Talk:The Grayzone/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about The Grayzone. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Updated to mention shift from far-left to far-right

It now says "The Grayzone is an American fringe news website and blog that was far-left but has become a far-right influencer." This is backed by RS and simple observation (OR backed by RS ) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. The community consensus on MMFA and WP:DAILYDOT are that they are sources that ought not generally be used without attribution, and we're relying on them to label the group as "far-right" in wikivoice? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The cited MMFA source states: Far-left conspiracy theory outlets The Grayzone and MintPress News also adapted the global nature of Soros conspiracy theories—so I’m not sure why it was used to support that content to begin with. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: then let's attribute it, since they are right.

What do you mean by "Leave LDR alone"? I have just used the established style here, with LDR used for the lead. That's all. Doing that makes the lead much easier to edit. There's a section about this above. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The "leave LDR alone" meant that I didn't touch the LDR citations taht were converted.

If we're going to attribute it in the lead, then as WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY suggests, we shouldn't just have it there. We'd need something in the body on a change in editorial tone. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: my bad. I noticed the title and assumed it was also about The Grayzone. The MMFA source is from 2021. When did they start shifting toward defending right-wing dictator states and pushing far-right propaganda from Russia? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s okay, WP:HEADLINES can be duping sometimes. Well, they’ve always been pro-Russia, but I’m assuming the main propaganda push began during the invasion of Ukraine. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. If one goes back to the USSR, they were left-wing, but Russia is now a far-right kleptocracy. Supporters of Putin are generally considered right-wing, and The Grayzone clearly gets its info from Russian sources, so there's that. They are known by whom they support, and they support several far-right countries. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I think it’s less to do with supporting far right nations/individuals and more so to do with supporting the values or policies of said nations/people (namely hard-lined authoritarianism and general anti-Americanism/anti-Westernism). Such sentiments can exist at either ends of the political spectrum. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That is very true. The horseshoe description of the political spectrum works fine here. It may well be their anti-Americanism that is the dominating factor, with an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach, and there are nations and peoples on both ends who hold that position toward America. In fact, I lived in Europe long enough to learn how much anti-Americanism there is among NATO and other American-allied countries. Many consider America a third-world, uncivilized, nation. They just fear Russia more, while feeling that America does a piss poor job of taking care of its own. I have to agree. The Trumpian "supporting the values or policies of said nations/people (namely hard-lined authoritarianism and general anti-Americanism/anti-Westernism)" means they would be allied with MAGA and Putin, the types who vote for Trump. I'm old enough to appreciate how bizarre that is. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a good opportunity to discuss whether and how we should document the shift from left to right. We'd have to have several RS that document this, and one of the two I had has been knocked down. Are there others? Just for our discussion, Ben Norton, who formerly worked at The Grayzone, has some interesting things to say about this, and he should know:

"[Blumenthal] took a hard right-wing turn, intentionally appealing to Trump's "MAGA" followers. He condemned the left as a "cult"."[1]

"Before the 2022 US midterm elections, The Grayzone promoted far-right "MAGA" candidates..."[2]

You people know more about this than I do, so please share your thoughts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

At this point, the far-left descriptor is still better supported by sources. The following sources, written by authors representing a variety of political viewpoints, explain that The Grayzone espouses campism, an ideology within left-wing politics (including far-left politics) that involves supporting an entire "camp" of associated nations despite ideological differences:

Sources describing The Grayzone as campist

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.

Kirchick, James (29 September 2022). "How the Anti-war Camp Went Intellectually Bankrupt". The Atlantic.

There are some on the left who focus on the geopolitical side of things and see the countries of the world in terms of a US-led camp and an anti-imperialist camp. The problem with this “campist” outlook is that it takes a rather forgiving view of oppressive regimes provided they are at odds with Washington. Even worse, working class struggles in such countries are seen as decidedly inconvenient and entirely suspect. No matter how serious the grievances involved or how significant the base of support mobilizing behind them, those taking to the streets will be presented as dupes of the West. The Grayzone is a less than subtle representative of this approach. A million people can fill the streets to demand democratic rights but this website will gleefully point to some small group waving the Stars and Stripes as supposed proof that it’s all the work of the National Endowment for Democracy.

Clarke, John (19 March 2021). "The class struggle and geopolitics". Canadian Dimension.

What Norton and Blumenthal, and their co-thinkers in what they call the “anti-imperialist left,” exhibit is essentially a revival of Cold War thinking, with a distinctly neo-Stalinist flavor: the world is divided into two camps, one dominated by the United States, and the other consisting of its enemies. The left must solidarize itself with the anti-Washington camp, no matter how brutal, corrupt and dictatorial its leaders, no matter how many of its citizens languish in prison cells, suffer in torture chambers, or lie dead in the streets. We at New Politics unreservedly reject this morally bankrupt politics. We have always stood for vigorous, consistent opposition to both U.S. imperialism and to the tyrannies that pose as socialist or anti-imperialist.

"In Defense of Socialist Internationalism: Answering the Propaganda of the Authoritarian "Left"". New Politics. 14 July 2019.

The Grayzone has also been described as a tankie-aligned publication. In contemporary usage, tankie is a pejorative term for supporters of authoritarian communism (including Marxism–Leninism) or authoritarian states with a socialist legacy, and is generally used to label far-left political views. For example:

Source describing The Grayzone as tankie-aligned

Wrażenie wszechobecnej narracji na rzecz Rosji wzmacniają anglojęzyczni dziennikarze pracujący dla RT, CGTN czy mediów powiązanych z rosyjską i chińską propagandą w sposób mniej oczywisty, tak jak „antyimperialistyczne” Mango Press (których aktywność na Twitterze od początku rosyjskiej inwazji składa się wyłącznie z pochwał dla dzielnych rosyjskich wojaków oraz donieckich i ługańskich separatystów) czy The Grayzone.

Przekaz takich osób, jak Anya Parampil (68,5 tys. obserwujących), George Galloway (325 tys.), Aaron Mate (195 tys.), Afshin Rattansi (25 tys.), Caitlin Johnstone (106 tys.), Benjamin Norton (186 tys.) jest bardzo spójny, prawie zunifikowany, bardzo bliski anonimowym czy mniej popularnym tankies. Krąży wokół takich narracji: od 2014 r. Ukrainą rządzą neonaziści i krwawe marionetki Stanów Zjednoczonych, w Donbasie popełniają zbrodnie ludobójstwa, Euromajdan to sponsorowany przez Amerykanów przewrót, a ostatecznym celem tej wojny są Chiny.

