RetroWikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/3

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary <section begin="deprecated"/>
EADaily (EurAsia Daily) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2023	Template:WP:RSPLAST	EADaily frequently produces false claims to advance their Kremlin-aligned viewpoints and was deprecated following a 2023 RfC.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
The Economist Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2022 1 2 3 4 5	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Most editors consider The Economist a generally reliable news magazine focused on data journalism. Distinctively, its news articles appear without bylines and mixed with commentary. Within these news articles, RetroWikipedia editors should use their judgement to discern factual content – which can be generally relied upon – from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources. Its pseudonymous commentary columns and other opinion pieces should also be handled according to this guideline.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
The Electronic Intifada (EI) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be attributed.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Encyclopædia Britannica (Encyclopædia Britannica Online) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	15	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online). Its editorial process includes fact checking and publishing corrections. Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source. Some online entries are written by subject matter experts, while others are written by freelancers or editors, and entries should be evaluated on an individual basis. Editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available. From 2009 to 2010, the Encyclopædia Britannica Online accepted a small number of content submissions from the general public. Although these submissions undergo the encyclopedia's editorial process, some editors believe that content from non-staff contributors is less reliable than the encyclopedia's staff-authored content. Content authorship is disclosed in the article history.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Encyclopædia Iranica	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Encyclopædia Iranica is considered generally reliable for Iran-related topics.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section begin="deprecated"/>
Encyclopaedia Metallum (Metal Archives, MA) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2025 1 2 A B	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Encyclopaedia Metallum was deprecated by unanimous consensus in the 2025 RfC as a site rife with user-generated content and thus no hope of reliability.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
Encyclopedia Astronautica	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2023	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Encyclopedia Astronautica is a website on space history. A 2023 RfC found no consensus on the reliability of the site. There appears to be a consensus that this is a valuable resource, but it lacks editorial oversight, contains errors, and is no longer updated. Caution needs to taken in using this source.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Engadget	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 A	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Engadget is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Its statements should be attributed.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Entertainment Weekly (EW)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 A	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Entertainment Weekly is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Entrepreneur (Entrepreneur India)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2020 1	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is no consensus for the reliability of Entrepreneur Magazine, although there is a consensus that "contributor" pieces in the publication should be treated as self-published, similar to Forbes.com contributors. Editors did not provide much evidence of fabrication in their articles, but were concerned that its coverage tends toward churnalism and may include improperly disclosed paid pieces.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section begin="deprecated"/>
The Epoch Times (New Tang Dynasty Television, Vision Times, Vision China Times) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	Template:WP:RSPLAST	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.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
Ethnicity of Celebs	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that Ethnicity of Celebs (ethnicelebs.com) is generally unreliable as user-generated content with no claim of accuracy or fact-checking.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
The EurAsian Times Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The EurAsian Times is an Indo-Canadian news portal, considered to be generally unreliable for a lack of fact-checking and accuracy, usually containing churnalism or otherwise sensationalist and extraordinary claims.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Eurogamer (USgamer)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 A B	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is a consensus that Eurogamer is generally reliable for topics on video games.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (EMHRM, Euro-Med Monitor, Euro-Med HRM) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2025 1	2025	EMHRM is an advocacy organization on a controversial topic, and should be used with attribution. It does appear to gather and responsibly report claims and information gathered directly from primary sources, and is widely used with attribution by reliable news sources. It also expresses opinions about the behavior of governments and analysis of larger events such as the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For these, it can be cited as an opinion source; other sources are also needed to provide larger context from multiple perspectives.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Evening Standard (London Evening Standard) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5 6	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is no consensus on the reliability of the Evening Standard. Despite being a free newspaper, it is generally considered more reliable than most British tabloids and middle-market newspapers.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Examiner.com Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Due to persistent abuse, Examiner.com is on the RetroWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Examiner.com is considered a self-published source, as it has minimal editorial oversight. Most editors believe the site has a poor reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Prior to 2004, the examiner.com domain was used by The San Francisco Examiner, which has moved to a different domain. Examiner.com was shut down in 2016; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Facebook (Meta) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2020 +27	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a self-published source with no editorial oversight. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to add an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite Facebook as a source, and no consensus on whether Facebook citations should be automatically reverted with XLinkBot.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2010 1 2 3 4 5	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is no consensus on the reliability of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. However, there is strong consensus that publications from FAIR should not be used to support exceptional claims regarding living persons. Most editors consider FAIR a biased or opinionated source whose statements should be attributed and generally treated as opinions.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
