CounterPunch

CounterPunch

(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.

CounterPunch is a left-wing political opinion magazine. Despite the fact that the publication has an editorial board, there is no effective editorial control over the content of the publication, so articles should be treated as self-published sources. As a consequence, the articles should generally be avoided and should not be used to establish notability unless published by subject-matter experts writing about subjects within their domain of expertise, in which case they may be considered reliable for facts. Citing CounterPunch for third-party claims about living persons is not allowed. All articles on CounterPunch must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in particular for due weight, and opinions must be attributed. Some articles in the publication promote conspiracy theories and historical denialism, but there was no consensus to deprecate the outlet based on the most recent RfC.

Prior discussions

Please add links to other significant discussions. When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.

• 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
CounterPunch WP:COUNTERPUNCHWP:COUNTERPUNCH 📌		2021  2022	2022	CounterPunch is a left-wing political opinion magazine. Despite the fact that the publication has an editorial board, there is no effective editorial control over the content of the publication, so articles should be treated as self-published sources. As a consequence, the articles should generally be avoided and should not be used to establish notability unless published by subject-matter experts writing about subjects within their domain of expertise, in which case they may be considered reliable for facts. Citing CounterPunch for third-party claims about living persons is not allowed. All articles on CounterPunch must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in particular for due weight, and opinions must be attributed. Some articles in the publication promote conspiracy theories and historical denialism, but there was no consensus to deprecate the outlet based on the most recent RfC.	1   2