Talk:The Grayzone

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 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 reliability differs from community consensus. A 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 60,643 rd th 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 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 . 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 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 and InfoWars . The article mentions The Grayzone 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 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. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.”
 * 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.”
 * 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.”
 * 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.”
 * 
 * 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.” Note: no allegation of dis information, but highlights significance of Venezuela
 * See also:
 * IPYS Venezuela-Provea:
 * Efecto Cocuyo fact check
 * Devin Beaulieu Medium (possibly SME SPS)
 * Joshua Collins Medium (possibly SME SPS) BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent finds. They should be added to the article. I knew The Grayzone was a bit "off", but the more I learn, the more dangerously misleading it appears. No wonder it's deprecated here. It's a goldmine for learning what are lies. It pushes them. In that regard, it's like Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). These groups of propagandists have a distorted worldview. That's what happens when one recycles Russian/Trump propaganda. Nothing but lies. With VIPS, it's sad, because their beginnings were good. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 04:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This was a quick google using the word "disinformation". I realise the disputed text is published conspiracy theories about Venezuela, Xinjiang, Syria, and other regions. I note only one of the sources I cite actually uses the term “conspiracy theory/theories”. So I had another quick google and didn’t come up with any more with that do. I therefore wonder about reinstating Venezuela (as there is no consensus to remove it, and it’s long standing content) but changing to “conspiracy theories and misleading reporting”. (I’m bolding the terms used in the sources: fake news, disinformation, contrarian positions, propaganda, slander.)
 * See also:
 * Institute for Strategic Dialogue: "There are various far-left alternative media outlets, such as The Grayzone... [whose] content and campaigns push pro-authoritarian positions towards mainstream audiences and undermine the credibility of human rights and democracy activists. The far-left media outlet The Grayzone is one of the key examples of this trend. Founded by journalist Max Blumenthal a month after a visit to Moscow, The Grayzone consistently takes a supposedly anti-imperialist position, regularly defending Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin and Venezuela’s Maduro for their alleged resistance to U.S. hegemony86 and denying the Uyghur genocide87 as well as chemical gas attacks in Syria.88 Blumenthal has also spoken at anti-lockdown and antivaxxer rallies." (footnote 86 cites the Pulse Media text above]
 * New Lines: "Also ubiquitous [in providing pro-state spin about elections in Nicaragua] was the U.S. journalist Ben Norton, affiliated with the website The Grayzone, which has made something of a cottage industry of defending dictators and their crimes." This doesn't support the claim of conspiracy theories about Venezuela but perhaps does about "other regions"; the article also talks about other disinfo campaigns in Venezuela which is why it came up in my search. But it's another indicator that the second sentence claim in lead is due per opinion in RSs.
 * Dan La Botz in New Politics: (For context only, not a usable source.) Also not about Venezuela but includes mention of their support for its government, but makes strong allegations of slander in relation to Nicaragua.
 * DiMaggio, Anthony R. Fake news in America: Contested meanings in the post-truth era. Cambridge University Press, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067362.009 Has a lot of content about Grayzone but I can’t access it.
 * BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, @Unbandito. Bullseye. Probably the most careful and sober comment that's appeared on this talk page this year.
 * I think the article falls prey to the fallacy that "we must be non-neutral if the sources are non-neutral". That is true, to a point. We can and should use biased sources, when they are the best sources available, and when an overwhelming majority of sources holds similar biases, we should make that dominant view clear to the reader.
 * But we should not, and cannot per WP:NPOV, mindlessly parrot those biases by smuggling loaded language from those sources into Wikivoice. If this article has any hope of becoming a B or A-class article one day, it will be because of carefully thought-through advice like Unbandito's. I think the specific examples you cite are illustrative of what is meant by "Wikipedia should describe disputes, but not engage in them". I think a culture has developed in recent years on Wikipedia that gets a little too excited about using Wikivoice to engage in disputes. For instance, under no circumstances should Wikipedia ever accuse a group of living people of "genocide denial" in Wikivoice. @Unbandito, I don't have the time to work on this article right now, but I applaud and encourage your efforts. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You write: "we must be non-neutral if the sources are non-neutral". That's not only a misunderstanding of NPOV, it's a misleading caricature of those you don't agree with. We must be neutral in the way we document how non-neutral sources (IOW most sources) describe things. That means we do not interfere with, especially by neutering, what a source says. We present it, warts, biases, and all. Describing and documenting what RS say is not "mindlessly parrot those biases". It reveals editors have not interfered by using their own POV to tweak content. Our opinions of what is a "neutral" position is not reliable. It is much safer to examine the POV of a RS and then try to accurately convey that POV into the article. If the opinion is a widely-held factual opinion, then we can do it in wikivoice.
 * When opinions are clearly factual, and the opposing views are fringe ones pushed mostly by unreliable sources, we state the facts and ignore the fringe by giving the fringe the type of weight it deserves, which, in some cases, means no mention at all. Framing factual opinions as mere "opinions" poisons the well and serves to undermine the factual nature of the content. Such improper framing is a false balance that implies that facts are mere opinions that can be ignored at will (when they should be accepted as facts), and it frames debunked conspiracy theories as factual and worthy of consideration. It opens the door to BS. Wikipedia should not be used to "un-brainwash the masses". Instead, we inform the masses about attempts to brainwash them, and we use RS to do that.
 * In the East-West political conflicts, that means the sources in Western democracies, where there is an uncensored free press, have more due weight, and can be trusted much more (but not blindly), than censored sources under the control of dictatorial states like Russia, Turkey, and Syria, where state censorship and killing of journalists is the norm. Anti-American, pro-Russian, anti-Ukraine apologists and propagandists are unreliable sources. Their narratives and POV are false propaganda that we constantly expose here, and editors need to get their own POV into line with the facts documented by RS and stop defending unreliable sources like The Grayzone and those associated with Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and Useful Idiots (podcast). -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about all this unbrainwashing the masses stuff and "factual opinions" vs. mere opinions, but reading here from WP:VOICE, Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Let's apply that to the paragraph in question:
 * Coverage of The Grayzone has focused on its misleading and false reporting, its criticism of American foreign policy, and its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes, including those of Russia, China, Iran, and Syria. The Grayzone has downplayed or denied the Chinese government's human rights abuses against Uyghurs, published conspiracy theories about Xinjiang, Syria, and other regions, and published disinformation about Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which some have described as pro-Russian propaganda.
 * This looks like textbook engaging-in-the-dispute to me. If there's such a thing as a "factual opinion" that deserves special weight, it should not include which governments are classified as authoritarian regimes. I totally disagree with the final paragraph of your comment. This isn't USApedia and we can't disembody the POV of an ecosystem of western commentators and political researchers as if it were truth handed down from God, nor can we discount the entire opposing perspective in the "East-West political conflict" as if it's some sort of flat-Eartherism unworthy even of a balanced description. If everyone on Wikipedia has already decided that only the Western press can be trusted (which I somewhat doubt is the case) then fine, it doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to describe disputes but not engage in them, and we can do that by judiciously making use of information on both perspectives as presented in the RS.
 * I think the crux of this disagreement is that while I agree that non-Western sources can sometimes be unreliable and that's worth covering accurately, I don't agree that the so-called Reliable Sources are always all that reliable, particularly at describing political disputes with the West's geopolitical adversaries. The Western press is extremely fallible and has all sorts of problems. @Philomathes2357 did a good job summarizing the most common critiques of a free press under private ownership above. Media interpretation and criticism about a fringe geopolitics blog is a topic where we can't trust any source to give us the whole truth and nothing but it.
 * This article is an example of the RS at their worst. Because The Grayzone is deprecated and has no right of reply, the every bias of the RS is carelessly indulged. I would propose the following revision to bring the lead more in line with Wikipedia's policy on describing disputes:
 * Coverage of The Grayzone has focused on its criticism of American foreign policy, and its sympathetic coverage of the West's geopolitical adversaries, including Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Many Western commentators and researchers have criticized The Grayzone for its false and misleading reporting, saying that it downplayed or denied the Chinese government's human rights abuses against Uyghurs, published conspiracy theories about Xinjiang, Syria, and other regions, and published disinformation about Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which some have described as pro-Russian propaganda.
 * I think the second half of that paragraph still needs some work, but since that's likely to be more contentious I'm just going to focus on embodying all perspectives in the dispute for now. Unbandito (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the attribution. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the changes in Special:Diff/1230750798/1230843302, especially the removal of the phrase "sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes", which clearly describes a key aspect of The Grayzone political position that is obscured with the changed text. It is inaccurate to frame The Grayzone media coverage as coming from only "Western" sources, when the article cites sources such as South China Morning Post and Al Jazeera; The Grayzone itself is a "Western" source published in the English language, so it is not surprising that most of the cited sources are also "Western" sources. I've reverted per WP:BRD as there is no consensus to implement these changes. —  Newslinger  talk   01:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "This looks like textbook engaging-in-the-dispute to me" - it looks like that to you, because that's what it is. This article reads like it comes from an alternative version of Wikipedia wherein NPOV states "engage in disputes, rather than describing them." NPOV, flawed and neutered as it is, was written the other way around for a reason - to avoid articles turning out like this one.
 * I support Unbandito's revision, but am open to some sort of reasonable middle-ground. Does anyone have access to the SCMP article? I don't want to give them my money. What, precisely, do they say about The Grayzone? Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was able to read the article. It's about someone unaffiliated with The Grayzone who was on a panel with them once. It says the following about the site: Blumenthal’s website 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.
 * Doesn't strike me as particularly strong evidence that non-Western sources are making these claims. SCMP isn't making the claims in SCMP-voice, they're attributing to a vague other. And we can use our brains to reason that the parties doing the accusing here are largely Western sources.
 * I found 2 Al Jazeera sources in the lead. The first is a citation for the US foreign policy bit, which remains unchanged. The second is an opinion piece, which per WP:RSOPINION should almost always be attributed. This source should probably be removed from the lead and given more exposition in the body of the article, regardless of what else we decide to do. However, AJ is certainly a non-Western source, and if I had said that the claims in the lead were made exclusively by Western sources, the presence of this citation would be a good reason to revert. But it remains the case that Many Western commentators and researchers have criticized The Grayzone. I believe this is still the most accurate attribution for the claims in the paragraph. The exception does not disprove the rule in this case. @Newslinger do you have a counter-proposal for a more accurate attribution?
 * I also think that sympathetic coverage of the West's geopolitical adversaries, is a more accurate summary of the article's contents than authoritarian regimes. Along with @Newslinger's suggestions around campism in the other thread, I think this is helpful in characterizing Grayzone's POV. I don't think the authoritarian label matches every country that The Grayzone covers favorably and it criticizes a number of US-aligned countries, like certain Central and South American dictatorships, Israel, and the US itself, for actions and tendencies that could be described as authoritarian. As Newslinger suggested, it's much more about a country's camp than their ideology for The Grayzone. For what it's worth, the inclusion of authoritarian regimes, which naturalizes a view of "East-West political conflict" as taking place between "authoritarian regimes" and "the Free World", seems to me like campism for a different camp and also whitewashes a lot of crimes and fails to highlight the flaws of countries in that camp. That's the bias that I see as predominant in this article and worth removing. I think we could improve the lead by combining my previous revision with some material from the other thread. @Newslinger if you feel strongly that authoritarian regimes should stay in, can you advance some case as to why it merits inclusion? Unbandito (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing a relevant quote from the SCMP source. The AJ source (not the opinion piece, the one about GoFundMe) says:
 * "The Grayzone is known for its critical coverage of US foreign policy and anti-war views, but has been accused of spreading misinformation and Chinese and Russian government propaganda, including debunked claims about the conflict in Ukraine and whitewashed accounts of Beijing’s repression of ethnic minority Muslims in far-western Xinjiang. The move by GoFundMe is the latest case to underline thorny questions about the role of Big Tech in adjudicating truth online."
 * So both the SCMP and AJ use the "has been accused of" language, while refraining from doing such "accusing" themselves. It is Western sources that are doing the accusing, while the non-Western sources attempt to describe the accusations, without engaging in them (which is what we're supposed to be doing). In fact, AJ's tone is significantly more sympathetic to The Grayzone than coverage from Western corporate news and government-funded outlets, calling The Grayzone "anti-war" and framing GoFundMe's actions against the outlet in the context of Big Tech censorship: "Free speech advocacy groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have raised concerns about tech companies suppressing unpopular speech given their “utility-like” status and role as “gatekeeper to the modern-day public square”."
 * I think those facts supports Unbandito's revision. I also agree with @Unbandito's argument against saying "sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes" in Wikivoice. Given the outlet's campist approach to international politics, it's pretty obvious that their "sympathetic coverage" of certain countries is due to the fact that those countries oppose US foreign policy, not because The Grayzone has some sort of innate affinity for authoritarian politics. If Venezuela became a liberal democracy tomorrow, and the democratically-elected president was a staunch opponent of US foreign policy, The Grayzone would still be sympathetic to their view - they wouldn't suddenly become anti-Venezuela because Venezuela was no longer sufficiently authoritarian.
 * In the "reception" section, we can certainly discuss the various points of view that outlets have expressed, including the notion that The Grayzone supports authoritarianism.
 * Here is an interesting source, published by Routledge. I don't have access to the full text yet, but one relevant quote that lends weight to the "Western" framing is: "Grayzone, an independent news website that has been highly critical of the Western criticisms against China’s Xinjiang policy." Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Unbandito and Philomathes2357, your recent comments cover too many different topics to respond to in a single section, and you are posting lengthy replies too quickly for anyone else to get a word in. This has the effect of discouraging other editors from participating in the conversation. I'm going to use a new subsection to discuss each substantive change proposed, starting with the "Western" descriptor below. —  Newslinger  talk   08:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"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":

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:


 * 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)
 * 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)

List-defined references used without any discussion?
I notice that list-defined references (LDR) are used, but I don't find any discussion in the archives. That was not the style used by the creator of the article, and we are supposed to respect their choice. That is one of the courtesies we extend to article creators, in exchange for them no longer owning the article.

The change from regular to LDR started on April 20, 2023. can you explain what happened? Was there a discussion I haven't found? Is there an effort to maintain them? (I notice there are lots of regular refs throughout the article.)

I'm very familiar with how they work, like using them, and have created articles with that style. Unfortunately, most editors are pretty clueless with them and don't make any effort to use the style. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 22:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, but I actually only created the initial redirect. The article creator was . — MarkH21talk 23:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 23:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm personally not a fan of list-defined references, as they don't quite mesh with the visual editor, and I intentionally write my drafts without them. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that. Most editors don't like them, so I generally feel it's best to use normal ref formatting systems. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 05:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't remember and had to look at it, but your link provides the clue. There can be a tension in a given article between WP:REFCLUTTER (which tends to make it more difficult to edit an article) and WP:CITEVAR (which attempts to retain a desirable consistency in citation style within a given article) and I believe that is the case here. Normally, when the two are in conflict, WP:CITEVAR, which is a guideline, trumps WP:REFCLUTTER, which is an essay on verifiability.
 * However, neither is policy, and imho both must yield to more important considerations in this case, including the requirements of WP:Verifiability (policy), and Pillar 3 (fundamental principle) which militate against leaving the lead in a near-uneditable state. In my judgment, the article in the version immediately prior to the linked edit was in such an egregiously bad state due to massive reference clutter in the lead, as to effectively freeze the lead or at least make it very difficult to edit for all but the most patient and minutiae-oriented (at least for wikicode editors; VE users may have a different experience), thus violating Pillar 3 ("anyone can edit").
 * By way of comparison: in revision 1149782419 of 11:40, 14 April 2023, the lead paragraph on the rendered page (i.e., what the reader sees) had a very reasonable 107 words and 616 characters; in the Preview pane (wikicode), however, it was 1,675 words and 10,008 characters, which is a huge, 16 to 1 ratio over the rendered page. Following, the lead in rev. 1150793979 of 05:47, 20 April 2023 had 106 words and 618 characters rendered, and 297 words and 1,917 wikicode characters, for about a 3–1 ratio afterward. After decluttering, the lead once again became readable and editable in Preview mode, and has mostly remained so (although there are now seven full citations in the lead which would be better off as LDRs, and if consensus agrees, I'm happy to convert them).
 * This leads us to two possible issues: first, internal inconsistency, in that LDRs are used mostly for lead cites, whereas the body has mostly full citations (and 62 named refs); and second, the advice in the first sentence at WP:CITEVAR:
 * I don't see a problem for either one, because the change to LDR was certainly not due to my personal preference, but rather because of a desire to fix a problem (near-uneditability of the lead) and attempting to fix it with available tools (LDR) within the bounds of existing policy, as noted. That involved a judgment call that meant that in this case, we should favor other factors over the WP:CITEVAR guideline, and for the reasons given, I think this was a justifiable call. Others may disagree, and though I would argue against going back to the previous style of consistent inline ref usage in body and lead and no LDRs, I would not oppose a consensus to do so. However, I think doing so would hurt the article and be a disservice to our readers in the end, because imho it would tend to make the lead once again near-uneditable in whatever state it will be when the LDRs are removed. Unless someone wants to convert the whole thing to LDR style, I think that having a hybrid style of LDR in the lead, and full refs in the body is okay: WP:Verifiability is served, and so is editability (P3). I think that trumps guideline issues which might argue otherwise.
 * Hope this explains that series of edits in 2023. How do you see it? Mathglot (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hope this explains that series of edits in 2023. How do you see it? Mathglot (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

How do I see it? I absolutely love your great reply. Kudos to you for a great explanation! I think, under the circumstances, you improved the situation for that lead. Indeed, a nightmare. I don't think it would be good to go back to the previous situation. If anything, it would be better to go full LDR for the whole article, but consistency isn't an absolute. It would be nice to place a hidden note at the top of the lead and the top of the References section that explains that LDR are used for all references in the lead, and only in the lead.

There is another way to declutter a lead. It involves the "primacy" of the body over the lead. A lead should not contain any content or reference that does not already appear in the body, ergo all those refs will have a short "named" format that can be used in the lead, and then use the full long ref in the body. There should not be any long, full refs in the lead. That itself declutters a lead, making it much easier to edit. Another pet peeve of mine is the practice of adding archive links to a "LIVE"!! source. That adds lots of bytes and makes it harder to edit. I've seen an article more than double in size with one edit of this type. The practice is forbidden by local consensus at Donald Trump and Steele dossier. It makes an already long article a nightmare to download on a cellphone.

If there are multiple refs for one piece of information (and this applies to the whole article, not just the lead), it's good to bundle them in a note using this format: In this case, I used the short, named refs, but one can also pack full refs in there.

Notes

References

Anyway, thanks for all your diligent work. Carry on. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 01:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with you about archived live urls. Also, you make a really good point with your alternative approach, which would probably be even better than LDRs (at least, for those editors who are confused by them). You could keep named refs in the lead, as you said. Further shortening is possible in the case of multiple refs using template R, thus your five-source named-ref example becomes (dropping the mm/dd to save a few more bytes at the same time). Mathglot (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * does that require the short name be shortened even more? I wouldn't want to do that, as I prefer the Harvard style ref ("ref name" includes author(s) and date of publication) that is so unique it usually doesn't need to be altered. (An exception occurs when a (usually) journalist writes more than one article on the same day. Then I just add a number.) Is there a citation page here for that type of grouping? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No requirement; it's just the value of the name field as defined in a &lt;ref> tag elsewhere, having any valid ref name value. I merely shortened the examples here as an illustration of how to save a few more characters, but your examples would work equally well. This is documented at Template:R, which even allows sub-references with automatic numbering, which is another way of dealing with certain types of ref clutter issues. (I am subscribed; no ping necessary.) Mathglot (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool! I'm learning a lot from you. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * After some consideration, I disagree with the switch to list-defined references (LDR) and support reformatting the article to fully return to inline citation templates. Editors who are unfamiliar with wikitext rely on the VisualEditor to edit articles, and LDR citations are completely uneditable in the VisualEditor. Per 2019 data, "35% of the edits by newcomers, and half of their first edits, were made using the visual editor. This percentage has been increasing every year since the tool became available."Try it yourself: to use the VisualEditor to edit this article without changing your default settings, use this link. For example, if you try to edit what the VisualEditor shows as reference #1 (which is actually reference #27 in the second paragraph, after the word "reporting"), the VisualEditor displays the LDR citation error: "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be edited in source mode." In contrast, an inline citation template can be edited with a user-friendly form; an example is what the VisualEditor shows as reference #23 (which is actually reference #81, the last citation in the "Reception" section).Because of this incompatibility, the use of LDR prevents over 35% of Wikipedia newcomers from editing the LDR citations in this article, and using LDR is actually a much worse violation of the third pillar than inline citation templates. This consideration, combined with WP:CITEVAR ("Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change"), leads me to support a switch back to inline citation templates. —  Newslinger  talk   03:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * as I said above, I understand and can use both systems, but, like you, I generally prefer using regular refs. Your logic makes sense to me, so I'll be happy to help start ridding this article of the LDR system.
 * One thing that will still be good, and that is to only use the short "named" ref formats in the lead. That will make it easier to edit. It should be possible to do, as there should be no content or refs in the lead that aren't already used in the body. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 04:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with using named references in the lead section and keeping the bulk of the citation templates in the article body when the citation is also present in the body, which keeps the lead clutter-free. If we are trying to be courteous to VisualEditor users, I recommend avoiding the R template (which is more difficult to edit in the VisualEditor) and using  tags instead. —  Newslinger   talk   05:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have done some work now. The R is something I'm not used to using, so I don't touch it. If someone will reformat them, I can then do the rest. Contrary to best practice, I have restored the full refs to the lead that are only used there. Someone should look at that situation and try to also use them in the body. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 05:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Re: Contrary to best practice, I have restored the full refs to the lead that are only used there: that's really a shame; it does make it a bit more difficult to edit the lead again, at least for the 65%; but hey, the VE users will be happier, so that's something gained. Let's hope that overall, it amounts to a net positive in the end. Mathglot (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the switch to named refs in the lead, but I'd just add that my support is for the method proposed by Valjean only (only reused refnames in the lead, ideally via template R in order to minimize lead clutter). Newslinger, you say we should remove LDR in the lead because it makes it more difficult for 35% of the new users who prefer to use VE and cannot edit the LDRs, did I understand correctly? But by the same token, doesn't that mean we would choose the method *not* preferred by 65% of new users who do not use VE? That hardly seems fair to me. Especially as even that 35% minority of new editors have to learn the source editor anyway, or be relegated to never editing an article talk page, and never responding to a message on their own talk page. So really, almost 100% of new users learn the source editor sooner or later. (There is a project, as I understand, to enable VE for talk pages, but it's not out yet, afaik.) Secondly, LDRs predate VE; VE has a truly impressive number of bugs in, some have been around for years, such as its use of user-unfriendly numeric ref names such as in these 100,000 articles. The fact that VE also has a years-long bug that fails to properly handle LDRs is no big surprise. That, however, is no argument against LDRs—it is an argument to fix the bug in VE, not to decide that LDRs are bad. Arguing that some subset of editors–whether majority or minority–should avoid using certain useful tools at Wikipedia like LDR because some other tool that came along later isn't capable of handling it is a backwards argument, if ever there was one. Finally, CITEVAR does not apply here, as there was no intention either to match other articles' style, nor was personal preference a factor (my personal preference is sfns, not LDRs); the sole motivation here is to help editors. That said, Valjean's solution is just as good, and I have no preference between the current version with LDRs, and a version using full citations in the body and reused refnames in the lead, which luckily VE is able to handle, so if editors here prefer that, by all means. Mathglot (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to edit LDRs with the VisualEditor, not just more difficult. On the other hand, using inline citation tags does not make it impossible for source editor users to edit the article; in fact, many editors (including the majority of the editors in this discussion) prefer inline citation tags while using the source editor. Using your third pillar argument, I believe it is more unfair to wholly exclude editors who are less technically inclined from editing the affected citations in the article. VisualEditor's bugs and LDR's precedence do not change the fact that editors who depend on the VisualEditor cannot edit these LDRs. (Also, the reply tool, which I am using now, has a visual editing mode for talk pages.)
 * WP:CITEVAR does apply: your comments in this discussion indicate that you personally prefer LDRs over inline citation tags in the lead section of this article for the reasons you listed, and that you changed the citation style of this article to implement that preference. However, your edits are not exempt from WP:CITEVAR merely because LDRs are not your first choice. The claim that WP:CITEVAR does not apply to an editor who is changing an article from, for example, their third-favorite citation style (for the article) to their second-favorite citation style (for the article) does not appear to be in line with the guideline's intent to reduce disruption in article space, and I welcome a discussion at WT:CS if you disagree. —  Newslinger  talk   06:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am basically out of this discussion and am happy to have this go according to consensus, but with respect to this assertion: "your comments in this discussion indicate that you personally prefer LDRs over inline citation tags in the lead section of this article for the reasons you listed, and that you changed the citation style of this article to implement that preference" that is a lie, and if you repeat that assertion again, I will issue a warning on your Talk page, and take you to WP:ANI if you repeat it again there. Assume good faith. If you are silent at this point, I will let it drop. Happy trails. Mathglot (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My comment was a good-faith assessment of whether the article citation style change was compliant with WP:CITEVAR, based on the content of this discussion. If you would like to bring this up for community review because you believe that my assessment is incorrect or that my comment violated a conduct policy, you are welcome to escalate this dispute to WT:CS or WP:ANI. —  Newslinger  talk   17:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just told you what my personal citation preference is above (@05:37)—it's sfn's—so to come right back and say that your interpretation is that my personal preference is LDR's means you think I'm lying about my own preference. That is textbook bad faith, and you can't excuse it just by declaring your good faith. And if for some strange reason you privately had doubts about my citation style preference, you could've checked yourself and seen that my created articles overwhelmingly use sfn's, so there is no reason to doubt my preference, nor is there any evidence to suggest I was not truthful when I declared it. Do not do that again. Next time someone tells you what their citation style preference is, believe them. Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe this part of our dispute comes from differing interpretations of the word "preference".
 * I am using preference as it is described in the Preference article: "For example, someone prefers A over B if they would rather choose A than B." In Special:Diff/1228578625, you said: "I would argue against going back to the previous style of consistent inline ref usage in body and lead and no LDRs", indicating that you would rather choose LDRs (A) over inline citation templates (B) for the lead section of this article, despite not using the word preference in this sentence. In my view, that qualifies as "grounds of personal preference" when assessing compliance with the WP:CITEVAR guideline, even though your "personal preference is sfns, not LDRs", because you still expressed a preference for LDRs over inline citation templates in the lead section of this article.
 * In your comments, it seems like you are using the word preference to mean something along the lines of "favorite" or "number-one choice", which is not how I'm using the word. When I said preference, I was referring to relative preference ("would rather choose A than B") and not absolute preference ("would rather choose A than anything else"). I understand that you said your "personal preference is sfns, not LDRs", and I acknowledged that when I said that "LDRs are not your first choice". I have never claimed or implied that you were "not truthful" about your preferences, and I believe you when you say that you prefer sfn citations.
 * I reaffirm that all of my comments in this discussion have been made in good faith and that I have never accused you of bad faith. I apologize that my phrasing has given the impression that I accused you of bad faith. This conversation has gone off-topic and has no further implications on article content, so if you still believe that I have broken a conduct policy or guideline in my comments, I feel that it would be better to continue the discussion at WP:ANI. —  Newslinger  talk   23:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I do not use Visual Editor. I edit the raw source and use no automated tools. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 06:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * A quote in the beginning of this thread caught my eye: "That was not the style used by the creator of the article, and we are supposed to respect their choice. That is one of the courtesies we extend to article creators, in exchange for them no longer owning the article."
 * What is the policy that discusses this? Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't remember where this is discussed, but when someone creates an article, they may choose to use a certain citation style, certain date format, and certain language preference (for example, British vs. American). We are generally supposed to respect that. That doesn't mean it can't be changed. A local consensus can decide to do that, and the article's creator cannot do much about that.
 * I doubt it's a policy, but more likely some guideline. Here we just need to form a consensus on which style to use. I have no special desire to push for one or the other style. I'll follow any consensus that forms here. I can work with both styles, but I suspect that most editors find it more difficult to work with LDR because of lack of experience with it. Very few articles use that style. I find it easier, but that's because I have created articles using that style. It's easy to understand for anyone who understands using named ref formats. There is nothing new to learn as the refs are formatted the same way as in 99% of articles. The article is so clean and easy to work with. That's what I like. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 04:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CITEVAR, MOS:DATEVAR, MOS:RETAIN. All three say that the original style should be kept unless there is consensus to change. — MarkH21talk 05:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both for your answers. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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"."
 * "Before the 2022 US midterm elections, The Grayzone promoted far-right "MAGA" candidates..."

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:


 * 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:


 * I don't think The Grayzone 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 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)
 * 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)