Talk:Max Blumenthal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Max Blumenthal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}
You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning {
display: none;
}
Stop: Parts of this page are restricted Parts of this article are related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) |
| Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. If it is unclear which parts of the page are covered, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the Wikipedia policies on canvassing and neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
 | Max Blumenthal received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sloppy phrasing
- The article in some parts gravely distorts the sources it uses (or which it at least claims to use. I’m somewhat doubtful, whether the people who have insterted certain sources ever actually bothered to properly read them). For instance: Right in the introduction one reads the sentence „The Grayzone [is a] website, which is known for spreading conspiracy theories and engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes“. This statement is „backed up“ by the following five „sources“:
- Mathew Foresta: „Meet the Sneakiest Defenders of Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine (https://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-the-sneakiest-defenders-of-vladimir-putins-ukraine-invasion-and-chinas-xinjiang-repression) [labelled as „opinion“]
- Alexander Reid Ross: „Fooling the Nation: Extremism and the Pro-Russia Disinformation Ecosystem“ (https://www.boundary2.org/2019/11/alexander-reid-ross-fooling-the-nation-extremism-and-the-pro-russia-disinformation-ecosystem/#_ftn81)
- Adam Kredo: „WHO Official Promotes Conspiracy Theory Website to Bolster China’s Coronavirus Disinformation Campaign“ (https://freebeacon.com/national-security/who-official-promotes-conspiracy-theory-website-to-bolster-chinas-coronavirus-disinformation-campaign/)
- Bruce Bawer: WHO Official Promotes Conspiracy Theory Website to Bolster China’s Coronavirus Disinformation Campaign“ (https://web.archive.org/web/20220309040631/https://www.commentary.org/articles/bruce-bawer/useful-idiot19/) [labelled as „commentary“]
- Oz Katerji: As Trump Shores Up Assad's Genocidal Regime, America's Hard Left Is Cheering Him On (https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2017-07-20/ty-article/as-trump-shores-up-assad-regime-u-s-hard-left-cheers-him-on/0000017f-df9f-db5a-a57f-dfffdefe0000) [explicitly labe.led as an „opinion“ piece]
- The phrasing of the quoted sentence („The Grayzone [is a] website, which is known for spreading conspiracy theories and engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes“) clearly suggests that it is an objective and undisputed fact ("it IS known"), that this website „IS […] known for spreading conspiracy theories and engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes“. Furthermore: That the quoted sentence is followed by the five sources listed above as references the article points at, suggests, that those sources contain hard evidence that the claims mentioned above (i.e. that the website is spreading conspiracy theories, that it is denying atrocities and so on) are accurate, i.e. that they are facts.
- Now, unlike most people, I actually read all those five sources. And: None of those sources actually presents any evidence that the Grayzone website „is spreading conspiracy theories“ or that it is known for doing that or that it is „engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes“. Instead all those articles only express the personal opinions of their respective author, that that website is doing those things. Or at most those articles only present assessments by their authors, that the website is doing the things mentioned above.
- The pieces by Mathew Foresta and Oz Katjeri are even explicitly labelled as „opinion“ (!!!) and the piece by Bruce Bawner is labelled as „commentary“. As a consequence we are faced with a serious discrepancy between the information, that this article says, that the sources it refers to, contain, and the information the sources ACTUALLY contain (or what actually can be derived from the sources and what the article does derive from them).
- When the article states in the first sentence, that the Gayzone „IS known for spreading conspiracy theories“ etc., it purports that it is an objective fact, that that website is „spreading conspiracy theories“ and so on. AND furthermore by attaching the mentioned sources to that sentence as references the article purports, that the sources attached to that statement as references give evidence, that that statement indeed is true, i.e. that it is an objective fact that the website "IS known for spreading conspiracy theory" (that it "IS" doing that or "IS" known for that).
- However, if one actually reads those sources, none of them actually delivers any hard evidence, that the Grayzone „is spreading conspiracy theories“ (and so on). Instead, all those articles only express the personal opinion of their authors, that the Grayzone „is spreading conspiracy theories“ (etc.), or at best: the sources present a (more or less qualified) assessment by their respective author, that the Grayzone „is spreading conspiracy theories“. Most of those articles even explicitly preface their comments by stressing that they are opinion pieces.
- Bottom line: The article sloppily distorts the sources, that it refers to, when is states „They Grayzone is known for spreading conspiracy theories“ and then points to the five sources listed above as references that allegedly back up that sentence (thus suggesting, that those sources contain evidence, that the website is „spreading conspiracy theories“). Because those five articles only express views (or present assessments), that the website „is spreading conspiracy theories“, but they do not provide and evidence that it acually does spread conspiracy theories or that it „is known“ for that.
