{{Shortcut|WP:RSPHISTORY}}
{{Infobox
| title = [[History Channel]]
| image = [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg|100px|alt=logo]] ''(not part of original row)''
| label1 = other names
| data1 = History Channel, History.com
| label2 = source type
| data2 = foobar ''(not part of original row)''
| label3 = publisher
| data3 = Fooland (state-funded media) ''(not part of original row)''
| label5 = website
| data5 =
| label6 = classification
| data6 = [[File:Argentina - NO symbol.svg|20px|Generally unreliable|link=]] Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|questionable]] in most cases.
}}
Most editors consider [[History Channel]] generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote [[conspiracy theories]].
== Prior discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}
''Please add links to other significant discussions. When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.''
* [[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]]
* Simple summary of prior discussions: '''TBD'''
{{DEFAULTSORT:History Channel, Perennial sources}}
==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}}
|}