{{Shortcut|WP:CSMONITOR}}
{{Infobox
| title = [[The Christian Science Monitor]]
| image = [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg|100px|alt=logo]] ''(not part of original row)''
| label1 = other names
| data1 = CSM, CS Monitor
| 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:Yes Check Circle.svg|20px]] Usually reliable for typical purposes
}}
''The Christian Science Monitor'' is considered generally reliable for news.
== 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.''
* Simple summary of prior discussions: '''TBD'''
{{DEFAULTSORT:Christian Science Monitor, 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-gr" id="The Christian Science Monitor"
| data-sort-value="Christian Science Monitor"| ''[[The Christian Science Monitor]]'' (''CSM'', ''CS Monitor'') {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:CSMONITOR}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gr}}
| 20[See these discussions of ''The Christian Science Monitor'':
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2016}}
| ''The Christian Science Monitor'' is considered generally reliable for news.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|csmonitor.com}}
|}]