zlacker

It'd probably be a stronger case if you could point out an inaccuracy in the article. In a sense it's implicit agreement to only criticise the identity of the source.

>>whatsh+(OP)
Dishonest sources can generate bullshit faster than honest people can debunk it. At some point you are obliged to dismiss consistently unreliable sources.

In fact, Wikipedia has already done this:

"The English Wikipedia formally deprecated the use of The Grayzone as a source for facts in its articles in March 2020, citing issues with the website's factual reliability."

(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone)

>>stickf+s2
Ok so in this case what is not correct

>>stickf+s2
It was deprecated because it was the personal blog of Max Blumenthal more than any specific false stories. The Wikipedia discussion is public:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not...

>>jjmarr+E4
It's literally right there in the heading of that RfC you linked:

Taking into account the strength of the arguments and those who did not distinguish between those options, there is a rough consensus for Option 4: "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated".