{{WP:RSPIntro|Rolling Stone}}
This source has separate reliability assessments by time period or topic; each is presented in its own section below.
== culture ==
{{Infobox source reliability
| type = website
| title = [[Rolling Stone]] (culture)
| shortcut = WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE
| status = gr
| last = 2021
| domain1 = rollingstone.com
| rfc = [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#Rolling Stone|RfC]]
| rfcdate = 2021
}}
=== Summary ===
There is consensus that ''Rolling Stone'' has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). ''Rolling Stone'''s [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding [[WP:BLP|living persons]], should only be used with [[WP:INTEXT|attribution]]. The publication's [[capsule reviews]] deserve [[WP:DUE|less weight]] than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also {{pslink|Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present}}, {{pslink|Rolling Stone (Culture Council)}}.
=== Discussions ===
{{WP:RSPLinks}}
==== RSN ====
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Rolling Stone]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 26#Rolling Stone, NME, Popmatters and Metal-Observer]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 39#Rolling Stone review]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 82#Twitter, Rolling Stone magazine and The Guardian]]
==== Other ====
* [[WT:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 16#Glixel]]
=== Recency ===
{{WP:RSPLAST/sandbox|2021|table=no}}
=== RfCs ===
# 2021 [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#Rolling Stone|RfC]]
== politics and society, 2011–present ==
{{Infobox source reliability
| type = website
| title = [[Rolling Stone]] (politics and society, 2011–present)
| shortcut = WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS
| status = gu
| last = 2023
| domain1 = rollingstone.com/politics
| rfc = [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#Rolling Stone|RfC]]
| rfcdate = 2021
}}
=== Summary ===
According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that ''Rolling Stone'' is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive), though it must be borne in mind that this date is an estimate and not a definitive cutoff, as the deterioration of journalistic practices happened gradually. Some editors have said that low-quality reporting also appeared in some preceding years, but a specific date after which the articles are considered generally unreliable has not been proposed. Previous consensus was that ''Rolling Stone'' was generally reliable for political and societal topics before 2011. Most editors say that ''Rolling Stone'' is a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan source]] in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. Moreover, [[WP:MEDRS|medical]] or [[WP:SCIRS|scientific]] claims should not be sourced to the publication.
=== Discussions ===
{{WP:RSPLinks}}
==== RSN ====
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 41#Is opinion piece in Rolling Stone a reliable source on Goldman Sachs?]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 106#Is this piece from the Rolling Stone Culture Section a RS?]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 132#Mother Jones and Rolling Stone articles as RS sources in a BLP for a contentious claim]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Gun show loophole (Rolling Stone & Washington Post)]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 274#Is Rolling Stone's 'Useful Idiots' podcast a RS?]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 366#Rolling Stone scoop on involvement in Jan. 6]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 410#Rolling Stone as a source for politics]]
==== Other ====
* [[WT:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 8#Rolling Stone as a source for politics]]
=== Recency ===
{{WP:RSPLAST/sandbox|2023|table=no}}
=== RfCs ===
# 2021 [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#Rolling Stone|RfC]]
== Culture Council ==
{{Infobox source reliability
| type = website
| title = [[Rolling Stone]] (Culture Council)
| shortcut = WP:ROLLINGSTONECON
| status = gu
| last = 2021
| domain1 = council.rollingstone.com
| rfc = [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#Rolling Stone|RfC]]
| rfcdate = 2021
}}
=== Summary ===
There is unanimous consensus among editors that ''Culture Council'' articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) are [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]] and are, in most aspects, equivalent to [[WP:FORBESCON|''Forbes''-]] and [[WP:RSP#HuffPost contributors|''HuffPost''-]]contributors. Editors, however, have also expressed concern that at least some of the content published is [[WP:PROMO|promotional]] and thus not usable. Editors should thus determine on a case-by-case basis whether the opinions published there are [[WP:IS|independent]] and also if they constitute [[WP:DUE|due weight]]. Usage of these sources for [[WP:THIRDPARTY|third-party claims]] in [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] as well as [[WP:MEDRS|medical or scientific claims]] is not allowed.
=== Discussions ===
{{WP:RSPLinks}}
==== RSN ====
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 326#Caution: Rolling Stone goes pay-for-play]]
=== Recency ===
{{WP:RSPLAST/sandbox|2021|table=no}}
=== RfCs ===
# 2021 [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#Rolling Stone|RfC]]
== Excerpt ==
{{hatnote|Excerpt from the lead of [[Rolling Stone]]:}}
{{excerpt|Rolling Stone|paragraphs=1|only=paragraphs|hat=no|references=no|inline=yes}}
==Notes==
{{notelist}}
==References==
== Original table rows for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- class="s-gr" id="Rolling Stone"
| ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' (culture) {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:ROLLINGSTONE}} {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gr}}
|{{rsnl|353|Rolling Stone|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''Rolling Stone'' has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). ''Rolling Stone'''s [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding [[WP:BLP|living persons]], should only be used with [[WP:INTEXT|attribution]]. The publication's [[capsule reviews]] deserve [[WP:DUE|less weight]] than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also {{pslink|Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present}}, {{pslink|Rolling Stone (Culture Council)}}.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|rollingstone.com}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Rolling Stone (politics and society, 2011–present)"
| ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' (politics and society, 2011–present) {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gu}}
| {{rsnl|353|Rolling Stone|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2023}}
| According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that ''Rolling Stone'' is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive), though it must be borne in mind that this date is an estimate and not a definitive cutoff, as the deterioration of journalistic practices happened gradually. Some editors have said that low-quality reporting also appeared in some preceding years, but a specific date after which the articles are considered generally unreliable has not been proposed. Previous consensus was that ''Rolling Stone'' was generally reliable for political and societal topics before 2011. Most editors say that ''Rolling Stone'' is a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan source]] in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. Moreover, [[WP:MEDRS|medical]] or [[WP:SCIRS|scientific]] claims should not be sourced to the publication.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|rollingstone.com/politics}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Rolling Stone (Culture Council)"
| ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' (''Culture Council'') {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:ROLLINGSTONECON}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gu}}
| {{rsnl|353|Rolling Stone|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2021}}
| There is unanimous consensus among editors that ''Culture Council'' articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) are [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]] and are, in most aspects, equivalent to [[WP:FORBESCON|''Forbes''-]] and [[WP:RSP#HuffPost contributors|''HuffPost''-]]contributors. Editors, however, have also expressed concern that at least some of the content published is [[WP:PROMO|promotional]] and thus not usable. Editors should thus determine on a case-by-case basis whether the opinions published there are [[WP:IS|independent]] and also if they constitute [[WP:DUE|due weight]]. Usage of these sources for [[WP:THIRDPARTY|third-party claims]] in [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] as well as [[WP:MEDRS|medical or scientific claims]] is not allowed.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|council.rollingstone.com|rollingstone.com/culture-council}}
|}