{{WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Header}}
{{WP:RSPNutshell|gu|shortcut=}}
{{Infobox source reliability
| type = website
| shortcut = WP:RSPHISTORY
| status = gu
| last = 2021
| domain1 = history.com
}}
{{WP:RSPIntro|History Channel}}
__TOC__
== Summary ==
Most editors consider [[History Channel]] generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote [[conspiracy theories]].
== Excerpt ==
{{hatnote|Excerpt from the lead of [[History Channel]]:}}
{{excerpt|History Channel|paragraphs=1|only=paragraphs|hat=no|references=no|inline=yes}}
== Discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}
=== Links ===
==== RSN ====
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 26#Is a Discovery or History Channel documentary considered a reliable source?]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Is History.com (formerly History Channel) generally reliable?]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 330#Reliability of History (channel) pre-2010]]
=== Recency ===
{{WP:RSPLAST/sandbox|2021|table=no}}
=== Rfcs ===
''No Rfcs for this source.''
==Notes==
{{notelist}}
==References==
== Original table row for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- class="s-gu" id="History"
| [[History Channel|History]] (History Channel, History.com) {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:RSPHISTORY}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gu}}
| [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 26#Is a Discovery or History Channel documentary considered a reliable source?|1]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Is History.com (formerly History Channel) generally reliable?|2]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 330#Reliability of History (channel) pre-2010|3]]
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2021}}
| Most editors consider [[History Channel]] generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote [[conspiracy theories]].
| {{WP:RSPUSES|history.com}}
|}