Consortiumnews

Consortiumnews

(not part of original row)
source type	foobar (not part of original row)
publisher	Fooland (state-funded media) (not part of original row)
classification	Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases.

There is consensus that Consortium News is generally unreliable. Certain articles (particularly those by Robert Parry) may be considered self-published, as it is unclear if any independent editorial review occurred. The outlet is known to lean towards uncritically repeating claims that are fringe, demonstrably false, or have been described by mainstream outlets as "conspiracy theories."

Prior discussions

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 159#"Consortium News" at October Surprise conspiracy theory
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 156#Robert Parry
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 174#Robert Parry again
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217#Is consortiumnews.com a reliable source at article 2016 United States election interference by Russia ?
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 272#Are meforum.org , consortiumnews.com, and theguardian.com/commentisfree RSs?

• Simple summary of prior discussions: TBD

Notes

References

Original table row for comparison

(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Consortium News WP:CONSORTIUMNEWSWP:CONSORTIUMNEWS 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is consensus that Consortium News is generally unreliable. Certain articles (particularly those by Robert Parry) may be considered self-published, as it is unclear if any independent editorial review occurred. The outlet is known to lean towards uncritically repeating claims that are fringe, demonstrably false, or have been described by mainstream outlets as "conspiracy theories."	1