite the site claiming to have an editorial process. Editors have also found instances of NNDB incorporating content from Wikipedia, which would make the use of the affected pages circular sourcing. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
Occupy Democrats (Washington Press) | ![]() |
![]() |
2018 |
In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source à la the Daily Mail. This does not mean it cannot ever be used on Wikipedia; it means it cannot be used as a reference for facts. It can still be used as a primary source for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() |
Office of Cuba Broadcasting (Radio y Television Martí, martinoticias.com) | ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
2024 |
Any platforms operated by the Office of Cuba Broadcasting of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, including but not limited to Radio y Television Martí (RyTM) and its website, martinoticias.com, are deprecated. There is consensus that RyTM has poor editorial controls that fall below professional standards of journalism, presents opinion as fact, reports on unsubstantiated information, and promotes propaganda, including anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
One America News Network (OANN) WP:OANN 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2019 |
In the 2019 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate One America News Network as a source à la the Daily Mail. Editors noted that One America News Network published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories. One America News Network should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary, meaning that it should not be used as a source outside of its own article. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
Peerage websites (self-published) | ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
2020 |
Two RfCs found consensus that certain self-published peerage websites are not reliable for genealogical information and should be deprecated. See § Self-published peerage websites for the full list. | List |
Press TV WP:PRESSTV 📌 |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
2021 |
In the 2020 RfC, editors found a clear consensus to deprecate Press TV, owing to its status as an Iranian government propaganda outlet that publishes disinformation, conspiracy theories, antisemitic content including Holocaust denial,[5] and a host of other problematic content. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() 3 ![]() ![]() 4 ![]() ![]() |
Project Veritas (James O'Keefe, O'Keefe Media Group) WP:VERITAS 📌 |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
2023 |
Due to persistent abuse, Project Veritas is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. In the 2023 RfC, there was overwhelming consensus to deprecate James O'Keefe personally, the O'Keefe Media Group, Project Veritas and future O'Keefe outlets as sources, due to O'Keefe's documented history of deliberate fabrication. There were also strong minorities for adding O'Keefe's works to the spam blacklist and barring even WP:ABOUTSELF claims. Citations to O'Keefe's work in any medium and claims based on any such citations should be removed. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() |
Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic) | ![]() |
![]() |
2022 |
Rate Your Music was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Rate Your Music is user-generated, and is considered generally unreliable. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() 3 ![]() ![]() 4 ![]() ![]() |
Republic TV (Republic World) WP:REPUBLICTV 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2021 |
In the 2021 RfC, there was a consistent and overwhelming consensus to deprecate Republic TV. Editors cite hoaxes, fake news, fabrication, misinformation and conspiracy theories. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() |
Royal Central | ![]() |
![]() |
2022 |
The 2022 RfC found a consensus to deprecate Royal Central on the grounds that it lacked serious editorial standards and hosted plagiarized content. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
RT (Russia Today, ANO TV-Novosti, Ruptly, Redfish, Maffick) | ![]() |
![]() |
2022 |
There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() 3 ![]() ![]() 4 ![]() ![]() 5 ![]() ![]() 6 ![]() ![]() 7 ![]() ![]() |
Sputnik WP:SPUTNIK 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2022 |
There is consensus that Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation,[6] a significant proportion of editors endorse that view, with some editors considering it less reliable than Breitbart News. See also: RIA Novosti, whose international edition was replaced by Sputnik. | 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 ![]() ![]() |
The Sun (UK) (The Sun on Sunday, The Irish Sun, The Scottish Sun, The U.S. Sun) WP:THESUN 📌 |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
2024 |
The Sun was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject. The RfC does not override WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use of The Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended.
