<templatestyles src="Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/styles.css" />

    {{Shortcut|WP:CONSORTIUMNEWS}}
<!-- TODO: Add DISPLAYTITLE back when generating actual pages, with correct URL -->
<!-- {{DISPLAYTITLE:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/all/''Consortiumnews''}} -->
{{Infobox
| title            = [[Consortiumnews]]
| image            = [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg|100px|alt=logo]] ''(not part of original row)''
| label2           = source type
| data2            = foobar ''(not part of original row)''
| label3           = publisher
| data3            = Fooland (state-funded media) ''(not part of original row)''
| label5           = website
| data5            = 
| label6           = classification
| data6            = [[File:Argentina - NO symbol.svg|20px|Generally unreliable|link=]] Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|questionable]] in most cases.
}}

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

== Prior discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}

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

* [[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'''

{{DEFAULTSORT:Consortiumnews, Perennial sources}}
==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
<references />
== Original table row for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Consortium News"
| [[Consortiumnews|''Consortium News'']] {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:CONSORTIUMNEWS}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gu}}
| [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 159#"Consortium News" at October Surprise conspiracy theory|1]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 156#Robert Parry|2]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 174#Robert Parry again|3]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217#Is consortiumnews.com a reliable source at article 2016 United States election interference by Russia ?|4]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 272#Are meforum.org , consortiumnews.com, and theguardian.com/commentisfree RSs?|5]]
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2019|stale=n}}
| There is consensus that ''Consortium News'' is generally unreliable. Certain articles (particularly those by [[Robert Parry (journalist)|Robert Parry]]) may be considered [[WP:SPS|self-published]], as it is unclear if any independent editorial review occurred. The outlet is known to lean towards uncritically repeating claims that are [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]], demonstrably false, or have been described by mainstream outlets as "conspiracy theories."
| {{WP:RSPUSES|consortiumnews.com}}
|}