Talk:The Grayzone/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Multiple Policy and MOS violations throughout article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Major WP:VOICE issues here. Accusations and commentary cannot be described as fact in lead. Needs to be fixed.Qayqran (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I have also identified statements in the lead not supported by sources so have added relevant tag. --Qayqran (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The provided source does not support the statement that GZ has denied human rights abuses in Xinjiang. We do know from sources that GZ has been accused of "minimizing" such abuses and of claiming they are part of a wider campaign by the US of x,y,z (whatever the sources state, I am no expert). The lead of this article cannot state opinions and accusations as fact. This is contrary to WP:NPOV and MOS. This article also displays symptoms of WP:LEDEBOMB by edit warriors. Qayqran (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I added a weasel tag to the league. "it is known" is contrary to WP:MOS. Qayqran (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion
How would you know how the manual of style is applied, given that you've only been here a month? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi User talk:Hemiauchenia. I have checked the source. It seems to be in a book edited by pro-Hong Kong activists. The fact that these activists claim something "is known" does not mean their opinion can be taken as fact. Hence wikivoice issue and contrary to MOS. I hope you understand the concern? Please do not remove the tags until this is discussed and addressed. As Im sure you know doing so is contrary to policy. Qayqran (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

User talk:Hemiauchenia I have just seen your abusive comment in your removal of tags. Please self-revert or I will have to take this to ANI. Qayqran (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Going to ANI because of a mean edit summary when youre edit warring and wrong wont end well for you Softlemonades (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Try it big boy, I dare you. I don't think you'll be happy with the results. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC) It doesnt fail verification. I removed the tag after checking. And since you say whatever the sources state, I am no expert I dont think you edit against consensus Softlemonades (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Softlemonades could you point me to the exact source which states they "deny Human Rights abuses" in Xinjiang? I cannot see this statement in any source of sufficient quality for it to be stated as a fact on this article. Qayqran (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The first article is called Enter the Grayzone: fringe leftists deny the scale of China’s Uyghur oppression says things like Ajit Singh, who has written two articles for The Grayzone questioning reports that Uyghurs were being held in camps in Xinjiang and a Grayzone article that claimed reports of Uyghur oppression were unreliable and overblown and Since 2018, The Grayzone has published at least four articles undermining reports of the repression in Xinjiang

Im not going through all of them or all the articles Softlemonades (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Softlemonades Thank you for answering. I have just read the article by Ajit Singh. It seems he questions the number of Uyghurs held in detention camps (the million figure). By your own statements, GZ's editorial line/investigative work questions the extent to which human rights were abused in Xinjiang and argues they may have been overblown by a media campaign in the West. That is a far cry from "denying Human Rights abuses in Xinjiang" which is a statement not supported by sources. This Wikipedia article is presenting rather visceral opinions as fact and is hence in very serious violation of multiple Wikipedia policies.

In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time. I will allow you some time to address issues and self-revert after which I will proceed to put the tags back in the article. Pointing to a false consensus and refusing to acknowledge the existence of a content dispute is an example of WP:GAME on Wikipedia. Qayqran (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

You've been here less than a month and you're quoting policy at us, editors who've been here for many years, like we are unaware of it. That's quite rich. You're far from the first to have come here to try "fix" the article, and the result has been the exact same every time. The consensus is always against watering down the language, and eventually the people advocating the change eventually get tired and go away. I'd avoid wasting your (and our) time any further, because it's not going to result in any change. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Hemiauchenia Again, please desist from ad hominem accusations and personal attacks. I humbly request you read WP:NPA and WP:STONEWALL, take a deep breath and focus on the issues in this article. Regardless of the strong views you may or may not hold on this topic, this article suffers from multiple policy violations which need to be addressed.Qayqran (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC) You've missed the central point of WP:STONEWALL Stonewalling or filibustering – repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution. Emphasis mine. You're one of many people to have tried to make the exact same edits over and over again, and again and again the consensus has always been the same. If we had to have discussions every time somebody got angry that we call Infowars a far right fake news website then Wikipedia wouldn't work. \If you want an outside opinion then you should go to WP:NPOVN.Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC) I understand WP:STONEWALL very well and two editors do not represent a consensus. In fact falsely claiming consensus is classic WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING. You have not addressed the substance of the concern and have responded with insults and taunts [1]. [2]. I will of course go to WP:NPOVN. The only reason is because I had to assume good faith. In this case, good faith has run its course. Qayqran (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC) please desist from ad hominem accusations and personal attacks they didnt do that Youre wrong about policy. Wait for others to give input or complain at whatever noticeboard you want Softlemonades (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Right. The consensus is established, and this is WP:STABLE. One person can disagree and bring it up, but that doesnt turn the article upside down.

That is a far cry from "denying Human Rights abuses in Xinjiang" Serious? articles undermining reports of the repression in Xinjiang is denying Human Rights abuses in Xinjiang, and theres several articles that say more Softlemonades (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Then give us the references to these "several articles".

And no, questioning the extent of human rights abuses does not "undermine" reports if they are defective to start with. Neither does it deny the existence of any genuine human rights abuses. However inaccurate or exaggerated reporting does undermine legitimate criticism of abuses, and should be called out. Kombo the mzungu (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

Two people engaging in stonewalling does not constitute "consensus" and is most certaintly not WP:STABLE. It is WP:STONEWALLING. Removing tags and refusing to acknowledge the existence of an edite dispute is also WP:GAME, particularly when combined with taunts, personal attacks and refusal to engage in the subject matter.Qayqran (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC) WP:STONEWALLING is an WP:ESSAY that does not have widespread consensus among Wikipedians. What is actually a guideline though, is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, specifically Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. If you actually thought your point had merit, you'd make a post at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which if your point was correct that we were "stonewalling" you, we would get overruled by the consensus of the broader community. For evidence that we are supporing the status quo, see discussions in Talk:The_Grayzone/Archive_1. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC) User:Qayqran, please don't do the "take a deep breath" thing, and I did not see any "please desist from ad hominem accusations and personal attacks". I hope you won't mind if I drop a "please assume good faith" notification on your talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Hemiauchenia do I need to give you a formal warning also for this comment, or do you know our policy on personal attacks? Do you see how unhelpful this is? You may be exasperated, but that does not justify such comments. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Drmies, I can easily find examples of you telling people (usually vandals) to fuck off [3] [4] [5][6], which is pretty equally uncivil (I have also done this to be fair, and don't begrudge you for making these commments). I'm no more uncivil than AndyTheGrump, and when they get taken to ANI for similar comments nothing happens, so I don't see how this is warnable or sanctionable. I agree its not ideal though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Well, I agree with the last sentence. But "vandal" is a bit of a misnomer for someone who has a file at Trust and Safety a mile long, threatened my wife and children, publicized my home address, and posted pictures of my house. So don't go there. Qayqran is NOT a vandal, and using me or AndyTheGrump as a yardstick for measuring civility is not a great idea. You wouldn't write a bad article and then, when you get called on it, say "but that article is also bad". No, you should point at a good article; I trust you understand the analogy. If you are right about content, in this case, you do not need to cuss out the sole editor who disagrees. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC) Drmies Frankly, I do care. I don't see you dropping any notification on those who are deleting tags with edit summaries such as "Nobody cares about your opinion" [7] and "Nobody needs to bother with your bullshit" [8]. May I ask you, Drmies, why you find this behavior totally acceptable while asking me to assume good faith? I also noticed this strange and (unwarranted) block notification on my user page which I don't know how to interpret. [9] Regardless, I have politely asked these two editors to address the substance of my concerns. They respond with taunts and insulting comments. As to User:Ymblanter, there is not much I can say. He has made clear that at any point he has the power to block me. Qayqran (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Do you think just repeating the same arguments over and over again means that you'll eventually win just by wearing us down? What is your end-game here? See Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_"get_the_point". Again, if you actually thought we are stonewalling you against the broader consensus of the Wikipedia community, go and make a post at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to get broader input. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Evidently that is exactly what I'll do. I won't open the WP:INVOLVED can of worms for now. I would have preferred you addressed the substance of the concerns rather than engage in disruptive and uncivil behavior. Qayqran (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Qayqran, there is no such can of worms. None of the people you are arguing with over content are administrator. Ymblanter and I are not in any way involved in the subject matter/content dispute, as far as I know. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Softlemonades Before taking this to a noticeboard I'm going to try to continue engaging with you since I feel its my duty to WP:AGF and, to be fair, only Hemiauchenia has engaged in abusive and/or uncivil behavior. Is it ok with you we continue discussing the substance of my concerns and can you please address them while avoiding the "consensus" argument? I would appreciate such a change in tone towards a more productive discussion. Qayqran (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unacceptable paragraph in 'Reception' section

In March 2020, the English Wikipedia formally deprecated the use of The Grayzone as a source for facts in its articles, citing issues with the website's factual reliability. The two sources cited are both secondary (and appear to have no direct connection with the allegation. No link is given to the alleged Wikipedia formal deprecation. This is totally unacceptable and should either be corrected or withdrawn. Kombo the mzungu (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely true, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#RfC:_Grayzone, as to whether its due to include in the article, I have no strong opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources. The Coda Story source covers it directly, saying that [i]n March 2020, Wikipedia marked The Grayzone as a “deprecated source” and discouraged editors from linking to it — a designation shared with RT, the far-right TV channel One America News Network and Alex Jones’ conspiracy theory site InfoWars (link in the original). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Second what Red-tailed hawk said; I would oppose the inclusion of this sentence if it was simply a primary reference to Wikipedia itself as this would be navel-gazing, but this was reported on by secondary sources which help to establish the notability of this statement.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Kombo the mzungu

The 'Content' section accuses the Grayzone of denying the Syrian Government's use of chemical weapons against civilians, but doesn't link to any content by the Grayzone. Linking to secondary sources alone is inadequate. Similarly the Grayzone did not accuse the inspectors of a coverup, but fingered senior OPCW management. This erroneous report appears to be the result of using a secondary source. The section needs to be properly researched and rewritten to conform with reliably-sourced facts. Kombo the mzungu (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The article contains the following paragraph: In February 2019, when a humanitarian aid convoy on the border of Venezuela caught fire, The Grayzone published an article by Blumenthal in which he argued that the U.S. government and mainstream media had falsely reported pro-Maduro forces as the individuals responsible for sparking the flames, writing that "the claim was absurd on its face." Glenn Greenwald, writing in The Intercept, commented that the story "compiled substantial evidence strongly suggesting that the trucks were set ablaze by anti-Maduro protesters"

I understand this to mean that Blumenthal is denying that pro-Maduro forces were responsible while Greenwald is drawing the same conclusion from the same article.

So what is the purpose of this paragraph? Kombo the mzungu (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It documents some of the Grayzone's work. It was a significant incident during the 2019 regime-change push by the U.S., which now seems to have stalled. The paragraph originally included a mention of an investigation by the New York Times which confirmed Max's conclusion. Burrobert (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's intended as an example where Grayzone was received positively (if only by one person). I don't know whether including Greenwald's endorsement of a single article is WP:DUE, but given that we have a lot of negative reception it may be useful for WP:BALANCE. Personally I think we could go either way on this. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Re Kombo's first question, Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources over primary ones, and does not favour original research. Using secondary sources enables us to identify what is noteworthy. See WP:OR. However, I agree that the word "investigators" might be confusing here (it presumably refers to the senior members of the team who wrote the final reports, rather than all of the individual investigators involved), and we can simply say "accused the OPCW" without disagreeing with the RS. I've made that minor edit. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for the lede to describe The Grayzone as a "fake news website"?

I won't make this edit myself because this a very strong and inflammatory term to use (undoubtedly the most negative label you can apply to a publication), but I couldn't help but notice that The Grayzone is in fact listed on the List of fake news websites article with quite a few sources to back up that description. This article is also currently a member of the following categories: Conspiracist media, Disinformation operations, Fake news websites, Russian propaganda organizations, Chinese propaganda organisations

Contrary to the lede's current description as a far-left publication, the sources attached to the List of fake news websites listing describe it as "fake news", "conspiracy mongering", "trolling", "based on a conspiracy theory", "junket journalism", "disinformation", and "right wing."

I don't think it'd be appropriate to change "left wing" to "right wing" when there's already a lot of sources backing up the "far left" label. But I do think it'd be appropriate to describe it in Wikipedia's voice as a conspiracy theory outlet (many sources already cited in the article already do this). If it would go too far to call it a "fake news" outlet in Wikipedia's voice (the way we do with InfoWars), I think it'd be fair to at least mention that it's been described by others as a "fake news" website.

This might be an extremely contentious change to make without first getting a consensus, so I'm leaving this message here first and I think I'll start up an RfC to bring more voices into the discussion.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC

Should the lede of the article describe The Grayzone as "a conspiracy theory website", "a fake news website", neither, or both?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I apologize that the RfC prompt is a little more complicated than just a regular "support"/"oppose" question. I don't want to overcomplicate things, but I probably already have, so bear with me here. Please try to comment on both things: 1) if the terms should be mentioned in the lede at all & 2) if they should or should not be in Wikipedia's voice. For the purpose of making it easier to gauge a consensus, I'll be using letters as shorthands for the many possible stances one could take on this:

"Option A" - Oppose both terms, regardless of WikiVoice. Keep the previous lede. Would look like this:

The Grayzone is an American far-left news website and blog founded and edited by American journalist Max Blumenthal.

"Option B" - Support both terms in Wikipedia's voice. Would look like this:

The Grayzone is an American far-left conspiracy theory and fake news website and blog founded and edited by American journalist Max Blumenthal.

"Option C" - Support both terms being mentioned, but oppose using Wikipedia's voice. Would look like this:

The Grayzone is an American far-left news website and blog founded and edited by American journalist Max Blumenthal. [...] The Grayzone has been described as a fake news and conspiracy theory website.

"Option D" - Support "conspiracy theory website" in Wikipedia's voice, but not "fake news website" in wikivoice. Would look like this:

The Grayzone is an American far-left news and conspiracy theory website and blog founded and edited by American journalist Max Blumenthal. [...] The Grayzone has been described as a fake news website.

"Option E" - Support "fake news website" in Wikipedia's voice, but not "conspiracy theory website" in wikivoice

The Grayzone is an American far-left fake news website and blog founded and edited by American journalist Max Blumenthal. [...] The Grayzone has been described as a conspiracy theory website.

If you're ambivalent (like me), you could perhaps rank these differrent stances from the ones you support the most to the ones you oppose the most, or simply comment on which ones you oppose. If you have a stance not mentioned above, feel free to !vote for "options" not listed. The ones listed above are just a recommendation and not meant to limit or restrict input.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Option B as nom, per reasons mentioned above at Talk:The Grayzone#Would it be appropriate for the lede to describe The Grayzone as a "fake news website"?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've been reflecting on the arguments from editors who disagree and I think they make a lot of fair points, I'll be striking this !vote and casting a new one once I've gathered my thoughts.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Option C: Applies WP:NPOV while still mentioning coverage that has described it as a "fake news" and/or "conspiracy theory" site. IMO to place this in the lede, in Wikipedia's voice, would violate WP:NPOV. Patr2016 (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option C, without the ellipsis. (I came here from the RfC notice.) What I mean is to put the two sentences together in the lead, but put the terms in the second sentence, not the lead sentence. That way the terms are not put in WP's voice, but they are in the lead paragraph. The Grayzone is an American far-left news website and blog founded and edited by American journalist Max Blumenthal. It has been described as a fake news and conspiracy theory website. It sounds like that's WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option B second choice: E, third choice C, strongly oppose A. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option B Came here as an FRS subscriber. I am generally of the view that we should strive for consistency. Per the nom, other articles call it a fake-news website in Wikipedia's own voice. We should strive to be consistent. If it is good enough for those other articles it should be good enough here too. Jtrrs0 (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• Uh where are the sources that support this being a fake news site? Where is it covered in the body at all? This is backwards, deciding on wording in the lead without having the sourcing or the material in the body to support it. If we are basing it on the sources at List of fake news websites then this is seriously deficient. The sources cited there are opinion piece in New Politics, opinion piece in al-Jazeera which also never uses the word fake, Democratic Socialists of America piece that never once says the word "fake", and factcheck.org that never once mentions Grayzone. nableezy - 23:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  Are we looking in the same place? The first citation on that article is an article in Pulse that dedicates paragraphs to '"The Grayzone" being a quote "purveyor of fake news." Much of the article about The Grayzone currently describes how it is "known for its misleading reporting", "promulgating conspiracy theories", etc. That's what the lede and body already describe. In fact, I'd guesstimate that most sentences in the article are about the site's misinformation and conspiracies. So I disagree that this is backwards. The lede is meant to reflect the body, and the proposed changes would help to accomplish that. I'm saving this comment for last because it's the least important one per WP:NAVEL, but The Grayzone is deprecated on English Wikipedia per a consensus that it publishes false or fabricated information (see WP:GRAYZONE).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  You right, I shifted down one article, striking the mistake of thinking it was factcheck.org. Im not really sure about Pulse, it has some academics behind it but seems to be a group blog of those academics, but probably usable as a source. But if thats the only one that actually straight up supports this then I would say that is still a contested viewpoint and not lead-worthy fact. And the lead is supposed to summarize the body, there is literally nothing in the body of this article about it being a "fake news" outlet. nableezy - 23:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  Considering that pretty much the entire article is about how it's a purveyor of propaganda, misinformation, false stories, and conspiracies, and there are sources terming them a fake news website, I don't feel that it's really a stretch to describe it as a fake news website, but if you feel that it is, then that's fine. That's why I'm seeking input from others rather than making changes myself, after all. What are your thoughts on the other proposed term, "conspiracy theory website?" There's no shortage of sources to back that one up.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thats much better supported, but also there are enough sources that say otherwise that I think that should probably be attributed to critics, something like which critics have accused of promoting conspiracy theories and misinformation. But it is certainly much better supported than "fake news". nableezy - 06:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  The 'Pulse' hyperlink is useless insofar as it doesn't even go to the publication let alone the article you are relying on. Please fix or remove. Kombo the mzungu (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Option D Calling something a "conspiracy theory website" is at least reasonably well-defined (although that's three nouns in a row–I'd prefer something like, "website that promotes [or, publishes] conspiracy theories"). However, "fake news" is (or at least, can be) a loaded term that is not well defined and can be used to mean different things; could it even be used to describe a satirical news site like Andy Borowitz's column, or The Onion? Maybe. What would *we* mean if we said, "fake news website"? Would that mean propaganda? Does it mean *everything* is false? Our article Fake news even says:

the term does not have a fixed definition and has been applied broadly to any type of false information. It's also been used by high-profile people to apply to any news unfavourable to them.

and it just doesn't sound like the kind of term an encyclopedia like Britannica, or a print dictionary would use to define something else. We are an online encyclopedia, and neither should we, unless maybe with intext attribution, therefore, not in Wikipedia's voice. Mathglot (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a perfectly legitimate rationale and you make a lot of fair points, though I do want to briefly mention that there wouldn't be any ambiguity regarding what is meant by the terminology "fake news website" because we'd be able to add an in-text link to the article fake news website which describes what is meant by that term; it doesn't overlap with news satire websites like The Onion. The proposed ledes here are based on the phrasing of the opening sentences of the InfoWars article (which reads InfoWars is an American far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website owned by Alex Jones. - as you can see, the only things swapped were the ideology and owner, but there is precedent for using this language). Best wishes,  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It really shouldn't be based on the opening of any other article, though; for one thing, each situation is different, and for another, we should be following reliable sources here, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so whatever is in the other article should not be taken into consideration here as a model. Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Option A Pushing criticism into the first sentence is a bad idea. For example, the first sentence of Adolf Hitler is simply Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] (listen); 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator of Germany from 1933 until his suicide in 1945. Obviously there are all sorts of nasty things one could say, and the article gets into them. But the first sentence wisely avoids that, and we should here, too. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Option BSoftlemonades (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Option A Pushing criticism into the first sentence is a bad idea - the 'sins' of Grayzone are laid out in clear, neutral language at present in the lead without the need to use contentious labels (which do little to actually inform), like 'fake news'. As Mathglot says, it isn't clear what it even means. That they adopt rather perverse ideologically-driven stances is not the same as (consciously?) lying. Also, as Nableezy says, the body of the article is the place to cover their 'stances' and who has made what accusations against them. D as second choice. Pincrete (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option A-ish. The sources describe it as fringey and note that the website publishes false information recklessly. That being said I have two things holding me back:
  1. We should disregard Wikipedia articles as if they were sources to build this Wikipedia article.
  2. Sources do indeed criticize the factual accuracy of some of its reporting, and Snopes even notes that the site reliably amplifies Russian disinformation, but that alone does not warrant labeling something as fake news in WikiVoice. We don't do this sort of thing with Russia Today or Global Times for example, even though the two organizations are known to have intentionally engaged in political disinformation. We also don't do this for gossip magazines or ordinary tabloids (like Daily Mail) that regularly engaged in sensationalized reporting.

At the end of the day, I would prefer The Grayzone is an American far-left website and blog founded and edited by American journalist Max Blumenthal (c.f.: Axios's description) rather than inserting an affirmative "fake news" label in Wikivoice. Using neutral language to describe the website and factually reflecting the issues in the body and lead makes for higher quality writing than simply slapping on emotive terms (or that others have used emotive terms to describe the website, as Option C suggests). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Option A - Please refrain form WP:TERRORIST edits. 89.206.112.12 (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option A - I agree with everything that User:Red-tailed hawk has written. I was thinking option C initially, but User:Vanilla Wizard has only cited one article in this section to substantiate that point, and I don't think there's evidence that there's good evidence that a significant number of sources refer to The Grayzone as a conspiracy / fake news cite to warrant mention in the lede, as opposed to the body of the article. In general, I think this article is extremely unbalanced and needs a significant rewrite to capture a neutral point of view. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option D, followed by Option C as nom (struck my old !vote). While I maintain that quite a lot of sources describe The Grayzone as a purveyor of disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda, which I believe is effectively the same as describing it as a fake news website, I'm persuaded by the arguments that "fake news" is such an inflammatory term that more sources ought to use that exact phrase in order for it to be used here. As such, calling it a "fake news website" isn't appropriate, at least not in Wikipedia's voice. It's better to simply mention, as we already do, that it's been criticized for misinformation, propaganda, etcetera. Examples of websites terming it a "fake news website" are better suited to the Reception section.

However, it is easier to come across sources that are comfortable directly commenting on The Grayzone as a publisher of conspiracy theories. The lede already contains two sources stating that The Grayzone promulgates conspiracy theories (Duke University Press and Confidencial; the Confidencial source seems to have suffered from linkrot and may need to be replaced with an archive, but the Duke University Press source says exactly what the lede says). Other sources in the article which were cited for other purposes also go on to describe it either as a "conspiracy website" directly or as a publisher of conspiracy theories. E.g., the Axios citation terms it a "conspiracy website." Another example is the PDF "Strange bedfellows on Xinjiang: The CCP, fringe media and US social media platforms", also describes it as a promoter of conspiracy theories.

If there is a consensus against any term in Wikipedia's voice, I believe the conspiracy theory criticism is common enough that it would still be WP:DUE to mention it outside of Wikipedia's voice, so my second preference is Option C (though perhaps a modified version of it, like mentioning in the lede with sources that "it has been described as a conspiracy theory website" but moving the "fake news" criticism to the reception section and leaving it out of the lede).

As for the rest of the options: An argument for A that I did not find especially convincing was the comparison to the introduction of the Adolf Hitler article, as a more apples-to-apples comparison is the intro to the InfoWars article, but I also agree with Mathglot's criticism that it's better to assess the use of such terminology on a case-by-case basis as precedent isn't the strongest argument, hence my withdrawal of support from Option B. A reference to Russia Today was also made to argue for Option A, but I don't find that to be convincing for two reasons: a) I would be comfortable labeling RT as such provided there were sufficient sources and b) what I said about Mathglot's response to my InfoWars example. I am also not especially convinced by the reference to WP:TERRORIST, as it states that contentious labels should only be used on the encyclopedia if they're also being used by RS, which I think everyone in this discussion acknowledges. As for Option E, it's probably self explanatory why I don't support that one.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option A - I agree with comments made by Red-tailed hawk -User:ekcrisp
• Option A. Considering the four sources on List of fake news websites ([10][11][12][13]) they are all unsuitable to make this claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, which these do not. Of these four, only Al Jazeera is the reputable one, and it doesn't call The Grayzone misinformation or fake news. I've seen it very common to have a list of four solid sources making extreme labels. (not a concrete minimum, but far more than what I'm seeing.) I would suggest this page be removed from the above list, too. SWinxy (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Although Wikipedia is not a vote, it seems that the most popular option at this time is Option A with seven !votes, though it is also true that there are exactly seven votes against A, so as it stands one could either interpret this as an "A" consensus or a no consensus; both of these outcomes would result in the status quo remaining, either because of a consensus for it or a lack of consensus for the proposed alternatives. I will obviously not be closing this myself because I'm very involved, so I'll leave it up to an uninvolved editor to decide whether to relist this RfC once it expires or close it at their discretion once it does, but I think I got an answer to the question I raised when starting this: I will not be modifying the lede as I do not see sufficient support for doing so at this time. Thank you to everybody who weighed in and to anyone else who does so for the remainder of the RfC. I appreciate that everybody's comments were thoughtful and unheated in spite of how controversial this article and this proposal is. Best wishes,  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Issues with this article

I have added the "neutrality disputed" tag for the following reasons:

1. This article is written like a hit-piece. It fails to demonstrate how Grayzone has supposedly spread "pro-Putin" propaganda.
2. Anti-Grayzone and pro-Grayzone vandals have been messing with this article for too long. There's got to be someone monitoring it to make sure it doesn't sway one way or the other.
3. People have repeatedly added the term "anti-American" to the article without any explanation; they seem to think criticizing a country is akin to hating a country.
4. The article fails to show how the Grayzone spread allegedly "misleading" information, and instead just states it and links to another article bashing the Grayzone.

A discussion would seem warranted. Thoughts? Professor Penguino (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is an example:

The site has been used as a vector to push Chinese Communist Party narratives on Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

This is some really overly harsh wording, especially since it doesn't matter what the "state narrative" is, the point is the truth. Calling it a "vector" is weird as well. You could say that The New York Times is a vector for the US narrative. I find the above sentence redundant, and I think it should be removed. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

This article continually gets drive-by users who proclaim that this article is "biased", but it always goes exactly nowhere. The vast majority of reliable sources provide negative coverage about the website, and this article follows this. To do otherwise would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Go to WP:NPOVN if you actually want to get broader input. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I would like to reiterate: just because most people have a negative view of them, does NOT mean that the article about them should be negative. You can cite criticism, but failing to provide clear and unbiased facts is a problem. I personally disapprove of a lot of what they say. But this article just gets right to bashing the site with vague assertions backed up by mostly opinion articles. I'm just saying it should be tweaked. Just because a New York Times columnist disapproved of it, doesn't mean it has to be called anti-American. That's my point. Also, I don't want to take it to WP:NPOVN just yet, as I think this can be resolved here on the talk page, and WP:FALSEBALANCE mostly covers fringe theories, not bias in BLP articles. Professor Penguino (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"Once again, I would like to reiterate: just because most people have a negative view of them, does NOT mean that the article about them should be negative." - read WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV.

"Just because a New York Times columnist disapproved of it, doesn't mean it has to be called anti-American." - good thing the article doesn't say that. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it did until I removed it. I'm saying this article has a lot of that. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Btw, I get that you might be frustrated by drive-by users, but I've been monitoring this article and other related articles for quite a long time. Professor Penguino (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Interested editors can find prior discussions in the archives Talk:The_Grayzone/Archive_1. The relevant sections are titled "Neutrality", "Muros Invisibles", "It was funny once, but is starting to get stale", "Bring on the dancing girls again?", "Manufacturing disrespect" and "The leaked Paul Mason - Amil Khan correspondence". The discussion in those sections did lead to some improvements in the article but some of the identified issues remain. Burrobert (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the "content" section is fine, but I don't care for the "reception" section, which as Penguino says, is basically "list of various opinions of newspaper columnists", which is prone to accusations of cherry picking and in my opinion is of limited utility. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree but I think the summaries are ok but we dont need all the quotes unless theres a secondary source Softlemonades (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

That's definitely something we can both agree on. The reception could use some trimming, especially since it seems just to quote negative sources and list opinion articles; but the content section should stay, by and large, the same. Glad we could agree, at least partially, on this. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I have just trimmed many of the quotes from the section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that fixes it. Have a nice day. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Objectivity

Frivolous editing and soapboxing

This is a biased and prejudiced Wikipedia entry regarding the Grayzone. One may not agree with the editors and contributors, however they present objective evidence with every article they write. Wikipedia is becoming a polemic, this is most troubling and will unavoidably result in a downgrading of the reputation and usage of Wikipedia. Objectivity includes avoiding labelling and slanderous terms such as “misinformation,” “conspiracy theories”and “far-left” which is essential. 2406:3400:211:F6F0:949C:A04D:F463:F000 (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Obviously, this is correct. Many, many, many editors have expressed this sentiment, but they always get shouted down, bullied, or threatened with "I'll try to get you banned if you don't shut up". Actually, I've changed my view completely. I'm very supportive of the first sentence now saying "fringe" And "far-left". Why make it sound just a little like a hit piece, when we can go all the way? I think we should seriously consider including "far-right" in the opening sentence, as well. No NPOV issues here guys, nothing to see. /s Philomathes2357 (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) I think this is a good idea: Put in "far right" too! It doesn't matter anyway. The "consensus" to which some users constantly appeal is holy. If other users object to it, that doesn't count. They are simply "persistent dissenters", not to be taken seriously. Arguments don't matter. As the first entry correctly perceives: This article is about polemic. Editors don't even attempt to be neutral. There is not a single sentence in this article that informs the readers about the content of The Grayzone. The section headed "Content" is all about (negative) reception. Niemandsbucht (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

What the website The Grayzone is about

The Grayzone calls itself "an independent news website dedicated to original investigative journalism and analysis on politics and empire".

Strangely, this self-description never appears in the WP-article. Instead, just about any news outlet is good enough to heap scorn and spite on the website. Niemandsbucht (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is very odd, and raises serious questions about the neutrality and reliability of the article. At the risk of boring those who have no interest, I would like to add a few additional thoughts to your comment.

Yes, Wikipedia is supposed to "summarize what reliable sources say about something", per the above comment from Hemiauchenia. I acknowledge this and agree.

However - when the attempt to summarize supposedly reliable sources produces an unreliable result - like this, an article that reads as if it were written by someone with a personal vendetta against the subject - I think we have a responsibility to figure out what's gone wrong, rather than sticking to the "due weight of reliable sources" script.

If the due weight of reliable sources produces a crappy article, like this one, then either 1) we haven't applied due weight 2) we've cherry-picked our sources 3) the "reliable sources" are themselves biased about the subject, and thus cannot be considered as reliable in this domain.

I think the problems with this article mostly fall under option 3. Rather than saying "sources that have previously been deemed reliable describe this group as 'far-left' and 'fringe', therefore we must restate those claims without attribution."

I would argue that a superior mindset would be "even though these news outlets have been deemed reliable on other topics, their use of subjective, negative, loaded, and opinion-laced language like 'far-left' and 'fringe leftists' indicates that their commentary is not reliable on the issue in question". That is the way we should be thinking about reliable sources, rather than uncritically parroting them without attribution whilst they themselves parrot each others' talking points.

Thoughts? Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What you're basically suggesting is that we should strip out all of the reliable sources like Coda Story that actually discuss the website, based on vague and arbitrary reasons like the supposed use of subjective, negative, loaded, and opinion-laced language in order to whitewash the article. I, like any reasonable Wikipedia editor, would of course oppose that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully - that is not what I'm suggesting. I have to say that the tone of your comment is rather rude and discouraging, too. I acknowledge the fact that your opinion, or other opinions that differ from mine, can be reasonable, even if I haven't fully comprehended them, and I'd hope for the same respect in return. Allow me to make my point more precisely:

As you correctly stated, the basis for article content is reliable sources. However, sometimes, it is necessary to change the wording of a reliable source to make it more neutral. This is made explicit in the list of perennial sources.

There are also reliable sources that are earmarked as potentially unreliable in specific instances, such as in opinion articles or in articles about certain topics. Here's just one example of many from the same list:

"There is consensus that ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S...but there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all."

Basically, what I am saying is this: a reliable source's use of unreliable statements doesn't make those statements "more reliable" - that source's use of those statements makes the source itself less reliable. We have a rich precedent on Wikipedia (see above) for using nuance and common sense in applying due weight to reliable sources, rather than carelessly using Wikivoice to endorse political opinions. I am suggesting that we take that precedent into consideration and use it to make much-needed improvements to this article.

What I am positing is that the "far-left" attribution to the Grayzone is inherently not neutral, and is factually dubious at best. It is a self-evidently subjective statement. Its use by a plethora of sources does not establish its credibility as a label, it brings into question the reliability of the authors and sources that have used it.

This is a real problem. I'm open to a variety of ideas on how to best address the problem. I will now stop commenting for an extended period of hours or days, as I've made my point and would like others to engage with it. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It's clear that we have irreconcilable views about what reliable sources are and how this article should be constructed. Given that you keep going on about the "far left" label, despite the fact that the RfC that you called finding back in March that there is a consensus to include it, it's pretty clear that you are essentially unwilling to compromise about anything regarding this articles content. The passive consensus as far as I can tell from the RfC supports the article in its current state. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm more than open to compromise on the article's content. What I'm not open to is sitting back and watching Wikivoice be used to state very dubious political opinions as objective facts about the universe, and I'm genuinely baffled that there is such passionate, emotionally charged resistance to this point. Here's a compromise I'd be open to. If you disagree with it, can you please explain (nicely, if possible) why you think the status quo is superior to this, and offer a rebuttal to my points?

Rather than using Wikivoice to actively jump into the fray and affirmatively engage in political debate, I propose that we describe the views that reliable sources have expressed on the topic, without whitewashing or affirmatively declaring these views to be objective facts. For example, I would support a sentence in the lede that says something like:

"The Grayzone has been met with widespread criticism and derision in the press, and has been labeled by many reporters as "far left", "far right", and "fringe" (insert citations here).

Making it clear that other media outlets, specifically, have had such a strong negative emotional reaction to the Grayzone's existence provides the reader *more* information about the Grayzone than just flatly stating as fact that they are "far left". Attributing these views, without weighing in one way or another on their factual merit, seems vastly and self-evidently superior to affirmatively weighing in and using Wikivoice to declare, once and for all, what the Grayzone's political orientation is. Not one piece of content or citation would be lost, and the reader would be better informed by the article, rather than being actively misinformed, as is the case currently.

To be crystal clear - I'm all for including all of the sources currently used. If someone were to delete any of the sources describing Grayzone as "far left", I'd be the first to revert such an edit. All I'm saying is that when we're dealing with emotionally-charged modern political discourses, we should aim to describe the notable views expressed, rather than using Wikivoice to endorse and enshrine the subjective views of writers at RS outlets as "the Truth".

Please, if you can manage it, tell me why you think I am being unreasonable here, without being snarky or rude, or trying to doxx me or get me banned for my "repugnant views", as others have. I would appreciate it, and if someone would clearly, calmly, and logically rebut what I'm saying, I'd probably stop "going on about it", as you put it. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I would agree that merely "fringe" is the underlying flavour of The Grayzone. The "far-left" associations don't actually fly very far when the complete absence of actual support for socialist politics become apparent. The Grayzone has actually attacked prominent socialist organizations in the US such as Democratic Socialists of America. Much of the "far-left" labelling is coming in the form of casual, throwaway designations in sources that go into little to no depth on the subject. More scholarly stuff just labels it "fringe" without assigning a political polarity. I think an element of the labelling here derives from the association of The Grayzone with coverage that is deemed favorable to Russia, Venezuela and China, etc., and in more one-dimensional political reporting, this translates into "far-left" as a pejorative. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. It is laughable to summarize the Grayzone as "far-left". Every author that has done so diminishes their credibility, rather than elevating the credibility of the claim.

However - to be clear, I do understand that on a strictly policy basis, the fact that the label is self-evidently absurd doesn't matter. My understanding from what I'd call 'Wikipedia policy purists' is that, even if a claim is self-evidently or demonstrably dubious, we must mention the claim in the article if reliable sources have made the claim.

For example, if someone paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to various authors at RS publications to include the phrase "Joe Biden is a weirdo" in their articles, our hands would be tied, and we'd have no choice but to state, as fact, that Joe Biden is a "weirdo" in his article.

I actually agree that notable views - whether accurate or dubious - must be included in the article. All I'm suggesting is that we attribute political opinions to their authors, rather than using Wikivoice to elevate them to the level of factual descriptions. I'm still perplexed why this is such a controversial stance that has been opposed with such emotion and fervor. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

We had an RfC not all that long ago about how the article should describe its ideological position, which resulted in strong consensus for the present state. And there's plenty of detailed reporting about how it fits into this far-left fringe ecosystem (Coda Story has an excellent deep dive, for example). Even if campist, that's something that historically comes out of the idea of a third camp, and contemporary scholars generally place that sort of stuff on the left (see also: [14]). Frankly, we're going with what the RS say when we say that The Grayzone's ideological alignment is that of the far-left. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear Red-tailed hawk - I've seen you around here many times, and always had the impression that you were a relatively clear thinker. I'm disappointed to hear that you summarize the "Coda Story" piece as "an excellent deep dive". I see nothing excellent nor deep about it. It's a lazy political hatchet piece, clearly written with a specific tactical purpose in mind - which should come as no surprise, given Coda's close financial relationship with the NED, which even a cursory amount of investigation will tell you was created during the Reagan administration to fulfill the objectives of the CIA and U.S. State Department and to counter media outlets that challenge U.S. government narratives. This article, in particular, is an excellent example of why we must move from a Wikivoice model to an attribution model here. Otherwise Wikipedia is, literally, a useful idiot outlet for government-sponsored narrative framing, which I hope we'd all agree is something to be avoided.

I know that we are "going with what the RS say" - I fully support describing the views held by every reliable source. I only object to elevating opinions or explicitly ideological speech expressed in popular publications as encyclopedic facts. If serious, academic publications within the field of political science and international relations were to offer a rigorous definition of what "far left" is, in an exact and technical sense, and then provide an exegesis which demonstrates the Grayzone's definitive inclusion in that camp, I'd say using Wikivoice here would be reasonable. By contrast, lowbrow, pop-politics news outlets, especially those funded by the same governments that the Grayzone criticizes, cannot be considered reliable enough to use Wikivoice, and should absolutely be attributed. I know some of you disagree, and although many people agree with me, it is hard to achieve a consensus, because anyone who points out the issues with this article gets bullied and/or, in my case, doxxed - but I will continue to make this point until someone offers a satisfactory rebuttal, demonstrating that attribution would leave the reader with less context and less information than the status quo. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The points that you raise about Coda Story do raise some interesting questions as to whether as source funded by a US-style democracy advocacy organization can be truly independent, in the sense expected of any given WP:RS in the context in which it is referenced, in reporting on a source that seemingly opposes US-style democracy advocacy. It might be incidental, but I noticed that the Guardian, despite having been bashed by the Grayzone, seems to reserve judgement on the outlet's political polarity in this piece - simply connecting it with conspiracy theory, i.e. fringe, and leaving it at that. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

There was a broad RfC on the reliability of Coda Story that found clear consensus that it's generally reliable. Just as the BBC and PBS take money from their respective governments but are editorially independent therefrom, I don't see a convincing reason to discount Coda Story here—especially when the community has broadly rejected these exact sorts of arguments about its funding arrangement in the past. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that there is a clear conflict of interest presented when a news outlet funded by the U.S. government writes shoddy, innuendo-laced hit pieces against outlets that publish stories sharply critical of U.S. government policy. However, that's irrelevant in this context - I am not suggesting that we "discount" the Coda piece. In fact, if someone were to remove it from this article, I would revert their edit. It belongs here. All I am saying is that the opinions expressed therein are just that - opinions. They are notable opinions, because they are published in an RS. But the fact that they are published in an RS does not elevate them from opinions to timeless, sacred truths. An opinion in an RS is still an opinion, even if it's a notable opinion. NPOV makes it very clear that we should not present opinions as facts.

The example on the NPOV page is this: "genocide is an evil action". That sentence is considered non-factual, inappropriate, and unencyclopedic (even if, presumably, reliable sources say it). Instead, NPOV advises us to say something like "according to so-and-so, genocide is the epitome of human evil". If "genocide is evil" is too subjective to meet Wikipedia's editorial standards, a phrase like "such and such outlet is 'far-right' or 'far-left' or 'fringe' (a much less universally held opinion than 'genocide is bad') clearly and incontrovertibly raises NPOV issues.

All of these NPOV landmines can be avoided, and the article can be substantially improved along multiple dimensions, by simply attributing the opinions, instead of presenting them as facts. I have yet to read a substantive rebuttal to this point. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I do think the Coda piece is biased and misrepresents Blumenthal's position (see the previous section on NPOV). It should be used as source only with attribution, as Philomathes2357 suggests. Other sources seem to be equally or even more biased (see for example footnote 11, a report from World. Niemandsbucht (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, @Niemandsbucht, and @Red-tailed hawk - in light of the above, what do you think is the best way forward? I still recommend a sentence in the lede that says something like:

"The Grayzone has been labeled 'far-left' by many news outlets, and has also been described as 'right wing', 'far-right', and 'fringe'." With all relevant citations, of course. Does that sound reasonable? Are there other suggestions for how to word this?

And yes, Grayzone has been called "right wing" and "far-right". This article's first sentence used to say "The Grayzone is an American far-left and far-right news website and blog" - I wish I was kidding, but I'm not. All of the descriptors adopted by various RS journalists should be included, with particular weight to the "far-left" descriptor, since it's by far the most repeated. Thoughts? Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It said "far-right" for all of five hours, and the label was simultaneously rejected on the talk page. Appealing to that bold addition as if it were to represent community consensus in any way, shape, or form, is plainly misguided.

The best way forward is to follow the results of the extremely clear RfC you started in January that was closed in March. Absent community consensus to overturn that RfC, it would be plainly inappropriate to remove the well-sourced label of "far-left". — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

While I'm not hugely enthusiastic about the "far-left" label, I agree with RTH that there's no point relitigating the consensus of the well-attended RfC on the topic so soon after it was closed. I think it's beating a dead horse at this point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think 'fringe' is at least as oft repeated as 'far-left', if not more - and given that no sources contradict this, I would put that descriptor first, with the caveated left-wing statement after, and the disclaimer that they have also been labelled right-wing afterwards. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

When an article has such glaring issues - such as this one - a consensus (potentially wrongful, I would add - I can expand on that point) developed half a year ago should not hold us back from at least discussing the painfully obvious issues with it. I'd also note that while some editors said, in a nutshell, "nah, I kinda like using the far-left label", nobody to date has explained why the NPOV issues raised above are invalid. Let's let this discussion continue, which has had an approximately equal number of editors on each "side". If this issue can be explicated in detail by us, here, a much more informed and precise RfC could be held at a later date, which will certainly bring in the input of editors not involved in the discussion 6-8 months ago.

So, @Iskandar323, does this sound more in line with your proposal?:

The Grayzone has been widely described as a 'fringe' website, with many media outlets describing it as 'far-left'. A smaller number of outlets have also described The Grayzone as 'right wing' and 'far-right'." Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The Grayzone calls itself RSes matter more than ABOUTSELF

Thoughts? Someone tries to push this every three months, never with any new RSes

The best way forward is to follow the results of the extremely clear RfC you started in January that was closed in March. Exactly Softlemonades (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You're missing the whole point. It's not a matter of "new RSes" - the problem is that the currently used RSes are not being used properly in light of NPOV. NPOV could not be more clear about "avoid stating opinions as facts." It is epistemically incontrovertible that "far X" is an opinion. The fact that people are constantly bringing this up should humble you enough to reconsider whether or not you've thought this through as much as you might think you have.

I need to be very clear here, at the risk of being blunt. I'm not asking you guys if you think "far left" is an opinion - I'm trying to educate and inform you that it is indeed an opinion. Like, it's really not a matter of debate. Even entertaining the debate makes me feel like an evolutionary biologist debating a room full of fervent young-earth creationists. If you think "far X" is an opinion, you are correct. If you think "far X" is an empirical fact, you are incorrect. It really is that clear cut. I'm sure those who are disagreeing do so in good faith, but I'm sorry - you're wrong.

Think about it this way. If a bunch of random editors with no background in or comprehension of biology jumped into the fray of a hotly-contested debate about the wording of a complex question of evolutionary biology on Wikipedia, and managed to form a faux-consensus that it out of touch with what highly educated editors know to be true, this would be untenable, and the consensus would eventually be overruled, even if it was an uphill battle that involved multiple discussions, RFCs, etc. Folks with no knowledge of epistemology should, respectfully, take a step back, listen to those who do have such an expertise, and learn. This is why, although I acknowledge a "consensus" was reached a half-year ago, I am not going to simply walk away and watch the public trust in Wikipedia steadily be degraded by those who lack the epistemic expertise to apply NPOV properly. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"It is epistemically incontrovertible that "far X" is an opinion." According to whom? –dlthewave ☎ 21:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You're missing the whole point I understood

I'm trying to educate and inform you and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS

Folks with no knowledge of epistemology should, respectfully, take a step back, listen to those who do have such an expertise, and learn WP:Expert_editors#Advice_for_expert_editors In its early days Wikipedia did stray into accepting the authority of editors, which led to the Essjay controversy. Since then the community has rigorously adhered to the principle that it doesn't matter who you are or who you say you are — what matters is the quality of the sources you bring and of your edits summarizing those sources, and how well you work with others Softlemonades (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Philomathes2357: I do agree with most of what you're saying, especially [in this post]. I don't think the article can be taken seriously as long as the self-description of The Grayzone is excluded. Period. Even if RS are supposed to be more important, as was said above, this does not mean that self-description should be completely excluded (and to be clear, I assume that such exclusion is done on purpose in this case, I will say more about in a seperate section). Such an exclusion is simply bad encyclopedic practice. And even supposedly RS can misrepresent the facts. I give one example in the previous section of this Talk page. Niemandsbucht (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the opinions of RS authors should not be presented alone, to the exclusion of a self-description. Some people seem to be very emotionally invested in making sure this article presents the subject in as negative a light as possible. I don't fully understand the motivations, but it is bizarre, and certainly inappropriate. There is a strong, emotionally-driven resistance to even acknowledging that there are NPOV issues here.

Also - I didn't want to put another big wall of text here, but last night I jotted down some very basic concepts to show confused editors why "far left" is, indeed, incontrovertibly an expression of an opinion, and not an impartial description of objective reality. You can find it at the top of my personal page. I'd very much appreciate it if some folks read it, especially those suggesting that "far left" is a statement of fact. I think you will have a hard time maintaining such a position in light of what I've written. Once I can establish a consensus that these are, in fact, opinionated terms (which is just a matter of educating other editors, or encountering enough epistemically-literate editors to overshadow the epistemically-illiterate ones), I will return to this article and continue attempting to improve it. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I tead it. It took over 2 hours with my assistive magnifier. It was absolutely batshit. PLEASE STOP. you tried this 6 months ago. It got you blocked and topic banned. PLEASE STOP IT. Lois Lane of Earth-12 (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I opposed "far left" in the RfC and agree with Iskander123 about why "fringe" is better (although I disagree with the RIGHTGREATWRONGS suggestion that we should stop using Wikivoice to describe things as left-wing or right-wing (and that that new policy should start with this particular page)) but half a year after a very strong RfC determination we'd need a very compelling new reason to re-open this discussion and no compelling new reason has been forthcoming. I hope this is the last comment in this section.

Meanwhile, in case consensus is in doubt, I strongly support Coda Story's reliable source status, and the idea that it is somehow comparable to an author who has been bribed to say "Joe Biden is a weirdo" (which would by definition make such an author unreliable) is just a non-sequitur. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Add "anti-Western" to heading

I made this edit and it was reverted. The sentence was "The Grayzone is staunchly anti-Western, heavily criticizing the US and Israeli governments." Several of the reliable sources cited describe the Grayzone as anti-Western, and a vast majority of the content on the website is explicitly anti-Western, criticizing and making (sometimes misleading or false) claims of human rights abuses, abuses of power, etc often specifically placing blame on the CIA, or the US state department, and (perhaps less often) the Israeli government. I could provide dozens if not hundreds of articles on their website that support this, since that is original research it obviously can't be a cited source. Most reliable sources at least mention this. The Grayzone is anti-Western first and foremost, and the "misleading reporting and sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes" is part of this framework, but it should not be before the most crucial, core, part of the Grayzone's identity in the header. To offer an analogy, this would be like saying Roger Federer is known for his apparel company and endorsement deals before talking about his career as a tennis player. What I'm proposing is a short but important sentence, and I will add it back to the article if nobody contributes to this discussion in a few days to at least spur conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekcrisp (talk • contribs)

If you have a reliable source that backs that prose, feel free to add it. 107.123.1.35 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree with your proposal. I think that the careless throwing around of political descriptors on Wikipedia is already a major problem. These labels are usually highly subjective, and always inadequate. Therefore, they should be used sparingly and with great care if we are to adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

In the case of "anti-Western", although the Grayzone has made extensive critiques of Western governments such as the USA and Israel, making the leap to labeling the outlet "anti-Western" creates an overly simplistic dichotomy of the sort that's shamefully common in modern media. It's the "you're either with us or against us" mentality. It's akin to calling those who criticize authoritarian theocracies in the Middle East "anti-Middle Eastern". It is, frankly, a childish way to think about the world.

I am not calling you childish - you make a reasoned case for the sentence's inclusion by citing "reliable sources" that have used this language - but I think the fact that those sources would use a phrase like "anti-Western" degrades their credibility, rather than inflating the credibility of the phrase itself.

I think the only exception to this is when a subject describes themselves as "anti-X". For example, if someone burned a Quran in front of a mosque and yelled "eff Muslims", it would be reasonable to describe them as "anti-Islamic". Outside of that, I don't think these descriptors add value to articles, and I strongly oppose their inclusion.

I look forward to your counterargument, should you choose to present one.Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What does "Anti-Western" even mean, and on what basis is the claim made. One of the slogans of the ACLU is/was "Dissent is Patriotic". If you love your country but you disagree with their policies or believe that they are based on faulty evidence/propaganda, aren't you supposed to speak out about it? Unless Grayzone has specifically said that they are "Anti-Western", you can only call them "Anti-Western" if you're a mind-reader. Otherwise it's just your opinion/speculation about their sentiments/motives. And when the New York Times publishes articles that are critical of US or Israeli policy, does the New York Times become "Anti-Western"? All these labels are just a substitute for critical thought. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You have been editing here how many years @Bueller 007:? And you still haven't learned that the wording we use is based on its weight in reliable sources? Please read WP:RS to help you understand some of the fundamentals. 107.123.1.35 (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Imagine being so devoid of media literacy that you can't distinguish between fact and opinion. Reporters quoting/summarizing what Grayzone has actually said is fact. Calling Grayzone "anti-Western" is opinion/speculation about their (unknown) motives/beliefs. And when we write about that, we should treat it as such. In other words, we shouldn't just flat-out say "Grayzone is anti-Western", we should say that "they have sometimes been called anti-Western". Etc. Not hard to understand. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Whoa, calling me clueless? [15] You need to consider whether you are being disruptive, or if you are here to build an encyclopedia. Personal attacks don't convince anyone of your non-policy based position on wp:rs. Please strike your above reply to me, as a sign of being willing to work in a civil manner. If you attack me personally again, I will report this outside of the talk page. 107.123.1.35 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I already deleted "clueless" because I felt it was inappropriate. I don't feel that way about the remainder of my response, considering your original comment. Although I might apologize for it if you apologize for your original insulting comment first. That's how civility works, right? The first person to commit a wrong is generally the first to apologize. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, I'm not here to debate. I don't want to talk about your personal opinions. Please read wp:rs, and link to relevant Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, you are just being disruptive and incivil. 107.123.1.35 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I know what a reliable source is. See WP:VOICE. "Avoid stating opinions as facts." Regardless of whether it is stated in a reliable source, calling Grayzone "Anti-western" is an opinion (yes, those are found in reliable sources too) because it is speculation about their unknown motives. It should not be stated as a fact. That means that if we include it, we have to phrase it as an opinion, exactly as I showed above. We can't just flat-out state this opinion as if it were a fact. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

After being asked to take a look at this discussion by the IP on my talk page, I would encourage everyone to keep the discussion civil and ideally focused on the topic at hand which is whether to add the phrase "anti-western" to the lede.

For example, 107.123 saying You have been editing here how many years @Bueller 007:? ... Please read WP:RS to help you understand some of the fundamentals. is not an appropriate comment.

Also Bueller 007 (talk · contribs) saying Imagine being so utterly clueless and devoid of media literacy that you can't distinguish between fact and opinion. is not appropriate either (noting that the word clueless was since removed, but comment in general isn't helpful). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Bueller, I appreciate you speaking up about this. I'm as frustrated as you are. One doesn't have to be a fan of the Grayzone's work to see that this article is deeply problematic from an NPOV perspective. The recent edits by ZXeditor were a clumsy step in the right direction - the most egregious NPOV issues were addressed, but new ones were created, and the editor engaged in OR. I'm confident that this issue can be resolved in a civil manner. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Notes in footnotes

This article seems to be a victim of the fact that the editors are so intimate with the subject that it is no longer written for those who aren't.

I've never heard of the Grey Zone until today. I came to it as much as can be a blank slate to judge the article on its merits, and it's quite hard. Most of the cited articles are angry and convoluted, as is the Grey Zone itself.

• Try to read this citation without prior knowledge of the Grey Zone.[16] It enters in medias res for effect, but leaves the reader with nothing but the impression that a lot of people are angry.
• Consider this paragraph "In February 2019, when a humanitarian aid convoy...". There are pro-Maduro forces, anti-Maduro forces—I had never heard of the convoy, and the article shouldn't assume I had. Was Maduro in power at the time? The paragraph should state not "pro-Madura forces" but "supporters of Venezuelan leader ____ Maduro", or "ex-leader", or "candidate", as may be appropriate.

One's impression of the Gray Zone and coverage about it is that it's a bunch people pointing at each other and yelling "no, you're propaganda." Probably someone is right, but no one is making themselves easy to understand.

There seem to be two central claims:

• The GZ has reported literal falsehoods
• The GZ has a pattern of supporting certain narratives (pro-authoritarian regimes?)

It would be great to have in simple, distilled form each thing that the Gray Zone has reported that has turned out to be a literal falsehood. This would greatly aid both readers of this article and editors in understanding the lack of credibility.

In addition, when there are sources, it would great aid readability to highlight the relevant passages in the notes of the citation.

