Talk:The Grayzone

Skip to table of contents

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 6 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article The Grayzone, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article The Grayzone, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions
Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

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

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

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for The Grayzone (13 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	6,445	6,445
History	2,254	2,254
Reporting and reception	2,609	23,558
Latin America	1,964	1,964
Syria	2,435	2,435
China	4,082	4,082
Russia–Ukraine	2,700	2,700
Israel–Palestine	9,768	9,768
Funding	4,043	4,043
Staff	4,724	4,724
See also	70	70
References	36,158	36,158
External links	527	527
Total	77,779	77,779

Accused of?

I think it's time to re-open a discussion about this sentence in the lead: The Grayzone has downplayed and justified the persecution of Uyghurs in China, and been accused of publishing conspiracy theories about Xinjiang, Syria and other regions, and publishing disinformation about Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which some have described as pro-Russian propaganda.

I support the following changes: The Grayzone has been accused of downplaying and justifying the persecution of Uyghurs in China, of publishing conspiracy theories about Xinjiang, Syria and other regions, and of publishing pro-Russian propaganda and disinformation about Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

In particular, I find it concerning that the material about Xinjiang is still in wikivoice, especially because doing so takes as established fact some highly contested claims by Adrian Zenz and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which I also don't consider to be reliable sources, and frames any skepticism toward those claims as denialism equivalent to Holocaust revisionism. In the wake of the 2023 RFC on persecution of Uyghurs in China We have made some progress toward changing the language in use from something like "denied the Uyghur Genocide" to the current version, but I think there is more that can be done to balance this material. The bulk of the accessible sources used to support this claim are opinion pieces, or heavily partisan pieces that blur the line between opinion/commentary and hard news reporting. One of the sources even uses "accused of" in its headline. Per WP:RSOPINION, we should not be using these sources to support statements of fact.

I was also able to gain access to a much coveted academic source on this topic, Fighting Tigers or Flies? Towards Effective Counter-radicalization Narratives in China. In that article, the author challenges the veracity of the Coda Story piece on The Grayzone, saying that while Blumenthal’s political view on Syria might say something about his potential bias on the Uyghur issue, Thompson does not respond to the evidence the Grayzone presented that challenges Zenz’s research. In general, this source's value to the article is high imo, because it covers the disputes between The Grayzone and other outlets without engaging in them, which is in line with Wikipedia policy. I propose adding this source to the lead and adopting the version of the text I outlined in this post.

Notifying @Anachronist, @Niokog, @Bonks1, @Philomathes2357, @Newslinger, @Valjean as you've all been active in discussing or editing this part of the lead at some point in time and we've had productive discussions in the past. Unbandito (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with that change. Normally with all the sources we already cite, it's fine to say what the sources say in Wikipedia's voice. I would trust the Coda Story journalism piece more than the opinion of one Chinese author, however. All I can access is the abstract and it includes phrasing that comes across as making excuses for Chinas actions. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the (8?) sources cited in that sentence rely on Zenz or the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation? I can't see any references to them? Without access to this much coveted (but never cited?) article I can't comment on that, but who is Chi Zhang and why do they trump all our current sources? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS there are also the sources cited in the body which this summarises. Having said that, I think we overegg that cake a little, giving a lot of words to June Cheng who seems very non-noteworthy BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World magazine article is in part a defense of Zenz's research, and it most directly engages with The Grayzone's claims. I expanded the coverage of it in the body for that reason, but I can maybe go back and try to trim it. The Axios article mentions Zenz as well, and frames skepticism of him as "denialism". Al Jazeera doesn't mention him, and I have expanded on that article's material in the body because I find it helpful, but that is the piece most clearly labeled opinion. The Coda article says about BLumenthal that many social media users accused him of ignoring one of the largest-scale human rights violations of the 21st century and though it doesn't mention Zenz by name, it is clearly referencing the Grayzone articles about Zenz's research. As Chi Zhang points out, it does not respond to the evidence the Grayzone presented that challenges Zenz’s research, instead largely describing the fringe left media ecosystem and discussing its ties to Russian and Chinese actors with the presumption that its reporting is inaccurate. It also circularly cites Wikipedia's deprication of The Grayzone in support of this framing.

I found the article via Anna's Archive, in the book China's International Communication and Relationship Building by Xiaoling Zhang and Corey Schultz. I've seen it mentioned in a few talk page discussions. The paper definitely has a different perspective from the cited sources, but it may defy your expectations when you read it for yourself. (@Anachronist, wanted you to see how to access as well).

