The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Coverage of The Grayzone has focused on its... false reporting [27].
This should be deleted. The New Statesman article cited doesn't directly mention The Grayzone once. It only indirectly mentions The Grayzone when briefly talking about Max Blumenthal by linking to a tweet by Neil Abrams (is he an authority on this subject?) claiming an article by Max Blumenthal is "one dishonest article" (which it may very well be). This simply can't be used to justify the statement that "coverage of The Grayzone has focused on its false reporting".
This immediately struck me an inflammatory and caused me to mistrust what I was reading. This label applied to any subject is an extraordinary claim - thus needing extraordinary proof. It seems to be a smear. Can anyone explain the basis? Would the article be diminished if this label were removed? Wouldn't the article have higher integrity without such a label? Wouldn't Wikipedia's integrity be improved by removing the label? Zuludogm (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the truth a smear? We go by what the sources show. What's more interesting is how you came to be here. My only explanation is that you were sent here by Lucy Komisar who is made the same complaint a few hours ago. I can't believe that's a coincidence. Doug Wellertalk07:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, I am the one who suggested on Talk:Lucy Komisar that challenging the "fringe" characterization should take place on this talk page. So here it is. Note that this has been challenged in the past; there are multiple discussions about this in Talk:The Grayzone/Archive 1. The argument here presents nothing new. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you reviewed all five sources cited that support this description? That's citation 7, which references citations 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. The sources are deemed reliable because they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That is the "extraordinary proof", and that is the basis of calling it "fringe".
Politico: "After weeks of sitting on the internet, the cache of Brexiteer emails was picked up by fringe website the Grayzone, which promises "original investigative journalism" on "politics and empire" and has earned praise from Hollywood director Oliver Stone, famous for his interest in — and occasional embrace of — conspiracy theories."
Australian Strategic Policy Institute: "The Grayzone is one fringe news source, and its reach has been amplified by Chinese and Russian state-affiliated entities."
Coda Media headline: "Enter the Grayzone: fringe leftists deny the scale of China’s Uyghur oppression"
China Digital Times: "The report highlights how Chinese diplomats and state media co-opted language such as referring to the BBC as the “Biased Broadcasting Corporation,” a term historically used by the BBC’s domestic critics, and leveraged third-party content produced by websites such as The Grayzone, a fringe website associated with the political left that has previously published Xinjiang denialism."
Business Insider: "The student protester's false confession, for example, was circulated by a British supporter of the government, John Perry, who adopted a fake identity to publish commentary on the episode at The Grayzone, a US-based fringe website that has promoted the Ortega government's line on social unrest in the Central American country."
These are undeniably reliable media outlets. In the list above, I linked to the Wikipedia articles about those media outlets if you are unfamilar with them.
An alternative would be to replace the label with a couple of sentences describing how Grayzone is characterized as "fringe" by other media, instead of calling it that in Wikipedia's narrative voice. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
