Talk:The Grayzone

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 [1] and therefore conclude that the neutrality of that article is disputed. Of course, the complaints of those IP users are fringe and baseless, so they should be ignored. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You do realise that your argument would apply equally to Flat earth right? If you look at the talkpage history of the article [2], there are dozens of comments from flat-earthers disputing the neutrality of the article. Is there a serious dispute about that article's neutrality? Is that article being gatekept by a minority of editors who are big shills for round earth, the freemasons, and NASA? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Known for misleading reporting"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New potential sources

This is a work in progress.

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

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

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

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

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

On The Grayzone

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

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

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

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

• "This is anything but an encyclopedia."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chosmky book is not about unrelenting contrarianism, you should read it again with more attention. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al Jazeera edit

@Newslinger This edit summary [3] said you were adding Al Jazeera to the citation list but I think something made a mistake because the diff shows GoFundMe. I dont know what happened, if it was a mistake can you fix it? Sometimes the citation tools do weird stuff Softlemonades (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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