Further, there seems to be a pattern that the Gray Zone supports authoritarian regimes—but all authoritarian regimes? DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

All valid concerns and frustrations of mine, too. The central claim behind the Grayzone's deprecation, by Wikipedia and the press, is that they have "reported false information". I've tried my best to find an example of a claim made in the Grayzone that was later proven categorically false. I have yet to do so. There's a lot of innuendo, like the NewPol article you link to, but not a lot of specific allegations of provably false reporting. The allegations that I have looked into, surrounding reporting about Nicaragua, have turned out to be highly misleading, to the point of simply lying about what the Grayzone actually said. If you can find an example of false reporting, I'd like to see it. This is why I am conducting a thorough source review on this page.

Of course, as other editors will point out "whether or not the disparaging comments the press makes about the Grayzone are true doesn't matter, they're verifiable, so we must repeat them anyway". Fair, and I'm not opposed to that. But given the "angry" and odd, innuendo-laced commentary in the sources in question, and the factual dubiousness of the claims in question (how does being pro-Kremlin make you far-left?), we should be attributing all of this.

Again, what exactly do "far-left", "fringe", "pro-authoritarian", and "pro-Kremlin editorial line" mean? Are you Wikivoice-advocates sure that these are "facts" in a manner similar to scientific facts? Like, really sure? Are you confident that you have the expertise in modern political discourse necessary to make such a determination? Are you confident that the sources in question were referencing a precise, academic definition of terms like 'far-left', and not just pulling them out of their ass? Are you sure that the authors of these news articles are truly 'experts' in anything that would be relevant to the topic at hand? Have you carefully considered all of this before adopting such a brash, dismissive, "nothing to see here" attitude, in the face of other solutions on the table, and dozens of editors disagreeing? You'd really better be, because Wikipedia has an awful lot of influence, and these decisions have real world consequences, you know.

I just read a report that GoFundMe has seized over $90,000 that was donated to the Grayzone, under the pretext that there is some as-of-yet undefined concern with their activities. One would certainly get the impression from this article that there are well-founded concerns about their activities, but all of these concerns and insinuations are vanishingly thin on substance, to the point that they have the appearance of propaganda, rather than journalistic reporting. One could even make the case that this is article, as written, presents BLP issues as well as NPOV issues, since the outlet and its owner are now facing real-world financial consequences to this substance-free rumor mill that Wikipedia has endorsed.

Maybe the pro-Kremlin Grayzone can just tap into its funds endowed upon them by the Russian government? Oh wait, it's the unwaveringly pro-White House sources angrily criticizing the Grayzone that are funded by state actors, not the Grayzone.

I'm not even a "fan" of the Grayzone, they're one of perhaps 60-70 outlets whose headlines I scan on a regular basis. They've obviously got a POV. One need not be a Grayzone advocate to notice that this article is a disaster.

It's just glaringly obvious to me that all of these NPOV issues could be solved, neatly and elegantly, without removing content, by simply putting facts in Wikivoice, and attributing opinions to those who've expressed them. It's the letter and spirit of NPOV. There is no good reason not to do it. And plenty of negative consequences to refusing to do it. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

How can you say that some source is "unwaveringly pro-White House"? This is more of the same utterly unsourced claims, repeating Grayzone talking points while picturing as the one concerned with NPOV issues... Again, WP:BLUDGEON. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Simple. A news outlet doesn't receive funding from the US government unless they maintain a pro-White House, pro-NATO editorial line. If the outlet makes systemic critiques of US policy, they don't receive State Department funding. That's how I can say that a source is "pro-White House". Can you find a single example of an NED-funded news outlet rebuking US foreign policy? If you can do so, I'd strike the "unwaveringly" bit.

You have a knee-jerk objection to me, in a talk page, calling openly US-government funded sources "pro-White House". Does that mean we can at least have a conversation about the Grayzone (which has not been shown to be funded by the Russian government) being labeled "pro-Kremlin" in mainspace, in Wikivoice? Can we agree that perhaps that is inappropriate, even if we disagree on "far left"?

I'm smoking out problems with the article, and outlining concrete improvements that should be made. Other editors here are doing the same, including OP. The fact that a handful of editors (half a dozen at most) don't see the POV issues here doesn't mean that they do not exist. You can say I'm "repeating Grayzone talking points", or you can defend the article on its merits. In the face of my critiques, the absolute best rebuttal I've received is a series of Wikilawyer arguments that claim that WP:V and WP:NPOV actually require us to put politically-charged assertions in Wikivoice. The reason I continue to discuss this is because I find the rebuttals to be woefully lacking in thoughtfulness and substance.

Perhaps if serious rebuttals to the critiques were offered, the critiques would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you could start with linking to a verifiable instance of categorically false reporting from the Grayzone. That would get the ball rolling, instead of trying to use condescension and Wikilawyering to get me to shut up. If the Grayzone is actually publishing false information, that's important, and specific examples of the false information that's been published should be discussed in the article. If the Grayzone cannot be shown to have published false information, phrases like "the Grayzone is known for false and misleading reporting" absolutely should not be in Wikivoice.

By the way, Wikipedia's co-founder Larry Sanger just mentioned this article in an interview, specifically and individually, as one of the worst examples of the spirit of NPOV being broken. I guess he's in on the "Grayzone talking points" conspiracy, too? The fact that this article is deeply troubling is pretty self-evident to outside observers - the illusion of "consensus" has been created here because anyone who objects to the faux-consensus has been talked down to and threatened until they shut up. See WP:GAME. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Does that mean we can at least have a conversation about the Grayzone (which has not been shown to be funded by the Russian government) being labeled "pro-Kremlin" in mainspace, in Wikivoice? Youre the only one saying that funding and position are the same. No one said theyre funded by the Kremlin. Just pro Kremlin. Isnt this what they call moving the goals? Softlemonades (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I just read a report that GoFundMe has seized over $90,000 that was donated to the Grayzone, under the pretext that there is some as-of-yet undefined concern with their activities. One would certainly get the impression from this article This isnt cited in the Wikipedia article but youre complaining about it and saying its a bad source. WP:NOTFORUM

One could even make the case that this is article, what? as written, presents BLP issues as well as NPOV issues, since the outlet and its owner are now facing real-world financial consequences to this substance-free rumor mill that Wikipedia has endorsed WP:NOR Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.

Stop and WP:LISTEN Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may be disruptive and time-wasting, especially if they can't understand what the problem is. Softlemonades (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The bias in the article is obvious, one doesn't even need to read the clear arguments by Philomathes2357. Refusing to accept the article has NPOV issues is hard to defend. Abusing wikipedia processes for political purposes does no service to it. 187.170.7.54 (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The article says what wp:rs say. If you don't like it change what reliable sources say. 107.127.35.126 (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The Grayzone reports on Wikipedia

Here is a critique of Wikipedia published by The Grayzone and re-published by Monthly Review, a well-known left-leaning political magazine in the US and a "reputable source" (to use that funny WP lingo): https://mronline.org/2020/06/15/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/

I quote: "Yet while the website [that is, Wikipedia] markets itself as an open-source encyclopedia that anyone in the world can edit, the reality is the platform is tightly controlled by a small group of administrators and editors–and heavily dominated by powerful institutions that have the resources to mobilize users to advance their interests."

I wonder whether critical comments like the one just quoted are one reason why the WP article on The Grayzone is so biased. Niemandsbucht (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This really makes me think. Like, I wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder who? Who wrote the book of love? Dumuzid (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow, editor with only 74 edits since creating their account 6 years ago is spouting twaddle. Who'da thunk? Apparently We're all secretly puppets of the CIA, Jimbo and Maher, lol. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget our honorable friends from the Freemasons and illuminati. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Not all of us are puppets but some of us work for the CIA, FBI,[17] police departments,[18], Zionist groups,[19] [20] [21] the White House,[22] governments[23] and big business.[24] [25] [26] [27] Burrobert (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Everyone can edit in Wikipedia, this is the whole point of the project, the fact that some editors are State actors is unsurprising and within the range of expected malicious activities. Not only that, but you clearly restrict these interventions to one 'geopolitical bloc', when we know for a fact that many intelligence agencies try to manipulate the encyclopedia, the russians, the chinese, the french, and so on and on so, with conflicting objectives... JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

To not get sidetracked, the question at hand is that if this response is relevant for the article or not. The answer is that it probably isn't. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course, if this was re-published in a reliable source, it takes on the level of reliability of the source. Therefore it merits inclusion, case closed. I've been admonished for wanting to analyze and contextualize sources, so we definitely shouldn't be doing it here. It's a reliable source, so what it says should, and must be incorporated into the article, even if its unflattering to Wikipedia, or goes against the narrative that the article presents. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

And your claim of mronline.org being reliable is based on..? Also: "Monthly Review does not necessarily adhere to all of the views conveyed in articles republished at MR Online. Our goal is to share a variety of left perspectives that we think our readers will find interesting or useful. —Eds." 93.72.49.123 (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_357#LibSyn_%26_MonthlyReview

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_12#Monthly_Review_reliable_source_on_facts_or_opinions%3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_379#Leaked_Paul_Mason_-_Amil_Khan_correspondence

I'd summarize these three discussions as leaning towards the view that Monthly Review is generally reliable. Editors note its long history of socialist commentary by prominent authors and academics. Certainly, anything republished by them. should be used only as an attributed opinion. Perhaps something like "In a piece re-published by the Monthly Review, the Grayzone's Ben Norton said "XYZ". That makes it clear to the reader that, while the Monthly Review deemed the content worthy of platforming, the opinions expressed are the Grayzone's (technically, Ben Norton's), not the Monthly Review's. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The first and last RSN discussions show that Monthly Review's reliability is mixed at best (I didn't read the second one because it's too long, and I'm not sure a 2008 discussion is relevant today).

Monthly Review also "deemed worthy of platforming" this article from the CovertAction Magazine, which contains the following brilliant journalistic insights:

• "The list is on a website called Myrotvorets ('Peacekeeper' in English). Although mostly written in Ukrainian, it proudly identifies itself—right on its homepage (and in English)—as 'a CIA project.' And its headquarters are in Langley, VA, home of the CIA. The website is also reportedly hosted on a NATO server." Yes, I am sure if the CIA ran a "hitlist" website, they would proudly and publicly advertise it like that. Myrotvorets' claims of being affiliated with the CIA are definitely not just trolling of "journalists" with overly active imagination, like the author of this article. I wonder, if I put a wooden sign near my house stating that I am Joe Biden and that I have personally crucified six million Russian children, will Jeremy Kuzmarov write an article about this?
• "His stories, photos and video interviews with Russian and Ukrainian residents in the war zones revealed horrendous war crimes, torture, rape and other human rights violations committed by Ukraine's neo-Nazi military forces—but deliberately under-reported (or not reported at all) by corporate media like The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic magazine and other U.S. government echo chambers."
• "The majority of citizens in Donbas voted to become part of the Russian Federation after the Obama administration backed a neo-fascist coup in February 2014." Sure, the referendum was so laughable that not even Lukashenko accepted it, but who cares?

They also republish blog posts from such paragons of journalism as "urbanramblings19687496" and Caitlin Johnstone (CounterPunch review: "Manipulation and obfuscation are so egregious in certain texts, that they require close reading and even annotation in order to reveal their actual meaning. I have found that to be the case with the essays of Caitlin Johnstone, which unfortunately often garner a large following among certain segments of the online left.")

And that's just one example, but really, almost everything the Monthly Review republishes is this kind of nonsense. Its republication of the Grayzone article means nothing. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, this is not the first time Monthly Review publishes ridiculous crap about Myrotvorets: "Roger Waters added to Ukrainian hit list".

• "An analysis of the site's network protocol by the Foundation to Battle Injustice found that the database uses the technological services of a company in California. And, if you look at the main page of Mirotvorets, you will see the address 'Langley County, Virginia.' There are posts on the site from accounts which have names of western intelligence agencies: CIA, FBI, NATO, MI5, NSA."
• "According to Eliason and confirmed by a number of Foundation sources, the head of Bellingcat, Eliot Higgins, trained Ukrainians to find people on social media and add their data to Mirotvorets."
• "The Foundation to Battle Injustice says it has evidence that a Bellingcat 'operator,' Aric Toler, has personally trained Ukrainian nationalists to search for people's personal information and enter it into the Mirotvorets database."

I am honestly puzzled as to what motivates all those weird people to keep writing those weird articles. Are they actually delusional enough to believe in their fantasies? Or are they just lazy and disingenuous? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The old discussion of MRonline is outdated. The 2021 discussion has almost no discussion and is on a very specific topic. In the 2022 discussion, all but one editors strongly argued against reliability. In short, it's not currently considered reliable by this community. If you think there's potential new consensus for reliability, take it to RSN. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

NPOV

The article still reads like a hit piece, as a previous contributor remarked. It looks like a piece of political propaganda rather than an encyclopedia.

The first paragraph makes this much clear. It is written in a hostile style and makes no attempt at a neutral description.

The first footnote is telling. It refers to an article that is extensively cited throughout the article. The headline of this article introduces the label "fringe leftists" and goes on to attack Blumenthal's view on China.

For example, Blumenthal said in an interview: “I don’t have reason to doubt that there’s something going in Xinjiang, that there could even be repression” ... “But we haven’t seen the evidence for these massive claims.” He went on to describe reports of Beijing’s abuse of Uyghurs as “the hostile language of a Cold War, weaponizing a minority group.”

Blumenthal thus explicitly acknowledged that there could be repression in Xinjiang but in his view, the evidence for "these massive claims" ws lacking. He added that the language of the Cold War is used in the reports about Xinjiang under discussion.

This is simply what any journalist should do: Acknowledging a problem and asking for better evidence.

But in the articles's twisted logic it is merely an example that Blumenthal belongs to a group of crazies who "deny the scale of China’s Uyghur oppression".

So, the article does exactly what Blumenthal criticizes: using "the hostile language of a Cold War".

And this is only one example. Niemandsbucht (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The whole point of Wikipedia is to summarise what reliable sources say about something. You have not provided any sources to support your view. An article being negative does not mean it is a "hit piece" per se. See Infowars as an example. Can you provide a citation to an Blumenthal's interview about Xinjiang? I think it could be included. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Just noticed this. Glad to see at least a couple of others have noticed how truly awful this article is. Certainly, we can find a way to summarize what reliable sources have said, without weighing in and affirmatively declaring their opinions to be sacred, timeless truths. I 2nd Hemiauchenia's request for a citation on the Blumenthal quote. Could you please provide one? I've also reached out on your talk page, in case you don't see this. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps my edit was not clear. The Blumenthal quote is embedded in the source that is referenced in footnote 1. I don't take issue with the quote itself but with the way in which the referenced source interprets and, in my view, misrepresents Blumenthal's position. Hence, I see a violation of NPOV. Niemandsbucht (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

What you are arguing for is for the article to be based on original research, i.e. on our interpretation of an (unreliable) primary source (a Russia Today interview) instead of a reliable source's interpretation.

That's against WP policy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

For those that aren't aware: "reliable sources" means western propaganda and non reliable sources means anything else. Britannic16 (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's more than a grain of truth to this, and it's relevant to this page. Several of the sources cited for stating opinionated claims as fact have direct financial ties to the governments that the Grayzone has harshly criticized. A couple of uninvolved admins suggested that, in these situations, a thorough source review may be in order. I am undertaking such a review currently, and whatever the result, I will share it here. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Almost nobody else has accepted your (frankly bollocks) argument that Coda Story has a COI because it received a grant from the National Endowment for Democracy. It's become obvious at this point that arguing with you is pointless, because you show a clear failure or refusal to "get the point". and that you will keep whinging about the same points over and over, as if your opinion is more important than anyone else in this discussion and that you will eventually win by exhaustion. Your frankly absurd "Folks with no knowledge of epistemology should, respectfully, take a step back" comment is a clear demonstration of that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Exactly what Hemiauchenia says. WP:BLUDGEON on talk and WP:TIMESINK edits and WP:NOTGETTINGIT

Policy and consensus dont change because a few people disagree hard or say they know best Softlemonades (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Philomathes2357, for doing a review (and for spending so much time on these issues). I do think the appeal to "reputable sources" (and the complaint about "original research") can easily be a smoke screen for manipulating content. The reaction to my comment about the misrepresentation of Blumenthal's quote in the Coda Story is telling. It suggests that editors should simply copy and paste what they find online, without actually reading the stuff to which they refer. This is certainly an option, and it seems that the article about the Grayzone was manufactured, above all, in this way. Yet it does not correspond to encyclopedic practice.Niemandsbucht (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I do think the appeal to "reputable sources" (and the complaint about "original research") can easily be a smoke screen for manipulating content wp:agf Softlemonades (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I must have missed something, how did you establish that the quote was misinterpreted? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I think @Niemandsbucht's assertion is that the quote intentionally misrepresents what Blumenthal has said. I'm agnostic on that point, and I don't think Wikipedia policy gives us any safeguard against that sort of thing. If a source is voted "reliable" on a given topic, everything it asserts must be regurgitated, even if we see an obvious misrepresentation or strawman.

I'm more concerned about the local reliability Coda Story source itself. I reject the assertion that they have no COI on this topic. I know that's what WP:RSPS says, and I'm not questioning whether or not they're "generally reliable" - I'm questioning their reliability on this topic.

The Grayzone is known above all for being very critical of U.S. foreign policy. We cannot trust a U.S. government-funded source to reliably and accurately describe them. That would be like using an "academic journal" funded by ExxonMobil and Chevron to reliably "debunk" a climate activist. Or to describe Alexei Navaly as a "fringe extremist" known for "misleading claims" and "pro-White house propaganda" by citing an outlet that just received an endowment from the Kremlin. Or making very negative claims about a trans person by citing a newspaper funded by Alliance Defending Freedom. Come on. Obvious COI is obvious. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I have analyzed the mispresentation in my first posting in this section, (13:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)). (@Philomathes2357: I don't know if the misrepresentation was done intentionally). I do not claim that the Coda Story article is generally inappropriate. I am questioning the practice that sources are used without adaquate reflection. Simply said, I have the impression that editors sometimes cite sources without reading them, let alone thinking about the content. And in this case, such a reflection would not be a big feat, since one only has to read what Blumenthal says and what the author of the Coda Story article says in misrepresenting Blumenthal's statement.Niemandsbucht (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Twenty-six editors

In the last 365 days, 26 editors have come to this talk page to express NPOV concerns. Multiple of them have endorsed the use of the {npov} tag. This would be a bare minimum acknowledgement that multiple editors have identified a problem. Yet when the tag is applied, it gets reverted. Editors are repeatedly name-called and belittled until they go away gaslit and discouraged, and I was just threatened with a ban for daring to use sarcasm to express the bitter frustration that is obviously felt not just by me, but by other users. So despite over two dozen contributors expressing NPOV concerns, the faux "consensus" is still that there's nothing to see here, because the system of consensus building has been gamed. How many editors need to express NPOV concerns before the gatekeepers will at least relent in acknowledging that such concerns exist, and are legitimate NPOV concerns.