This deprecation does not apply to the broadsheet publication of the same name, that existed from 1964–1969. |
1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() 3 ![]() ![]() 4 ![]() ![]() 5 ![]() ![]() 6 ![]() ![]() 7 ![]() ![]() 8 ![]() ![]() |
Taki's Magazine (Takimag, Taki's Top Drawer) | ![]() |
![]() |
2019 |
Taki's Magazine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that it is an unreliable opinion magazine that should be avoided outside of very limited exceptions (e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF). | 1 ![]() ![]() |
Tasnim News Agency WP:TASNIMNEWSAGENCY 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2024 |
Tasnim News Agency was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to being an IRGC-controlled outlet that disseminates state propaganda and conspiracy theories. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
Telesur WP:TELESUR 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2019 |
Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information. As a state-owned media network in a country with low press freedom, Telesur may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government, although due weight should be considered. Telesur is biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() |
The Unz Review WP:UNZ 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2024 |
The Unz Review was deprecated by snowball clause in the 2021 discussion. Editors cite racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content. The site's extensive archive of journal reprints includes many apparent copyright violations. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() |
VDARE | ![]() |
![]() |
2019 |
VDARE was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. Editors agree that it is generally unusable as a source, although there may be rare exceptions such as in identifying its writers in an about-self fashion. Such limited instances will only be under careful and guided ("filtered") discretion. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
Veterans Today | ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
2019 |
Due to persistent abuse, Veterans Today is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Veterans Today was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories. The use of Veterans Today as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. Veterans Today should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
Voltaire Network | ![]() |
![]()
|
2020 |
The Voltaire Network is considered unreliable due to its affiliation with conspiracy theorist Thierry Meyssan and its republication of articles from Global Research. Editors unanimously agreed to deprecate the Voltaire Network in the 2020 RfC. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
WorldNetDaily (WND) WP:WND 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2018 |
WorldNetDaily was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. There is clear consensus that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source, and that it should not be used because of its particularly poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Most editors consider WorldNetDaily a partisan source. WorldNetDaily's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() |
Zero Hedge (ZeroHedge, ZH) WP:ZEROHEDGE 📌 |
![]() |
![]() |
2020 |
Zero Hedge was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its propagation of conspiracy theories. It is a self-published blog that is biased or opinionated. | 1 ![]() ![]() |
Legend
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, 869 (hist · log), 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 registered on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. Edits that attempt to add this source are automatically prevented on a technical level, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the spam whitelist.
Auto-reverted: The source is listed on User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. XLinkBot automatically reverts links to the source that are added by unregistered users and accounts under seven days old. This behavior is subject to restrictions, which are described in the lists themselves. Refer to the Notes column for additional exceptions.
Edit-filtered: An edit filter, 869 (hist · log), is 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.
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.
See also
- Edit filter
- Potentially unreliable sources
- Reliable sources § Questionable and self-published sources
- Reliable sources/Noticeboard
- Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220 § Daily Mail RfC
- Reliable sources/Perennial sources
- Spam blacklist
- Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves
- Wikimedia global spam blacklist
- {{Deprecated inline}}
- Category:All articles with deprecated sources
References
- ^ a b Requests for comment are created using the {{rfc}} template; see WP:RFC for the technical instructions. A common approach to posing the RfC question can be seen in this example.
- ^ Multiple sources:
- Kalev Leetaru (2 October 2017). "What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship". Forbes. Retrieved 25 December 2018.
- Jasper Jackson (8 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
- Jon Sharman (9 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail because it's an 'unreliable source'". The Independent. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
- Sebastian Anthony (10 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail for "poor fact checking, sensationalism, flat-out fabrication"". Ars Technica. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
- Also see Daily Mail § Other criticisms.
- ^ See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as well as the formal closure of this RfC (quote: "That we use other trash-sources is never a good reason to oppose (for it can be effectively weaponised as a circular argument across discussions, to prevent deprecation of any source at all) and there is nothing prohibiting any interested editor from launching referendum-RFCs for those sources.")
- ^ The text of the proposal was:
- Sites identified by reputable sources as state-sponsored fake news / disinformation should be:
- Presumptively deprecated and listed at an addendum or sister-page of WP:RSP as such (with evidence).
- Added to an edit filter with "Prevent the user from performing the action in question" and a suitably stated warning.
- Removed expeditiously along with any text that might be challenged (or, if text is left, {{cn}} added); the use of semi-automated tools is appropriate for this.
- If in doubt, consensus should be sought here [at WP:RSN] prior to addition.
- ^ Anti-Defamation League (October 17, 2013). "Iran's Press TV: Broadcasting Anti-Semitism to the English-Speaking World" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on January 3, 2019. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
- ^ MacFarquhar, Neil (August 28, 2016). "A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 21, 2017. Retrieved August 29, 2016.
- ^ See also these discussions of Breitbart News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A
- ^ See also these discussions of the Daily Mail: 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 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
- ^
2017
2019
2020
2021
2021
2021
- ^ See also these discussions of peerage websites (self-published): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
- ^
2020
2022
2023
2024
- ^
2020
2021
2021
2021
2022
2023
2023
2023
- ^ See also these discussions of The Sun (UK): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- ^ See also these discussions of WorldNetDaily: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16