Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:49, 16 December 2021

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2021. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Using the "conspiracy theorist" description

@Gdeblois19: has twice added this description to the article and I have twice reverted. I can find no usable source directly describing Aaron Maté as a "conspiracy theorist"; the absence should close this issue for now. Philip Cross (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

We would indeed need RS to state it. Another way to put it is that he's a denialist of proven facts (shown by his use of the "Russiagate" term used by Trumpist conspiracy theorists), which places him in the unsavory company of Trumpist conspiracy theorists who deny that Trump and his campaign colluded/cooperated in any way with the Russian interference. The Mueller report provides abundant evidence that they actually did invite, welcome, aid, and cooperate (that constellation of terms describes active and passive collusion) with Russian efforts. They even hid and lied about all these actions, never reporting it to the FBI, as they should have done. It was only "conspiracy" and "coordination" that Mueller failed to prove. -- Valjean (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Use of the "Russiagate" term does not imply conspiracy or denial of proven facts, it merely shows skepticism. Please provide a concrete example of Maté lying or denying facts instead of asserting that your opinion about the term "Russiagate" implies lies or conspiracy. Ekcrisp (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

A few comments on the Douma section

• Maté’s critique of the media response to the revelations of the OPCW whistleblowers covered both major outlets and progressive media. He spent more space critiquing the major outlets and mentioned three by name. He mentioned The Guardian as an example of a progressive outlet (sic). The latest version provided by PC is fine with me though I couldn’t understand the edit summary.
• The inclusion of Arias’ statement is problematic. It is taken from a primary source which does not refer to Maté so is not directly relevant to Maté’s bio. However, it has been pointed out that Maté does mention Arias’ statement in his Nation article so we could use that as a peg on which to hang the quote. In that case it would be more appropriate to use the part quoted by Maté rather than use the primary source. If we are to introduce Arias’ statement we should also provide Maté’s comments from the Nation article on Arias’ position.
• The various Douma narratives are disputed. Presumably this is why there have been a few references to WP:FRINGELEVEL. Maté’s bio is not about which of the narratives is correct. It is about his reporting related to Douma and responses to his reporting.

Burrobert (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The implication in Aaron Maté comments about mainstream and progressive media ignoring assertions from Mr Maté (plus The Grayzone and others) is that the reputable outlets we can most easily cite consider them either false or somewhat misleading, rather than accurate and notable. Philip Cross (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Arias' comments are not based only on primary sources and the page does use the part quoted by Maté ("He has also dismissed the pair as minor players who refused to accept that their conclusions were “erroneous, uninformed, and wrong.”"). De Lint refers to both Maté and Arias. CowHouse (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Internecine warfare

There has been a running battle over the last month or so between two groups on the left. Aaron, Max and Jimmy are on one side and TYT are on the other. It may have started when Aaron lampooned a tweet made by TYT about the Israel-Palestine conflict. Anyway it now appears TYT have said a lot of strange things over the years. It would be fun to add something about this battle to Aaron's bio. Here is a short reference to get things started. Burrobert (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Choi, Joseph (21 June 2021). "Aaron Maté: Attack from TYT reflects 'general hostility' towards 'actual progressive values'". TheHill. Retrieved 22 June 2021.

"Journalism" section

The idea of this section seems to be to showcase the subject's extremist political views, at great length, credulously, and without any counter-arguments presented. Obviously this is not appropriate. The section should focus on things that are actually notable and important, not simply take the excuse to quote Mate's bullshit at length. 74.15.24.212 (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

His use of the term "Russiagate"

Burrobert, I don't see any implication that he invented the term Russiagate. The term is only "known as "Russiagate"" by deniers, conspiracy theorists, or those who are too ignorant to know how to parse what happened.

He just uses it, and it's a term used by those who deny proven facts. It is primarily used by unreliable sources, and Maté joins Greenwald, Taibbi, and Assange in using the term. Sadly, they have all become Russian apologists. His use of the term places him in the unsavory company of Trumpist conspiracy theorists who deny that Trump and his campaign colluded/cooperated in any way with the Russian interference. The Mueller report provides abundant evidence that they actually did lie about, invite, welcome, aid, and cooperate (that constellation of terms describes active and passive collusion) with Russian efforts. They knew about, hid, and lied about all these actions, never reporting them to the FBI, as they should have done. They sided with the enemy of America. It was only "conspiracy" and "coordination" that Mueller failed to prove.

This all begs the question "Why don't we have an article about the term "Russiagate"? It is used as a redirect to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, which is the wrong target, since the term "Russiagate" is the opposite, a denial of Russian interference. If anything, it should point to the closer target of the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). Trumpists objected to the investigation as being a witch hunt for something they falsely claim never happened. Their denials are proven falsehoods. The only thing they can legitimately claim is that "conspiracy" and "coordination" were never proven.

We should have an article for the term. -- Valjean (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You wrote "Maté has described the Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and links between Trump associates and Russian officials as "Russiagate" ". The point I made was that he didn't invent the term (afaict) and certainly was not the only person to use it. We should not say Maté described Russiagate in such and such a way when the term exists independently of him. The sources we use here say "Independent journalist Aaron Maté ... consistently challenged the media’s coverage of the Russia-Trump campaign collusion story, known as “Russiagate,” in his reporting for The Nation" and "Aaron Maté exposed the hollowness and hyperbole of the so-called Russiagate scandal ". Creating an article to document the term is a good idea. Burrobert (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

But it is not commonly "known as “Russiagate”." That is a fringe, pejorative, term used by conspiracy theorists and denialists like Trump and his allies who carry water for Russia. Putin loves it. That word should not be framed as if it's a mainstream view of the Special Counsel Investigation (SCI). It is not a synonym for, or neutral description of, the SCI, but is an attack on the investigation. -- Valjean (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You obviously have strong opinions on Trump, Russia, water etc. The term seems to have been used across the spectrum from what I have seen. I just did a quick search and found it mentioned in articles in the NYT, Rolling Stone, The Atlantic and Fox News. And not with the characterisation that you gave it above. I think it would be safer to stick with the usage provided by the sources we have cited, which I quoted above. The sources we have cited do not make a judgement on whether there was any truth in the various allegations and use the term as a catch-all for those allegations. Burrobert (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, many fringe people are cited in mainstream RS, so you'll occasionally find the term mentioned there. I have no problem with actual citations of the word using RS, but we're using it in wikivoice, even in the heading. That's not neutral. We should not use fringe terms as if they are the proper term. We should call the Russia investigation by its proper name, not a pejorative term, and then attribute Aaron's use of the term to him, since he uses the term. That's what I tried to do. We don't have to explain that it's pejorative or fringe, just that he uses the term. -- Valjean (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I have made some tweaks "to make this more neutral and not use "Russiagate" in wikivoice." -- Valjean (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Burrobert (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Anon IP removals of sourced material

Is there a consensus for (1) the removal of Jonathan Chait's comment about Mate's appearance on the Tucker Carlson show? and (2) the removal of Kasparian calling him an Assadist, sourced from the Daily Dot? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(1) Probably should be reinstated as notable and from a reputable source (New York magazine). (2) The Daily Dot is a source which has been disputed as being reliable and in any case Ana Kasparian's claims about Aaron Maté are implied in the content as it stands. Philip Cross (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Just returning to question 1. Chait says:

Some anti-anti-Trump leftists see impeachment not merely as a distraction from the Sanders revolution but a deliberate effort to marginalize it. Krystal Ball and Aaron Mate recently speculated that Democratic leaders just might be setting up an impeachment trial in order to keep Sanders and Elizabeth Warren locked up in Washington and off the campaign trail. While such a possibility is obviously insane, if you consider the struggle between left-wing populists and evil neoliberals to be the central dynamic in American politics, it might seem at least plausible... Leftists like Mate and Glenn Greenwald sometimes appear on Tucker Carlson’s show, giving an edgy, trans-ideological sheen to his increasingly overt white nationalism...

I'm not sure we have a consensus it is undue, if used with attribution. In particular, our article doesn't mention that Mate is a frequent Fox News/Tucker Carlson contributor. RSP says There is consensus that New York (magazine), including its subsidiary website Vulture, is generally reliable. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Lopsided presentation

I have serious concerns about this article's neutrality. It presents Mr. Maté in an incredibly lopsided and hagiographic way, with enormous nuance and detail given to his own 'investigations', and almost none to that of the skeptics. I seriously doubt the necessity of such a long section on the Navalny affair, as he may have only played a minor role in that charade. The whole section on the so-called OPCW 'cover-up' also gives credence and authority to the ludicrous assertions by the Grayzone crowd. That particular website is a DEPRECATED source for a reason. If we are going to relay his conspiratorial writings on Syria in such a great detail, we should probably also mention that he was part of his own Russian conspiracy (by his own admission), namely the one to doxx survivors of the Douma massacre. Nutez (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• You are allowed to add suitable content from "sceptics" and others.
• The Navalny paragraph could be trimmed by removing the final, long statement from Amnesty, i.e. truncate the last part to "Amnesty reversed its decision in May".
• The Douma section is well sourced. Again, additional suitable material can be added.
• BLP policies apply to talk pages and edit summaries. This language evinces a non-neutral editorial position and makes some controversial claims about a living person: "incredibly lopsided and hagiographic", "ludicrous assertions by the Grayzone crowd", "his conspiratorial writings", "he was part of his own Russian conspiracy ... to doxx survivors of the Douma massacre".

Burrobert (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Is the Washington Post now unreliable?

The following text, sourced to the WashingPost was removed because it contained "two unreliable sources". I don't particularly trust WaPo myself, but I thought Misplaced Pages had a different attitude to it.

