Talk:Max Blumenthal

message: Please cut & paste this under external links: 
Anutherconcerned (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Added.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please put wikiquotes link under external links 

message: Why does Wikipedia include this sentence in the very top of the article? This is such slander comparing Blumenthal's work to "Info Wars" with no evidence or data actually establishing this statement. This is clearly an attempt to slander Blumenthal. It is shameful that Wikipedia has editors who do this kind of thing.  I am referring to this sentence " Janine di Giovanni, in The New York Review of Books, wrote that Blumenthal was part of the website 21st Century Wire–which she compared to InfoWars–stating that his work and affiliated group is "spread by a spectrum of far-left, anti-West conspiracy theorists; anti-Semites; supporters of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah; libertarians; and far-right groups".[13]"
Not once has Blumenthal being linked to any far-right or anti-semitic group. This is meant to slander.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.197.20 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is entirely legitimate to include the comments of Janine di Giovanni, an academic and journalist who has covered wars for several decades for major publications and broadcasters. The New York Review of Books is an eminent journal which easily meets the requirement of being a reliable source for citation. Wikipedia policies do not distinguish between sources which are favorable or hostile to a subject, although an editors' language cannot give weight on any side (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The Biographies of living persons policy adds further rules like avoiding potential libel, but has a firmer insistence on using reliable sources. It does not matter if any reader finds content objectionable if it meets WP policies for the sources which editors can use. Philip Cross (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with commentary of di Giovanni's from The New York Review of Books being quoted in the article. She is a prominent journalist and author and the NYRB is a source of high quality writing, though I see no evidence that she is, as you describe her, an academic. An academic in normal terms would be somebody who does research and has the results published in conference proceedings or academic journals. Di Giovanni is a "Senior Fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs", but that doesn't necessarily make her an academic. The Institute's article contains a list of other senior fellows. How many of those could justifiably be described as academics? Something to think about is whether there is a double standard in operation. If academic sources are more desirable, why not source material from genuine academics, such as the members of the “Working Group on Syria, Propaganda, and Media" (WGSPM) who, like Professor Tim Hayward, hold academic posts? If commentary by di Giovanni is allowed, then why not Robert Fisk, an eminent journalist and author, whose articles from The Independent have been barred as source material on the grounds that he is labelled as a "Voice" and so, it is claimed, all his pieces are opinion. While not an academic, at least Fisk holds a PhD, in Political Science, which he gained from Trinity College, Dublin in 1983.      ←   ZScarpia   13:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

text: In addition to her fellowships, the Wikipedia article about Janine di Giovanni also says she has served as Adjunct Professor of International and Public Affairs at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. Her Guggenheim Fellowship would have been awarded on the basis of having "demonstrated exceptional capacity for productive scholarship or exceptional creative ability in the arts." If Fisk and the others ever praise Blumenthal in a prestigious publication, that might well be included, but it is unlikely someone with the reputation which (say) Fisk now has would be asked to contribute to a reputable publication with the sole exception of the London Independent. Most academics submit papers to peer-reviewed publications which is the basis for Wikipedia citing academic articles. I have not come across any such papers commending Max Blumenthal. Philip Cross (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

text: well said, doggie 2601:189:8082:CA90:632:1751:542A:DCB7 (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Gremlint, Now might be a good time for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:Lead. The wording you have issue with reflects what reliable secondary sources say about this page's subject in the body of this article. The "other opinions" about those sources that you mention (NYT and LAT) in regard to Sputnik and RT (Wikipedia:Deprecated sources) don't really matter here, for reasons made clear at the links I've provided. Also, beyond the NYT and LAT, other sources support the claims made here, including peer-reviewed journal articles, as described in the article's body.--Hobomok (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gremlint raises a valid point of criticism. This article, as well as many other articles in Wikipedia, displays a concerning sloppines in the use of language (i.e. in the precision of its wording) when it comes to crucial aspects. In this cases it recklessly fails to differentiate between opinions/assessments/views etc. on the one side and objective facts. For instance the sentence "The Grayzone website, which is known for spreading conspiracy theories and engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes" is highly inappropriate in an encyclopedia, becuase it constitutes a servere distortion of what the sources, that are added in the following footnotes, actually say. Those sources all are articles that present the opinion (or at best: the assessment) that the Grayzone website is "spreading conspiracy theories" etc. Consequentially the sentence in the wikipedia article, that is backed up by referring to those sources, should adequately reflect that circumstance. But instead of making it clear that it is the opinion of certain people (or perhaps even many people) that the Grayzone is spreading conspiracy theories etc., the article write that it "is known for spreading conspiracy theories", i.e. it pretends that it is an objective fact, that is established, unassailable and beyond dispute, that the website "is known" for that. So the sentences states "it IS" (purporting the existence of a firm fact) when the proper phrasing would be something like "it is accused of...", or "it is considered by...[insert people/organizations that hold that view]" or "it is often considered". So it misrepresents the issue by elevating accusations/views/opinions/assessments etc. to the level of objective facts. But since we are not faced with an issue in the area of physics, where objective determinations can be made, but with a highly normative issue (how could one objectively determinate or quantify that the website is doing the aforementioned things + how can one quantify that it "is known" for that? Obviously one cannot. It is impossible to do). So accuracy as well as responsibility and the standards of encyclopedic writing require that sloppy formulations like the aforementioned that distrot and misrepresent reality are rectified. A proper formulation would be something like A: "The Grayzone website, which is accused of spreading conspiracy theories and of engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dicatorial regimes"; or B: "The Grayzone website, which is considered by A..., B..., C....etc. of spreading conspiracy theories etc." or C: "The Grayzone website, which is often considered to be spreading conspiracy theories etc.". So, even though website is certainly not my cup of tea, accuracy is imperative. --> i.e. since all the sources, that are used as references in this article here, clearly only express opinions or positions (or at best: qualified assessments), that amount to the aforementioned accusations/criticisms, the language of this article should reflect that adequately and make it clear that those criticisms/reproaches/accusations are just that: opinions (opinions that I find quite convincing but opinions none the less) or at most evaluations, assessments etc., but not obective (undisputed etc.) facts. Afte all: No one wants an article here to be misleading, but presenting opinions (no matter how much one believes those opinions to be correct) as facts, by linguistically dressing those opinions up as facts, as this article does in some places, is quite misleading. Hope someone here has the work ethics to correct that woeful state of affairs.2001:9E8:2619:A900:B0C0:BB9:A083:FC86 (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I stopped reading after the first few sentences because it was boring and predictable. Facts are opinions, opinions are facts, yadda yadda. What you desire is called WP:FALSEBALANCE, and Wikipedia does not do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias and slander

message: why does wikipedia only include the negative review of this book? Why not quote Professor Justin Podur's excellent review of the book that talks about how revealing the author's findings are.  Why does Wikipedia consistently post smear material on this author?  In my view people either connected with the national security state or biased against anti-war/anti-empire voices have a lot of pull on this website. They consistently slant these articles to criticize dissident voices, while those who are so close to washington think tanks and starting wars often get a pass. Why is this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.197.20 (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to find Justin Podur's review earlier today, but it does not appear to be online. Please provide the url if it is online. Philip Cross (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

text: 47.147.197.20, I have attempted to present the section in a more balanced manner, giving more of Blumenthal's response and providing an additional review. Let us know if you have more concerns.----ZiaLater (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

text: It's because Wikipedia sources all material on any topic touching the interests of the security state from the open sewage pipe of biased media corporations. Any other source is deemed unreliable.Shtove 14:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  More like anyone who does not share your unbalanced views is deemed by you to be in the pocket of vested interests, or something. 2601:647:5800:9120:49F0:F86D:2E04:77D0 (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Book review of management of savagery

message: Reference 53, which links to the tablet, does not actually substantiate the claim made. The author of the Tablet article offers no evidence to support his claim or to effectively contradict Blumenthal's point. Auntiediva (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2020 

message: Remove the link to the website http://maxblumenthal.com/ Newbrunswickeast (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – Thjarkur (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2020 

message: Change "Russian propaganda outlets Sputnik and RT." to "Russian media outlets Sputnik and RT." MarioBayo (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. And that's going to be a pretty high bar. See this discussion and this discussion, for example.  – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2020 

message: A recently cropped picture of Blumenthal would be the much more preferred image in the bio. It is more recent, it is Blumenthal in the flesh, and is a cropped picture zooming in on his face. MarioBayo (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2020 

message: In this set of edits, the description of Sputnik and RT was changed from Russian 'outlets' to Russian 'state broadcasters', the term used for Cold War Eastern European channels. The description is misleading and entirely the opinion of the editor, it not being used by either of the cited sources, one of which in any case, Marquardt-Bigman's, is a blog (see the bottom of the page: "The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors").     ←   ZScarpia   18:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, could someone maybe add the ownerships of all the various other outlets mentioned? If not, I wonder why not. ;-) Why is the linking to their pages not sufficient? --91.96.35.112 (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Dr Marquardt-Bigman cites the Wikipedia articles on Sputnik and RT America for her assertions about them, so the citation cannot be used at this point as a source. Charles Davis uses the phrases "Russian state media"/"outlet", although not directly referring to the two broadcasters. I originally made a hasty substitution for "propaganda" added by another editor, which I knew would be queried as an addition to the summary and to prevent the word being restored. The Janine di Giovanni NYRB article is precise on this point. Philip Cross (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sputnik and RT: 'state broadcasters'. 

message: There is massive vandalism ongoing by Philip Cross on this article (again), and you prevent normal users from editing this? Someone has to revert all of this ... BoMbY (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . The instructions clearly say "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it." An edit request is not a mechanism for generalized griping about an article, or personal attacks against a named editor who is not guilty of vandalism as defined on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see they reported the same editor as a vandal to AIV in January and this is their first edit since then - with this account at least. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2020 

message: The source provided says that half of the Israeli population has Mizrahi ancestry.
It does not substantiate this claim with any evidence. Ericcabaniss (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mizrahi bit 

message: The talk page for this article does not appear to have reached a consensus on the neutrality of the article. It should, due to this lack of consensus, have a POV marker at the top of the article. Wackword (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded - please add a NPOV tag, the slant of the article is overwhelmingl negative, far more so than is usual for controversial journalists. 2.25.43.109 (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs POV Tag 

message: Per the article about the book itself, readers can learn that what Publishers Weekly, The Atlantic, Kirkus, The New York Observer, etc. said about the book. This article instead cites opinion pieces aimed at discrediting Blumenthal. As an encyclopedia our role is to describe the article topic, not to hand a megaphone to people on one side or the other about how very good or bad Blumenthal is. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, multiple RS describe Blumenthal as a strong critic of Israel. It is entirely fair and desirable for the article to include viewpoints about Blumenthal expressed by people who are strong defenders of Israel. But this article over-uses opinion pieces that are clearly pushing an anti-Blumenthal POV; for example, five different footnotes point to a clearly-labeled "Opinion" piece whose title is "Wild Thing: Max Blumenthal's Creepy Anti-Zionist Odyssey"; four to "Another Milestone for the Mainstreaming of Anti-Semitism: The New America Foundation and Max Blumenthal's Goliath" (another piece by the same author which also gets a mention was "David Duke, Other Anti-Semites Praise Max Blumenthal's 'I Hate Israel Handbook'".) This article needs major pruning. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

text: The majority of text at Max Blumenthal#Goliath (2013) should be moved to Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. And the entire bloated article could use revision for encyclopedic tone and conciseness, with an eye to the WP:10YEARTEST and WP:VNOTSUFF. A neutral point of view can actually be achieved by writing less, not stuffing in more, so long as significant views are covered proportionally. A longer article doesn't necessarily mean a better article, especially on Wikipedia where mediocrity and pedantry is the status quo. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of POV problems: section on ''Goliath'' 

message: Concerning the last sentence in the Greenberg section "Greenberg had made the same comments to Adam Serwer of Mother Jones.[46][48]"
This statement can be misread and serves no purpose, as four sentences earlier begins "Contacted by Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic and Adam Serwer of Mother Jones," and two sentences earlier is "She told Serwer that "I did not intend to assert these allegations as fact ... the entire sense of the quote is inaccurate."" including this sentence in the article seems to serve no purpose but to confuse the reader, positioned as it is immediately after Blumenthal's assertion that she she was intimidated into recanting. 
Can it be removed? 108.28.194.186 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification re: Dispute with Karen J. Greenberg (2011) 

message: To update in this article: Blumenthal's views on Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As ever, this article needs reliable sources for Blumenthal's responses to this war.  See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. More editors on the look out for usable citations to develop this article (or any article) are welcome. Philip Cross (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There's really not that much in terms of RS. The closest I can get are these three sources, but the coverage is not in-depth. Fox News covered Blumenthal's tweet, but also didn't do much besides say that Blumenthal tweeted it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: To update

message: This page widely uses poor sources. There is obviously a tiff going on between the subject and New Politics thus using New Politics as a source lacks credibility. Further New Politics is used as a source for things it is not a source for. For example, regarding Syria, it is used as source for the UN declaration on sarin gas. New Politics is not a news source. It is writing opinion based on other news sources. Actual news sources such as Reuters or the NYT (and the UN itself) has reported the UN deemed there to be “reasonable grounds” to assume Syria dropped the gas via helicopter. However, a whistleblower has claimed even that limited assessment to be inaccurate. http://syriapropagandamedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Engineering-assessment-of-two-cylinders-observed-at-the-Douma-incident-27-February-2019-1.pdf and https://couragefound.org/2019/10/analytical-points-opcw-panel
The point being that opinion pieces should not be used as sources except when noted as an opinion only. WGyp (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2022 

message: Have you heard this one?
Q. When is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist writing in a green-tick reliable source not a reliable source?
A. When he says something nice about Max Blumenthal.
Hilarious.   Burrobert (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , why did you remove the material attributed to Greenwald in the Intercept? nableezy - 14:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Because neither Greenwald nor the Intercept are RS for this topic. Volunteer Marek  22:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Says who? Huldra (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

text: *This, I think, is not how we should be applying the concept of reliability to sources. We have broad judgements about the reliability of venues, such as The Intercept; RS/P will list recognised qualifications to general reliability, but otherwise claiming that a typically reliable venue is not reliable on a topic is something that should be raised on the talk page or on RS/N before eliminating it from mainspace. Now, it is quite true that generally reliable venues have journalism that makes claims that we should doubt, but then the right order is to (i) find countervailing RSes that dispute the dubious RS and then (ii) move the dubious claim from wikivoice to a he-said, she-said format, i.e., both claims and counterclaims attributed in the main text. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Wait what, in what world are the Intercept and Greenwald not reliable sources? WP:RSP lists the Intercept as generally reliable. What is this based on? If it is the unreliability of the source then consensus is already against that and the edit should be restored. I dont really want to get in to an edit war, but cmon at least when Greenwald was still at the intercept both it and he had a stellar reputation. Sure things may have turned in terms of Greenwald's rep among people of a certain political persuasion, but calling this not a reliable source seems a bit much. nableezy - 17:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯         Burrobert (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

text:  An article in The New York Times (which was deleted from the article because it does not mention Blumenthal) establishes the report by Greenwald and Blumenthal were wrong:On March 10, The New York Times reported that their reconstruction, using both public information and previously unpublished video evidence, did not support accounts that the use of tear gas by Maduro's forces had caused the trucks to burn. It "suggest[ed] that a Molotov cocktail thrown by an antigovernment protester was the most likely trigger for the blaze".Editors should not include material which has been demonstrated to be false (or fringe) in stronger reliable sources. Fringe material needs to be challenged by mainstream sources for inclusion. If it has not been, it is insufficiently notable to be included in any article. Seems obvious, but apparently not. Philip Cross (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to read that again, Philip Cross: Blumenthal scooped the Times, which fully vindicated his analysis. And, yes, The New York Times source was removed based on a phony WP:SYNTH challenge, but it should also be restored, because Greenwald directly made the obvious and correct observation that Blumenthal scooped the Times. This content was long-standing for about two years before NoonIcarus decided to relitigate the issue. You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts, etc.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou, TheTimesAreAChanging. Obviously I was very rash in my edit and you were right to revert my error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Cross (talk • contribs) 09:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

text: I do not see any problems with the text or the source. TFD (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A funny thing happened on the way to the theatre 

message: Some of the information on Max Blumenthal are fundamentally wrong and ought to be corrected ASAP! 138.88.179.28 (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2022 

message: Fuck Wikipedia. 141.126.171.6 (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: True, the W M F. nableezy - 17:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is run by a 3 lettered agency. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding the Venezuelan food crisis 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Misrepresentation 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, it protects the article from inexperienced editors or vandals who remove what reliable sources say. See the section right above this one. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection against vandalism on the page 

message: This article, espcially the lead, is pure POV:  just listing the most negative thing about him. A couple  points:
*"conspiracy theorist", well, these days the theory that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attack is seen to be a "conspiracy theory", still, publick opnion polls showed that ~70% of the US public though that in 2003, not to mention the whole Bush-administration pushed for the same belief. Shall we then put "conspiracy theorist" in the lead of the articles about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other? Of course not. So why have it here?
*The Grayzone website, "which is known for its apologetic coverage of—among other authoritarian regimes—the Chinese, Russian, Syrian, and Venezuelan governments, as well as denial of the Uyghur Genocide and other atrocities committed by these regimes." <- All this should go into the The Grayzone  article; it should not be duplicated here.
This was just the lead. Comments? Huldra (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This, like many such biographies, mainly seems to exist as a platform to host various opinions of pundits that the editors of this page agree more with. It is a collection of opinions about Blumenthal, not a biography of him. nableezy - 00:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if nobody comes up with a really good justification of keeping the above in the lead, I will remove it. Huldra (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So you suggest to remove sourced information based purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The reason the article describes Blumenthal as conspiracy theorist and propagandist is because that is what Blumenthal is, and how reliable sources describe him. Jeppiz (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think the refs in the lead are very good (especially for contentious labels in the lead): they're pretty much all opinion pieces, and some in borderline RSs. I think the onus is on those who want to include this text to provide solid refs. In the previous section, you can see the sort of language a range of RSs use for both MB and GZ. Meanwhile, those who want change (especially Huldra, who plans to remove the current text) might want to propose alternative NPOV lead wording (or point to a previous, more neutral version to restore). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the refs are not great (others are good) and could probably be replaced. Blumenthal's propaganda efforts for the Russian and Syrian regimes are covered by better sources, such as Al Jazeera and Foreign Policy and it might be better to use them instead of some more marginal current sources. Still, they all say the same thing so it doesn't change the meaning. Jeppiz (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeppiz Your statements are slanderous and are in violation of WP:BLP. Be careful how you word your opinions on this talk page. This article is also in violation of numerous Wikipedia policies and MOS.  Qayqran (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Utter nonsense. I merely repeated what several reliable sources say, so your WP:IDONTLIKEIT-whining is the only misplaced aspect here. Jeppiz (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

text: I've gone and removed "conspiracy theorist" from the lead because there isn't proper sourcing for the claim. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV -tag 

message: This Wikipedia page of Max Blumenthal is full of lies. First of all, the Uyghur Genocide has already been debunked. Please see factual article below providing the evidence: https://consortiumnews.com/2021/03/19/the-independent-report-claiming-uyghur-genocide/
It really is disgusting how Wikipedia is on the rise of corporate fascist propaganda smearing real truth tellers like Blumenthal, and nobody is even allowed to edit this page full of smears and lies providing no evidence to back it up while I provided evidence debunking one just now. 76.14.11.227 (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RSP says,  Don't tell us to change our article, tell Consortium to change theirs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

text: It would be more accurate to say that there is no consensus in reliable sources that there is a genocide. TFD (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The So-Called "Uyghur Genocide" Already Debunked 

