Talk:The Grayzone

fringe

Extremely long thread that went nowhere; see RfC below Dronebogus (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

the only neutral language here is "radical fringe". any attempt to describe it as far "something" directly reflects the opinions of the editor. editors on the far left consider them far right. editors on the far right consider them far left. the wikipedia article has no place uncritically reflecting the far right categorization of them as far left. [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC) I agree 100%. Phrases like "Far-right" and "far-left" are meaningless, inherently subjective, and definitely don't belong in an encyclopedia. This should be removed. Of course, the justification will be that "reliable sources" have called it far-left, and Wikipedia is just acting as a stenographer for these reliable sources. But my response to that is simple: just because a reliable source uses biased, subjective language, in no way implies that we need to parrot it. We don't have a responsibility to repeat verbatim every opinion-based statement a reliable source passes off as fact. What's acceptable to an editor in the newsroom of a "reliable source" is not always acceptable in an encyclopedic context. Wikipedia would be much better off if every use of "far-right" and "far-left" were removed. Hope others will discuss the points made here and in the above comment, and hope that this won't be "hatted" because some random guy doesn't like it. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC) I’m not here to “hat” this, but as someone with a degree in political science I’d think you’d understand that “far right” and “far left” are not meaningless terms. Maybe they should be used more cautiously, but nobody informed about the subject is going to say it’s wrong to label Communists far left or Fascists far right. Dronebogus (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC) You again. You seem to have turned into my biggest fan on Wikipedia. I'm fascinated that there's someone out there with enough free time to insert themselves into every Wikipedia post I make. When will you be addressing your repeated assertions that I act in bad faith? Perhaps the terms aren't completely meaningless, but they certainly are inherently subjective. What is it, exactly, that makes a person or group's rightness or leftness "far"? "Right" and "left" are already quite vague, and their meaning can vary wildly, depending on the domestic political context in which they are used, but they generally regarded as useful terms. "Far" left or "far" right, by contrast, are terms used almost exclusively in the realm of persuasive political writing. Primarily in news media, with the goal of painting a person or group as "fringe" without having to substantively address the person or group's position. In short, someone who is "right-wing" is someone who's generally politically conservative. Someone who's "far right" is someone who people find personally annoying, offensive, or dangerous. I think you would have a hard time finding political scholars who would find these terms encyclopedic, and their use is strongly discouraged in serious work produced within every institution of higher learning with which I'm personally familiar. And, to address your specific examples, Communism could probably be described as far left in casual conversation without confusion or misunderstanding - but that doesn't make it appropriate encyclopedic wording, since Wikipedia is not a casual discussion forum. Fascism is not nearly as clear cut. I see no reason for the inclusion of this phrase. It is non-neutral and unencyclopedic. Maybe an RFC would be appropriate here? Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC) You have provided no evidence for that and have repeatedly insulted me and wasted the time of numerous other users. To prove I’m not your “fan”, you are muted as of now. The only interaction I hope to be having is reverting any dubious edits you insist on adding to articlespace. Dronebogus (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Ah yes, the preferred strategy of everyone who feels that their arguments stand on their own merits: silence dissenting opinions. Would you like to address any of the substance of the above comments? Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Hi @Philomathes2357:, I see you've having issues with our mutual friend. I've watchlisted this article. Would you be willing to watchlist Chaos magic, Genesis P-Orridge and Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth? Seems he's also yammering at WP:ANI. Skyerise (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Sure, I'll do that. If you want to discuss this further @Skyerise, you're more than welcome to, but could you go to my talk page or email me at the address on my main page? I don't want this thread, which I hope will continue in a productive direction, to get bogged down with personal drama. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia is not about recording the truth, it is a record (a stenograph, if you will) of the state of knowledge as relayed in reliable, independent sources. Those sources — many, many of them — use the phrases far left and far right, albeit with a multitude of meanings. And many use far left with regard to The Grayzone. Erasing these phrases from Wikipedia because we think they are imprecise or easy to abuse would completely run counter to the purpose of this project. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 01:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC) All of you need to stop harassing Dronebogus. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC) I can't speak to the dispute between Dronebogus and Skyerise, since I wasn't familiar with it until Skyerise commented here. However, I completely reject the accusation that I've been "harassing" Dronebogus. In fact, the opposite is the case, to such an extent that I've considered requesting a no-fault 2-way interaction ban. If you actually think this is an issue, @ValjeanValjean, please let me know on my talk page. As for this page, nobody has made a cogent argument in favor of using the terms "far left" or "far right". I've made what I feel is a cogent argument against using the terms, as has another user, so I'm going to remove it. If someone disagrees with this, I'm open-minded on the issue and would welcome a debate here on the talk page. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Most of this section is completely off topic, no ones made an argument for anything youre all just yelling at each other Softlemonades (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC) I felt like my argument was clear: "far left" and "far right" are terms only used in persuasive political writing, and have no business being in an encyclopedia. No political scholar I have ever read, spoken with, or worked with uses these terms, unless they're writing about their own opinions in an explicitly persuasive context. Even if some source that other editors have labeled as "reliable" used this descriptor, doesn't mean the same language should or must be included here. Although we do have a commitment to source our encyclopedic claims using due weight from reliable sources, we don't have a commitment to include unencyclopedic descriptors, even if someone at a RS used the descriptor to express their opinion and passed it off as fact-based journalism. News outlets don't have the same commitment to NPOV that Wikipedia has in its policy, and using sensational, inherently subjective, and persuasion-based language here is a clear violation of NPOV imo. Is my position clear? If so, with which part of it do you take issue? Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Far left is in over 7000 articles, and has its own article. There are lots of sources. Editors experience isnt something we can cite. Thats basic policy Softlemonades (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC) I'm not proposing that we cite the personal experience of any editor in the article. I'm stating that "far left", whether it's in 7, 70, 7,000, or 700,000 articles, is self-evidently a statement of opinion, not fact. RS can be repeated verbatim in regards to facts, but opinions and explicitly persuasive language don't belong on Wikipedia. There's no fact-based metric for what makes the Grayzone's leftness "far" - it's just a term of derision used to insult and dismiss. My argument is that Wikipedia's commitment to NPOV does not permit us to cite opinions as facts, even if those opinions are published in an RS - and "far left" is inherently an opinionated descriptor, not a statement of fact. Perhaps an RFC would be appropriate here if we aren't able to reach a consensus. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC) See MOS:FIRST, which describes the lead sentence. Usually it is nationality+neutral description, WP:FIRST says "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. " Skyerise (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Far-left and far-right websites do exist. Period. RS describe Grayzone that way, so stop the whitewashing and deletion of well-sourced content without a solid consensus. You aren't even moving this to the body, so your deletions are wholesale inappropriate. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC) With all due respect @Valjean, you can assert that as if it is a fact, but what you're expressing isn't factual information, it's your personal opinion. Certainly we can agree that there are websites that are left-leaning and right-leaning. We might be able to neutrally assert that some of these websites are on the "fringes" of American political discourse, although even using "fringe" as a factual descriptor is getting into sketchy territory, IMO, although I'm comfortable leaving that be for now. But "far-left" is obviously not a neutral way to describe a person or group. Again - these terms (far left, far right) are not neutral statements of fact, they are statements of opinion that writers use in a persuasive political context to express dislike or disdain for a particular individual or group. I'd be open to removing "far-left" as a factual descriptor in the opening sentence, while including in the body something to the effect of "multiple news outlets have described the Grayzone as "far-left", citing the same sources that are currently linked in the opening sentence. Does that sound reasonable to you? We can include the content, but I cannot agree with passing off persuasive speech as fact. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Why don't you just attribute it? That, not deletion, is one way to follow WP:Preserve. OTOH, attribution can raise doubts that the opinion is not factual. In this case we have opinion=fact in spades. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC) I would very much like to raise doubts that the opinion is not factual, because in my view, it clearly is not. You've asserted multiple times now, without supporting argument or evidence, that "far left" is a statement of fact. I'm open to having my mind changed here, but I just don't see where you're coming from on that, at all. Can you expand upon your assertion that "far-left" is a case of opinion=fact? Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Both left- and right-wing sources move into the "far" designation when their opinions move into misleading reporting, conspiracy theories, and sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes. This happens to extremists on both sides, and they should be described as "far-whatever" "extremists". They have moved too far to the right or left for their views to be mere opinions for legitimate discussion. Their opinions are so extreme they are rebuked by fact-checkers because they are completely counterfactual lies. That's the bed in which The Grayzone lies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Hmm. Interesting. I know you are presenting this argument in good faith, and I appreciate you actually presenting an argument, period, but I strongly disagree. Some IRL obligations demand my attention for the remainder of the afternoon, but I think the best way forward here is for me to open an RFC later this evening. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Hey @Valjean, before I create an RFC this evening, I wanted to clarify something: is the opinion you expressed in your last comment here a reflection of Wikipedia policy? Is there a policy on Wikipedia specifically about the descriptors "far" left and "far" right? Or is your comment an expression of your personal opinion about how these descriptors should be handled? Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC) That's a fair question for a talk page discussion where OR and opinions are acceptable factors in our decision making processes and discussions, but not editing. I'd say it's a mixture of factors that may not be expressed in any single policy as I have expressed it. I'm just one editor here. My comments are based on my understanding of how we usually apply logic here. I've been here since 2003 and helped write our most important policies, with my fingerprints still there. We know there is a Left–right political spectrum, and we're talking about recognizing and accurately labeling the extremes, in this case the extreme left. Logic and RS demand we not treat the extremes as if there are just left or right. No, they are beyond that, therefore far (or synonyms) must be used. What makes this case interesting is that there are far more extreme right-wing sources than extreme left-wing, and, as a Social Democrat (thus somewhat left-wing), I don't think we should treat extreme left-wing sources any less realistically than we do extreme right-wing ones. Whitewashing is not allowed. That's not what "neutral" in NPOV means. Both should be described as RS describe them using very non-neutral terminology. RS don't treat them gently, so we shouldn't either. NPOV justifies descriptions like extreme left-wing because RS say that. We must not neuter what they say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Thanks for your comment. I don't foresee that we'll be able to come to an agreement here, so I will make an RFC, as mentioned, as soon as I'm able, because I've realized RFCs are a great way to overcome a strong but respectful difference of opinion such as this. I wanted to "steel man" rather than "straw man" your position, and I think you've made your position clear enough for me to be able to do that. In the RFC thread, I plan to quote, word-for-word and line-by-line, specific NPOV policy and demonstrate why I think my position is reflected in those policies more than yours. You're obviously an intelligent and articulate person, so I'm confident that you'll be able to do the same - that is, if you actually care enough about this topic to participate, which I sincerely hope you will. Cheers. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC) I would have to agree with the above editors. If there were only 2 or 3 sources that described The Grayzone as far-left, then attributing those sources might be the right choice. However, the far left descriptor contains about a dozen citations and I'm confident a dozen more could be found. As such, we need to reflect those sources. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Hey Swag Lord, thanks for chiming in. Respectfully, I don't see how the number of different sources that have expressed an opinion changes the opinion from an opinion to a fact. That sounds like a bandwagon fallacy to me. I understand that we have a responsibility to reflect the weight of facts published in reliable sources. However, we do not have a responsibility to repeat *opinions* published in RS and pass them off as if they are facts, especially when those opinions are highly politically charged and controversial. "Left" or "right", though still relative and open to some level of debate, could reasonably be used as factual descriptors. I could even see a reasonable argument for words like "fringe" being used as factual descriptors. "Far" left or "far" right are, to me, clear examples of opinionated, persuasive writing of the type that doesn't belong here, even if some guys and gals at some RS papers erroneously believe that their opinions are facts and publish them as such. Lots more I could say here about NPOV policy and the inherent tensions between NPOV and giving due weight to RS, but I will not ramble on any further and will save that for an RFC, which I will hopefully have time to create tomorrow when I'm at the airport. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC) You are essentially arguing that there is no such thing as "far" right or left in politics, or, if they exist, they cannot be described using those terms. That's a rather mind blowing disintegration of logical thinking and denial of the normal way language functions. I don't know how we can deal with that in a constructive way beyond simply rejecting it as "non-reasoning". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC) I'll take that in good faith, Valjean. I'm having an equally hard time wrapping my mind around your argument that "far left" can be uttered as a statement of fact, rather than an opinion. I'd even describe your argument as "mind-blowing" and "non-reasoning". So I think there's a big communication gap here. If this were a face-to-face conversation rather than an exchange of text, I don't think we'd be at such an impasse, but alas, we have to work with what we've got. Here's an analogy to illustrate my point: I feel the same way about "far" right and "far" left as I do about, say, the word "ugly" as a descriptor of people. Certainly, we'd both agree that ugly people do exist. We could probably identify certain people who are exceptionally physically unattractive by the standards of our society and culture, and we might call them ugly. We could even come to a consensus as a group that "person X is ugly". Someone who works for an RS could even write an article that states as fact "person X is ugly". But it would *still* not be a fact that person X is ugly. It would be a widely-held popular opinion, and it wouldn't be appropriate to include in that person's biography "they are ugly", even if some folks at an RS expressed that opinion in a journalistic piece. Maybe we could say "many news outlets, such as X, Y, and Z, have described this person as ugly", but no more. So, even though it is a fact that ugly people exist, and people can be described using that term, they cannot *factually* be described with that term: it can never be a fact that "person X is ugly", it is always an opinion. In the same vein, we might be able to agree that extremes exist on the political left and the political right, and we could probably use "far-right" or "far-left" in a conversation about politics over a cup of coffee, but it cannot be an encyclopedic fact that "person X is far-left" or "news outlet Y is far-right" - that's inherently a statement of opinion, and, frankly, given the extremely derisive and politically-charged nature of these descriptors, I'd support a lead that says "Person X is ugly" before I'd support a lead that says "Person X is far-right". Even if you still disagree, does that analogy shed any light on my reasoning here, or do I still sound crazy to you, Valjean? Dronebogus: I've asked you nicely to stop stalking my edit history and hatting/reverting everything I do. At this point, I feel like you are personally targeting me on a daily basis, and it's making me uncomfortable. I don't understand why nobody has asked you to stop, because every time I have assumed bad faith on the part of another editor, I have - rightly - been chastised and told, not asked, to stop immediately, or else there were going to be consequences. If you don't like what I have to say, you can jump into the conversation and leave a good-faith comment and push back on me, like Valjean and Swag Lord have been doing. Or you could go somewhere else and ignore me, as everyone else is free to do. Admins have expressed disagreement with you and even reverted your hatting, but you simply re-reverted and overrode the admin. If you continue, I'll have to take this to arbitration and request an interaction ban. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC) You keep saying the same things over and over, people refute you, you keep doing it— that’s the definition of WP:BLUDGEON. Dronebogus (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC) I think your analogy compares apples to oranges. Beauty is a subjective thing, yet it is a judgement call genetically programmed into babies. Then add cultural expectations and it gets more complicated, yet in a beauty contest, most people will agree that the winning girl on the extreme end of the beauty scale really is a beauty, and that opinion is also a fact confirmed by the universal opinion of lots of people, especially experts. (There will still be subjective differences of opinion about which of the many beautiful girls was really the most beautiful.) 😅 With the political scale, or rather with extremism in general, we have some objective criteria to use. Normal people on the left and right, who are still fairly close to center, will have differing opinions about what is the best policy and best way to effect change, but they still agree about provable facts. They are still tethered to reality and are not "far" from it. They can talk together and generally enjoy fine social relationships. Extremists go too far. They lose touch with reality and provable facts. They believe misleading information, lies, and conspiracy theories. They are "far" out there. Unlike beauty and ugliness, this involves provable facts, things that can be fact-checked. We're beyond mere opinion. Extremists believe Trump won the election, that vaccines are very dangerous, that Seth Rich and Ukraine (not Russia, Trump, and Wikileaks) interfered in and tried to steal the 2016 election, that Biden and the British royals are lizards, and that Democrats abduct babies to eat after using them for pedophilic purposes. So extreme distance and separation from objective facts is my objective and measurable way of defining the difference between normal left and right and "far" left and right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC) I think it is clear that nobody here supports Philomathes2357's proposal that we need to remove "left" and "right" descriptors from all Wikipedia articles, and that we should start here. If anybody else takes that position, we can continue the conversation; otherwise let's move on. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Can I re-collapse this now? It’s been talked to death and as you stated there is a strong consensus that this is not supported by anyone except the proposer. Dronebogus (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC) When was this un-collapsed? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Given the RfC being opened, I think it's probably about time to close this section. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Please do not, I have spent all day traveling across the US, and while I don't plan on continuing the conversation in this thread, I do plan on opening an RFC on the issue, and I think it's of value for all those who participate that the above conversation be clearly visible. There's no reason to hat it at this time. If the RFC concludes in opposition to all of my proposals, I'd support collapsing this thread and only leaving the RFC. @Bobfrombrockley I have never, ever claimed that "left" and "right" should be removed from Wikipedia. In fact, I wrote above: "certainly we can agree that there are websites that are left-leaning and right-leaning." ""Left" or "right", though still relative and open to some level of debate, could reasonably be used as factual descriptors." "I could even see a reasonable argument for words like "fringe" being used as factual descriptors." I only argued against the use of "far" left and "far" right. How could you have truly read this and interpreted it as me arguing against the phrases "left" and "right"? I feel like this is a recurring issue in my Wikipedia interactions. Full disclosure, I'm autistic, and sometimes I find it hard to get my point across in way that accurately reflects it in my mind. So I write a lot. Too many words, sometimes. I know this, and I'm working on it. So, people, out of a lack of interest in the subject matter or for other reasons, simply do not read what I write, and they clearly don't spend even a moment thinking about it, much less "steel manning" it. @Bobfrombrockley, I am not accusing you of acting in bad faith in any way, but to be very blunt, your summary of my proposal is so silly and absurd that it's clear that you did not actually read what I wrote, or, if you did, you skimmed it momentarily and didn't give it any serious thought at all. And you're not alone, almost every time someone on Wikipedia characterizes what I'm expressing about something, it's so ludicrously straw manned, twisted, or detrimentally oversimplified that, honestly, it makes me very sad and makes me feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, rather than other humans. If you don't give enough of a shit to actually read what I say and at least try to give it a serious thought, why bother commenting at all? With that, I don't think there's anything else to say on this thread. RFC coming tomorrow, if you all insist that this thread is such a grave and serious problem that it needs to be hatted immediately, go for it I guess, I'll just mention it in the RFC. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Philomathes2357 Apologies for my perhaps flippant summary of your comments, which you say came across as silly and absurd. I should have been more careful in my summary. I read and have some sympathy for your position, although it is hard to digest such a large quantity of text on a talk page. I don't understand why "far left" is any more subjective than "left", but the main point for me is that if we followed your argument, it's an issue for the whole of the WP project, where such terms are consistently used, rather than this particular article where we are simply following RSs as per WP policy, and so your long interventions are really not a positive contribution to editing this particular page. I appreciate your passion and commitment, but would urge you to step back a little at this point. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Who else?

Who else said that The Grayzone was "a one-stop propaganda shop, devoted largely to pushing a pro-Assad line on Syria, a pro-regime line on Venezuela, a pro-Putin line on Russia, and a pro-Hamas line on Israel and Palestine". It seems unlikely that two people would use these exact same words. Burrobert (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read the Reception section. Volunteer Marek 03:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. However, what is the answer to the question? Burrobert (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyone? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Burrobert (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Our ref says Bawer in Commentary and the passage indeed appears there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't need the direct quote twice. If we use the direct quote it should be attributed. If we want an unattributed passive voice "has been described" type sentence in the lead, it shouldn't be a direct quote but a summary of the sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

How is it now? Softlemonades (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC about the use of "far-left" in Wikivoice in the opening sentence

Should the term "far-left" be used in Wikivoice in the opening sentence of this article? Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Survey: RfC about the use of "far-left" in Wikivoice in the opening sentence

No This is out of compliance with NPOV, and is an editorial expression of opinion, rather than an assertion of fact. Skip to the conclusion at the end if you don't want to read this entire text wall, but do come back and read it if you find yourself in immediate disagreement with the conclusion.

lengthy rationale continued, collapsed by User:Adoring nanny

First, we need to address the basic terms "left" and "right". Readers may think this is off topic, but it is important. "Left" and "right" are terms that most people agree can be used as factual descriptors of political ideas, rather than merely opinions. I agree with this, too. However, there is subtlety that adds an inherent layer of subjectivity to the terms - the idea of a political "right" and "left" are very new abstract Western creations. They were created at earliest in the late 18th century during the French Revolution, and they were originally a physical description of where the supporters of the King sat (on the right) and where the supporters of the Revolution sat (on the left). The terms were clear, factual, objective descriptions of where people "sat" on a specific issue. Clearly, when we describe the Grayzone as "left" or Fox News as "right", we don't mean that the Grayzone supports the ideals of the French Revolution, or that Fox News contributors are fans of Louis XVI, and we're also not describing the physical space occupied by Max Blumenthal or Tucker Carlson. So the terms have been lifted from their original context and are now abstract concepts used, not to measure political ideas scientifically or objectively, but to compare political opinions to one another within a given context. There is no "left" without a "right". Hypothetically, if 100% of people in society suddenly abandoned all of their right-wing ideas and subscribed without exception to some interpretation of left-wing ideas, it would be inaccurate to say that "everyone in our society is left-wing". Instead, there would cease to be a coherent definition of left-wing, or rather, the colloquial definitions of "left" and "right" would completely fall apart and would be rebuilt around a totally different set of political ideological differences within society. Society might still use the terms "left" and "right" out of convenience, but their meaning would have seismically shifted, such that some of what was once considered "left" would now be considered "right". One also runs into serious difficulties taking any objective definition of left and right and applying it outside the context of one single country. In the USA, the "left" is generally synonymous with the Democratic party, and the "right" with the Republican party. However, the Democratic party, were its platform and principles to be applied to a political party in Scandinavia, could reasonably be considered a "center-right" party, because of, for example, its widespread lack of interest in universal healthcare or tuition-free public universities or its unambitious policies on government-subsidized childcare and parental leave. Many of the Republican party platform and positions, in some countries vastly different to the USA, would undoubtedly be considered "left-wing", such as its permissive stance on legal homosexual marriage or its grounding in constitutional republicanism. So, I've established the context that, while I think we can all agree that the terms "left" and "right" can be appropriate encyclopedic descriptors, they are NOT universal factual descriptors, like "the capital of France is Paris", and they contain within them inherent relativity and subjectivity which is dependent on cultural context. Now for the terms "far" left and "far" right. I argue that "far" left and "far" right are statements of opinion, not fact. They are not applied using any agreed-upon definition. What, exactly, about a person or group's "rightness" or "leftness" makes it "far"? Far from what? Far from the opinions of the person expressing the "far" judgement? Far from the "center left" or "center right"? Whose center-left? As covered in the above paragraphs, those terms also don't have any real objective grounding, especially not in an international context, like the one in which the Grayzone writes. What is considered "far-left" in the United States could be considered "center-right" in a Scandinavian country, what's "right" in the United States could be "far-left" in Thailand, and, as previously noted, in many countries, the left/right dichotomy simply cannot be meaningfully applied. It's especially noteworthy that, not only are these terms (far left, far right) inherently subjective, they are exclusively used in a disparaging fashion. Nobody, or almost nobody, would describe themselves or any person or opinion with which they sympathize as "far" left or "far" right. The word "far" is always added before the words "left" and "right" to insert an explicitly negative connotation. We can see this exemplified in the sources cited in the opening sentence of the Grayzone article, a majority of which cast the subject matter in a negative light, which implies a desire to persuade the reader that the subject of the article should be viewed in a negative light. Essentially, when someone is described as "left", the tone is one of description. When someone is described as "far-left", the tone is one of dismissal and disparagement, based on the opinion of the individual using the label. Even if someone in this RFC were to complete the monumental, historic political-theoretical task of creating universal, objective, factual descriptions of "leftness" "rightness", and "farness", such that someone could be described in an article as "far-left", not as an opinion nested within the worldview of the article's author, but as an objective factual descriptor (like "the Bible is a book"), I still think "far left" and "far right" should be treated as statements of opinion on Wikipedia, as we can be certain that a definition such as this was not consulted by the authors of any of the articles cited: the authors instead consulted their own opinion and worldview. So, "far left" and "far right" are opinions, not facts. Now, on to the next aspect of my argument: the word-for-word text of NPOV. It's worth reading as much of NPOV as you can, carefully, but I have selected direct quotes from it below: NPOV states clearly "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." - NPOV policy "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed." - NPOV policy note: using the descriptor "far-left" in Wikivoice disparages the subject, since this term is used with an exclusively negative connotation. Repeating the opinion expressed in RS as fact, as the opening sentence of the Grayzone article does, also implies sympathy with what reliable sources say about the subject. "An important note on using the term "fundamentalism": In studies of religion, this word has a very specific meaning. Wikipedia articles about religion should use this word only in its technical sense, not "strongly-held belief", "opposition to science", or "religious conservatism", as it is often used in the popular press." - NPOV policy From this policy on the term "fundamentalism" we can induce the following: the fact a word is used in a certain way in the popular press does not mean we should use the word the same way on Wikipedia, when the popular press uses the word with colloquial intent, not technical intent. Since there is no coherent technical definition of "far left", we can assume that it is meant in a colloquial context, and should be skeptical at best of its use. "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article...Try not to quote directly...instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." - NPOV policy Finally, I would direct my fellow editors to the NPOV section on Anglo-American bias. I also argue that assuming that terms like "far left" and "far right" also violate NPOV by introducing Anglo-American bias, because of the inherent subjectivity and context-dependence of any definition of "left" or "right". I discuss the explicitly Western origins of the abstract concepts of a "political right" and "political left" above. If your definitions of left and right are themselves nested within your own cultural framework of understanding, how could you possible hope to describe, as "fact", the Grayzone's writings and opinions on issues in Syria, Venezuela, China, the Balkans and elsewhere using a term like "far left", which relies upon and is contextualized by your definition of "left"?

Conclusion: The answer to the RFC question is "No". the term "far left" should be removed from the first sentence, and should be replaced by a sentence in the body of the article, something to the effect of "several news outlets, including X, Y, and Z, have described the Grayzone as "far-left". This presents a significant view held by reliable sources, while avoiding the problem of presenting political opinions as fact in Wikivoice, and while also bringing the article into compliance with NPOV. I rest my case. I hope this will result in a lively discussion, and I especially encourage you to comment if you have read all of the above and disagree with the conclusion.

Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, per WP:YESPOV. While this has been discussed to death already, but the reason that we have always come to a consensus that we should label this as "far-left" is because that is what reliable sources refer to the website as, and there are no reliable sources that seriously contest this characterization. These sources include:
  1. Coda Story (RSP entry) the far-left news site The Grayzone
  2. The Washington Post (RSP entry) the Grayzone, a far-left media outlet
  3. The Diplomat (RSP entry) the far-left website Grayzone
  4. The Daily Telegraph (RSP entry) controversial far-left news website that has been accused of publishing pro-Russian propaganda
  5. Radio France Internationale far-left blog Grayzone
  6. Irish Times far-left website The Grayzone
  7. The Jewish Chronicle (RSP entry) far-left blog, The Grayzone, which is known for its pro-Kremlin editorial line and its support for the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria
  8. Business Post a far-left news website who were disinvited from speaking at Web Summit following allegations that their outlet published Russian propaganda

The only arguments presented are general arguments against (1) the academic validity of the Left–right political spectrum on Wikipedia and (2) the notion of a "far left" or a "far right" actually existing. While I understand the philosophical hesitance of the RfC creator, I don't see how this matters in light of our duty to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me try to explain why this matters. I'm trying to fuse my philosophical hesitance with Wikipedia policy. I think this matters in light of the duty you reference because of the text of the NPOV that I quote.

namely: ""Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

and

"Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized."

I think my suggestion is more in line with our duty to "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

My suggestion is more fair, because it is unfair to the subject to cite an opinion written in an RS as if it is a fact when that opinion disparages the subject.

My suggestion is just as proportionate, because it keeps the phrase "far-left" in the article and doesn't remove any of the citations.

It avoids editorial bias and and introducing "inappropriate tones" by not presenting a widely-held political opinion as an encyclopedic fact,

and it retains the significant view that has been published by reliable sources on the topic - that, at the very least, several writers who write for RS believe that the Grayzone is far left.

Plus, my suggestion is, in my view, plainly more in line with much of the specific text of NPOV, which, as it said in its lead, is non-negotiable I also don't see any way how retaining a factual "far-left" in Wikivoice in the opening sentence would make the article better in comparison to my suggestion. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

All of this is couched fundamentally in the idea that "far-left" and "far-right" are mere opinions rather than objective descriptors of where a particular source stands on the left-right political spectrum. But I'd be very skeptical of claims that one cannot place groups like Obraz as being far-right, and cannot objectively place groups like Shining Path as being far-left. Just because the left-right political spectrum is a particular framework, and there are ideological implications at stake in organizing the left-right framework, does not render the place of one group in that framework as being merely at the whim of opinion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes (Summoned by bot) – because that's what the reliable sources say. The long opening comment is interesting, and if I were in debate club I'd love to engage as it's full of ideas, but this is a Wikipedia Rfc, not debate club, and the way we decide these is not by logicking our way into the way the world ought to see "left" and "right" in general, but rather, by examining the reliable sources available on the topic, checking what they say, and evaluating what is the majority view (if any), the minority view(s), and the views espoused by only a tiny minority. If one view is clearly the most frequent, then as a tertiary source, we have no choice but to follow it, and hang the logic, as well as the debating brilliancy prize. In my assessment, this question does have a majority view among secondary sources, which leads inescapably to a "yes" !vote. Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per the cogent analysis by Red-tailed hawk. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say about various topics, and if reliable sources describe The Greyzone as "far left", then so too will Wikipedia. TLDR tendentious pseudo-philosophical baloney hearkening back to parliamentary seating charts during the French Revolution is an utter waste of other editor's time. Blog elsewhere, please, OP, where you can rail freely against "Anglo-American bias". Cullen328 (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes because thats what the RS say Softlemonades (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this is relevant policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels. In-text citation is the recommendation here, rather than in-line. Philomathes2357 (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes OP’s battle against great wrongs is baseless and features a laundry list of bad arguments, non-arguments, and disruptive argument tactics— including textwalling, the familiar misinterpretation of NPOV to mean “avoid controversy”, OR with poorly substantiated claims of being an expert (even if OP is one, experts can still hold fringe ideas), appeals to non-specific authorities (“other political experts agree with me”), bludgeoning, refusing to get the point(s), casually dismissing a ton of reliable sources, and of course endlessly filibustering the same topic to maintain a fake controversy. Recommend SNOW close and potentially a topic ban if they keep Sealioning talk pages. Dronebogus (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• Should be in the lead, but not in the first sentence It is true that a lot of sources say this. It should absolutely be in the lead. But not in the first sentence. There is no Wikipedia policy that just because a lot of sources say something, it has to be in the first sentence. If it were up to me, I would stop doing this generally. Other bad examples I am aware of include Gatestone Institute and Dorothy Moon. I think examples that keep it out of the first sentence, such as Keith Olbermann, Noam Chomsky and others are simply better written. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. "Far" exists on both sides. The far-left (Communists) and the far-right (Nazis) are extremists despised by the moderates on the left and right. Democrats don't like Communists, and Republicans don't like Nazis. To assert that calling such extremists "far" is just an opinion boggles the mind and all logic. The political spectrum exists, and both sides have "far" ends where the extremists dwell. RS call them "far" and so should we. The Grayzone is definitely extremist and far-left. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes because of the multitude of reliable, independent sources describing it as such. That is the basis for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Inevitably, "reliable" and "independent" sources convey information that does not conform with capital-t Truth or the true ontology of the universe. That's unavoidable for an encyclopedia: ideally, we record the state of knowledge, which hopefully corresponds with the Truth as much as it can, but we don't insert our own opinions and research. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 19:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - per above. There is consensus among RS that the Grayzone is a far-left outlet and it is almost always referred to as such Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Blumenthal, a longtime cheerleader for any anti-West cause no matter how fascist is about as "far-left" as Donald Trump, but regardless the RS call Grayzone far-left and thus so.must Wikipedia, even if the label is inaccurate. 2601:18F:107F:8C30:98A3:4835:2C5F:272C (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per everyone else. And while I like OP's philosophizing in a late-night dorm room sort of way, I think one of the most salutary benefits of relying on reliable sources per WP:NPOV is that we are (mostly) kept from long-winded sophistical debates. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per sky is blue and all of the above. Vizorblaze (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Wikipedia states the preponderance of what sources say. If the majority of them use the term then so does Wikipedia, quote sources in such a case would present a false balance. Even though "far left" is a nonsense term academically it's in common usage, especially in the US. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Plenty of coverage stating as such, as shown by Red-tailed hawk. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
• Not in the first sentence. This is so exhausting. I don't know how or why we got into the business of describing people and organizations primarily by their political affiliations, but it is stupid. It is stupid when we do it for lefties, and it is stupid when we do it for righties: look at this 2016 revision versus the current article at National Review. Is it really that much of a tragedy that people have to read a whole two sentences in before they figure out whether they agree with the magazine's politics? Do we need to care about this? I would say the answer is "no". The typical argument for the inclusion is something along the lines of "a bunch of important newspapers said so" -- sure. They said that the thing was left-wing, or right-wing (in whatever country they're from, in whatever year they said it). We can include this in an article. It would be stupid not to. However, there are a lot of facts in the world: I am sure you could find George Washington's shoe size if you really wanted to, and it would be verifiable, and it would be reliably sourced, but that's not an argument for the first sentence of his article to say George Washington was an American military officer, size-12 shoe wearer, statesman, and Founding Father who served as the first president of the United States from 1789 to 1797. jp×g 11:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  This is not about shoe size. That’s not even in the same ballpark. We never talk about shoe size unless maybe someone had notably enormous shoes. Dronebogus (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  If you don’t like it then OP has opened a thread complaining about it on a MOS talkpage that is going nowhere. Dronebogus (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

An analogy is a comparison of dissimilar subjects made in order to illustrate a common principle or mechanism; I apologize if the comparison was unclear. jp×g 11:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The comparison was ludicrous. Even as hyperbole. Dronebogus (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• And stop editing my comments. Dronebogus (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussions about improving articles; please do not make derogatory comments about your dispute with the person who created this thread. jp×g 11:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it was about my dispute with you. Dronebogus (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems that we have differing opinions here; I don't know that further discussion will be helpful. jp×g 12:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I do think there's a difference when the reason that the publication is covered tends to be more or less around it being a far-left fringe blog that flirts with disinformation, those characteristics tend to be a bit more defining and deserve more weight in the lead than a left-right characterization of George Washington would warrant. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Conditional No I agree with JPxG that we shouldn't use such a description in almost any opening sentence of any article. There might be a MOS argument here but I'm not going to try to find it if it exists. My other concern is the difference between "we found sources that say X (when doing a keyword search)" vs "sources typically describe it as X". While finding some sources is often easy, in this case I haven't seen anyone do any sort of analysis that shows this is such a common description of the source that we should treat it as a given description. For example, a list of the first 20 Google News stories that mention or are about The Grayzone, how many call the site "far-left"? I tried doing this but I don't know how to filter out hits to the site itself thus I can't provide an answer. However, if other editors can't provide it either then we shouldn't put this description in Wiki-voice. That doesn't mean we can't say "sources have described the site as X" but are we such bad writers that we feel we have to tell rather than show? It really does read like we are trying to persuade our readers with emotional language rather than solid facts. However, if some sort of systematic review of sources is shown and shows the description is common then I would support using "far-left" in the opening paragraph even if not in the first sentence. Springee (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding I don't know how to filter out hits to the site itself, @Springee: If you're interested in filtering out The Grayzone using google search, you can insert "-site:thegrayzone.com" at the end to exclude urls from the site itself from your results. You might get some unreliable sites by just searching google news (I'm currently getting several references to Iranian state media). There's also the reliable source search engine, which is built through a whitelist of commonly discussed sources that are considered reliable and excludes this publication's website, but being whitelist-based there are websites it will exclude that don't need to be excluded. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow. I've always wondered how to filter out the site itself. Thanks Mr. Hawk! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

OP, I appreciate the work and the passion you've put into this topic, both here, and in previous discussions. However, now that you've started an Rfc along with a lengthy opening statement, and responded to the first !vote with another one, I'd urge you to step back now, and let the process play out, which it may do for a month unless consensus rapidly becomes clear before that. I'm just another editor and I can't tell you what to do or what not to do, but adding more walls of text after each !vote will not help your cause, imho. Unless you see a uniquely new approach that you have never considered or responded to before, just lurking and watching may be your best bet. I wish you luck. Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Can I collapse OP’s extremely long vote rationale? I’m not trying to be a jerk; this is purely practical because it takes up half the voting section. Dronebogus (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  The typical answer is no, but I've done so per WP:IAR, because that length is too extreme. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

&

It might be worth looking at WT:WTW#Proposal to add term to "contentious labels" section where Philomathes2357 is trying to get a change in the guidelines. Doug Weller talk 21:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Philomathes2357, while I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with this dual-pronged approach, in my opinion the above-board thing to do would have been to give notice to the participants here of the alternate forum. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I've come here from the MOS discussion. I see we have sources that call the site far-left. Do we have a survey of sources that show the far-left label is consistently applied? If we search for news stories about "The Grayzone" (say the top 20 hits), how many will use "far-left" when describing the source? Would it be half, 5 of 20, just 1? This would help establish if we are dealing with "we can find sources that say X" vs sources consistently say X. For what it's worth, and it appears this wouldn't change consensus, I would oppose the label in Wikivoice and in the opening sentence if we can't show it is consistently used to describe this source. Even better, would be that article about this source rather than articles that reference this source use the term. Springee (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Red-tailed Hawk's suggestion above I was able to search for news stories that mentioned/discussed The Grayzone. Here are my finding based on trying to find Google News hits that are sites that don't seem totally off base (and some probably still are):

• Newsweek[1] - "Max Blumenthal, founder of The Grayzone website, posted a clip to Twitter..."
• Bloomberg [2] - The registration wall seems to be getting me but at least the first two mentions that I can see don't call it far left. They do mention an anti-Ukrainian government narrative.
• Modern Diplomacy [3] - only refers to it by name, no labels.
• NewsMax [4] - well I don't think anyone is going to accuse NewsMax of pulling punches to the left. The one mention is just referencing the Grayzone as a source for information.
• .coda [5] - "Max Blumenthal, the founder and editor of the far-left news site The Grayzone" and later "While many of The Grayzone’s ideas push hard at the edges of left-wing discourse, it still commands a significant audience. " I would say this site supports the label.
• Global Times [6] - "Max Blumenthal, editor and founder of the Grayzone, a US-based independent news outlet, talked to Global Times (GT)" Well I guess the Grayzone has fans in China. Is that really left wing? I wouldn't consider this a reliable source BTW.
• The Atlantic [7] - "Although The GrayZone would characterize itself as an “anti-imperialist” news source, the opaquely financed publication is highly selective in the empires it chooses to scrutinize; it is difficult to find criticism of Russia or China—or any other American adversary—on its site. A more accurate descriptor of its ideological outlook is “campist,” denoting a segment of the sectarian far left that sees the world as divided into two camps: the imperialist West and the anti-imperialist rest." This seems to be more descriptive to me. The rest of the article seem to support the position that this isn't so much "far-left" as anti-imperialist/anti-west left. I would assume this source is already referenced in the article.
• Reuters [8] - " The Grayzone, a website that has published content critical of the Ukrainian government."
• Axios [9] - Nothing about far left but says, "A website called The Grayzone has made a name for itself by denying China's campaign of cultural and demographic genocide in Xinjiang."
• Jerusalem Post [10] - "explaining why she shared The Grayzone News editor Max Blumenthal's tweet"
• The Guardian [11] - "Since 2020, journalist Aaron Maté at the Grayzone is said by the report to have overtaken Beeley as the most prolific spreader of disinformation among the 28 conspiracy theorists identified. " No mention of left.

Having gone through this exercise I do not think we should use "far-left" in wiki-voice. If nothing else I would say The Atlantic, while clearly not complementing The Grayzone, seems to deny the label in favor of a suggestion of anti-western with a touch of perhaps Chinese money. So on prinicple I don't think we should use the "far-left" descriptor. Looking at a few of these sources calling The Grayzone far-left might be an unfair insult to the actual far-left. Springee (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

SNOW close

Consensus has been swift and overwhelming here. It’s currently 10.5:1 in favor of keeping “far left” in the article (the “0.5” being a vote who supports slightly changing position in the article but not removal). While I appreciate the fact that Philomathes2357 is asking the community instead of endlessly bludgeoning, this is still a case of a WP:STICK that needs to be dropped. Since there is no meaningful controversy on whether to include the term “far left” in some way, I think this can be SNOW closed. Dronebogus (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Not taking any position on whether this should be SNOW or not. But it's not accurate to characterize me as a "support," or even as half a "support". On the exact question that was asked, I'm a "No". There is a big difference between being in the lead and being in the first sentence. And that's pretty much my entire objection. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we can let this run at least a week. This probably isn't going to need formal closure if it continues this way, but I don't see a need to close it this quickly; the way consensus is going there aren't going to be any changes to the article as a result of this RfC, and delaying the close of this isn't going to harm the article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I was admonished for not commenting here by multiple users, but I was also asked not to comment here by multiple other users, so I'll split the difference by leaving one, and only one, remark for the next 48 hours. I'll note that by Dronebogus's criteria, I'm only a 0.5 on my own proposal here, because I do not support removing the phrase "far-left" from the article entirely under any circumstances. Since the opinion that the Grayzone is "far-left" is published in several reliable sources, it should definitely be included. I was very clear about this from the beginning, but most commenters here seem to have totally missed this.

All I've suggested is, rather than being in the opening sentence in Wikivoice, it should be elsewhere in the body (or the lead) in a manner consistent with NPOV's mandate to "avoid presenting opinions as facts". Just like the Shining Path article, which used to read "Shining Path is a far left terrorist group" but now contains a neutral, descriptive first sentence and attributes the "terrorist" label to reliable sources further down in the lead, while relegating "far left" to the infobox.

Many commenters here have offered a wide array of different opinions about what they think "far-left" means, as have different academics and popular writers, which just underscores that this label is an expression of opinion, not a statement of empirical fact. Other commenters have noted that it's actually ludicrous to factually describe the Grayzone "far left" based on things like their support for the right-wing Russian government or the right-wing Assad government in Syria. This highlights the fact/opinion divide even more strongly, and strengthens my point that these terms are used more as smears than as attempts at an empirical description of political reality.

The main argument presented here is that "reliable sources say it, therefore so should we". But I actually agree with that, so it's frustrating and disheartening to see that glibly repeated over and over as if it were a rebuttal to my position. We should present what reliable sources say, of course, the question is how to best present reliably-sourced opinions in an encyclopedic context - as empirical facts, or as views expressed in reliable sources? In Wikipedia's own voice, or attributed to its sources in the text?

Implicitly, some commenters have argued something like "if reliable sources say something is a fact, even if it's clearly an opinion, the utterance of that opinion by a reliable source makes it a fact, and we must present it as a fact, even if we privately know that doing so is ludicrous." I simply don't follow the logic there, as there are more NPOV-compliant ways to present the exact same material in a way that removes no content and neutralizes all appearances of NPOV issues.

A thorough, sound rebuttal of my proposal would argue that presenting a reliably-sourced opinion as an empirical fact in Wikivoice is unambiguously necessitated by NPOV policy & categorically superior to presenting it as simply a view held by reliable sources, as I propose. I have yet to see such a rebuttal, because if I did, I would have acknowledged it, thanked the person who offered it, and I'd have moved the heck on. Until I do see a serious rebuttal of this type, I'm going to keep acting like a gadfly and presenting the issue in the public square.

I acknowledge that some editors think I am bludgeoning the point here, but the only reason that I continue engaging and presenting my critiques in various forms is that I simply do not feel that any of my most basic critiques have been addressed, at all. If someone actually engaged, point by point, with my argument, systematically rebutting it in good faith and offering to give further responses to my counter-rebuttals, I would be thrilled. It would literally put a smile on my face and make my day. I definitely would have acknowledged it and, if it were ironclad, I would have moved on, because I'm not trolling or trying to waste anyone's time, mine or yours.

