{{Shortcut|WP:WASHINGTONTIMES}}
{{Infobox
| title = [[The Washington Times]]
| 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:Achtung-orange.svg|20px|No consensus|link=]] No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply
}}
There is consensus that ''The Washington Times'' is a marginally reliable source for politics and science. Most editors agree that it is a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan]] source. Some editors noted a history of publishing inaccurate or false information, of being slow to issue retractions or corrections, and of sometimes only doing so under the threat of legal action; a considerable minority favored deprecation on these grounds. ''The Washington Times'' is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available. ''The Washington Times'' should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially about [[WP:BLP|living persons]]. A majority of editors regard ''The Washington Times'' as generally reliable for topics other than politics and science. Opinion columns are governed by [[WP:RSOPINION]] and [[WP:NEWSBLOG]]. Some editors observed that ''The Washington Times'' has a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] regarding the [[Unification movement]] and related topics.
== 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 232#Washington Times]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 209#Is the Washington Times an acceptable source for statements of fact related to student protesters/black lives matter/Milo Yiannopoulos?]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 261#The Washington Times]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#The Washington Times]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Rebel News]]
* Simple summary of prior discussions: '''TBD'''
{{DEFAULTSORT:Washington Times, 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-nc" id="The Washington Times"
| data-sort-value="Washington Times" | ''[[The Washington Times]]'' {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:WASHINGTONTIMES}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|nc}}
| {{rsnl|328|RfC: The Washington Times|2021|rfc=y}}
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2021}}
| There is consensus that ''The Washington Times'' is a marginally reliable source for politics and science. Most editors agree that it is a [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan]] source. Some editors noted a history of publishing inaccurate or false information, of being slow to issue retractions or corrections, and of sometimes only doing so under the threat of legal action; a considerable minority favored deprecation on these grounds. ''The Washington Times'' is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available. ''The Washington Times'' should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially about [[WP:BLP|living persons]]. A majority of editors regard ''The Washington Times'' as generally reliable for topics other than politics and science. Opinion columns are governed by [[WP:RSOPINION]] and [[WP:NEWSBLOG]]. Some editors observed that ''The Washington Times'' has a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] regarding the [[Unification movement]] and related topics.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|washingtontimes.com}}
|}