message: “ A review by Nasser Baston in the British newspaper Morning Star ”
Let’s identify that paper for what it is. The article makes it sound like some normal newspaper, rather than the successor to the ‘Daily Worker’. Add some of wikipedias own info, available by the link.2601:647:5800:9120:49F0:F86D:2E04:77D0 (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Per RSP:  This review might have due weight in an article about the book, but it's hard to see it as having due weight in the BLP. Should it be removed? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps we could look at this in a broader context. The first paragraph of Max's bio is based on articles from The Daily Beast ("there is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons"), Truthdig, Washington Free Beacon and an opinion piece from Haaretz. Burrobert (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a single one of those is suitable for the lead, let alone the lead paragraph, unless they are supporting information explicitly supported elsewhere in the article.  Two of them (the Daily Beast and WFB) are only used in that one place.  I'd suggest that those are inappropriately used.  For the body - fine, because there's more room to provide context and deliver the material as attributed to the source.  But inappropriate in the current context.  MOS:LEADCITE ButlerBlog (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I 100% agree with ButlerBlog. None of those (currently footnotes 2-6) are lead-appropriate. I even think we reached consensus on that earlier on. Not sure how this bears on the Morning Star issue; any views on that? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My inclination would be to leave the Morning Star Nasser quote.  It's given as attribution, and (IMO) isn't more or less of an issue as the other two attributed quotes in the section.  If the section actually contained a legitimate synopsis of the book's content, then my opinion might sway a bit.  But absent that, I'd lean towards leaving it all as-is. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Morning Star

message: I don't have 500 edits under my belt yet, so I can;t edit this article. Could one of you please edit with something similar to the following:
On June 29, 2023, Max Blumenthal gave a speech at the 9364th United Nations Security Council Meeting. The speech was critical of US arms transfers to Ukraine. 
Source: https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15340.doc.htm. There is also a video of his full speech on Youtube, but it is on The Grayzone's Youtube channel, so perhaps not appropriate to cite as a source for this Wikipedia article.
Thanks Ianlavoie (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already in the article:  BeŻet (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Nations Security Council Speech 

message: It seems that controversies and accusations creep in already in the preamble. According to general Wikipedia rules they should be put under a Controversies headline in the end.
Jan Wiklund (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: General Wikipedia rules are actually the exact opposite of what you just said, we're actually encouraged not to have a standalone controversy section but to work them into the rest of the article. The lead (the preamble) is a summary of the article, that includes summarizing any major controversies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Please put cotroversies under a "Controversies" headline

message: I believe the sentence "He is a regular contributor to Russian state-owned Sputnik and RT, and has frequently used his various platforms to spread Russian propaganda" could be made more neutral with a minor change.
I suggest: "He is a regular contributor to Russian state-owned Sputnik and RT, and has used his platforms to express skepticism of claims that Russia interfered in the 2016 election."
My rationale is that the term 'propaganda' implies an unfounded value judgment in this context. Blumenthal argues he collaborates with RT to provide an alternative perspective to mainstream US media narratives. Though some may disagree with his views, summarizing his primary position on RT in a neutral way would strengthen the article's objectivity. I welcome feedback on this specific proposed edit. Thank you for considering.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.37.83.98 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian propaganda 

message: I believe the following edit could improve the neutrality of this section:
Original:
"Blumenthal is the editor of The Grayzone website, which is known for its apologetic coverage of authoritarian regimes such as the Chinese, Russian, Syrian, and Venezuelan governments, including its denial of chemical attacks by the Syrian government and of human rights abuses against Uyghurs."
Proposed Edit:
"Blumenthal is the editor of The Grayzone website, which is known for its coverage of authoritarian regimes such as the Chinese, Russian, Syrian, and Venezuelan governments. Some critics argue that the website's reporting tends to be apologetic, asserting that there is insufficient evidence of chemical attacks by the Syrian government and challenging claims of human rights abuses against Uyghurs."
My rationale is that words like "apologetic" and "denial" cross from factual description into more subjective terminology that some would perceive as biased. My suggested edit summarizes the same issues in a more neutral tone while still representing critical perspectives. This would strengthen the article's balance without diluting its accuracy. However, I am open to feedback from editors on improving this section. Thank you for considering my perspective.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.37.83.98 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased second paragraph 

message: Amir.azhieh, rather than repeatedly trying to insert your own version, could you discuss the changes you're trying to make here? The sources clearly back up that he's known for apologetic coverage of authoritarian regime. If you edit to say that he's known for coverage of these governments without the descriptor's, it's a BLP violation, because it's not what the sources say. Furthermore, there is a wide range of further sources available for these claims - see the actual article on The Grayzone for evidence of this. Finally, your removal of "denial of" when discussing the Syrian chemical attacks in favor of "investigations" is not backed by sources and is once again watering this content down. Please give some variety of an answer as to why you think these changes are justified rather than continuing to edit war. Thanks. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are not impartial. Please use reliable sources. Amir.azhieh (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you list/identify the specific sources that you find problematic and state why? ButlerBlog (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: This is highly unprofessional and breaks the neutrality of the article Steveonsi (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why so? It refers to the Israeli forces on the occupied West Bank, and seems perfectly factual and neutral. Jeppiz (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel ''occupation'' forces 

message: I have just added a "Controversies" section. PLEASE DON'T REMOVE IT! It's shameful & typical for Mr M.B. how so many massive controversies have been hidden inside sections with inconspicuous headings. I guess every public person's page has a "Controversies" section, even Mother Theresa's; only he had none. Why should he?
Is Mr M.B. writing this page all by himself? I'm pretty sure the anonymous talk-page contributor 40...27 is no other than our famous journalist, but is anyone paying attention at the article? Suckpuppets and the rest? We're dealing here with a skilled operator. Arminden (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You've levied a number of unfounded accusations here.  Are you sure that you're able to edit this article from a NPOV without letting any potential personal animus get in the way?  Keep it encyclopedic. ButlerBlog (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversies" must stay, material galore! 

message: It currently says his video is "a photo montage" but I can't find that in the reference.  What is it meant to mean? I take it as meaning the video was doctored or faked in someway by Blumenthal but there is no further explanation.  Given that there is no supporting reference and it is unclear I suggest it be removed. Or failing that is should at least be explained. This article in general seems to me to be very unobjective, hence perhaps the protection. Amble123 (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Photo montage" is an unusual choice of words here which isn't supported by the attached source. I've rephrased the paragraph to more closely match what the cited source says. I've also expanded this with a quote from that source to more clearly indicate the context of the video. Blumenthal's comments later in the section about a claimed "active campaign by right-wing Jewish elements" don't make a lot of sense without this context. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel and Palestine section 

message: 1. the name for the actual military is Israel Defence Forces
2. Not all people referred to in the article are actual members of the military
3. The name is a political term and not actually accurate 
4. The fact that the letters are capitalised proves that it is used as the name and not just an adjective.
Therefore, it should be changed to reflect the content of the source and maintain NPOV. FortunateSons (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of Israel Occupation Forces is both inaccurate and inappropriate  

message: Max Blumenthal received the Pierre Spray Journalism Award 2023 for: 
*"October 7 testimonies reveal Israel's military 'shelling' Israeli citizens"
*"Israeli October 7 poster child was killed by Israeli tank, eyewitnesses reveal"
Source: https://www.thepierrespreyaward.org/2023-winners 87.170.204.203 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this award is terribly notable, ironic it's named after a semi-notorious crank however. XeCyranium (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A crank? Actually, Pierre Sprey was a systems analyst at the Pentagon, who became whistleblower. And he was a jazz aficionado with his own audiophile jazz record label: Mapleshade Records. But all of this is linked to the question: Who should in the US control foreign policy? Because it was never the president nor the Congress. Should the foreign policy of the United States be subjected to democratic processes? Terribly important for the our planet/mankind. --93.211.209.239 (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pierre Spray Journalism Award 2023 

message: Remove the racist israeli propaganda against the Jewish author Max Blumenthal. The paragraph is clearly intended to discredit his reporting on October 7th and Zaka, and associate him with authoritatian regimes without explicit evidence of any "sympathies." This summarizes small parts of his work without context in order to discredit him, and is done in such an obvious way that I though I time travelled back to the McCarthy era. What in the wtf, wikipedia. Check yourself or you lose all credibility with the not-a-boomer crowd. 
"Blumenthal is the editor of The Grayzone website, which is known for its apologetic coverage of authoritarian regimes such as the Chinese, Russian, Syrian, and Venezuelan governments, including its denial of chemical attacks by the Syrian government and of human rights abuses against Uyghurs.[10][11][12][13] Blumenthal tweeted in December 2023 that Israel was "inventing stories of mass rape on October 7.[14][15] " REMOVE THAT PARAGRAPH, clearly slanted propaganda delivered in an intentional way to create a narrative. So tricky, you almost brainwashed everyone Wiki! Dear lord thats some sad propaganda-ing. 96.237.169.132 (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done We do not censor Wikipedia just because you don't like some facts. Those statements build on multiple sources. Jeppiz (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2024