Talk:Max Blumenthal

Sloppy phrasing

The article in some parts gravely distorts the sources it uses (or which it at least claims to use. I’m somewhat doubtful, whether the people who have insterted certain sources ever actually bothered to properly read them). For instance: Right in the introduction one reads the sentence „The Grayzone [is a] website, which is known for spreading conspiracy theories and engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes“. This statement is „backed up“ by the following five „sources“:

• Mathew Foresta: „Meet the Sneakiest Defenders of Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine (https://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-the-sneakiest-defenders-of-vladimir-putins-ukraine-invasion-and-chinas-xinjiang-repression) [labelled as „opinion“]
• Alexander Reid Ross: „Fooling the Nation: Extremism and the Pro-Russia Disinformation Ecosystem“ (https://www.boundary2.org/2019/11/alexander-reid-ross-fooling-the-nation-extremism-and-the-pro-russia-disinformation-ecosystem/#_ftn81)
• Adam Kredo: „WHO Official Promotes Conspiracy Theory Website to Bolster China’s Coronavirus Disinformation Campaign“ (https://freebeacon.com/national-security/who-official-promotes-conspiracy-theory-website-to-bolster-chinas-coronavirus-disinformation-campaign/)
• Bruce Bawer: WHO Official Promotes Conspiracy Theory Website to Bolster China’s Coronavirus Disinformation Campaign“ (https://web.archive.org/web/20220309040631/https://www.commentary.org/articles/bruce-bawer/useful-idiot19/) [labelled as „commentary“]
• Oz Katerji: As Trump Shores Up Assad's Genocidal Regime, America's Hard Left Is Cheering Him On (https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2017-07-20/ty-article/as-trump-shores-up-assad-regime-u-s-hard-left-cheers-him-on/0000017f-df9f-db5a-a57f-dfffdefe0000) [explicitly labe.led as an „opinion“ piece]

The phrasing of the quoted sentence („The Grayzone [is a] website, which is known for spreading conspiracy theories and engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes“) clearly suggests that it is an objective and undisputed fact ("it IS known"), that this website „IS […] known for spreading conspiracy theories and engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes“. Furthermore: That the quoted sentence is followed by the five sources listed above as references the article points at, suggests, that those sources contain hard evidence that the claims mentioned above (i.e. that the website is spreading conspiracy theories, that it is denying atrocities and so on) are accurate, i.e. that they are facts.

Now, unlike most people, I actually read all those five sources. And: None of those sources actually presents any evidence that the Grayzone website „is spreading conspiracy theories“ or that it is known for doing that or that it is „engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes“. Instead all those articles only express the personal opinions of their respective author, that that website is doing those things. Or at most those articles only present assessments by their authors, that the website is doing the things mentioned above.

The pieces by Mathew Foresta and Oz Katjeri are even explicitly labelled as „opinion“ (!!!) and the piece by Bruce Bawner is labelled as „commentary“. As a consequence we are faced with a serious discrepancy between the information, that this article says, that the sources it refers to, contain, and the information the sources ACTUALLY contain (or what actually can be derived from the sources and what the article does derive from them).

When the article states in the first sentence, that the Gayzone „IS known for spreading conspiracy theories“ etc., it purports that it is an objective fact, that that website is „spreading conspiracy theories“ and so on. AND furthermore by attaching the mentioned sources to that sentence as references the article purports, that the sources attached to that statement as references give evidence, that that statement indeed is true, i.e. that it is an objective fact that the website "IS known for spreading conspiracy theory" (that it "IS" doing that or "IS" known for that).

However, if one actually reads those sources, none of them actually delivers any hard evidence, that the Grayzone „is spreading conspiracy theories“ (and so on). Instead, all those articles only express the personal opinion of their authors, that the Grayzone „is spreading conspiracy theories“ (etc.), or at best: the sources present a (more or less qualified) assessment by their respective author, that the Grayzone „is spreading conspiracy theories“. Most of those articles even explicitly preface their comments by stressing that they are opinion pieces.

Bottom line: The article sloppily distorts the sources, that it refers to, when is states „They Grayzone is known for spreading conspiracy theories“ and then points to the five sources listed above as references that allegedly back up that sentence (thus suggesting, that those sources contain evidence, that the website is „spreading conspiracy theories“). Because those five articles only express views (or present assessments), that the website „is spreading conspiracy theories“, but they do not provide and evidence that it acually does spread conspiracy theories or that it „is known“ for that.

