Talk:Aaron Maté

Article appears extremely biased

Over and over again on Wikipedia, articles which have been "padlocked" for "vandalism", are incredibly biased and one-sided. The padlock is the vandalism. Somehow a tiny number of power-users control these articles to write them as they like, instead of adhering to what wikipedia is meant to be about. You see their names appear again and again in padlocked articles talk pages. This article needs to be written in a much more neutral tone, and these power-users need to stop taking control of articles. I have no idea of the mechanic by which they do so but it is being scandalously abused.61.8.106.71 (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

You are of course correct. Sadly Wikipedia seems FUBAR at this point. They want this article to be a character assassination and there's not much we can do about it. Iskube (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Aaron Mate openly denies the Uyghur genocide, denies the Bucha massacre, and has taken money from the pro Assad Lobby and the Russian government stating this is not character assassination. He is objectively a conspiracy theorist. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I urge you to look at Aarons page history before the lock and how much pro-Assad disinformation was on this page. The page is much better now and more neutral based on established facts 86.5.202.27 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with OP's objections to the extremely biased language in this article, and the concerns raised about what seems like an obvious and direct attempt to assassinate and smear Maté's character. The repeated use of the same source for many negative and serious accusations in the introduction should be enough to warrant a complete re-write of this shameful article. And especially so when this same source is a single article from The Jewish Chronicle; a paper widely known for aggressive attacks and smears on political opponents. Peirik1 (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Peirik1:, the content you removed had several other sources attached - not just the Jewish Chronicle (which is still used in the article even after your edit) but sources from Politico, The Guardian and the South China Morning Post - two of which are on the WP:RSP list as perennially reliable sources. The Jewish Chronicle is also on this list, so your claims about content being "poorly sourced" are not quite in line with what Wikipedia considers poorly sourced. It's well documented and sourced that his publication publishes supportive coverages of the governments mentioned in the lede, and it appropriately summarises what he's notable for, so I'd like to hear why you think this is due for removal. I'd also like you not to make unfounded allegations of editors lying, per WP:AGF. Thanks. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The South China Morning Post source is behind a paywall, and impossible to verify without a subscription. So this source should be removed and disregarded.

The Guardian source only mentions accusations by some political advocacy organization against Maté, and doesn't present any evidence for the claim. Further down in the same article you can read that Maté rejects the accusations:

Maté said that, “neither the study or the Observer offer any evidence [for the assertion that I am ‘the most prolific spreader of disinformation’ on Syria among a ‘network’ of ‘28 conspiracy theorists’]”; he said the study did not substantiate that anything he had shared was disinformation and “does not even attempt to refute a single claim of mine”. Maté said it had faulted him for arguing that the OPCW “investigation into the Douma chemical attack was flawed” but he defended his reporting, suggesting the ISD study “cannot contest” an argument that was based on OPCW leaks.

I find it very irresposible and disingenuous to present these accusations as indisputed fact in this introduction. Especially so considering the BLP policy.

That leaves The Jewish Chronicle as the single one-and-only source for the labelling of Maté as a publisher of supportive journalism for Russia, Syria and China. Peirik1 (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Also to your point that The Jewish Chronicle is on the WP:RSP list: the listing for that source specifically says:

There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics.

To therefore suggest that this source is in any way reliable about a far-left blog like The Greyzone, is borderline ridiculous. Peirik1 (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The South China Morning Post source is behind a paywall [...] should be removed and disregarded. That's not how we do things on Wikipedia, per WP:PAYWALL paywalled sources are perfectly usable. Pro tip: try using the Wayback Machine as a tool for viewing paywalled content, it works a lot of the time. Re your point on "evidence", our job isn't to round up evidence, it's to reflect what reliable sources (such as The Guardian) say - and in this case they talk about the results of this report, which we attribute as they do. The Jewish Chronicle being biased on several topics does not really impact this seeing as none of these topics pertain to Russia, Syria or China. You also didn't address the Politico source, so even taking your arguments at their best there's still two sources, though in reality there's at least four. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

"You also didn't address the Politico source". Neither did you. Perhaps because that source doesn't mention either Aaron Maté or The Greyzone at all? Thank you for demonstrating the disingenuous nature of this entire exchange. Peirik1 (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I did? Right in my first post here I mentioned it, because it does mention The Grayzone if you read it. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Also now that you've been reverted by another user, I just said I'd let you know about the WP:1RR on this page, meaning if you revert again you're liable to be blocked. Just in case you don't see the page notices. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

given the tone of this topic's discussion, i expected to find an egregious smear campaign happening on the page itself. having reviewed it, and understanding my own bias that mate is a journalist whose work is controversial as great journalists are wont to find, i believe this article is not "extremely biased". i actually was pleasantly surprised to see how neutral much of the language was. my only contention is the inclusion of the bit about him spreading misinformation about syria, as the source for that claim is, itself, politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigMouthCommie (talk • contribs) 13:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

to this point, this is in the linked source: " Footnote added 10 July 2022: Aaron Maté, who was not contacted for comment prior to publication of this article, responded afterwards. Maté said that, “neither the study or the Observer offer any evidence [for the assertion that I am ‘the most prolific spreader of disinformation’ on Syria among a ‘network’ of ‘28 conspiracy theorists’]”; he said the study did not substantiate that anything he had shared was disinformation and “does not even attempt to refute a single claim of mine”. Maté said it had faulted him for arguing that the OPCW “investigation into the Douma chemical attack was flawed” but he defended his reporting, suggesting the ISD study “cannot contest” an argument that was based on OPCW leaks. He also believed there was a conflict of interest because the ISD’s funders included some western governments that had been involved in the war in Syria and because the Syria Campaign was founded by “a billionaire financier” who was a supporter of the Syrian opposition."