- For instance Mr. Kredo in his article just writes: „Max Blumenthal is known for his pro-Iran, anti-Israel stance, and his website routinely publishes conspiracy theories that adopt China’s false rhetoric about the coronavirus pandemic.“ So he just makes a lapidary statement without providing any evidence (and he does not even give any arguments to buttress his position).
- --> Therefore the sentences „They Grayzone is known for spreading conspiracy theories“ distorts the sources that the article points to, because it does not accurately reflect or reiterate, what those sources actually say. It suggests through the wording it uses, that those sources provide evidence that proves. that it is an objective fact that the website „is known for spreading conspiracy theories“ (etc.), while actually the authors of those articles only voice their opinion (which of course is legitimate) or only make the claim that it is „spreading conspiracy theories“ or that it is known for that. Those are quite different things.
- As a consequence: As per Wikipedia:Sources the wording of that sentence needs to be modified ASAP in such a way, that the sentences accurately reflects, what the sources the article uses actually say or, respectively, what one can responsibly derive from those sources.
- So the proper wording for that sentences, based on the sources attached to it, would be something similar to the following proposals:
- A) „Authors like Mathew Foresta, Alexander Reid Ross, Adam Kredo, Bruce Bawer consider the website [the Grayzone] to be a spreader of conspiracy theories and as engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes“.
- A1) Or more conservatively: „The website has been accused by authors like Mathew Foresta, Alexander Reid Ross, Adam Kredo, Bruce Bawer of spreading conspiracy theories an as engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes“
- 2) Or shorter: „The website is OFTEN [or sometimes?] considered to be propagating conspiracy theories and to engage in denial of atrocities committed by dicatorial regimes.“
- It would be nice, if other users could briefly indicate, which of the suggested formulation they would prefer to be chosen to replace the currently sloppy sentence, which is inadequate due to the way it falsifies what actually can be taken from those sources.Laelaps93 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- First, please read WP:VERBOSE. I already encouraged you to write shorter. Second, this is standard phrasing and it perfectly correct. A number of reliable sources accurately highlight that Blumenthal and Grayzone spread conspiracy theories and actively support murderous dictators. That fact is backed up by five sources, as is WP practice. They are not the only five sources to highlight Blumenthal's activities as a propagandist for dictators, but no need to mention all of them. Your proposed changes would make the article less accurate and go against WP practices. Wherever a fact can be attributed to multiple reliable sources, we do not claim it's only an opinion of a few individuals. So no, none of your proposed formulations are good, and each of them is worse than the current formulation in the article. Jeppiz (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- These sources run from somewhat poor to terrible and shouldnt be used. nableezy - 21:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with that, though Haaretz is a perfectly good source and Daily Beast still considered ok. That said, given that much better sources (such as Al Jazeera, The Times, books by reputable academics etc.) all say the same thing, we should probably exchange some mediocre sources for more reliable ones. That's not the same as changing the phrasing (already at the article about Grayzone, the same thing is said as here, but with much better sources). Jeppiz (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- If the website is promoting conspiracy stories, why not link to those conspiracy stories. Why should anyone take the word of these three men seriously? Especially since none of them even bothered to include supporting evidence for their claims. I mean, sounds to me like they take for granted that their readers are of low intelligence and easily led. ~2025-43460-90 (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- These sources run from somewhat poor to terrible and shouldnt be used. nableezy - 21:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- First, please read WP:VERBOSE. I already encouraged you to write shorter. Second, this is standard phrasing and it perfectly correct. A number of reliable sources accurately highlight that Blumenthal and Grayzone spread conspiracy theories and actively support murderous dictators. That fact is backed up by five sources, as is WP practice. They are not the only five sources to highlight Blumenthal's activities as a propagandist for dictators, but no need to mention all of them. Your proposed changes would make the article less accurate and go against WP practices. Wherever a fact can be attributed to multiple reliable sources, we do not claim it's only an opinion of a few individuals. So no, none of your proposed formulations are good, and each of them is worse than the current formulation in the article. Jeppiz (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think Free Beacon is RS, so I'd leave that out. Pedantically, if we use such phrasing, we'd say "Authors such as" rather than "Authors like".
- "Engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes" is also supported by: Coda Story (
Blumenthal’s statements met with outrage online and many social media users accused him of ignoring one of the largest-scale human rights violations of the 21st century. This is not the first time a writer from The Grayzone has sought to refute or downplay reports of Beijing’s actions in Xinjiang... The Grayzone has followed a similar path on Syria, challenging reports of atrocities by the regime of President Bashar al-Assad... While the number of left-wing voices denying China’s ongoing repression of the Uyghur people is few, those that do exist are vociferous and well-organized. Of these, The Grayzone is by far the most influential... Since 2018, The Grayzone has published at least four articles undermining reports of the repression in Xinjiang.
; Coda Story more recentlyThe only journalists who thrive in Syria today are those who serve as mouthpieces for the Syrian and Russian regimes... these mouthpieces include American-based, far-left websites such as The Grayzone and MintPress News. Idrees Ahmed, an editor at global affairs magazine New Lines, says such friendly foreign media, even if obscure and dismissed by the mainstream, has “made the job of propaganda easier for [authoritarians].” In September for example, a Grayzone article claimed that the White Helmets, a civil defense group responsible for significant reporting on Syrian atrocities and the saving of hundreds of thousands of lives, corrupted the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ (OPCW) investigation into the 2018 Douma chemical attack. Among those who shared the article on Twitter was the Russian Embassy in Sweden.
; The DiplomatAs thoroughly explored by ASPI, Chinese media and officials have utilized the coverage of the far-left website Grayzone to discredit reporting on human rights abuses in Xinjiang, singling out German scholar Adrian Zenz for personal attacks
; The Irish TimesGrayzone has also been accused of sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes. In March Mr Blumenthal suggested that the attack on the theatre in Mariupol by Russian forces may have been a false flag operation by the far-right Azov battalion to drag Nato into the war.
; The Daily BeastFor those who know them, it’s no surprise that The Grayzone has taken to spreading pro-Russia propaganda. Edited by Max Blumenthal, the publication is infamous for its defenses of dictatorships and its denial of atrocities. In addition to casting doubt on the reality of the Uyghur Muslims’ repression in Xinjiang, they published a piece on Nicaragua that cited a false confession extracted under torture.
; ProPublicaWhen Hua Chunying, a spokeswoman for China’s Foreign Ministry, tweeted that reports of mass detention camps for China’s Uighur Muslim minority were the “LIE of the CENTURY,” she cited an article in the Grayzone, a website founded by Max Blumenthal, a frequent contributor to RT and the Russian-controlled Sputnik news agency.
Summary: In addition to those named above, social media users, Coda Story, Idrees Ahmad, the Daily Beast, ProPublica and others have described it as engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes including specifically China, Syria, Russia and Nicaragua. - "Spreading conspiracy theories" is supported by a number of RSs but many of these don't mention Blumenthal. One that does is this Daily Telegraph piece about Will Smith conspiracy theories:
Max Blumenthal, editor-in-chief of the blog The Greyzone, tweeted that the slap was “just in time for the flood of Azov atrocity videos”, while posting the red dress-girl meme. Look closer, though, and you'll find Blumenthal is far from a squeaky-clean sleuth. In fact, he is an energetic Putin apologist, writing articles such as “Was bombing of Mariupol theater staged by Ukrainian Azov extremists to trigger NATO intervention?” To which the answer – as with the question “Did President Zelensky coordinate Will Smith’s slap from deep within his besieged country?” – can only be, well, no.
And the Daily Beast accuses Blumenthal himself of anti-vaxx conspiracy theories, and says this of Grayzone:[Blumenthal's] publication, The Grayzone, has consistently denied that the Assad regime used chemical weapons on its own people when, indeed, they did. Blumenthal has gone so far as to make fun of the very idea by putting a bag over his head to derisively mimic the desperate actions of Syrian civilians. One of his past assertions was that the White Helmets, famed for their rescue efforts on behalf of innocents, were nothing more than al Qaeda—a conspiracy theory that has been thoroughly exposed and refuted.
Kiev Independent saysThe Grayzone, created by Blumenthal in 2015, presents itself as “an independent news website producing original investigative journalism,” but in reality, it publishes misleading stories and spreads conspiracy theories and pro-Russian propaganda.
And the Centre for the Analysis of the Radical Right saysGlobal Research and the Grayzone [are] examples of this syncretic conspiracy landscape and its flows... Al-Masdar is an Assadist website that boosts Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal and Abby Martin and is also responsible for spreading Syria false-flag conspiracies verbatim to both the right-aligned InfoWars and left-aligned Global Research that Grayzone picked up on around 2016.
