Talk:Aaron Maté/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Citation via Weasel Words

The South China Morning Post has been cited as the only source in the lead noting that a website that publishes the subject's work is "known for its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes". However, the source tagentially states this only the the form of weasel words. It states "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". Weasel words should not be cited as a secondary source for criticism in BLP. See WP:Unsupported attributions. Poyani (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There’s nothing WP:WEASEL about this. That’s not what “weasel words” actually means. You’re using the phrase “weasel words” to mean “WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT”. Volunteer Marek 15:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I made the same point at Talk:Aaron_Maté#Grayzone. We say Grayzone is " known for its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes" but the source says "Blumenthal’s website has been accused of whitewashing the crimes of authoritarian countries". It does not say who made the accusations or whether there is any substance to them. Burrobert (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Vounteer Marek, If you want to read what Weasel Words mean, just read the actual wikipedia article about Weasel word. Sentence structures like "some people say ...." without attribution are weasel words. The source cited only mentions the subject in weasel words. It says "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." It does not state to whom this is attributed. The lead states that he is "known for its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes". Known by whom? Certainly not the source who attributes it to other unknown entities. Those are weasel words. Poyani (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Weasel words apply to *Wikipedia article text*, not text found in sources. If a source says something we say it too. Volunteer Marek 15:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

They actually apply to both. If you use a source using weasel words, then you can only structure your article text in weasel words. If a source says "some people say Person X is a vampire" and you cite it, then the artcile content must also use weasel words, which it shoudln't. Currently the article is using weasel words in the form of "known for its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes". Known by whom? According to whom? Neither is clear and therefore should be deleted. Poyani (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Also as Burrobert noted, the cited source does not say anywhere that the subject is "known for" this. Only that it has been accused of ... via weasel words. Poyani (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

”They actually apply to both” <— No. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies Reliable sources are allowed to do what Wikipedia editors aren’t (like original research). That’s the *whole point* of relying on reliable sources.

As to the specific instance here, sure, we can reword it to just say “which has published” rather than “known for”. Volunteer Marek 15:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay - then cite the information in the reliable source. The information in the reliable source is "Blumenthal’s website has been accused of whitewashing the crimes of authoritarian countries". SO if you want to cite it, you should write that the Grayzone "has been accused of whitewashing the crimes of authoritarian countries". Until you do that you are not actually citing the source. Once you do make the change I will accuse you of using weasel words. Currently the statement "the Grayzone is known for its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes" is uncited. There is no reference provided that makes that claim. So please remove it. Poyani (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It’s uncited because the citation was removed!!!! By you. Volunteer Marek 15:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

No it wasn't? The citation has always been the South China Morning Post. It is still there. See this is what I meant about this article turning into a sewer. It is constant lying and bad faith agitation. Poyani (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Poyani, please stop. "bad faith agitation" began with your discussion of the "article turning into a sewer" ("It looks like a few activists have taken over this page and have inserted all sorts of defamatory language such as calling the subject a "conspiracy theorist" based on an opinion piece and an incredibly dubious website"), which has only continued ("It looks like the trash activists are at it again. This article definitely needs the intervention of admins and possibly the removal of some of the activists from editting wikipedia").

You've come to this article, casted aspersions form the beginning (diffs above), and continued to argue with numerous editors who have been very patient with you in numerous new talk page sections. This has gone above and beyond what it had any business being. It needs to end, or at the very least, I recommend taking a step away for a few days/hours to cool down.--Hobomok (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

And i have presented extensive evidence that this is the case (case in point the discussion regarding weasel words with user Volunteer Marek who is insisting right here that uncited weasel words belong in the lead to the article, while repeatedly pretending not to understand the concept). If you have a valid argument as to why uncited weasel words belong in the article, I am all ears. Poyani (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Poyani, first you claim “info is uncited”. Then you say “ The citation has always been the South China Morning Post. It is still there.” Lol. Which one is it? Volunteer Marek 17:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you pretending not to understand basic logical statements? I have explained this repeatedly. There is a citation from South China Morning Post used as a reference for a statement that does not appear in the South China Morning Post. This is clear. You are using the South China Morning Post as a reference for the statement that the Grayzone is "known for" protecting Authoritarian regimes. It does not state that in the reference you are citing. Poyani (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

As is often the case with 'controversial' characters, I think we need multiple (and very reliable) sources to be able to define this person in this way. In my opinion the lede seems to be written in a non-neutral if not derogatory manner. Mhorg (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is just obfuscation. Volunteer Marek 03:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

re:”known for” and “accused of”:

1. Not sure if wording should be changed considering there’s ongoing discussion here. Especially when the person reverting (Mhorg) is currently under arbitration enforcement related to Eastern European topics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1095697727), which this article clearly falls under.

2. I do think “known for,” or as suggested above, “has published” is better wording. RS have stated that this is what Grayzone has published. Therefore Grayzone has published these claims/it is known for doing so in RS. I think it’s pretty cut and dry in RS that this is what Grayzone publishes and is known for, as that’s what RS says about the publication.—Hobomok (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I just did a self-revert, although I am convinced that that part is a kind of BLP-violation against this person. Mhorg (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Guardian Citation for the Conspiracy Theorist descriptive

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Guardian citation for the Conspiracy theorist descriptive only contains one 30 word sentence discussing the subject, but has a lengthy 163 word post-publication correction noting that the same one sentence is disputed. Poyani (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I know this was closed but since someone is reverting on the basis of this comment - the Guardian article notes that the subject said some stuff about how he doesn't agree with the article (no, it does not say that this characterization is disputed) and then it has a second note noting that, well, basically they're full of it. It's not a "correction". Volunteer Marek 03:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek. This issue is being discussed in the 'Using the "conspiracy_theorist" description' topic above. Please post there. Poyani (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Bad Faith Reverts

User User:Hobomok|Hobomok]. Please refrain from making bad faith reverts. I edited a simple line to reflect the content of the source cited and you reverted it with the explanation "that's not how it works". "That's not how it works is not a valid reason for a revert. Please refrain from any reverts unless you have a valid explanation. All material should reflect the sources cited and not be based on original research. The South China Morning News source states that the Grazone has been "accused of" sympathies towards authoritarian regimes, not "known for". The article will reflect it as such. Poyani (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I reverted because that’s not how editing works. There’s ongoing discussion on this talk page about that wording. You can’t just make edits to disputed sections of a page while discussion is ongoing. You’ve been told this multiple times.

You’ve also been warned multiple times by multiple editors to stop clogging up the talk page and creating new talk page subsections. Stop.—Hobomok (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 
  Proposed photo (Option A)
• 
  Current photo (Option B)

I recently boldly changed the infobox photograph to the alternative photo listed above, though my change was reverted by Poyani in this edit. I like the new photograph because it is (1) a tighter crop, (2) a higher resolution file, and (3) it is marginally brighter than the current infobox image. I'm seeking feedback from other editors related to this change. Neither of these images are great, and frankly I'd prefer something better than either of these two, but I'm having trouble finding freely licensed image/video material of Maté outside of the same video from which both of these screenshots were taken. What do other editors think? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry - I did not mean to revert your edit. I was just reverting my own edit and I believe yours occured after mine so it was automatically reverted. I support your change. Poyani (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I'll let this sit for a while to see if anybody else has comments on the infobox image (or if they can find a better one). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm ok with Option A Mhorg (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Option A is the better of the two photos. Burrobert (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In light of the clear and unanimous consensus here, I've changed the infobox photo from Photo B to Photo A. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1RR increased to 72 hours

Courtesy note to all watchers that the community 1RR for all Syrian Civil War articles, in effect here, has been supplanted for the next month with a 72-hour 1RR, imposed as a discretionary sanction under the same Syrian Civil War sanction regime. Please stop reverting each other so much. Thank you.

(As a quirk of how the SCW sanction authorization is written, no sanction alerts are required for sanctions under the regular 1RR, but are required for any blocks under discretionary sanctions, including this modified 1RR. So a bunch of you are about to get some annoying templates alerting you to something you probably already knew about. Sorry!)

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: A 72-hour 1RR restriction is pretty draconian for an article that's getting a lot of edits, and it has the potential to make things worse. 1RR creates a first-mover advantage for editors trying to change a lot of things, and the 72-hour thing exacerbates that. Consider the following scenario:

• Editor A makes a somewhat controversial change to the article.
• Editor B reverts that change (burning their one revert for the next 72 hours)
• Editor A makes another somewhat controversial change.
• Editor C reverts that change.
• Editor A makes another change. Editors A and B don't like it but can't do anything about it.

This is particularly problematic when Editor A is a single-purpose account with 25 edits and Editors B and C are veteran editors trying to keep things encyclopedic. You're giving the upper hand to the most aggressive editors who tend to be POV-pushers, sockpuppets, or "meatpuppets" canvassed off-Wiki who have little to lose if they get blocked for violating sanctions they don't care about or didn't understand in the first place.