The {npov} tag belongs here. That's a bare minimum first step towards acknowledging the problems with this article, and the consensus that those problems do indeed exist. I support its addition to this article. Philomathes2357 (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

There are many problems with the post. Start at WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:BADGER Softlemonades (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a complete misunderstanding of how consensus works. By this logic, we should count all of the opinions of IP users complaining at Talk:InfoWars [28] and therefore conclude that the neutrality of that article is disputed. Of course, the complaints of those IP users are fringe and baseless, so they should be ignored. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the archives as well as the sections above, these complaints are largely based on a misunderstanding of what neutrality means on Wikipedia. We don’t give equal weight to positive and negative descriptions or avoid casting the subject in a negative light; instead, we aim to reflect the prominence of each viewpoint among reliable sources. In this case those views happen to be predominantly negative. NPOV complaints have failed to gain traction because editors have failed to explain how this article strays from what reliable sources say about the topic.

It's also unlikely that challenges to the reliability of commonly accepted sources will be successful, particularly if the source has been discussed many times and is highlighted in Green at WP:PERRENIAL. A challenge at WP:RSN would have to actually demonstrate an error or other reason that the source can’t be trusted, not just that it uses words which we don’t like. –dlthewave ☎ 14:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what "multiple editors" (namely anonymous IPs and relatively new users) think is irrelevant. We go by certain rules, among them what reliable sources say, which all identify Grayzone as a far-left, fringe and/or fake news site whose objective is to whitewash authoritarian regimes and organizations as long as they oppose the US, even when they flirt with the far-right. NPOV doesn't mean we have to provide a false balance to please both detractors and supporters of a website/ideology/party/individual. Take a look at the article on Donald Trump (just the introduction) and you'll understand this (not complaining at all). We go by reliable sources, not opinion polls by editors.--Focusinjatin (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no question that there's an NPOV problem here. I don't like or even read Grayzone, but it's obvious that this Wiki page contains blatant hackery. For example, the lede says Grayzone is "known for misleading reporting". The question is "known by whom"? The reference for this claim is a single sentence from a book chapter; it's a random, unsubstantiated one-off claim. The reference says: "...The Grayzone, a publication known for misleading reporting in the service of authoritarian states...(Singh 2020)." When you check their "Singh 2020" reference, that turns out to be a link to the Grayzone itself. In other words, the reference Wikipedia is using to claim that "Grayzone is known for misleading reporting" just pulls this claim out of their ass with no citations to support it. Someone's opinion has become a "fact" in an encyclopedia. Similarly for the claim in the lede that they are spreading pro-Kremlin propaganda. I can't access the Times article that is used as a reference, but the headline clearly seems to imply that the person was accused of this. An accusation is someone's opinion; not a fact. But this Wiki article removes the "accused" part and just flat-out asserts that they spread pro-Russian propaganda. Again, someone's opinion seems to have become a fact in an encyclopedia. If you can't see how this is an obvious form of bias, you lack self-awareness. An encyclopedia has to do better than this. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

When you check their "Singh 2020" reference, that turns out to be a link to the Grayzone itself. In other words, the reference Wikipedia is using to claim that "Grayzone is known for misleading reporting" just pulls this claim out of their ass with no citations to support it. that sounds like a source citing an example from Grayzone

I can't access the Times article that is used as a reference, but the headline clearly seems to imply that the person was accused of this WP:HEADLINE News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. It doesnt fail verification because you can't access the Times article and looked at text Wikipedia doesnt cite. If you think "accused" or "alleged" should be added, thats a reason to edit not remove it or post about headlines on talk Softlemonades (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia cites that reference for the "misleading reporting" claim, which is completely unsourced. Obviously they are citing the Grayzone for the claim that I removed using ellipses. I never said otherwise. But the claim that we are using from that source "misleading reporting" is just their unreferenced opinion. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia cites that reference for the "misleading reporting" claim, which is completely unsourced. Not liking the source doesnt mean it wasnt sourced Softlemonades (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The headline of the reference not substantiating the claim made on Wikipedia is not a reason to mention it on talk? I'm just supposed to make a change but not mention it on talk? Do you stop to think before you type? Bueller 007 (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The headline isnt what was cited. The body was. Youre objecting because of the headline. You said you cant read the body.

I'm just supposed to make a change but not mention it on talk? Youre not supposed to change content saying its not verified if you cant read it

Do you stop to think before you type? Please be civil Softlemonades (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I dont agree there is a problem with this article, so there are indeed questions about it. Multiple sources have again and again reported on the misleading and pro-kremlin nature of grayzone content. This is just another misrepresentation of the article. You just failed to mention that the rest of the sentence contain three more sources sustaining the same thing. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It's completely legitimate to claim that various sources have said that they are pro-Kremlin. That's the opinion of those authors and it's possibly a very widely held opinion. And it's possibly a true opinion. It's totally okay to say something like "Grayzone has widely been called pro-Kremlin". It's *not* at all legitimate for Wikipedia to just flat-out say that they are pro-Kremlin unless you have quotes from them saying "I love the Kremlin" or something. Here's why. If America says X is true and Russia says Y is true, then just being a skeptic of X and a believer of Y does not mean that you are "pro-Kremlin". You may absolutely *hate* the Kremlin but nevertheless disbelieve X and believe Y. Just because you agree with someone's factual claims does not mean that you support them. As far as I can tell, all these people are just asserting their *opinion* that Grayzone is pro-Kremlin simply because they agree with some of the factual claims that Russia makes. And currently, Wikipedia is taking those opinions and converting them into facts by failing to correctly identify them as opinion. TL;DR: there's a difference between agreeing with someone and supporting someone. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This is just bad epistemology, self-description shouldnt prevail in Wikipedia, this is just not how it works. It would imply that numerous parties shouldnt be called extreme right, nor multiple racist organizations would be racists, corrupt politians wouldnt be corrupt, even Thales of Miletus would be a philosopher. Grayzone doesnt simply share claim with Russia current discourse, they change their own discourse to match and amplify russian talking points. Have your ever read Max Blumenthal biography? He had a totally different perspective on things before establishing relations with russian gov. associates. They base multiple reports on government and pro-kremlin sources, they are the kremlin information sphere. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"they change their own discourse to match and amplify russian talking points." An unreferenced claim that immediately raises the alternate explanation that they actually listen to those talking points and they agree with them based on what they believe are the facts--even if they do not support the goals of the Kremlin. Your stance appears to be that anyone who agrees with Russia on a factual matter automatically becomes "pro-Kremlin"? And the only way not to be pro-Kremlin is apparently to disagree with Russia about absolutely everything regardless of what you believe is the underlying truth? We do not seem to *know* whether Grayzone is pro-Kremlin or anti-Kremlin (or indifferent). That's opinion. All we know is that what they say often happens to align with what the Kremlin says. Everything beyond that is opinion. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you didnt took care to read the actual article, because it explains and provide sources to multiple instances of colaborations. If a self-described journalist listen to government talking points, and then agree with utterly unreliable claims, then they are whatever pro- you can think of. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't accuse anyone here of having an agenda, or of consciously operating in bad faith. I will merely point out that the way @JoaquimCebuano weaves appeals to 'sources' seamlessly into emphatic emotional expressions of his own personal opinions about the Grayzone is instructive in two ways.

1) more evidence of the fact that there are systemic POV problems here on the page, both in article content and in the editor subculture

2) a demonstration of the type of thinking that got us here: to an article that, taken point-by-point, has the illusion of "just repeating the reliable sources", but read as a whole, is unprofessional, unencyclopedic, and clearly not compliant with the letter or spirit of NPOV. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I dont weave "appeals to 'sources' seamlessly into emphatic emotional expressions of his own personal opinions". In my personal opinion it doesnt make sense to place grayzone in some ahistorical abstraction of far left, but i didnt came here to argue about that, because its pretty well sustained in Wikipedia's criteria. You started this section with an argument that is outside the encyclopedia principle, as if a bunch of editors, some of them with a poor historical, could just force a quantitative appeal to change the article, never providing a good argument nor an example of what kind of source would sustain a different presentation of the object. As it has already been explained, this article could be said to provide undue weight to grayzone negative aspects, but it wouldnt necessarily mean it needed to change, because its not undue if the substance of the reports about the site seems negative, or, otherwise, suggests an unreliability. People could pile by the thousands in InfoWars, with the same arguments, without achieving anything. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I have read the article and I told you that I think it's biased trash. Of course if you read the article uncritically, it appears to make Grayzone "support" all kinds of things, because that's how the terrible article is written. The article just flat-out calls them pro-China and pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad without ever demonstrating that they actually support any of those regimes, merely that they sometimes happen to agree with them. (And it's totally possible that they do actually support those regimes, but we're making that claim without any evidence! We're an encyclopedia, ffs! Unless there's a reference of them actually expressing support for these regimes, then all the pro-Kremlin (etc.) stuff should clearly be written about as though it were opinion, possibly a widely held one.) Bueller 007 (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You want OR and not secondary RSes? And when you cant read a source, that means it doesnt verify what its used to cite and anyone who can't see how this is an obvious form of bias has to lack self-awareness? Softlemonades (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The only thing we should be counting is reliable sources, not the number of random people who wish this article spun the grayzone in a different light than wp:rs do 107.123.1.35 (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The whole thing about reliable sources is a side issue, as long as editors don't read the sources. It looks like this article was put together by simple copy-and-paste, without any serious reflection on what the sources actually say. To an outsider who is not familiar with the Wikipedia lingo, the article must appear rather one-sided, to put it mildly. Not a single sentence in the entire article tells the reader what The Grayzone is about in its own words. This is way below encyclopedic quality. Glenn Greenwald had some interesting comments on the topic a few weeks ago (from min. 55:30 onwards). Niemandsbucht (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

"Without any serious reflection on what the sources actually say" ... "Not a single sentence in the entire article tells the reader what The Grayzone is about in its own words" What changes would you propose to rectify these perceived issues? –dlthewave ☎ 20:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

As @Niemandsbucht notes, this article has been noted by respected third parties as a laughably bad article. Here are seven steps that can be taken to begin to address the systemic bias on display here.

1) A small minority of editors must stop gatekeeping the article and admit that the article can and should be improved.

2) Place an NPOV tag on the article, so readers are aware that serious concerns have been expressed about the article's POV. It is dishonest for a small minority of editors to pretend that these concerns do not exist or are somehow silly or trivial.

3) Include some primary material - at the very least, the Grayzone's self-description.

4) Use the talk page to analyze the sources used for some of the most eyebrow-raising Wikivoice claims, like the claim that the Grayzone is "pro-Kremlin" and "known for misleading reporting". We should have a serious conversation about whether or not vague innuendo like "pro-Kremlin" is appropriate for an encyclopedia. We should bring as much of the community as possible into this discussion, through RSN, the Teahouse, etc, so that the small minority of editors dedicated to gatekeeping the article do not exercise undue weight in the discussion.

5) Give far less weight to US government-funded sources, as they cannot be considered reliable when discussing critics of the US government, any more than Al Jazeera is a reliable source for information about critics of Qatari government policy.

6) Hold a new RFC on the Grayzone and change its status from "deprecated" to "additional considerations apply", or at least GUNREL, so that factual reporting from the outlet can be used.

7) Include, with in-text attribution, Glenn Greenwald's opinion that the Grayzone's Wikipedia article is one of the worst examples of bias in the encyclopedia.

If those seven steps were taken, we'd have an article that is merely mediocre, instead of embarrassingly atrocious. That would be progress. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You do realise that your argument would apply equally to Flat earth right? If you look at the talkpage history of the article [29], there are dozens of comments from flat-earthers disputing the neutrality of the article. Is there a serious dispute about that article's neutrality? Is that article being gatekept by a minority of editors who are big shills for round earth, the freemasons, and NASA? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it would not apply equally. Unless you take the position that "the Earth is a sphere" and "Max Blumenthal and the Grayzone are pro-Kremlin purveyors of propaganda" are both empirical, scientific statements of equal objectivity and weight. I hope that is not what you're saying. Your analogy does not hold up. Politics is not the same as empirical science. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

this article has been noted by respected third parties as a laughably bad article

Again, no source whatsoever... JoaquimCebuano (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The source was just linked by Niemandsbucht in the comment above mine. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with most of these, especially 1 and 6. But we can add short ABOUTSELF to History

And thanks for taking the advice on your talk page and making your post here shorter and easier to read. We disagree a lot still but I hope this will make discussion better Softlemonades (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll look at the best way to include ABOUTSELF when I have the time. Let's set aside #6, as it doesn't directly relate to the improvement of this article.

How do you feel about #2? Multiple editors have tried to add the NPOV tag but it always gets reverted by one of a small group of editors. Almost every comment on the talk page this year has been about neutrality concerns. I've raised several, including BLPGROUP concerns and the use of government-funded outlets to include unproven negative innuendo and insinuation about critics of the government, which have not been adequately discussed.

The tag does not state definitively that the article is not neutral, it merely alerts the reader that the neutrality of the article is disputed, which it obviously is...not just by me, but by other editors who've been contributing to Wikipedia for years and years. It also informs the reader that there is a discussion underway about how to resolve the dispute, which is also the case. So, the inclusion of the tag seems like something everyone should be able to agree upon, even those that personally think this article is a beautiful, impeccable example of NPOV.

I can think of good-faith objections to the neutrality concerns, but I can't think of a good-faith reason to object to using the tag. Can you? Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

To be disputed the article must be questioned with reasons and sources, this is also stated in the principles. Any article could be disputed otherwise, from human evolution, to global warming and Jesus. Your claims about government funding arent substantiated, nor any other argument displayed here, thats the difference. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Reasons have been given by multiple editors. You may find them unconvincing or "unsubstantiated", but that does not negate the fact that multiple independent experienced editors share them. It's a straw man of our position to compare this to flat earth or evolution. Of course my "claims" about government funding are substantiated. I've given multiple examples, just one being Coda Story, the outlet that's written the most about Grayzone, is funded by the NED.

Perhaps be can reach a point where we are having a substantive conversation about how to improve the article. It's a class C article, and probably should be a class D. But when one editor brings a secondary source, one of the more notable journalists of this century no less, criticizing this Wikipedia article specifically, and I bring 7 ideas to the table for potential improvement, and the response is "this article isn't disputed because there are no reasons or sources"? I can't help but feel that this isn't a serious, good-faith, collaborative environment. @JoaquimCebuano, do you think this is a GA-quality article as-is? If not, what are your ideas for improving this article? Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I dont think the 'problems' you claim are problems at all. But if the question is how to improve the article, i think it demands the collection of more sources, so the article can provide more comprehensive presentation of the topic. Again, I am dont think that you substantiated anything, the 'independent' editors just made random claims based on grayzone own 'reports'. As another editor pointed, you have been trying to cast a wider net, contradicting your own previous tone. To come here and propose that grayzone should be removed from the unreliable sources is not only outside of the proper place for such discussion, but a symptomatic change of discourse. You are yet to provide links to the "noted by respected third parties as a laughably bad article" and many other questionable claims. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

My impression was that an ABOUTSELF would be obstructed because the source is deprecated. Perhaps that's not the case. If it's not, disregard point #6, as it would be rendered irrelevant to the improvement of the article.

I've collected some, but not all, of the available unused sources about The Grayzone. See new section. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera edit

@Newslinger This edit summary [30] said you were adding Al Jazeera to the citation list but I think something made a mistake because the diff shows GoFundMe. I dont know what happened, if it was a mistake can you fix it? Sometimes the citation tools do weird stuff Softlemonades (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"GoFundMe" was the name (i.e. named reference) of the following citation that was added to the citation list:

Hale, Erin (1 September 2023). "GoFundMe freezes donations for The Grayzone, sparking free speech debate". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on September 1, 2023. Retrieved September 2, 2023.

The article describes The Grayzone as a far-left news outlet. — Newslinger talk 11:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I thought it might have accidentally pointed to one of the citations about funding. Its pointed to the wrong citation for me when it tracks them by number and I wasnt sure how you did it. I should use named references more Softlemonades (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"Known for misleading reporting"

@Softlemonades believes that the phrase "known for misleading reporting" must be in the first sentence, and must be in Wikivoice. I disagree. I've brought this up for discussion here, under the subsection "I'm concerned about a sourced claim. Please advise." Hopefully getting feedback from the wider community will shed further light on the best way to handle this. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Softlemonades believes that the phrase "known for misleading reporting" must be in the first sentence, and must be in Wikivoice. I didnt say that. I said your disruptive editing needs to stop, and your OR doesnt stop a source from being RS. This exact topic was already brought up at Talk:The_Grayzone#Twenty-six editors and you and Bueller didnt get consensus.

Im not the only editor to ask you to WP:DROPTHESTICK and point to your WP:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_"get_the_point". Your WP:POVPUSH and unfounded accusations about what I believe are both incivil and should stop Softlemonades (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

You brought it to discussion and ignored the responses. As a said before, this claim is further substantiated by the sources at the end of the sentence, and not just Wong. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

So cite the other sources for it (with quotes showing where they say that), and don't cite Wong, because it is no good as a source at all.--87.126.21.225 (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You brought this up for discussion and then refused to accept the outcome... Notice how the wider a net you cast the less editors support your position? What does that indicate to you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Philomathes2357, drop the stick before you get a complete topic ban from all political topics. You are being very disruptive and a time-sink. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion was more generally about the article having POV issues, while this is about a specific sentence and its place in the article. Threatening to ban people just for discussing the latter after the former, and that from all political topics, with the justification that you feel the person wastes your time, seems like unacceptable authoritarian bullying - and also, much more characteristic of a Javert than of a 'Valjean'.--87.126.21.225 (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior ends in a ban, this is not a threat. The user in question has indeed been disruptive in the whole discussion page, and made several edits against the consensus. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

New potential sources

This is a work in progress.

GoFundMe, Go To Hell by Matt Taibbi. Self-published on Racket News 31 Aug 2023

Taibbi describes The Grayzone as "a left-leaning, antiwar site"

in regards to GoFundMe's freeze: "This Grayzone incident is perhaps most loathsome, lacking even a patina of necessity or justification, while serving as a depressingly obvious preview of things to come."

