National Review

National Review

(not part of original row)
other names	NR
source type	foobar (not part of original row)
publisher	Fooland (state-funded media) (not part of original row)
classification	No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply

There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.

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 60#National Review a reliable source on China? MA thesis cites primary sources--okay or not?
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 82#Ion Mihai Pacepa, National Review Online, Pave the Way Foundation
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Stanley Kurtz National Review article about Obama and the New Party
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 153#National Review opinion rant
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 214#Can National Review be considered a RS in the following context re Hillary Clinton's cattle trading?
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 253#RFC: National Review

• 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
National Review (NR) WP:NATIONALREVIEWWP:NATIONALREVIEW 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.	1