I don't think this source trumps the others sources, but I think it is of equal or higher quality and more useful than some of the opinion/commentary pieces currently on the page. I think what it does demonstrate is that there isn't a sufficient academic and global media consensus, once this source is balanced with the other sources cited that I can access, to support the statement currently in wikivoice. For now, I hope to build a consensus around changing the language in the lead to something more supported by the sources we have but I think there is another discussion to be had about moving coverage of The Grayzone to the body (and possibly rebalancing the History and Reception sections), or changing its prominence in the lead after further assessment of the academic and media sources. Unbandito (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposed change, I did one like that (first part of the sentence), but it was reverted saying when there are so many sources saying this, it's OK for us to say this also. I had no idea how to respond to that (and anticipated that even if I did there would be more to come), so I simply gave up on any further involvement. Niokog (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was me who reverted you. Your change ended up using "accused of" twice in the same sentence, which seemed like a redundant belaboring of a point. The proposed change uses it once, and I can accept that, although it's still fine to use wiki-voice when a preponderance of sources say the same thing. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, the sentence after my edit was:

The Grayzone has been accused of downplaying and justifying the persecution of Uyghurs in China, publishing conspiracy theories about Xinjiang, Syria and other regions, and publishing disinformation about Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which some have described as pro-Russian propaganda.

Note that there is only one "accused of" in it. Differences between my change and the proposal is that I did not keep/add "of" before the "publishing" and did not reword

disinformation about Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which some have described as pro-Russian propaganda

into

pro-Russian propaganda and disinformation about Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

If you now agree with the proposed change, then there should be no issue in adopting it, which was already done by another editor anyway, so it seems that this issue is now resolved. :) Niokog (talk) 07:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. It seems I misread the diff somehow, probably due to looking at the diff in popups rather than the actual diff page. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm broadly supportive of all of this. But I lament how much of an uphill battle this seems to be. We're fighting to improve minutiae (which has value of course - edit: I just want to stress a bit more that I am indeed grateful for this discussion and the progress we are making, however incremental), while the article remains distinctly egregious. I had not previously read the Israel-Palestine subsection until today. To my suprise, I retain the ability to be shocked:

"Basically, however, Grayzone (thegrayzone.com) is 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."

This is the opinion of a Norwegian novelist I've never heard of, and apparently it's acceptable to directly quote in a neutral encyclopedia. Not to mention that the quote is not reduced to be specific to the subsection it's under - relevant or not, whoever put it there wanted all of that quote, in it's damning glory, on this page. The quote is from an interview in a publication that I have also never heard of, but appears (according to wikipedia) to run covers entitiled "WOKE: THE THREAT", and so on. And this is apparently fine!

I'll add that I also don't read the grayzone, and like others found this page having become aware of it this year. In fact, I think this is a shame, because I'd like to be able to contribute information on their work which isn't just a smear campaign. Bonks1 (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that, thats a random opinion and lacks weight for inclusion. nableezy - 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atrocity, Inc.

Hey @Bobfrombrockley, I wanted to discuss the inclusion of the section on Atrocity, Inc. AJJR doesn't say it in their review (though this is easily verifiable, and not controversial) but the documentary is hosted on The Grayzone YouTube channel. The poster for the documentary, included in the AJJR review, says "The Grayzone and Propaganda & Co present" AJJR does also identify Blumenthal as "Max Blumenthal of The Grayzone". Other less reliable/significant sources call it a "Grayzone documentary": 1 2 To me, this was sufficient to warrant inclusion. Fwiw I think the material is instructive to put on this page, since it makes for an interesting contrast with the negative reporting about The Grayzone's reliability in other topic areas. What do you think? Unbandito (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry I forgot to tag you in the other discussion! I am glad you found it. Unbandito (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about this but when I looked at the AJR piece I saw no mention of Grayzone and looked at the documentary and saw no Grayzone branding, though it was hosted on the Grayzone YouTube channel, so it seemed like OR/SYNTH to include it. However, looking again now, I see there is a Grayzone logo on screen right at the start (followed by that of another production company, Propaganda & Co) and again right at the end. If folks think that's enough basis for a paragraph here, I won't object. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading sourcing

Linked reporting doesn’t actually line up with the Wikipedia article’s assertions. What groups have a vested interest in discrediting prominent critics of Israel? 2603:7000:8900:288D:14BA:64A4:B0BC:20AA (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than making a vague and non-actionable complaint, why not actually provide some examples to examine? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]