For instance Mr. Kredo in his article just writes: „Max Blumenthal is known for his pro-Iran, anti-Israel stance, and his website routinely publishes conspiracy theories that adopt China’s false rhetoric about the coronavirus pandemic.“ So he just makes a lapidary statement without providing any evidence (and he does not even give any arguments to buttress his position).

--> Therefore the sentences „They Grayzone is known for spreading conspiracy theories“ distorts the sources that the article points to, because it does not accurately reflect or reiterate, what those sources actually say. It suggests through the wording it uses, that those sources provide evidence that proves. that it is an objective fact that the website „is known for spreading conspiracy theories“ (etc.), while actually the authors of those articles only voice their opinion (which of course is legitimate) or only make the claim that it is „spreading conspiracy theories“ or that it is known for that. Those are quite different things.

As a consequence: As per Wikipedia:Sources the wording of that sentence needs to be modified ASAP in such a way, that the sentences accurately reflects, what the sources the article uses actually say or, respectively, what one can responsibly derive from those sources.

So the proper wording for that sentences, based on the sources attached to it, would be something similar to the following proposals:

• A) „Authors like Mathew Foresta, Alexander Reid Ross, Adam Kredo, Bruce Bawer consider the website [the Grayzone] to be a spreader of conspiracy theories and as engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes“.
• A1) Or more conservatively: „The website has been accused by authors like Mathew Foresta, Alexander Reid Ross, Adam Kredo, Bruce Bawer of spreading conspiracy theories an as engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes“
• 2) Or shorter: „The website is OFTEN [or sometimes?] considered to be propagating conspiracy theories and to engage in denial of atrocities committed by dicatorial regimes.“

It would be nice, if other users could briefly indicate, which of the suggested formulation they would prefer to be chosen to replace the currently sloppy sentence, which is inadequate due to the way it falsifies what actually can be taken from those sources.Laelaps93 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

First, please read WP:VERBOSE. I already encouraged you to write shorter. Second, this is standard phrasing and it perfectly correct. A number of reliable sources accurately highlight that Blumenthal and Grayzone spread conspiracy theories and actively support murderous dictators. That fact is backed up by five sources, as is WP practice. They are not the only five sources to highlight Blumenthal's activities as a propagandist for dictators, but no need to mention all of them. Your proposed changes would make the article less accurate and go against WP practices. Wherever a fact can be attributed to multiple reliable sources, we do not claim it's only an opinion of a few individuals. So no, none of your proposed formulations are good, and each of them is worse than the current formulation in the article. Jeppiz (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

These sources run from somewhat poor to terrible and shouldnt be used. nableezy - 21:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that, though Haaretz is a perfectly good source and Daily Beast still considered ok. That said, given that much better sources (such as Al Jazeera, The Times, books by reputable academics etc.) all say the same thing, we should probably exchange some mediocre sources for more reliable ones. That's not the same as changing the phrasing (already at the article about Grayzone, the same thing is said as here, but with much better sources). Jeppiz (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Free Beacon is RS, so I'd leave that out. Pedantically, if we use such phrasing, we'd say "Authors such as" rather than "Authors like".

"Engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes" is also supported by: Coda Story (Blumenthal’s statements met with outrage online and many social media users accused him of ignoring one of the largest-scale human rights violations of the 21st century. This is not the first time a writer from The Grayzone has sought to refute or downplay reports of Beijing’s actions in Xinjiang... The Grayzone has followed a similar path on Syria, challenging reports of atrocities by the regime of President Bashar al-Assad... While the number of left-wing voices denying China’s ongoing repression of the Uyghur people is few, those that do exist are vociferous and well-organized. Of these, The Grayzone is by far the most influential... Since 2018, The Grayzone has published at least four articles undermining reports of the repression in Xinjiang.; Coda Story more recently The only journalists who thrive in Syria today are those who serve as mouthpieces for the Syrian and Russian regimes... these mouthpieces include American-based, far-left websites such as The Grayzone and MintPress News. Idrees Ahmed, an editor at global affairs magazine New Lines, says such friendly foreign media, even if obscure and dismissed by the mainstream, has “made the job of propaganda easier for [authoritarians].” In September for example, a Grayzone article claimed that the White Helmets, a civil defense group responsible for significant reporting on Syrian atrocities and the saving of hundreds of thousands of lives, corrupted the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ (OPCW) investigation into the 2018 Douma chemical attack. Among those who shared the article on Twitter was the Russian Embassy in Sweden.; The Diplomat As thoroughly explored by ASPI, Chinese media and officials have utilized the coverage of the far-left website Grayzone to discredit reporting on human rights abuses in Xinjiang, singling out German scholar Adrian Zenz for personal attacks; The Irish Times Grayzone has also been accused of sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes. In March Mr Blumenthal suggested that the attack on the theatre in Mariupol by Russian forces may have been a false flag operation by the far-right Azov battalion to drag Nato into the war.; The Daily Beast For those who know them, it’s no surprise that The Grayzone has taken to spreading pro-Russia propaganda. Edited by Max Blumenthal, the publication is infamous for its defenses of dictatorships and its denial of atrocities. In addition to casting doubt on the reality of the Uyghur Muslims’ repression in Xinjiang, they published a piece on Nicaragua that cited a false confession extracted under torture.; ProPublica When Hua Chunying, a spokeswoman for China’s Foreign Ministry, tweeted that reports of mass detention camps for China’s Uighur Muslim minority were the “LIE of the CENTURY,” she cited an article in the Grayzone, a website founded by Max Blumenthal, a frequent contributor to RT and the Russian-controlled Sputnik news agency. Summary: In addition to those named above, social media users, Coda Story, Idrees Ahmad, the Daily Beast, ProPublica and others have described it as engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes including specifically China, Syria, Russia and Nicaragua.

"Spreading conspiracy theories" is supported by a number of RSs but many of these don't mention Blumenthal. One that does is this Daily Telegraph piece about Will Smith conspiracy theories: Max Blumenthal, editor-in-chief of the blog The Greyzone, tweeted that the slap was “just in time for the flood of Azov atrocity videos”, while posting the red dress-girl meme. Look closer, though, and you'll find Blumenthal is far from a squeaky-clean sleuth. In fact, he is an energetic Putin apologist, writing articles such as “Was bombing of Mariupol theater staged by Ukrainian Azov extremists to trigger NATO intervention?” To which the answer – as with the question “Did President Zelensky coordinate Will Smith’s slap from deep within his besieged country?” – can only be, well, no. And the Daily Beast accuses Blumenthal himself of anti-vaxx conspiracy theories, and says this of Grayzone: [Blumenthal's] publication, The Grayzone, has consistently denied that the Assad regime used chemical weapons on its own people when, indeed, they did. Blumenthal has gone so far as to make fun of the very idea by putting a bag over his head to derisively mimic the desperate actions of Syrian civilians. One of his past assertions was that the White Helmets, famed for their rescue efforts on behalf of innocents, were nothing more than al Qaeda—a conspiracy theory that has been thoroughly exposed and refuted. Kiev Independent says The Grayzone, created by Blumenthal in 2015, presents itself as “an independent news website producing original investigative journalism,” but in reality, it publishes misleading stories and spreads conspiracy theories and pro-Russian propaganda. And the Centre for the Analysis of the Radical Right says Global Research and the Grayzone [are] examples of this syncretic conspiracy landscape and its flows... Al-Masdar is an Assadist website that boosts Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal and Abby Martin and is also responsible for spreading Syria false-flag conspiracies verbatim to both the right-aligned InfoWars and left-aligned Global Research that Grayzone picked up on around 2016. Summary: In addition to those named above, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Beast and the Centre for the Analysis of the Radical Right have described it as spreading conspiracy theories. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Most of this belongs on the article for Grayzone, but describing the accusations against it from who has made it is much different than claiming fact and citing opinion. nableezy - 17:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Ridiculous lede

The lede starts with "conspiracy theories" then goes on to give all his past respectable work and accolades. This is poorly written. His NPOV historical work should come first, and the opinionated accusations of conspiracy theories belong in a controversy section.Tallard (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory stuff is backed by many RS, so it's good and not just opinions. Sources accurately call a spade a spade.

The location of the mentions of his places of work is logical as it starts with the present and proceeds to mention the past. His current activities are certainly more notable than past activities, and the present tends to overshadow the past. If he wants to die with a good legacy, he should end with a good legacy. Currently, it's not looking good, but he's young. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

You might want to trim out some of the unreliable sources. The first one I came across was an opinion piece by Mathew Foresta, "who has participated in Black Lives Matter, anti-Trump, immigrant rights, and anti-fascist activism and demonstrations," according to his bio in The Progressive. Opinion pieces are unreliable sources, unless written by experts. TFD (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Definitely agree with that - editors quite often tend to look at the publication and forget to look at the context. I probably would not use the Haaretz source currently used in the lead. On the whole, it's a reliable source; but the article cited is an editorial - not exactly well suited for supporting objective fact. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the lead reflects a POV. (Seriously, we could put the same in the lead of just about anyone in the Blair/Bush-leadership in the early 2000s: they promoted (very successfully!) the idea that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11; an idea that today is considered a "conspiracy theory".) His NPOV work should be in the lead, the accusations of him promoting "conspiracy theories" (which AFAIK all comes from what I would call "activist" writes) should go into the body, properly attributed. Huldra (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

People who doubted Saddam Hussein's links to al Qaeda and possession of WMDs would have been called conspiracy theorists by today's journalists. TFD (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the lede, it's been many years since Blumenthal did anything even approaching bona fide journalism. Like it or not, for the past years he has spent his time being a mouth piece for murderous dictators and bizarre conspiracy theories. It is hardly surprising that the lede reflect that (well-sourced) fact, and it would be a serious violation of WP:NPOV to pretend that Blumenthal is something else. Jeppiz (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

We still need to remove sources that fail rs. TFD (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is run by a 3 lettered agency.

Fuck Wikipedia. 141.126.171.6 (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

True, the W M F. nableezy - 17:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Venezuelan food crisis

I remember the incident of the Venezuelan food crisis, and recalled reading this article from the NY Times that seems to also cast some doubt on the original reporting of the incident. Perhaps it would be worthwile to add it? 193.183.194.67 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The NYT article does not mention Blumenthal so we can't use it as a source here. However, the Greenwald article that we currently use as a source does mention that Blumenthal's report was confirmed by the later NYT investigation. So we could bring in the NYT investigation via Greenwald's article. In fact, it is possible that an earlier version of Max's bio did just that. Can't recall the details though. We could try doing it again, it would only require an extra sentence. Burrobert (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

This description of Greyzone and Max Blumenthal is not only a poor representation of his body of work as a journalist but very clearly is written as a purposeful smear. I suggest it be taken down 72.224.169.161 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

No. We document what reliable sources say about him. We do not write censored hagiographies here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you'll find that all reputable, established and reliable sources agree that Jean Valjean is a thief, an escaped convict, an impostor and an armed insurrectionist to boot, and inspector Javert is following established policy perfectly in pursuing him. Just sayin', make of that what you will. :) --87.126.21.225 (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no smear involved. Blumenthal was once a serious journalist, but in recent years has been a full-out conspiracy theorist and Russian propagandist. That is what a large body on reliable sources state. Trying to deny any of that would be the only misrepresentation. Jeppiz (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The first para of lead is sourced entirely from opinion sources - can these be replaced with better sources? This material might be due in the body, but need better for lead if liable to be challenged. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Protection against vandalism on the page

I believe the page has already been vandalized as is evident by the thick lens of bias with which it is written. The “protection” now protects the original vandals. This should be fixed. Wikipedia needs to protect itself from bad actors that seek to smear people on this site. 72.224.169.161 (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

Journalist?

Look, I get that Wikipedia's mission is to repeat whatever smears are published by 'reliable sources', i.e. by mainstream Western propaganda outlets, but surely at least calling Blumenthal a journalist in the lede should not be controversial? 'Author and blogger' clearly doesn't give the right impression of what he has been doing. You can assert that his journalism is mendacious and propagandistic, but not even according him the 'honour' you would have accorded a reporter for the Völkischer Beobachter seems pretty deranged even by the usual standards. Yeah, I know the mantra: find a RS saying it. Well here's The Nation calling him a journalist, and that publication is still on Wikipedia's list of RS. If you can find RSs explicitly stating that his wrongthink has made him a former journalist, then such a qualification would be legitimate, but at this point I see no grounds for not calling him just 'a journalist' under Wikipedia's own rules. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources since 2018. Have also included descriptions of Grayzone as that has been under dispute on WP.

"Journalist"

• StopFake.org, 2018: Some of the individuals tagged in tweets recently by Russian Mission UN (@RussiaUN)...provide insight into who the Kremlin relies on to spread its propaganda message. They include well-known RT contributors and “independent bloggers”... [Blumenthal is a] Well-known pro-Russia American journalist. Senior editor of the Grayzone Project, which tweets frequently about Ukrainians being neo-Nazis.
• LA Times, 2019: a video of journalist Max Blumenthal interviewing prominent British Holocaust denier David Irving was removed from the SPLC’s YouTube channel
• Ha'aretz, 2020: U.S. President Donald Trump retweeted Thursday a tweet by Max Blumenthal – one of the most prominent promoters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement in the United States – slamming former National Security Adviser John Bolton over the release of his new book. Blumenthal, who for years as an independent journalist has been very critical of Israel and the Israel Defense Forces, posted a tweet attacking Bolton
• Newsweek Fact Check, 2022: Journalist Max Blumenthal tweeted on December 21 that "French social media has been buzzing about a $40,000 Paris shopping spree by Olena Zelenska, the wife of Volodymyr Zelensky... While the claim about Zelenska was picked up by other social media users including conservative voices such as the Gateway Pundit, and hoax news sites, its provenance appears to be extremely murky and lacking in credibility, Newsweek Fact Check found."
• Irish Independent 2022: The Grayzone was founded and is edited by American journalist and author Max Blumenthal and a description on the website says it is “dedicated to original investigative journalism and analysis on politics and empire”... Outspoken critics of the website have denounced it for promoting authoritarian regimes and sharing pro-Russian propaganda.
• Newsweek 2023: [Grayzone,] founded by American journalist Max Blumenthal, has been accused by critics of publishing materials consistent with Russian propaganda. It describes itself as an investigative website "on empire" that gets no government funding.
• Center for Strategic Communication and Information Security/Ukrinform 2023: American left-wing journalist Max Blumenthal, who had long worked with the New York Times, The LA Times, Al Jazeera English and other popular outlets... Blumenthal’s publication is a platform for spreading disinformation and anti-Ukrainian propaganda.

"Blogger"

• The Guardian, 2018: The US blogger Max Blumenthal later published a lengthy, insinuation-infused attack on the journalist that admitted “there is no evidence that Goette-Luciak is an asset of the CIA or any other US agency”.
• Jewish News, 2018: According to Collier, Corbyn was a member of the ‘Palestine Live’ group at the time he was elected leader in 2015, which hosted people such as Max Blumenthal, a controversial speaker accused of anti-Semitism... David Collier highlights a passage in the group where Jeremy Corbyn responds to a post about anti-Israel blogger Max Blumenthal
• Al-Jazeera (RS, possibly opinion), 2019: the American blogger and Sputnik contributor Max Blumenthal
• Byline Times, 2020: The Chinese consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, sent a packet of documents and files to unknown recipients on 5 July 2020... the package cites an article published by Max Blumenthal and Ajit Sing on The Grayzone, a blog dedicated to “anti-US imperialism” but credibly accused by Muslims and human rights activists of weaponising Islamophobia to defend authoritarian regimes, particularly the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria and the CCP.
• New Statesman, 2022: consider the pro-Russian blogger Max Blumenthal, who was also active in promoting the idea that Syrian rebels had fabricated the chemical weapons attack in Douma
• Foreign Policy (RSopinion, by Meduza editor described as an "expert" by FP), 2022: It’s not a coincidence that Max Blumenthal, a co-founder of Grayzone, a blog that follows the dictum that the United States is bad and anti-U.S. dictators are good, didn’t heckle any Russian officials in Washington on the day Zelensky arrived, demanding that they do what they could to stop the war. Instead, Blumenthal and his comrades focus their efforts on denigrating Zelensky personally, while either denying or downplaying Russian atrocities.

"Author"

• Jerusalem Post, 2019: Anti-Israel author and activist Max Blumenthal appeared in Damascus on September 8, according to his tweets, where he praised the Syrian regime and condemned the former US ambassador as “fake.”
• Irish Independent 2023: The Grayzone was founded and is edited by American journalist and author Max Blumenthal and a description on the website says it is “dedicated to original investigative journalism and analysis on politics and empire”... Outspoken critics of the website have denounced it for promoting authoritarian regimes and sharing pro-Russian propaganda.

"Activist"

• Jerusalem Post, 2019: Anti-Israel author and activist Max Blumenthal appeared in Damascus on September 8, according to his tweets, where he praised the Syrian regime and condemned the former US ambassador as “fake.”

"Editor"

• Axios, 2020: American Max Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in 2015 and serves as its editor, describing his website as an independent news outlet. Blumenthal also frequently appears as a commentator on Russian state-affiliated news outlets including RT and Sputnik... Blumenthal has increasingly become a Chinese state media darling, giving interviews with Chinese state broadcaster CGTN and the Chinese tabloid Global Times.
• Coda Story 2020: Max Blumenthal, the founder and editor of the far-left news site The Grayzone, went on Going Underground, a current affairs show broadcast by the Russian state-controlled TV channel RT.*Coda Story 2022: Russian and Chinese state media have a history of sharing “pundits.” For example Max Blumenthal, editor of the U.S. far-left website The Grayzone, hops regularly between both state broadcasters, as do other western commentators.
• The Intercept (weak RS), 2022: Hacked emails show that some journalists working for Russian state media helped amplify Chinese narratives... The script also outlines plans to include a quote from an earlier interview with Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal, who has denied Russian atrocities in Ukraine and defended Chinese state repression in Xinjiang; a quote from him did not make to the final cut of the news item available on VGTRK’s flagship news site Vesti.ru.
• Daily Beast (weak RS, possibly opinion), 2022: Edited by Max Blumenthal, the publication [Grayzone] is infamous for its defenses of dictatorships and its denial of atrocities... Strangely enough for a leftist, Blumenthal has associated with the far right before, having previously appeared on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show. Now he is flirting with right-wing positions on the coronavirus, writing that lockdowns do “little to slow the spread of Covid” (most evidence suggests they do help quite a bit). He was listed as a speaker at an anti-mandates event that featured reactionary figures like Will Witt and Lara Logan. At a recent similar event in New York he praised the people in the movement, spun conspiracy theories, stated the issue wasn’t one of left versus right

"Pundit/commentator"

• Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 2020: the tweet was written by Max Blumenthal, a notoriously anti-Zionist left-wing commentator and son of Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton and an adviser to Hillary Clinton
• Axios, 2020: American Max Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in 2015 and serves as its editor, describing his website as an independent news outlet. Blumenthal also frequently appears as a commentator on Russian state-affiliated news outlets including RT and Sputnik... Blumenthal has increasingly become a Chinese state media darling, giving interviews with Chinese state broadcaster CGTN and the Chinese tabloid Global Times.
• Coda Story, 2022: Russian and Chinese state media have a history of sharing “pundits.” For example Max Blumenthal, editor of the U.S. far-left website The Grayzone, hops regularly between both state broadcasters, as do other western commentators.

Other:

• EA Worldview, 2022: Throughout its 11 1/2-year effort to repress Syria’s uprising, the Assad regime has welcomed and supported foreign tourists who would promote its propaganda and disinformation lines... including disinformation warriors Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek

BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

What is EAWorldview, and why is it reliable for calling a living person a disinformation warrior on Wikipedia? Same for StopFake. nableezy - 00:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed the EA Worldview wikilink so you can see yourself. StopFake.org already has one. I wouldn't necessarily use them in the article, but just went through Google News looking for what the consensus among news sources is. Not all of these entries have equal weight of course. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I dont think you should be citing and quoting unreliable sources for negative material on a living person, WP:BLPTALK requires high quality sources everywhere for material related to living people. So, respectfully, Id ask that you cull this listing of the sources that dont meet that requirement. nableezy - 21:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Which ones do you think don't meet it? I think they all do, but not all as securely as others. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

References

POV -tag

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The So-Called "Uyghur Genocide" Already Debunked

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)

WP:RSP says, There is consensus that Consortium News is generally unreliable. Don't tell us to change our article, tell Consortium to change theirs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

Morning Star

“ 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)

Per RSP: The Morning Star is a British tabloid with a low circulation and readership that the New Statesman has described as "Britain's last communist newspaper". There is no consensus on whether the Morning Star engages in factual reporting, and broad consensus that it is a biased and partisan source. All uses of the Morning Star should be attributed. Take care to ensure that content from the Morning Star constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Butlerblog makes a good point. What is The Management of Savagery about? Readers won't find out by reading our article. Regarding other quotes from the section, Lydia Wilson is missing a red-link. There is no direct connection between the Morning Star and the lead references. I was suggesting that, if we are looking at improving sourcing for a BLP, the MS is not the place to start. Burrobert (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Speech

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)

This is already in the article: In 2023, he was invited by Russia to address a UN Security Council briefing about arms supplies to Ukraine. BeŻet (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Please put cotroversies under a "Controversies" headline

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)

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)

Adjectives, Ad Hominem reference

I wanted to find out about Max Blumenthal. I heard some commments, and was intrigued. I looked him up here, and was greeted with this:

"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."

