{{Shortcut|WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS}}
{{Infobox
| title = [[Rolling Stone]]
| 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.
}}
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.
== Prior discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}
''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 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]]
* [[WT:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 8#Rolling Stone as a source for politics]]
* Simple summary of prior discussions: '''TBD'''
{{DEFAULTSORT:Rolling Stone, Perennial sources}}
==Notes==
{{notelist}}
==References==
== Original table row for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- 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}}
|}