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.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
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!
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.
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 within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles
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
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
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
In the first sentence of the second paragraph, which begins with "It is known for its critical coverage of American foreign policy", I changed "critical" to "negative" in Special:Diff/1212676885. The term critical is ambiguous because it can refer to both positive and negative commentary (i.e. critical reception), while the term negative unambiguously refers to negative commentary. As the article body makes clear, The Grayzone is "centred around an opposition to the foreign policy of the United States and a desire for a multipolar world"; this indicates negative coverage of American foreign policy.
In Special:Diff/1213195132, Philomathes2357(talk·contribs·count) changed negative back to critical, with an edit summary claiming that "Critical is a more neutral, less emotional description than 'negative'". That reasoning is incorrect, because critical is not a more "neutral" term than negative, and negative is not an "emotional" term. Using critical misleads readers with its ambiguity; it should be replaced with the more precise term negative to better reflect The Grayzone's content. — Newslingertalk 21:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also open to replacing critical coverage with criticism, which would eliminate the ambiguity while retaining a variant of the word critical. — Newslingertalk 21:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support critical coverage Softlem (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid "negative". We use the verb "to criticise" frequently in the rest of the article so should not depart from that standard. I also think we should replace the unnecessary phrase "It is known for ..." - known by whom? Remove the ambiguity by saying "It has criticised American foreign policy". It is simpler. Burrobert (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this, but it requires some reworking of the whole sentence. It could be: "The Grayzone has criticized American foreign policy, sympathetically covered authoritarian regimes, and published misleading reporting."Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support "The Grayzone has criticized American foreign policy, sympathetically covered authoritarian regimes, and published misleading reporting", which addresses the ambiguity. It also eliminates the repetition of the word coverage and flows better grammatically. — Newslingertalk 00:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support that. The sentence is a mess as-is, and would be even more of a mess if we made that change.
Every media outlet in existence has "published misleading reporting". That would not be worth mentioning in an encyclopedic context, any more than it would be worth saying "The New York Times has published misleading reporting" in the lede of its article.
As far as I can tell, the only encyclopedic justification for describing The Grayzone in such disparaging terms in Wikivoice is this: they haven't merely published misleading reporting, they are "known for" publishing misleading reporting. Known by whom?
The cited source is an anthology of political opinions called "How To Abolish the Hong Kong Police". The text reads "The Grayzone, a publication known for misleading reporting in the service of authoritarian states..."
That still doesn't answer the question of "known by whom?" the two anti-police activists in Hong Kong who wrote the story? Are these two individuals, in the context of an opinion piece, authoritative enough to be quoted verbatim in Wikivoice? I have a feeling that would not fly on other articles.
Either we keep the clumsy "known for" language, and we come to a consensus that "How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police" should be quoted in Wikivoice, or we remove the "known for" piece, in which case there is no longer a justification for using Wikivoice for claims like "sympathetic to authoritarian regimes" and "misleading reporting".
My solution: these quotes should be in the body, in the "reception" section, and attributed to their authors, not used in the lede in Wikivoice. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book chapter's description of The Grayzone as "a publication known for misleading reporting in the service of authoritarian states" was written in the authors' voice as a factual claim, and the authors cited an example of an article from The Grayzone that was representative of its misleading pro-authoritarian content. That description is not "the opinions of Hong Kong protesters and activists"; in fact, the book chapter does not cover Hong Kong protesters' views about The Grayzone as a publication at all. There is also no evidence that the authors of Reorienting Hong Kong’s Resistance: Leftism, Decoloniality, and Internationalism are biased in relation to The Grayzone or to Hong Kong protestors. The verifiability policy allows articles to reflect what reliable sources say, which is why this article reflects the book chapter's description of The Grayzone.
There are two academic sources cited immediately after the misleading reporting descriptor, and in addition to that, many reliable sources in the History section provide ample evidence that The Grayzone has published false information and conspiracy theories, which are both subsets of misleading reporting. The article's lead section accurately summarizes the article body. — Newslingertalk 05:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Critical” is better than “negative” but re-working the sentence to use “criticism” would be even better.
“Known for” is clunky, and “authoritarian states” should be replaced by the specific states referred to JArthur1984 (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Known for" is indeed clunky, and the sources cited are not nearly sufficient for putting such a strong statement in Wikivoice. I also agree that "authoritarian states" should be replaced by the specific states. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, I reverted the change from "misleading reporting" to "allegations of misleading reporting", since the cited reliable sources focus on The Grayzone's own misleading reporting instead of its allegations of other sources' misleading reporting.
Also, I oppose the removal of the phrase "authoritarian regimes" from the phrase "sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes", because it describes a key pattern in The Grayzone's reporting that would otherwise be overlooked. Per Dimaggio (2023), "With the Grayzone and MintPress News, their rhetorical efforts to target the mainstream media for fake news are undermined by both venues’ uncritical reliance on official propaganda from authoritarian states that deny charges of their own human rights atrocities." I've re-added that phrase alongside the listing of individual countries, i.e. "sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes, including those of Syria, Russia, and China". — Newslingertalk 18:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being lackeys for authoritarian regimes is their shtick. Of course it should remain in the article. Weird anyone would remove it. 207.212.33.88 (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you make a good point, Newslinger. "Allegations of misleading reporting" could be interpreted as referencing The Grayzone's coverage of other outlets' misleading reporting, rather than other outlets claims about The Grayzone's misleading reporting. Good catch.
I still wonder about the phrase "authoritarian regimes". It implies that the writers at The Grayzone are somehow reflexively supportive of authoritarianism, which is, of course, silly. However, as long as we preserve the wording "most contemporary media analysis has focused on", rather than the previous "known for", I don't have a major objection to the status quo.
I see that my wording, "commentary", was changed to "analysis". I understand why that was done, but since many sources only make a passing mention of The Grayzone, and don't engage in anything approaching an "analysis" of their reporting, I think a more appropriate word would be "coverage". I think this is a happy medium that should be acceptable to everyone. I would be curious what JArthur1984 thinks of this, since he was involved in this discussion a short while ago. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're being sarcastic, you seem to be confused when you write:
"I think you make a good point, Newslinger. "Allegations of misleading reporting" could be interpreted as referencing The Grayzone's coverage of other outlets' misleading reporting, rather than other outlets claims about The Grayzone's misleading reporting. Good catch."
That is not User:Newslinger's point. In fact, the current content is correct. It is The Grayzone's own misleading reporting that is the object of criticism by mainstream sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of us are in agreement that the current wording correctly reflects that The Grayzone's own misleading reporting is what has been criticized.
I changed "contemporary media commentary" (i.e. commentary in contemporary media) to "contemporary media analysis" (i.e. analysis of contemporary media) because the cited sources include academic sources (not just media outlets) that have analyzed The Grayzone's content. The recent change back to "contemporary media coverage" again portrays the coverage as coming from other media outlets (i.e. coverage in contemporary media) rather than a mixture of media outlets and academic sources. Due to this, I support a change back to "contemporary media analysis" or similar phrasing that describes contemporary media as the target, and not solely the source, of the analysis. — Newslingertalk 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valjean I was neither sarcastic nor confused. I was simply acknowledging (and agreeing with) @Newslinger's observation that "the cited reliable sources focus on The Grayzone's own misleading reporting instead of its allegations of other sources' misleading reporting."
I assume that by "academic sources", you are referring to the book "How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police", the article from The Journal of International Criminal Justice, and the book "Fake News in America: Contested Meanings in the Post-Truth Era".
First, it would be good to come to a consensus that these are, indeed, reliable academic sources. Surely, we can all agree without further discussion that an article published in a scholarly journal like The Journal of International Criminal Justice is a reliable, academic source. My understanding (informed by Newslinger's previous comments about "How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police) is that if a book is published by an academic publisher like Palgrave Macmillan, it is, by definition, a reliable scholarly source.
Valjean, based on our conversation here, seems to have a different interpretation of what constitutes a reliable scholarly source. I, frankly, agree with Newslinger, and I find Valjean's arguments at the "Russian interference" article to be unsupported by current Wikipedia policy. I think WP:RS is very clear: " Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.". Note that WP:RS does not make a distinction between academic sources from the physical sciences, social sciences, and humanities - academic sources are academic sources, period, and they are inherently reliable and of the highest quality. If you think we're still at an impasse on that topic, Valjean, this would be a good place to sort out that confusion.
If we all agree that the three aforementioned sources are reliable, and academic, that brings us to the question of wording: "analysis", vs "commentary", vs "coverage". The reason I found the word "coverage" to be preferable to "analysis" is that the book "How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police" makes only a passing mention of The Grayzone. It does not engage in anything resembling "analysis", it merely makes a rather flippant remark about what The Grayzone is "known for". That is why I found the word "coverage" to be more precise and all-encompassing, because only two of the three academic sources engage in analysis of the topic, whereas "coverage" characterizes all three of the sources.
Perhaps the problem is referring to all of the sources as "media". Maybe a better formulation would be something like this:
"Most contemporary news coverage and academic references to The Grayzone have focused on..."
An academic source in the "soft sciences" is a RS for the author's opinion, not necessarily for facts (as is the case with "hard sciences"). In the social sciences and political science, we're dealing with "soft science" and not clear evidence, lab research, and double-blind studies. My background is in the medical field, with two health care degrees, IOW "hard sciences".
In political science academic literature, we're dealing with authors who get their information largely the same way we do, from the news and such sources. They are subject to the same foibles we are, IOW, GIGO. Fringe authors who publish their opinions and books at academic presses will choose to ignore contrary evidence from mainstream sources while including their misguided views gleaned from fringe sources we consider unreliable. That's just the way it is. Compare books from academic sources by mainstream authors and fringe authors and the differences are plain as day. Fringe authors include conspiracy theories and debunked ideas and ignore facts they don't like. Therefore, what they write is a RS for their own opinions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot tell if you are referring to Wikipedia policy, or proposing your opinion for what WP:RS "should" say.
If it's the former, could you provide a link to the relevant policy, please? Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about policy and common sense. Policy informs us to not treat opinions as facts or facts as opinions, something you often cite. Common sense informs us that much of the soft sciences, including political science, is about opinions, often opinions about facts. Mainstream and fringe soft science authors, when they write in academic literature and have their books published by academic presses, will express their opinions about various facts, often drawing from different sources of information, mainstream versus fringe. Mainstream authors will tend to rely on a broad base of reliable sources, whereas fringe academic authors will tend to use a narrow selection of sources (read what Pew Research says about that), tend to ignore many mainstream sources and facts they don't like and use unreliable sources, debunked ideas, and conspiracy theories in their writings. That's the nature of the very existence of the concepts of "mainstream" and "fringe", two categories I'm sure you know exist, even if you might quibble about which author belongs to which category. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding @Valjean I was neither sarcastic nor confused. I was simply acknowledging (and agreeing with) @Newslinger's observation that "the cited reliable sources focus on The Grayzone's own misleading reporting instead of its allegations of other sources' misleading reporting."
What you wrote directly contradicted Newslinger, hence my concern that there was some confusion or sarcasm at play with your "could be interpreted", which was the opposite of what Newslinger wrote. Newslinger replied to you and clarified his meaning. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