"Even those who don’t share Grayzone’s politics should be outraged and alarmed."

Wikipedia: From Democratized Knowledge to Left-Establishment Propaganda by Glenn Greenwald. Published on Rumble 30 Jul 2023 - from 55:30-58:10

On The Grayzone

• "Devoted to critiquing the U.S. security state and America's wars"
• "Some of their reporting is "controversial, for sure"
• "oftentimes they are the ones opposing the lies and conspiracy theories spread by the establishment"

On The Grayzone's Wikipedia article as it existed 25 Jul 2023

• "tell me if this sounds anything like an encyclopedia, rather than a Democratic National Committee propaganda arm"

• "Needless to say, opposing US foreign policy and desiring a multipolar world does not make you a pro-Kremlin editorial site. All of this is propaganda, deeply ideological propaganda against a news outlet that is a harsh critic of establishment foreign policy."

• "This is anything but an encyclopedia."

Reframing neoliberal views on the pandemic: a critique of The Grayzone. by Charles Chinweizu. Published by the RCG 29 Jan 2022

Describes The Grayzone as a "radical investigative website with "a strong record of exposing US imperialist aggression across the world, and defending those who stand up to its belligerence". The Grayzone has engaged in "defence of progressive regimes in Latin America, against imperialism"

However, Chinweizu criticizes The Grayzone's reporting on COVID-19.

Wikipedia formally censors The Grayzone as regime-change advocates monopolize editing by Ben Norton. Republished at Monthly Review 15 Jun 2020

Norton accuses Wikipedia editors who advocated for The Grayzone's deprecation of being "Russiagate conspiracy theorists to anarcho-neocons to regime-change lobbyists to elite Venezuelan opposition members–basically anyone threatened by journalism that challenges the Washington consensus."

DEFUNDED For WRONGTHINK? GoFundMe FREEZES Donations Made To Independent Outlet The Grayzone by Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave on Rising. Published by The Hill 29 Aug 2023

Gray describes The Grayzone as a "left-leaning independent media outlet"

She also describes it as an "assuredly anti-imperialist news org that frequently is critical of the US military establishment"

Soave says that the outlet "departs from western, US/British orthodoxy" Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

An article published by The Grayzone (a deprecated source), then republished verbatim in MR Online, is not reliable. MR Online is a website operated by the Marxist magazine Monthly Review, but it is not the same thing as Monthly Review; according to Monthly Review, MR Online is "a forum for collaboration and communication between radical activists, writers, and scholars around the world". Additionally, quite a few of the sources listed in your comment are self-published and a discussion on potential uses (if any) would need to consider WP:SPS, WP:BLPSPS, and the policy on due weight. — Newslinger talk 06:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Philomathes2357 I saw your email, again. I'm sympathetic to your concerns about this article, but I don't think it's appropriate for you to be pinging me in this manner. Certainly, if those disagreeing with you were pinging other editors behind the scenes, you would feel that it was inappropriate. I'm not comfortable being recruited to look at the articles you find problematic. If you want a wider audience for your concerns, reach out to the Teahouse, the RSN, or elsewhere - as I advised you on your talk page. I'm not going to respond to any further requests to "scrutinize" an article on your behalf. I agreed with you once at the Teahouse, but that doesn't mean I can join your efforts in a systematic way. I did revert the edit you highlighted and explained my reasoning for doing so in the edit summary, but I really don't feel comfortable engaging further. This is your pet project, not mine. Sorry. Pecopteris (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, it won't happen again. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pecopteris Please note that when an editor makes an edit, even if that edit was done per the request of another editor, the responsibility for that edit ultimately falls upon the editor who makes it.

In the revert (Special:Diff/1176594279) that Philomathes2357 canvassed you to make via email, your edit summary claims that the following source was "written by college students":

Nguyen, Kim (13 June 2023). "Russian and Chinese Influence Actors and Operations Against the American Electorate". Global Disinformation Lab. University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved 22 September 2023.

Your claim is incorrect; the author Kim Nguyen's byline in the article is "Faculty Lead", and her biography on the website describes her as "Senior Research Program Manager, Intelligence Studies Project" and a fellow at the UT Global (Dis)Information Lab of the University of Texas at Austin. She had previously graduated from the university and she is not a student.

Additionally, your edit summary claims that "Nowhere in the source is the Grayzone described as 'pro-Chinese government'". In contrast, the article includes the following sentences (emphasis added):

"The publication frequently runs articles sympathetic to China and other authoritarian regimes such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. However, the platform has been particularly friendly to the Chinese regime by condemning the Hong Kong pro-democracy protests in 2019 as U.S. meddling and repeatedly denying the Uyghur genocide in Xinjiang. In return for this friendly treatment, The Grayzone has been amplified by the Global Times, the CCP’s outward facing propaganda newspaper."

The two bolded descriptors ("frequently runs articles sympathetic to China and other authoritarian regimes" and "particularly friendly to the Chinese regime") are equivalent to stating that The Grayzone is "pro-Chinese government". Describing the political position of a politically oriented news website is not "inappropriate innuendo"; it is necessary information that helps the reader understand the article subject. — Newslinger talk 22:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Newslinger, I understand, and I do take responsibility for the edit, although I've made it very clear to Philomathes that he mustn't canvass in this way again, and I will also refrain from further engagement since I was canvassed. I decided to make the edit independently, upon studying the source and the synthesized statement that was derived from the source.

First off, I will concede the point: the source was not written only by students. There is, indeed, a faculty lead credited with co-authorship of the blog post. However, it's unclear what was written by the students, and what was written by the faculty lead. The faculty lead's claim to being an expert is dubious as well, as her academic background appears to consist of "a B.S. in Geologic Sciences". Academically, I, a random guy on the internet, am far more qualified to speak about politics than she is, and I suspect many other Wikipedians are as well.

Rather than being an academic expert, as one would expect given her description as "university faculty", her relevant background consists of working for US intelligence. Which doesn't speak well to her objectivity on the topic at hand, which is a website generally known for being extremely, cynically critical of US intelligence.

In my opinion, citing her as an authority on the topic would be not quite as bad, but almost as bad as citing a Russian national, working for a Russian university-connected think tank, who, until very recently, worked for the FSB, to add a claim to Alexei Navalny's page about what Navalny "really" believes. Even though the source may be generally reliable, it probably would not be reliable in that specific context, given the inherent conflict of interests. It absolutely, definitively would not be reliable for making synthesized Wikivoice statements, as you did with "pro-Chinese government".

I think that's what Philomathes is trying to get at, with far too many words and tangents, when he talks about the article being skewed by "government-funded sources". But I don't know. And I don't really want to know, frankly. I strongly disapprove of how this article is written. I agree wholeheartedly with what Greenwald said about it. But I also have no desire to get sucked into the enormous dense fog of prose here and end up falling down the rabbit hole (more like a 1 mile deep rabbit open pit mine). I also feel uncomfortable engaging here more deeply since I was canvassed. So I won't be responding here any more unless someone queries me at my talk page. Good luck to all and good day. Pecopteris (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the MR Online article is not necessarily usable as a whole, but reliable in the narrow sense of being a reliable source of The Grayzone 's statements about its own affairs. That's why the only quote I took from the (very extensive) article was a quote about The Grayzone's deprecation. It would be appropriate to include the quote directly underneath the passage in the "history" section that mentions The Grayzone being deprecated on en.wiki. I'd agree, however, that it's the weakest of the sources, and mostly unusable.

Both of the self-published sources, from Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald, are published by "established subject-matter experts, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." So there are no concerns re:SPS. In regards to BLPSPS, I have previously raised the question of whether or not BLP concerns apply to this page, and those queries were dismissed. We can't have it both ways, so I'd have to say that the precedent is that BLP concerns are irrelevant here.

Despite the widespread claim that I'm somehow a malign influence on this article, I'm trying to do things the right way by bringing sources to the talk page before simply jamming them into the article with my own words and interpretations. I hope everyone agrees that bringing sources to the talk page is an appropriate step towards improving the article in a collaborative manner.

@Newslinger, perhaps that "Disinformation" source you added should be added to the above list? Then we can collectively extract relevant passages, and discuss how to integrate them into the article. Sorry I got @Pecopteris involved, I'm just frustrated and I've seen him handle disputes in a fair way in the past. I didn't know that was inappropriate, my bad. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Taibbi and Greenwald are not subject-matter experts on the topic of The Grayzone. Furthermore, Taibbi is not a subject-matter expert on the topic of GoFundMe and Greenwald is not a subject matter expert on the topic of Wikipedia. The policy on self-published sources does not enable editors to freely cite any political pundit's self-published blog post or video about any topic just because the pundit previously wrote for another publication. The WP:BLPSPS policy must be considered for each individual claim on any article (or other Wikipedia page); the policy cannot be disregarded for the entire article just because it did not apply to another excerpt of the article.

The quote you took from the Grayzone article that was republished in MR Online accuses other people (specifically, Wikipedia editors) of being "Russiagate conspiracy theorists to anarcho-neocons to regime-change lobbyists to elite Venezuelan opposition members". Including that content would absolutely be a violation of WP:ABOUTSELF, since the deprecated source is making claims regarding third parties. — Newslinger talk 23:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think your logic is well-intentioned and generated in good faith, but deeply misguided. Have you ever read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky? If you haven't, you should. If you have, you should re-read it. In my opinion, those who are not familiar with the book's arguments are not equipped to competently assess the reliability and objectivity of the modern media landscape.

Please be honest with me: are you open to including any of the sources I've brought forward, or am I probably wasting my time? Should I bother presenting other sources, or is my suspicion correct that all of them will be carefully Wikilawyered into the trash bin if they don't fit the current article's narrative? At this point, I feel like the NYT could publish a front-page piece fairly assessing The Grayzone and it would be Wikilawyered into the trash as "undue". Does this conversation have any realistic hope of going somewhere collaborative, or should I just give up now and bring this to the attention of a wider audience?

Do Glenn Greenwald's comments about the article give you pause in any way, or is he just some loser who doesn't know what he's talking about? If I co-authored a Wikipedia article, and one of the most notable journalists of the century took time out of his day to criticize that specific article as "deeply ideological propaganda" masquerading as encyclopedic content, it would at least force me to pause and reflect. It certainly wouldn't cause me to double down. I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm asking for honesty. I don't know how to move forward in a collaborative manner when I genuinely can't understand the POV and motivations of those I'm talking to, and when the people I'm talking to consistently fail to understand the points that I and other editors have made. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not know how you are intending to use these sources, since none of your comments suggest any content additions to the article using these sources. However, a quote from an article originally published by The Grayzone accusing Wikipedia editors of being "Russiagate conspiracy theorists to anarcho-neocons to regime-change lobbyists to elite Venezuelan opposition members" is obviously unusable in the article per WP:ABOUTSELF, and no re-reading of any book will change that.

A 2021 RfC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 361 § RfC on Glenn Greenwald concluded that Greenwald is not a subject-matter expert, and another noticeboard discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 356 § Matt Taibbi's Substack and Bret Weinstein concluded that WP:BLPSPS continues to apply for Taibbi's self-published content. WP:ABOUTSELF also applies to self-published content from both Greenwald and Taibbi; since Greenwald and Taibbi are not affiliated with The Grayzone, there is no case in which their self-published material would be usable for this article, as The Grayzone is a third party to Greenwald and Taibbi.

If the The New York Times (RSP entry) published an in-depth article about The Grayzone, that article would likely be usable for this article in some way since The New York Times is a generally reliable source that exercises ample editorial oversight. The personal political opinions of you, me, or any other editor are not relevant to article talk page discussions, since "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject" (WP:TALK#USE). — Newslinger talk 00:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the best way forward is for me to be bold and add the sources to the article as I see fit, as you did with the "pro-Chinese government" synthesis. Probably next week. Then, I will bring this issue to a wider audience. I don't see anyone here with an interest in improving the article. Actually, I see dozens, but they've all been Wiki-lawyered, and, if that doesn't work, threatened and insulted, until they shut up. It's too bad. Do read Manufacturing Consent, please. You won't regret taking the time, and it will make you a wiser and more judicious encyclopedia writer. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

While being bold is encouraged, making edits against talk page consensus is a violation of the disruptive editing guideline. When proposed article content has already been contested on the talk page, it is inadvisable to add that content into the article prior to obtaining consensus on the talk page. — Newslinger talk 01:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

As you noted above, "none of your comments suggest any content additions to the article". So, I don't think I'm at any risk of running afoul of disruptive editing guidelines, since there has been no proposed content and therefore, no contestation. I think one of my communication deficits here has been talking about the article in general terms, rather than making small, incremental improvements, and discussing them one by one by one. I'll keep your opinions about the sources in mind, and welcome serious, collaborative engagement. I'll check in with you in a few months to hear your thoughts on Manufacturing Consent. ;) Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

In case my comments were not clear, I am contesting the use of the content originally published in The Grayzone containing the "Russiagate conspiracy theorists to anarcho-neocons to regime-change lobbyists to elite Venezuelan opposition members" accusation per WP:ABOUTSELF, even though you did not clearly specify how you wished to incorporate it in this article. I am also contesting the use of the self-published sources you listed per WP:ABOUTSELF. I am not interested in a general political discussion. — Newslinger talk 01:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

None of those appear to meet our reliable sourcing requirements. Even under WP:ABOUTSELF these are pretty much unusable, remember that WP:ABOUTSELF can only be used for statements that don't involve third parties or are unduly self serving which would appear to be everything here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to say that having now read this exchange, I strongly agree with Newslinger and Horse's Eye Back. Reposted Grayzone content about Wikipedia editors published on a group blog, and self-published blogposts by non-SMEs (Taibbi, Greenwald) are bad sources. The RCG editorial is unlikely to be a reliable source for facts about third parties (although I'm open to persuasion on that), but would be a reliable source for the RCG's opinion - but it's hard to see why their opinion is due here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, none of this seems usable. It looks like we have a STRONG consensus to EXCLUDE it. Malibu Sapphire (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: "Taibbi and Greenwald are not subject-matter experts on the topic of The Grayzone" - actually, I'd say that inasmuch as journalists are subject-matter experts on anything, both Taibbi and Greenwald are subject-matter experts on journalism / the media, and the Grayzone is a journalistic / media outlet.

Of course, Taibbi and Greenwald represent minority political views/positions. Under the article editors' interpretation of NPOV and Undue Weight, this means that these positions have to be assumed to be wrong. The problem here may be that the same approach is being applied to overall political attitudes as to scientific claims. 'Your attitude towards China, Russia, Assad and Maduro is more positive than it should be' or 'you agree with China, Russia and Assad more often than you should' are vague expressions of political disagreement, not factual claims such as 'the Earth is round'. The fact that someone has been allowed to write something to that effect in an opinion piece in Haaretz or even in an academic publication doesn't mean that it is somehow 'a verified fact' in a 'reliable source' - it doesn't even imply that the same publishers wouldn't have published contrary opinions, too. At most, this is grounds for something like 'has been accused of giving too sympathetic coverage', but here it's just stated as an objective fact.

As for 'misleading reporting' - it's absurd that what is basically a volume of Hong Kong protester deliberations ('"How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police", Reorienting Hong Kong's Resistance') is cited as if it were a sufficient source for the evaluation of a media outlet's reporting. This volume can only be a reliable source on the strategies that Hong Kong protesters are considering in their fight against the Chinese state. It has nothing to do with scholarly analysis of media. And its bias should be obvious - of course Hong Kong protesters disapprove of outlets that criticise Hong Kong protesters.

'Fringe', however abundantly sourced, seems more like a slur than anything else. The word links to 'fringe theory', which is defined as 'an idea or a viewpoint which differs from the accepted scholarship of the time within its field', but, again, this is appropriate for scientific claims, not for political positions and the editorial line of media outlets. Accusing an outlet of having 'a viewpoint which differs from the accepted viewpoints of the time' implies that only some political viewpoints are accepted; a minority political outlook is delegitimised just based on being in the minority.--87.126.21.225 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Well said, IP. I agree with almost everything, and in particular with this: "The problem here may be that the same approach is being applied to overall political attitudes as to scientific claims."

I think that speaks to the core of the issue. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you reject entirely the existence of the social sciences? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course not, I'm a social scientist by education and profession. What I do reject is a false equivalence between scientific analysis and journalistic writings about contemporary politics. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

As a social scientist, you are welcome to write about The Grayzone and submit your content for publication in reliable sources, including academic sources. If any reliable sources publish your content, then your content may be eligible to be cited or incorporated in this article. If no reliable sources accept your content, and no reliable sources support the claims you are making, then your claims are not relevant to this article. Considering the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140 § Philomathes2357 et al, please keep in mind that The Grayzone is a deprecated source, so any writing you submit to The Grayzone would generally not be eligible for inclusion in this article or any other Wikipedia article. — Newslinger talk 18:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't a question for you, it was for the IP. Are you the IP? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I see that now. I misread the indentation. Of course I'm not the IP. I'd also note that the sources cited in this article are predominantly humanities sources, not social science. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course Philomathes2367 is the IP. It's the same writing style and the same ridiculous arguments. 216.239.170.134 (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would I write an IP comment and then respond to it? To show that someone agrees with me? There are already comments from dozens of other editors and IPs on this talk page expressing concerns about the NPOV problems with this page, and other editors, including multiple decade+ long contributors, have agreed with my specific critiques. Your accusation is baseless. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

And yet I'm not wrong. You made the edit while logged out to sockpuppet. The tone and writing style are EXACTLY the same. 216.239.170.134 (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Journalists are not automatically subject-matter experts after writing about a topic; the threshold is much higher than that. Journalists are also not automatically subject-matter experts in journalism, just as business owners are not automatically subject-matter experts in business. The verifiability policy specifies editorial oversight as a criterion for evaluating reliability; this is why Glenn Greenwald's articles published by The Intercept (RSP entry) are generally reliable while his self-published content is not, as confirmed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 361 § RfC on Glenn Greenwald.

Your comment misrepresents this article, since the article does not claim that The Grayzone takes any political stance "more often than you should". The article does state that The Grayzone covers certain topics favorably and certain topics unfavorably, which is thoroughly documented in the reliable sources cited in the article. The content in this article is descriptive, not normative.

