Talk:The Grayzone

When will this become a mainspace page?
I think the nature of the website is part of RationalWiki's missions. Requirements needed. --Noobmaster420 (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A RationalWiki page must be:

This article appears to pass all the tests. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  11:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that the topic is missional, but the article currently looks like a power point presentation, that is, too many bullet lists and not enough text and analysis. It's getting there, but it needs substantial cleanup. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * it could probably do withy a whole lot less hyperbole and exageration, and much less of the hot takes and sick burns. it reads like the work of a lunatic of the swively eye variety, even if it were 100% accurate. its tone is just too hysterical to take seriously. it doesnt do the job of informing a reader of what may be salient points of vital interest if it can be written off as a rabid hit piece. closer scrutiny wouldnt really give a better impression though. it IS a rabid hit piece. it makes bold claims way too strongly for the evidence provided, or the significance of some claims is not apparent or adequately explained just what the point of many assertions actually is.


 * the connections with far right activists is misleading to say the least, relying on said far right liking or retweeting something other of grayzones, that norton retweeted someone who apparently has some controversial views not evident in what was retweeeted. the assertion that blumenthal is a well known antisemite is not supporrted by the references, but stated as if none were needed. to me its not clear or undisputable that he is antisemite. similarly promoting of 'white nationalist' pepe escobar - is he a white nationalist? dont know the guy, google didmt turn up anything that says white nationalism.


 * the conspiracy theory section is missing any of grayzones reasoning at all for its views or just what it is the believe when they 'beleive in' bigpharma, but not russiagate.


 * as for the china stuff, the uyghurs needs more scrutiny but that would be better served on that article not here. for the hong kong protests, there no references to their views or to their claims of the far right in attendence being exagerated. the supporting note looks like it sides with grayzone and includes our own exagerations of the size of the protests. the doxxing stuff is muddled and misses any points that were being made but makes points that are really beside the point.


 * grayzone looks like a bunch of partisan wank, but you'd have to look at their work to know. theres too much here of dubious veracity that id be suspicious of anything claimed within. its needs to be a hell of lot more neutral than it is and a hell of a lot more discriminating in weighting some the claims and evidence for them. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * this is still dross AMassiveGay (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The Ben Norton "connections to far right activists" section is literally just Ben Norton retweeted a Chinese nationalist once years ago. It's two sentences and the second sentence is just further attacking this random-ass, irrelevant guy. Grayzone's weird politics aside, this article is just a hitpiece. Objectively, retweeting a single anonymous figure once is not a "connection to far-right activists". Given that this is literally the only alleged connection that accusation should be excised. I think the article in general is very poorly constructed and obviously the work of someone with an axe to grind, but that particular section is so bad it gives the game away. --98.169.209.211 (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've removed that section, although as you say the rest of the article is still pretty poor. Christopher (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)