Talk:Aaron Maté/Archive 3

Why is this page so biased?
Why does the page include stuff like "It publishes supportive coverage of the Russian and Syrian governments"? I don't ever see pages say things like: "It publishes supportive coverage of the American government" or "pushes an intellectually dishonest view on heinous American actions throughout the world".

This seems like a wholly unnecessary bias in a Wikipedia that should be global. I highlight, GLOBAL.

What benefit can there to introducing this bias than a thinly veiled attempt at character assassination?

Is there full disclosure on who are the editors in charge of this, what their political views are, and so on? 5.91.17.118 (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * War crimes are "global"?? SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

"Russian-influenced" social media accounts
Apparently Aaron's social media accounts are now on a list of Russian-influenced" social media accounts compiled by University of Calgary's School of Public Policy. The article that mentions this also mentions that Aaron "in his work on the topic, writes that Russia’s invasion “cannot be excused,” and claims it’s illegal". The article is about the "rhetorical tool that serves as a useful means to silence an opponent or end a debate". In one example, "someone [who] tries to explain how the actions of one party in a conflict are responsible for another’s reaction, [is] then accused of endorsing said reaction". He names John Mearsheimer and Aaron as two people who have been targetted in this way. I think we should provide more context for the sentence "The Canadian University of Calgary's School of Public Policy published a list of "Russian-influenced" social media accounts, which included Maté". Burrobert (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm uncomfortable with the secondary source we're using. It's an opinion piece that mentions Mate in one paragraph, in a publication called Passage that as far as I can see is a not particularly notable opinion magazine. The author's description is "Mila Ghorayeb is a law student and a monthly columnist at Passage. Mila’s work focuses on antiwar politics, ideology and critique of media." This feels really non-noteworthy to me. It would be worth seeing if the Calgary study has other secondary coverage, and what it actually says about Mate (I glanced and couldn't see a reference to him). BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The only reference to Aaron in the primary source is in the pretty magenta/red mosaic (Figure 1) and Table 2. The publication counts John Pilger as Canadian?? Burrobert (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Pierre Sprey journalism prize 2022
Aaron Maté won the top prize in the inaugural Pierre Sprey Award for journalism: https://www.thepierrespreyaward.org/2022-winners Please, add this as the article is locked. Merci! 87.170.199.139 (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Evidence of noteworthiness of the Pierre Sprey Award for journalism? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Pierre Sprey was not a journalist, but a music record producer, a fighter jet and defense analyst, and a provocateur, a thorn in the side of the "U.S. military-industrial complex" (MIC). I don't know why the award would go to Aaron, other than that Aaron is, like Sprey, a contrarian. Both seem to have been involved in conspiratorial thinking, which is common in those who attack the MIC. Sometimes they are right! It's a murky world. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hersh about his reporting
Sy to Aaron: "Hey, keep on writing about the war, your stuff is good." Source: US bombed Nord Stream to prolong the Ukraine proxy war, 02.03.2023. 91.54.5.47 (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Source: Mate's own show, on the deprecated Grayzone channel of YouTube. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So a conspiracy theorist (Hersh) on a conspiracy theorist's show. Not exactly a RS for anything. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality
It seems a lot of work has been done to address the neutrality issues of the article. Is the template still necessary? BeŻet (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, very much so. Burrobert (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming. I tried addressing all of your points now. Could you let me know what you think, especially about your 5th point, where I tried to use the same source to avoid WP:SYNTH? BeŻet (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes that's generally good work. Thanks. All points are covered except for the second point regarding Brian Whitaker's article. I would also replace “concieded” (sic) with “said” in the fifth point. I'll expand on my second point in an new section below. Burrobert (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately we are now back to these problems. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions on how to proceed? Burrobert (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The obvious syntheses need to be removed. In addition, in less than a month seven talk new talk sections have been opened. The editor who initiated the edits yesterday has completely failed to engage the discussion. In my view those edits should be reverted. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Cambial, the problem is your deletion of all the improvements, rather than just a problematic part. Your edit summary mentions: "A novel synthesis using a source which does not refer to the subject of the article is not an improvement to a biography of a living person. That’s uncontroversial." Which source is that? Being specific is essential here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What improvements? It's essential to be specific here. There are no apparent improvements in the edit, and several things are made not merely worse but become breaches of BLP policy. The source which makes no mention of the article subject is the SCMP. Cambial — foliar❧</b> 18:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The content in this article where the SCMP is used is about The Grayzone, and the SCMP talks about The Grayzone, hence the source is on-topic. It says The Grayzone
 * "has been accused of whitewashing the crimes of authoritarian countries, from Nicolas Maduro’s Venezuela to Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, while failing to highlight flaws in regimes that are staunchly opposed to US foreign policy."
 * The SCMP describes the tactics of "whitewashing" carried on by The Grayzone, so don't use their tactics here lest you be seen as advocating their POV. WP:Advocacy of fringe POV is not allowed here. The "neutral" in NPOV does not mean what you think it does. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So you're unable to name any specific improvements then; that's not unexpected. Fringe views are indeed not promoted on the wiki, but as no-one has even attempted to insert such content in the article, one has to wonder why you make reference to it. I'll not speculate.
 * We don't permit original research on the wiki, including not permitting material that in the source, like your proposed content here. You can learn about some examples, similar to that which you suggested, that are impermissible on this website on the WP:NOR page. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 21:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You won't have to speculate. You are defending Mate, and that is advocacy of his fringe views. We follow what RS say about him, and whitewashing those views is not allowed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing, you made claims of a synthesis above. Now you have chosen to tag that content in the article. Maybe I'm missing something here, so let's look at the tagged content, first in context, and then by itself:

"Maté works as a reporter for The Grayzone, a far-left blog"

Now by itself: ""

Please explain the nature of this purported synthesis. Note this is old content using those sources. Maybe the wording should be tweaked, but the sources do mention how The Grayzone defends those regimes. Maybe we should add the seven sources used in The Grayzone article:
 * The Grayzone has denied human rights abuses against Uyghurs.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing, you made claims of a synthesis above. After reading the above, please explain the nature of this purported synthesis. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of a response from Cambial Yellowing (even refusal), I support User:BeŻet's restoration of a good version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Aaron Mate isn't a journalists he is a conspiracy theorist
He consistently spreads conspiracy theories like Uyghur genocide denial, denied the bucha massacre, and has been featured on RT many times a Russian state media outlet Monochromemelo1 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Journalist Aaron Maté also fills
122.107.196.114 (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Journalist should be removed from the description of Aaron Mate https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/19/russia-backed-network-of-syria-conspiracy-theorists-identified and should be changed to conspiracy theorist Monochromemelo1 (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This page is Russian propaganda
All mention of Maté’s association with Russian government and disinformation has been purged from this page. He has been identified as the number one spreader of disinformation about Syria. He has been associated with Russian officials. That this isn’t even mentioned is appalling. HoursAglow (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/19/russia-backed-network-of-syria-conspiracy-theorists-identified HoursAglow (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article to which you provided a link is used as a source in Aaron's bio and the study is mentioned both in the lead and in the body of his bio. Burrobert (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Its absolutely gross that any mention of Aaron Mate working for the Syrian Government at the UN to spread propaganda and deny chemical attacks is not mentioned it should be added it back. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We mention in the leading paragraph and in the body that Aaron spoke at the UN about the OPCW's Douma cover-up. Burrobert (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"acted as a briefer"
This edit ("acted as a briefer on behalf of the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations", with a footnote to a primary source). Due? Due in lead? What is a "briefer"? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the unsourced part of the sentence. Is it a primary source? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 17:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources provided do not explain the role of a "briefer" or how briefers are chosen. It would be worth mentioning Aaron's speech somewhere in the body of his bio, along with the topic that Aaron was briefing the UN meeting on ("his independent assessments of the latest report of the so-called Investigation and Identification Team of the OPCW regarding the same Douma incident"). However, it may not be notable enough to include in the lead, and less so in the first paragraph. Burrobert (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "briefer" is an English word. Its meaning is clearly understood, and any reader who is not familiar with the word can consult a dictionary. It's no different in that respect than any of the other words we use on this page. The problem with this page, in general, is that there are few RS that seem to care about Mate. Hence the difficulty of determining NPOV. The whole page is weakly sourced.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

As there seems to be dispute over the content/sources here (including who he represented), just posting these potential sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 2020: - reliable secondary source. Quote: "As well as pen articles on the supposed OPCW scandal, Mate went one step further and last month testified at the United Nations at the invitation of the Russian government where he accused the OPCW of falsifying its report on Douma."
 * 2020/21: Security Council Arria Formula meetings - primary source. Quote: "28 September 2020 Subject: Implementation of UNSCR 2118: Upholding the Authority of the OPCW Invitees: Ian Henderson, former OPCW employee; Aaron Mate, independent journalist; Theodore Postol, professor emeritus of Science, Technology and International Security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Organisers: China, Russia" and "16 April 2021 Subject: Protection of Developing Nations Against Political Pressure: Upholding the Integrity of International Nonproliferation Regimes Invitees: Hans von Sponeck, former UN Assistant Secretary-General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator (Iraq); U.S. Army Colonel (ret) Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell; and Aaron Mate, producer and presenter for The Grayzone, and contributor to The Nation magazine Organizers: Russia, China"
 * 2023: - primary source. Speech of UK representative at an Arria Formula meeting 2023, responding to Mate's speech. Quote: "No one is fooled by today’s charade. Your choice of briefers, your denial of the Syrian regime’s repeated chemical weapons use, your attacks on the OPCW’s work, your recent refusal to engage in Council meetings on Syria chemical weapons, all lay bare your cynicism in organising an event that purports to address “the OPCWs diminishing authority”... Mr. Aaron Maté made various claims today in this meeting."
 * The quotes from these sources indicate that we can say that Aaron was invited by Russia. We should not say he represented Russia. We should also mention that he provided his assessment of the OPCW's IIT report into the Douma chemical attack. Burrobert (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Statement and references questionable
This sentence in the "Journalism" section, and these references, do not seem to gel together, or are even credible references for a statement about "government conclusions" : "After numerous investigations into the 2016 election interference, U.S. intelligence agencies reported with "high confidence" that Russia was the culprit in the DNC cyberattacks.[37][38] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.189.222 (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)