Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/X

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

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
WION (World is One News) WP:WION 📌		2025 1 2 3 4 5	2025	World is One News is an international news broadcaster owned by Zee Media Corporation and there is no consensus regarding its reliability. Editors have raised concerns regarding WION's lax editorial standards, churnalism, and misinformation. However, some have argued that WION does produce some good quality articles that might not cover information found in other sourcing.	1
Firstpost WP:FIRSTPOST 📌		2026 1 2	2026	Firstpost is an Indian news website and part of the Network18 Group media conglomerate. While it is generally reliable for non-controversial content, "anything political may be biased, and social media stories should be avoided". Signs that may indicate a particular article is less reliable include: "repeating of other sources; repeating of social media; lack of author bylines; a sensational tone".	1
Business Insider (AI content)		2025	2024	Consistent with recent decisions Wikipedians have made about LLM-generated writing, any content primarily produced by AI is considered unreliable. Business Insider says that humans will review the LLM-generated content, but Wikipedians are distrustful of this. There is consensus that anything published with a disclosure about "Business Insider AI" is (a) generally unreliable and (b) not an indicator of notability at AFD.
Pirate Wires (PW, PirateWires) WP:PIRATEWIRESWP:PIRATEWIRES 📌		2025	2025	Per an RfC held in 2025, PW is occasionally noteworthy for its strong libertarian or right-wing commentary on politics, economics, society, and technology as well as interviews conducted directly by a contributor. It does not clearly distinguish between news reporting and opinion. Some of its factual claims have been criticised as obviously false (such as the pseudoscientific promotion of bloodletting for all men and some of its coverage of Wikipedia and Reddit) or borderline antisemitic conspiracy theory (certain coverage of George Soros). Claims are often inflammatory and poorly sourced, with no known fact-checking or correction-publishing process. More reliable sources should generally be used to verify or replace PW as a source of fact. Reliable sources generally treat its assertions as claims, not facts, with the exception of direct quotes from interviews. PW has a conflict of interest when reporting on Peter Thiel.	1
Avi Loeb (UFOs, xenobiology, galactic astronomy, aeronautics, and system astronomy)		2026 1 2	2026	In a 2026 RfC, there was general consensus among editors that Avi Loeb is not a reliable source, nor a subject matter expert within the meaning of WP:SPS, on topics including UFOs, xenobiology, galactic astronomy, aeronautics, and system astronomy. Editors noted his frequent false claims, misuse of the peer-review process and failure to retract claims in the face of disconfirmatory evidence. A minority of editors felt that his work in these fields was usable, especially his peer-reviewed output. There was no consensus about Loeb's reliability as a source on high-redshift astrophysics and cosmology.
CityPopulation.de		1 2 3 4 5	2021	CityPopulation.de is a self-published source created by a single person. Editors argue that the website does not have an established reputation for fact-checking, even if its data are usually accurate. As CityPopulation.de gets much of its information from census data, some editors suggest citing the original censuses instead.	1
UnHerd		1 2 3	2025	In the latest RfC, there is consensus that the articles on UnHerd are opeds and subject to WP:RSOPINION. In earlier discussions, there is consensus that UnHerd is generally unreliable for culture war topics. There is no consensus on the overall reliability of UnHerd.	1
Olympedia		2026 1 2 3	2026	In a 2026 RfC, there was no consensus on the general reliability of Olympedia. While there was agreement on the general reliability of its sports-related statistics, editors were divided as to the reliability of its biographical data and editorial independence from the International Olympic Committee.	1
Behindthename.com		2026	2026	In a 2026 RfC, there was consensus that behindthename.com is a generally unreliable source as a self-published source which contains user-generated content. It has received limited use by other sources as a reference. When entries on the website cite reliable secondary sources, cite those sources instead.	1
&Asian		1 2	2025	&Asian (pronounced "Andasian") is a UK-based online magazine. There is consensus that &Asian is generally reliable for pop culture and reviews. However, editors have raised concerns that some articles read like promotional content that the site may mix opinion with news, so it should be used with caution. Nonetheless, it is considered acceptable for pop culture or any music related coverage.	1
Marxists Internet Archive (MIA, Marxists.org, Encyclopedia of Marxism)		1 2 3	2023	The Marxists Internet Archive (MIA) is a website which primarily contains transcriptions of primary sources by notable Marxists and related people. Such pages from the website are subject to WP:PRIMARY. MIA also contains original content written by volunteers, including short summaries and overviews of Marxist topics, which have to be approved by its editorial board to be published. Although Wikipedia editors are divided on its political neutrality, there is a weak consensus that MIA's original content is generally reliable in its subject matter.	1
Australian Financial Review		1 2	2022	Australian Financial Review is considered generally reliable.	1
Nikkei (Nikkei Asia, The Nikkei) WP:NIKKEIWP:NIKKEI 📌		1 2	2023	Nikkei Asia (formerly Nikkei Asian Review) and Nikkei's publications more broadly are considered generally reliable.	1   2
Zee News WP:ZEENEWS 📌		2026 1 2 3 4	2026	Zee News is an Indian news channel and the flagship of Zee Media Corporation. It was deprecated, with overwhelming consensus, following a 2026 RfC for its history of spreading disinformation and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.	1   2   3
Omniglot WP:OMNIGLOT 📌		2026 1 2 3	2026	Omniglot is an online encyclopedia focused on languages and writing systems, written by linguist Simon Ager. There is consensus that it is generally unreliable, as it is self-published, engages in opaque sourcing, and has copied from Wikipedia, but has legitimate use only when better sources on writing systems are unavailable.	1
Quartz (pre–2025)		1 2 3 4	2025	Quartz is an English-language business-focused news publication headquartered in the United States, owned by a Japanese company. It was previously affirmed as generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG.	1
Quartz (2025–present) WP:QUARTZ 📌		1 2 3 4	2025	Editors raised concerns following news in 2025 that Quartz had laid off editorial staff and was moving to produce AI content.	1
The Political Graveyard WP:POLGRAVE 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	The Political Graveyard is a privately maintained biographical database of American political figures. Editors generally consider it unreliable for factual claims because it is a self-published compilation with limited editorial oversight and uncertain fact-checking. It may be useful as a directory or finding aid to identify people or locate primary and independent secondary sources, but those sources should be cited instead whenever possible.	1
Tghat		2021  2021	2021	Tghat is a Tigray news outlet. There was general consensus that Tghat is only reliable for its own opinion due to being self-published and non-neutral, though some editors note that some of its reporting has been confirmed by reliable sources.	1
ARY News		2026 1	2026	ARY News is a Pakistani news channel. There is consensus that it is generally unreliable, as it systemically produces LLM-generated content without disclosure, including alteration of audio clips and creation of fabricated reporter profiles.	1