The impression of a pervasive narrative in favor of Russia is reinforced by English-language journalists working for RT, CGTN or media outlets linked to Russian and Chinese propaganda in less obvious ways, such as the "anti-imperialist" Mango Press (whose Twitter activity since the beginning of the Russian invasion has consisted solely of praise for brave Russian fighters and Donetsk and Luhansk separatists) or The Grayzone.

The message of people such as Anya Parampil (68.5k followers), George Galloway (325k), Aaron Mate (195k), Afshin Rattansi (25k), Caitlin Johnstone (106k), Benjamin Norton (186k) is very consistent, almost unified, very close to anonymous or less popular tankies. It revolves around such narratives: since 2014, Ukraine has been ruled by neo-Nazis and bloody puppets of the United States, genocide is being committed in Donbas, Euromaidan is an American-sponsored coup, and the ultimate goal of this war is China.

— Wieczorek, Michał (1 March 2022). "Zachód objaśnia nam świat. Oto jak lewica dała się omamić rosyjskiej propagandzie" [The West explains the world to us. This is how the left was deceived by Russian propaganda]. Spider's Web [pl] (in Polish).

I don't think The Grayzone's support of for some far-right politicians is sufficient to establish that The Grayzone is a right-wing or far-right publication. A publication on one end of the left–right political spectrum can support politicians on the other end of the spectrum for any number of reasons, e.g. being in the same "camp", aligning with another political issue, promoting some form of accelerationism, etc. I also don't think The Grayzone's support of for the Russian government makes it far-right due to these same reasons, and also because the ruling United Russia party's position on the left–right political spectrum is unclear (according to the Wikipedia article). — Newslinger talk 10:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Edited: Minor copyediting. — Newslinger talk 21:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I knew that y'all know more about this than I do. That all makes so much sense. Thanks! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Well said and well researched, @Newslinger. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Newslinger always has a knack for this sort of research. Thank you for explaining this so clearly. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting sources. I don't see enough support for the use of "far-right" for me to be comfortable with it in the lede, although it would be an interesting attributed opinion to include in "reception.

I'm really not very pleased with the idea of adding yet another label to the lede, at all. That would amount to giving a middle finger to @Unbandito's thoughtful suggestions for how to improve the article. I think his ideas are the best way forward for this to one day be a B or A-class article, let alone a GA.

Calling them far-left AND far-right in the opening sentence is drifting a bit too far into self-parody, let's not go there. I don't think our readers would be particularly impressed by that editorial decision, either, and that's, ostensibly, who we're writing the article for.

However, if there is a consensus that the best way to improve this article is to add more labels, I think "campist" is by far the lesser of the evils. It's typically used as a neutral descriptor, rather than as a self-promotional label or as a derisive insult, unlike "far-left" or "anti-authoritarian". It also describes The Grayzone's actual editorial tendencies with a precision and nuance that stuff like "far this, fringe, far that" simply fail to capture. The sources describing The Grayzone as "campist" don't just do a drive-by labeling, they describe in detail why they find that label to be appropriate.

In my dream world, this article would begin something "The Grayzone is an American news website and blog. A wide variety of labels have been used to describe the political orientation of its content. Some sources have considered it as a part of the campist worldview, and it is most often labeled as "far-left". It is best known for its criticism of American foreign policy and its comparative lack of critical scrutiny of regimes that are ideological opponents of the United States.

And so on. Then, in the reception section, we should discuss, by name, who, exactly has called The Grayzone "left-wing", "far-left", "far-right", "tankie-aligned", "fringe" "campist", "neo-Stalinist", "anti-authoritarian", some form of ABOUTSELF, and whatever other labels have been used by good sources to try to make sense of The Grayzone's place in the media landscape. And, perhaps more importantly, why those sources say they have chosen to use a label.

That approach wouldn't remove any sources. It wouldn't remove any claims that RS have made. It wouldn't violate WEIGHT, nor any other part of NPOV. In fact, it would be significantly more compliant with the neutral point of view, both colloquially and policy-wise, specifically the instructions "don't state opinions as facts" and "try to describe disputes, instead of engaging in them".

The article would cease to read like a sloppy hit piece, but at the same time, it would still make it very clear to the reader that the vast majority of publications that have commented on The Grayzone have quite a negative point of view about their content. However, it would present the range of views that have been expressed by RS in a much more nuanced and interesting way, that would leave the reader far more informed than aggressively and didactically beating them over the head with "fringe! far left! propaganda! Russians! far right! bad!"

That style of writing would, in fact, eradicate all the NPOV concerns that have been expressed by myself, multiple other experienced editors, and almost every random IP that decides to comment here (those IPs aren't trolls or idiots, by the way. They're our readers - our readers are the reason we're here engaging in the process of editing Wikipedia, and when dozens and dozens of them are so disappointed with the tone with which we write our article that they go out of their way to tell us about it, it would be wise, professional, and honorable to put a bit more serious thought into their critique than I've seen around here so far - otherwise, who exactly are we doing this for? Sometimes I wonder.)

I don't have any illusions that you folks would be on board for that idea, or anything even close to it, but hey, a man can dream. Let's avoid "far left and far right" and use "campist", if we must. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I cannot support reducing the prominence of the far-left descriptor in this way. A 2023 RfC affirmed the use of the far-left descriptor in the opening sentence due to the descriptor being broadly supported by the cited reliable sources. As far as I am aware, The Grayzone is the most highly visited American far-left political news website (despite its overall obscurity, which is due to the relative unpopularity of far-left politics in the United States). Media outlets with strong political leanings tend to have their political orientation (especially their position on the left–right political spectrum) prominently mentioned in the opening sentence of their corresponding Wikipedia articles; see Breitbart News (RfC) and One America News Network (RfC) for examples. — Newslinger talk 06:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, we’ve been over this far too many times. There is no convincing reason to change a hard-won consensus based on guesswork, unreliable sources and dorm-room political navel gazing. Dronebogus (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "dorm-room navel gazing" has to do with this article. Can you expand on your point? Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Debating politics on a speculative basis i.e. what we personally think the Greyzone is vs. an established consensus based on sources. Dronebogus (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now. Thanks for clarifying. I'm not suggesting that we use original research to re-write this article, which appears to be your concern. I'm suggesting that we use good sources, and only good sources, to write the article, but that we do so in a way that is more compliant with NPOV (don't assert opinions as facts, describe disputes rather than engaging in them), and reads more like an encyclopedia article, rather than a polemic. That can be done easily, with the RS we already have.

I, like you, oppose "dorm room navel gazing" on Wikipedia. Asserting widely-held opinions ("The Grayzone is far-left) or less-widely held opinions (The Grayzone is fringe) as empirically demonstrable facts in Wikipedia's voice because editors happen to agree with those opinions is a good example of the sort of navel-gazing you and I both reject. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that it’s inappropriate to call it “far left”? Because that’s the opposite of what I’m arguing. Dronebogus (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Claim in second paragraph of lede

As of this writing, the second paragraph of the lede reads:

"Coverage of The Grayzone has focused on its criticism of American foreign policy, its misleading reporting, and its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes, including those of Syria, Russia, and China." Right now I want to focus on the "misleading reporting" claim. The two sources for it (here and here) are both behind paywalls. There are quotes from both of these sources, which read as follows:

Number 1: "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."

Number 2: "The Grayzone, a publication known for misleading reporting in the service of authoritarian states..."

Do we actually have any examples of such misleading reporting? Do the two sources elaborate at all on this? Are there any freely available articles that can attest to this and give specific examples? Professor Penguino (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The examples are described throughout this article in the "History" and "Reception" sections. — Newslinger talk 23:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Where, exactly? I've read through the whole article. The closest thing I saw to something that could be called "misleading reporting" was some of their claims about the Russia-Ukraine war. EDIT: To clarify, I can't find anything on a lot of their reports, which seem pretty well done and verifiable. Specifically, their Marioupal theatre bombing article was criticized, but whether their human shields story was really "debunked" is questionable. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been bothered by this for years, @Professor Penguino. The three things that are usually brought up are:

1) misleading reporting about the Syrian chemical attacks. Aaron Mate has spent more time than any other journalist in the world on the topic, and he dissents from the mainstream narrative (that Assad ordered his military to gas his own people). Sources will describe Mate's reporting as "misleading", but they do not bother to explain why it is misleading, or to address any of the concerns Mate has raised.

2) misleading reporting about the war in Ukraine. One example from the article is the "debunked" claim that Ukraine used human shields. It was "debunked" by a Ukrainian open-source intelligence company with ties to the government of Ukraine. Not a source that should be taken at face value - I'm sure Hamas has "debunked" the claims that they use human shields, too, but only pro-Hamas or anti-Israel POV-pusher would put that in Wikivoice.

3) misleading reporting about the Uyghurs in China. They have "downplayed the genocide" or some variant of that. Again, this is generally asserted without evidence. Even if we accept the hypothetical that the Grayzone has "downplayed" the "genocide" against the Uyghurs...many mainstream outlets have arguably "downplayed" the "genocide" of the Palestinians, but we don't use Wikivoice to call those outlets "misleading".

Overall, I have not seen evidence that the Grayzone has a higher rate of "misleading" or factually incorrect statements than any mainstream newspaper. Sure, they're not perfect, but every RS makes mistakes, too (like when the NYT repeated CIA propaganda that said Iraq had WMDs, oops).

But, because they rock the boat by making sustained, systemic critiques of US foreign policy, other, more pro-establishment outlets frequently attempt to manufacture consent by simply asserting that the Grayzone is "misleading", without bothering with the details. Pro-establishment outlets have a vested interest in making sure the Grayzone is regarded as "fringe" and "misleading", so they regularly recruit know-nothings to write sloppy hit pieces about the outlet, like the recent Washington Post piece that had to be corrected. Such hit pieces should be understood in the context of Manufacturing Consent and the business model of corporate media, IMO, they should not be taken at face value and regurgitated without context, any more than we should take an RT article about the war in Ukraine at face value.

Some editors feel very strongly about making sure this article bludgeons the reader over the head with negative insinuations, so I don't think you'll have much success in your current line of inquiry, @Professor Penguino, but I commend you for looking into it. An entire essay about systemic bias on Wikipedia could be written, just about this one article. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Very, very well put. Thank you. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Wong (2022) cited an example of misleading reporting: a Grayzone article claiming that Hong Kong protestors are aligned with the US far-right. Your comment overlooked The Grayzone using false AI-generated information to criticize the Navalny documentary and publishing a false confession by student protester Valeska Sandoval. Philomathes2357 mentioned several other topic areas in which The Grayzone' has published misleading reporting.

Although you and Philomathes2357 may disagree with how reliable sources describe The Grayzone's misleading reporting on a range of topics, disagreeing with reliable sources is not a policy-supported reason to remove them from this article. Also, if you disagree with how Wikipedia covers other publications and events, that is irrelevant to this article; feel free to add your perspective to the talk pages of the relevant articles and be sure to cite reliable sources that support your position.

Your opinion of The Grayzone's reliability differs from community consensus. A 2020 RfC found consensus to deprecate The Grayzone because it publishes "false or fabricated information". — Newslinger talk 05:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

1) I am aware of the 2020 RfC.

2) Honest question: what was supposedly misleading about the Hong Kong article?

3) Although using AI isn't something I support, it seems weird to then say the Grayzone is primarily known for "misleading reporting" based just on that. I believe the Grayzone removed it from their website, too.

3) From the Business Insider article on the false confession, which I have already heard about: "Although the campaign revealed Monday was largely aimed at a domestic, Nicaraguan audience, it had an international reach. The student protester's false confession, for example, was circulated by a British supporter of the government, John Perry, who adopted a fake identity to publish commentary on the episode at The Grayzone, a US-based fringe website that has promoted the Ortega government's line on social unrest in the Central American country." This is certainly a notable incident, but I still don't think you could say the Grayzone is known specifically for "misleading reporting" just from this. It also seems that The Grayzone removed it from their website after learning the confession was fake.

4) I did not propose removing the sources, but I would very much prefer if there were better evidence to back them up. Professor Penguino (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The Grayzone article accused protestors in Hong Kong, including politician Joshua Wong, of supporting their "far-right sponsors in Washington" and also claimed that Donald Trump was a "sponsor", with no evidence of such sponsorship.