If you're that concerned about edit warring in this article, there's no need to invoke discretionary sanctions. Just full-protect the article for 24 hours and let everybody cool off. ~Awilley (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Awilley: There's been enough in flux here that I'd prefer to take a wait-and-see approach, rather than bump it back down without an issue having arisen. If that eventuality comes to pass, I'm open to a variety of further remedies—ECP, consensus required, sanctions on individual editors, or, yes, moving back to 24h 1RR if that's what's best. I don't think full protection is going to help anything here, though. We've already had people edit-warring with reverts more than a day apart—the impetus for this 72h 1RR—so I don't see how a short FPP would defuse things. Maybe a one-week FPP would, but I think that would be more draconian than the current restriction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: It's not more draconian. A regular gold-lock would not destabilize the article, and any admin would be able to reverse the sanction if it's no longer needed, which we can't do without fear of being desysopped if we try to reverse your current month-long DS. Also, nobody's going to get blocked for accidentally violating the restriction, so it's lower drama too...something I think you might appreciate right now. ~Awilley (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

This may just be a difference in administrative philosophy. I see fully protecting a page as, always, a last resort. It punishes every editor in the world for the actions of a small few. And in a case like this article, where editors have strong, diverging feelings about what the article should look like, it just defers the same edit-warring. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Every editor in the world? That's a bit of an overstatement. But I acknowledge your point that full protection punishes everybody for the actions of a few. Will you acknowledge my point that 1RR also punishes everybody and tips the balance of power toward aggressive editors with nothing to lose? ~Awilley (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Awilley: I absolutely acknowledge that it is a risk, and if that arises, am fully prepared to modify things as needed, including by simply reverting to the 24h 1RR. And since I've said I'd rather not be the primary admin enforcing GS/DS on this article right now, how about this: If the 72h 1RR begins to have adverse effects as you describe (and I trust your judgment in determining whether that's happened), you have my blessing to modify it as you see fit, including by outright repealing. All I'll ask is that, if the disruption could be instead mitigated by ECPing the article, you try that first. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin That seems reasonable. But not me. My current family commitments prevent me from logging onto Wikipedia regularly. I showed up here only because I was pinged to your talk page this morning and dug around a bit to see what was going on. ~Awilley (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Well then I'll just expand that to any uninvolved admin who is monitoring this article (courtesy ping Abecedare). In addition to me, of course. I'm still around. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

"Weasel"

@Volunteer Marek: I see that you've tagged a part of the lead with {{Weasel inline}} in this edit. What's your specific objection? I think the following sentences describe exactly what the controversy is. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

"Controversial" implies that there's "two sides to the story". But the source given, which is the Guardian, does not describe his "reporting" as "controversial". It says it's disinformation. It's like saying that Trump's claims about the 2020 election are "controversial". They're not. They're just wacky. Same thing here - Mate's reporting isn't "controversial", it's just disinformation. Per source. Volunteer Marek 20:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The sentence "Maté's reporting on the Syrian Civil War has been controversial" can be removed as it is redundant. The next sentence describes the content of the ISD study, including the claim about Aaron being a spreader of disinformation. Burrobert (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Article lacks a neutral viewpoint

One of our editors has described common-sense and Wikipedia policy as “non-existent benchmarks [that are being used] to justify WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT”. Here are the relevant points, all from the leading paragraph:

- 1. The Grayzone is described as a "news website and blog" on its own page and as a ”news site" in the Coda Story article that we use as a source. I amended the description to reflect this but it was reverted back to “blog”.

- 2. Aaron is described as a journalist in the Guardian and Hill articles that we are using as sources (“Since 2020, journalist Aaron Maté at the Grayzone ..." (Guardian), "Journalist Aaron Maté joined Hill.TV to discuss ..." (the Hill)). I changed his designation from “reporter” to “journalist. This was reverted. Are there sources which describe him as a “reporter”?

- 3. I removed the label “conspiracy theorist” and wrote that the description “conspiracy theorist” needs to be attributed and Aaron’s response, which is in the same source, provided. This change was reverted. The policy regarding labels for BLP’s can be found at Biographies_of_living_persons#Tone. See also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels. “Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources”.

Here are some other examples from the leading section:

- 4. We say that the Grayzone is “ known for its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes”. The source we use says "Blumenthal’s website has been accused of whitewashing the crimes of authoritarian countries". It does not say who made the accusations or whether there is any substance to them. If we are going to use this source, we should stick with the wording it provides. The two versions are not equivalent.

- 5. We say that the Grayzone is “known for … pro-Putin propaganda”. The source we use does not mention Vladimir.

- 6. There is a problem with the convoluted sentence “Maté has received the Serena Shim Award, which includes a monetary prize, from The Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees, which is, according to Bellingcat, an organization that has funded supporters of the Syrian government”. The sentence is in the body, and also, strangely, in the lead. The source we use for the description of the award does not mention Aaron or the Grayzone. The sentence is therefore an example of synthesis. We can say that Aaron won the award. If we are going to include what Bellingcat said about the award it should not be linked with Aaron. Bellingcat did not say anything about Aaron, so we should not imply that the Bellingcat description applies to him.

- 7. Another example of synthesis is in the sentence “He currently works as reporter for The Grayzone, a far-left fringe blog ... and denial of the Uyghur genocide”. We can, and should, say that Aaron works for the Grayzone, but should not include opinions about the Grayzone in a sentence that is about Aaron. It leads the reader to conclude that the opinions also apply to Aaron. None of the sources used for the opinions mention Aaron. Burrobert (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there a difference between reporter and "journalist"? I understand them as synonyms.

I agree RE "conspiracy theorist"; I frankly don't see that label assigned frequently enough to place that into WikiVoice.

You'll have to ask Anonymous44 about why their edit chose to use SYNTH sources rather than the sources we already had in the article that say that Maté won the Serena Shim Award, but the fact of the matter is that it's not Wikipedia doing this synthesis for the first time when we read the sourcing in the body. I chose the references to be a bit more direct when I attempted a rewrite of the lead to make the lead better summarize the article as a whole.

With respect, if you believe that the characterization of The Grayzone as denying the Uyghur genocide is unfair to Maté as somehow misleading about his related views, I don't think there's any reasonable basis for that belief. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I would also point out that we should not include opinions about the Grayzone in a sentence that is about Aaron, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of sources characterize The Grayzone as a far-left/fringe outlet, which is why that language is reflected in the lead of the Wikipedia article on the website itself. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses @Red-tailed hawk: and also your attempt to refashion the lead. Firstly, I note that you didn't comment on points 1, 4, and 5. Do you agree with those points or are you agnostic? Regarding your comments, here are my responses:

- I don't know whether there is much of a difference between reporter and journalist. However, in that case, why not use the term that appears in sources, namely journalist?

- thanks for removing the term "conspiracy theorist".

- regarding the Serena Shim award, your amendment to the lead may be less pointy. There is still some synthesis involved since the Bellingcat source does not mention Aaron and the New Lines source only mentions Aaron once, and does not say that he was "supportive of Bashar al-Assad" or even that he received the award for his work on Syria. Ideally, we should decouple those opinions from the sentence stating that Aaron won the Serena Shim award. The synthesis still exists in the text in the article body, where two sources by Brian Whittaker are used to support the statement. The al-bab source should be removed as it is Brian Whittaker's blog. I can't see that the New Lines article says anything about Aaron other than he received the Serena Shim award.

- "The characterization of The Grayzone " that we have in the lead accurately reflects the sources chosen. However, none of the sources mention Aaron. Including the opinions of the Grayzone in a sentence about Aaron is therefore synthesis. Decouple the two thoughts. First thought: Aaron works for the Grayzone. Second thought (if we think it appropriate to include): the Grayzone has been described as ....

Burrobert (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Burrbert and Red-tailed hawk for your serious attempt to improve this article. It is already substantially improved. All the objections noted by Burrbert in items 1-6 above are reasonable IMHO. Poyani (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

One of the main issues I have had with the article is that it seems to imply that the primary publisher of Aaron Mate' work is the Grayzone. But he seems to publish more frequently for Substack than the Grayzone. The article currently does not even mention that he writes for Substack, despite the fact that substack is his primary publisher. I think the lede should be structured in a similar fashion as other journalists who primarily publish for Substack (example: Glenn Greenwald, Michael Tracy, Matt Taibi, etc). Poyani (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Are there any sources that report on his Substack writing? I think it appropriate to include in the article if this is something important about him. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Substack is a self publishing platform so no, he doesn't really "publish for Substack". Grayzone is not - or at least pretends not to be - a self publishing platform. Volunteer Marek 16:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

My lack of response to points 1, 4, and 5 (which you numbered only after I responded to your comment) implies only that I have not (yet) responded to them; it does not imply agreement. With respect to your newly numbered points #4-5, Jewish Chronicle (for example) notes that Aaron Maté is a Canadian journalist for the far-left blog, The Grayzone, which is known for its pro-Kremlin editorial line and its support for the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and has published content denying that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians. Would you prefer we remove "known for its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes" and replace it with "known for its sympathetic coverage of the Russian and Syrian governments"? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

- The numbering was an afterthought and intended to make the discussion easier.