1. Apologetic is a word that colors perceptions. It doesn't belong, no matter how strongly someone feels.

2. "is known" I learned that the passive is weaselly and leads with a conclusion. How about X, Y, Z consider Blumenthal an apologist and their reasons

3. I looked up reference [10] and found an article full of Ad hominem attacking Scott Ritter. I don't care if the Truth comes from Russia, or the Devil Himself. I care about facts. And this is pure ad hominem attack on ritter.

I can't believe a single thing I read about Max Blumenthal as it does not discuss fact, but simply tries to paint an opinion.

Who knows, maybe the opinion is exactly correct, and everything Max Blumenthal writes is biased apologies for states with poor human rights experiences.

I stopped reading, and chalked up this article as insulting to my free will, as it attempts to tell me how I ought to view these people with opinion only.

Leave the ad hominems out of it, the opinion out of it, and simply state the facts. DanteMh (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You are not the first person to express that opinion. See above: "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".

You make some good points. Unfortunately, you can't edit the page yourself due to the editing restrictions on the page. You can suggest an edit with appropriate references if you like. Burrobert (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

It seems stating "The Emperor obviously has no clothes" is meaningless to those who somehow manage to inject color into what ought to be and article with (boring) facts.

Since, I discussed with others, and it's simply rot and certain types of Wikipedia entries can not be read.

It's a shame, and I view it as a sign of the times. DanteMh (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

So crazy, propaganda everywhere 96.237.169.132 (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia builds on using reliable sources. It is hardly Wikipedia's fault that a person becomes a conspiracy theorist and propagandist, but if that is what they do, and reliable sources say they do it, then WP reports it. Jeppiz (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Russian propaganda

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)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Biased second paragraph

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)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Lede

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)

The sources are not impartial. Please use reliable sources. Amir.azhieh (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you list/identify the specific sources that you find problematic and state why? ButlerBlog (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel occupation forces

This is highly unprofessional and breaks the neutrality of the article Steveonsi (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

"Controversies" must stay, material galore!

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)

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)

Israel and Palestine section

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)

"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)

The use of Israel Occupation Forces is both inaccurate and inappropriate

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)

Pierre Spray Journalism Award 2023

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)

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2024

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)

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)

Jewish

he isn't Jewish. His paternal grandfather was Jewish he is NOT. Cosplaying as a Jew doesn't make you one, his mother was not Jewish and good even his father was not Jewish - Sidney's, mother was Catholic. Making MAX, not a Jew. 96.242.22.176 (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

None of that matters. It doesn't matter whether or not he is Jewish enough for you to personally accept him as Jewish. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Per the cited source:

"As a Jew growing up in Washington, DC, in a middle- or upper-class family, in a place like Washington, especially, Zionism calls on you. There’s really nowhere to hide, especially within my family. My family’s not particularly Zionist, but I was sent to a Hebrew school where there was an Israeli flag next to the bimah, the podium where the rabbi stood. Next to the Israeli flag was a U.N. flag draped in black, in protest of the now-defunct U.N. resolution correctly declaring Zionism to be a form of racism. Which already had planted the seeds of doubt in my mind as a fourth grader."[1]

It doesn't matter whether or not that meets your personal standards, and I see no valid reason to cast doubt on his descriptions of his own background. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

There is in fact an ACTUAL, TECHNICAL definition of who is or is not a Jew.

A Jew is someone who can trace a matrilineal line of descent to a Jewish woman OR someone who converted to Judaism.

There are no “personal feelings” on the matter - one objectively either IS or IS NOT. 120.18.5.225 (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead re Israel

I think there is broad consensus that Bawer's opinion is not appropriate for the lead. I have trimmed the editorialising and left a simple, (I think) uncontroversial summary in the lead, moving the detail to the body. If there are multiple sources calling him pro-Hamas, something like that can go in the lead, but the opinion of a couple of commentators is not noteworthy enough for the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)