The book chapter "How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police", published by Palgrave Macmillan, explicitly states that The Grayzone is "a publication known for misleading reporting in the service of authoritarian states". The chapter does not attribute that statement to Hong Kong protesters. Additionally, the book chapter is a significantly higher-quality source than self-published content from Taibbi and Greenwald; it is contradictory to advocate for higher sourcing standards for high-quality academic sources that describe The Grayzone's publication of misleading pro-authoritarian content, while advocating for lower sourcing standards for self-published content that is sympathetic to The Grayzone. — Newslinger talk 18:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the whole point about the source "How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police" is that it's not a "high-quality academic source". It's, as IP said, "basically a volume of Hong Kong protester deliberations". The fact that Palgrave Macmillan published it doesn't change it from what it is (the opinions of Hong Kong protestors and activists) to something it is not (a serious, high-quality academic analysis of contemporary news). Also, as IP mentioned, "of course Hong Kong protesters disapprove of outlets that criticise Hong Kong protesters." Duh.

For the topic at hand, it's biased by nature to the point of compromising reliability.

Yet there it is, not only used, but quoted verbatim, in Wikivoice, even though the source only makes a passing mention of The Grayzone.

I think we are talking past each other. You think I'm missing the point, and the feeling is mutual. That's nobody's fault, I think it's a symptom of a problem that is so much deeper than this one article that I think any further discussion here will be fruitless, unless some other avenue of dialogue opens in the future. Take care. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The book chapter's description of The Grayzone as "a publication known for misleading reporting in the service of authoritarian states" was written in the authors' voice as a factual claim, and the authors cited an example of an article from The Grayzone that was representative of its misleading pro-authoritarian content. That description is not "the opinions of Hong Kong protesters and activists"; in fact, the book chapter does not cover Hong Kong protesters' views about The Grayzone as a publication at all. There is also no evidence that the authors of Reorienting Hong Kong’s Resistance: Leftism, Decoloniality, and Internationalism are biased in relation to The Grayzone or to Hong Kong protestors. The verifiability policy allows articles to reflect what reliable sources say, which is why this article reflects the book chapter's description of The Grayzone. — Newslinger talk 03:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a news website, just a blog.

This recent revision reduces the accuracy and reliability of the article. [31] The Grayzone is not a news website, it is an editorial blog publishing primarily fringe content, with the wording "blog" accompanied by 7 clearly reliable sources. Describing The Grayzone as a news website is inappropriate. 98.57.160.24 (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

This has already been discussed many times before, with a consensus to keep the term "news website". Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Screenshot in infobox

The screenshot File:The Grayzone as of 11 September 2021.png was removed from the infobox by JArthur1984 (talk · contribs · count) at 20:16, 12 March 2024. I reinstated the image at 04:11, 13 March 2024, citing MOS:LEADIMAGE and WP:BRD, as the screenshot is a "natural and appropriate representation" of The Grayzone. JArthur1984 edit warred to remove the image again on 13:41, 13 March 2024, and I'm starting this discussion to resolve this dispute. Screenshots are common in articles about websites (see Breitbart News and InfoWars for examples), and there is nothing about this screenshot that would merit exclusion per the MOS:LEADIMAGE guideline. — Newslinger talk 14:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not edit-warring and I am always happy to discuss.

A good starting point to address my point about the risk of cherry-picking is:

Why use a screenshot from September 11, 2021, and not some other date? What makes that screenshot more representative than the day before, or the day after? Or a more recent screenshot?

The purpose of MOS:LEADIMAGE is already served by having the web banner included as an image. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Your edit at 13:41, 13 March 2024 was indeed edit warring, because you reverted to your preferred version a second time without obtaining consensus. On your talk page, I see two previous warnings about edit warring that explained this, although you denied edit warring on both occasions: User talk:JArthur1984 § Edit warring across multiple pages and User talk:JArthur1984 § Edit warring at Ron DeSantis. Both of the editors who warned you were correct, and this current incident is the same type of situation.

File:The Grayzone as of 11 September 2021.png is currently the only available screenshot for The Grayzone and your comments so far do not give a rationale for why having the screenshot in the article would be inconsistent with any part of MOS:IMAGES, including MOS:LEADIMAGE. Any screenshot of any website reflects the website on a particular date, so the fact that this screenshot depicts a website on a particular date is not a valid reason for removing the screenshot.

This screenshot was initially uploaded and added by Red-tailed hawk, so they might be able to explain the significance of The Grayzone's homepage as of 11 September 2021. — Newslinger talk 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The significance of that date is that I took the screenshot then before expanding the page from a redirect. That it happened to be 9/11 is a matter of coincidence; so long as the general layout of the website hasn't changed (it hasn't) then I see no good reason to remove the screenshot. I've reverted the bold edit that removed it from the infobox. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that satisfies my concern. I recommend we update to a more recent date at some point, but I no longer have any cherry-picking concern. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Payments from Iranian and Russian Sources

New reporting shows that the Washington editor was being paid by Russia and Iran for coverage in the past; https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/02/grayzone-russia-iran-support/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6502:A97:2AF0:2472:F565:FC7B:AF70 (talk • contribs)

Not surprised. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

For the record: WaPo had to issue a correction. The gist of it is that one of the Grayzone's editors received payment from an Iranian media network for work rendered before he ever worked at the Grazyone. No one else at the Grayzone has been proven to have received funds from Iran or Russia, and the editor in question hasn't received any further payments since he joined the Grayzone. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I just quickly looked at the article—so I can definitely be wrong about this—but it states: The files appear to show that the Iranian broadcaster paid Reed for occasional contributions to its programming in 2020 and 2021 while he was working as a correspondent for Russia’s Sputnik news outlet. Reed had nine bylines in Grayzone in 2019 and 2020, followed by a gap of 2½ years. He has had 24 more Grayzone bylines since mid-2023, when he was identified as managing editor.. Are you saying Reed was receiving payments prior to becoming managing editor but while he was an active Grayzone contributor? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe that is right. The main reason the article received some backlash was implying that Blumenthal and Maté might have taken payments as well, which neither of the two did. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. The content does not seem very lead-worthy so I think I’m going to move it down the article and copy-edit it a bit. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

critical vs. negative

In the first sentence of the second paragraph, which begins with "It is known for its critical coverage of American foreign policy", I changed "critical" to "negative" in Special:Diff/1212676885. The term critical is ambiguous because it can refer to both positive and negative commentary (i.e. critical reception), while the term negative unambiguously refers to negative commentary. As the article body makes clear, The Grayzone is "centred around an opposition to the foreign policy of the United States and a desire for a multipolar world"; this indicates negative coverage of American foreign policy.

In Special:Diff/1213195132, Philomathes2357 (talk · contribs · count) changed negative back to critical, with an edit summary claiming that "Critical is a more neutral, less emotional description than 'negative'". That reasoning is incorrect, because critical is not a more "neutral" term than negative, and negative is not an "emotional" term. Using critical misleads readers with its ambiguity; it should be replaced with the more precise term negative to better reflect The Grayzone's content. — Newslinger talk 21:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm also open to replacing critical coverage with criticism, which would eliminate the ambiguity while retaining a variant of the word critical. — Newslinger talk 21:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Support critical coverage Softlem (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I would avoid "negative". We use the verb "to criticise" frequently in the rest of the article so should not depart from that standard. I also think we should replace the unnecessary phrase "It is known for ..." - known by whom? Remove the ambiguity by saying "It has criticised American foreign policy". It is simpler. Burrobert (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I support this, but it requires some reworking of the whole sentence. It could be: "The Grayzone has criticized American foreign policy, sympathetically covered authoritarian regimes, and published misleading reporting." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I support "The Grayzone has criticized American foreign policy, sympathetically covered authoritarian regimes, and published misleading reporting", which addresses the ambiguity. It also eliminates the repetition of the word coverage and flows better grammatically. — Newslinger talk 00:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't support that. The sentence is a mess as-is, and would be even more of a mess if we made that change.

Every media outlet in existence has "published misleading reporting". That would not be worth mentioning in an encyclopedic context, any more than it would be worth saying "The New York Times has published misleading reporting" in the lede of its article.

As far as I can tell, the only encyclopedic justification for describing The Grayzone in such disparaging terms in Wikivoice is this: they haven't merely published misleading reporting, they are "known for" publishing misleading reporting. Known by whom?

The cited source is an anthology of political opinions called "How To Abolish the Hong Kong Police". The text reads "The Grayzone, a publication known for misleading reporting in the service of authoritarian states..."

That still doesn't answer the question of "known by whom?" the two anti-police activists in Hong Kong who wrote the story? Are these two individuals, in the context of an opinion piece, authoritative enough to be quoted verbatim in Wikivoice? I have a feeling that would not fly on other articles.

Either we keep the clumsy "known for" language, and we come to a consensus that "How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police" should be quoted in Wikivoice, or we remove the "known for" piece, in which case there is no longer a justification for using Wikivoice for claims like "sympathetic to authoritarian regimes" and "misleading reporting".

My solution: these quotes should be in the body, in the "reception" section, and attributed to their authors, not used in the lede in Wikivoice. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You may have missed my reply when you pushed for the same changes in October 2023 at Talk:The Grayzone/Archive 2 § New potential sources. For your convenience, here it is again:

The book chapter's description of The Grayzone as "a publication known for misleading reporting in the service of authoritarian states" was written in the authors' voice as a factual claim, and the authors cited an example of an article from The Grayzone that was representative of its misleading pro-authoritarian content. That description is not "the opinions of Hong Kong protesters and activists"; in fact, the book chapter does not cover Hong Kong protesters' views about The Grayzone as a publication at all. There is also no evidence that the authors of Reorienting Hong Kong’s Resistance: Leftism, Decoloniality, and Internationalism are biased in relation to The Grayzone or to Hong Kong protestors. The verifiability policy allows articles to reflect what reliable sources say, which is why this article reflects the book chapter's description of The Grayzone.

There are two academic sources cited immediately after the misleading reporting descriptor, and in addition to that, many reliable sources in the History section provide ample evidence that The Grayzone has published false information and conspiracy theories, which are both subsets of misleading reporting. The article's lead section accurately summarizes the article body. — Newslinger talk 05:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

“Critical” is better than “negative” but re-working the sentence to use “criticism” would be even better.

“Known for” is clunky, and “authoritarian states” should be replaced by the specific states referred to JArthur1984 (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"Known for" is indeed clunky, and the sources cited are not nearly sufficient for putting such a strong statement in Wikivoice. I also agree that "authoritarian states" should be replaced by the specific states. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I've partially reverted Philomathes2357's recent changes in Special:Diff/1221740502, per WP:BRD.

Specifically, I reverted the change from "misleading reporting" to "allegations of misleading reporting", since the cited reliable sources focus on The Grayzone's own misleading reporting instead of its allegations of other sources' misleading reporting.

Also, I oppose the removal of the phrase "authoritarian regimes" from the phrase "sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes", because it describes a key pattern in The Grayzone's reporting that would otherwise be overlooked. Per Dimaggio (2023), "With the Grayzone and MintPress News, their rhetorical efforts to target the mainstream media for fake news are undermined by both venues’ uncritical reliance on official propaganda from authoritarian states that deny charges of their own human rights atrocities." I've re-added that phrase alongside the listing of individual countries, i.e. "sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes, including those of Syria, Russia, and China". — Newslinger talk 18:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Being lackeys for authoritarian regimes is their shtick. Of course it should remain in the article. Weird anyone would remove it. 207.212.33.88 (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you make a good point, Newslinger. "Allegations of misleading reporting" could be interpreted as referencing The Grayzone's coverage of other outlets' misleading reporting, rather than other outlets claims about The Grayzone's misleading reporting. Good catch.

I still wonder about the phrase "authoritarian regimes". It implies that the writers at The Grayzone are somehow reflexively supportive of authoritarianism, which is, of course, silly. However, as long as we preserve the wording "most contemporary media analysis has focused on", rather than the previous "known for", I don't have a major objection to the status quo.

I see that my wording, "commentary", was changed to "analysis". I understand why that was done, but since many sources only make a passing mention of The Grayzone, and don't engage in anything approaching an "analysis" of their reporting, I think a more appropriate word would be "coverage". I think this is a happy medium that should be acceptable to everyone. I would be curious what JArthur1984 thinks of this, since he was involved in this discussion a short while ago. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Unless you're being sarcastic, you seem to be confused when you write:

"I think you make a good point, Newslinger. "Allegations of misleading reporting" could be interpreted as referencing The Grayzone's coverage of other outlets' misleading reporting, rather than other outlets claims about The Grayzone's misleading reporting. Good catch."

That is not User:Newslinger's point. In fact, the current content is correct. It is The Grayzone's own misleading reporting that is the object of criticism by mainstream sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think all of us are in agreement that the current wording correctly reflects that The Grayzone's own misleading reporting is what has been criticized.

I changed "contemporary media commentary" (i.e. commentary in contemporary media) to "contemporary media analysis" (i.e. analysis of contemporary media) because the cited sources include academic sources (not just media outlets) that have analyzed The Grayzone's content. The recent change back to "contemporary media coverage" again portrays the coverage as coming from other media outlets (i.e. coverage in contemporary media) rather than a mixture of media outlets and academic sources. Due to this, I support a change back to "contemporary media analysis" or similar phrasing that describes contemporary media as the target, and not solely the source, of the analysis. — Newslinger talk 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean I was neither sarcastic nor confused. I was simply acknowledging (and agreeing with) @Newslinger's observation that "the cited reliable sources focus on The Grayzone's own misleading reporting instead of its allegations of other sources' misleading reporting."

I assume that by "academic sources", you are referring to the book "How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police", the article from The Journal of International Criminal Justice, and the book "Fake News in America: Contested Meanings in the Post-Truth Era".

First, it would be good to come to a consensus that these are, indeed, reliable academic sources. Surely, we can all agree without further discussion that an article published in a scholarly journal like The Journal of International Criminal Justice is a reliable, academic source. My understanding (informed by Newslinger's previous comments about "How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police) is that if a book is published by an academic publisher like Palgrave Macmillan, it is, by definition, a reliable scholarly source.

Valjean, based on our conversation here, seems to have a different interpretation of what constitutes a reliable scholarly source. I, frankly, agree with Newslinger, and I find Valjean's arguments at the "Russian interference" article to be unsupported by current Wikipedia policy. I think WP:RS is very clear: " Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.". Note that WP:RS does not make a distinction between academic sources from the physical sciences, social sciences, and humanities - academic sources are academic sources, period, and they are inherently reliable and of the highest quality. If you think we're still at an impasse on that topic, Valjean, this would be a good place to sort out that confusion.

If we all agree that the three aforementioned sources are reliable, and academic, that brings us to the question of wording: "analysis", vs "commentary", vs "coverage". The reason I found the word "coverage" to be preferable to "analysis" is that the book "How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police" makes only a passing mention of The Grayzone. It does not engage in anything resembling "analysis", it merely makes a rather flippant remark about what The Grayzone is "known for". That is why I found the word "coverage" to be more precise and all-encompassing, because only two of the three academic sources engage in analysis of the topic, whereas "coverage" characterizes all three of the sources.

Perhaps the problem is referring to all of the sources as "media". Maybe a better formulation would be something like this:

"Most contemporary news coverage and academic references to The Grayzone have focused on..."

Thoughts? Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

An academic source in the "soft sciences" is a RS for the author's opinion, not necessarily for facts (as is the case with "hard sciences"). In the social sciences and political science, we're dealing with "soft science" and not clear evidence, lab research, and double-blind studies. My background is in the medical field, with two health care degrees, IOW "hard sciences".

In political science academic literature, we're dealing with authors who get their information largely the same way we do, from the news and such sources. They are subject to the same foibles we are, IOW, GIGO. Fringe authors who publish their opinions and books at academic presses will choose to ignore contrary evidence from mainstream sources while including their misguided views gleaned from fringe sources we consider unreliable. That's just the way it is. Compare books from academic sources by mainstream authors and fringe authors and the differences are plain as day. Fringe authors include conspiracy theories and debunked ideas and ignore facts they don't like. Therefore, what they write is a RS for their own opinions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I cannot tell if you are referring to Wikipedia policy, or proposing your opinion for what WP:RS "should" say.

If it's the former, could you provide a link to the relevant policy, please? Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about policy and common sense. Policy informs us to not treat opinions as facts or facts as opinions, something you often cite. Common sense informs us that much of the soft sciences, including political science, is about opinions, often opinions about facts. Mainstream and fringe soft science authors, when they write in academic literature and have their books published by academic presses, will express their opinions about various facts, often drawing from different sources of information, mainstream versus fringe. Mainstream authors will tend to rely on a broad base of reliable sources, whereas fringe academic authors will tend to use a narrow selection of sources (read what Pew Research says about that), tend to ignore many mainstream sources and facts they don't like and use unreliable sources, debunked ideas, and conspiracy theories in their writings. That's the nature of the very existence of the concepts of "mainstream" and "fringe", two categories I'm sure you know exist, even if you might quibble about which author belongs to which category. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand the "common sense" part. I've made the same point, right here on this page, so I'm somewhat sympathetic to your appeal to "common sense", but the idea that scholarly literature in the social sciences & humanities should be assessed differently than literature in the physical sciences has been consistently rejected by everyone I've talked to.

@Newslinger stated that scholarly literature should only be regarded as opinion when it is explicitly presented as such, not when the author's voice is used to state something in a factual, declarative way. I don't think that's the best way to delineate between facts and opinions, but, since that appears to be the current status quo, we should not apply it selectively.

Where, exactly, in current policy can your proposed distinction between physical sciences, social sciences, and humanities be found? If there is no such distinction in policy, there should be. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As you point out, you "made the same point ("The problem here may be that the same approach is being applied to overall political attitudes as to scientific claims.") We don't need a policy for using common sense, and most of our policies assume we apply them using common sense.

We should just use attribution for the opinions of those authors, especially when their opinions differ from mainstream sources. For example, their opinions are not necessarily "better" than what has been written in articles by experienced journalists who specialize in these topics and may know more than the author of a book published by an academic press. We know that fringe authors are sometimes professors and thus have access to academic presses, simply because they are professors, not because they are correct. It gives them an elevated platform from which to broadcast their nonsense, and, in that sense, we should not give that type of RS more deference just because it's that type of source. Some of your authors are known fringe sources of bad information, so that's part of why I'm pushing back. They are untruthful and inaccurate.

You have written elsewhere that "Wikipedia policy both tell us that scholarly sources are preferable to "pop news" sources, and the article is currently based exclusively on pop news. Most political scholars that I know regard outlets like Buzzfeed and the Rachel Maddow Show to be entertainment for the masses, not serious sources of information." You seem to be denigrating all news sources by pointing to a couple sources some might consider weak, but how often do you see us citing Rachel (who happens to be amazingly accurate most of the time because of her deep research and team approach) or BuzzFeed news which was a mix of all kinds of stuff? They are a drop in the ocean here. Why are you ignoring the many excellent and renowned journalists who publish in what you disdainfully describe as "pop news", which actually are "serious sources of information"?

