Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:00, 23 September 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Grayzone article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Blogging (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Media This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for The Grayzone (13 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 6,445 6,445 History 2,254 2,254 Reporting and reception 2,609 23,558 Latin America 1,964 1,964 Syria 2,435 2,435 China 4,082 4,082 Russia–Ukraine 2,700 2,700 Israel–Palestine 9,768 9,768 Funding 4,043 4,043 Staff 4,724 4,724 See also 70 70 References 36,182 36,182 External links 563 563 Total 77,839 77,839

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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? 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

The Grayzone reports on Misplaced Pages

Here is a critique of Misplaced Pages 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 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, police departments,, Zionist groups, the White House, governments and big business. Burrobert (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Everyone can edit in Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_357#LibSyn_%26_MonthlyReview

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages has endorsed WP:NOR Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research. On Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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[REDACTED] 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)

"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)

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)

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."

Misplaced Pages: 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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

Norton accuses Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Al Jazeera edit

@Newslinger This edit summary 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)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• C-Class Media articles
• Unknown-importance Media articles
• WikiProject Media articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles