Talk:Aaron Maté/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A few comments on the Douma section

• Maté’s critique of the media response to the revelations of the OPCW whistleblowers covered both major outlets and progressive media. He spent more space critiquing the major outlets and mentioned three by name. He mentioned The Guardian as an example of a progressive outlet (sic). The latest version provided by PC is fine with me though I couldn’t understand the edit summary.
• The inclusion of Arias’ statement is problematic. It is taken from a primary source which does not refer to Maté so is not directly relevant to Maté’s bio. However, it has been pointed out that Maté does mention Arias’ statement in his Nation article so we could use that as a peg on which to hang the quote. In that case it would be more appropriate to use the part quoted by Maté rather than use the primary source. If we are to introduce Arias’ statement we should also provide Maté’s comments from the Nation article on Arias’ position.
• The various Douma narratives are disputed. Presumably this is why there have been a few references to WP:FRINGELEVEL. Maté’s bio is not about which of the narratives is correct. It is about his reporting related to Douma and responses to his reporting.

Burrobert (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The implication in Aaron Maté comments about mainstream and progressive media ignoring assertions from Mr Maté (plus The Grayzone and others) is that the reputable outlets we can most easily cite consider them either false or somewhat misleading, rather than accurate and notable. Philip Cross (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Arias' comments are not based only on primary sources and the page does use the part quoted by Maté ("He has also dismissed the pair as minor players who refused to accept that their conclusions were “erroneous, uninformed, and wrong.”"). De Lint refers to both Maté and Arias. CowHouse (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Internecine warfare

There has been a running battle over the last month or so between two groups on the left. Aaron, Max and Jimmy are on one side and TYT are on the other. It may have started when Aaron lampooned a tweet made by TYT about the Israel-Palestine conflict. Anyway it now appears TYT have said a lot of strange things over the years. It would be fun to add something about this battle to Aaron's bio. Here is a short reference to get things started. Burrobert (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

References

"Journalism" section

The idea of this section seems to be to showcase the subject's extremist political views, at great length, credulously, and without any counter-arguments presented. Obviously this is not appropriate. The section should focus on things that are actually notable and important, not simply take the excuse to quote Mate's bullshit at length. 74.15.24.212 (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

His use of the term "Russiagate"

Burrobert, I don't see any implication that he invented the term Russiagate. The term is only "known as "Russiagate"" by deniers, conspiracy theorists, or those who are too ignorant to know how to parse what happened.

He just uses it, and it's a term used by those who deny proven facts. It is primarily used by unreliable sources, and Maté joins Greenwald, Taibbi, and Assange in using the term. Sadly, they have all become Russian apologists. His use of the term 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 lie about, invite, welcome, aid, and cooperate (that constellation of terms describes active and passive collusion) with Russian efforts. They knew about, hid, and lied about all these actions, never reporting them to the FBI, as they should have done. They sided with the enemy of America. It was only "conspiracy" and "coordination" that Mueller failed to prove.

This all begs the question "Why don't we have an article about the term "Russiagate"? It is used as a redirect to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, which is the wrong target, since the term "Russiagate" is the opposite, a denial of Russian interference. If anything, it should point to the closer target of the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). Trumpists objected to the investigation as being a witch hunt for something they falsely claim never happened. Their denials are proven falsehoods. The only thing they can legitimately claim is that "conspiracy" and "coordination" were never proven.

We should have an article for the term. -- Valjean (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You wrote "Maté has described the Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and links between Trump associates and Russian officials as "Russiagate" ". The point I made was that he didn't invent the term (afaict) and certainly was not the only person to use it. We should not say Maté described Russiagate in such and such a way when the term exists independently of him. The sources we use here say "Independent journalist Aaron Maté ... consistently challenged the media’s coverage of the Russia-Trump campaign collusion story, known as “Russiagate,” in his reporting for The Nation" and "Aaron Maté exposed the hollowness and hyperbole of the so-called Russiagate scandal ". Creating an article to document the term is a good idea. Burrobert (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

But it is not commonly "known as “Russiagate”." That is a fringe, pejorative, term used by conspiracy theorists and denialists like Trump and his allies who carry water for Russia. Putin loves it. That word should not be framed as if it's a mainstream view of the Special Counsel Investigation (SCI). It is not a synonym for, or neutral description of, the SCI, but is an attack on the investigation. -- Valjean (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You obviously have strong opinions on Trump, Russia, water etc. The term seems to have been used across the spectrum from what I have seen. I just did a quick search and found it mentioned in articles in the NYT, Rolling Stone, The Atlantic and Fox News. And not with the characterisation that you gave it above. I think it would be safer to stick with the usage provided by the sources we have cited, which I quoted above. The sources we have cited do not make a judgement on whether there was any truth in the various allegations and use the term as a catch-all for those allegations. Burrobert (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, many fringe people are cited in mainstream RS, so you'll occasionally find the term mentioned there. I have no problem with actual citations of the word using RS, but we're using it in wikivoice, even in the heading. That's not neutral. We should not use fringe terms as if they are the proper term. We should call the Russia investigation by its proper name, not a pejorative term, and then attribute Aaron's use of the term to him, since he uses the term. That's what I tried to do. We don't have to explain that it's pejorative or fringe, just that he uses the term. -- Valjean (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I have made some tweaks "to make this more neutral and not use "Russiagate" in wikivoice." -- Valjean (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Burrobert (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Lopsided presentation

I have serious concerns about this article's neutrality. It presents Mr. Maté in an incredibly lopsided and hagiographic way, with enormous nuance and detail given to his own 'investigations', and almost none to that of the skeptics. I seriously doubt the necessity of such a long section on the Navalny affair, as he may have only played a minor role in that charade. The whole section on the so-called OPCW 'cover-up' also gives credence and authority to the ludicrous assertions by the Grayzone crowd. That particular website is a DEPRECATED source for a reason. If we are going to relay his conspiratorial writings on Syria in such a great detail, we should probably also mention that he was part of his own Russian conspiracy (by his own admission), namely the one to doxx survivors of the Douma massacre. Nutez (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• You are allowed to add suitable content from "sceptics" and others.
• The Navalny paragraph could be trimmed by removing the final, long statement from Amnesty, i.e. truncate the last part to "Amnesty reversed its decision in May".
• The Douma section is well sourced. Again, additional suitable material can be added.
• BLP policies apply to talk pages and edit summaries. This language evinces a non-neutral editorial position and makes some controversial claims about a living person: "incredibly lopsided and hagiographic", "ludicrous assertions by the Grayzone crowd", "his conspiratorial writings", "he was part of his own Russian conspiracy ... to doxx survivors of the Douma massacre".

Burrobert (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Is the Washington Post now unreliable?

The following text, sourced to the WashingPost was removed because it contained "two unreliable sources". I don't particularly trust WaPo myself, but I thought Wikipedia had a different attitude to it.

On 25 February 2021, RealClearInvestigations published Maté's interview with former Trump staffer Kash Patel. It is one of the few interviews Patel has given about his work investigating Russian interference.

Burrobert (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

WaPo is a secondary source so shouldn't be a problem. However, it is an opinion piece (so OK for establishing noteworthiness but needs attribution as a source for facts?) and the mention is just in passing: The classified evidence he gathered for Nunes showed a rushed investigation and “tradecraft failings,” Patel contended in an interview with Aaron Maté for RealClearInvestigations published on Feb. 25, one of the few interviews he has given. On balance, I'd support re-inclusion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. The first sentence is a fact which is verified by the inclusion of the article being cited. The second sentence involves an opinion/assessment so should be attributed to David Ignatius. Burrobert (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Anon IP removals of sourced material

Is there a consensus for (1) the removal of Jonathan Chait's comment about Mate's appearance on the Tucker Carlson show? and (2) the removal of Kasparian calling him an Assadist, sourced from the Daily Dot? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(1) Probably should be reinstated as notable and from a reputable source (New York magazine). (2) The Daily Dot is a source which has been disputed as being reliable and in any case Ana Kasparian's claims about Aaron Maté are implied in the content as it stands. Philip Cross (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Just returning to question 1. Chait says:

Some anti-anti-Trump leftists see impeachment not merely as a distraction from the Sanders revolution but a deliberate effort to marginalize it. Krystal Ball and Aaron Mate recently speculated that Democratic leaders just might be setting up an impeachment trial in order to keep Sanders and Elizabeth Warren locked up in Washington and off the campaign trail. While such a possibility is obviously insane, if you consider the struggle between left-wing populists and evil neoliberals to be the central dynamic in American politics, it might seem at least plausible... Leftists like Mate and Glenn Greenwald sometimes appear on Tucker Carlson’s show, giving an edgy, trans-ideological sheen to his increasingly overt white nationalism...

I'm not sure we have a consensus it is undue, if used with attribution. In particular, our article doesn't mention that Mate is a frequent Fox News/Tucker Carlson contributor.[2][3][4] RSP says There is consensus that New York (magazine), including its subsidiary website Vulture, is generally reliable. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Time's arrow and other things

We don't have a complete explanation as to why time flows in only one direction. Is it an illusion? It has been hypothesised that the second law of thermodynamics and entropy may be involved somewhere. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that future events cannot affect the past. One of our editors has put forward the proposition that an event in May 2021 can affect events in March 2021.[5] Specifically, the editor believes that Maté's trip to Syria in May 2021 caused a letter to be published on 27 March 2021. I pointed out the unusual nature of the phenomenon[6] but the editor was adamant. I also mentioned to the editor that the letter didn't mention Maté or his trip to Syria, which I took to be evidence that time was flowing in the right direction. Has there been a revolution in physics that now make this possible? If so, we probably should mention that in the article as it seems notable.

There were a few other points that are unclear:

• Why is the Serena Shim award described as "pro-regime"? Presumably, the intended meaning is that the award, which is generally regarded as an inanimate object, supports the Syrian government somehow.
• What is the connection between Maté not endorsing a statement and him winning the Serena Shim Award? The two events appear to be unrelated but we have connected him with the conjunction "although", which is a word to watch.

Burrobert (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Burrobert. The letter is clearly a response to Grayzone and Mate among others, but does not name them so not usable here unless a secondary source makes the connection, and it is not a specific response to the election trip. We should avoid the term "regime", although it might be helpful to give some indication of what the award is, as it's buried quite deep in the linked article about the person the award is named for. I'll revert back to Burrobert's version for the moment. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC) Have reverted, but also added details re the award. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll ignore the rhetorical grandstanding wrt. time arrow etc. Thanks to Bobfrombrockley for helpfully copy-editing my additions, rather than blanket reverting them. The letter does indeed mention Mr. Maté specifically:

The divisive and sectarianizing role played by this group is unmistakable: in their simplistic view, all pro-democracy and pro-dignity movements that go against Russian or Chinese state interests are routinely portrayed as the top-down work of Western interference: none are autochthonous, none are of a piece with decades of independent domestic struggle against brutal dictatorship (as in Syria), and none truly represent the desires of people demanding the right to lives of dignity rather than oppression and abuse. Among others, this group includes the American writers at the mysteriously-funded The Grayzone (Max Blumenthal, Rania Khalek, Ben Norton, Aaron Maté)
— https://imhojournal.org/articles/erasing-people-through-disinformation-syria-and-the-anti-imperialism-of-fools/ March 27, 2021

Nutez (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nutez. The IMHO journal version is different from the New Politics journal version, which is problematic. If we are confident about sourcing via IMHO then I think we could probably include this, but not frame it as a response to the election, but (a) I'm a bit concerned about the difference between the version, and (b) I wonder if it fits better in the Grayzone article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Neutral point of view tag

One of our editors has placed a "Neutral point of view" tag in the middle of a quote from a professor in criminal justice at Flinders University. I believe the tag is meant to indicate that the article is "reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject". The editor is meant to immediately begin a discussion on the talk-page explaining why the tag has been added.

• Why was the tag added?
• Why was the tag added in this particular location?

Burrobert (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah also looks weird to me. It's not a problem if someone we quote has a POV; it's a problem if our description of what they say is non-neutral. I'd support removal unless there's something I'm missing. (I'm not totally sure the quote is DUE; the mention seems a bit in passing.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, bit of a snafu on my part. Didn't see the scare quotes, and thought the adverb primarily was written in Wikipedia's voice, rather than included in a quote. Although I do concur that the quote seems a bit curious and incidental. Why are we including this POV here? Nutez (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It's an assessment of Maté. We are encouraged to include assessments within the narrative of an article rather than create separate assessment sections. There are numerous other examples of opinion and assessments in the article:

• In May 2017, Bob Cesca wrote on the Salon website: "Both Maté and [Zack] Beauchamp go to great lengths to characterize speculation about the Trump-Russia connection, which I would describe as small-C conspiracy theories, as being on a similar level as Alex Jones’ loony big-C conspiracy mongering."
• Vanity Fair described Maté as "a polite but dogged skeptic who administered a memorable vivisection" to Harding during the interview.
• Glenn Greenwald cited Maté among what Axios characterized as the "resistance to the resistance".
• MediaVillage columnist Erich J. Prince wrote that Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Matt Taibbi, and Michael Tracey made up an influential unified political clique that he called "the Aaron Maté Club", a group skeptical of the media coverage of the Trump-Russia story, critical of moderate Democrats, and an influential political force with a combined 2.28 million Twitter followers.
• Writing in CounterPunch, Stansfield Smith said Maté was one of the journalists who "have spoken out against this Russiagate McCarthyism".
• Serena Shim Award,, a cash prize administered by Paul Larudee and frequently given to supporters of the Syrian government.
• Oliver Carroll wrote in The Independent that The Grayzone had "amplified" criticism of Navalny and "appears to have been privy to lobbying around the Amnesty decision"

Burrobert (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI CounterPunch is deprecated, in the future it should be removed on sight in BLP contexts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The Shock Doctrine

Hey Horse Eye's Back, why are you removing the info about Maté being the lead researcher for Naomi Klein's book? He's credited in the book, right? The lorax (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Because its not an independent source, I don't think its due. It would be due if a WP:RS thought it was important enough to talk about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Chemical Attacks

This article needs to be clear that Aaron Maté denies the chemical attack that everyone but the Russia and Syria agrees and has been proven that Assad committed Those attacks. 2603:3006:400:300:6DC6:363B:DED0:936F (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Biden provided a green light for Netanyahu to continue massacring Palestinian civilians

We currently say the weaselly "Maté criticized Biden's telephone call to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu". What was Maté's criticism? His criticism was that Biden's telephone call to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which Biden expressed his "unwavering support" for Israel's "right to defend itself", was "a green light for Netanyahu to continue massacring Palestinian civilians" . We should de-weasel the text and provide readers with the specific criticism. Burrobert (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

A $100,000 Facebook ad purchase seems unlikely to have had much impact in a $6.8 billion election

We currently mention that Maté said use of social media by Russia had no effect on the election. What evidence does Aaron present for this view? He said that "To suggest 200 [Twitter] accounts out of 328 million could have had an impact is as much an insult to common sense as it is to basic math". "A $100,000 Facebook ad purchase seems unlikely to have had much impact in a $6.8 billion election". Readers can get this information from the sources we have provided but would also benefit by seeing the reasons in Aaron's bio. Burrobert (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Strange oversight

There has been a sudden enthusiasm for removing bits of Aaron's bio. Amongst all this activity, no one has tackled the following sentence which appears to make no sense:

According to the Washington Monthly Brennan (and Maté) had been open in a Congressional hearing in May 2017, which the Senate Intelligence Committee shared.

Burrobert (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Introduction is too loaded

The introduction immediately attacks the credibility of the grayzone where mate works. While i think criticism of his writing and the grayzone more broadly has a definite place in this article (full disclosure i think the criticisms are primarily in bad faith, but I think its well within standard practice to include them in the article), I think putting them in the intro is a bad faith move designed to discredit him as a journalist.

I propose removing the bolded text, criticisms of mate's writing in particular (e.g. skepticism over chemical weapons in syria) should be put into the body.

Aaron Maté is a Canadian journalist[2] and a reporter for The Grayzone[2], a fringe,[3] far-left blog[4] known for its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes[5] and denial of the Uyghur genocide.[6][7] He is a former producer of Democracy Now! and a contributor to The Nation and RealClearPolitics. He hosts the show Pushback with Aaron Maté on The Grayzone[8] and as of January 2022 fills in as a host on the Useful Idiots[9] podcast.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.228.85 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC) 

I agree. Also, if the criticism of Grayzone is to be included in Aaron's bio, it should be sourced to articles which discuss his work. The cited articles do not mention Aaron so are not useful in assessing his work. Burrobert (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You will retract your assertion of bad faith conduct and in the future will observe WP:AGF. That being said I do not object to your suggested edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

OP here (going to start using my account after this, need to receover the password) Appreciate it, thank you for informing me of this policy, do you prefer me to edit it out from the talk section or can i just disavow that statement here? Appreciate the inputs. 99.244.228.85 (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Maté was a polite but dogged skeptic who administered a memorable vivisection to [Luke] Harding during the interview.

We currently mention that Aaron interviewed Luke Harding. As noted by Vanity Fair, the interview is memorable for the way in which Aaron picked apart Harding's argument about Russian interference. The interview is available at many points of the web including a link in this article by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. The FAIR article states

[Harding's] book, Collusion, on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election was a New York Times No. 1 bestseller, and yet he could not give any evidence of collusion when asked in a now-infamous interview with Aaron Maté of The Real News, unable to defend even the title of his book, let alone his thesis. After being pressed harder by Maté, he simply disconnected the interview prematurely.

The interview is quite embarrassing for Harding, but readers would be interested in seeing this assessment , or the Vanity Fair assessment, of the interview. Burrobert (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

FAIR is not a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Right-ho. The source currently used for this in Aaron's bio is an article in Vanity Fair, which has a green tick. FAIR has received mixed reviews from the Wikipedia community. The above quote from FAIR is a good summary of what happened but the version from Vanity Fair is sufficient. Burrobert (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Izzy Award

A number of editors have removed mention that Aaron won an Izzy Award. The reason given has been that it is not a notable award. As far as I can tell there is no policy that governs inclusion of awards. There is another award mentioned in Aaron's bio. The striking thing about the removal of the Izzy is that none of the editors have attempted to remove mention of the other award on the same grounds. In fact, one of the editors who removed mention of the Izzy award actually added to the commentary around the other award. Neither award has a Wikipedia page. A section of the Roy H. Park School of Communications page is devoted to the Izzy award. The other award is mentioned in passing in the bio of the person after whom it is named. Burrobert (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the editors who have attempted to remove the passage on the grounds of lack of notability. Only one source (Democracy Now!) might be described as a national outlet in the United States unrelated to the institution responsible for the award. Two are from the Ithaca College student newspaper (The Ithacan) and the other is the school of communications itself. While they can all be considered RS, only Democracy Now! is third-party and none of them are really major outlets. Democracy Now! is also the only third-party source in the article about the school. In the I.F. Stone article, the notability of the Izzy Award is dependent on a citation to Park Center for Independent Media, part at the Roy H. Park School of Communications, and school is part of the afore mentioned Ithaca College. If no really strong national US third-party source has been published since the award was created in 2006, it might well indicate its notability is too low for inclusion. Philip Cross (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

That responds to one of the questions that was raised. What about the comparison with the other award? Firstly, compare the notability of the two awards. Secondly, the sources we use for the other award are two articles by Brian Whitaker, one of which is on his blog at al-bab. Burrobert (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Grayzone

A lot of readers are not going to know what "Grayzone" is so it is absolutely appropriate to include information on it in the lede and the text. Volunteer Marek 12:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

- There is a link to the Grayzone Wikipage for those readers interested in knowing more.

- the leading paragraph is supposed to summarise the body but the description of the Grayzone does not appear in the body

- the text about the Grayzone is an example of synthesis. It includes opinions about the Grayzone in a sentence about Aaron. It leads the reader to conclude that the opinions also apply to Aaron. However, none of the sources used mention Aaron.

- No attempt has been made to provide a similar description of other outlets with which Aaron is associated.

- A few comments about the text that has been inserted:

-- "A fringe blog ": the Grayzone Wikipedia page describes it as a "news website and blog"

-- "known for its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes": 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.

-- "pro-Putin propaganda": neither source mentions Vladimir. The Axios source does mention Russia but its statements do not appear to justify the phrase "pro-Putin propaganda".

Burrobert (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is a link but so what? Why is removing well sourced information and forcing readers to click on a link to find out about this website useful to the reader? And yes, as I already said, the body of the article should be expanded.

He's not as well known for other outlets with which he "is associated". Which ones? Volunteer Marek 01:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

the article, at leasts some parts of it, is highly unscientific and unencyclopedic. E.g. the article presents it as a matter of fact early on, that the website, that Maté writes for, "The Grayzone", is a "fringe" website by briefly and curtly using the word "is" in the sentence "is a fringe website". However, what is presented as a fact is just a view or a claim and thus should, in order to be linguistically accurate, consequently also be presented as such.

The "evidence" for the statement that said website "is" a "fringe blog and website" in the sentence "is a fringe website" is a referenced article on the website "codastory" (https://www.codastory.com/disinformation/grayzone-xinjiang-denialism/). I'm not familiar with codastory and cannot spontaneously assess how serious and reliable that website gernerally is to be considered. However, when going through the article in the coda article the word "fringe" is used three times. But no objective evidence is given for the alleged fringeness. It is just stated that it is so, without any proof that rises above subjectiveness. So the statement in said article on the codastory website is no evidence for the alleged "fringeness" of the Grayzone-website and that statement is not backed up by any evidence....so in actuality that casually made statement is just a claim, a personal opinion of the author of the article, or at most a personal assessment.

However, such an unsubstantiated mere claim is waaaay to wobbly a foundation to make it admissible, to put it into an encycopedic article (especially when it is - through the way said claim is linguistically integrated in to the article text here - presented as a definitive, undisputed, [objective] fact that is beyond doubt). By that standard any claim that anyone makes in a published article would have to be automatically accepted as an established fact, just because someone makes that claim and puts it into an article published somewhere (be it in the internet, be it in a printed medium). So if I publish an article in which I claim, that everyone editting articles on wikipedia is a peadophile, and have it published somewhere, that mere and horribly sweeping claim would automatically (by the aforementioned standard) have to accpeted as a clear-cut fact, not because it is objectively proven, just because someone made it by writing it into an article and getting that article published somewhere. So, a claim magically becomes a fact just because someone makes it in a published article? Seriously? ...That obviously is a preposterous standard and approach to scientific writing.

The conclusion is clear: The articles needs more linguistical accurarcy and precision, i.e. sentences should be phrased way more carefully, especially it should be made clear, that certain things are CLAIMED by certain people and it should not (irresponsibly) be pretended, that random claims someone makes are not just that (i.e. mere claims) but given facts.

So in this case it should be made clear in the way the article is written, that detractors of said website CLAIM that it is fringe (instead of just writing that it "IS" fringe), that certain people CLAIM that that website is supporting authoritarian regimes (instead of glibly pretending that it is a given fact that is), that it is not necessarly "pro-Putin", but that certain people CLAIM that it is (by the way "pro-Putin" is bad phrasing, 'cause in 40, 50, 60 years no reader - at least will without doing additional research - even understand what that means 'cause many people by then will no longer understand that jargon, because it is way too rooted in the present. Why? 'Cause by then Putin will no longer be a household name. After all, how many average people today still know, without looking it up, who Gromyko or Andropow were or who other leading politicians from 50 years ago (Pompidou, Kurt Georg Kiesinger, Harold Wilson, Callahan etc.) were? Not many. So instead of using phrases that are too rooted in the transitory discourse of today's day to day politics, the article should at least use formulations that average people will still, generally, understand, when they read the article a 20, 40 or 100 years from now, like "supportive of the Russiand government" or "repeating [allegedly] propagandistic claims made by the Russiand government" or something scientifically descriptive instead of newspaper jargon).

So in short: More precision and care should be employed when it comes to constructing an article like this than it is at present. At the moment the articles looks very much like an unsavoury exercise in partisanship than a contribution to scientific body like an encyclopedia, more like an attack job on someone somebody has a personal beef with that an unbiased and neutral attempt to research and expound facts on a public person.Zumptner (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It's well sourced. Your own personal opinions are original research. Volunteer Marek 20:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Well you do not seem to know what the term "original research" means, cause I have conducted no original research but just state facts and not my "personal opinions". So ironically you seem to attempt to flip reality upside down and accuse others of what you are doing yourself: Abusing the Wikipedia for your partisan political agenda, instead of respecting the purpose of an encyclopedia (neutral and factual covering of the subjects that its articles are refering to). You claim that "it'S well sourced" which is a flat out false claim on your part. As I have shown in great detail the "source" you put into the article to "prove" that the internet website that Mr. Maté writes for is "fringe" does not contain any evidence whatsover to corroborate that claim. It just puts out a claim ("that website is fringe") and proceeds to pretend that that claim is automatically true, because it says so. And then you pretend that a mere claim is evidence. By that standard I could say "Volunteer Marek is a rapist" and then argue that the circumstance that I made that claim is proof that that claim is true, i.e. that that statement is not just a claim but a given fact that has to be accepted and treated a proven. Obviously that would be sleazy behavior. And the same applies to the unscientific edits you have added to this article. You say "it'S well sourced" the fact of the matter remains that the opposite is true: There is no solid sourcing at all just unsubstantiated claims. So it is a most "fake sourced". If you do not work in a scientific way, why "contribute" to a scientific project such as WP? Why not just write a blog where you of course are free to ignore scientific tenents such objectivity and neutrality and can claim whatever you want? But if you edit here you should abide by the traditionals standards of proper and clean work and refrain from instrumentalizing articles for your private political agenda. Zumptner (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times at the Grayzone talk page. The reliable secondary sources (both popular and scholarly) explain, clearly, why and how the Grayzone is considered a conspiratorial fringe outlet. Your personal feelings otherwise do not hold weight here, unless you’ve published them in a reputable source with evidence to the contrary.—Hobomok (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hobomok. You seem to be under a serious misapprehension. Your write "Your personal feelings otherwise do not hold weight her" -> Well I have at no point here presented my personal feelings, since I do not have any personal feelings on the issue whatsoever, but are in a perfectly aloof position towards the subject matter. So contrary to your claim I have not voiced any feelings or opinions here, but just pointed out facts. And the fact is that the article is "sourced" with flimsy and non-substantive "sources". You claim that those sources are "reliable", which strongly suggests that you have never actually bothered to read and check them. Cause the fact of the matter is that the sources used in the criticized section of this article here do not provide any evidence for the claims that they make: I.e. they just make a clain ("it's fringe") and leave it at that (i.e. limit themselves to making a claim without backing it up by solid evidence), which is methodically highly unscientific. So the references used in the contested section are not appropriate for use as sources in an encyclopedia or any other scientific body (at least for the specific claim which they are used to "prove"), because they do not fulfil the standards that a publication has to meet in accordance with the traditional standards of scientific work in order to be citable as a source for the claim they make (i.e. that a publication in order to be usable as reference/source to which one points as evidence for the accuracy of any given claim has to provide/cotain hard and verifiable evidence for said claim that it makes, instead of just making it). So it strikes me as highly shoddy style of working in an encyclopedia to use such sources in an encyclopedia. Are there no sources that acually present checkable evidence for that claim, instead of just tautologically making it ("it is so because we say it is so, no evidence needed")??? If the claim is true there should be such publications. If there are not it seems to just be an empy claim (propaganda, slander, partisan trench-warfare) Zumptner (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion: Oliver Boyd-Barrett's opinion

Someone has deleted a highly well-sourced addition I made -> I added "Maté, next to writers such as Seymour Hersh, Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges, has been ranked by communications researcher Professor Oliver Boyd-Barrett as one of the leading contemporary "respected independent investiagtive journalists and scholars", who challenge mainstream narratives such as the claim of a conspiracy between former US-President Donald Trump and Russian President Wladimir Putin."

There is no justification for deleting that content. It is well-sourced and it's claims are easily verifiable. And the book was published by a leading publishing house for academic works:

Evidence

• The author Oliver Boyd-Barrett is a Ph.D and long-time university lecturer (now a "Professor Emeritus") (-> [7] See the data on him given on the official website of the Bowling Green State University)
• The publisher is Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, a publishing house often used among others by the United States Holocaust Museum for it's publications. So certainly a respectable publisher

So it beyond dispute that the author is a serious scholar and that is study was published by a highly reputable publishing house. Therefore there is no justification for deleting content based on that source. It is a much more solid and scientific source than pretty much every other source used in this article (some random article published on the internet instead of published scientific works that can actually found in scientific libraries unlike most sources used in this article). So I expect the deletion to be undone since it has no foundation, but seems random, just based on the personal feelings ("I don't like that") of the deleting user, who removes material even though it is sourced in a way that is in full accordance with the requirements here, just because it makes statements that do not fit in with his personal views.Zsasz (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The book makes statements that do not fit in with reality, such as claiming that the Euromaidan/Revolution of Dignity was a "Western-supported coup d'état that occurred in Kiev [sic], Ukraine", that the likelihood that Sergei Skripal was poisoned by British intelligence "is arguably greater than that he was attacked by Russia", that the 2018 Douma chemical attack is only "alleged" and many other dubious claims. And it cites sources such as 21st Century Wire, Globalresearch.ca, Medium blog posts, the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, RT, MintPress News and Zero Hedge, none of which are reliable. It's crap, really. Of course a fringe writer such as Oliver Boyd-Barrett would praise other fringe writers. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, that is all very interesting, what you write Kleinpecan (and some of it is new to me so that I will privately follow up on it), but sorry it is perfectly irrelevant with regard to the issue at hand. The question is, whether the book is a citable source. And in accordance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources it most definetly is a reliable and quotable source: It is a scientific monograph written by an undisputably scientific author (a university professor at an established university) and published with a reputable scientifict book publisher -> therefore all requirements are met, that make a published work a reliable and citable source in accordance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. All the things you mention are perfectly irrelevant, 'cause those are just your personal feelings and opinions on some issues he addresses in his book (and on top of that: different issues than that which his book is used as references for). And your personal opinions and feelings are just POV and thus irrelvant with regard to the work on an article. The only factor that is relevant is, whether the formal criteria that make a source a reliable source according to the Wikipedia rules are met. And that, even if you don't like it is the case (an academic author makes a statement in an academic book published by an acadmic book publishr). So, if you do not agree with some of the assessments that Mr. Boyd-Barrett makes in his book (like that he calls the Maidan events a "coup" instead of a "revolution"), that is of course your right. But since that is only your private POV it cannot have any bearing on the question whether the book is a source that can be used in the article (which clearly it can as by the Wikipedia rules). Also your claim that Mr. Boyd-Barrett is "a fringe writer" is an unsubstaniated claim that you seem to have pulled out of your sleeve. The evidence (he is a "Professor Emeritus" and lectured for a long time a reputable universities, which is quite the opposite of "fringe"). So as much as I, honestly, respect your private opinions and feelings, they cannot be a justification to keep well-sourced and relevant content out of the article. "Me don't likey" is not an argument that is material when it comes to encyclopedic writing. Zsasz (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Judging by the amount of dubious claims the book makes and the similarly dubious sources it cites, it is not a reliable source in any way. And the suggested addition is undue, too: we don't cite Mark Sargent in the article on flat Earth, so why should we cite Oliver Boyd-Barrett here? Kleinpecan (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The man is a scholar impeccable credentials (Ph.D, University lecturer, a body of published works). So he meets all qualifications that make an author quotable. Personal likes or dislikes of what he writes cannot be a factor. There are plenty of claims in countless articles that I personally disagree with, but I would never delete them even though I personally disagree with them, 'cause the claims are published by scientific authors is scientific publications, so they automatically belong into the respective articles whose subjects they refer to, even if I or anyone else disagrees with them privately. The same applies here. That you personally disagree with some the claims the authors makes is not relevant for the decision whether or not to add said claims to the article (though I of course respect you as a person and thus your opinion). It has just to be mentioned as a statement made by a formally relevant source (scientific book by a scientific author) on the matter. The reader can decide on his or her own part, if he agrees with that assessment. The relevant point is that that assessment exists and therefore the readers should be informed that it exists as a position of a formally relevant source (it is up to the reader to then decide individually for themselves, whether to agree with that assessment or to reject it). Zsasz (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

None of your comments address the obvious and serious factual inaccuracies in the book. You seem to be arguing with strawmen. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, no offense to you, but you seem to be the one using a strawman, 'cause you want to talk about issues that are perfectly irrelvant here (certain parts of the book of Mr. Boyd-Barrett, like how he assesses the Maidan events of 2014). You consider his positions on certain points as "obvious and serious inaccuracies", which is your right of course (and which privately I would even be in agreement with you, but your and my private opions are quite irrelevant in this context, for it is not the job of the wikipedia to serve as a platform to spread your and my or anyone else's private opinions, but to neutrally collect information on issues, regardless of how we feel about that information). So your POV that certain positions of that researcher are "serious factual inaccuracies" is irrelevant with regard to this article and the question if any how to use Boyd-Barrett's book as as source for the article. So I fail to see why that is supposed to be part of this debate.

What is relevant is the following -> Mr Boyd-Barrett is an academic scholar (even a university lecturer), who has published a scientific book with an academic book publisher, so all criteria are met that formally make his book a source that is sutiable to be used in wikipedia article in accordance with the wikipedia rules (specifically wikipedia:sources and literature). So there is no justification to remove the book or information backed up by that book from the article. That you don'T like some of the author's position is no valid reason with regard to the wikipedia rules. The proper approarch would be to accurately represent the scientific discourse on the matter by writing something lik "one scholar says...as opposed to that another scholar holds the view that...yet another researcher argues..." and leave it to the reader to form his own opinion and decide for himself which position of the scholars on the issue he considers to be more convincing. Best regards Zsasz (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

If Oliver Boyd-Barrett were a respected, credible researcher, his opinion on Aaron Maté would be due for the article. But because he's not (as shown by his claims about, for example, Russia's "alleged culpability in shooting down civilian flight MH17"—emphasis mine), he's not, which is why his opinion is undue. It is only natural that a fringe writer such as him would praise other fringe writers. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but you seem to misunderstand the Wikipedia rules. It is not up to you you to decide who is "due" or "undue" based on your private opinions and feelings (i.e. your POV), but, this being a scientific project, we need to abide by objective criteria. That you personally dislike some of Mr. Boyd-Barrett's positions (which I privately do too, so that privately we are unisono on that point) is not relevant, cause the wikipedia is not serving the purpose of you and me and other people propagating their private views, but is about collecting all available information on issues and presenting them in a neutral way, which means all sources that are formally relevant need to be paid attention to and presented, regardless of, whether you and I and other like or dislike what they say. You dislike that that author regards the Maidan events as a "coup" (and not a revolution) or that he doubts that Russia shot down the MH17, that's fair (and reflects my private view), but it is not relevant with regard to the decision whether his book is a "due" or "undue" source and can or should be used for the article. The only thing that counts are the objective criteria, and those are unambiguous: The man is a scientist (a university lecturer), who has written a scientific study, which was published with an academic book publisher. That makes his book automatically relevant and gives it the status of a "due" source, regardless of you and I privately disliking some of the things he writes. 'Cause if someone disliking somethign written in a scientific publication was reason enough not to use it - than we could not use any study, because there always is someone who dislikes, what is stated in it. So private dislikes and disapproval of a book cannot be a factor here. Best regardsZsasz (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course the reputability of a source's author is relevant to whether that source is reliable or not (see WP:SOURCEDEF). We would not cite David Duke ([8]) in an article about Ernst Zündel, for example. Kleinpecan (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The content was improperly attributed to Boyd–Barret, who is actually one of the editors. The author of the chapter in question is actually Gerald Sussman. Still excellent sourcing and the content would be good and DUE after a bit of copy editing. Something like this:

"Professor Gerald Sussman described Maté as one of the "respected independent investigative journalists" who have challenged the Trump–Putin conspiracy narrative."

(Sussman is professor of urban studies and global studies at Portland State University. I'm not exactly sure how the attribution should be formatted).

Sussman's view is also a mainstream view, for example Routledge Handbook of Psychoanalytic Political Theory says "The work of Russian expat journalists and Putin critics Masha Gessen, Leonid Bershidsky, and Yasha Levine; Princeton professor Stephen Cohen and Aaron Maté at The Nation; and former Moscow-based reporters Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames have been exemplary in debunking Russiagate narratives." Politrukki (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure that an author for publications like CovertAction Magazine and  CounterPunch (RSP entry), where he cites sources such as  Wikipedia (RSP entry) (eight times, in fact),  Medium (RSP entry),  RT (RSP entry),  Zero Hedge (RSP entry), and  Reddit (RSP entry), is "still an excellent source". Then there's also stuff like this (from his CovertAction article):

This time the CIA was more fully involved in getting rid of the Russia-leaning president and very likely helped prepare the extreme right militia groups that took part in the sniper shootings and massacres of police and protesters in the Maidan, which forced Yanukovych to flee. The New York Times falsely attributed the shootings to his government. This set off resistance in the heavily Russophone Donbas region to the overthrow, which in turn was met by an assault by the Kyiv coup government and the deaths, up to 2022, of 14,000 soldiers and civilians.

Kleinpecan (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Note: One-revert rule

@Hobomok, Theodore Christopher, Kmccook, Esolo5002, BeŻet, Kleinpecan, JazzyHatMan, Volunteer Marek, Valjean, and Pax Wikipedian: Please note that, as this article significantly pertains to the Syrian Civil War, it is under a community-imposed one revert rule. I have added an editnotice clarifying this. Further reverts in violation of the one-revert rule may lead to partial or sitewide blocks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

General issues in the Lead Section

The labeling of Maté as a "conspiracy theorist" is being discussed already, but I believe the last paragraph of the current introduction (covering his positions on Syria/Assad and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine is unfitting for an introduction, seeing as these topics are discussed later in the article. While MOS:FIRSTBIO does state that "noteworthy positions" should be used in the Lead Section, these are already covered in the current version opening paragraph, his position on Syria/Assad is covered later in the article. On the other hand, his position on Ukraine isn't, which would probably be in order, but not in the introduction. Additionally, the current introduction is chock full of subjective language ("fringe", "propaganda", etc.).

In my opinion, this page on a not-extremely-relevant journalist is bloated as is, the present edit warring is degrading its quality and bloating it further.

Theodore Christopher (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Just a note on one aspect of this: that ”subjective” language is the same language used by the cited reliable secondary sources. That’s what the RS say, and that’s what this article reflects.—Hobomok (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

See the page for Max Blumenthal, a colleague of Maté, it is far better curated and makes sparing use of the discussed words.—Theodore Christopher (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The... very first sentence of that article covers how The Grayzone promotes conspiracy theories and engages in atrocity denial of authoritarian states. The use of the terms like "fringe" seem to be reflected in source. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, all factual, but it does not directly describe Blumenthal as a conspiracy theorist or use the "fringe" adjective with regards to The Grayzone before explaining what it is. Yes, semantics, but it makes a tangible difference. This is what I was talking about in the first place.— Theodore Christopher (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I should mention the subject complaining about this page on Twitter a few hours ago. This may be influencing the sudden burst of traffic on what is normally a contentious BLP. I see calls for page protection were acknowledged by admin User:Tamzin, who creditably self-identifies as anti-hate (which would seem to most a reasonable position). BusterD (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  For the record, I'm not here to defend Maté's honor or something. He is obviously a It just seems to me like a not-very-well-written lead section.— Theodore Christopher (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I removed the text about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as it is completely unsourced and not mentioned at all in the body. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You're right that info needs to be added to the body. Volunteer Marek 20:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say that makes me right. Mate’s notability seems to mostly be from his Russiagate skepticism and Syria related comments. I don’t think the Russian invasion stuff is worth much of a mention from the usual contrarian types. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kmccook: - I'm sorry I'm having trouble understanding your edit summary here. The source is very clearly The Guardian (more specifically the Observer section), not "Linked In". Here it is [9]. You even left the source while removing the information. Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 20:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Original Research

The article lists an opinion piece in the New Yorker by Masha Gessen here newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-wont-amnesty-international-call-alexey-navalny-a-prisoner-of-conscience as a source for the Grayzone being "fringe", but the descriptor does not appear anywhere in the opinion piece and is original research. Poyani (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

If you read through Coda Story's piece, the term "fringe" is verbatim used quite a few times. You are correct that the piece from The New Yorker is being used incorrectly. However, if you look at other coverage (such as that from Politico EU and China Digital Times), you will note that the label of fringe is used across the media to describe the website. I think these citations would be better than the one to The New Yorker, which does not directly support the use of the term (nor use synonyms for it). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The New Yorker needs to be removed and Politico added. However, the descriptor still needs to be attributed, i.e. "according to Coda Story and Politico ...". I don't know if China Digital Times qualifies as RS. Poyani (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

As already explained, the New Yorker source was being used to cite the fact that he works there. Given the sheer number of sources describing it as fringe there’s no need to attribute. Volunteer Marek 15:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The "sheer number of sources" is 2 sources? Do you know what the word "sheer" means? Poyani (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is turning into a sewer

There are countless examples of violations of the WP:BLP, WP:NPV and WP:RS policies here. 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.

1. Negative descriptors like "conspiracy theorist" and claiming someone defends authoritarian governments should be attributed (i.e. "has been described as a conspiracy by theorist by...." 2. These do not belong in the lead but in a Criticism subheading. 3. All the opinions of the editors which are not attributed should be removed.

This is such a disaster that I think at this point it may be worthwhile to get some admins review and advise.

Poyani (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Here is the source for "conspiracy theorist" [10]. The Guardian. This is NOT an opinion piece contrary to your false assertion. And sorry but the Guardian is not an "incredibly dubious website". Indeed, it's Observer section is "the world's oldest Sunday newspaper".

And in some instances insisting on attribution is an attempt at W:POVing information by WP:WEASELing it. If this wasn't sourced so well then yeah. But the sourcing here is strong. Volunteer Marek 20:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian article doesn't make the assertion. It cites a third party making the claim, without defending the voracity of that claim. That's a pretty tenuous source to use to justify your violation of WP:BLP.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Volunteer Marek here. The complaints you're making here have already been made, responded to, and put to rest very clearly over the course of this talk page. --Hobomok (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to see more than 1 source to write that someone is a conspiracy theorist in Wikivoice. He should be regularly called that by top tier sourcing to qualify it as how we describe him in the first sentence. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Mr. Ernie here. "Conspiracy theorist" in the lead is probably WP:UNDUE unless we have a good number of sources using this characterization. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that Aaron Mate is notable enough in general to be regularly described as anything, let alone a "conspiracy theorist". I do know that Aaron Mate is a "tankie" i.e. hardcore leftist with some extreme views. Nonetheless, him being very opinionated is not necessarily proof of him pushing conspiracy theories (although highly suggestive of it, and can probably be verified through specific instances of him pushing conspiracy theories). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There is already one paragraph from The Guardian in "Syria, Douma, and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons" section and has been for few months. The allegations should be attributed to Institute for Strategic Dialogue study, as they are. Not sure how much content, if any, is warranted to include in the lead. Calling Maté a "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia's name is a clear-cut BLP NPOV violation. Politrukki (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It’s not just the ISD that calls him such. Volunteer Marek 21:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Defend your assertions with evidence, or retract your violations of WP:BLP.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources are already in the article even if you are trying to actively remove them, recent SPA with uncanny knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Volunteer Marek 13:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

The say that the source cited is insufficient for the post is an understatement. Mate is mentioned in a single sentence in passing and even the article itself undermines the claim. The sentence is

"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. [Maté rejects the claim – see 10 July 2022 footnote.]"

The source is also incorrectly identified by the activists as "the Guardian". It clearly isn't as the author in the Guardian is citing a dubious 3rd party source.

Poyani (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The source IS "the Guardian". It is completely irrelevant who the Guardian cites. The secondary source is the Guardian. Stop removing reliably sourced info from the article. Volunteer Marek 13:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

"The trash activists are at it again"? Buddy, you came here after a year-and-a-half-long hiatus because Maté wrote a thread on Twitter whining about this article. You are the trash activist. Kleinpecan (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked into Aaron Mate specifically, but I do know that the magazine "Grayzone" is notorious for pushing conspiracy theories. They are a "tankie" propaganda/news outlet who push commentary in favour of authoritarian regimes such as Russia and China. So, the fact that Aaron Mate is best known for working for Grayzone suggests that he is involved in the same kind of conspiracy theorising that Grayzone is well known for. Again, I haven't investigated Aaron Mate specifically, so I can't say whether this is true or not. All I know is that Grayzone is a trash outlet. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I fixed it. I am going to look for a moderator for this article and hopefully we can permanently ban some of the clowns who have been using Wikipedia as a defamation vehicle against those whose politics they dislike. Poyani (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Two things:

1. Please do not cast aspersions against the motives of good-faith editors without evidence. Referring to good-faith editors as "clowns" or "trash activists" is not civil and serves no purpose in terms of discussing article content.
2. I have reverted your edit to the article. The material you removed was well-referenced and is suitable for a lead section and there is a consensus to characterize The Grayzone in that manner. Additionally, your edit broke a reference that was used multiple times in the article; please be careful to not break references when removing content going forward, lest we get a big red error message in the article's references section.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The article cited barely mentions the subject in passing and has a lengthy footnote specifically saying that the small blurb is disputed. Poyani (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is what Poyani has done here so far:

• Removed what they called "dubious sources" [11]. These "dubious sources" according to them are: The New Yorker, The Guardian, South China Morning Post, Wall Street Journal and Bellingcat
• Falsely claimed the source only mentions the subject "in passing", even though the source refers to the subject as "the most prolific spreader of disinfiormation". "Most prolific" is not "just in passing".
• Referred to anyone who disagrees with them as "activists" and "clowns".
• Broke existing links in the article.

This is WP:NOTHERE territory. Volunteer Marek 13:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whose comment is this a response to? The articles characterizing The Grayzone in the way this article does are quite substantial. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I did not remove the New Yorker claiming it was not a reliable source. I removed it because the cited material (describing the Grezone as "fringe" does not appear in the article. You cannot cite an article to back a claim that does not appear in the article Poyani (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

New Yorker was being used to cite that he works there. There were multiple sources for "fringe" which you also removed. Volunteer Marek 14:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Poyani, you continue to remove reliable sources when discussion is currently ongoing at talk. Please stop. I’m not going to revert in observance of the 1RR currently in-place, but you really need to tone it down on this talk page and quit removing sources so the lead reads how you prefer it to read while discussion is ongoing here.

The page needs to be reverted back to the Nov. 3 19:55 version (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Maté&oldid=1119857468) by Mr Ernie, when this entire discussion began.

The page wasn’t a mess (aside from anonymous editors drawn here by Mate’s tweets) until this discussion began and sources started disappearing left and right.—Hobomok (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I did not remove the South China Morning Post claiming it was not a reliable source. I removed it because the cited material does not appear in the article. You cannot cite an article to back a claim that does not appear in the article. I made this clear in the edit tag. Poyani (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, you broke 1RR and need to self revert (preferably to the version mention by Hobomok above). Volunteer Marek 14:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The quote from SCMP is: (Greyzone) has been accused of whitewashing the crimes of authoritarian countries, from Nicolas Maduro’s Venezuela to Bashar al-Assad’s Syria Volunteer Marek 14:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Poyani Yes, in addition to removing multiple sources that editors have discussed here previously, are used on other related pages, are used in the body of the article, and are currently being discussed here, because you either deemed them “unreliable” or you said they were not represented correctly.

You cannot just remove sources and add tags because you disagree with them/you believe them to be unreliable, especially while discussion is ongoing. Surely you know that’s not how this works. At the very least, it is not constructive nor is it productive. I ask you again to stop.

Again, I repeat myself: I will not revert, in observance of the 1RR currently in place. I again ask that this page be reverted to the Nov. 3 19:55 version (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Maté&oldid=1119857468) by Mr Ernie, when this entire discussion began, before mass deletion of sources took place.—Hobomok (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Since you are not reverting, I reverted back in good faith. I will post discussions here on each individual item. If no objections are made in good faith I will begin making the edits again. Poyani (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Here are the sources for "fringe". I believe at least some of them were in the article before IPs and fly-by-night accounts started attacking this article and removing sources:

• [12] emails was picked up by fringe website the Grayzone (...) Grayzone has a reputation for pushing stories that match some of the narratives of Kremlin propaganda, as well as the propaganda of authoritarian regimes such as China and Syria
• [13] Enter the Grayzone: fringe leftists deny the scale of China’s Uyghur oppression (...) Grayzone has followed a similar path on Syria, challenging reports of atrocities by the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. What is more, these fringe views appear to be creeping into other areas of the American left.
• [14] The Grayzone is one fringe news source, and its reach has been amplified by Chinese and Russian state-affiliated entities

And there are plenty more. Volunteer Marek 14:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

The article has cited the website Index on Censorship as a reliable source for material for content which may be viewed as defamatory in a Biography of Living Person, although the Index on Censorship does not appear on Wikipedia's Reliable Sources Page. Poyani (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Your personal opinion here is irrelevant. And what in the world is "Wikipedia's Reliable Sources Page"? WP:RS? That's a policy, not "a list of reliable sources". IoC is reliable. Volunteer Marek 14:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that the Index on Censorship is a reliable source? And if you don't know what the Reliable Sources list is, don't tell me that is not how it works. The reliable sources list is located here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Th assertion that Index on Censorship (which is just a website) is reliable is your opinion. You cannot use it as a citation for material which could be considered defamatory in a BLP. Poyani (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

No. That’s not a “list of reliable sources”. That’s an ESSAY about sources which tend to come up again and again in discussion. IOC is reliable per WP:RS. And all this info is cited to multiple reliable sources so please stop calling it “defamatory”. Volunteer Marek 15:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In what sense is Index on Censorship reliable as per RS? Wikipedia works on consensus or precedent. The list I provided to you is for precedent. Index on Censorship is not on it, therefore there is no precedent. It also doesn't have consensus as I am disputing its reliability. The Index on Censorship published stories justifying the murder of Theo Van Gough. Should I use them as a reliable source in the Theo Van Gough article? Poyani (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Poyani, I ask you again throughout all of these complaints you're registering where numerous editors are explaining to you how WP:Lead works, please watch your tone. A good portion of this back and forth hasn't been productive or constructive. Please listen to other editors, and please stop with the condescending and combative tone.--Hobomok (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

??? The statement to which you are replying is neither condescending nor combative. As I noted previously, Index on Censorship is not a reliable source as per WP:RS. Poyani (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Criticism

Why are the criticisms of the subject located on the lead instead of in a criticism section which is standard policy on wikipedia articles, especially for BLP? See WP:Criticism Poyani (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you stating that our characterization of The Grayzone in the lead (which, FYI, is the consensus at The Grayzone) is overly critical? The characterizations of the website in the links I posted above, as well as the ones I see in sources like the Jewish Chronicle, seem to generally be around how reliable sources report on The Grayzone. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

No. I am saying there should be a separate section in the content section of the page labelled "Criticism", which lists any criticism of the subject. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism Poyani (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

As a note, that essay's advice generally is that instead of giving a standalone section to criticism, we should: (1) integrate the various views on the topic throughout the article; or (2) to present positive and negative views in the same section. There's a "reception" section in The Grayzone that already does (2), so I'm a bit confused as to your proposal. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

A criticism section is generally discouraged (I went through this over a decade ago in the Chirstopher Hitchens article). But shoving a bunch of criticism, without balance, in the lead of a BLP is the absolute worst decision. WP:BLP specifically states "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."

My proposal is that there is a reception section in the Grayzone and that is enough. The information critical of the Grayzone does not belong in this BLP. But if editors insist it be here, it should be in the (discouraged) Criticism section and certainly not in the lead. Poyani (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

As a general rule, a reference that does not even discuss the topic does not belong in the article for the topic. Most of the lead uses references that do not discuss the subject at all, but one of his employers. For a BLP article this is problematic. For the lead of a BLP article this is hugely problematic. Poyani (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me quote that back at you: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone That’s exactly what we’re doing. Can’t help it if the factual info makes the subject look bad. Is Grayzone fringe? Yes, according to reliable sources. Do they, and Mate, publish disinformation in support of authoritarian dictators like Putin and Assad who commit war crimes? Yes, according to reliable sources. Stop trying to whitewash this. Volunteer Marek 15:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This is your definition of presenting the material "conservatively"? Do you know what "conservatively" means? Poyani (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. This is who he is, this is what he does, this is what reliable sources say. You can’t whitewash that which cannot be polished. Volunteer Marek 15:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Once again, the criticism you are citing is NOT DIRECTED AT HIM. It is only directed at 1 ONE of the publications which publishes his work. It is not directed at the Nation (another publication which publishes his work). It is not directed at the Useful Idiots Podcast (another publication that publishes his work. It is not directed at VICE (another publication that publishes his work). It is not directed at the Intercept (another publication that publishes his work. It is not directed at the Tablet (another publication that publishes his work). It is not directed at The Real News (another publication that publishes his work). It is not directed at RealClearPolitics (another publication that publishes his work). It is not directed at DemocracyNow (another publication that has published his work. Your Opinion that criticisms of the Grayzone are who he is is your own opinion and hence original research, and erroneous anyways. Poyani (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Greyzone is where he works NOW and the outlet he is most commonly associated with. He has published an article or two in other outlets but did not work for them. And that was then, this is now. A lot of people these days take the trajectory from “respectable” to “fringe”. Probably because “fringe” pays better. Volunteer Marek 17:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you cannot change someone's BLP because of your opinion that "probably fringe pays better". This type of argument is not relevant to the page. I can't even believe this requires an argument, but the page for Aaron Mate should be about the subject of Aaron Mate. Not about Coda's opinion on the publication which publishes his material nor Bellingcat's opinion about the organization which at some point gave him an award. Poyani (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk page sections

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.

---

I've just arrived here and I can't help but notice that there has been an excessive number of talk page sections being created here over just the past day or two. Something really needs to be done about this. This seems to have gotten out of hand really quickly. Some canvassing might be occurring behind the scenes too, explaining the sudden burst in activity at this article and at its talk page. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There is indeed canvassing going on on twitter. Which is how you see long dormant accounts all of sudden being activated. Volunteer Marek 17:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Aside from that, the state that this talk page is in is horrendous. User:Poyani has created six lengthy discussions within this talk page over just the past two days. This is excessive no matter what the details surrounding this entire situation are. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Jargo - the reason there has been an excessive amount of discussions about this page is that the subject of the article has himself commented on various platform about users Volunteer Marek and Valjean have been using Wikipedia to slander him. They seem to be on a quest to insert whatever defamatory material they can find and insert it into not just the article, but the lead of the article. Poyani (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe that Aaron Mate's own behaviour is contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines in that case. If Aaron Mate is commentating about Wikipedia editors via his social media platforms, then that can be regarded as canvassing. And, given that you have admitted to viewing such material by Mate, it means that you are potentially admitting to having been canvassed by Mate. i.e. you might be WP:NOTHERE. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia for well over a decade. Maybe you are right. Maybe I predicted the future and joined Wikipedia in the early 2000s just in preparation of Aaron Mate tweeting about slander on Wikipedia in 2022. And no, he did not call for anyone to edit his page. Just pointed out correctly, that activists like Volunteer Marek and Valjean had been using Wikipedia, in violation of its own rules to turn this BLP page into a some sort of slander factory. Reading Volunteer Marek's statements above (for example his instance of filling the page lead with weasel words) exhibits that this is in fact correct. Poyani (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