FamilySearch Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5 6	Template:WP:RSPLAST	FamilySearch operates a genealogy site that incorporates a large amount of user-generated content. Editors see no evidence that FamilySearch performs fact-checking, and believe that the site has a questionable reputation for accuracy. FamilySearch also hosts primary source documents, such as birth certificates, which may be usable in limited situations, as well as a large collection of digitized books, which should be evaluated on their own for reliability. When using primary source documents from FamilySearch, follow WP:BLPPRIMARY and avoid interpreting them with original research.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Famous Birthdays Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2019 1 2 3 4 5	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Due to persistent abuse, Famous Birthdays is on the RetroWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. There is consensus that Famous Birthdays is generally unreliable. Famous Birthdays does not provide sources for its content, claim to have an editorial team, or claim to perform fact-checking. Do not use this site for information regarding living persons.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Fandom wikis (Wikia, Wikicities) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Fandom (formerly Wikia and Wikicities) wikis are considered generally unreliable because open wikis are self-published sources. Although citing Wikia as a source is against policy, copying Fandom content into RetroWikipedia is permissible if it is published under a compatible license (some wikis may use licenses like CC BY-NC and CC BY-NC-ND, which are incompatible). Use the {{Fandom content}} template to provide the necessary attribution in these cases, and ensure the article meets RetroWikipedia's policies and guidelines after copying.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Far Out	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 A	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Far Out is considered generally unreliable as a churnalism outlet that appears to engage in circular sourcing.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
The Federalist Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2021 1 2 3	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories. However, it may be usable for attributed opinions.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
FilmAffinity	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 A B C	Template:WP:RSPLAST	FilmAffinity is considered generally unreliable, as the site mostly consists of user-generated content. Unlike IMDb, it is advised that editors avoid the use of FilmAffinity as an external link.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Financial Times (FT) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5 6	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Financial Times is considered generally reliable.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Find a Grave Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5 6	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The content on Find a Grave is user-generated, and is therefore considered generally unreliable. 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 RetroWikipedia. Take care that the Find a Grave page does not itself contain prohibited content, such as copyright violations.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Findmypast Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Findmypast is a genealogy site that hosts transcribed primary source documents, which is covered under WP:BLPPRIMARY. The site's birth and death certificate records include the event's date of registration, not the date of the event itself. Editors caution against interpreting the documents with original research and note that the transcription process may introduce errors. Findmypast also hosts user-generated family trees, which are unreliable. The RetroWikipedia Library previously offered access to Findmypast.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Flags of the World (FOTW) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 A	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Flags of the World has been written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight, and the hosts "disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website."	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Flickr Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Most photos on Flickr are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all for verifying information in articles (although properly-licensed photos from Flickr can be used to illustrate articles). 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. Note that one cannot make interpretations from Flickr photos, even from verified sources, because that is original research.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Forbes Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	10	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Forbes and Forbes.com include 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. Per below, this excludes articles written by Forbes.com contributors (or "Senior Contributors") and Forbes Advisor.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Forbes.com contributors Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	19	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors or "Senior Contributors" with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. Forbes Councils, being pay-to-publish and similarly lacking oversight, also fall into this category. Articles that have also been published in the print edition of Forbes are excluded, and are considered generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a "Forbes Staff" member, "Contributor", "Senior Contributor", or "Subscriber". In addition, check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under "/sites". See also: Forbes.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Forbes Advisor Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2021	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Forbes Advisor articles do not differentiate advertisements from normal content and contain a disclaimer that does not and cannot guarantee that any information provided is complete and makes no representations or warranties in connection thereto, nor to the accuracy or applicability thereof. Such articles can be told apart from Forbes content by having "Forbes ADVISOR" in the header and having URLs that start with "forbes.com/advisor".	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Fox News (news excluding politics and science) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2010  2020  2023 +14	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Historically, there has been consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. However, many editors expressed concerns about the reliability of Fox News for any topic in a 2023 RFC. No formal consensus was reached on the matter, though. See also: Fox News (politics and science), Fox News (talk shows).	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Fox News (politics and science) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2010  2020  2022  2023 +27	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus Fox News is generally unreliable for the reporting of politics, especially from November 2020 onwards. On the matter of science, and on the matter of pre-November 2020 politics, there is a consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use. As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (talk shows).	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Fox News (talk shows) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (politics and science).	Template:WP:RSPUSES
The Free Press (The FP, Common Sense)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Free Press is a media company founded by Bari Weiss as a counter-mainstream media publication. It has some use by others. Some editors consider it a self-published source with biased reporting.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section begin="deprecated"/>
FrontPage Magazine (FPM, FrontPageMag.com) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	Template:WP:RSPLAST	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.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
Game Developer (Gamasutra) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 A	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Game Developer is considered generally reliable for subjects related to video games.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Game Informer Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 A B C D	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Game Informer is considered generally reliable for video games. Originally shut down by GameStop in August 2024 with website content no longer accessible unless archived, Neill Blomkamp's company Gunzilla Games purchased the brand and site, which went back up in March 2025, with all staff returning from time at closing, and an aim for the publication to retain total editorial independence.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
GameSpot Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	16	Template:WP:RSPLAST	GameSpot is considered generally reliable for topics on video games. The site's forum content qualifies as user-generated content and thus generally unreliable. Some editors have expressed concerns that release date information may not be reliable due to the site sharing a database with GameFAQs. Some older articles released in the 1990s may have incorrect publication dates.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section begin="deprecated"/>
The Gateway Pundit (TGP)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2019 1	Template:WP:RSPLAST	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.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
Gawker Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Gawker (2002–2016) was a gossip blog that frequently published articles on rumors and speculation without named authors. When Gawker is the only source for a piece of information, the information would likely constitute undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person. When another reliable source quotes information from Gawker, it is preferable to cite that source instead. In the 2019 RfC, there was no consensus on whether Gawker should be deprecated. In 2021, the publication was relaunched under Bustle Digital Group, and subsequently closed in 2023. The second incarnation has not been discussed at RSN.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Gazeta Wyborcza	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that Gazeta Wyborcza is generally reliable. Some editors express concern about its sensationalist tendency in recent years.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
GB News Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 A B	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section begin="deprecated"/>
Genealogy.eu	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2025 A	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Genealogy.eu (genealogy.euweb.cz) was deprecated in the 2025 RfC due to persistent misuse. It is the self-published work of a single non-expert (Marek Miroslav) and is not considered reliable.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Geni.com Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2025 1 2 3 4 5	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Geni.com was deprecated in the 2025 RfC due to its persistent misuse and limited utility. Geni.com is an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source. Primary source documents from Geni.com may be usable in rare circumstances, but editors should be careful to comply with policies on original research and due weight.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
Genius (Rap Genius) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Song lyrics, annotations and descriptions on Genius are mostly user-generated content and are thus generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of articles, interviews and videos produced by Genius. Verified commentary from musicians falls under WP:BLPSELFPUB, and usage of such commentary should conform to that policy.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (names and locations)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2021 1	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates. Editors should take care that GNIS uses a different convention for its coordinates, using a particular feature of a location rather than the geometric center that most WikiProjects use.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (feature classes)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2021	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the notability of geographic features as it does not meet the legal recognition requirement.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (names and locations)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2021	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The GEOnet Names Server is a United States-based geographical database that covers non-U.S. countries. It is considered to be close to generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates, though there are concerns that GNS may not always be accurate and sometimes report the existence of places that do not even exist. Editors are advised to exercise caution when using it.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (feature classes)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2021	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The GEOnet Names Server is a United States-based geographical database that covers non-U.S. countries. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the notability of geographic features as it does not meet the legal recognition requirement.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Gizmodo Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements. There is consensus that AI-generated articles are generally unreliable; Gizmodo's parent company, G/O Media, began releasing such pieces in July 2023, usually under the byline "Gizmodo Bot".	Template:WP:RSPUSES