With that, I will refrain from further comments on this forum for 48 hours. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, and these talk pages are not for debates. Vizorblaze (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NOTFORUM Vizorblaze (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support at this point it's very unlikely that the outcome will change. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose closure before a week has elapsed, or two days with no !votes, whichever comes first. Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
• I see that the OP has been indefinitely blocked. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Potential sources, for review

Source for review:

• Briant, Dr. Emma L. (28 April 2022). "How Russia benefits from ill-informed social media policies". Brookings. Retrieved 17 January 2023.

[ Scott Ritter’s removal from Twitter in April 2022] was immediately accompanied by support from a reporter from The Grayzone, who claimed his voice had been censored in a widely shared tweet. Far from being “small pockets of dissenting voices,” the reach of networks of left- and right-wing accounts and outlets that adopt this position on Kremlin defenders is large. This one post still displaying the apparently ‘silenced’ Scott Ritter’s false tweet about Bucha gained 5,801 Retweets and 545 Quote Tweets. Max Blumenthal also shared it with his three hundred and five thousand followers, with currently 1,086 Retweets and 76 Quote Tweets.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Plus these other recent articles, which I posted before but they got archived prematurely:

• Amine, Rayan El (4 November 2022). "Syria rolls out the red carpet for influencers and friendly foreigners, while local reporters face death and prison". Coda Story. Retrieved 7 November 2022.

The only journalists who thrive in Syria today are those who serve as mouthpieces for the Syrian and Russian regimes. Many of these mouthpieces include American-based, far-left websites such as The Grayzone and MintPress News. Idrees Ahmed, an editor at global affairs magazine New Lines, says such friendly foreign media, even if obscure and dismissed by the mainstream, has “made the job of propaganda easier for [authoritarians].” In September for example, a Grayzone article claimed that the White Helmets, a civil defense group responsible for significant reporting on Syrian atrocities and the saving of hundreds of thousands of lives, corrupted the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ (OPCW) investigation into the 2018 Douma chemical attack. Among those who shared the article on Twitter was the Russian Embassy in Sweden.

• Guckert, Élie (17 October 2022). "The Grayzone : une machine complotiste au service de Poutine - L'Observatoire du conspirationnisme". Conspiracy Watch (in French). Retrieved 7 November 2022. {{cite web}}: Text "L'Observatoire du conspirationnisme" ignored (help)

The articles of The Grayzone are often relayed by other French figures of Russian propaganda and the conspiracy like the ex-senator Yves Pozzo di Borgo, or quoted in reference by the site France Soir. From one side of the Atlantic to the other, these two communities talk to each other and amplify each other. Thus, last March, the famous video of the intervention of the Frenchwoman Anne-Laure Bonnel on CNews claiming that Ukraine is massacring its own people had been taken up by Aaron Maté, one of the flagship columnists of The Grayzone, who concluded that "the United States has been fueling a war in Donbass since 2014". From conflicts to famines to the Covid-19 pandemic, everything is necessarily the fruit of conspiracies fomented in Washington, according to the “investigations” of this American site. This would be the case with the genocide of the Uyghurs like the chemical attacks committed in Syria by Bashar el-Assad or the massacres of civilians committed in Ukraine by the Russian army. The creator of this diversion machine is Max Blumenthal. Son of Sydney Blumenthal, a former adviser to Bill Clinton, Max left the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar in 2012, which he accused of being pro-Assad. In 2015, after a trip to Russia for RT's 10th anniversary – where he has appeared regularly ever since – Blumenthal made a 180-degree turn and founded The Grayzone. First a simple blog hosted on the left-wing American platform Alternet, the project then became a full-fledged company. Or almost. As US news site rating service NewsGuard notes, the site was dependent on a company registered in 2019 in the name of Blumenthal in the state of Maryland seized in 2021, for lack of tax declaration. Since then, The Grayzone has no known legal existence. While accusing many outlets of being funded by various Western intelligence services, the site refuses to answer questions about its own funding. The Grayzone played a key role in Vladimir Putin's information war in Syria. In June, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and The Syria Campaign mapped a network of 28 Russian-backed propagandists to disseminate false information on social media about the conflict to an audience of nearly 2 million. convinced. Among them, the “most prolific creator and propagator of disinformation” is none other than Aaron Maté, who thus snatches a place formerly occupied by Vanessa Beeley. Information denied by the person concerned. His articles for The Grayzone are, however, at the heart of a vast disinformation campaign launched jointly with WikiLeaks, a group of conspiratorial British academics and Russian diplomats to discredit the OPCW investigation into the Douma chemical attack in 2018. , as reported by Conspiracy Watch here and there. He has also been invited by Russia to speak in 2021 at a UN conference about Assad's "fake" chemical attacks. The ties between The Grayzone and the Russian propaganda ecosystem have only deepened over the years. Max Blumenthal, for example, has been rewarded for his work by a pro-Assad lobby and has already been identified as a friend by the official account of the Russian mission to the UN, on Twitter. Mate was caught red-handed communicating with an employee of Ruptly, RT's video agency, to obtain the personal details of survivors of the Douma chemical attack. To make matters worse, The Grayzone has recently launched its British branch, entrusted to a certain Kit Klarenberg who has written for RT, Sputnik, the conspiratorial site GlobalResearch and the Iranian state channel Press TV.

• Fiorella, Giancarlo; Godart, Charlotte; Waters, Nick (1 March 2021). "Digital Integrity". Journal of International Criminal Justice. 19 (1). Oxford University Press (OUP): 147–161. doi:10.1093/jicj/mqab022. ISSN 1478-1387.

While instances of mass amplification of state-engendered disinformation are cause for concern, equal attention should be paid to the less visible but still vociferous ‘alternative facts’ communities that exist online. Far from being relegated to niche corners of the internet populated by conspiracy theorists and their adherents, grassroots counterfactual narratives can be introduced to mainstream audiences by large media organizations like Russia Today (RT) and Fox News, which amplify and lend legitimacy to these narratives. These grassroots communities are particularly evident on Twitter, where they coalesce around individual personalities like right-wing activist Andy Ngo, and around platforms with uncritical pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad editorial lines, like The Grayzone and MintPress News. These personalities and associated outlets act as both producers of counterfactual theories, as well as hubs around which individuals with similar beliefs rally. The damage that these ecosystems and the theories that they spawn can inflict on digital evidence is not based on the quality of the dis/misinformation that they produce but rather on the quantity.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)