If Aaron Mate referred to Volunteer Marek and Valjean by name, that can be regarded as (1) slander and (2) harassment. This is certainly against the spirit of Wikipedia. Furthermore, Aaron Mate should not be editing his own user page or inciting his followers to edit his user page. Generally speaking (or almost always, really), such actions can be described as a WP:CONFLICT of interest. Wikipedia articles about the biographies of living people should usually not be written by the person who the article is detailing, nor should it be written by people who are closely associated with that person. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Is your allegation that this article is being written " by the person who the article is detailing, nor should it be written by people who are closely associated with that person"? Poyani (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that you, User:Poyani, are associated with Aaron Mate since I've learnt firsthand from you that he is advocating for his followers to brigade this Wikipedia biography about him in order to improve the descriptions in his favour. Presumably, you have been exposed to this material by Mate and have been incited by him to edit the article on his behalf, whether or not he personally requested you to do so. Even if you are motivated by personal beliefs, you were probably still incited by him when you viewed the material that he had posted on his social media channels. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I am "closely associated" with Aaron Mate? Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion while assuming good faith. Seeing a public tweet is not by any definition a close association. Are you closely associated with the author of every tweet you have seen? Poyani (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Also - again please refrain from misattributing false information to me or slandering anyone. I never stated that Aaron Mate is "advocating for his followers to brigade this Wikipedia biography". This is just outright false. Mate has only pointed out (correctly) that in its current form the wikipedia article that bares his name is slanderous. Poyani (talk) 19:52, 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.

Guilt by Association

Why is the lead primarily a criticism section not of the subject himself, but of one of the publications which publishes his work? Criticisms of the Grayzone should be relocated to the a Criticism Section in the Grayzone's article and not on the page of one of the journalists whose work they publish. Poyani (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Because either you or some other account removed info on the subject itself? This is a disingenuous question. Regardless, the nature of his main outlet is obviously pertinent. Volunteer Marek 15:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason that his work for The Grayzone appears in the second sentence is that it is his current job, which tends to get priority in the lead. The lead can be reworked to include reference to Useful Idiots podcast in the first paragraph and to be more broad as to be a more holistic summary of the article. I might try writing such a lead later today and posting it on the talk. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you should write this in a criticism section of the Grayzone, and not in the Mate article at all, let alone in the leade. Poyani (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Are we not supposed to describe what the website is in this article? I feel like omission makes the article poorer in failing to provide the context around Maté's current work. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

We can describe what the website is, but making the lead overly dedicated to criticisms of the Grayzone risks turning it into a coatrack article. Poyani (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Specifically look at the "A Journalist Mentioned It in Passing" section of an example of a Coatrack Article in Wikipedia. It is almost describing the Aaron Mate lead. Poyani (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the lede is full of content that can be described as derogatory towards this person. I am in favour of perhaps adding a 'Criticism' or 'Controversy' section where this information is collected. At this point something can be reported in the lede... but certainly with more neutrality. Mhorg (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the article so the point is moot. Volunteer Marek 15:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

- the text about the Grayzone is an example of synthesis. It includes opinions about the Grayzone in a sentence about Aaron. It leads the reader to conclude that the opinions also apply to Aaron. However, none of the sources used mention Aaron. Burrobert (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In the first line of this article, half of the text is related to Grayzone and not to the subject... this is not acceptable. I think we have to do something to improve this. Mhorg (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is in part due to the fact that info about the subject has been removed and in part because since Grayzone is indeed fringe, we need to inform readers about its nature. Volunteer Marek 15:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

If you want to inform the readers that the Grayzone is fringe and have the RS to back it up, then do it in the Grayzone page, not the page of a person whose work is published by the Grayzone. This is not the Grayzone page. Poyani (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Lol. “Don’t tell the readers what the organization he works for does! We must hide this from our readers!” Are you serious? Volunteer Marek 15:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the lede is not supposed to be a summary of the content. Secondly If the Guilt by Association in the lede is a summary of the content then the content must be changed. An article about a subject should not be a guilt-by-association page to attack a different subject. Poyani (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the lede is supposed to be summary of the article, and since Mate is mostly known for his Greyzone work that’s why we describe it in the lede. This is not “guilt by association”. If someone works for InfoWars is it “guilt by association” to say they work for a wacky conspiracy website? No. Volunteer Marek 15:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes actually. If a person writes for Infowars, it is totally incorrect to include in their article criticisms of infowars that are not criticisms of them. Here is another even clearer example. If a person writes for The National Post, would it be correct to include in their article information about the 2006 Iran Hoax published by the National Post? No. That information belongs in the National Post's article, not the article on each one of its writers. If a person publishes articles in the Washington Post, would it be correct to write in their article information about the untrue allegations published by the Washington Post in the lead up to the Iraq War? No. That belongs in the Washington Post article. So on and so forth Poyani (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It’s kind of becoming clear that discussion is going to be pointless. Yes, if a person works for InfoWars we would 100% write “works for the conspiracy website InfoWars” in their article. Is National Post known for regularly publishing hoaxes? Do reliable sources say that? No? Then stop it with the irrelevant deflections. Volunteer Marek 15:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Poyani, you wrote: "the lede is not supposed to be a summary of the content." On what planet do you live? That IS the purpose. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The article lead is different from news-style leads in that it is explicitly supposed to be a summary of the article's content. I agree that we need to avoid WP:COATRACK, but frankly the page isn't a coatrack at the moment; it seems to focus on Maté's activities and provides the characterizations of them as covered in reliable sources. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Currently the first paragraph has 16 words about Aaron Mate and 19 words dedicated to the Grayzone with references that do not even mention Aaron Mate. Poyani (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Which, again, is in large part due to the fact that info on Mate himself was removed under the same bullshit pretexts that you are trying to remove info on Grayzone now. So the appropriate remedy is to restore that info. Volunteer Marek 15:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

If the lead were to read

Aaron Maté is a Canadian writer and reporter. He currently works as reporter for The Grayzone, a fringe blog known for its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes, pro-Putin propaganda, and denial of the Uyghur genocide. He is a former producer of Democracy Now! and a contributor to The Nation and RealClearPolitics. He hosts the show Pushback with Aaron Maté on The Grayzone and, as of, January 2022 fills in as a host on the Useful Idiots podcast. 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 funds apologists for the Assad regime.

rather than there being three separate paragraphs, the relative word count in the first paragraph would change but I´m not sure that the relative word count is a good way of describing what should be going on. Ideally, the lead would reflect the article in a bit more depth than it does now, but I don't think the lead is terribly unbalanced. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead should read something like this:

Aaron Maté is a Canadian writer and reporter. He currently works as reporter for The Grayzone. He is a former producer of Democracy Now! and a contributor to The Nation and RealClearPolitics. He hosts the show Pushback with Aaron Maté on The Grayzone and, as of, January 2022 fills in as a host on the Useful Idiots podcast. Maté's reporting has also appeared in the Intercept, Vice, The Real News, and the Tablet."

All criticisms of each of these outlets belong in their own pages, not in Mate's page and certainly not in the lead. Currently the lead to the Aaron Mate article's lead includes Bellingcat's opinion of an award Aaron Mate once received. How absurd is that? Poyani (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it should not. Numerous editors have explained this. Please stop.--Hobomok (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

UserHobomok. If you do not have anything to contribute, please don't post. It clogs the talkpage. Thanks. Poyani (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Poyani Don't speak to me about clogging the talk page. I think it's about time someone went to a noticeboard regarding how you got here (Canvassing), and your behavior/the aspersions you've casted you've arrived. You're clearly WP:NOTHERE--Hobomok (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. If you feel that I have done something wrong please feel free to post in the noticeboard. Please post a note on my talkpage with the link to the noticeboard. We can discuss this matter there. In the meantime please feel free to discuss the article in its talkpage and refrain from posting comments that summarize only to "please stop. Thanks Poyani (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Poyani, if anyone is clogging up the talk page, it is you. Three hours after I accused you of creating an excessive number of sections/discussions on this talk page over a short period of time, you went ahead and created another talk section. Thankfully, a third party user has shut down that section soon after it was created. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

References