Talk:Max Blumenthal

Please put wikiquotes link under external links

Please cut & paste this under external links:

Anutherconcerned (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Added.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarcastic quote

@SharabSalam: Not sure what your problem with this quote is [1]. Sure, he's being sarcastic, but that seems to be kind of the point he's making - he's finds it over the top to be lumped with Ali Khamenei. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It should be deleted as video sources are discouraged. The original rendering mentioned Ayatollah Khomeini, who has been dead for thirty years, rather than Khamenei, which I changed without watching the video (I had problems with my computer speakers at the time.) In fact, Blumenthal clearly says "Khomeini" in the first minute of the video. It is a poor joke (rather the transcription error I believed more likely) which I would suggest shows him in a bad light trivializing the issue of antisemitism. There are many better sources making assertions about Blumenthal's attitude towards (Zionist) Jews currently included in the article, without the need for this one. I am not necessarily referring to Blumenthal, but being Jewish does not mean people cannot be antisemites. I will change Khamenei back to Khomeini. Philip Cross (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed that part where it says He commented that he, Richard Falk, and Roger Waters (who also appear on the list) "had stiff competition: Ayatollah Khomeini [sic, Khamenei] was number one." I left this: Blumenthal responded by saying the Wiesenthal Center's list associated him with such people as American writer Alice Walker which I think is the real response.

@Philip Cross: I am not necessarily referring to Blumenthal, but being Jewish does not mean people cannot be antisemites. Even if you said "I am not necessarily referring to Blumenthal", you should NOT even suggest he is anti-semite.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Can Philip Cross even point to one anti-semitic thing that Blumenthal has said or done? No because he hasn't. Pro-empire editors likes Philippe cross consistently conflate criticism of Israeli government policies with the racism of anti-semitism. This is meant to silent dissidents like Blumenthal. They smear them over this website. Cross should be ashamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.197.20 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

IP 47.147.197.20, I have added your details from the edit history again (as for one of your comments at Talk:Elliott Abrams) the bot having failed to function. Please use tildes as requested before. The issue you raise concerning Max Blumenthal has been discussed elsewhere on this page and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Philip Cross BLP issue. Philip Cross (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Bias and slander

Why does Wikipedia include this sentence in the very top of the article? This is such slander comparing Blumenthal's work to "Info Wars" with no evidence or data actually establishing this statement. This is clearly an attempt to slander Blumenthal. It is shameful that Wikipedia has editors who do this kind of thing. I am referring to this sentence " Janine di Giovanni, in The New York Review of Books, wrote that Blumenthal was part of the website 21st Century Wire–which she compared to InfoWars–stating that his work and affiliated group is "spread by a spectrum of far-left, anti-West conspiracy theorists; anti-Semites; supporters of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah; libertarians; and far-right groups".[13]" Not once has Blumenthal being linked to any far-right or anti-semitic group. This is meant to slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.197.20 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It is entirely legitimate to include the comments of Janine di Giovanni, an academic and journalist who has covered wars for several decades for major publications and broadcasters. The New York Review of Books is an eminent journal which easily meets the requirement of being a reliable source for citation. Wikipedia policies do not distinguish between sources which are favorable or hostile to a subject, although an editors' language cannot give weight on any side (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The Biographies of living persons policy adds further rules like avoiding potential libel, but has a firmer insistence on using reliable sources. It does not matter if any reader finds content objectionable if it meets WP policies for the sources which editors can use. Philip Cross (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with commentary of di Giovanni's from The New York Review of Books being quoted in the article. She is a prominent journalist and author and the NYRB is a source of high quality writing, though I see no evidence that she is, as you describe her, an academic. An academic in normal terms would be somebody who does research and has the results published in conference proceedings or academic journals. Di Giovanni is a "Senior Fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs", but that doesn't necessarily make her an academic. The Institute's article contains a list of other senior fellows. How many of those could justifiably be described as academics? Something to think about is whether there is a double standard in operation. If academic sources are more desirable, why not source material from genuine academics, such as the members of the “Working Group on Syria, Propaganda, and Media" (WGSPM) who, like Professor Tim Hayward, hold academic posts? If commentary by di Giovanni is allowed, then why not Robert Fisk, an eminent journalist and author, whose articles from The Independent have been barred as source material on the grounds that he is labelled as a "Voice" and so, it is claimed, all his pieces are opinion. While not an academic, at least Fisk holds a PhD, in Political Science, which he gained from Trinity College, Dublin in 1983.     ←   ZScarpia   13:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

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

It is my opinion that it is very difficult to talk about the legitimacy of an internationally renowned academic who is entrenched within the norms of the powers that be. Blumenthal, as a person speaking in opposition to imperialism by the US and her allies is fundamentally challenging many of the assumptions and positions that must be held as a prerequisite for someone becoming mainstream and successful within the political norms of major institutions, like academia, and the government and military organisations which fund academic institutions and individual academics.

Many respected academics work within institutions which have supported the US military by providing technology and useful academic research to the US military. The relationship between academia and the military many times leads to academics and their institutions being patronised directly by the US military budget. So I do not think that it is so easy to say that an academic who is respected in an area should be allowed to have potentially slanderous comments have free reign in plastering a Wikipedia page with highly emotive language seeking to, in my opinion, diminish and dismiss legitimate criticism by mischaracterising Blumenthal through comparison to InfoWars.

And with Blumenthal, as someone who is so challenging towards powerful institutions in government, intelligence and military, we as Wikipedia editors striving to be impartial should be incredibly cautious that this Wikipedia page isn't used by those in power who want to deny information from someone who "speaks truth to power".

It is a fine line to walk between institutional authority and individuals speaking out, because tyranny or scientific consensus lay on one side of that line and crackpots or lone people speaking truth in a sea of disinformation lay on either side of that line.

The world is political and biased, but it is still our duty to tread cautiously, weighing and judging information as impartial as we can while trying to account for biases which may lead to experts opinions being compromised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.247.16 (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

---

The first paragraph of the article violates one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia – which is to maintain a neutral point of view. Rather than "avoiding advocacy," the article embraces it with zeal in the very first sentence, where it asserts that Blumenthal "is known for spreading conspiracy theories and engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes." These accusations are opinions of his detractors; they are not some indisputable objective fact. Supporting such libel with the published opinions of his detractors does not justify the violation of Wikipedia's principle of objectivity. Note that the paragraph does not also state that Blumenthal is "known for" promoting peace and opposing imperialism and injustice. But those opinions of his work are just are worthy – based on the text and citations from the body of the article itself. Similarly, Blumenthal is also "accused of spreading Russian propaganda" in the introduction – even though there are other opinions that the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times "spread propaganda" just as much as Sputnik and RT.

The introduction of the article give readers a distorted, subjective impression of the full record. Such writing is not a "neutral point of view." The opinions displayed in the introduction need to be moved to appropriate sections within the body of the article. --Gremlint (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Gremlint, Now might be a good time for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:Lead. The wording you have issue with reflects what reliable secondary sources say about this page's subject in the body of this article. The "other opinions" about those sources that you mention (NYT and LAT) in regard to Sputnik and RT (Wikipedia:Deprecated sources) don't really matter here, for reasons made clear at the links I've provided. Also, beyond the NYT and LAT, other sources support the claims made here, including peer-reviewed journal articles, as described in the article's body.--Hobomok (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Gremlint raises a valid point of criticism. This article, as well as many other articles in Wikipedia, displays a concerning sloppines in the use of language (i.e. in the precision of its wording) when it comes to crucial aspects. In this cases it recklessly fails to differentiate between opinions/assessments/views etc. on the one side and objective facts. For instance the sentence "The Grayzone website, which is known for spreading conspiracy theories and engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dictatorial regimes" is highly inappropriate in an encyclopedia, becuase it constitutes a servere distortion of what the sources, that are added in the following footnotes, actually say. Those sources all are articles that present the opinion (or at best: the assessment) that the Grayzone website is "spreading conspiracy theories" etc. Consequentially the sentence in the wikipedia article, that is backed up by referring to those sources, should adequately reflect that circumstance. But instead of making it clear that it is the opinion of certain people (or perhaps even many people) that the Grayzone is spreading conspiracy theories etc., the article write that it "is known for spreading conspiracy theories", i.e. it pretends that it is an objective fact, that is established, unassailable and beyond dispute, that the website "is known" for that. So the sentences states "it IS" (purporting the existence of a firm fact) when the proper phrasing would be something like "it is accused of...", or "it is considered by...[insert people/organizations that hold that view]" or "it is often considered". So it misrepresents the issue by elevating accusations/views/opinions/assessments etc. to the level of objective facts. But since we are not faced with an issue in the area of physics, where objective determinations can be made, but with a highly normative issue (how could one objectively determinate or quantify that the website is doing the aforementioned things + how can one quantify that it "is known" for that? Obviously one cannot. It is impossible to do). So accuracy as well as responsibility and the standards of encyclopedic writing require that sloppy formulations like the aforementioned that distrot and misrepresent reality are rectified. A proper formulation would be something like A: "The Grayzone website, which is accused of spreading conspiracy theories and of engaging in denial of atrocities committed by dicatorial regimes"; or B: "The Grayzone website, which is considered by A..., B..., C....etc. of spreading conspiracy theories etc." or C: "The Grayzone website, which is often considered to be spreading conspiracy theories etc.". So, even though website is certainly not my cup of tea, accuracy is imperative. --> i.e. since all the sources, that are used as references in this article here, clearly only express opinions or positions (or at best: qualified assessments), that amount to the aforementioned accusations/criticisms, the language of this article should reflect that adequately and make it clear that those criticisms/reproaches/accusations are just that: opinions (opinions that I find quite convincing but opinions none the less) or at most evaluations, assessments etc., but not obective (undisputed etc.) facts. Afte all: No one wants an article here to be misleading, but presenting opinions (no matter how much one believes those opinions to be correct) as facts, by linguistically dressing those opinions up as facts, as this article does in some places, is quite misleading. Hope someone here has the work ethics to correct that woeful state of affairs.2001:9E8:2619:A900:B0C0:BB9:A083:FC86 (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I stopped reading after the first few sentences because it was boring and predictable. Facts are opinions, opinions are facts, yadda yadda. What you desire is called WP:FALSEBALANCE, and Wikipedia does not do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

More slander

The Grayzone was not founded after Max attended a conference in Russia, it was already publishing on the AlterNet website. Also. Max has appeared on RT, that does not mean he "supports it". When a journalist appears on CNN does that mean he "supports" CNN? The language here is so revealing and it is clearly meant to slander this author. He has contributed to many journalist outlets but here the wikipedia authors attempt to sideline him as a conspiracy theorist working for the Kremlin. These three sentences are such slander and its shocking they are in the introduction to this page: "Blumenthal has supported the work of RT, the television network formerly known as Russia Today. In December 2015, during an all-expenses paid trip to Moscow, Blumenthal attended RT's 10 Years On Air anniversary party beside then-Lieutenant General Michael Flynn of the United States and English politician Ken Livingstone.[15][16][17] He has also contributed on multiple occasions to Sputnik.[18] Shortly after his visit to Moscow,[14] Blumenthal founded The Grayzone website "to shine a journalistic light on America's state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic repercussions."[19]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.197.20 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

In the Russia section below, the article cites from Blumenthal's interview with Tucker Carlson in November 2017 in which he defends RT from "the charge that it’s Kremlin propaganda" and gives the reason for his appearances on it. A quote from a socialist newspaper says he appears on the platform "defending Russian foreign policy" on both RT and Sputnik. It would be helpful to add citations where Blumenthal has been critical of the Russian international media, but they seem to be elusive. Philip Cross (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Defending RT from the charge of Kremlin propaganda, does not mean that Blumenthal is a conspiracy theorist, nor a supporter of all Russian foreign policies as this wikipedia page makes it sound. It does not even mean that Blumenthal supports ALL of RT's coverage. It just means he disagrees with the simplistic charge that it is Kremlin propaganda, a charge that is made most often by people within the US government (and groups with funding connections to US agencies) the strongest empire in human history. Here is an idea: lets think of this in an alternative situation, so that you can think about this from a bird's eye view outside the box of cold war thinking... Imagine if the Russian government was the biggest world power (with 800+ bases and a nearly trillion dollar a year military budget and had the most powerful surveillance apparatus in human history) and it was on a witch-hunt against everything American, to root it out from its society. Then imagine if a dissident Russian journalist was to challenge them and say that the VOA (US government funded media outlet) in Russia should not be blocked from cable or youtube, or that it is not merely White House propaganda but actually has some useful views that are not allowed in Russian mainstream media.. Would that make this journalist a puppet of the White House? Would that act of dissent make this journalist a defender of all of Russia's foreign policy? Would it even make this journalist a supporter of all of VOA's coverage? You do realize right that the corporate media and establishment gatekeepers have a long history of blocking many anti-war views or only allowing them on rare occasions. Noam Chomsky and others have written hundreds of books on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.0.44 (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Where are the sources pointing to Blumenthal disagreeing with any aspect of Russian foreign policy? Philip Cross (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

As a source for the statement, which is a BLP, we should try to do better than this article from Pulse and this article by Bruce Bawer from Commentary Magazine. From the WP:Reliable Source Noticeboard, comments on: Pulse; Commentary ("a collection of editorials"). A consistent standard should apply: if opinion from those sources is allowed, opinion from sources which have equivalent or better editorial control, which are less obscure and which report positively on Blumenthal should be allowed.     ←   ZScarpia   14:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe Commentary (hardly "obscure") and Pulse count as a reliable sources in this context. From WP:RS: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." It continues: "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." On the later point some of the material may not be properly attributed.

I have not cited generalists, Dr Idrees Ahmad the co-editor of Pulse who writes about the middle east, is an academic. Bruce Bawer also has a PhD (albeit in English). That his writings about Islam and Muslims would appear to place him on the political right is insufficient to exclude his article in Commentary. It also backs up Janine di Giovanni's NYRB comments about Blumenthal's allegiances. Reliable sources which present Blumenthal positively are, in recent years, negligible in number and Wikipedia articles are meant to reflect what is said about a topic or individual (within the BLP restrictions), rather than to be perfectly balanced. Philip Cross (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Cross is engaging in the irrational bandwagon fallacy as well as WP:RECENTISM. Corporate media commentary on foreign policy is known to be biased toward the government in the near term (as is documented from the Iraq War travesty) and not up to BLP standards.GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I doubt much outside what you describe as "corporate media commentary" passes muster as a reliable source for what is meant to be a mainstream encyclopedia. Philip Cross (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

But I am not arguing for the inclusion of my preferred sources here. I am arguing for the exclusion of yours.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Those sources are in the mainstream written by reputable individuals, as I have tried to explain. Blumenthal claimed Israelis are biased towards Europe, so the assertion about the Mizrahi being from around the middle east and North Africa (from which they were expelled) is entirely on topic. In the source from Tablet, the author is discussing the conversation with Ian Lustick, so it is not original research as you are trying to imply. Self-evident, but North Africa includes Egypt which is one of the neighbouring countries. Philip Cross (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Taking Commentary, it started off as a publication where Jewish-affairs were discussed, becoming the house journal of Neoconservatism. I doubt that's what many people have in mind when defining mainstream. And I should think that perception of the reputation of its writers would be highly polarised and heavily depend on the politics of the perceiver. Fairly obviously, contributors to Commentary would very much not be appreciators of Blumenthal's journalism, nor Blumenthal a fan of Commentary's opinion pieces. Filling articles with opinions from sources which have a common, pronounced, bias is pretty much guaranteed to produce a non-NPOV result.     ←   ZScarpia   15:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

If Commentary is ever decided by consensus to be "generally unreliable" or even "deprecated", then the use of an article from that source could be considered undue or even removed. As it isn't in either of those categories, the use of Bawer's Commentary article remains legitimate, regardless of the viewpoint it contains. This Wikipedia article would only contain statements from Blumenthal, or citations from non-mainstream publications like the Morning Star, if strong (in Wikipedia policy terms) were to be excluded from being used for this article. The green tinted sources which have "a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team" do not generally contain an enthusiastic appraisal of Mr Blumenthal's work. In the same Wikipedia document, the Morning Star falls into the "no consensus"/"marginally reliable" category. Philip Cross (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Book review of management of savagery

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

I tried to find Justin Podur's review earlier today, but it does not appear to be online. Please provide the url if it is online. Philip Cross (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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

It's because Wikipedia sources all material on any topic touching the interests of the security state from the open sewage pipe of biased media corporations. Any other source is deemed unreliable.Shtove 14:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

More like anyone who does not share your unbalanced views is deemed by you to be in the pocket of vested interests, or something. 2601:647:5800:9120:49F0:F86D:2E04:77D0 (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2020

Reference 53, which links to the tablet, does not actually substantiate the claim made. The author of the Tablet article offers no evidence to support his claim or to effectively contradict Blumenthal's point. Auntiediva (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2020

Remove the link to the website http://maxblumenthal.com/ Newbrunswickeast (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2020

Change "Russian propaganda outlets Sputnik and RT." to "Russian media outlets Sputnik and RT." MarioBayo (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. And that's going to be a pretty high bar. See this discussion and this discussion, for example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2020

A recently cropped picture of Blumenthal would be the much more preferred image in the bio. It is more recent, it is Blumenthal in the flesh, and is a cropped picture zooming in on his face. MarioBayo (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sputnik and RT: 'state broadcasters'.

In this set of edits, the description of Sputnik and RT was changed from Russian 'outlets' to Russian 'state broadcasters', the term used for Cold War Eastern European channels. The description is misleading and entirely the opinion of the editor, it not being used by either of the cited sources, one of which in any case, Marquardt-Bigman's, is a blog (see the bottom of the page: "The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors").     ←   ZScarpia   18:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, could someone maybe add the ownerships of all the various other outlets mentioned? If not, I wonder why not. ;-) Why is the linking to their pages not sufficient? --91.96.35.112 (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Protection

This article seems to be not prominent already as 2017 is, I'm requesting to lower protection to Semi El C. 98.33.16.123 (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not the protecting admin — that would be Cyberpower678. El_C 09:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The reasoning for the bluelock option can be found at Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection and at Wikipedia:Rough guide to extended confirmed protection. From the later article: "The only topic which ArbCom has explicitly specified for use of ECP is the Arab-Israeli conflict. [Cite for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 at this point, PC.] Administrators may apply indefinite extended confirmed protection at any time to any page in the conflict area at their discretion, whether or not there has been disruptive editing on the page."

As it stands, a user only needs to have had an account for 30 days and have made 500 edits to be able to edit this and other articles with a high level of protection. Easy to achieve if an editor starts to work on this website with minor edits fixing formatting errors and the like. What is the hurry? Philip Cross (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• 98.33.16.123: You are welcome to make suggestions here on the talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2020

There is massive vandalism ongoing by Philip Cross on this article (again), and you prevent normal users from editing this? Someone has to revert all of this ... BoMbY (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The instructions clearly say "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it." An edit request is not a mechanism for generalized griping about an article, or personal attacks against a named editor who is not guilty of vandalism as defined on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen: I see they reported the same editor as a vandal to AIV in January and this is their first edit since then - with this account at least. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Mainstream media references

The above request was probably motivated by the many accounts on Twitter are complaining about my recent edits, including three who have a conflict of interest, one of whom is at the very highest perceivable level (though admitted only retweets on this occasion). To prevent a possible edit war, I added the following concealed note to the article yesterday: "Blumenthal has written at least *once* for the Los Angeles Times in 2009 on Sarah Palin and at least *twice* for the New York Times, in 2009 on Eisenhower and 2014 on Israel". I also added in my edit summary that Blumenthal has written for The Guardian on three occasions. Unlike the other examples listed in the article, he has never been a regular contributor to these publications. Thus to include references to what are isolated examples of Blumenthal working for the hated "state corporate media" is misleading. Philip Cross (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked back through all the diffs. My best guess is that your objection is that the article was worded too ambiguously, so that it may have been concluded that Blumenthal's writings appeared more frequently in the mainstream press than actually appears to be the case. Why not state that 'occasional articles' by Blumenthal have appeared in named publications? That would make it clear that he is not a regular writer for them. Deleting visible mention of the appearance of Blumenthal's writings in the mainstream press because you felt that it was 'misleading' may be preferable from your point of view, but obviously may lead to a misleading impression in the opposite direction.

The Lead being chock-a-block with citations, it looks, from a cursory inspection, as though, as with the Philip Giraldi article's, it does not do what a Lead is supposed to, which is to summarise the body of the article.

    ←   ZScarpia   09:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The Nation's biography provides an unadorned list of his published outlets. One could add the Washington Monthly to the mainstream outlets Blumenthal has written for; twice in this case, in 2003 and 2005. Being more specific about how many times Blumenthal has written for this or that reliable source is entering the area of interpretative original research. The latter term only applies to what is included in an article, rather than what is excluded. It is not Wikipedia policy to include every possible reliable source because of the rules about undue weight on content.

I have tried to find usable third-party sources for the first decade of Blumenthal's career, but so far they seem to be practically non-existent. (I have not looked into his writings about migrants yet.) Republican Gomorrah does not appear to have been reviewed by any significant outlet, even though the Los Angeles Times listed it in its top ten non-fiction bestseller list for several weeks in 2009. Philip Cross (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What I was trying to do was to address your concern that mentioning the fact that articles by Blumenthal were published in various reputable publications might 'mislead' readers in some way. In no way am I suggesting that any solution which breaches Wikipedia policies be adopted. Wikipedia requires contributors to edit neutrally, which means that personal opinions should not affect the way that topics are approached. Here, you might like to have a think about how you would write about the list of publications in which Blumenthal's articles have appeared if, instead, the subject of the article was somebody you admired.     ←   ZScarpia   10:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The first media outlet mentioned in the summary is presently The Grayzone, the outlet with which he has been most closely associated for several years, followed by RT and Sputnik, on whose programs he admits to featuring "fairly regularly". It is common practice for article summaries to include the current affiliations of public figures following their nationality and career details, as this one now does. Philip Cross (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A number of points:

- You maintain it's a common practice without offering evidence.

- There's a difference between common practice and universal practice.

- There's a differene between what is mandated, policy, and what might be widely practised.

- Though it might be common practice to only mention publications regularly written for in the Lead, details of other publications contributed to may be mentioned in the body of the article. The way things stand, you've deleted the only mention in the article of prestigious publications in which Blumenthal's articles appear.

- The Lead (called the Summary by you) is supposed to summarise the contents of the rest of the article. It doesn't appear to be properly doing that.

    ←   ZScarpia   08:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead mentions The New York Times and the Los Angeles once more, even though the are very minor parts of Blumenthal's career. On Wikipedia, lead is often spelt lede, which is US usage, I use the word summary because it is more universal. While it is desirable for the lede being closer to a precis of the main text, Blumenthal's work has been controversial in reliable sources since the Jerusalem videos in 2009 and a better summary is therefore likely to be contentious and unstable. This is not wholly an issue of opinions some editors disagree with rather than facts, as his deliberate and undeniable "comparisons between Israel and Nazism" are a central part of this account, often referred to in sources, which may not lead readers to have a positive opinion of the subject of this article. Philip Cross (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Deliberate and undeniable "comparisons between Israel and Nazism"?:

- Describing Herut, the ancestor of parties of today such as Likud, Albert Einstein, Hanna Arendt and other prominent Jewish Americans, writing in The New York Times, protest the visit to America of Menachem Begin, December 1948: "Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our time is the emergence in the newly created State of Israel of the Freedom Party (Herut), a political party closely akin in its organization, method, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties."[2]

- "Fascism was a well-employed term in the Yishuv. David Ben-Gurion used it often and would refer to Jabotinsky as “Vladimir Hitler,” and the Marxist Hashomer Hatzair’s Warsaw bulletin carried a caricature of Jabotinsky captioned: “Adolf Jabotinsky.”"[3]

- Haaretz reader SMB commenting on Israel's Nation-state law: "Sh[a]des of Nuremberg. Our own, homegrown Nuremberg law. We are our own Aryans."[4]

Those who might make Nazi comparisons ... but as a compliment?:

- "Far-right, anti-Muslim, self-declared Zionist Tommy Robinson has boasted of his love for Israel in leaked video footage ... . ... The footage – released by the Sun – captures the growing bond between the far-right and Israel. Racists and neo-Nazis in Europe and the US often harbour deep-seated envy for the Zionist states’ ethno-religious nationalism and wish to model Europe and the US on a similar footing. Leaders of the far-right – like white nationalist Richard Spencer who is known to harbour Nazi sympathies – gave a ringing endorsement to Israel’s Nation-State Law saying: “I have great admiration for Israel’s nation-state law. Jews are, once again, at the vanguard, rethinking politics and sovereignty for the future, showing a path forward for Europeans.” In another incident, a former Israeli soldier who was a member of Tommy Robinson’s campaign addressed protestors on a London street saying: “no matter what the left call us, I am the world’s proudest Jewish Nazi”."[5][6]

And a gratuitous Nazi comparison made in a message sent to Jenny Manson, co-chair of the JVL?:

- '"You fucking Nazi bitch," it said. "You should burn in the gas oven. You dirty fucking bitch…. Stinking, stinking swine… You deserve … to burn in acid."'[7]

    ←   ZScarpia   18:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon reference

Raised because I might be showing bad faith by removing much of the description of Atzmon. A third option on its inclusion dissented from my opinion; the following citation to The Atlantic does not mention Max Blumenthal. However, this was added as a BLP defence of Atzmon which is surely off-topic in an article about Blumenthal. As this has all happened in just under a week, it may be considered likely for such a deviation to added to the article again. Was I justified to cut the Atzmon reference to the bare minimum? Philip Cross (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding a description of Atzmon from an article that does not mention Blumenthal is synthesis and more particularly guilt by association. If we allow the description to stand then Atzmon’s defence should also stand. The preferred option of course is for both to be removed.

I would also consider the inclusion of a review by David Duke to by guilt by association.

We have used a paper by Petra Marquardt-Bigman as the source for the text about Atzmon and David Duke. I don’t know anything about the author. Her paper was cited by Eric Alterman in a Nation blog post on Max Blumenthal. The Nation’s editors reviewed the post and commented:

This blog post originally included a passage linking to a paper by Petra Marquardt-Bigman titled ‘Another Milestone for the Mainstreaming of Anti-Semitism: The New America Foundation and Max Blumenthal’s Goliath.” After a review, we concluded that this paper did not meet our standards as source material and so the link and the passage were removed by the editors.

Burrobert (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert, I made the same point as you, but was overruled. On the Petra Marquardt-Bigman paper, I should point out reliable source criteria on Wikipedia is not governed by The Nation magazine. Additionally, current reference 85 contains an extended list of citations which mention the neo-Nazi Stormfront website and/or David Duke writing about Max Blumenthal non-negatively. One more reference citing Gilad Atzmon is not so much "guilt by association" as perhaps a pattern. I don't much mind the Atzmon and Duke descriptions being removed, but @Northern Moonlight: was the editor on the other side of the third-opinion request I mentioned before. Philip Cross (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

In cases such as this, it is useful to do a check for double standards. If an editor would not be prepared to make the same kind of changes when a subject he or she approves of is mentioned as when mention is made of one disapproved of (say, adding text cited to sources not related to the article topic pointing out that Israel has been "called a racist enterprise" or Ephraim Mirvis "called a racist and Nakba denier") then he or she is not editing neutrally, which there is an opbligation to do. I'd say that, essentially, you have two legitimate choices as to the way to proceed.     ←   ZScarpia   15:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I will not object if the reviews of Atzmon and Duke are removed entirely. What concerns me is that the non-negative reviews of these two people who are significantly outside mainstream political views are presented in the same manner or given the same weight as from other reviewers. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 16:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Outside mainstream opinion certainly, Northern Moonlight, but the passage is cited to a reliable source (Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law), and is only a minor part of the section on Goliath. Multiple sources mention Duke's approval of Blumenthal's work and the connection is thus notable; it is not necessary to agree with Duke. Atzmon finding Blumenthal's work useful is not much mentioned elsewhere, but it is not our fault if Blumenthal has such admirers for his Israel related writings. Checking Petra Marquardt-Bigman's paper, I found the supposed David Duke quotes were only from his website, rather than being by Duke himself. Philip Cross (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

From the article on the LBD: "The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) is an nonprofit organization founded by Kenneth L. Marcus in 2012 to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people, to promote justice for all, and to advocate for Israel. LDB is active on American campuses, where it, according to the organization, combats anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism." So a pro-Israel advocacy organisation founded by a pro-Israel activist. What are your justifications for claiming that it is a reliable source here, an article on a prominent anti-Zionist?     ←   ZScarpia   21:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, Zionism isn't fringe, unlike Blumenthal's deprecated website and certain individuals who write positively about his work. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, so mainstream opinion, as on Israel, is likely to take precedence here. Most of Blumenthal's cited critics would want Israel to continue to exist, in other words, they have basically Zionist sympathies. In practice, you are objecting to the LDB source being used to cite an "anti-Zionist" like Atzmon, who is not in my view being misrepresented. Please demonstrate Atzmon is being misrepresented or disprove a suspicion that your only reason to object is because his approval of Blumenthal is something you do not like. Philip Cross (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you speaking to me or ZScarpia? Because I didn’t say anything about LDB at all. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう

I was responding to ZScarpia. Fixed. Philip Cross (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems that both PC and NM (who had earlier overruled PC) have no objections to the description of Atzmon being removed. But it is still in the article. Is there a reason? Burrobert (talk) 05:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection if the entire review is removed, but if it stays there, there should be some sort of descriptor prefacing it so the reader is made aware they come from people whose views are considered fringe. It’s more about WP:RSUW. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 13:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

"Zionism isn't fringe" is your justification for claiming that an advocacy organisation is a reliable source? Is, therefore, any organisation advocating for Israel a reliable source? Is there a corollary that anti-Zionism is fringe and therefore any organisation advocating anti-Zionism is not a reliable source? Would you accept material in an article about a Zionist cited solely to anti-Zionist sources as neutral? [Note: there is confusion above about who and what you were replying to because your indentation is off.]     ←   ZScarpia   10:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Atzmon's original article appeared on Veterans Today, a deprecated "anti-zionist" website like The Electronic Intifada, Press TV, MintPress News and others including The Grayzone. The Anti-Defamation League, an advocacy group, like many other sources published by the Jewish community, has the status of a reliable source. A dubious source, like the website publishing Atzmon's article, becomes acceptable for inclusion only when a reliable source quotes from it. The indentations for this whole section is off, not only my contributions. Philip Cross (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Let me make it clear: I don't support material being included from sources having no connection with the subject matter of the article, either to attack or support Atzmon, no matter whether it's an article in The Atlantic or one written by Atzmon himself in Veterans Today.

I'm assuming that your comment about the reliability of the ADL is a reference to this recent discussion on the Reliable Source Noticeboard which concluded: "There is consensus that ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that ADL must be attributed in all cases, but there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors commented that ADL's opinion pieces are not reliable, and several wrote that they should only be used with attribution. Some editors commented that ADL is a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics and should be used with caution, if at all." I'd say that there's ambiguity over how that should be read: it says that the ADL is a generally reliable source but then appears to qualify that. Perhaps the part about the labelling of organisations and individuals has particular relevance in the current article. Would I be correct to read your argument as being that, as the ADL, an organisation which engages in advocacy for Israel has been found to be "generally reliable" (though perhaps not without qualifications), then other Israel advocacy organisations such as the LDB, which is being used here, are, by extension, also? You mention other sources "published by the Jewish community" (of which anti-Zionists such as Blumenthal, of course, are part). Which sources did you have in mind? AIPAC perhaps? Are there any Israel-advocacy organisations which you would not consider reliable?

In the case of Electronic Intifada at least, you should use the word 'deprecated' more carefully (though perhaps you know of a more recent discussion than the ones I managed to find). I find it interesting to compare the RSN discussion for EI of October 2018 with the recent, July and August 2020, one for the ADL. Most of the contributions amount to beauty or popularity contest votes, with no justifications being given. However, in the case of EI, Andromedean (10:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)) lists supposedly positive reviews of EI which I would have expected to count for something, but appear not to have.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, I used Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for my statements. Much more definitive than RS/N. Philip Cross (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The case I pointed out is the last one listed on the RSP page. However the decision made in that case has not been copied over. Note the difference between deprecation and a source being found generally unreliable.     ←   ZScarpia   18:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The Mizrahi bit

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

Splitting Proposal: The Grayzone

I am proposing that we split off an article on The Grayzone from this article. The Grayzone has gotten significant coverage from multiple reliable sources in its own right, though the article currently exists as a redirect to this page. Some of these sources (such as this WSJ piece, ASPI report) don't even mention Blumenthal by name when referring to the website. I believe that this is evidence that the two are separately notable, and I therefore would like to see if other editors would also support the creation of a new article that focuses on The Grayzone as a standalone entity (rather than framing everything done by the website in the context of how it is pertinent to Blumenthal's biography itself) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. ---Dagme (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that this coverage is WP:SUSTAINED enough to justify the independent notability of Grayzone. Generalrelative (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Generalrelative unless Mikehawk10 or others have examples showing sustained coverage? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree. It seems odd to re-direct to an individual, especially since there is not even a specific section about the website in the article. Dhawk790 (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

We should do this, The Greyzone seems to be more notable than Blumenthal himself. Not really sure about those questioning sustained coverage, I see enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG a few times over and all it needs to do is pass it once. WP:GNG is not exactly a high bar, also I would note that theres no reason we need a consensus on this. @Mikehawk10: just make it, if anyone objects they can take it to AfD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding one more agree vote --~~

Agreed. The link should be its own article and not just be a redirect to a biographical article, as The Grayzone is more than just Max Blumenthal.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree to split - the Grayzone is significant for its journalism. Shtove (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree that they should be split. Besides the sufficient secondary coverage of Grayzone, it is also simply inaccurate to conflate an individual with a news organization. This conflation results in an excessively long and convoluted page.BigFriendlyGiant2 (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Can those arguing for split drop a few links to secondary RS coverage to show GZ's notability before this proceeds? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: There is coverage from Coda Story. Axios, an opinion piece in Haaretz by a university professor, The Daily Beast, and there's a long ASPI report that has been covered by media sources. There's also less substantive mentions of the site in The Economist and Washington Free Beacon. If I get time this weekend, I'll execute the split. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: I (kinda) did the split. The Grayzone has its own article now. I'm not exactly sure what to move over there, though. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute needed

This article needs a warning that the neutrality of this article is being disputed, due to the massive negative slant of this article, easily 75/25 against. There are hardly any positives in this article, it could come off as a smear campaign designed to compare a rando journalist to the likes of Adolf Hitler.

Wikipedia is not designed for political ideological posturing, it is meant as an objective and neutral repository of information. Please fix this problem, maybe with an NPOV or snub tag. --D. Compton Ambrose

Anyone can propose specific additions on the talk page which present Mr Blumenthal in a different light, so long as the potential citations are from reliable sources. In its current form, it reflects what such sources have written about him. Philip Cross (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides, but it just seems like - Max Blumenthal himself being guilty of this at times - there are already so many hyperbolic statements being made these days that extra care should be taken not to add to it. There should be a neutrality check ASAP, imo at least. --D. Compton Ambrose

Could you be more specific as to what the issues are and what changes you think should be made? X-Editor (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

That there should be an NPOV tag and that a particular user is pushing an aggressive interpretation of a fringe journalist. By the way, someone rando tweeted about this and tagged me in it, I am not affiliated with them. I even asked them to remove the tweet in question. I'm not going to add the tag but I just suggested it should perhaps have one until more sources are accrued. Either that or a 'stub' tag if the POV is not considered aggressive enough (although a rough estimate of a 70/30 negative slant is pretty aggressive imo). --D. Compton Ambrose

As I am well aware who you mean, be warned he is a banned user who misused multiple accounts. Philip Cross (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Seconded - please add a NPOV tag, the slant of the article is overwhelmingl negative, far more so than is usual for controversial journalists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.43.109 (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Needs POV Tag

The talk page for this article does not appear to have reached a consensus on the neutrality of the article. It should, due to this lack of consensus, have a POV marker at the top of the article. Wackword (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Wackword

Seconded - please add a NPOV tag, the slant of the article is overwhelmingl negative, far more so than is usual for controversial journalists. 2.25.43.109 (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Example of POV problems: section on Goliath

Per the article about the book itself, readers can learn that what Publishers Weekly, The Atlantic, Kirkus, The New York Observer, etc. said about the book. This article instead cites opinion pieces aimed at discrediting Blumenthal. As an encyclopedia our role is to describe the article topic, not to hand a megaphone to people on one side or the other about how very good or bad Blumenthal is. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, multiple RS describe Blumenthal as a strong critic of Israel. It is entirely fair and desirable for the article to include viewpoints about Blumenthal expressed by people who are strong defenders of Israel. But this article over-uses opinion pieces that are clearly pushing an anti-Blumenthal POV; for example, five different footnotes point to a clearly-labeled "Opinion" piece whose title is "Wild Thing: Max Blumenthal's Creepy Anti-Zionist Odyssey"; four to "Another Milestone for the Mainstreaming of Anti-Semitism: The New America Foundation and Max Blumenthal's Goliath" (another piece by the same author which also gets a mention was "David Duke, Other Anti-Semites Praise Max Blumenthal's 'I Hate Israel Handbook'".) This article needs major pruning. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Article improvement needed

My efforts to improve the article have now all been reverted by Horse Eye's Back. I hope somebody else will take over removing some of the obvious POV issues, since my poor edit summaries were all the excuse needed to restore the article to its original mess. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that your bold edits have been reverted, HouseOfChange, perhaps you should argue the case for each of the edits here and see if any of them receive consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Here are three edits where Horse Eye's Back found particular fault with my edit summaries

a) After looking at a source, I changed a word to match source text, with the edit summary "nPOV". The RS cited says ""On air, he questioned the scale of the detention of Uyghurs in camps in China’s northwestern Xinjiang province." The article then quotes MB raising questions about what is known about the scale of Uyghur detention. I changed "denied the scale" to "questioned the scale." According to HEB the edit itself actually appears to have gone against our WP:NPOV policy as thats the word used by the source. The source's headline uses "denies the scale," but that headline is not supported by the text of the source; headlines are not fact-checked.

b) This edit has the summary "condense and rmv obvious BLP violation." HEB considered that edit summary misleading: looking through the edit I can’t find a BLP violation (obvious or not) OK, correct me if I am wrong, but while trying to condense a section about a 2014 visit to Berlin, I saw what I thought were 3 BLP violations: 1) quoting a description of Blumenthal as someone who sought to "invoke consistently anti-Semitic comparisons between Israel and Nazism", and 2) another quote indirectly accusing MB of physically threatening a member of parliament and "endanger[ing] the parliamentary process," and 3) nowhere in the section about 2014 trip is there any countervailing opinion or response from MB to the events and accusations described.

c) In several edit summaries, I described sources that I removed as "opinion pieces." HEB took exception to that description of this article in particular. As I explained on my Talk page, "This article expresses strong opinions about the BLP subject, as does its title: 'Clinton-Linked Israel Basher Max Blumenthal Disparages, Defames the Late Elie Wiesel.' It includes some facts, but less-opinionated sources are better sources for those facts."

I am not an expert on Max Blumenthal, and I don't want to become one. I tried to improve an article some of whose flaws seemed clear to me. My edit summaries may have been mistaken but in each case I tried to explain my own reasoning, not to mislead anyone. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

HouseOfChange is right about A, the source does use that language and I was mistaken. On B none of those are actually WP:BLP violations, quotes are not to be censored and we work hard to avoid a WP:FALSEBALANCE by inserting any countervailing opinion or response from MB to the events and accusations described when there isn’t as much coverage (if any) of that. On C the Algemeiner Journal is a WP:RS especially within their area of expertise, being biased and having an opinion aren’t the same things as being an opinion piece as I hope I have made clear. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: As for B, the accusation of antisemitism is a strong one, and rather than being censored, or tucked in here and there around the article, it should have a section devoted to it: who accuses MB of it, on what grounds, etc. Here's a handy compendium. But I am leaving this article to others who know more about the topic. As for C, I am aware of your assertion that an opinionated or biased article is not an "opinion piece." Perhaps I was misled by Merriam Webster, which defines "opinion piece" as "an article in which the writer expresses their personal opinion."

This piece, which the bio cites 3 times is clearly labeled "Opinion." So is this one, clearly labeled "Opinion," also cited 3 times. This article should inform readers of criticisms against MB, but the article is currently overinflated into a linkfarm of partisan diatribe. Surely it is better to give a clear account of what notable critics have criticized rather than lending our platform here to yapping twits who deflect criticism of Israel by calling it "virtually" or "in effect" or "arguably" antisemitic. Israel is a great country, with problems like every other country; it is disgraced not exalted by some of its "defenders." HouseOfChange (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange Your "compendium" refers to MB as a 'useful idiot Jew'. On this basis I say it should not be considered a source on antisemitism. If such sources are what is driving the negative slant of this article, the article definitely needs an NPOV tag as has been repeatedly suggested on this page. I am suggesting this again. 2.25.43.109 (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Clarification re: Dispute with Karen J. Greenberg (2011)

Concerning the last sentence in the Greenberg section "Greenberg had made the same comments to Adam Serwer of Mother Jones.[46][48]"

This statement can be misread and serves no purpose, as four sentences earlier begins "Contacted by Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic and Adam Serwer of Mother Jones," and two sentences earlier is "She told Serwer that "I did not intend to assert these allegations as fact ... the entire sense of the quote is inaccurate."" including this sentence in the article seems to serve no purpose but to confuse the reader, positioned as it is immediately after Blumenthal's assertion that she she was intimidated into recanting.

Can it be removed? 108.28.194.186 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

To update

To update in this article: Blumenthal's views on Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

As ever, this article needs reliable sources for Blumenthal's responses to this war. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. More editors on the look out for usable citations to develop this article (or any article) are welcome. Philip Cross (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

There's really not that much in terms of RS. The closest I can get are these three sources, but the coverage is not in-depth. Fox News covered Blumenthal's tweet, but also didn't do much besides say that Blumenthal tweeted it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2022

This page widely uses poor sources. There is obviously a tiff going on between the subject and New Politics thus using New Politics as a source lacks credibility. Further New Politics is used as a source for things it is not a source for. For example, regarding Syria, it is used as source for the UN declaration on sarin gas. New Politics is not a news source. It is writing opinion based on other news sources. Actual news sources such as Reuters or the NYT (and the UN itself) has reported the UN deemed there to be “reasonable grounds” to assume Syria dropped the gas via helicopter. However, a whistleblower has claimed even that limited assessment to be inaccurate. http://syriapropagandamedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Engineering-assessment-of-two-cylinders-observed-at-the-Douma-incident-27-February-2019-1.pdf and https://couragefound.org/2019/10/analytical-points-opcw-panel

The point being that opinion pieces should not be used as sources except when noted as an opinion only. WGyp (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

A funny thing happened on the way to the theatre

Have you heard this one?

Q. When is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist writing in a green-tick reliable source not a reliable source?

A. When he says something nice about Max Blumenthal.

Hilarious. Burrobert (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, why did you remove the material attributed to Greenwald in the Intercept? nableezy - 14:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Because neither Greenwald nor the Intercept are RS for this topic. Volunteer Marek 22:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Says who? Huldra (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Burrobert (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Im sorry Volunteer Marek, Im restoring this, we already have established consensus that the Intercept is generally reliable, and nothing here gives any basis for the challenge. This is attributed to a blue linked author, is totally DUE, and if anybody wants info on Greenwald they can click that link. nableezy - 22:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

An article in The New York Times (which was deleted from the article because it does not mention Blumenthal) establishes the report by Greenwald and Blumenthal were wrong:

On March 10, The New York Times reported that their reconstruction, using both public information and previously unpublished video evidence, did not support accounts that the use of tear gas by Maduro's forces had caused the trucks to burn. It "suggest[ed] that a Molotov cocktail thrown by an antigovernment protester was the most likely trigger for the blaze".

Editors should not include material which has been demonstrated to be false (or fringe) in stronger reliable sources. Fringe material needs to be challenged by mainstream sources for inclusion. If it has not been, it is insufficiently notable to be included in any article. Seems obvious, but apparently not. Philip Cross (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You might want to read that again, Philip Cross: Blumenthal scooped the Times, which fully vindicated his analysis. And, yes, The New York Times source was removed based on a phony WP:SYNTH challenge, but it should also be restored, because Greenwald directly made the obvious and correct observation that Blumenthal scooped the Times. This content was long-standing for about two years before NoonIcarus decided to relitigate the issue. You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts, etc.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou, TheTimesAreAChanging. Obviously I was very rash in my edit and you were right to revert my error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Cross (talk • contribs) 09:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not see any problems with the text or the source. TFD (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2022

Some of the information on Max Blumenthal are fundamentally wrong and ought to be corrected ASAP! 138.88.179.28 (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

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."[8]

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)