On 25 February 2021, RealClearInvestigations published Maté's interview with former Trump staffer Kash Patel. It is one of the few interviews Patel has given about his work investigating Russian interference.

Burrobert (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

WaPo is a secondary source so shouldn't be a problem. However, it is an opinion piece (so OK for establishing noteworthiness but needs attribution as a source for facts?) and the mention is just in passing: The classified evidence he gathered for Nunes showed a rushed investigation and “tradecraft failings,” Patel contended in an interview with Aaron Maté for RealClearInvestigations published on Feb. 25, one of the few interviews he has given. On balance, I'd support re-inclusion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. The first sentence is a fact which is verified by the inclusion of the article being cited. The second sentence involves an opinion/assessment so should be attributed to David Ignatius. Burrobert (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Chait, Jonathan (2019-12-23). "Tulsi Gabbard and the Return of the Anti-Anti-Trump Left". Intelligencer. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
2. Ignatius, David (17 April 2021). "How Kash Patel rose from obscure Hill staffer to key operative in Trump's battle with the intelligence community". Washington Post. Retrieved 23 May 2021.
3. Maté, Aaron (25 February 2021). "In Final Days, Trump Gave Up on Forcing Release of Russiagate Files, Nunes Prober Says". RealClearInvestigations. Retrieved 23 May 2021.

Time's arrow and other things

We don't have a complete explanation as to why time flows in only one direction. Is it an illusion? It has been hypothesised that the second law of thermodynamics and entropy may be involved somewhere. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that future events cannot affect the past. One of our editors has put forward the proposition that an event in May 2021 can affect events in March 2021. Specifically, the editor believes that Maté's trip to Syria in May 2021 caused a letter to be published on 27 March 2021. I pointed out the unusual nature of the phenomenon but the editor was adamant. I also mentioned to the editor that the letter didn't mention Maté or his trip to Syria, which I took to be evidence that time was flowing in the right direction. Has there been a revolution in physics that now make this possible? If so, we probably should mention that in the article as it seems notable.

There were a few other points that are unclear:

• Why is the Serena Shim award described as "pro-regime"? Presumably, the intended meaning is that the award, which is generally regarded as an inanimate object, supports the Syrian government somehow.
• What is the connection between Maté not endorsing a statement and him winning the Serena Shim Award? The two events appear to be unrelated but we have connected him with the conjunction "although", which is a word to watch.

Burrobert (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Burrobert. The letter is clearly a response to Grayzone and Mate among others, but does not name them so not usable here unless a secondary source makes the connection, and it is not a specific response to the election trip. We should avoid the term "regime", although it might be helpful to give some indication of what the award is, as it's buried quite deep in the linked article about the person the award is named for. I'll revert back to Burrobert's version for the moment. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC) Have reverted, but also added details re the award. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll ignore the rhetorical grandstanding wrt. time arrow etc. Thanks to Bobfrombrockley for helpfully copy-editing my additions, rather than blanket reverting them. The letter does indeed mention Mr. Maté specifically:

The divisive and sectarianizing role played by this group is unmistakable: in their simplistic view, all pro-democracy and pro-dignity movements that go against Russian or Chinese state interests are routinely portrayed as the top-down work of Western interference: none are autochthonous, none are of a piece with decades of independent domestic struggle against brutal dictatorship (as in Syria), and none truly represent the desires of people demanding the right to lives of dignity rather than oppression and abuse. Among others, this group includes the American writers at the mysteriously-funded The Grayzone (Max Blumenthal, Rania Khalek, Ben Norton, Aaron Maté)
— https://imhojournal.org/articles/erasing-people-through-disinformation-syria-and-the-anti-imperialism-of-fools/ March 27, 2021

Nutez (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nutez. The IMHO journal version is different from the New Politics journal version, which is problematic. If we are confident about sourcing via IMHO then I think we could probably include this, but not frame it as a response to the election, but (a) I'm a bit concerned about the difference between the version, and (b) I wonder if it fits better in the Grayzone article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Neutral point of view tag

One of our editors has placed a "Neutral point of view" tag in the middle of a quote from a professor in criminal justice at Flinders University. I believe the tag is meant to indicate that the article is "reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject". The editor is meant to immediately begin a discussion on the talk-page explaining why the tag has been added.

• Why was the tag added?
• Why was the tag added in this particular location?

Burrobert (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah also looks weird to me. It's not a problem if someone we quote has a POV; it's a problem if our description of what they say is non-neutral. I'd support removal unless there's something I'm missing. (I'm not totally sure the quote is DUE; the mention seems a bit in passing.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, bit of a snafu on my part. Didn't see the scare quotes, and thought the adverb primarily was written in Misplaced Pages's voice, rather than included in a quote. Although I do concur that the quote seems a bit curious and incidental. Why are we including this POV here? Nutez (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles