Talk:The Grayzone

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? [1] 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)

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)

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: [2]). 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)

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)

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,[3] police departments,[4], Zionist groups,[5] [6] [7] the White House,[8] governments[9] and big business.[10] [11] [12] [13] 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)

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. Being "republished" as content-farmed WP:USERGENERATED content means it's still a WP:SPS with no validity or reliability for wikipedia purposes. Actually it's even WORSE than that because Grayzone has been deprecated for immense unreliability, WP:RSP "There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information."[14]

The problem is that Philomathes2357, and his tag-team editing partner Niemandsbucht [15] and other associates, repeatedly fail basic WP:CIR tests and waste the community's time while trying to WP:POVPUSH or WP:SEALION pages. 76.142.90.17 (talk) 01:40, 4 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 [16] 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)

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.[17] 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)

"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)