You keep pushing a view that implies we, without any thought or reflection, should automatically give academic sources more deference, just because RS policy mentions that academic sources are valued when they exist. Of course we value them, but they aren't always more accurate than good news sources. They also suffer the fate and disadvantage of all books, as compared to journalism. They are static, out-of-date before the ink is dry, and can't be updated the next day with a new article based on newer facts, which is the advantage of news articles by journalists who keep up to date. Books are great for meta topics, but terrible for documentation of fast moving events.

We should also recognize that "reliable" in RS doesn't necessarily mean "accurate" or "truthful". It means fact-checked, from an established and stable source, not a fly-by-night blog, discussion forum, or chat group. Books published by academic presses are obviously RS in that sense, but in the soft-sciences, they aren't necessarily fact-checked or peer-reviewed. The author is automatically considered the authority and is just published. Period. The book is edited and proof-read, but that is also done with news stories. A different scholar with the opposite POV will then publish their book, also from an academic press, and the number of books on that shelf of mine just got longer! And then I have to, once again, double-check those books with the news articles and recognize that the news articles are up-to-date and more accurate sources. The books were only accurate for a month or so. The next congressional investigation shows the book's author got it wrong, because the book was written based on the same news sources we always use, but the process, for that book, stopped the moment it was published. It was right when written, but became wrong as soon as newer information came along. Academic authors describing controversial political events use news from journalists as sources, so you can't claim they are automatically better than journalists. (This obviously would vary according to the topic. News isn't the source for all topics.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a recurring issue, and there does not appear to be consensus on fact/opinion distinctions, physical/social science distinctions, or scholarly/pop source distinctions. This lack of consensus and clarity is a breeding ground for civil POV pushing and other problems.

This all merits deeper discussion, but this talk page is probably not the best place for it. When time allows, later this week, I'll open a discussion at a more appropriate place, and I'll ping you.

Here, at this talk page, it might be more relevant to talk about the academic sources cited in this specific article. The one that has generated the most controversy is How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police. What is your assessment of this source?

I previously suggested that it should, per common sense, be regarded as a "collection of political opinions", but Newslinger and others felt that, since it was published by academic publisher Palgrave MacMillan, and it is not explicitly labeled as an opinion piece, it should be regarded as a source of factual scholarly information. What do you think? Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

An example would be pushing the false narrative that Ukraine was responsible for the bombing of the Mariupol theatre. BeŻet (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding @Valjean I was neither sarcastic nor confused. I was simply acknowledging (and agreeing with) @Newslinger's observation that "the cited reliable sources focus on The Grayzone's own misleading reporting instead of its allegations of other sources' misleading reporting."

What you wrote directly contradicted Newslinger, hence my concern that there was some confusion or sarcasm at play with your "could be interpreted", which was the opposite of what Newslinger wrote. Newslinger replied to you and clarified his meaning. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Newslinger's point about the problem with the current/new wording "contemporary media coverage" is not about whether the academic sources cited here are RS or not (where the discussion has gone) but about the fact that language is a misleading way of representing sources that are academic and therefore not "media coverage". Further, "contemporary" is unnecessary; it's a newish outlet so it's not like there's going to be historical coverage to contrast to the contemporary coverage. I'm simplifying it to "coverage". BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

List-defined references used without any discussion?

I notice that list-defined references (LDR) are used, but I don't find any discussion in the archives. That was not the style used by the creator of the article, and we are supposed to respect their choice. That is one of the courtesies we extend to article creators, in exchange for them no longer owning the article.

The change from regular to LDR started on April 20, 2023. @Mathglot: can you explain what happened? Was there a discussion I haven't found? Is there an effort to maintain them? (I notice there are lots of regular refs throughout the article.)

I'm very familiar with how they work, like using them, and have created articles with that style. Unfortunately, most editors are pretty clueless with them and don't make any effort to use the style. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but I actually only created the initial redirect. The article creator was Red-tailed hawk (initial edit). — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm personally not a fan of list-defined references, as they don't quite mesh with the visual editor, and I intentionally write my drafts without them. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand that. Most editors don't like them, so I generally feel it's best to use normal ref formatting systems. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't remember and had to look at it, but your link provides the clue. There can be a tension in a given article between WP:REFCLUTTER (which tends to make it more difficult to edit an article) and WP:CITEVAR (which attempts to retain a desirable consistency in citation style within a given article) and I believe that is the case here. Normally, when the two are in conflict, WP:CITEVAR, which is a guideline, trumps WP:REFCLUTTER, which is an essay on verifiability.

However, neither is policy, and imho both must yield to more important considerations in this case, including the requirements of WP:Verifiability (policy), and Pillar 3 (fundamental principle) which militate against leaving the lead in a near-uneditable state. In my judgment, the article in the version immediately prior to the linked edit was in such an egregiously bad state due to massive reference clutter in the lead, as to effectively freeze the lead or at least make it very difficult to edit for all but the most patient and minutiae-oriented (at least for wikicode editors; VE users may have a different experience), thus violating Pillar 3 ("anyone can edit").

By way of comparison: in revision 1149782419 of 11:40, 14 April 2023, the lead paragraph on the rendered page (i.e., what the reader sees) had a very reasonable 107 words and 616 characters; in the Preview pane (wikicode), however, it was 1,675 words and 10,008 characters, which is a huge, 16 to 1 ratio over the rendered page. Following ten decluttering edits, the lead in rev. 1150793979 of 05:47, 20 April 2023 had 106 words and 618 characters rendered, and 297 words and 1,917 wikicode characters, for about a 3–1 ratio afterward. After decluttering, the lead once again became readable and editable in Preview mode, and has mostly remained so (although there are now seven full citations in the lead which would be better off as LDRs, and if consensus agrees, I'm happy to convert them).

This leads us to two possible issues: first, internal inconsistency, in that LDRs are used mostly for lead cites, whereas the body has mostly full citations (and 62 named refs); and second, the advice in the first sentence at WP:CITEVAR:

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change.

I don't see a problem for either one, because the change to LDR was certainly not due to my personal preference, but rather because of a desire to fix a problem (near-uneditability of the lead) and attempting to fix it with available tools (LDR) within the bounds of existing policy, as noted. That involved a judgment call that meant that in this case, we should favor other factors over the WP:CITEVAR guideline, and for the reasons given, I think this was a justifiable call. Others may disagree, and though I would argue against going back to the previous style of consistent inline ref usage in body and lead and no LDRs, I would not oppose a consensus to do so. However, I think doing so would hurt the article and be a disservice to our readers in the end, because imho it would tend to make the lead once again near-uneditable in whatever state it will be when the LDRs are removed. Unless someone wants to convert the whole thing to LDR style, I think that having a hybrid style of LDR in the lead, and full refs in the body is okay: WP:Verifiability is served, and so is editability (P3). I think that trumps guideline issues which might argue otherwise.

Hope this explains that series of edits in 2023. How do you see it? Mathglot (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

How do I see it? I absolutely love your great reply. Kudos to you for a great explanation! I think, under the circumstances, you improved the situation for that lead. Indeed, a nightmare. I don't think it would be good to go back to the previous situation. If anything, it would be better to go full LDR for the whole article, but consistency isn't an absolute. It would be nice to place a hidden note at the top of the lead and the top of the References section that explains that LDR are used for all references in the lead, and only in the lead.

There is another way to declutter a lead. It involves the "primacy" of the body over the lead. A lead should not contain any content or reference that does not already appear in the body, ergo all those refs will have a short "named" format that can be used in the lead, and then use the full long ref in the body. There should not be any long, full refs in the lead. That itself declutters a lead, making it much easier to edit. Another pet peeve of mine is the practice of adding archive links to a "LIVE"!! source. That adds lots of bytes and makes it harder to edit. I've seen an article more than double in size with one edit of this type. The practice is forbidden by local consensus at Donald Trump and Steele dossier. It makes an already long article a nightmare to download on a cellphone.

If there are multiple refs for one piece of information (and this applies to the whole article, not just the lead), it's good to bundle them in a note using this format: In this case, I used the short, named refs, but one can also pack full refs in there.

Notes

References

Anyway, thanks for all your diligent work. Carry on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with you about archived live urls. Also, you make a really good point with your alternative approach, which would probably be even better than LDRs (at least, for those editors who are confused by them). You could keep named refs in the lead, as you said. Further shortening is possible in the case of multiple refs using template {{R}}, thus your five-source named-ref example becomes {{R|Sollenberger-2017|Chait-2018|Comey-2018|Hartmann-2021|Nemtsova-2017}} (dropping the mm/dd to save a few more bytes at the same time). Mathglot (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot: does that require the short name be shortened even more? I wouldn't want to do that, as I prefer the Harvard style ref ("ref name" includes author(s) and date of publication) that is so unique it usually doesn't need to be altered. (An exception occurs when a (usually) journalist writes more than one article on the same day. Then I just add a number.) Is there a citation page here for that type of grouping? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

No requirement; it's just the value of the name field as defined in a <ref> tag elsewhere, having any valid ref name value. I merely shortened the examples here as an illustration of how to save a few more characters, but your examples would work equally well. This is documented at Template:R, which even allows sub-references with automatic numbering, which is another way of dealing with certain types of ref clutter issues. (I am subscribed; no ping necessary.) Mathglot (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Cool! I'm learning a lot from you. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

After some consideration, I disagree with the switch to list-defined references (LDR) and support reformatting the article to fully return to inline citation templates. Editors who are unfamiliar with wikitext rely on the VisualEditor to edit articles, and LDR citations are completely uneditable in the VisualEditor. Per 2019 data, "35% of the edits by newcomers, and half of their first edits, were made using the visual editor. This percentage has been increasing every year since the tool became available."

Try it yourself: to use the VisualEditor to edit this article without changing your default settings, use this link. For example, if you try to edit what the VisualEditor shows as reference #1 (which is actually reference #27 in the second paragraph, after the word "reporting"), the VisualEditor displays the LDR citation error: "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be edited in source mode." In contrast, an inline citation template can be edited with a user-friendly form; an example is what the VisualEditor shows as reference #23 (which is actually reference #81, the last citation in the "Reception" section).

Because of this incompatibility, the use of LDR prevents over 35% of Wikipedia newcomers from editing the LDR citations in this article, and using LDR is actually a much worse violation of the third pillar than inline citation templates. This consideration, combined with WP:CITEVAR ("Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change"), leads me to support a switch back to inline citation templates. — Newslinger talk 03:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Newslinger: as I said above, I understand and can use both systems, but, like you, I generally prefer using regular refs. Your logic makes sense to me, so I'll be happy to help start ridding this article of the LDR system.

One thing that will still be good, and that is to only use the short "named" ref formats in the lead. That will make it easier to edit. It should be possible to do, as there should be no content or refs in the lead that aren't already used in the body. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with using named references in the lead section and keeping the bulk of the citation templates in the article body when the citation is also present in the body, which keeps the lead clutter-free. If we are trying to be courteous to VisualEditor users, I recommend avoiding the {{R}} template (which is more difficult to edit in the VisualEditor) and using <ref> tags instead. — Newslinger talk 05:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I have done some work now. The {{R}} is something I'm not used to using, so I don't touch it. If someone will reformat them, I can then do the rest. Contrary to best practice, I have restored the full refs to the lead that are only used there. Someone should look at that situation and try to also use them in the body. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Re: Contrary to best practice, I have restored the full refs to the lead that are only used there: that's really a shame; it does make it a bit more difficult to edit the lead again, at least for the 65%; but hey, the VE users will be happier, so that's something gained. Let's hope that overall, it amounts to a net positive in the end. Mathglot (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm fine with the switch to named refs in the lead, but I'd just add that my support is for the method proposed by Valjean only (only reused refnames in the lead, ideally via template {{R}} in order to minimize lead clutter). Newslinger, you say we should remove LDR in the lead because it makes it more difficult for 35% of the new users who prefer to use VE and cannot edit the LDRs, did I understand correctly? But by the same token, doesn't that mean we would choose the method *not* preferred by 65% of new users who do not use VE? That hardly seems fair to me. Especially as even that 35% minority of new editors have to learn the source editor anyway, or be relegated to never editing an article talk page, and never responding to a message on their own talk page. So really, almost 100% of new users learn the source editor sooner or later. (There is a project, as I understand, to enable VE for talk pages, but it's not out yet, afaik.) Secondly, LDRs predate VE; VE has a truly impressive number of bugs in Phabricator, some have been around for years, such as its use of user-unfriendly numeric ref names such as in these 100,000 articles. The fact that VE also has a years-long bug that fails to properly handle LDRs is no big surprise. That, however, is no argument against LDRs—it is an argument to fix the bug in VE, not to decide that LDRs are bad. Arguing that some subset of editors–whether majority or minority–should avoid using certain useful tools at Wikipedia like LDR because some other tool that came along later isn't capable of handling it is a backwards argument, if ever there was one. Finally, CITEVAR does not apply here, as there was no intention either to match other articles' style, nor was personal preference a factor (my personal preference is {{sfn}}s, not LDRs); the sole motivation here is to help editors. That said, Valjean's solution is just as good, and I have no preference between the current version with LDRs, and a version using full citations in the body and reused refnames in the lead, which luckily VE is able to handle, so if editors here prefer that, by all means. Mathglot (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It is impossible to edit LDRs with the VisualEditor, not just more difficult. On the other hand, using inline citation tags does not make it impossible for source editor users to edit the article; in fact, many editors (including the majority of the editors in this discussion) prefer inline citation tags while using the source editor. Using your third pillar argument, I believe it is more unfair to wholly exclude editors who are less technically inclined from editing the affected citations in the article. VisualEditor's bugs and LDR's precedence do not change the fact that editors who depend on the VisualEditor cannot edit these LDRs. (Also, the reply tool, which I am using now, has a visual editing mode for talk pages.)

WP:CITEVAR does apply: your comments in this discussion indicate that you personally prefer LDRs over inline citation tags in the lead section of this article for the reasons you listed, and that you changed the citation style of this article to implement that preference. However, your edits are not exempt from WP:CITEVAR merely because LDRs are not your first choice. The claim that WP:CITEVAR does not apply to an editor who is changing an article from, for example, their third-favorite citation style (for the article) to their second-favorite citation style (for the article) does not appear to be in line with the guideline's intent to reduce disruption in article space, and I welcome a discussion at WT:CS if you disagree. — Newslinger talk 06:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I am basically out of this discussion and am happy to have this go according to consensus, but with respect to this assertion: "your comments in this discussion indicate that you personally prefer LDRs over inline citation tags in the lead section of this article for the reasons you listed, and that you changed the citation style of this article to implement that preference" that is a lie, and if you repeat that assertion again, I will issue a warning on your Talk page, and take you to WP:ANI if you repeat it again there. Assume good faith. If you are silent at this point, I will let it drop. Happy trails. Mathglot (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

My comment was a good-faith assessment of whether the article citation style change was compliant with WP:CITEVAR, based on the content of this discussion. If you would like to bring this up for community review because you believe that my assessment is incorrect or that my comment violated a conduct policy, you are welcome to escalate this dispute to WT:CS or WP:ANI. — Newslinger talk 17:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I just told you what my personal citation preference is above (@05:37)—it's sfn's—so to come right back and say that your interpretation is that my personal preference is LDR's means you think I'm lying about my own preference. That is textbook bad faith, and you can't excuse it just by declaring your good faith. And if for some strange reason you privately had doubts about my citation style preference, you could've checked yourself and seen that my created articles overwhelmingly use sfn's, so there is no reason to doubt my preference, nor is there any evidence to suggest I was not truthful when I declared it. Do not do that again. Next time someone tells you what their citation style preference is, believe them. Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe this part of our dispute comes from differing interpretations of the word "preference".

I am using preference as it is described in the Preference article: "For example, someone prefers A over B if they would rather choose A than B." In Special:Diff/1228578625, you said: "I would argue against going back to the previous style of consistent inline ref usage in body and lead and no LDRs", indicating that you would rather choose LDRs (A) over inline citation templates (B) for the lead section of this article, despite not using the word preference in this sentence. In my view, that qualifies as "grounds of personal preference" when assessing compliance with the WP:CITEVAR guideline, even though your "personal preference is {{sfn}}s, not LDRs", because you still expressed a preference for LDRs over inline citation templates in the lead section of this article.

In your comments, it seems like you are using the word preference to mean something along the lines of "favorite" or "number-one choice", which is not how I'm using the word. When I said preference, I was referring to relative preference ("would rather choose A than B") and not absolute preference ("would rather choose A than anything else"). I understand that you said your "personal preference is {{sfn}}s, not LDRs", and I acknowledged that when I said that "LDRs are not your first choice". I have never claimed or implied that you were "not truthful" about your preferences, and I believe you when you say that you prefer {{sfn}} citations.

I reaffirm that all of my comments in this discussion have been made in good faith and that I have never accused you of bad faith. I apologize that my phrasing has given the impression that I accused you of bad faith. This conversation has gone off-topic and has no further implications on article content, so if you still believe that I have broken a conduct policy or guideline in my comments, I feel that it would be better to continue the discussion at WP:ANI. — Newslinger talk 23:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I do not use Visual Editor. I edit the raw source and use no automated tools. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

A quote in the beginning of this thread caught my eye: "That was not the style used by the creator of the article, and we are supposed to respect their choice. That is one of the courtesies we extend to article creators, in exchange for them no longer owning the article."

What is the policy that discusses this? Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't remember where this is discussed, but when someone creates an article, they may choose to use a certain citation style, certain date format, and certain language preference (for example, British vs. American). We are generally supposed to respect that. That doesn't mean it can't be changed. A local consensus can decide to do that, and the article's creator cannot do much about that.

I doubt it's a policy, but more likely some guideline. Here we just need to form a consensus on which style to use. I have no special desire to push for one or the other style. I'll follow any consensus that forms here. I can work with both styles, but I suspect that most editors find it more difficult to work with LDR because of lack of experience with it. Very few articles use that style. I find it easier, but that's because I have created articles using that style. It's easy to understand for anyone who understands using named ref formats. There is nothing new to learn as the refs are formatted the same way as in 99% of articles. The article is so clean and easy to work with. That's what I like. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR, MOS:DATEVAR, MOS:RETAIN. All three say that the original style should be kept unless there is consensus to change. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your answers. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)