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

    {{Shortcut|WP:NATIONALREVIEW}}
<!-- TODO: Add DISPLAYTITLE back when generating actual pages, with correct URL -->
<!-- {{DISPLAYTITLE:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/all/''National Review''}} -->
{{Infobox
| title            = [[National Review]]
| image            = [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg|100px|alt=logo]] ''(not part of original row)''
| label1           = other names
| data1            = NR
| 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:Achtung-orange.svg|20px|No consensus|link=]] No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply
}}

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.

== 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 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'''

{{DEFAULTSORT:National Review, 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-nc" id="National Review"
| ''[[National Review]]'' <small>(''NR'')</small> {{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}}
|}