with this in mind, i believe the correct method is to remove this section in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigMouthCommie (talk • contribs) 13:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

This is fine in the body, but appears WP:UNDUE for the lead given (1) it is the analysis of a single political advocacy organization, and (2) this is a WP:BLP where we should proceed cautiously, especially in the lead. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Statement and references questionable

This sentence in the "Journalism" section, and these references, do not seem to gel together, or are even credible references for a statement about "government conclusions" :

"After numerous investigations into the 2016 election interference, U.S. intelligence agencies reported with "high confidence" that Russia was the culprit in the DNC cyberattacks.[37][38] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.189.222 (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Subjective/partisan content in the introduction

This part, being partisan in a contested/polarized topic, has no place in the introduction. It should be removed from the introduction and displaced elsewhere in the article. The part : "With regard to Maté's reporting on the Syrian Civil War, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue said that, among the 28 social media accounts, individuals, outlets, and organisations which it studied, Maté was the most prolific spreader of disinformation surrounding the war, including on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.165.200.191 (talk • contribs) 21:55, December 7, 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This is referred to by exactly one secondary source; it's not appropriate weight or balance to include it in the lead. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree quite strongly with this. We call him a journalist in the lead, therefore if he is documented to have echoed the propaganda of foreign governments, it should be mentioned in the lead. To not do so would be white-washing and would have a pro-fringe effect. This passage was also repeatedly discussed before and remained here through consensus; we would need stronger consensus to remove. DFlhb (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This re-revert rationale is false. I do not need consensus to revert your bold change, because, as I said immediately above, there was previous consensus to include. You need consensus to make the change you just did, and you should either self-revert or someone else should. DFlhb (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Where on talk do you believe this consensus was/is established? A quick look at the archive shows no RfC or discussion establishing consensus about this. Multiple secondary sources have referred to him as a journalist. Exactly one secondary source refers to this document. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

That article was previously discussed in archive 1. It was then discussed here, in passing here, and in much more depth here, which you should remember since you were the one challenging it back then through pure original research, and failed to get consensus to remove it. Then it was brought up again in passing here, and in greater depth here, and survived those discussions too. Despite this, you've tried to boldly remove it by breaking 1RR, here and here, but had to self-revert due to lack of consensus. DFlhb (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Can the source for this claim even be considered as a citable source? The Institute for Strategic Dialogue is a pretty shady outfit, i.e. it hardly meets the criterion of being a "reliable source" that one can quote in good conscience. It looks very much like it's just a propaganda tool propped up and financed by the war-machine to, among other thing, defame critical voices. Such organizations should not be touched with a ten-foot-pole as sources for claims in serious science.2001:9E8:263D:D600:CCFF:6F88:1835:9E6A (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

What exactly makes it "shady"? The claim is attributed to them, one can make their own mind up. BeŻet (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Izzy Award - due in lead?

The Izzy Award seems to be quite an insignificant award given by some school in New York. Is it WP:DUE to be included in the lead? BeŻet (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. What about other parts of the lead, such as the statement in the first paragraph, that he "has appeared several times on Fox News on Tucker Carlson Tonight"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs) 22:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think delete appearances. Without some more specific statement to make it encyclopedically relevant, it sounds like mere puffery.

I don't have an issue with the award. It is a brief mention and is apparently encyclopedically significant enough to have its own page. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It actually does not have its own page. Which is the main point. BeŻet (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think Carlson and Fox News is a much bigger deal in the real world than this obscure award! The sources we currently cite for the award are three sites associated with the school, plus Democracy Now claiming him as their ex-employee. That's not strong evidence of noteworthiness. Do other secondary sources mention it?

The only source currently cited for Carlson/Fox is The Intelligencer. If other secondary sources don't mention it, Id be inclined to remove that from lead too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Good point on the award and its weak sourcing. I could go either way on that issue. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree the sourcing was bad, lacking a serious secondary source, which I've resolved. I also do not have strong views either way about it being leadworthy. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliably sourced material deleted

I don't understand why this was removed: With regard to Maté's reporting on the Syrian Civil War, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue said that, among the 28 social media accounts, individuals, outlets, and organisations which it studied, Maté was the most prolific spreader of disinformation surrounding the war, including on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s deleted from the lead, where it was overemphasis on the analysis of a single political advocacy group and the concerns of BLP and BLPlead require us to be cautious.

A more detailed description, with both the analysis of the political advocacy group and the article subject’s response, remains in the body. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I think actually I agree it's fine just in the body as is. Thanks. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)