Talk:The Grayzone: Difference between revisions

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article The Grayzone, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned. With respect to any reverting restrictions: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article The Grayzone, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

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

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

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Blogging (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Media Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for The Grayzone (13 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 6,402 6,402 History 2,254 2,254 Reporting and reception 2,605 23,501 Latin America 1,964 1,964 Syria 2,435 2,435 China 4,081 4,081 Russia – Ukraine 2,702 2,702 Israel – Palestine 9,714 9,714 Funding 4,043 4,043 Staff 4,724 4,724 See also 70 70 References 35,958 35,958 External links 527 527 Total 77,479 77,479

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, removing some of the opinion and commentary pieces, and adopting the version of the text I outlined in this post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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