This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Max Blumenthal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Max Blumenthal. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Max Blumenthal at the Reference desk. |
![]() | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
![]() | Max Blumenthal received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please cut & paste this under external links:
Anutherconcerned ( talk) 16:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@ 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)
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 Walkerwhich I think is the real response.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib)
18:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the link to the website http://maxblumenthal.com/ Newbrunswickeast ( talk) 23:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Russian propaganda outlets Sputnik and RT." to "Russian media outlets Sputnik and RT." MarioBayo ( talk) 19:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
{{
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)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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.
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.
@ 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)
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 in this article: Blumenthal's views on Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 04:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)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". [1]
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Fuck Wikipedia. 141.126.171.6 ( talk) 17:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.[1]
a video of journalist Max Blumenthal interviewing prominent British Holocaust denier David Irving was removed from the SPLC’s YouTube channel[2]
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[3]
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."[4]
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.[5]
[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.[6]
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.[7]
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”.[8]
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[9]
the American blogger and Sputnik contributor Max Blumenthal[10]
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.[11]
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[12]
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.[13]
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.”[14]
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.[15]
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.”[16]
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.[17]
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.[18]*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.[19]
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.[20]
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[21]
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[22]
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.[23]
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.[24]
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[25]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
This article, espcially the lead, is pure POV: just listing the most negative thing about him. A couple points:
This was just the lead. Comments? Huldra ( talk) 23:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
“ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is highly unprofessional and breaks the neutrality of the article Steveonsi ( talk) 20:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Max Blumenthal received the Pierre Spray Journalism Award 2023 for:
Source: https://www.thepierrespreyaward.org/2023-winners 87.170.204.203 ( talk) 22:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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]
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Max Blumenthal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Max Blumenthal. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Max Blumenthal at the Reference desk. |
![]() | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
![]() | Max Blumenthal received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please cut & paste this under external links:
Anutherconcerned ( talk) 16:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@ 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)
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 Walkerwhich I think is the real response.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib)
18:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the link to the website http://maxblumenthal.com/ Newbrunswickeast ( talk) 23:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Russian propaganda outlets Sputnik and RT." to "Russian media outlets Sputnik and RT." MarioBayo ( talk) 19:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
{{
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)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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.
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.
@ 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)
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 in this article: Blumenthal's views on Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 04:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)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". [1]
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Fuck Wikipedia. 141.126.171.6 ( talk) 17:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.[1]
a video of journalist Max Blumenthal interviewing prominent British Holocaust denier David Irving was removed from the SPLC’s YouTube channel[2]
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[3]
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."[4]
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.[5]
[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.[6]
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.[7]
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”.[8]
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[9]
the American blogger and Sputnik contributor Max Blumenthal[10]
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.[11]
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[12]
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.[13]
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.”[14]
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.[15]
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.”[16]
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.[17]
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.[18]*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.[19]
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.[20]
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[21]
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[22]
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.[23]
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.[24]
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[25]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
This article, espcially the lead, is pure POV: just listing the most negative thing about him. A couple points:
This was just the lead. Comments? Huldra ( talk) 23:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
“ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is highly unprofessional and breaks the neutrality of the article Steveonsi ( talk) 20:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Max Blumenthal received the Pierre Spray Journalism Award 2023 for:
Source: https://www.thepierrespreyaward.org/2023-winners 87.170.204.203 ( talk) 22:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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]