According to SimilarWeb, The Grayzone is the 60,643rdth most popular site in the US and the 141,678th most popular site in the world. As a fringe site with relatively little traffic, The Grayzone isn't covered by other publications in detail very often. The available reliable source coverage, which is cited in this Wikipedia article, explicitly states that The Grayzone publishes misleading reporting. Per the policy against original research, it is not our role on this article talk page to independently assess whether The Grayzone's coverage is misleading for the purpose of including our assessment in the article, since such an assessment cannot be cited in Wikipedia unless it is covered by reliable sources (as the 2020 noticeboard RfC was). — Newslinger talk 09:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I second the comments and concerns of @Newslinger:. Not only is it a violation of original research, it is also forbidden advocacy of fringe POV to now defend The Grayzone in the face of RS criticisms. If a RS defends them, we might be able to use that RS as a counter POV, but what editors must not do is push their own defense of a fringe source. Don't independently assess The Grayzone. Simply document what RS, and only RS, say about it. It's worrying that you don't see the many flaws in their coverage of political events and POV and then come here and question the views of the RS used in the article.

It's best to drop the stick, and if you still feel a need to defend fringe sources like this one, then do it elsewhere, because Wikipedia is not to be misused for advocacy and defense of fringe POV. If you don't feel at home here (that seems pretty obvious), then stick to other topics and do some constructive wikignoming. No one will fault you for that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia sides with RS. To side with unreliable sources is to oppose WP:RS and WP:V. Never do that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that @Professor Penguino and @Philomathes2357 understand just fine the importance of an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. Their complaint here seems to be that dubious, unsubstantiated, non-notable or otherwise unsuitable claims by typically reliable sources are included in this article. I agree with their concern. This page is not at all what I expect from a Wikipedia article about a news source, even a fringe one. It reads primarily as a laundry list of grievances about specific controversies that have received coverage in RS, with a lot of insinuations and loaded language smuggled into wikivoice from the source. In some cases, where the content is well developed and presented neutrally, the criticisms of The Grayzone from RS are informative. However, it seems to me that this article suffers from the assumption that nearly anything published by a typically reliable source is suitable for inclusion. In reality, we know that even reliable sources routinely make mistakes and are vulnerable to systemic bias. As editors we can assess the suitability of material from reliable sources.

The article also hurts its credibility by parroting the bias-laden framing of its sources, for example through the use of language like "conspiracy theories" and "authoritarian regimes" which is intended to disqualify its subject from legitimate debate. It comes off as patronizing and insecure. If the case against The Grayzone has merit, wouldn't it be better to just list the governments, or describe the theories, and let the reader decide for themself how to categorize those things?

Let's compare two parts of the article to illustrate my point:

The Grayzone promoted the Nicaraguan government's narrative on the 2018–2022 Nicaraguan protests and the November 2021 Nicaraguan general election. The platform also conducted an "unquestioning interview", according to The Guardian, with Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. Blumenthal and Norton expressed their support to the regime dancing to "El Comandante se queda" (English: The Comandante Stays) a cumbia song composed in support of Ortega during the 2018 protests.

This is a great section. It explains The Grayzone's relationship with the Nicaraguan government in neutral terms and substantiates claims about that relationship. Nothing is insinuated and no pejorative language is used. Despite the fact that the coverage is critical, a reader who supports the Nicaraguan government might still find this section informative.

The website also downplayed the scope of China's Xinjiang internment camps and other widely reported abuses by the Chinese government

This section, like the source it draws from, treats the strongest allegations about a hotly contested, complex geopolitical and human rights issue as if they're indisputable historical fact. Although it has been "widely reported" as the article says by RS, the scope being "downplayed" here is not widely accepted outside of the West. The contentious nature of the topics covered here should already make the language of downplay or denial unsuitable for this article in the absence of a stronger substantiation of what exactly is being downplayed, what claims have been made, etc. This article, already a source for the section, actually does go into considerable detail about The Grayzone's POV on the issue, as do a number of the other sources in this article that push back on their claims. It may indeed be the case that Grayzone is downplaying China's true actions in Xinjiang, but treating that statement as if it's already certain in the absence of any further evidence is just bias, which our sources are allowed to have but Wikipedia shouldn't, even if the sources do.

I think there is plenty of room to improve the article through a more judicious presentation of the information in reliable sources. Let's trim the use of loaded language, substantiate the claims made in RS that have merit and remove sources that make unsubstantiated claims (such as ones that simply say something like "the grayzone publishes conspiracy theories" without any evidence). Finally, I think that some inclusion of The Grayzone's POV, without laundering the website's reputation, would help make the article more informative and credible. Unbandito (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not biased or mistaken just because they consistently assess The Grayzone's content unfavorably; such an argument presupposes that The Grayzone should be assessed more favorably than reliable sources do, which is a personal opinion, i.e. original research. The contents of this article are in line with articles about other publications that have been identified as questionable by both reliable sources and the Wikipedia community, e.g. Breitbart News (RSP entry) and InfoWars (RSP entry). The article mentions The Grayzone's favorable coverage of authoritarian regimes because The Grayzone is a political website, and one of the most defining characteristics of a political website is its political orientation. Likewise, it is common for news websites known for disseminating conspiracy theories to be described as such in their Wikipedia articles. The Grayzone's political orientation and history of publishing conspiracy theories are both elements of "The Grayzone's POV". — Newslinger talk 07:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Venezuela

WP:OR says that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.

I don't think the policy prohibits editors from assessing the credibility of information from sources that are typically considered reliable, and using discretion in determining what content from RS is suitable for inclusion.

Let's take the case of Venezuela here. Here's what the article and its sources claim about Venezuela:

1. Grayzone publishes conspiracy theories about Venezuela.

2. Grayzone covered the 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela and claimed that US Government reports of a fire started by pro-government forces were unfounded. This claim turned out to be likely true, and is now supported by reporting from the New York Times and other RS.

3. A source used in the article (the article does not reproduce this claim, it just borrows the conspiracy theory label from it) says that Grayzone cited GlobalResearch writer William Engdahl’s conspiracy theories about the “oily hands” of George Soros pertaining to Serbian pro-democracy group Otpor, in this article. However, the article itself doesn't say anything about oily hands or Soros; Engdahl's work is quietly hyperlinked in the following sentence: CANVAS is a spinoff of Otpor, a Serbian protest group founded by Srdja Popovic in 1998 at the University of Belgrade. Otpor, which means “resistance” in Serbian, was the student group that gained international fame — and Hollywood-level promotion — by mobilizing the protests that eventually toppled Slobodan Milosevic. The article as a whole is an analysis of Juan Guaido's connections to Western governments and NGOs. If it contains other factual inaccuracies, not to mention conspiracy theories, the cited RS doesn't meaningfully critique them.

So I think we have a case here where, though the RS is saying something, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I think the best way to fix this would be to move away from vague, accusatory terms like "conspiracy theory" in favor of specificity about the claims being made by Grayzone and why and to what extent they're rejected by RS. This is also what I meant in my previous comment by including some of Grayzone's POV without laundering their reputation. For another example, take a look at this passage from another cited article about Grayzone:

US online outlet The Grayzone published a lengthy hit piece, calling CIJA “the Commission for Imperialist Justice and al-Qaeda”, claiming we were collaborating directly with Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra affiliates. It was reproduced in other alternative media outlets and among social media enthusiasts. But, more worryingly, calls from the people who work in the field of international criminal justice and Syria started coming in. These are not the types who would normally believe in conspiracy theories, and the majority of them are apolitical. However, the more the hit piece circulated, the fewer people focused on its source – a Kremlin-connected online outlet that pushes pro-Russian conspiracy theories and genocide denial – and focused instead on what was being said about the people in their field who are so rarely in the media.

Here we have two ways to present the information from this source. We can say:

1. The Grayzone pushes pro-Russian conspiracy theories and genocide denial

2. The Grayzone claimed CIJA was working with ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra affiliates, a claim which has been rejected by XYZ reliable sources for ABC reasons

I would say the second option looks far more encyclopedic, credible and informative than the first. Unbandito (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

We can do both at the same time: The Grayzone pushes pro-Russian conspiracy theories and genocide denial when it claimed CIJA was working with ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra affiliates, a claim which has been rejected by XYZ reliable sources for ABC reasons." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. When reliable sources state both A and B, it is a false dilemma to ask Wikipedia editors to choose between covering either A or B, but not both. — Newslinger talk 08:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The text by F. William Engdahl (a blogpost on his personal site) which Blumenthal and Cohen cite contains these words: "Many in Hungary smell the oily hand of Hungarian-born regime-change financier George Soros behind the Popović appearance now in Budapest." Blumenthal and Cohen link to Engdahl on this topic a bunch of times from GZ (as well as from Twitter, as the footnote in the cited journal article notes).

But that's irrelevant, as we're citing a reliable source which gives significant coverage to the topic of our article, and we ourselves don't quote the "oily hands" line. What matters is that this RS is one of the many, many RSs which tells us that GZ "published conspiracy theories about Venezuela, Xinjiang, Syria, and other regions".

The fact is that this is the language that RSs consistently use, and no RS contests or contradicts it. The closest there is to an RS doing so is Greenwald in The Intercept, which we also cite even though it's an outlier among RSs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I've restored "Venezuela" to the phrase "published conspiracy theories about Venezuela" in Special:Diff/1229125533, as the claim is supported by the citation. — Newslinger talk 01:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's take a closer look.

The source says that The Grayzone has "cited William Engdahl's conspiracy theories about the 'oily hands' of George Soros pertaining to Serbian pro-democracy group Otpor". But The Grayzone's article does not mention George Soros (or hands, oily or otherwise) and, as @Unbandito pointed out, Engdahl is not invoked, the Engdahl work is only briefly hyperlinked in passing, and Engdahl's work is not cited to make any claims about Venezuela.

So, while "Alexander Reid Ross" has asserted that The Grayzone spreads conspiracy theory narratives about Venezuela, none of those narratives are mentioned - the allegations made in citation 134 are not about Venezuela. So we have one source, with an author of questionable integrity (see below), making an accusation without evidence. That might be worth a mention in the body, in the form of an in-text attribution. But it's definitely not sufficient for Wikivoice in the lead.

Alexander Reid Ross has a history of...excessive excitement, shall we say, when it comes to slapping labels on people. From our own Wikipedia article: "In 2018, Ross published an article titled "The Multipolar Spin: how fascists operationalize left-wing resentment" in the Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) blog Hatewatch. After receiving complaints, the article was taken down and an apology was extended to "those who believe they have been falsely described" as "white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites". I'd hesitate to use any contentious or loaded label that Ross applies, unless other, more reliable sources corroborate his claims with evidence.

I think Unbandito already laid out the solution: " I think the best way to fix this would be to move away from vague, accusatory terms like "conspiracy theory" in favor of specificity about the claims being made by Grayzone and why and to what extent they're rejected by RS." Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel that my edit here was justified. I tried to sum up the claims made about Grayzone's publishing on Venezuela in my comment above. There is the claim about the aid truck fire, and the claim about hyperlink to William Engdahl on Serbia in an article about Venezuela.

Which of those claims supports the phrase published conspiracy theories about Venezuela? Did you find something in the source that I didn't?

On the other hand, I find @Valjean's take on Grayzone's claims about Syria more agreeable. The other sentence from the source, US online outlet The Grayzone published a lengthy hit piece, calling CIJA “the Commission for Imperialist Justice and al-Qaeda”, claiming we were collaborating directly with Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra affiliates. seems to portray straightforwardly conspiratorial rhetoric from The Grayzone. I intend to investigate the source of this claim a bit further, as it seems possible to me that “the Commission for Imperialist Justice and al-Qaeda” is more of a rhetorical flourish than a literal claim, but if the source is being honest in its portrayal of the Grayzone hit piece, then I'd agree that we can include both the longer exposition of their claims and the conspiracy theory label. Unbandito (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The source (an academic, however excitable, in peer reviewed webjournal, b2o, says that GZ "cited William Engdahl's conspiracy theories about the 'oily hands' of George Soros pertaining to Serbian pro-democracy group Otpor". True, original research reveals that the Grayzone's article does not mention George Soros by name or his hands, but it does cite Engdahl, an insane piece in which he uses that exact phrase, and as the same footnote points out, it was not only in that one article that the authors drew on this conspiracy theory. It's very solid.

WP editors' views on the quality of the author's level of excitement aren't relevant to that. The SPLC piece, by the way, contained not a single factual inaccuracy; SPLC bowed to pressure when threatened with expensive lawfare after already having been targeted by conspiracy theorist Maajid Nawaz over an article by a different author.[3][4][5][6][7][8] BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: very well said. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: not only Reid Ross says this. Results of very quick google:

Coda Story: “While the number of left-wing voices denying China’s ongoing repression of the Uyghur people is few, those that do exist are vociferous and well-organized. Of these, The Grayzone is by far the most influential. In recent years, it has taken a variety of contrarian stances on world affairs, from supporting the Assad regime in Syria to backing Venezuela’s authoritarian leader Nicolas Maduro.”[9]

The Insider: “The Grayzone, founded by American journalist Max Blumenthal in 2018, presents itself as an investigative media organization. However, the outlet has been accused of denying the existence of human rights abuses against Uighurs, propagating unfounded conspiracy theories about regions like Venezuela, Xinjiang, and Syria, and actively promoting pro-Russian propaganda during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.”[10]

Pulse: “Are purveyors of fake news endangering the lives of real journalists? … Univision journalist Jorge Ramos and his crew were detained by Venezuelan authorities... It took little time for Maduro’s American supporters to initiate a smear campaign against the journalist. At the vanguard of all this is Grayzone Project editor Max Blumenthal, a blogger with a history of ethically questionable behavior.”[11]

Efecto Cocuyo, via ProBox Digital Observatory: “In June 2020 an investigation published by IPYS Venezuela already told how The Grayzone, which defines itself in Spanish as “independent media dedicated to investigative journalism and analysis on politics and empire”, coordinates with RT, Sputnik, Telesur and Misión Verdad to disseminate political disinformation in favor of the Maduro regime. … GrayZone’s editor-in-chief, Max Blumenthal,… is a well-known Chavista propagandist in the United States who interviewed Nicolás Maduro as Red Radio Ve broadcast.”

[12]

University of Texas at Austin – Global Disinformation Lab: “The Grayzone News… frequently runs articles sympathetic to China and other authoritarian regimes such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela.”[13] Note: no allegation of dis information, but highlights significance of Venezuela

"Western"

Describing the authors of the cited reliable sources as "Western" is original research that is not supported by cited reliable sources; this alone is sufficient to exclude the descriptor.

Even if we were to perform original research to verify the legitimacy of the "Western" descriptor, there are quite a few cited sources and journalists that cannot clearly be described as "Western":

Sources cited in this article for which the "Western" descriptor is inappropriate

In addition to South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), Al Jazeera (Qatar), and Reorienting Hong Kong’s Resistance (Singapore), the article cites publications based in Eastern Europe and Latin America, including Ukraine (VoxUkraine and MediaSapiens) and Nicaragua (Confidencial and La Prensa). The article also cites Russian news outlets that are based in other countries for legal reasons, including Meduza and The Insider. (According to the Western world article, there is "some debate as to whether those in Eastern Europe and Latin America also constitute the West".)

Also, on the author level, there is not enough reliably sourced information on many of these authors to determine their national identities.

Regardless, the bottom line is that using original research to label authors (many of whom are living people) as "Western" is not appropriate; this type of descriptor needs direct support from reliable sources to be included in the article.

There are many articles for which descriptors similar to "Western" have been proposed to label cited authors who criticize the article subject, when reliable sources do not use these descriptors to categorize these authors. These descriptors are generally rejected because their inclusion would rely on original research to imply that criticism from reliable sources in general is biased against the article subject, which would non-neutrally slant the articles to be more sympathetic to the article subjects' point of view. For example:

Examples of non-neutral descriptors for cited authors

In the lead section of the article Breitbart News, we do not say that "liberal" or "left-wing" academics and journalists claim that the website has "published a number of conspiracy theories and intentionally misleading stories". Although it is true that liberal academics and journalists have described the website that way, such framing would obscure the fact that reliable sources in general describe Breitbart News the same way.
In the lead section of the article Love jihad conspiracy theory, we do not say that "Muslim" academics describe "love jihad" as an "Islamophobic conspiracy theory". Although it is most likely true that the cited academic sources include works written by Muslim authors, such framing would obscure the fact that scholars in general describe "love jihad" this way.
In the lead section of the article Gamergate (harassment campaign), we do not say that "female" journalists describe Gamergate as a "misogynistic online harassment campaign". Although it is true that many of the cited sources are written by women, such framing would obscure the fact that reliable sources in general describe Gamergate the same way.

If attribution is used in this article to summarize the coverage of The Grayzone, the unadorned phrase "Academics and journalists" would be an improvement over any attribution qualified with the word "Western". — Newslinger talk 08:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Edited for accuracy. 18:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Attempting to introduce a POV based on pure OR is a no-go. I think participants should be gently reminded this article is under quintuple sanctions. This article needs to be edited cautiously, making sure edits conform to established WP:CON and are free from bias. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Newslinger, very good argument. You've persuaded me to change my mind. "Western" is not appropriate in Wikivoice in that context. I want to compliment you on the detail and rigor of your argument. I respect you for it, and I wish such detailed, careful comments were more common on Wikipedia. When I saw that your comment was over 4,000 bytes, I thought "oh, good, this will probably be a serious, non-snarky comment", and I was not disappointed. Hats off. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm still on the fence regarding opposition to the "Western" attribution. The source on HK that you consider as Singaporean has mostly US-based authors. Meduza is not quite Western but its source on Navalny is cited to Eliot Higgins Confidencial receives funds from the NED even if it isn't a Western-based outlet. One of the authors for the SCMP source, Eduardo Baptista, is also a Reuters journalist, but nonetheless SCMP and the Al Jazeera articles are the closest thing to non-Western sources here.

I also think comparisons to the Breitbart Wiki article have merit but Gamergate or Love Jihad should not be compared b/c they are phenomenons not news sites. It seems that with the exception SCMP, Al Jazeera and MediaSapiens (a smaller outlet that gets less international attention), and a couple of Nicaraguan opposition outlets, the vast majority of sources criticising Grayzone are Western-based. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Newslinger You're right, the use of the "Western" descriptor is too broad to be appropriate. I think that per @Donkey Hot-day's research a more accurate descriptor might be "Western-aligned" but you are also right that we'd need a source to support that designation. If we were able to find one, how would others feel about the descriptor, @Philomathes2357 @Valjean?

I've taken a look at the Breitbart article and compared it with this one. I agree with @Donkey Hot-day that your other examples, not being news sources, are poor analogies. Even the comparison to Breitbart is not a perfect analogy in my opinion.

Breitbart has published climate change and COVID-19 denialism. Every (almost every?) government had a response to COVID and has a climate change plan, no matter how inadequate. There is a 99% scientific consensus on climate change. The strongest claim I've seen that The Grayzone published a conspiracy theory involves their reporting on the Ghouta chemical attack, which was based on a document published by Wikileaks and was promoted by the Russian and Syrian governments (though they later reversed their position, IIRC). As I've said above, treating geopolitical perspectives critical or skeptical of the West, even dubious or unpopular ones, like they're flat-Eartherism hurts the encyclopedia. I'm fine with calling all of these things conspiracy theories, since they definitionally are unproven assertions of illicit coordination between powerful actors. But conspiracy theories can range in veracity from completely delusional to not officially true yet but everyone will pretend they believed it a decade from now. I think The Grayzone's claims on the Ghouta attack are dubious at best, but they are by no means equivalent to climate or COVID denialism, and I don't believe they should be dealt with as dismissively on Wikipedia. With other issues, like the persecution of Uyghurs in China, the way The Grayzone's stance was originally framed served to naturalize the opposing perspective as fact. I think that between my recent edits and @Bobfrombrockley's, the lead has come a long way toward addressing my concerns. I still think the use of authoritarian states in the lead is inappropriate and given that a number of arguments against this phrasing have been presented here, and I'm not seeing a strong argument in favor of keeping, I'm going to remove that, leaving the names of the governments in question without labeling them in any way.

The Breitbart article also contains a great deal of neutral, descriptive material about the website and its sections, coverage, etc. This article on the other hand, is overwhelmingly about criticisms of The Grayzone. In order for Breitbart News and The Grayzone to be consistent in their coverage of their topic, this article would need to vastly improve its neutral coverage of the blog, its contributors, etc. For what it's worth, other news sources like the New York Times and Fox News typically have a controversies section separate from their history and basic facts about the organization. As a long term goal, I'd like to see this article look more like the article for Fox News or Breitbart in terms of a balance of neutral and critical coverage. I think this is achievable using the sources we already have, including critical ones, but we are also permitted to (cautiously!) use The Grayzone as a source about itself according to the guidelines outlined in WP:DEPS and WP:ABOUTSELF. This may come in handy to support a more balanced presentation of their position. For example, if we can find something published by The Grayzone that says something like We're so proud of our sympathetic coverage of America's geopolitical adversaries, we can then present the controversy over their position with something like the following sentence: The Grayzone says its journalism focuses on a positive depiction of America's geopolitical adversaries - a position which (western aligned?) academics and researchers have said whitewashes the actions of authoritarian regimes...

I apologize if my replies are too long and too quick. I am trying to be as thorough, thoughtful and responsive as I can. Unbandito (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The only source I know of, off the top of my head, that uses the word "western" to characterize coverage of The Grayzone is this one. It says "...Grayzone, an independent news website that has been highly critical of the Western criticisms against China’s Xinjiang policy."

That source isn't in the article, but it ought to be. Do you know of any other sources that use the word "western" or "western-aligned" to characterize criticism of The Grayzone?

I agree on "sympathetic coverage of authoritarian states". That's a fairly bold statement to make, it's somewhat loaded, and I don't think sufficient sourcing exists to put that characterization in Wikipedia's voice, rather than as an attributed opinion. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Unbandito: I like your thinking. You've done a lot of good-faith hard work, and I think you should try to implement your ideas, if possible. There may be bumps in the road, but at least some form of road will be built. If there are problems, someone will object, but that's okay. We know you are trying your best. Vive la collaboration!

-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this from a neutral perspective! Professor Penguino (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Overall tone of article

Whatever one may think of The Grayzone, this article reads like propaganda trying to deride a dissident website. It's almost comical. The structure of the article doesn't give even a short section on what the website has reported on without starting each sentence with how wrong and Russia-friendly every report is. It says: "Grayzone staff Blumenthal and Aaron Maté acted as briefers on behalf of the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations at UN meetings organized by Russia" without mentioning what they testified on. Pure guilt-by-association. To realize how ridiculous the article sounds, just *assume* The Grayzone *is indeed* friendly to Russia and Iran and then consider how silly the article reads.

Just wanted to point out to whoever wrote this ridiculous piece that they didn't do themselves any favors. This article sorely needs a more objective rewrite, if the goal is to be informative. If. Julian Mehnle (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't need any rewrite. Grayzone affiliations with Russia are well based by highly reliable sources. Vegan416 (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

False reporting

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Coverage of The Grayzone has focused on its... false reporting [27].

This should be deleted. The New Statesman article cited doesn't directly mention The Grayzone once. It only indirectly mentions The Grayzone when briefly talking about Max Blumenthal by linking to a tweet by Neil Abrams (is he an authority on this subject?) claiming an article by Max Blumenthal is "one dishonest article" (which it may very well be). This simply can't be used to justify the statement that "coverage of The Grayzone has focused on its false reporting".

Bitspectator (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I see you already changed it to "misleading". I'll close this request. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is Grayzone classified as "fringe"? How is this validated? How can it be challenged?

This immediately struck me an inflammatory and caused me to mistrust what I was reading. This label applied to any subject is an extraordinary claim - thus needing extraordinary proof. It seems to be a smear. Can anyone explain the basis? Would the article be diminished if this label were removed? Wouldn't the article have higher integrity without such a label? Wouldn't Wikipedia's integrity be improved by removing the label? Zuludogm (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the truth a smear? We go by what the sources show. What's more interesting is how you came to be here. My only explanation is that you were sent here by Lucy Komisar who is made the same complaint a few hours ago. I can't believe that's a coincidence. Doug Weller talk 07:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, I am the one who suggested on Talk:Lucy Komisar that challenging the "fringe" characterization should take place on this talk page. So here it is. Note that this has been challenged in the past; there are multiple discussions about this in Talk:The Grayzone/Archive 1. The argument here presents nothing new. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Have you reviewed all five sources cited that support this description? That's citation 7, which references citations 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. The sources are deemed reliable because they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That is the "extraordinary proof", and that is the basis of calling it "fringe".

Politico: "After weeks of sitting on the internet, the cache of Brexiteer emails was picked up by fringe website the Grayzone, which promises "original investigative journalism" on "politics and empire" and has earned praise from Hollywood director Oliver Stone, famous for his interest in — and occasional embrace of — conspiracy theories."
Australian Strategic Policy Institute: "The Grayzone is one fringe news source, and its reach has been amplified by Chinese and Russian state-affiliated entities."
Coda Media headline: "Enter the Grayzone: fringe leftists deny the scale of China’s Uyghur oppression"
China Digital Times: "The report highlights how Chinese diplomats and state media co-opted language such as referring to the BBC as the “Biased Broadcasting Corporation,” a term historically used by the BBC’s domestic critics, and leveraged third-party content produced by websites such as The Grayzone, a fringe website associated with the political left that has previously published Xinjiang denialism."
Business Insider: "The student protester's false confession, for example, was circulated by a British supporter of the government, John Perry, who adopted a fake identity to publish commentary on the episode at The Grayzone, a US-based fringe website that has promoted the Ortega government's line on social unrest in the Central American country."

These are undeniably reliable media outlets. In the list above, I linked to the Wikipedia articles about those media outlets if you are unfamilar with them.

An alternative would be to replace the label with a couple of sentences describing how Grayzone is characterized as "fringe" by other media, instead of calling it that in Wikipedia's narrative voice. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It is definitely fringe but I'm not sure why we still have "far left" in the introduction. There was a prior debate on the talk page where the consensus was that it was simply fringe as it is supportive of dictatorships that are decidedly not left wing, e.g. Assad. 0lida0 (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The most recent RFC concluded that there's a strong consensus for using "far left" and a less clear but rough consensus that it should be used in Wikipedia's voice. In any case, I have changed it to attribute the WP:LABEL to numerous sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Typographical Errors

Someone with the power to unlock and edit this article needs to fix up the following text. I bolded the errors for convenience:

Blumenthal has said that reports of the persecution of Uyghurs inChina use “the hostile langua e of a Cold War, weaponizing a minority grup.” He stated in July 2020 that, "I don't have reason to dou"bt that there's something going [on] in Xinjiang... Nom de vileplume (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Misleading citations

Coming across the article with the "wikipedia can't be sold/isn't biased" ad at the top was rather amusing given the absolute screed of an introduction. I assume this article is sufficiently well-defended that it would be useless to point how remarkably singular and inappropriate it is to lead a wikipedia introduction with what the detractors of the organisation have to say - notably, this style of intro seems, pointedly, to only occur for sources of journalism in this milieu. Nevertheless, I'll suggest in vain that this should be in a "criticism" subsection. That aside, I do think "The Grayzone has downplayed and justified the persecution of Uyghurs in China" should be removed, reworded to make it clear that it is an accusation, or a proper citation provided to the article that they have published expressing that view. What they have published is of public record. It seems inappropriate to refer to a secondary source to state this position as fact. Bonks1 (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I had a similar reaction to yours when I first came across this page. You can go through the revision history and see that the page was much more polemical in the past, to the point that it almost read like an attack page. (see WP:ATTACK.) The section of the lead that now says "downplayed and justified the persecution of Uyghurs in China" once said "downplayed and denied the Uyghur Genocide." I agree that this and other aspects of the page could still use some work. However, I do not believe that improving this page is a futile effort. I have found the editors involved with this page to be responsive to reason and willing to concede to policy-supported changes. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the talk page archives and comb through the sources on the page, and see what you can do to make the material on this page more informative and balanced. You may encounter some pushback, but the discussions on this page have so far been productive and yielded fruitful compromises. Unbandito (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bonks1: @Unbandito: If you have any specific suggestions for improvement, then by all means suggest them, keeping in mind WP:UNDUE (that is, we don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE on Wikipedia). The article must report what reliable sources say about the topic. It can't do anything else. And it would appear that the reliable source coverage is mostly negative. If you can demonstrate otherwise, then the article should change accordingly.

See also the discussion above, which references some past archived discussions. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll add that I agree about the Uyghurs statement should not be in the lead, because it violates WP:LEAD. The lead section is supposed to provide an overview of the body text, and this controversy is mentioned only in the lead, therefore it's misplaced. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

My changes to the article have thus far been focused on replacing polemical language with a more neutral accounting of the controversies The Grayzone has been involved in. This typically involves writing a more detailed summary of the information in the sources already in use and, where appropriate, replacing the language from the source's headline with more thorough and nuanced material from the article.

This page was consistently less balanced in describing controversies The Grayzone reported on when compared to the articles on those controversies themselves, often describing The Grayzone's position using terms such as conspiracy theories, genocide denial, or other polemical language with little to no explanation of the controversies and competing claims. A comparison of these revisions is instructive imo. The newer version is much more in line with Wikipedia's policies on describing without engaging in disputes, and is more in line with the balance and explanatory scope of the Douma chemical attack article. I have made similar revisions to the section on Xinjiang.

I did not come to this article with an agenda or many preconceived notions about The Grayzone. I've never read it and I still don't. I came here as a Wikipedia reader, looking for information. I found an article that was deeply uninformative, polemical and in many cases misleading. In search of better information, I have not consulted alternative or fringe sources. I have largely consulted the sources already in this article for a fuller explanation of The Grayzone's claims and the counter-claims made by sources who criticize them. If the bulk of sources criticize an outlet or call its reporting unreliable, I have no objections to including those criticisms. But I don't have blind faith in even the most reliable sources. No one with decent media literacy skills and an understanding of news history should. The way we cover controversies, even when the bulk of RS agree, must empower the reader to think and examine the competing claims for themselves. Unbandito (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to any of that. I, also, had never heard of The Grayzone until a month or so ago, and I have never read it either. I was led here by the subject of the Lucy Komisar article complaining about using the word "fringe" in her biography, and when the discussion started at the top of this page with a similar complaint, I went through all the sources cited and gave my analysis, above. That's really the only involvement I've had other than to soften the lead a bit by attributing the "far left" view to sources rather than stating it in wiki-voice. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)