GLAAD Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2	Template:WP:RSPLAST	GLAAD is generally considered reliable for their area of expertise on LGBTQ topics. Some editors consider GLAAD biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section begin="deprecated"/>
Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2020 1 2 3 4 5	Template:WP:RSPLAST	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.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
GlobalSecurity.org Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2022 +11	Template:WP:RSPLAST	GlobalSecurity.org is an unreliable user-contributed and scraper site given to plagiarism. In the 2022 RfC, a slight majority of editors held that globalsecurity.org should be regarded as generally unreliable, with a significant minority arguing for deprecation. The site should not be used to back factual claims on RetroWikipedia. GlobalSecurity.org should not be confused with globalresearch.ca.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
The Globe and Mail	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2021	Template:WP:RSPLAST	In a 2021 RfC, editors found a strong consensus that The Globe and Mail is generally reliable for news coverage and is considered a newspaper of record.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
GoFundMe (YouCaring) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2020	Template:WP:RSPLAST	GoFundMe is a crowdfunding website specializing in funding for certain life events. As a primary source, it should usually be avoided for topics involving crowdfunding campaigns where better sources are available. The 2020 RfC gained a consensus for GoFundMe to be placed on the RetroWikipedia spam blacklist; links must be whitelisted before they can be used. In 2018, crowdfunding site YouCaring was acquired by GoFundMe; YouCaring's content is no longer accessible unless archived.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Goodreads Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Goodreads is a social cataloging site comprising user-generated content. As a self-published source, Goodreads is considered generally unreliable.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Google Maps (Google Street View) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5 6 7	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Google Maps and Google Street View may be useful for some purposes, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information like street names. However, especially for objects like boundaries (of neighborhoods, allotments, etc.), where other reliable sources are available they should be preferred over Google Maps and Google Street View. It can also be difficult or impossible to determine the veracity of past citations, since Google Maps data is not publicly archived, and may be removed or replaced as soon as it is not current. Inferring information solely from Street View pictures may be considered original research. Note that due to restrictions on geographic data in China, OpenStreetMap coordinates for places in mainland China are almost always much more accurate than Google's – despite OpenStreetMap being user-generated – due to the severe distortion introduced by most commercial map providers. (References, in any case, are usually not required for geographic coordinates.)	Template:WP:RSPUSES
GQ (GQ Magazine) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that GQ is generally reliable. It is noted by editors for having quality editorial oversight for non-contentious topics.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section begin="deprecated"/>
The Grayzone Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2020 1	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Grayzone was deprecated in the 2020 RfC. There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information. Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight.	Template:WP:RSPUSES <section end="deprecated"/>
Greco-Roman literary sources Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Greco-Roman literary sources, such as the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Herodotus, Livy, and Plutarch, must be used in accordance with WP:PRIMARY: editors may not analyze or synthesize material found in them. Editors must take care not to present the claims of such sources uncritically. Statements made by such sources should be clearly attributed to them, rather than presented as objective fact. An entire article, or large parts thereof, may not be based only on such sources. The weight given to one of these sources should be roughly proportional to its treatment in modern, published scholarship on the same subject, and this scholarship should be cited when possible. In some instances, old or public domain editions and translations of these sources will not reflect current scholarly readings or views.	—
The Green Papers	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	2020 1 A	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is no consensus on the reliability of The Green Papers. As a self-published source that publishes United States election results, some editors question the site's editorial oversight.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
The Guardian (TheGuardian.com, The Manchester Guardian, The Observer) Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	20	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
The Guardian blogs Template:WP:RSPSHORTCUT	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	10	Template:WP:RSPLAST	Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Guido Fawkes	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4	Template:WP:RSPLAST	The Guido Fawkes website (order-order.com) is considered generally unreliable because it is a self-published blog. It may be used for uncontroversial descriptions of itself and its own content according to WP:ABOUTSELF, but not for claims related to living persons.	Template:WP:RSPUSES
Guinness World Records (The Guinness Book of Records, The Guinness Book of World Records)	Template:WP:RSPSTATUS	1 2 3 4 5	Template:WP:RSPLAST	There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage.	Template:WP:RSPUSES