{{WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Header}}
{{WP:RSPNutshell|nc|shortcut=}}
{{Infobox source reliability
| type = website
| shortcut = WP:NATIONALREVIEW
| status = nc
| last = 2018
| domain1 = nationalreview.com
}}
{{WP:RSPIntro|National Review}}
__TOC__
== Summary ==
There is no consensus on the reliability of ''National Review''. Most editors consider ''National Review'' a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan source]] whose statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. The publication's [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the ''National Review'' constitutes [[WP:DUE|due weight]] in the article and conforms to the [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] policy.
== Excerpt ==
{{hatnote|Excerpt from the lead of [[National Review]]:}}
{{excerpt|National Review|paragraphs=1|only=paragraphs|hat=no|references=no|inline=yes}}
== Discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}
=== Links ===
==== RSN ====
* [[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]]
=== Recency ===
{{WP:RSPLAST/sandbox|2018|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-nc" id="National Review"
| ''[[National Review]]'' (''NR'') {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:NATIONALREVIEW}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|nc}}
| [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 60#National Review a reliable source on China? MA thesis cites primary sources--okay or not?|1]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 82#Ion Mihai Pacepa, National Review Online, Pave the Way Foundation|2]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Stanley Kurtz National Review article about Obama and the New Party|3]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 153#National Review opinion rant|4]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 214#Can National Review be considered a RS in the following context re Hillary Clinton's cattle trading?|5]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 253#RFC: National Review|6]]
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2018}}
| There is no consensus on the reliability of ''National Review''. Most editors consider ''National Review'' a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan source]] whose statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. The publication's [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the ''National Review'' constitutes [[WP:DUE|due weight]] in the article and conforms to the [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] policy.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|nationalreview.com}}
|}