Summary: In addition to those named above, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Beast and the Centre for the Analysis of the Radical Right have described it as spreading conspiracy theories. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)- Most of this belongs on the article for Grayzone, but describing the accusations against it from who has made it is much different than claiming fact and citing opinion. nableezy - 17:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Citating the articles, which still does not provide any evidence, does not make the articles any more reliable. If the article provided links to the places where Blumenthal made those statements, then evidence is provided. I see no such links. ~2025-43390-59 (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- You evidently don't understand the difference between encyclopedic writing and original research. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Ridiculous lede
The lede starts with "conspiracy theories" then goes on to give all his past respectable work and accolades. This is poorly written. His NPOV historical work should come first, and the opinionated accusations of conspiracy theories belong in a controversy section.Tallard (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- The conspiracy theory stuff is backed by many RS, so it's good and not just opinions. Sources accurately call a spade a spade.
- The location of the mentions of his places of work is logical as it starts with the present and proceeds to mention the past. His current activities are certainly more notable than past activities, and the present tends to overshadow the past. If he wants to die with a good legacy, he should end with a good legacy. Currently, it's not looking good, but he's young. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- You might want to trim out some of the unreliable sources. The first one I came across was an opinion piece by Mathew Foresta, "who has participated in Black Lives Matter, anti-Trump, immigrant rights, and anti-fascist activism and demonstrations," according to his bio in The Progressive. Opinion pieces are unreliable sources, unless written by experts. TFD (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely agree with that - editors quite often tend to look at the publication and forget to look at the context. I probably would not use the Haaretz source currently used in the lead. On the whole, it's a reliable source; but the article cited is an editorial - not exactly well suited for supporting objective fact. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- You might want to trim out some of the unreliable sources. The first one I came across was an opinion piece by Mathew Foresta, "who has participated in Black Lives Matter, anti-Trump, immigrant rights, and anti-fascist activism and demonstrations," according to his bio in The Progressive. Opinion pieces are unreliable sources, unless written by experts. TFD (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the lead reflects a POV. (Seriously, we could put the same in the lead of just about anyone in the Blair/Bush-leadership in the early 2000s: they promoted (very successfully!) the idea that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11; an idea that today is considered a "conspiracy theory".) His NPOV work should be in the lead, the accusations of him promoting "conspiracy theories" (which AFAIK all comes from what I would call "activist" writes) should go into the body, properly attributed. Huldra (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- People who doubted Saddam Hussein's links to al Qaeda and possession of WMDs would have been called conspiracy theorists by today's journalists. TFD (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the lede, it's been many years since Blumenthal did anything even approaching bona fide journalism. Like it or not, for the past years he has spent his time being a mouth piece for murderous dictators and bizarre conspiracy theories. It is hardly surprising that the lede reflect that (well-sourced) fact, and it would be a serious violation of WP:NPOV to pretend that Blumenthal is something else. Jeppiz (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is run by a 3 lettered agency.
Fuck Wikipedia. 141.126.171.6 (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- True, the W M F. nableezy - 17:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the Venezuelan food crisis
I remember the incident of the Venezuelan food crisis, and recalled reading this article from the NY Times that seems to also cast some doubt on the original reporting of the incident. Perhaps it would be worthwile to add it? 193.183.194.67 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- The NYT article does not mention Blumenthal so we can't use it as a source here. However, the Greenwald article that we currently use as a source does mention that Blumenthal's report was confirmed by the later NYT investigation. So we could bring in the NYT investigation via Greenwald's article. In fact, it is possible that an earlier version of Max's bio did just that. Can't recall the details though. We could try doing it again, it would only require an extra sentence. Burrobert (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Misrepresentation
This description of Greyzone and Max Blumenthal is not only a poor representation of his body of work as a journalist but very clearly is written as a purposeful smear. I suggest it be taken down 72.224.169.161 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- No. We document what reliable sources say about him. We do not write censored hagiographies here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that all reputable, established and reliable sources agree that Jean Valjean is a thief, an escaped convict, an impostor and an armed insurrectionist to boot, and inspector Javert is following established policy perfectly in pursuing him. Just sayin', make of that what you will. :) --87.126.21.225 (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is no smear involved. Blumenthal was once a serious journalist, but in recent years has been a full-out conspiracy theorist and Russian propagandist. That is what a large body on reliable sources state. Trying to deny any of that would be the only misrepresentation. Jeppiz (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- The first para of lead is sourced entirely from opinion sources - can these be replaced with better sources? This material might be due in the body, but need better for lead if liable to be challenged. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Protection against vandalism on the page
I believe the page has already been vandalized as is evident by the thick lens of bias with which it is written. The “protection” now protects the original vandals. This should be fixed. Wikipedia needs to protect itself from bad actors that seek to smear people on this site. 72.224.169.161 (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
