Talk:The Grayzone

Typographical Errors

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

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

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

Misleading citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accused of?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incorrect, the sentence after my edit was:

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

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

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

into

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

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

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

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

"Basically, however, Grayzone (thegrayzone.com) is a one-stop propaganda shop, devoted largely to pushing a pro-Assad line on Syria, a pro-regime line on Venezuela, a pro-Putin line on Russia, and a pro-Hamas line on Israel and Palestine."

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

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

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

Atrocity, Inc.

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

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

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