- Regarding Serena Shim, do you intend replacing the existing sources with the JC source? If so, my previous comments are not relevant. However, when using the JC we need to consider that "[t]here is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics". In addition, the JC's phrase is "The Grayzone, ... is known for its pro-Kremlin editorial line and its support for the government of Bashar al-Assad". A suitable way of rendering that in Aaron's article would be "He currently works as a journalist for The Grayzone, a news website and blog, which, according to the JC, is known for its pro-Kremlin editorial line and its support for the Syrian government". Burrobert (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The suggestion from @Poyani: about substack is worth considering. Aaron's publications on substack are extensive. The issue will be in finding a suitable source. We could use a statement by Aaron himself under the "about self" policy. The entry for Glenn Greenwald uses substack itself as the source for the information. The entry for Matt Taibbi uses twitter. Burrobert (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, it isn't just the JC that gives the pro-Kremlin and pro-Syria characterization of the website; this academic paper characterizes them in the same way (a platform with an "uncritical pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad" editorial stance), so I find it a bit odd to attribute that view only to the JC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Anyone who reverts back in the conspiracy theorist language needs to be blocked from editing the page. There is a clear consensus that this description is not appropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Collect all the sources you want to use regarding the statement and I am sure we can work something out. Btw, did you know that Mother Teresa was a member of the Catholic Church, an organisation known for covering up sexual abuse. Burrobert (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a factual difference there with the phrase "known for"; the Catholic Church is generally known for things that aren't covering up sex abuse, such as its 2000-year history and influence on the way the world has been shaped since the time of Christ. The same would go for Mother Theresa, who is known primarily for her charitable work. The difference is that The Grayzone is actually known primarily for its reporting that eschews the basic journalistic principle of reporting facts in favor of spreading debunked stories and functioning on a purely ideological level. False equivocation isn't the way forward here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

- It was an illustration of what can be done by juxtaposing two unrelated sources, which is why Wikipedia has a policy on synthesis. The editor making the synthesis often says there is no harm done because both statements are true. Well, both statements in the Mother Teresa example are true.

- Do we have a source which says the Grayzone is "known primarily for" anything (a number of the cited sources are paywalled). We do have a source which says the Grayzone's work is "[b]ased on a desire for a multipolar world, in which global military, cultural and economic power is distributed among multiple nation states and Western influence greatly diminished" (codastory). Perhaps, we could add that to the characterisation of the Grayzone.

- What about this: Aaron is also a contributor to The Nation, described by Barack Obama as "exhibit[ing] that great American tradition of expanding our moral imaginations, stoking vigorous dissent, and simply taking the time to think through our country's challenges anew" ?

Burrobert (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Ummm, is this "proposal" suppose to be WP:POINTy? Because, just no. Volunteer Marek 16:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Burrobert that the sentence on GZ is excessive for the lead. I would move it to the Journalism section, and make sure that the sources cited are the ones that mention Mate (which excludes Coda Story, but includes JC and New Yorker; I can't read the SCMP so not sure about that). There are potential additional sources too. Irish Times says Invitations to speak at the event in Lisbon next week were withdrawn for Max Blumenthal, editor-in-chief of far-left website The Grayzone, and Aaron Maté, a Canadian journalist who works for the same website, following a social media backlash. Both have been accused of publishing anti-Ukrainian and pro-Russian tropes related to the war... Mr Maté has claimed the Ukrainian Government, which took over following the Maidan Revolution, was a “fascist-infused coup”. He has consistently claimed that the US is funding “proxy warfare” against Russia and it is sabotaging any prospect of peace in Ukraine for its own ends. Maté tweeted: “They’ve now cancelled us and make clear below that they bowed to pressure from those who oppose our journalism on the Ukraine proxy war. Our detractors can’t refute us, so they silence us.”

I also don't think we need to say ", an organization supportive of Bashar al-Assad," in the lead re the Serena S award, so long as that's clear in the body. In the body, we should cite News Line (which mentions Mate) but not Bellingcat (which doesn't). The phrasing re Assad is an accurate summary of the source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Some more information about the cancellation of Aaron and Max's invitations to appear at the Web Summit. The Web Summit's chief executive is Paddy Cosgrave.

1. Cosgrave said that he had received a large backlash from journalists regarding the cancelling of Max and Aaron invitations to speak at the Web Summit.

2. Aaron and Max’s invitations were cancelled from the event at the insistence of the first lady of Ukraine Olena Zelenska due to their perceived pro-Russia stance regarding the war in Ukraine. Zelenska was the keynote speaker at the Web Summit launch.

3. After their invitations were cancelled, Aaron and Max were guests at a private dinner hosted by Paddy Cosgrave.

4. The event also came under pressure to cancel Noam Chomsky from its speaking line-up on Friday, but refused. Burrobert (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the relevance of any of this, aside from the fact that Mate has been posting complaints about it like every two seconds on twitter for the past couple weeks? Is his Wikipedia article suppose to be dictated by his twitter posts? This is the second instance of some accounts trying to do exactly that. Volunteer Marek 04:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Bob's source was the Irish Times. My sources were the Irish Examiner and the Business Post. Twitter was not mentioned by either of us. Burrobert (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Is anyone else getting dizzy watching the Izzy Award pop in and out of the lead? It reappeared briefly "for fairness" but has since disappeared. While it is difficult to measure notability of awards, there does not appear to be much difference between the Izzy and the Serena Shim award which is mentioned in the lead. Burrobert (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Is Aaron Maté a journalist?

The article starts with «Aaron Maté is a Canadian writer and journalist».

Surely Maté is a "writer", but is he a "journalist"? Knowing the guy (who I understand he has been at the centre of several controversies within the Wikipedia community), his main publication and studying the meaning of the word "journalist", well I don't believe it is correct to label him as such. On the contrary, I believe that Maté is more correclty a "propagandist", as it is a fact that he was, or still is, hosted by Russian-backed media, pushed pro-Russian, pro-CCP, pro-Assad and pro-Houthi causes. I don't think it's needed to list the hundreds, if not thousands, of times Maté have pushed narratives and conspiracy theories aligned to the Russian government, it would be a waste of time as it is widely known. He also works with other well-known propagandists, again hosted by Russian entities, some of them have travelled frequently to Russia in Russian institutions etc. etc., they are Rania Khalek and Max Blumenthal and until recently Ben Norton, and else. Therefore I personally suggest to replace "journalist" with "propagandist" who I believe better fits. 22Chev22 (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources for any changes you propose, especially where it involves removal of content that is already reliably sourced. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I second @22Chev22:'s comments. Mr. Maté is in no respects a proper journalist. Nutez (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Editor opinions sans evidence are worth precisely nothing. This thread is verging on a WP:BLP violation. petrarchan47คุก 01:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Petrarchan47 and User:Cambial Yellowing are correct. There are already THIRTY-FIVE (35) mentions of the word "journalist" on this talk page. Even articles in publications that say negative things about this man, Aaron Mate, acknowledge that he is a journalist. The matter has been hashed and rehashed right on this very talk page. He IS a journalist. Maybe this talk page needs page protection?--FeralOink (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

“Journalist” is indeed sourced. So is “conspiracy theorist”. To the exact same source actually. Volunteer Marek 02:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, Aaron is described as a journalist in multiple sources - both The Hill and The Guardian describe him as a journalist. The policy regarding labels for BLP’s can be found at Biographies_of_living_persons#Tone. See also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels. “Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources”. Burrobert (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This is absurd. The entire Guardian article, as a source, is about Mate and others are CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. So what are we using this (very reliable) source for? To claim that Mate is a JOURNALIST. This is some wacky sourcing shenanigans. Volunteer Marek 17:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The term "journalist" would not generally be considered a "contentious label". Nevertheless, it is clearly the way that reliable sources generally describe Aaron. Sources which we use and which describe Aaron as a journalist include The Hill, Jerusalem Chronicle, Democracy Now!, The Conversation, Vanity Fair and The New Yorker Burrobert (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It depends on who we talking about. Describing Alex Jones as a “journalist” would certainly be contentious. Volunteer Marek 05:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• One might be a journalist, a conspiracy theorist and a propagandist at the same time. Thus, he might be described using all these wordings - as reflected in multiple RS - per WP:NPOV. Based on the description in sources, however, he is mostly involved in promoting disinformation, and The Guardian is definitely a good RS. My very best wishes (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

- "One might be a journalist, a conspiracy theorist and a propagandist at the same time". Yes, and also open the batting for England and be a super hero. Afaict no one has said otherwise.

- "as reflected in multiple RS". Which ones? Policy says that we should only use a contentious label such as "conspiracy theorist" if Aaron is "commonly described that way in reliable sources". Burrobert (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, WP:RS and the bulk of this thread, I have updated the section heading as we cannot allow contentious, unfounded statements about living persons on WP.

"As journalist Aaron Maté has carefully detailed, the administration has..." from WaPost Opinion column, November 15, by Katrina vanden Heuvel, who writes a weekly column for WaPost and is the editor and publisher of the Nation magazine. She doesn't mention any theorizing on his part for some reason. petrarchan47คุก 01:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees

This association isn't just a "an organization supportive of Bashar al-Assad", it's basically a front for the Syria Solidarity Movement, which is a " a rabidly anti-Semitic, fascist organization" with a "logo (that) is a stylized take on the swastika".[1]

Describing an org like that as just some group "supportive of Assad" is 100% whitewashing what this group is and what getting awards from such groups means. The relevant info should be put back in the lede. Volunteer Marek 04:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not what that source says at all? Those quotes were a description of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, not the Syria Solidarity Movement. Endwise (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh please. The whole article is about links between the "fascist" SSNP, the SSM and this award thing org:

• That initiative is strongly supported by the Syria Solidarity Movement, despite the fact that the SSNP is a rabidly anti-Semitic, fascist organization
• SSM was established (to facilitate) a faux-peace initiative launched by the regime in Damascus and led by Ali Haidar, a minister in Assad’s government and leader of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP)
• SSNP’s Haidar spoke at the same (SSM organized) 2017 conference as Kucinich, while Susan Dirgham, national coordinator of “Australians for Mussalah,” (Mussalah being the SSNP faux-peace initiative) is a founding member of the Syria Solidarity Movement’s steering committee. On its website, the Syria Solidarity Movement declares it “imperative” that “the Mussalaha reconciliation initiative be recognised, nurtured and supported by all who believe in peace through dialogue.”

Volunteer Marek 16:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not strongly tied to the phrasing that I had inserted; my intent of rephrasing that sentence was to eliminate the SYNTH issues (see discussion above) but to keep the information of the organization's alignment in the lead. If I'm the current phrasing does not adequately represent the organization's (geo)political alignment, I'm all ears for how to phrase it better. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I still don't understand the insistence of why the award even belongs in the lede. So he has won an award. So what? I noted before that the lede is not supposed to be a summary of the article (and was lambasted for it), but it really isn't. The lede is supposed to be the primary items about the articles which make the subject notable. The Serena Shim award isn't even notable enough to have its own article or sub in Wikipedia. Is the subject of Aaron Mate notable because he was awarded an award which no one has heard of? Poyani (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

If someone "wins an award" from a fascist-linked organization, yeah, that's notable. Volunteer Marek 16:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

VM, I am not saying it isn't notable. I don't disagree with including it. I am saying it is not what makes Aaron Mate notable. The lede establishes the notability of the subject. Notable information about the subject goes in the body. The information that makes the subject notable goes in the lede. Poyani (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

How the organization is described is incidental to this article. He won an award, and the organization is only noteworthy insofar as it gave the award. I.e. what matters is: "what does it mean for Maté to have received this award? What does it say about him? What does it 'prove' he is?"

Does it prove 'he is rabidly anti-semitic and fascistic? No. According to Bellingcat, the award exists to reward people who promote for-Bashar Al-Assad narratives

Even the current wording is unusable, since Bellingcat is considered reliable but a primary source; past consensus at WP:RSN explicitly says we must use attribution for Bellingcat. So a compliant phrasing would be:

The Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees awarded Maté and The Grayzone its Serena Shim Award. According to Bellingcat, the award has been given to "pro-Assad media".

Which would still be unacceptable, because it would be WP:SYNTHESIS, as Bellingcat never mention Maté. They only say that it has been given to other people, who Bellingcat call pro-Assad; if we want to say that the award makes Maté pro-Assad, we need a source linking the two; no WP:OR.

And then, there'd be a question of whether the second sentence is due. Currently, no, it can't be, as it's a primary source. Primary sources are not due on their own, unless their claims are also covered by secondary sources, in which case the primary source should only be used to "augment" the secondary source. I'd appreciate if you could find those secondary sources. DFlhb (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Nice explanation, especially regarding the subject of synthesis. Burrobert (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Where does the RSP listing say that Bellingcat is a primary source? I'm a bit confused by your linking. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

RSP simply states attribution should be used. Three reasons why I consider them primary:

• they're tiny and hugely underfunded, which can impact editorial robustness (they had only 9 full-time employees in 2018, don't know the number now); and many of their investigations are done by volunteers. They're a minuscule outfit, not an institution like most NEWSORGs.
• while credible, their specialty (OSINT) has many orders of magnitude more room for error than traditional journalism; they analyze Twitter videos uploaded from potato-phones to analyze the angle of the sun; or pass judgment on conflicting Twitter video testimonies by local residents, or analyze a grainy picture to learn more about the debris. Their experts are competent, and their analysis is a secondary source; but the conclusion they draw should be primary, due to the relatively-high room for error.
• while they have high ethical standards for funding, they're still funded by people who are involved in the wars they cover. Funding is influence, always; no matter how well-jeaning the journalists are. It's quite clear, if you're familiar with their stories, that they criticize the Russian government far more than they do Western governments (a similar argument to ones used by Western media against WikiLeaks).

Here's a leap in logic by Bellingcat that was unfavorable to Russia, and was contested by another expert, who called their methodology "subjective", "not based entirely on science", and "not very robust". They used a free public site, FotoForensic.com, rather than hiring any actual image forensics experts. That one report is honestly pretty shockingly incompetent; the expert contacted by SPIEGEL calls it "a method used by hobbyists" and I'd agree (but that's 90% of random OSINT Twitter accounts for you). Critically, the report was written by Eliot Higgins, Bellingcat's founder.

To say they're secondary is to say we could just cite their articles, even when not a single other WP:RS has covered or corroborated it. That seems wrong to me. So use only when there's secondary RS, and with attribution. DFlhb (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Afaict RSN does not say that neither does it say it’s a primary source. Your own personal issues with Bellingcat are beside the point. Last two discussions regarding Bellingcat simply say it’s reliable. Volunteer Marek 02:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

These are, of course, not personal issues, though others can certainly disagree with my arguments. And you can see should preferably be used with attribution right here at WP:RSP. DFlhb (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Based on the last two discussions the “with attribution” part in that list is problematic as that generally doesn’t show up in those two discussions. Volunteer Marek 17:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

As I noted in a section above, Bellingcat is a poor source for the Shim award here as it does not mention the subject of this article so it is at least edging into SYNTH territory to use it here. However, I disagree with the idea it is a primary source, and it looks, DFlhb, like you might be misunderstanding what WP:PRIMARY means here - see WP:PST for more. If the fact is Mate getting the Serena Shim Award, a primary source would be a AIPAC's own site or press release; Bellingcat's reporting on this is a secondary source. I'm also surprised to read the Bellingcat RSP entry as I'm not sure with attribution was the consensus in the RSN discussion, but it's no big deal to attribute here. However, as I noted above, we have a New Lines as a good secondary source for Mate winning the award. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe primary vs secondary wasn't the right framing for this. It's described as citizen journalism in peer-reviewed papers (for example Cooper & Mutsvairo 2022), and self-describes as such on its site. I'd hesitate to use them for contentious labels in a BLP, while I have no issues with them being used for facts about events (with attribution per WP:RSP). DFlhb (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Using the "conspiracy theorist" description

@Gdeblois19: has twice added this description to the article and I have twice reverted. I can find no usable source directly describing Aaron Maté as a "conspiracy theorist"; the absence should close this issue for now. Philip Cross (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

We would indeed need RS to state it. Another way to put it is that he's a denialist of proven facts (shown by his use of the "Russiagate" term used by Trumpist conspiracy theorists), which places him in the unsavory company of Trumpist conspiracy theorists who deny that Trump and his campaign colluded/cooperated in any way with the Russian interference. The Mueller report provides abundant evidence that they actually did invite, welcome, aid, and cooperate (that constellation of terms describes active and passive collusion) with Russian efforts. They even hid and lied about all these actions, never reporting it to the FBI, as they should have done. It was only "conspiracy" and "coordination" that Mueller failed to prove. -- Valjean (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Use of the "Russiagate" term does not imply conspiracy or denial of proven facts, it merely shows skepticism. Please provide a concrete example of Maté lying or denying facts instead of asserting that your opinion about the term "Russiagate" implies lies or conspiracy. Ekcrisp (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is the threshold for foreign "interference"? Aaron Maté does acknowledge that there was interference from Russia in the 2016 election (in the form of Facebook ads etc. as noted further down in the article) he just maintains that it is irrelevant and pales in comparison to US interference in other nations' affairs. We all know the United States is one of the worst countries for foreign interference (in the form of violent coups, terrorism and military invasions, not Facebook ads). Something that Aaron Maté and the Greyzone have done their best to cover. Do other journalists get the same treatment when they deny or fail to cover this? Also Aaron Maté's father Dr Gabor Maté shares this view of "RussiaGate": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR07OtEhKPE Shouldn't he also be described as a "Pro-Putin propagandist" in the first line of his biography? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabor_Mat%C3%A9 146.90.194.17 (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I would add the term "Russiagate" is also used by leftists who allege a connection between trump and russia and is not merely used by people who dismiss that connection. Trump-russia allegations are also not a monolith, many are false, exaggerated or simply uncorrooborated, being skeptical of various trump-russia connections isn't a fringe or unreasonable position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.228.85 (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

He is described as a conspiracy theorist by Guardian due to his false claims alleging that Syrian government has not used chemical weapons. --2A00:1028:83B6:435A:7D56:2589:D3F2:D1D0 (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The Syrian Government's alleged use of chemical weapons is, at minimum, contested––therefore skepticism cannot be labeled "false claims". I'll link the guardian on the subject, since it's currently also used as a source on WP claiming Maté is a "conspiracy theorist", but there are countless other sources that indicate doubt that the commonplace accepted narrative is accurate. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/25/chemical-weapons-watchdog-opcw-defends-syria-report-after-leaks 72.69.199.127 (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The conspiracy theorist descriptor should definitely be removed. It is cited to a Guardian article where there are only 30 words discussing the subject in one sentence. There is a 169 word post-publication correction which states that the descriptor is disputed. Poyani (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think Volunteer Marek has an objection on the basis that he doesn't think the fact that the Guardian issued the post-publication corrections/updates is relevant. However, the RS has issued the post-publication corrections/updates, and the editors opinions of the validity of the content noted by RS is irrelevant. Are we all on agreement that the descriptor should be deleted based on the info provided above? Please also note that the descriptor could be viewed as defamatory so having a single source for it is already problematic and grounds for deletion. But the fact that this single source itself has muddied the water about the descriptor makes this removal a no-brainer IMHO. Poyani (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Currently, the only use of the key source - the Guardian - in our article is to source the fact that Mate is a "journalist". The actual text about him from the source is [2]: Since 2020, journalist Aaron Maté at the Grayzone is said by the report to have overtaken Beeley as the most prolific spreader of disinformation among the 28 conspiracy theorists identified.

The entire source is about "Network of Syria conspiracy theorists". Plucking out the innocuous descriptor "journalist" out of a source whose whole point is something else essentially amounts to misrepresenting the source. The info from this source needs to go back in.

As for the claim that the Guardian "issued a correction", that too is false. There is no correction. What happened is that Mate contacted the Guardian after publication and the Guardian makes a note of it. It presents his claims in one bullet point. Hillariously, right after the bullet point they include a quick "Editor's note" which shows why his claims are bunk. That's not a "correction". That's a "yeah, he contacted us, yeah he's still full of it" footnote. Volunteer Marek 16:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The Grauniad article appears to be the only RS that mentions the document. Townsend does not say that Mate is a conspiracy theorist in authorial voice.

The document itself does not refer to the article subject as a conspiracy theorist. Townsend evidently copied and pasted sections of his article from the document, adding or changing some words. E.g. "the Syria Campaign" states:

Since 2020, Aaron Maté at the Grayzone has overtaken Beeley as the most prolific spreader of disinformation among the 28 actors we investigated. [emphasis added to show changes]

Townsend:

Since 2020, journalist Aaron Maté at the Grayzone is said by the report to have overtaken Beeley as the most prolific spreader of disinformation among the 28 conspiracy theorists identified.

The document refers to a "small group of conspiracy theorists" in its introduction. In its section on methodology its authors say they "identified 28 individuals, outlets and organisations who have spread disinformation about the Syrian conflict." They fail to list these 28; in the sentence quoted above they indicate that Mate is one of them. This is already discussed in the article.

The methodology for the document is described on the second page, and at the website of the organisation that helped produce it. They give no explanation of their methodology for identifying individuals. They simply say they "identified 28 individuals, outlets and organisations who have spread disinformation". There is no attempt to give the criteria or rationale for this "identification".

The document, amazingly for a publication that clearly aims to give the appearance of professionalism, fails to list a lead author or publisher. A little digging indicates the publisher is "The Voices Project", a private company established in Cambridgeshire and now registered in Kent. Almost nothing can be found about them online. There is no indication of their fact-checking or other editorial process.

As the document does not refer to article subject as a "conspiracy theorist", and the single reference to the article subject in the Grauniad article refers only to what "is said by the report" about him, it does not support a statement in Wikivoice.

Quite apart from that, a clearly derogatory claim about a living person requires far more rigorous and widespread sourcing than a single mention, which does not make the specific claim, in a document written by a charity, published by a campaign group, and mentioned only by a single news organisation. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree 100%. There is nowhere near the weight and sourcing strength to refer to Mate as a conspiracy theorist in Wikivoice. This would require many more mentions by reliable sources. Using 1 reliable source that doesn't even describe him as a conspiracy theorist in it's own voicing is clearly not sufficient - "is said by the report" is way too passive. Given BLP, I'm surprised to see experienced editors pushing this. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This is textbook original research. You have criticisms of a source? Great, have it published somewhere and then they’ll become relevant. Until that happens though, dismissing a source because you personally don’t like it’s methodology is a violation of policy. Volunteer Marek 17:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Back in reality, 1: It's not original research, it's a close reading of the source. 2: no-one has dismissed a source because they personally don't like it's [sic] methodology. 3: were someone to do that, which they haven't, that would not be a violation of policy. If it comes up in the future it might be worth discussing, but as it's a groundless claim without merit, we'll not waste our time. 4: pretending that someone has done something they haven't is a violation of policy. 5: Normally I would not wikilink to a core policy with an experienced editor but given your apparent lack of familiarity with its content I'll make an exception. The policy about original research, as noted in its opening paragraphs, does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it’s about as original research as you can get. “They give no explanation of their methodology for identifying individuals” is YOU trying to find fault with how a reliable source conducts its business. Like I said, get that published, then we’ll talk. You can try to use false euphemisms like “close reading of a source” to try and obfuscate what you’re doing but… it’s still original research. 2) You are in fact dismissing a source because you don’t like it’s methodology so I’m not even clear why you are trying to deny it here. And yes. Substituting your own original research and source critiques is indeed a violation of WP:NOR policy, your passive aggressive condescensions and attempts at deflection notwithstanding. (sic) Volunteer Marek 04:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh I remember you now [3]. Same shenanigans four years ago. Volunteer Marek 04:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I remember you too now. The *claims there's nothing in the body about this*; *quickly deletes what's in the body about this* guy.

It's not original research. It's normal practice to examine the editorial practices of the publisher of a source. We do this with all kinds of other sources, including news organisations. Why you're so desperate to try to frame it as OR is beyond me: this is the talk page where we evaluate sources, and NOR does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. Talk about deflection.

The source does not state what you want it to support. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I’m not sure why you think that deleting misrepresentation of sources is a bad thing or what Cuba has to do with this topic.

And no. This is textbook original research, just like you were doing on Syria related articles. We do NOT “examine” (I.e. pretend there’s some legit reason when it’s really just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT) the methodology of reliable sources like The Guardian once it’s been established they’re reliable. Original research can be putting in your own text that’s not based on sources, but it can also be removing text because you reject clearly reliable mainstream sources based on your own “research”, while at the same time trying to cram fringy-cringy stuff into an article.

The reliable secondary source here is The Guardian. The primary sources that the Guardian uses is the report. That’s their business. And then you come in here and say ‘I don’t like the methodology the report uses’. Not. Your. Job. When you have the status of The Guardian then maybe your objections to the methodology of the primary source that the reliable secondary source uses will be relevant. Until then it’s original research. Volunteer Marek 14:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think deleting misrepresentation of sources is a bad thing, but that's not what you were doing in the diff I posted, and deleting misrepresentation of sources is exactly what I did here and exactly what you're arguing against. This is "textbook" original research on your part, because the source used does not explicitly state what you want to add. You can engage in your original research here on talk if you like, although I doubt editors will pay it much attention. You don't get to add it to the article.

I've done no original research on Syria related articles. I've not said ‘I don’t like the methodology the report uses’ nor any synonymous phrase. Do not make things up and claim them without even an attempt at evidence.

Do not speculate on my motives. You accuse and complain about other editors ostensibly doing this; then you explicitly do the exact thing you complain about. Not appropriate behaviour.

You're right that the secondary source is the Guardian. As I note in the second sentence of my OP, it does not state what you want it to support. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Discuss. Burrobert (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Burrobert (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss what? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a tag. Burrobert (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see. This sentence? Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote that the US had “tentatively been opening the door to negotiations” with Russia during its 2022 invasion of Ukraine and Maté has “carefully detailed” the way in which the Biden administration "had orchestrated leaks to the media" Seems like a pretty trivial passing mention to me. What does it add? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Plus the first half of the sentence is not about the subject of the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The two parts of the sentence are related. This was clearer in an earlier version of this information:

Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote that Maté had "carefully detailed" the way in which the Biden administration "had orchestrated leaks to the media" in order to open the door to negotiations with Russia during its 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

For some reason, one of our editors tagged this as not being in the source and it was later removed.

Yes, this comes from a passing mention in the article referenced and the Ukraine situation is not the topic of this article. We have included other passing mentions in Aaron's bio. We have also included information about other subjects:

Our mention of the Serena Shim award relies on a Bellingcat article which does not mention Aaron and a NewLines article which only mentions Aaron in passing. (al-bab is Whitakers' blog, so should not be used here).

We mention that Aaron observed the 2021 Syrian presidential election, using Whitaker's blog as a source. We then use the Bellcat article, which does not mention Aaron, to characterise the Syria Solidarity Movement.

Regarding Amnesty's decision on Navalny, we use a BBC article, which does not mention Aaron, to say "Amnesty reversed its decision in May".

Burrobert (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The SS award cites NewLines. I removed the second cit to Davis as not mentioning AM. Removed the BBC update on Navalny. Don’t see the problem with the election thing. On the topic under discussion in this section, the previous version of The Nation quote was misleading because of the confusing way KvdH writes. The relationship between the leaks and negotiations is murky. I don’t see what is added here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources we use for the Serena Shim award are:

A NewLines article which only mentions Aaron in passing - “… … plus three of The Grayzone’s staff — Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton and Aaron Maté”,

Whitaker’s blog, and

A primary source.

From these three sources we give two characterisations of the award, neither of which is about the subject of this article. In the lead we say,

“The Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees, an organization supportive of Bashar al-Assad …”

In the body we say:

“ … Serena Shim Award, a cash prize administered by Paul Larudee and frequently given to supporters of the Syrian government, and individuals who promote conspiracy theories in support of Syria's president Assad”.

Regarding the Syrian election, and in particular the use of a Bellcat article, which does not mention Aaron, to characterise the Syria Solidarity Movement, this seems to fit into your earlier objection that “the sentence is not about the subject of the article”. It is also synthesis.

Regarding the sentence in dispute, here is the relevant part of the Nation article:

Despite public disavowals, the White House has tentatively been opening the door to negotiations. As journalist Aaron Maté has carefully detailed, the administration has orchestrated a number of leaks: that discussions with the Russians about the use of nuclear weapons had “lowered the temperature,” that the White House was encouraging Ukrainian leaders to “signal an openness” to negotiations, that Sullivan had engaged in confidential discussion with Putin’s aides about Ukraine, and that he had been “testing the waters” while in Kyiv on “how the conflict can end and whether it could have a diplomatic solution.”

There may be a better way of transcribing this information, but it does contain information about Aaron’s current work, which is pertinent to his bio. We don’t need to include commentary about the US government’s actions unless it is relates to Aaron’s work.

Burrobert (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Serena Shim: a primary source plus two perfectly good secondary sources seems fine to me. Is your issue that it's not due in the lead? The lead description closely follows the strongest source, cited there. The body description includes nothing that isn't in the cited sources, but the mention of Larudee is probably unnecessary.

Election: I agree the second sentence might be synthesis as the link to SSNP is not made in the source cited in the first sentence.

The Nation: The motivation for the White House action is KvdH's speculation as far as I can see. What is potentially relevant is that Mate has been reporting on (or alleging?) White House leaks, but this is a very vague factoid.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

- The al-bab reference is unsuitable for a BLP and should be removed as it is Brian Whitaker's self-published blog. "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer".

- The characterisations of the AIPAC and the SS award are therefore based on an article by Brian Whitaker in NewLines. The article only mentions Aaron in the sentence "Besides Mint Press, websites listed among the award winners included ... three of The Grayzone’s staff — Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton and Aaron Maté". This is as much of a passing mention of Aaron as appears in the Nation article. Two points arise. Firstly, why is one more "due" than the other? Secondly, our reference to the Nation article uses appropriate attribution. Why haven't we attributed the characterisation of the SS award and AIPAC to Brian Whitaker?

- The part about the connection between the leaks and US motives can be removed if you like. Aaron's SubStack article, which is linked in the Nation article, says that the leaks "signaled that US officials were creating space for additional talks". The Nation article does not specifically state that Aaron had made that observation though. Perhaps something like "Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote that Maté has “carefully detailed” the way in which the Biden administration had orchestrated leaks to the media during Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine". It is not as spectacular as receiving an award that is "frequently given to ... individuals who promote conspiracy theories in support of Syria's president Assad". (The source says " Some [of the awardees] were advocates for conspiracy theories, while numerous others were prominent defenders of the Assad regime ".) However, it may,nevertheless, be of interest to readers of Aaron's bio.

- In summary, there are many things wrong with the current bio, much of which has been raised in previous sections. The issue for the moment can be reduced to a question of whether we apply consistent criteria to the various sources. Burrobert (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

A bitter diatribe against the Grayzone

The following diatribe appears in the lead of Aaron's bio:

"Maté works as a reporter for The Grayzone, a fringe far-left news website and blog known for apologetic coverage of the Russian, Syrian, and Chinese governments, among other authoritarian regimes, as well as denial of the Uyghur Genocide and other atrocities committed by these regimes".

It sounds like something written by Western intelligence. Some comments:

• Three sources are used to support this sentence, two of which don't mention Aaron.
• The JC is the only source which mentions Aaron. The article is mainly about Aaron's support for Jeremy Corbyn against accusations of anti-Semitism. For some reason, none of this has so far made it into Aaron's bio. It is an interesting article because it provides space for Aaron to analyse accusations that someone is anti-Semitic or a conspiracy theorist. Aaron says the terms are used as a tactic to delegitimise someone whose actual arguments cannot be countered directly. He was talking about Corbyn but does say the following, which we should add to his bio:

"[T]hese sort of insults don’t land with me. I can see through them. I’ve seen them my entire life with people trying to silence criticism of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. ... I’m not afraid to be called a ‘self-hating Jew’ or a ‘conspiracy theorist’ or a ‘Russian asset’, which is what I got all the time during Russia-Gate".

• The terms "apologetic", "atrocities" and "regimes" (instead of governments) are quite pointy.

Burrobert (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Burrobert, are you seriously defending Aaron? The description of Grazone is accurate and based on RS. That's not a "diatribe". Aaron is aligned with Grayzone and is indeed a "prolific spreader of disinformation". That's what RS say about him, and this includes his revisionistic writings about "Russiagate". Grayzone, like Aaron, is indeed "fringe far-left". If you want to dispute what RS say, then you're in the wrong place, because advocacy of fringe opinions is forbidden here. You can get blocked for it. Go to Conservapedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Aaron doesn't need to be defended by me or anyone else. He is an expert debater. But anyway, let's leave our personal feelings out of the discussion. Some thoughts:

• We can't say that "Aaron is indeed a prolific spreader of disinformation"". We can say that "the Institute for Strategic Dialogue stated that, among the 28 social media accounts, individuals, outlets and organisations which it studied, Maté was the most prolific spreader of disinformation on topics related to the war", which is what the reliable source says.
• We can't say that "Aaron, is indeed "fringe far-left"", since, as far as I can see, no sources have been provided which say that.
• We can't say that Aaron's writings about Russiagate are "revisionist", since, as far as I can see, no sources have been provided which say that.
• We should avoid using labels such as "apologetic", "atrocities" and "regimes" in the way they are used in this bio. The guide on this is at WP:contentious.

Burrobert (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the "expert debater" claim? I can't find anything on google Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Haha. It's irrelevant to this discussion. Burrobert (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Its clearly relevant or you wouldn't have made the BLP claim... Now either provide a source or remove it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

What is funny is that you didn't ask "Do you have a source for the "Aaron is fringe-far left" claim? I can't find anything on google". You didn't ask "Do you have a source for the "Aaron is backing Russia's invasion of Ukraine" claim? I can't find anything on google". Burrobert (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The claim in the article is that The Grayzone is fringe-far left. In referring to the living person on the talk page they makes clear that they are using fringe in the wikipedia sense of fringe opinions so it appears kosher. You're going too far with this, you've blown right past needed improvements to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't understand a word of that explanation.

The statements on the talk page, which you seem to have ignored, were:

• "Grayzone, like Aaron, is indeed "fringe far-left" ".
• "The consequences of his support of authoritarian regimes and their atrocities, such as backing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, are sad".

I actually would not have mentioned those claims as long as no one tried to shoehorn them into Aaron's bio, but you started hyperventilating about the fairly innocuous statement that Aaron is an expert debater.

Burrobert (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think those who disagree with Burrobert need to show that a preponderance of reliable sources say Mate is fringe/far-left and that that a preponderance of reliable sources describe Grayzone as such and mention him. Otherwise, we can spell this stuff out in the body but should not use the lead in this way. (I personally agree with the wording Burrobert objects to, but we can't use that language in the lead without strong RS support.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Bob. There is a lot of opinion being thrown around without supporting sources. It is perfectly fine for editors to form their own opinions about someone and maybe even air those opinions on talk, but a BLP requires proper sourcing. You also make a good point that we should work out the body first, after which we can work out a suitable summary for the lead. Some of the material which is being suggested for the lead has not been mentioned in the body. Burrobert (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking the far left part, the only thing I could immediately find was Representatives from a far-left news website who were disinvited from speaking at Web Summit following allegations that their outlet published Russian propaganda attended a dinner hosted by Paddy Cosgrave, the event’s CEO. Max Blumenthal, The Grayzone’s editor, and journalist Aaron Mate were both in attendance at a dinner held in Lisbon on Wednesday which Cosgrave and others attended. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

There are many sources which characterise the Grayzone as far-left and this has already been included in Aaron's bio. I have not seen any sources which characterise Aaron himself as far-left. We could waste a few hours speculating about why that is the case. Aaron does not inherit the characterisations of the organisation for which he works. Burrobert (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Burrobert. The second paragraph is unnecessary. I would propose a very pared down version: "Maté works as a reporter for The Grayzone. In addition, he has also contributed to The Nation, and appeared several times on Fox News on Tucker Carlson Tonight." For the first para I'd cite JC and not Politico or SCMP (which don't mention him) and for the second I'd cite NYmag (as the reliable secondary source) and not Fox or Real Clear (unreliable primaries). As well as NYmag, possibly could add yellow-rated Mediaite.[4] BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

(I'm not making these changes at present, because it looks like the consensus is in the other direction, but might take it to the BLP noticeboard to get more eyes.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable approach. There was a prior discussion about the lack of balance in the article at [5]. I will collect relevant points from that discussion, add new issues and repost an update. It may help focus the attention of editors coming over from the BLP noticeboard, or who are new to the page. Burrobert (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I would drop "several times" as overly vague but thats a good suggestion, would avoid Mediaite. One thing we do need to do is include the NYmag source in the body, right now we don't mention the appearances on the program or that Carlson promotes white nationalism on his program which was the key point the author was making, we can't pull one but and not the other per WP:DUE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

References

NPOV concerns about promotion of fringe POV

We really have big NPOV problems with this article. We must ensure that Aaron's fringe and counterfactual views are never stated and then just left there without presenting the facts. Failure to do so violates the balance and due weight requirements of NPOV and, by repeating falsehoods, promotes fringe views. Mainstream facts must always accompany false and fringe claims like those made by Aaron. Our readers should never be left with only false claims. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

His denial of Russian hacking of DNC

BobFromBrockley, I have used the Mediaite source, as well as Fox News, to help document his denial. For this type of use, we are allowed to use such less-than-ideal sources. I have also provided factual information about the hackings, based on the sources we use in the Democratic National Committee cyber attacks article. Mainstream facts must always accompany false and fringe claims like those made by Aaron. Our readers should never be left with only false claims. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You have not linked to any policies or established that the phrase "false and fringe claims" is appropriate. Burrobert (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Those words are on this talk page, and not used in the article for this content. His claims are obviously false and fringe, so feel free to chew on that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Claim that Aaron promoted conspiracy theories

The body of the article only mentions one accusation that Aaron promoted conspiracy theories. That accusation was from a report by the ISD, and only said that “Maté was named as the most prolific spreader of disinformation about the Syrian conflict since 2020 among the 28 conspiracy theorists analysed”. That statement is already mentioned in the lead. The following statement is (A) unsupported by the reference provided and (B) not mentioned in the body of the article: “Maté is also known for promoting conspiracy theories about the 7 April 2018 Douma chemical attacks, … and has been falsely accused by the United Nations and the United States”.

This is a BLP so unsupported claims of this nature need to be removed. In addition, when an editor objects to an addition, it is up to the editor who added the text to seek consensus of the talk page rather that re-add the disputed text. The process is called WP:BRD.

Some questions for editors who think this text is suitable for the lead:

• On what reference is the text based?
• Why is this not mentioned in the body of the article?
• Why is the phrase "Maté is also known for ... " used? There is a difference between being "known" for something and being "accused" of something. The ISD report justifies the phrase "Maté was accused by the ISD of ...". It does not justify the phrase "Maté is also known for ... ".

Burrobert (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

On the third of your questions, I totally agree we should remove the "known for" phrasing. There are a few other such issues in the lead. Would anyone object to:

• changing "The Grayzone, a fringe far-left news website and blog known for apologetic coverage of the Russian" to "The Grayzone, a fringe far-left news website and blog that has published apologetic coverage of the Russian"
• changing "He became well known for challenging the conclusions of" to "He challenged the conclusions of"
• and changing "Maté is also known for promoting conspiracy theories" to "Maté promotes conspiracy theories"?

This would not address Burrobert's other concerns, but I think it's an improvement over the status quo. Our readers know that lead sections include things the subject is known for. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned the long sentence about the Grayzone in a separate section below to avoid distractions. In regards to Aaron and conspiracy theories, my short answer is that the accusation needs to be attributed to the ISD since no other accusation of that type is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Burrobert (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, I like your proposed changes. I am also concerned that much of what's written in the Douma section just regurgitates what Aaron has said and his positions without clearly stating they are false or fringe. That's not right. Fringe content should be identified as fringe. The content in the lead about Douma is based on the body, but it's just not written clearly enough there, unlike how it's written in the lead. Aaron is indeed the "most prolific spreader of disinformation" on matters concerning Syria. The consequences of his support of authoritarian regimes and their atrocities, such as backing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, are sad. We need to report accurately about Aaron. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's leave our personal feelings out of the discussion and concentrate on what sources say about Aaron. Some thoughts:

• This is Aaron's bio so it is perfectly reasonable to include what he has said about Douma and other topics. We can also include responses to his views. We can't say that his views are "false or fringe" without adequate reliable sourcing. There is a fringe theory noticeboard which may be able to provide guidance about whether Aaron's views would come under "fringe". The current version of Aaron's bio mentions that he wrote about the claims of an OPCW cover-up, but it does not say what Aaron's thinks happened in Douma and which side he thinks was responsible for any damage.
• We can't say that "Aaron is indeed a prolific spreader of disinformation on matters concerning Syria". We can say that "the Institute for Strategic Dialogue stated that, among the 28 social media accounts, individuals, outlets and organisations which it studied, Maté was the most prolific spreader of disinformation on topics related to the war", which is what the reliable source says.
• We can't say that "Aaron, is indeed "fringe far-left"", since, as far as I can see, no sources have been provided which say that.
• We can't say that Aaron is "backing Russia's invasion of Ukraine" since, as far as I can see, no reliable sources have been provided which state that. We do cover Aaron's view on the nature of the Ukraine government in 2014 and the role of the US in the war. If there are any responses to those views in reliable sources, then we can include those in Aaron's bio.

Burrobert (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

As a frequent contributor to the fringe noticeboard I can assure you it applies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Is that a "Trust me bro"? Burrobert (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories come under fringe. You don't have to trust me, but I'm right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I have removed statements in the lead which said

"Maté promotes conspiracy theories about the 7 April 2018 Douma chemical attacks, in which the Syrian government carried out chemical weapons attacks against civilians in the city of Douma. Maté specifically attempts to cast doubt on the Syrian government's responsibility for the attacks.

The only link between Douma and Aaron in the source provided is in Aaron's response. Aaron says the ISD report "faulted him for arguing that the OPCW “investigation into the Douma chemical attack was flawed” ". The source does not say anything about Aaron's views on who, if anyone, was responsible for what happened in Douma. Burrobert (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

After a recent reversion, the lead now states that "Maté promotes conspiracy theories about the 7 April 2018 Douma chemical attacks" and "Maté specifically attempts to cast doubt on the Syrian government's responsibility for the attacks".

• The source provided supports neither statement
• Neither statement is mentioned in the article body.
• The reversion which led to this situation was the second revert done by the same editor within a 24 hour period. This page is under under a WP:1RR restriction which limits each editor to one revert per 24 hour period.

Burrobert (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this level of detail should be in the lead. One sentence is enough. The most neutral would be something like "Maté has written extensively about the 7 April 2018 Douma chemical attacks". A slightly more editorialised version, grounded in the RSs in the body, would add something like "; he has been accused of promoting disinformation about these attacks". More than this is unnecessary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"Promotes conspiracy theories" is garbage. It should say "promotes accusations raised by whistleblowers who worked for OPCW". Danell1s (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Strong allegations like that need at the minimum be strongly sourced and attributed. Instead, someone apparently freely paraphrased, and twisted the quoted article, into an introductory paragraph to smear Maté. IMHO this is a clear violation of WP:BLP and I will remove it. -- Seelefant (talk)

Airing of grievances

I’ve got a lot of problems with you people and now you’re going to hear about it.

Here is a list issues indicating that the current version of Aaron’s bio lacks balance.

• The Grayzone is described as a "news website and blog" on its own page based on numerous sources which use that description. Any attempt to describe the Grayzone as a "news website and blog" on this page is met with reversion. For some reason, editors are determined to keep "news website" out of the description.

• There is a problem with the convoluted sentence “Maté and The Grayzone, for which he reports, have been recipients of the Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees's Serena Shim Award, a cash prize administered by Paul Larudee and frequently given to supporters of the Syrian government, and individuals who promote conspiracy theories in support of Syria's president Assad”. We use three sources. The award site, a blog by Brian Whitaker which needs to be removed from this BLP, and a NewLines article, also by Brian Whitaker. The latter article only mentions Aaron in the sentence "Individual recipients included Caitlin Johnstone, ... plus three of The Grayzone’s staff — Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton and Aaron Maté". It does say "Some [of the awardees] were advocates for conspiracy theories, while numerous others were prominent defenders of the Assad regime". With a touch of synthesis, this might justify something like “Maté and The Grayzone, for which he reports, have been recipients of the Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees's Serena Shim Award. According to Brian Whitaker writing in NewLines magazine, some of the previous winners of the award have advocated conspiracy theories and many have supported the Syrian government". The current version is not a faithful summary of the only usable source.

• The lead contains these sentences: "Maté promotes conspiracy theories about the 7 April 2018 Douma chemical attacks, in which the Syrian government carried out chemical weapons attacks against civilians in the city of Douma. Maté specifically attempts to cast doubt on the Syrian government's responsibility for the attacks".

-- This is not mentioned in any of the sources used. The sources do not mention any theories put forward by Aaron about Douma. The sources do not provide Aaron’s view on who, if anyone, was responsible for what happened in Douma. Aaron’s reporting was about the OPCW whistleblowers.

-- This is not mentioned in the body.

• I have mentioned the following sentence a number of times and so far no one has been able to explain what it means: "According to the Washington Monthly Brennan (and Maté) had been open in a Congressional hearing in May 2017, which the Senate Intelligence Committee shared".

• We include the following sentence as a commentary on Aaron’s reporting on the hacking of the DNC server: "The U.S. Intelligence Community provided abundant evidence that the Russian hacking groups Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear were behind the Democratic National Committee cyber attacks". None of the sources provided mention Aaron or his reporting.

• We include the following sentence as a commentary on Aaron’s trip to Syria with the Syria Solidarity Movement: "Bellingcat wrote that the Syria Solidarity Movement supports the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), which it described as "a rabidly anti-Semitic, fascist organization that advocates for a "Greater Syria," incorporating Lebanon and Palestine". The Bellingcat source does not mention Aaron and, afaik, Aaron is not a member of the SSM.

Burrobert (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that calling the Grayzone a news website should not be contentious. Also specifically with regards to the conspiracy theory claim for Mate's OPCW/Douma coverage, as it is currently written it is not representative of what reliable sources say. Only two referenced sources are on Wikipedia's reliable sources list. One is an article in the guardian which mentions the Institute for Strategic dialog study which concluded Mate was the most prolific spreader of disinformation about the Syrian war since 2020, this fact is accurately presented in Mate's wiki, however it is a general claim and does not make any specific accusations about Mate's reporting on Douma. The far more detailed reliable source is the article from Bellingcat, which cites its own investigation to conclude that claims made by Mate were "misleading". The NPOV would be to summarize what is in the Bellingcat article which details who was behind the leaked documents, what they contained, and how forensic analysis done after the leaks concluded chemical weapons were used. Instead of saying Mate's reporting was an outright "conspiracy", we should say something like "According to Bellingcat, Mate's claims about a cover-up were misleading since they omitted a document about forensic analysis done after the leaks which concluded chlorine gas was used by the Syrian Government."

It is crucial to note, Mate has never denied or made any claim about whether the Syrian Government used chemical weapons in Douma. The scope of his reporting was only what took place within the OPCW, the allegations of misconduct and suppression of evidence made by former OPCW inspectors.

The sources al-bab.com and newlinesmag.com are not reliable and information sourced from them should be removed.

Also @Burrobert, please be civil and avoid personal attacks like "you people" :) Ekcrisp (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I broadly agree with most of Burrobert's points here. We need to stick to RSs. It's not, re Ekcrisp, the case that Mate has never denied that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in Douma; he regularly says in his vlogging and tweeting that the attack (and others) was "staged". But the issue is that RSs have not reported on his position, so all we can go on is what they say.

I believe we have discussed al-bab and newlines more than once, both here and at RSN, and every time reached a conclusion that they are reliable. In my view, Newlines is an excellent source with an extremely strong editorial and contributing team, including Whitaker, whose expertise (reflected in books and a long reporting career) makes his own site reliable. There is also a strong consensus for Bellingcat's reliability, so there is no need to attribute their version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"I’ve got a lot of problems with you people and now you’re going to hear about it." is a famous quote from the TV show Seinfeld (see as well Festivus), I really doubt it was meant as a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Burrobert, you wrote: "None of the sources provided mention Aaron or his reporting." The sources comment on the topic of Russian involvement in the hacking of the DNC, which he denies. (I noticed someone removed some of it from the article.) We must ensure that Aaron's fringe and counterfactual views are never stated and then just left there without presenting the facts. Failure to do so violates the balance and due weight requirements of NPOV and how we apply that to fringe claims, because repeating his falsehoods, promotes fringe views. The facts have more due weight than his false views. Mainstream facts must always accompany false and fringe claims like those made by Aaron. Our readers should never be left with only false claims. This is a mainstream encyclopedia, not Conservapedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the right word for "mainstream facts" is just "facts". I'm totally sympathetic to what you're saying, but isn't it WP:SYNTHESIS to say x is wrong if the RSs don't say x is wrong? The content needs to link to the relevant WP article - in this case Democratic National Committee cyber attacks - where the facts are presented. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hold on, actually Mediaite does say the claim is incorrect. It says "President Donald Trump repeated a similar unfounded theory" and then later: "After numerous investigations into the 2016 election interference, U.S. intelligence agencies reported with “high confidence” that Russia was the culprit in the DNC cyberattacks. Just a few weeks prior to the 2016 election, Homeland Security and the DNI stated that it is the view of U.S. authorities that Russia carried out the hack to “interfere with the U.S. election process,” while cybersecurity firms CrowdStrike, Mandiant, and Fidelis, who were all contracted out to investigate forensic evidence connected to the hack, stated that two Russian intel services were involved in the DNC hacking debacle. In December 2016, the CIA informed members of Congress that intelligence officials had gathered evidence proving Russia’s complicity." So can we just delete "Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear" and replace the two current cits with Mediaite again? Or is it not a strong enough source? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Excuse my inattention here, but are we still talking about Aaron's denial of the "sky is blue" fact that Russia was behind the hackings/theft (and release) of emails? There are myriad very RS that discuss this and label any denials as false conspiracy theories. Aaron is far from the only Russia apologist who denies these facts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Aaron on Twitter

Aaron has complained on Twitter about his Wikipedia page. I encourage anyone coming here because of that tweet to "correct some wrongs" to first discuss them here to avoid an edit war. BeŻet (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Consider request for semi-protection. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Luckily it already is. BeŻet (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Brian Whitaker's blog al-bab

This relates to the second grievance raised in an earlier section. The grievance concerned the sentence "Maté and The Grayzone, for which he reports, have been recipients of the Association for Investment in Popular Action Committee's Serena Shim Award, a cash prize administered by Paul Larudee and frequently given to supporters of the Syrian government, and individuals who promote conspiracy theories in support of Syria's president Assad". I believed that al-bab was not a usable source since it is Brian Whitaker's self-published blog. Bob disagreed on the basis that Whitaker is an established journalist with a long career behind him. I was unable to find any previous discussion of al-bab's reliability on the Perennial sources noticeboard. I think the appropriate policy to apply to al-bab is wp:sps, which says, “Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer”.

If we do allow al-bab, then there are articles we can also used from Glenn Greenwald's substack feed related to Aaron's reporting. I would not generally consider using them but can't see the difference between al-bab and substack. Any thoughts?

If we remove al-bab as a source then I would suggest replacing the current sentence with the following: "Maté and The Grayzone, for which he reports, have been recipients of the Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees's Serena Shim Award. According to Brian Whitaker writing in NewLines magazine, some of the previous winners of the award have advocated conspiracy theories and many have supported the Syrian government". It is not ideal because Whitaker does not say to whom he is referring. We don't know whether he includes Aaron within that description so it is a bit unfair. Burrobert (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

My memory that we had come to a consensus that al-Bab is reliable is indeed wrong: it must have been locally on a specific page, not on RSN where I thought it was. I strongly think it is a reliable source due to his expertise, but Burrobert is right that BLP requires a higher standard. So I'd say we can use al-Bab for a claim about the award but not about the individual. I would be very happy with the formula proposed in the last paragraph. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

If it's a self-published blog, then indeed it's not usable, unless we are specifically talking about Whitaker's opinion here. Therefore, we can only use it to support a quotation of his opinion, but not for making unattributed statements about anyone else. I think your suggestion for a new version of the sentence is good, and I now boldly updated it in the article. Do we think that now all neutrality issues have been resolved? BeŻet (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I don't have any other issues. Burrobert (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)