Talk:CounterPunch/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about CounterPunch. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Criticism

The "Criticism" section reads:

CounterPunch has also been criticized for publishing articles by authors such as Alan Cabal and Daniel A. McGowan who have defended the pro-Hitler perspective of Holocaust deniers such as Ernest Zundel. Zundel is the author of "The Hitler We Loved and Why", and Cabal's "sympathetic"[8] article in CounterPunch on holocaust denier Ernst Zündel titled "Star Chamber Redux: the Prosecution of Zundel", attracted controversy from the media, internet forums and blogs, and the Jeff Rense radio show,[9] In a March 2004 letter to the Adelaide Institute, Zundel referred to Cabal's article as "An amazing break-through".[10][11]

However, if you follow the link to the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, it says:

Holocaust-denier Ernst Zundel (see Canada, above) was the subject of a sympathetic article in the February 1-15 , 2004 edition of the political newsletter CounterPunch, edited by pundits Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. The article, by Alan Cabal, praised Zundel as a “painter and pacifist” who is being “persecuted” by the U.S. and Canadian governments. Cabal described Zundel as “the most widely recognized figure in the growing number of historians, both amateur and academic, questioning the veracity of orthodox accounts of the events which took place in the Nazi concentration camps during World War II ... The ‘Holocaust Industry’, as Norman Finkelstein dubbed it, behaves in every way like a fanatical cult. The persecution of Ernst Zundel has been and continues to be both relentless and utterly ruthless.” Cabal characterized the deportation proceedings against Zundel as “an affront to justice and public decency that goes far beyond anything that Mr. Zundel has to say.”

Notice that there is no citation for McGowan. The source does not say that Cabal "defended the pro-Hitler perspective of Holocaust deniers". Furthermore, the criticism in the Wyman Institute report is unfounded. Cabal's article can be found here: http://www.historiansbehindbars.com/amspress.html which is a website apparently run by David Irving and Ernst Zundel. The site contains copies of articles by George F. Will and many other writers as well as editorials from major Canadian newspapers all opposed to the legal actions taken against Zundel. Their concern is that Zundel's rights to freedom of speech and due process have been violated. Whether or not this accusation is correct, it does not put these writers into the holocaust-denial camp.

The footnote for the the Jeff Rense radio show cites the Institute for Historical Review. All it states is that Rense mentioned the Cabal article on his show, along with the Globe and Mail. It's irrelevant. There has been considerable discussion of this issue here.

However, any attempt to link CounterPunch to holocaust denial is totally unfounded and this section should be deleted. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted those sentences, since no WP:RS evidence for either the article being "pro-Hitler" (yeah right, that's plausible for a leftwing publication like counterpunch) or the article creating controversy and being criticised. Also WP:SYNTHESIS issues based on non-reliable sources reacting. Rd232 ^talk 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted a sentence on Alan Cabal (diff) which mischaracterised the source (they don't criticise counterpunch; they don't even actually criticise Cabal). Read what the source actually says! Also it's only one paragraph in the source.Rd232 ^talk 14:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Expunging Alan Cable (Alan Cabal)

It seems that Alan Cable is being summarily removed from a number of articles. New York Press, Gonzo Journalism, High Times, CounterPunch and perhaps others. I will leave it in your hands. Unomi (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you asked the person that did it, Unomi (and stopped hounding my edits) you might find out. Alan Cabals article has been deleted due to a lack of notability, so my main aim was in removing red links to an article which is unlikely to be recreated. What I discovered were mostly links that had been added to add credence to his notability, but without an article or any evidence of notability the whole references were occasionally unneeded. For example, as AC is not notable, there is no reason for him to be included as a notable contributor. This is after a length deletion discussion and review, and is not at all "summarily". See WP:AGF Verbal chat 07:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not hounding your edits, I happened to 'watch' the New York Press article while involved in the Alan cable AfD. The removal of the bare mention of Alan Cable is indeed summarily as it certainly was not put to the talk page where those that might be more acquainted with the material could make the judgment call. Unomi (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in arguing, after all you know me, that's not my style. The name attached to the redlinks removed was "Alan Cabal". I am familiar with the topic and made the justifiable decision to remove the red links, and in some cases remove the mention altogether. Each of these is justifiable and open to discussion on the appropriate article talk page. If you want "Alan Cabal" restored (rather that Alan cable) then please justify it per WP:BRD, leaving out the broad accusations per WP:AGF, on the appropriate page. I removed the name from this article as he was listed as a notable contributor without WP:RS, and the AfD and DRV found that he wasn't notable. Verbal chat 09:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a sufficient argument in general. If Unomi wants to argue inclusion in particular articles, do so in each specific case - but note the need to establish relevance using secondary WP:RS when the community has agreed he's not notable enough for his own article. Rd232 ^talk 12:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to the veracity of Cabals inclusion into other articles but he deserves no mention whatsoever at Gonzo Journalism and will be removed on sight from that article. His name insertion there was solely to manufacture evidence of his notability for his own article. L0b0t (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The reasons for deleting Alan Cabal from the article can be found in the previous section above. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Point: It now being a different subject than the individual's "notability", I think Unomi is discussing the removal of the person as if he never existed, and that runs contrary to everything wiki stands for. Changing the redlinks to non-links is certainly arguable, but removing the name itself seems a bit of a stretch. We all recognize that throughout wikipedia, nearly every article onalmost any subject might well include a name or two or contributory individuals that do not themselves have wiki articles. That is the proper part of creating balanced and truly encyclopedic articles. In this case, it is easily WP:Verified that Cabal wrote for CounterPubnch and New York Press, even if AfD's determined he did not meet notability requirements for a seperate article. His name being in those articles, or others in which made more than a passing contribution, meets the most basic guidelines for inclusion: WP:V. And though he may never have an article about his life on Wiki, the removal of every mention of his name seems to be taking his very existance a bit too far. Or am I just crazy? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would guess that CounterPunch has had hundreds of people writing for it during its history. Limiting those listed in the article to those that are demonstrably notable seems very sensible. If at some point consensus is that he is sufficiently notable, listing him would be fair enough.--Michig (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no blanket removal ("as if he never existed"), and not even all of my very small number of edits removed his name in all cases. There is no need for this lack of good faith and the ridiculous accusations. Consensus for inclusion?exclusion in each case should be made on the associated talk page, and anyone can revert me and give their reasons per WP:BRD. In this case the removal seems to have been supported. I'm more than willing to accept an apology from the two editors that have made false claims here. Verbal chat 10:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Steven Plaut and Faith Freedom International

Lately, RolandR has been reverting my additions to the criticism section of this article on the grounds that the citations are from "blogs," and therefore contravene Wikipedia's verifiability standard, even though these "blogs" aren't blogs at all, they are electronic articles published in authoritative websites that have been seen by millions of people and have had the legitimacy of their authority affirmed by notable people and scholars. So unless you (RolandR) have proof that the citations I am citing are from blogs or unverifiable/illegitimate sources, stop removing my citations or I will take this dispute with you to the Wikipedian authorities and accuse you of petty political censorship.77.103.8.120 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I came here via your posting on a WP:3O. We ask that you attempt to work out disputes on the articles talk page before listing it there. Also, please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. meamemg (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Steven Plaut has a long record of unfounded defamation of critics of Israel. An Israeli court has held his comments on one critic to be libellous. His views on third parties should be treated with extreme caution; they are in no way authoritative. The site "Think-Israel" is indeed a blog; it says of itself "Think of this site as a blog site for all of you who love Israel" It is also an extremmist hate site, which argues that "extremist Islam is the norm and normal Islam is extremely rare" The article cited states that the left in America is "filled with treasonous lunatics and Hate-America neurotics, whose politics reflect little more than an infantile anger at Mommy and Daddy"; it is an unbalanced rant that has no place in Wikipedia, and certainly cannot be considered an acceptable source for the defamatory descriptions added to the article. RolandR 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism"

This should stay deleted because

is an op-ed from the American Jewish Committee's associate director of communications
repeats an accusation by Steven Plaut that saw him lose a libel case; noting this and claiming (unsourced) that others said the same doesn't make it any better
Greenstein and Rance's opinion is sourced to this which is not obviously a reliable source, and their opinion is not obviously notable anyway
Sourced to this oped originally in a newspaper, republished by the "Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism".

Most of it isn't really criticism anyway, so much as a repetition of smears by political opponents of CounterPunch's contributors. Rd232 ^talk 21:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to do better than that if you want to silence any criticism of Counterpunch on its Wikipedia page.

1 - Just curious: what is Counterpunch if not a pastiche of op-eds spanning 6 to 8 pages in length?

But to answer your first point specifically, two rebuttals: one, the fact that a criticism takes the form of an op-ed doesn't make the content of the criticism libelous (which is what a smear is: an unsubstantiated libel). It's kind of like saying a car is only environmentally friendly if it seats as little people as possible even though the car emits as much carbon emissions as an environmentally unfriendly vehicle, like say an SUV.

Second, so what if the guy who wrote the article is a high-ranking representative from the American Jewish Committee? Aside from representing the interest of American Jews, what laws have they broken to deprive any of the representatives' constitutional right to the freedom of speech? Could you imagine if the United States government issued a warrant for Cockburn and its followers (like you) simply because you et al. are left-wing Marxists and openly propagate left-wing viewpoints? The article is tendencious yes and reflects his partisan interest, but that's the whole point of the editorial: it's supposed to biased, provided that the content of the editorial are reasonable and verifiable. And insofar as the function of an encyclopedia is to represent all the divergent viewpoints on a subject, I can't see why the partiality of the criticism should be a reason for its deletion from the political orientation of the subject of the main article. Or at least, that's what I would have thought.

2: Actually, the libel case against Plaut hasn't been resolved yet as he is in the process of appealing the verdict to the Israeli Supreme Court which has the final say on all legal decisions. So, insofar as the Israeli Supreme Court hasn't made a decision on the case yet, he isn't legally guilty of anything. But it's funnily enough I agree with you that this section of the criticism should be deleted as the function of the mentioning of Plaut's libel case is to serve as a strategy of character assassination in order to detract from the legitimacy of the point he makes about Counterpunch as a cesspool of self-hating Jews. (http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=8220) So for the sake of logical consistency, I hope that you won't object when I delete the libel case of Steven Plaut.

3: What makes the articles in the WhatNextJournal so unreliable? Is it the fact that all the articles published in that online journal have citations in them that makes them now unreliable? Or is it the fact that the one of the authors Tony Greestein wrote for The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/tonygreenstein) make him a non-entity?

4: See the second point I made for #1. On top of that, two more questions: 1) so if I sourced the article from the newspaper instead of from the "Co-ordinating against anti-Semitism" website, you would be fine the citation? 2) So if somebody made a citation from CAIR, you would be a vehement in your opposition to that citation because of it's partisan nature of its organization. Yes?

Fellytone (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mmm. "You're going to have to do better than that if you want to silence any criticism of Counterpunch on its Wikipedia page."; "Cockburn and its followers (like you) simply because you et al. are left-wing Marxists and openly propagate left-wing viewpoints..." - well I'm not going to debate with you until you apologise for such a blatant failure of WP:AGF and rude and inaccurate labelling of both me and of CounterPunch and its contributors. Though I will point you to WP:RS, which you should read carefully in its entirety. Rd232 ^talk 00:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rd2. The guy is appealing a guilty verdict. That's true. Doesn't rather address the other problems. It's just attacks from ideological opponents, is what it is (the opinion pieces).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This may need an RFC, but for the moment i share very strong concerns about the fairness of this content. Let's hash it out here. These kinds of accusations are frequenlty tossed around unfairly, and this seems to be the case here, especially (but not entirely) due to the libel conviction.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Bali I'm not sure why the crux of your argument about the tendentiousness of the criticisms against CounterPunch is the libel conviction of Steven Plaut. I'm also not sure what part of my argument you're agreement with Rd2 is supposed to disprove; the only thing I can think of is the the "attacks from ideological opponents" of Counterpunch, in which case you should go see the second point I raised about Rd2's #1 argument. Fellytone (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

They are all opinion pieces by people who consider themselves strong ideological opponents of counterpunch. Were Cockburn or whomever to write of Cohen and say "he's a fascist" that would also not be allowable in articles about Cohen. The only thing established so far is that one of the accusers (of gordon by plaut) was convicted of libel for tossing the accusation around. Wikipedia is often a big great defamation machine, but that doesn't make it right. There are policy issues at play, particularly BLP, is were allowing opinion pieces to label people (the editors and some of the writers of counterpunch) as antisemites. It's just not on, least not in the absence of strong and obvious antisemetic statements from cockburn et al on the order of "the jews are a scourge" or something hideous like that.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So what if they are opinion pieces? What is Counterpunch if not a pastiche of opinion pieces?

You say that if Cockburn were to write of Cohen saying that he's a fascist, that wouldn't be allowed. But how would you know this? I certainly wouldn't want that claim to be censored: for one thing, it is substantive evidence of Cockburn's stupidity and second, it gives Cohen an opportunity to set the record straight and prove that he isn't a fascist to rest instead of fueling suspicions and giving credence to his opponents' claim that he is a fascist by acting like a fascist in censoring criticisms against him.

Then you go on to say that Wikipedia is a great defamation machine and that that isn't right, but Wikipedia isn't in the business of making moral judgments on an ethical issue such as defamation: it's role as an online encyclopedia is information gathering and sharing and if that means presenting a viewpoint divergent than that of the subject of the main article, then so be it.

Furthermore, you say that Wikipedia has no place for opinion pieces that label people, but if opinion pieces didn't label people, there'd be no opinion pieces. And if there was no opinion pieces, then most of Wikipedia's encyclopedia entries would have a severe deficit of intellectual contributions.

Finally, you say that Cockburn and his fellow writers are being accused of being anti-Semitic, which isn't remotely true. Rather it's the magazine (in particular, it's selective editorial practises and the dubious background of some of it's editors) that is accused of being anti-Semitic. ::Fellytone (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP and WP:RS. It ends the argument. The absurdity that a magazine might be antisemitic without the people who produce it being so doesn't deserve a response. There will be no smearing and ideological mudslinging in the article. Do you have any argument for the tag other than the fact that non-reliable sources have been removed and the reputation of living people is being protected. Because if you don't, the tag will have to go soon as well. And consider yourself on notice over the edit warring earlier -- i see that you've had ample past warnings on your talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Consider yourself on notice over the edit warring earlier-- i see that you've had ample past warnings on your talk page." You gave up the argument already now haven't you? See you couldn't answer any of my questions so the natural thing to do is to resort to tu quoques and character assassinations. Ooo yeah I'm scared now, what are you (a non-Wikipedian administrator) going to do ban me over for, expressing my opinion as vandalism on the talk page? And no I wouldn't call two warnings as ample. Or at least, that's what a person with at least an education in elementary school mathematics would think.

WP:BLP and WP:RS ends the argument how? WP:BLP is irrelevant as the criticisms of anti-Semitism aren't even directed at any living persons, they're directed at the selective editorial practises of Counterpunch. The rules of WP:RS actually affirms the reliability of most the sources (and the WP:RS deals with sources, not content. So unless you give me a Wikipedia guideline that deals with the validity of content my argument that the criticisms are valid stands) cited that critisize Counterpunch, which I am going to go through one by one.

Under the 8th sub-section of the "reliability in specific contexts" section of WP:RS entitled 'Statements of Opinion' which states:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

Applying this rule to the criticism of Counterpunch by Ben Cohen, the reliability of his criticism holds: the op-ed is written in a respectable media outlet (Jerusalem Post) and the critiicsm is worded in such a way that it clearly attributes the criticism of anti-Semitism to Cohen.

As per the controversy between Plaut and Gordon, none of the rules in the WP:RS guideline applies. But the controversy is important as Gordon is a frequent contributor to CounterPunch and the fact that he is the subject of criticism from another political commentator puts the tendenciousness of Gordon's opinions into perspective. The only thing that would need citation here is the evidence that Gordon is indeed a frequent contributor to Counterpunch.

The criticism of the citations for the WhatNextJournal and FrontPageMagazine do not qualify as questionable sources under the criteria for questionable sources under 1st sub-section of the Self-published and questionable sources section. Both news outlets publish articles that are profusely cited and has editorial oversight in the form of an editorial board. They don't rely on rumours and personal opinions as the content of their articles are always cited and there's no evidence of any consensus that acknowledges their opinions (any less than there is a consensus that acknowledges the ideological positions of the articles written on CounterPunch as) as extremist, or promotional in nature.

As per the source from Co-ordinating Forum for Countering Anti-Semitism, there's nothing wrong with quoting an article written by an advocacy group so long as that group isn't engaged in illegal activities. CAIR is no less vehement in their advocacy for the interests of American Muslim, but the fact of the narrow interests of its political advocacy doesn't constitute legitimate grounds for my dismissal of the reliability of any article it publishes.

"Because if you don't, the tag will have to go soon as well." Funnily enough, I agree with you on that one; it'll go as soon as the criticisms section go back on this page. And if the lack of your arguments for their deletion is any indication, I got a feeling they're going to go back on very soon.Fellytone (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Your assertions have little value. The opion pieces in these cases are smears by ideological opponents. I suggest you read WP:WEIGHT as well. At this point you're just soapboxing. Some [one] calls someone an antisemite and gets it published doesn't mean you get to toss the smear into an encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Insult against writers of sources redacted. Fences&Windows 22:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, the usual typical left-wing crap: you lost the argument so you have to resort to character assassinations. "Your assertions have little value." Riiiiiight and asking me to read a Wikipedia guideline as if that supposed to help your argument takes a lot of effort too. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

How are they assertions? I'm not making any assertions. I'm simply proving that the Wikipedia guidelines you're slapping on your posts are compatible with the criticisms that a few [insults removed]. How about instead of moaning about the fact that the criticisms of Counterpunch are smears, you go and actually prove that they are smears? You also refer me to WP:WEIGHT which if you had actually taken a minute or two to read, again (like WP:BLP and WL:RS) hurts more than helps your argument: the deletion of views published by reliable sources (which I have already proven) contravenes the Wikipedia's policy of NPOV which states that "all significant views published by reliable sources are represented fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias."

As for the soapboxing, there's nothing wrong with that: I'm just following you and Counterpunch's lead. No actually on second thought, I'm going to take that back: I'm not the self-righteous one here arrogating to a magazine that shares my political orientation the status of immunity from criticism.

Yup. Going to wait for the next Wikipedia guideline you're going to ask me to read till then just make sure you don't leave your shack without putting your tinfoil hat on. Fellytone (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Insults against Counterpunch contributors redacted. Fences&Windows 22:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You know nothing about my political orientation. I'd appreciate it if you don't speculate. As for. This quote of yours: "[redacted, see above] I think you've just roundly demonstrated why you shouldn't be editing this page, or anything that touches on the lives of living people you dislike. At any rate, I suggest you tone it down. You're out of bounds at the moment, and that kind of stuff isn't tolerated indefinitely.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah right and with statements like "because some [one] called someone an anti-semite"(redacted) you demonstrate why you should be editing this page? Instead of ad hominems, why don't you address the arguments I've made? If you don't, then I'm going to put the criticisms back on since it's obvious you can't give an intelligible reason as to why they shouldn't be there. Or if you can't, then ask one of your Wikipedia administrator friends to take a look at the section here and see what he/she thinks.Fellytone (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't have consensus for that so i strongly reccomend you don't. You've erroneously and without evidence called me "left-wing" and accused me of "character assassination." And yes there's a big difference between me writing "some [one]redacted insult calling somebody an antisemite" as an example and you writing, specifically, of the editors and contributors of this magazine that an "[redacted, see above]" I have no interest in placing negative information from opinion pieces on any article about a living person on wikipedia, no matter their politics. That's where you and i diverge quite clearly. At any rate if you want to carry on in this vein, next stop from me will probably to seek wider community input.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And neither do you have consensus that the criticisms should stay off so I could make an equally strong argument the changes should stay on. Yes you are guilty of character assassination by belittling my assertions of having nugatory value to the debate, which is ridiculously ironic coming from a person who says, "I have no interest in placing negative information from opinion pieces on any article about a living person on wikipedia." Sorry, but in case you didn't know we live in a society where (unlike from where you come) there's no constitutional right not to be offended. And yes we've been able to co-exist for hundreds of years in such a society without sending anybody to a Siberian gulag. Like I said, I welcome any further input from any of your ideologically aligned Wikipedia friends to take a look at this section and make a judgment as to whether or not the criticism section go on the page. But if not, then (as you say) there's not much to discuss here anymore. Fellytone (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Right so since Bali hasn't anything to say, I'm going to put the criticisms section back on. See his talk page for more details on this. Fellytone (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to accuse editors opposed to your problematic additions as being "ideologically aligned". I encountered this dispute through the Andre Geim article, but going through your contributions, you've been adding criticism sections to any topic that you dislike, which is blatantly WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. You haven't been very subtle.--JeremyMiller (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So you're going to tell me that criticisms from reliable sources about Counterpunch is undue and POV? Does this also mean that I get to remove criticism from Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter on the grounds that it's WP:UNDUE and WP:POV.Fellytone (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) and the O'Reilly Factor. Neither have criticism sections. I didn't say I was against criticisms, I'm against criticism sections heavily slanted to one POV, like the ones that you have been adding.--JeremyMiller (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

So does this mean I get to remove the criticism of Ann Coulter or Daniel Pipes just because it's POV? Of course it doesn't, just as how the right to freedom of expression on Wikipedia doesn't prevent me from stopping your putting criticism of Bill O'Reilly on his Wikipedia page. Just because one holds (or in this case publishes as is the case with Counterpunch) highly controversial and extreme opinions and in turn justly provokes a cornucopia of criticism doesn't mean the criticisms (however much) shouldn't be published for fear of violation of Wikipedia's POV guidelines. CNN is a major news network and it's precisely because of the global reach of its news coverage that there's a whole Wikipedia page devoted to the controversies and criticisms of CNN. Fellytone (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Everyone - STOP repeating insults against living people on this page. I've redacted the initial uses and the quotes. Fences&Windows 22:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- As to the content - surely there are some outside opinions of CounterPunch available in reliable sources? Title the section "Reception" or something like that, and put in both praise and criticism according to its weight in those sources. Having no outside views at all is very unusual for such a controversial publication. Fences&Windows 22:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Material for Reception section

Criticism in The New Republic, mainly of Cockburn: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-devil-you-know
Opinion piece in Los Angeles Times by Max Boot, The Fringe Fires at Bush on Iraq, 11 March 2004: ""Counterpunch.org, a conspiracy- mongering website run by Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn.... Counterpunch [is] so extreme that it has run an article suggesting that the only major difference between George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler is that "Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was."" http://articles.latimes.com/2004/mar/11/opinion/oe-boot11/2
Bruce Bratton in Metroactive.com says "This magazine, partially an online publication, features some absolutely absorbing articles ... Read www.counterpunch.org, but only if you like to think a lot." http://www.metroactive.com/papers/cruz/05.09.01/bratton-0119.html
Byron York in The National Review commented on the Bush/Hitler comparisons, 8 January 2004, Annals of Bush-Hating: "There is a lot of writing, much of it quite serious, claiming similarities between Bush and Hitler... Dave Lindorff [wrote] "Bush and Hitler: The Strategy of Fear," which appeared in February on the far-left site Counterpunch.org ... Counterpunch is not an obscure website. It is edited by the leftist journalist Alexander Cockburn, features writing by Edward Said and Philip Agee, and claims to attract 60,000 visitors each day. Nor was Lindorff's Bush/Hitler reference an aberration at Counterpunch." http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/york200401080917.asp
Cockburn wrote about the Bush/Hitler furore in The Nation, Bush as Hitler? Let's be fair. 26 January 2004: "I thought Lindorff's measured assessment of the two leaders' rhetorical talents indicated appropriate objectivity, but our CounterPunch inbox was soon crammed with furious denunciations of Lindorff from Bush supporters. Then in July one of the Wall Street Journal's mad dogs in residence, James Taranto, did us a favor by taking a passing jab at CounterPunch as "an outfit whose staple is stuff comparing Bush to Hitler." There were other useful attacks in National Review and the Washington Times." http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1284247/Bush-as-Hitler-Let-s.html
The Washington Times reported a reaction of a US Army soldier to a CounterPunch column by Tom Gorman that argued that ""With liberators like these, who needs conquerors?". The soldier wrote that "The thing that bugs me most about him is his audacity to complain about how we Americans are conquerors and enslavers," the battlefield author continues. "He never realizes in his California dream that the only reason he can say these things -- no lie, sir -- is that we have freedom [in the United States] that anywhere else in the world would get you murdered in public." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/dec/01/20031201-123716-3934r/
A 2003 column by Susan Block using the metaphor of rape to describe the invasion of Baghdad was misinterpreted: "Yeni Safak, an Islamic journal in Turkey, published an article that said "thousands of Iraqi women are being raped by American soldiers. There are more than 4,000 rape events on the record ... The U.S. Embassy in Turkey responded by condemning the Turkish journal for publishing "outrageous allegations based on a U.S. 'source' best known for her pornographic Web sites and erotic television program," according to the Globe." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jan/8/20040108-111924-1662r/print/
About claims that one of the women accusing Julian Assange of sexual offenses, Kate Harding wrote that "as far as I can tell, the only source for that claim is an August Counterpunch article by Assange fanboys (seriously, they recast him as Neo of "The Matrix") Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett." http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41990.html
Quadrant, Conservatives off the beam, 1 october 2008: "a magazine which publishes work by such good ol' boys as Robert Fisk, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill (who called the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns") and by no means least that dear old patriarch and embodiment of all the values true American conservatives cherish, Fidel Castro." http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-10381829/Conservatives-off-the-beam.html
Nick Cohen, So grease and water do mix after all, The Observer, 13 Sept 1998: "an invaluable magazine which monitors the corruption of US politics". http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/1998/sep/13/world.enron
Christopher Reed, Battle of the bottle divides columnists, The Observer, 2 March 2003: "The site is one of the most popular political sources in America, with a keen following in Washington". http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/02/usa.theobserver?INTCMP=SRCH

Fences&Windows 00:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding all those sources. However, I disagree with Fellytone's recent edits, the reception section should summarize praise and criticism, it should not be a list of quotes. And it's not helpful that he's only listing the criticisms while ignoring the praise sources.--JeremyMiller (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is too small and underdeveloped to have a criticism section. A tiny article with a criticism section is just a more cunning way of making a POV article. Develop the article, there is basically nothing here, and I am sure we could incorporate notable criticisms along the way. Leave it out until we have an actual article, its too early to be considering a criticism section and anyone who is pushing it only wants to make libel and damage CounterPunch because they make it clear their effort is simply in creating criticism not expanding the article. ValenShephard (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a non-argument. We don't need a "Criticism section" but we do need outside views included - excluding them is simply censorship. What else can you build this article from other than references to the magazine in independent reliable sources? Fences&Windows 02:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A good start would be to write a History section, because it's easier to assess due weight for any given issue in the context of a subject's history than in the context of a "criticism" or "reception" section (Criticism sections are deprecated anyway, and Reception here would risk being a mere synonym). Looking for every mention of the subject in mainstream media sources is liable to overly bias the article to a handful of controversies, and as a result frame the subject in terms of the subject's critics. There probably aren't good, easily accessible sources on the history (maybe none full stop), but if any can be found, they should be preferred as a guide for due weight. Rd232 ^talk 17:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that the article already has a history section, if you don't think the history section is well-developed enough then add some of your own contributions to it. As for your implication that mainstream media sources paint Counterpunch in a biased light, it's apparent you didn't even look at the websites Fences&Windows put up (the one by Nick Cohen and Christopher Reed) praising this rag of a magazine. Fellytone (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I would support that, it would be a good idea to work constructively on the article instead of just searching out criticism. ValenShephard (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Pardon? Are you saying finding all those outside views was not constructive? I didn't aim to dig up criticism - that is every single view I could find in reliable sources. I think editors here just don't want anything negative about CounterPunch included, but NPOV doesn't work like that. Fences&Windows 22:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced by that. I'll have a look myself. An editor who is interested in expanding this article honestly would start by drawing up the facts on the subject, then built up a history, not go straight to criticism. That is by far not the only information of any kind available on the subject. Plus, you shouldn't attempt to judge other editor's desires, as that can often be wide of the mark. ValenShephard (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So what if editors are interested in expanding this article by going straight to its criticism section? This is an encyclopedia not a political blog. If that bothers you, then you can counteract what these editors are doing by expanding the praise section of the article. Fellytone (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Valen here. And no Fellytone, the way to "balance" an article is not to have a bunch of flaming attacks (which was what you sought to insert) in one section, and a bunch of effusive praise in another. You seem keen to attack and disparage only.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, as per the post by Fences&Windows, your argument here is a non-argument. The criticisms of CounterPunch aren't "flame attacks" they are criticisms from legitimate sources by legitimate writers. If you want to balance the article, then feel free to add the "effusive praise" for CounterPunch, but if all you want to do is censor criticism of CounterPunch in an effort to "balance" the article, then I suggest you get off Wikipedia together. This is an encyclopedia, not a political blog which means both the praise and criticism by anybody/thing of anybody/thing has the right to be reported. Fellytone (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be feasible to cover the relevant controversies in a neutral and balanced manner (written as part of the History section, and avoiding unnecessary direct quotation of political opponents' smear phrases), though each specific issue would still need to comply with due weight, which sufficient coverage in third-party sources might support. Basically, we can't report every time a Wikipedia subject gets mud thrown at them by a political opponent; it's unencyclopedic as well as impractical. (And nor do we report vague and unsupported praise.) So for example, one of Fences&Windows sources above includes the remark "Ward Churchill (who called the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns")", which suggests CounterPunch published or at least endorsed the remark, which AFAIK is untrue and if it is would need verifying from a reliable source, not from a political opponent opinion piece (WP:RS). Rd232 ^talk 01:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So how does any of this justify wholesale deletion of the criticism section? In fact if what you're saying is true, then you should have no problem with my edits to the criticism section: your argument is that it's feasible to cover the relevant controversies in a neutral and balanced manner (written as part of the History section, and avoiding unnecessary direct quotation of political opponents' smear phrases which means that not only are can changes to the quotes of criticism of CounterPunch be done, but that would also mean you need to have the quotes of criticisms to exist in the first place in order to make the changes so that the quotes are written in a balanced manner. Fellytone (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please re-read what I said, and what you replied, and see if there's nothing you want to amend or expand on, because your reply doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Rd232 ^talk 07:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Amend or expand on what? What are you talking about, can't you see my response to your comment? Fellytone (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Your writing is incoherent, and it is hard to understand what you are trying to say. Perhaps rephrasing it would make it clearer. A good place to start would be to compose paragraphs of multiple short and grammatically correct sentences, rather than a single enormous sentence. Another good place to start would be to actually respond to the points that other editors have made, before responding with a question of your own. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's incoherent, but that's probably more a problem of your remedial reading comprehension abilities than it is a problem of my writing abilities. Anybody with half a brain would be able to figure out what I'm trying to say: my response to rd232 is that he himself undermines the legitimacy of his actions of deleting my additions of criticisms of CounterPunch on its Wikipedia page when he points out, "it's feasible to cover the relevant controversies in a neutral and balanced manner (written as part of the History section, and avoiding unnecessary direct quotation of political opponents' smear phrases" which means that not only are changes (not deletion) of the criticisms doable, but also that the quotes of criticism about CounterPunch need to exist in the first place if you want to make the quotes as balanced as possible. (which again, can't be done if Rd232 is deleting any criticism of CounterPunch in the first place)

But again, like I said, chances are you probably won't understand what I'm saying because my writing abilities are above and beyond your level of reading comprehension, so it's unlikely you're response will comprise of anything more than ad hominems, rather than addressing the content of my comment. Fellytone (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to notify all editors involved here that Fellytone has started this thread at WP:NPOVN. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This is well after the above discussion but the NPOV tag remains so I think it has some relevance. The general reason why people add "criticism" sections is from a belief that the subject in question (person, magazine, organization, etc.) has some strong bias which needs to be noted. The problem, of course, is that different people can disagree both on the amount of bias present, often in a way that is consonant with their own political views.

To take some specific cases, IMO in the context of US political discussion a magazine like CounterPunch or ZNet would be considered far-left, MSNBC would be solidly left-wing but not far-left, NYTimes would be soft left, the Economist would be soft right, Fox News and National Review would be solidly right-wing but not far-right, and Michelle Malkin's blog, Atlas Shrugs and similar blogs would be far-right. In other countries different viewpoints might be attached, but all of the above, except arguably the Economist, are clearly US-based and oriented towards US readers.

Of course, people may disagree with my labels; especially, people who themselves have a far-left or far-right perspective are unlikely to label themselves or similarly-minded people/publications in this fashion, and as a result in general it's hard to find reliable, non-opinionated sources willing to describe any publication as "far left" or "far right". But nonetheless it's important that WP identifies the biases of strongly biased publications in some fashion. For solidly left/right pubs, identifying them in the intro as such (or as "liberal/conservative" or whatever) is probably enough, and relatively non-controversial. For far-left and far-right publications, this is trickier; perhaps the only relatively NPOV way to do this is to include criticism from the most-possibly-notable sources and let the reader make up their own mind.

Benwing (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV tag since the dispute appears over, aside from the indefinitely blocked Fellytone occasionally reappearing. Rd232 ^talk 22:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe that one of the most controversial (and controvery-courting) periodicals/websites in the US now has no reference whatsoever in its Wikipedia article to these controversies. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Bob is absolutely correct; it is unconscionable how whitewashed and one-sided this article has become. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.153 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Bob is absolutely incorrect and this article is valuable precisely because it does not devote most of itself to a "controversies/criticism" section. Why does every editor of WP seem to think themselves entitled to muddying every article on a subject with which they hold a grievance? Some people don't like this publication? So what. Any reader can infer that without a list of complaints. Thanks to the diligent editors who have locked this article. Please keep it so.75.192.236.239 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC).

It's quite sad that this article has been so blatantly whitewashed to support a single WP:POV. This is exactly the kind of thing that saps Wikipedia of credibility. Goodwinsands (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't been "whitewashed", the material providing various people's opinions and accusations and attempts to blow very minor controversies out of proportion was justifiably removed. The article can be expanded, including with reliably sourced negative material, but it must comply with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and not be a platform for political opponents to smear CounterPunch or its contributors. Rd232 ^talk 15:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Rd232 clearly shares the left-wing perspective of Counterpunch and possibly its anti-Jewish attiitudes as well. The section he continues to censor, delete and vandalize existed in some form or another since the very beginning of this article. Notwithstanding his Stalinist attitude towards critics of Counterpunch, the fact remains that this is an EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL publication that has regularly been challenged by people THROUGHOUT THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM and the issues are by NO means "minor" and "out of proportion". It is well past time for more reliable and less obviously biased editing take place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.214 (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's going too far to suggest Rd232 is an antisemite based on this article or his defense of Counterpunch. However, it is true that Counterpunch has its critics both on the right and the part of the left that cares about antisemitism, and it's quite telling that none of these criticisms are being allowed to air in the article. Goodwinsands (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"it's going too far to suggest..." well thanks. Anyway the real issue is that CounterPunch publishes opinion critical of Israel's actions (eg Uri Avnery), and too many people happily equate that with anti-semitism (particularly ridiculous when the critics are Israeli). As for the article, the problem is a lack of reliable sources neutrally describing CounterPunch; its typical position on Israel is clear enough, but it's not described in the article at all because of that lack. (Smears by political opponents are no substitute.) PS Did anyone notice that the article doesn't include vague praise (see above in Reception section on this talk page) either? Because that isn't encyclopedic either. Rd232 ^talk 22:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That of course is one possible explanation of the "issue," but by no means the only one nor, given who posts there, even the most likely one. There are anti-Zionists who are not antisemites, anti-Zionists who are antisemites, and then there's Counterpunch, who gleefully publishes both. 76.227.77.123 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you're entitled to your (entirely unsupported and potentially libellous) opinion. Rd232 ^talk 00:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism etc

Having read the free part of Counterpunch for about three years I can say that I haven't seen any antisemitism. There's plenty of antizionism (i.e. antifascism) though.Keith-264 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, here is a perfect example of the demented mind of an anti-Semite. So Zionism, which is the belief that Jews have the right to return to their ancestral homeland from which they were expelled by invaders, is somehow equated with fascism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sincevivid (talk • contribs) 02:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Equating anti-Zionism with anti-fascism may be puerile and misguided, but it's not necessarily a sign of antisemitism. It still strikes me as remarkable, however, the degree to which this article whitewashes the antisemitism issue when it comes to Counterpunch. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Zionism is racist and it is imperialist, this isn't puerile, it's a fact. It's also a fact that it is antisemitic, since zionism is apostasy. Normally apostasy is benign since it is a matter of religious controversy but in this case it has the power of a state with its panoply of coercion and violence behind it and the undeniable evidence of history. 'Israel' was formed by usurpation, terrorism and massacre, it couldn't be formed by any other means and can't be preserved without them. Can any of my detractors show evidence of antisemitism in Counterpunch?07:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Re your anti-Zionist assertions: WP:NOTAFORUM. Re Counterpunch's antisemitism, what do you call a website that knowingly posts the work of a Holocaust denier? Goodwinsands (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"when did you stop beating your wife?"-type rhetorical questions are not really helpful. You should not make such claims without bulletproof reliable sourcing. Rd232 ^talk 13:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The obvious example is Israel Shamir, who continues to be hosted there long after he was internationally recognized by reliable sources as a Holocaust denier. Goodwinsands (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly because Shamir may associate with actual deniers, but is not himself an actual denier (from reading Israel Shamir - I don't know the guy): "As for the accusation of 'Holocaust denial', my family lost too many of its sons and daughters for me to deny the facts of Jewish tragedy, but I do deny its religious salvific significance implied in the very term ‘Holocaust’; I do deny its metaphysical uniqueness, I do deny the morbid cult of Holocaust and I think every God-fearing man, a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim should reject it as Abraham rejected and smashed idols." Rd232 ^talk 21:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that you don't seem to have a very good grip on what Holocaust denial actually is. I recommend you read the WP article. Even David Irving says there was a Holocaust, as long as he is allowed to redefine it in an utterly ahistoric way. Works the same way with Shamir. Fools the newbies, too. Goodwinsands (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is still unsubstantiated accusation on a very delicate topic, not backed up by anything specific in Israel Shamir. I'm amazed you feel comfortable with that. For your claims to be true, you ought to be able to show reliable sources demonstrating that Shamir rejects the core elements of the relevant history - that's what Holocaust denial means. That some people play with words is no reason to do the same. Rd232 ^talk 23:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I made no assertions, I described a phenomenon. Can you show any antisemitism in Counterpunch?Keith-264 (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You might want to check the word "assertion" in the dictionary. Goodwinsands (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Look up 'description'. I've seen some of Shamir's writing in Counterpunch but no antisemitism. "Internationally recognised"? Is this guilt by assertion, association or both?Keith-264 (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir02012011.html is this what you're on about (2/3 the way down)?Keith-264 (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not guilt by association, it's guilt by WP:RS. Sorry if you don't like it. Goodwinsands (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Show me. Rd232 seems quite level headed about this so show him(?) if you won't show meKeith-264 (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed what I wrote last time I was here: I cannot believe that one of the most controversial (and controvery-courting) periodicals/websites in the US now has no reference whatsoever in its Wikipedia article to these controversies. It is very much the norm for a WP article on a publication to refer to controversies relating to that publication. But the denial that there are reliable sources describing Shamir as a Holocaust denier is even more unbelievable. I think the Shamir article is pretty clear, eg The Guardian has called Shamir "notorious for Holocaust denial and publishing a string of antisemitic articles."^[1] <redacted lengthy quotation from old version of Israel Shamir article which had BLP issues> What part of that are you disputing?BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

[1]
The Guardian, "Holocaust denier in charge of handling Moscow cables". January 31, 2011. Retrieved January 31, 2011.

"I have written hundreds of pages on the topic, but for the benefit of the reader I’ll sum it up. Naturally, as a son of Jewish parents and a man who has lived in the Jewish state, deeply and intimately involved with Jewish culture, I harbour no hate to a Jew because he is a Jew. I doubt many people do. However I did and do criticise various aspects of Jewish Weltanschauung like so many Jewish and Christian thinkers before me, or even more so for I witnessed crimes of the Jewish state that originated in this worldview.

As for the accusation of “Holocaust denial”, my family lost too many of its sons and daughters for me to deny the facts of Jewish tragedy, but I do deny its religious salvific significance implied in the very term ‘Holocaust’; I do deny its metaphysical uniqueness, I do deny the morbid cult of Holocaust and I think every God-fearing man, a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim should reject it as Abraham rejected and smashed idols. I deny that it is good to remember or immortalize such traumatic events, and I wrote many articles against the modern obsession with massacres, be it the Jewish holocaust of the 1940s, the Armenian massacre of 1915, the Ukrainian “holodomor”, Polish Katyn, Khmer Rouge etc. Poles, Armenians, Ukrainians understood me, so did Jews – otherwise I would be charged with the crime of factual denial which is known to the Israeli law. It takes Evans and Sweeney to feign indignation."

(From the link offered above.) It seems to me that Shamir denounces the use of the word 'holocaust' and objects to the usurpation of some of the nazi genocides as excuses for zionist atrocities. Wouldn't anyone?Keith-264 (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion would be better at Talk:Israel Shamir, where I've already complained that none of the sources seem able to point to anything concrete Shamir has actually said. This is particularly concerning given that what Shamir has said on the subject has sometimes been misquoted to make it appear to support the "he's a denier" thesis. For such a contentious claim, it's a damn sight closer to rumour and gossip than it should be. Rd232 ^talk 23:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not writing this to say that the article should say "counterpunch is antisemitic", but to say that "counterpunch has been criticised for..." or "counterpunch is controversial because..." BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've redacted your comments because even on a talk page there is only so many unsourced, inaccurate, and misleading claims which WP:BLP can stand. If you want to make specific points on highly contentious subjects, you must do so carefully and with adequately reliable sourcing. (Without this, it's irrelevant for improving the article and therefore a borderline WP:NOTFORUM violation anyway.) Rd232 ^talk 23:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

These comments offer no evidence from Shamir. Can you offer any sources where he contradicts the claims he makes about himself in the Counterpunch article?Keith-264 (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's not have this discussion here. There's Talk:Israel Shamir, and I've started Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Israel_Shamir. Rd232 ^talk 23:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the redaction of my comments was completely unjustified. Every single thing I said about Shamir was easily verifiable and I could easily provide sources, although I accept that I did not do so, and that the discussion of Shamir is better undertaken at the talkpage of his article. <redacted again> <redacted by the person who said it as it no longer makes sense after the other redactions> BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You are not entitled to use a talkpage as a soapbox - WP:NOTFORUM. Re-introducing the same text when you apparently have no intention of making an adequately sourced case for inclusion in the article is particularly poor. As to "Every single thing I said about Shamir was easily verifiable and I could easily provide sources" - then go to Talk:Israel Shamir and contribute there. Rd232 ^talk 21:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond now as I'm on my way to work, but this is outrageous behaviour. I have never had comments on a talk page "redacted" like this by another editor, even when they violate no WP policy.BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That someone who has been an admin for 5 years (not that it was an admin action, I'm wearing my editor hat) felt it necessary ought to give you pause for thought. Policy violations were specified, and complaining about the removal without addressing the reasons for it just strengthens the WP:NOTFORUM part of the case for doing so. See also WP:BLPTALK and Wikipedia:TALK#Others.27_comments. Rd232 ^talk 11:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I just find it bizarre that in this redact you delete what I wrote about this WP article and leave what I say about Shamir intact, even though we have both agreed that Shamir is best discussed on his own article's page, which seems to me to already very adequately address the issues around allegations about him in an appropriate way. It also seems bizarre to me that I am being redacted for soapboxing on a talkpage that seems to me to include a huge amount of soapboxing already which is not redacted (e.g. Keith's unsigned comment at 07:34, 16 May 2011). The text that is deleted was precisely a sourced case for including the fact that Counterpunch is contentious in the article. Anyway, I'll leave it there, and not argue further against Rd232's experience as an admin. By the way, the bit rd232 left undeleted at the end makes no sense at all post-redaction, so I have deleted that too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A single sentence about controversy

I’ll move on and start again, and try to explain clearly what I think this article lacks. I’ll start with Rd232’s completely correct suggestion above that “it's feasible to cover the relevant controversies in a neutral and balanced manner... avoiding unnecessary direct quotation of political opponents' smear phrases”. What I am suggesting is something very simple, a single sentence along the following lines:

Counterpunch has been the focus of considerable controversy, receiving criticism, for example, for publishing texts by writers alleged to be Holocaust deniers such as Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shamir, for publishing an article alleging organ thefts by Israelis that has been widely described as perpetuating the antisemitic blood libel, and for articles alleging that a plaintiff in a rape charge against Julian Assange is a CIA agent.

This can then be referenced to several reliable sources where this is written out, such as the Kate Harding article published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation , Michael C. Moynihan’s articles , the recent article in Tablet Magazine , the Jews Against Zionism open letter in What Next magazine, the Anti-Defamation League or any other number of reliable sources.BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a completely supportable suggestion. There is simply no reason that Counterpunch should be treated as if it's mysteriously immune from criticism on the topic. Goodwinsands (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Your explanation still relies on hearsay.Keith-264 (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a courtroom. It's trying to be an encyclopedia, and should reflect what reliable sources have to say, not just one side of what reliable sources have to say. Goodwinsands (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Specifics are certainly more constructive to discuss, but the proposed text (a) repeats BLP problematic claims (b) repeats accusations that are irrelevant since the organ thefts are documented fact (Abu Kabir Forensic Institute); (c) not obviously notable (CounterPunch publishes a dozen articles a day). It is difficult to construct anything specific here without falling foul of WP:COATRACK; it's worse when the subject (CounterPunch) isn't much discussed in mainstream media, leaving comments mostly by people who are ideological opponents of CounterPunch and/or specific contributors. Atzmon and Shamir would be examples of contributors worth mentioning, but it needs very careful wording not to merely describe them through the eyes of political opponents. Equally, NPOV requires us to not give the impression that their contributions are of a significance that towers over everything else CounterPunch has ever published, and we can't really do that without giving a better characterisation of what the overall balance of contributions is in terms of contributors and content. Rd232 ^talk 01:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am more than happy to reach consensus on appropriate wording, and know that we need to NOT say it publishes Holocaust deniers, etc, but I think it is possible to find the words, along the lines of "have been alleged to be" etc. There are no BLP issues here, as the allegations and refutations etc are thoroughly documented on contributors' pages, and we'd find a way of wording it that was satisfactory. I also have no problem with it being done in way that does not give undue weight to one or two contributors. On the organ theft thing, the issue is not whether "the organ thefts" (which ones? the Haitian ones?) are "documented fact" (I happen to think they are not), the controversy was over the linking of them to an attempted refutation of the blood libel myth.BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

BobFromBrockley, can you provide a source that says "Counterpunch has been the focus of considerable controversy"? In fact the sources I have seen seem to criticise contributors to Counterpunch, not the magazine itself, and anyway they lack notability. How are the opinions expressed by a journalism student in Tablet about Shamir notable? TFD (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

4 Deuces, there is no need to provide a source that SAYS this as the sources already suggested, and plenty of others clearly SHOW it as they are all examples of controversy and criticism. Is there a source which SAYS it runs to six to eight pages in length? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Re notability etc, I think the suggestions I've made for refs mostly clearly pass a notability test, but am happy to discuss specifics and am not committed to those particular ones. I think the Tablet Magazine one is certainly less notable and relevant than some others (although not enough for Rd232 not to devote a few lines to it in the Shamir article), although I don't think the "student journalist" issue is relevant; the magazine is well edited, widely read, had heavy duty contributors etc, and the article is based on real investigation rather than being an opinion piece. I think the Australian Broadcasting Company, Michael C. Moynihan and the Anti-Defamation League are good enough sources. Jews Against Zionism are not so well known, and nor the the magazine the Open Letter was published in, but the authors of the letter are some of the most important people in the UK's Palestine solidarity/anti-Zionist movement. When I get back from work later, I am happy to suggest more sources if you want. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

With Google one may search and find opinions that support any view one looks for. Type in the name of your favorite/least favorite media plus anti-semitic and you can find the accusation made. But WP:WEIGHT requires that we only report notable opinions. And notability is proved by third party coverage. TFD (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

See, Bob? It's not about reliable sources. Did you think Wikipedia is about reliable sources? Wikipedia believes Wikipedia is about reliable sources, but when it comes to Counterpunch, Wikipedia is not about reliable sources.

One of the tough things I've learned here is that some entries are owned and not subject to change. The Counterpunch article is a whitewash and will remained a whitewash as long as it's "owned." Wish I had better news for you. Goodwinsands (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You really ought to read WP:COATRACK. And, as ever, if you think in any given context that the local consensus is wrong, use appropriate dispute resolution. The basic concept of Wikipedia discussion is not really complicated; it just requires patience, and a willingness to debate issues on the merits, and to not battle to achieve a preconceived outcome. Rd232 ^talk 02:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

RD232 offered criteria (which are objective) against which you can measure your contributions. This isn't bad faith it's fair play.Keith-264 (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but (a genuine not rhetorical question) where are these objective criteria? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've just had another go at finding objective sources about CounterPunch, and there really isn't much. One thing I've come up with to expand content a bit is to use a summary of CounterPunch Books (here plus some others published by others but heavily based on CounterPunch material) as representative of the (most important) magazine content, since most of the books are heavily based on CounterPunch material. In that context, we'll then have some space to mention contributors in books, and key contributors not in the books (cherrypicking risk - there are many), and an WP:NPOV mention of the controversial people/content might be within reach. Rd232 ^talk 03:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, maybe we can move forward. But hat is an "objective" source? Why is CP itself considered an "objective" source? But anyway WP's rule is a reliable source not an objective source, and WP:RS makes no mention of "objective". I don't think that a good case has been made that the sources already suggested on this page -something like a dozen now -are not considered reliable.BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

By "objective" source I meant a source which objectively considers the broad sweep of CounterPunch's publication history - and from that point of view CounterPunch is a very good source for itself, given the number and range of CounterPunch books based on CounterPunch newsletter/website contributions. The basic problem (if you'll allow an extreme hypothetical to illustrate the point): you wouldn't write a history of the New York Times through the lens of the Flat Earth Society, would you? They'd be all about which handful of articles in its zillion-strong archive addressed that subject, and ignore the rest. In the same way, sourcing coverage of CounterPunch primarily to people or institutions with a strong interest in Israel/Palestine will violate WP:NPOV by giving an entirely misleading picture about the breadth and depth of its content. Normally, to return to my hypothetical, we'd just not use Flat Earth Society much or at all about NYT; the difficulty is when few or no sources talk about NYT apart from them. That makes things very difficult for editors. Understanding that difficulty is the first step to tackling it in a way that actually results in some useful coverage for readers. More later, I've got to go now. Rd232 ^talk 13:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The criteria I referred to are those in the Wiki rules which rd232 quoted obove and which are available to be studied, I've found it quite helpful. As rd232 points out, sites like CP (and Medialens for eg) tend to be ignored or reviled by the msm which makes it difficult to find 'reliable' sources. Consider The Guardian; said to be reliable by many but which has been exposed in CP by Shamir for bowdlerizing Wikileaks, in a manner that suggests (at the very least) a conflict of interest.08:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the Guardian did or didn't bowdlerize WL. The point is, in this context, that there was a fierce controversy around WL, and Counterpunch was in the middle of this controversy, and attracted criticism. This is both reported in and exemplified by the Guardian articles. That was one of a series of related controversies, some involving Shamir, others involving Atzmon, Weir, Cockburn, Susan Block, and other contributors. I'm presuming no-one is denying that Counterpunch has been controversial? "Is [The Politics of Anti-Semitism by CP editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, published by CP] the most controversial book of 2003? It was denounced by liberals and neocons alike, numerous reviews in mainstream papers were quashed by editors." - Counterpunch itself. "[A History of Fear, published by CP] is Cockburn at the top of his controversial game." - [CP itself]. In other words, CP itself trades on its controversialness. "[Shamir] caused controversy in the UK in 2005, at a parliamentary book launch hosted by Lord Ahmed, by claiming: "Jews … own, control and edit a big share of mass media."... On 27 August, in Counterpunch, a small radical US publication, Shamir said Assange was framed by "spies" and "crazy feminists"." - The Guardian - and whether the quotes are correct or not, this is concrete, irrefutable evidence of the fact of controversy and criticism. Bill Weinberg, a not insignificant figure on the left, has written extensively about Counterpunch in WW4report, which is considered a sufficiently RS to be cited in numerous WP articles. Here's just one example, which quotes Shamir's own website as saying "Israel Shamir became a source of much controversy in connection with Wikileaks", as well as citing a couple Shamir's many Wikilinks related articles in CP as examples. And as well as the Shamir/Wikilinks controversy, there is the blood libel controversy. Again, just one example, Adam Levick in an article on the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs website:"Counterpunch recently made news by claiming that the blood libel - the notion that Jews ritually murdered gentiles - is true and is related to such organ thefts." Again, it is not relevant here whether CP told the truth or not about medieval allegations of ritual murder, but that CP "made the news". In other words, there are dozens of references to chose from as citations for some version of the sentence I've proposed. If there is a question about the notability or reliability of particular examples, we can discuss them case by case, but you cannot make a blanket claim that there are not sources or this is just "hearsay", whatever that means in a WP context.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, lots of assertion but where are the sources which meet the Wikipaedia criteria rd232 mentioned. A controversy is not the same thing as a polemic or propaganda (a fabricated polemic), hence there being no surprise that 'liberals and neocons alike' say the same thing; they would becasue they are the same. In my experience, CP isn't controversial, merely a site full of the bleeding obvious.Keith-264 (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I've expanded coverage of these issues in a neutral style. The "blood libel" thing should be ignored as it appears to be a complete canard; [site:http://www.counterpunch.org "blood libel" a site search] turns up nothing it could plausibly relate to. What else do you want to include? Rd232 ^talk 19:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Keith, which specific criteria are you talking about? I think these sources meet the criteria. If you feel otherwise, please be specific and we can discuss. On whether neoconservatism and liberalism are identical, I think that's a minority view, certainly not reflected in the WP articles on those topics, but that's by the by, altho it explains yr attitude towards this article to some extent. I'm not sure what you mean when you say these sources are "assertions". The fact that several significant sources in the liberal media, and several signicant sources in the left media (do you consider WW4Report MSM?), a significant section of the British anti-Zionist movement etc are critical of CP is evidence that CP has attracted notable criticism, which is the fact conveyed by the single sentence I am proposing be included.BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, rd232 put them on this page. Wait for him(?) to look at your additional comments so you can see what he makes of them (that way we won't be dependent on your assertions of what sources are significant). 'Minority view'? so what, so is evolution, doesn't make it wrong. I'd also suggest that my 'attitude' is not something to be inferred, it's very unDude;O).Keith-264 (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Rd232 is a very experienced WP editor and knows the rules better than me, but I'm farly experienced, and can't see which of them violates any rules and I don't see why my assertions about what are significant are less valuable than anyone else's. But I am happy to wait, as I believe we can achieve consensus. But I would be grateful for specifics, and not blanket claims about all these sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've suggeted some wording, and am waiting for alterntive suggestion so we can reach BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)consensus.

While you're waiting, you could write an article about WW4Report. Sources not having articles about them doesn't help to assess their reliability. Rd232 ^talk 13:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Altho Bill Weinberg does have article. I also think that in the case of CP left wing sites rather than MSM sites are more relevant, for reasons related to Keith's point. Hence also Jews Against Zionism being significant tho also redlinked.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no longer redlinked - someone's done a bizarre redirect.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

cf Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews Against Zionism 2. I've pointed to the relevant subsection of the target article. Now I've got to a dash (again). Rd232 ^talk 16:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rd - what a mess! Btw, it is this JAZ which is relevant to this article. (From the AFD page: "Keep in mind that there are at least three groups called "Jews Against Zionism". The article is about the Satmar group that maintains the website. There is another Orthodox Jewish group, the Neturei Karta, who use the name. There is also a secular group in the UK by the same name. A Google search is virtually useless in this instance. If an article mentions meeting with Palestinian leaders or Ahmadinejad, it's about Neturei Karta. If it's about something in the UK, it's about the secular group. Those probably account for 99% of the Google hits... The more notable of the three groups labeled JAZ is the nonreligious European group." The main problem with the WP article was the conflation of this group with various Neturei Karta groups.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you could try writing an article about that group, if you want. If it's well referenced and substantially different from the confused deleted version then WP:CSD#G4 ought not apply. Rd232 ^talk 11:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

recent revert

Rd232, I support you[r] recent reversion for the reasons discussed exhaustively above.Keith-264 (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Keith, who is the "you" here? Please read the comment I made below (which I typed without seeing yours) and be specific. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

rd232, you have removed my edits, saying "previously discussed on talk" but the fact is that: I proposed this on the talk page, it was supported by another editor, and you and another editor made some non-specific criticisms of the wording and some proposed citations, but did not offer alternative wording or specific criticisms of citations. I waited a fortnight for alternative wording or specific issues. I avoided the citations for which there were specific criticisms (e.g. notability). I can not see what WP policies are violated. This is one sentence, not given undue weight in the article. Every word of the sentence is a verifiable fact. A number of references are given, which all conform to WP:RS criteria. I can't see that it "duplicates" anything, apart from the fact that the words "most controversial" are used earlier in relation to its Is/Pal coverage, which was not actually what the deleted sentence is about. If there is duplication in some part, this can be addressed properly, rather than deleting the whole. Can I ask you to read the WP:OWN guidance and then either replace and edit consensually or justify your deletion properly with specific points. Thank you. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You again mentioned that there had been criticism but didn't cite sources. In your comment above you appear to put the onus on rd instead of doing it yourself. Keith-264 (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry? Did you not read what rd reverted? There were several sources cited. I'll paste them at the end of this comment. I put the onus on rd (or any other editor who has a problem) because no specific reason has been given according to WP policy for the deletion. Surely the onus should be on the deleter?BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

" Surely the onus should be on the deleter?" - it isn't. See WP:BURDEN. Rd232 ^talk 17:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I believed I provided evidence, reliable sources directly supporting the claim made in the sentence. I was not challenging the deletion, I was asking for specific reasons for deletion. Keith was saying no-one needed to give me reasons, but the burden was on me. I have set out clearly, at length, on this talk page the reasons for my insertion, and until the eventual "I'll bite" below, some fortnight after my proposal, no specific criticisms were given, just a simple revert. That's not the spirit of WP:BURDEN. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources cited: Michael C. Moynihan "Olbermann, Assange, and the Holocaust Denier: When you want to believe, you'll believe anything" Reason December 7, 2010; Kate Harding "Accusations against Assange's accuser" Australian Broadcasting Company 9 December 2010; Adam Levick "Anti-Israelism and Anti-Semitism in Progressive U.S. Blogs/News Websites: Influential and Poorly Monitored" PHAS No. 92, 1 January 2010 / 15 Teveth 5770 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs; David Leigh and Luke Harding "Holocaust denier in charge of handling Moscow cables" The Guardian 31 January 2011; Anti-Defamation League "Alison Weir: Expressions of Antisemitism" ADL.org 2008 BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The first two are opinion, so not really WP:RS. The third mentions only the blood libel accusation, and strikingly for an article with 67 footnotes, doesn't manage a reference for it. Rd232 ^talk 16:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

On the first point ("opinion") see my replies to TFD below. On the second point (67 footnotes), I agree, that's a bad source which should not be cited here.BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your acknowledgement of the second point, but on the first, it sounds like wikilawyering. You've been around enough to know the difference between using opinion pieces for highly contentious factual claims (WP:NEWSORG), and using them to support the uncontentious claim that the author of the piece has their name on it. Rd232 ^talk 09:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You need reliable sources (e.g., news or journal articles) specifically about Counterpunch, not editorials about individual contributors, otherwise it violates WP:COATRACK and other policies. TFD (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

These are reliable sources. They all talk about Counterpunch (not just about contributors), describing it as controversial or similar. The statement that is being referenced is that Counterpunch has attracted controversy and criticism for the specified reasons. The obvious citation is reputable sources saying that is the case. Sure, they're not news bulletins saying "Stop news, counterpunch is controversial" because that wouldn't be news would it? The source for the fact that Chomsky is a contributor to Counterpunch is, er, Chomsky contributing to Counterpunch, not a CNN report reporting that he has. Similarly, the source for Counterpunch being controversial is a range of mainstream, reputable sources where such controversy is taking place. Also, I see no risk of WP:COATRACKgiven this is just one sentence in the article and given that it is exactly about Counterpunch and not anything else related tangentially or otherwise. Please specify which sources or which statements are problematic and we can discuss and reach consensus. I am not committed to that wording or those sources, but see no reason whatsoever why one sentence stating a verifiable, highly relevant fact about Counterpunch is not appropriate for the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sophistry. Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pick a fight Keith, I'm looking for specifics so we can move forward beyond a circular argument. Making blanket assertions like "sophistry" will not help in that. Rd has now come up with specifics, and that can take us forward.BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite, Bob. Your edit

repeated that CounterPunch has been the subject of controversy
made accusations which are BLP-problematic ("alleged to be Holocaust deniers"), since there is not space to discuss the merits of those accusations. They're also of limited relevance since the accusations don't relate to CounterPunch publications.
makes an accusation which requires bulletproof sourcing, which lacks it: "publishing an article alleging organ thefts by Israelis that has been widely described as perpetuating the antisemitic blood libel". Probably this relates to publications based on solid investigations by the academic Nancy Scheper-Hughes, in which case this is simply unwarranted mudslinging by political opponents which has no place in an encyclopedia article.
1. Actually your ADL source indicates it relates to this article. I'll leave the merits of your accusation as an exercise for the reader. Rd232 ^talk 16:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
the issue of Shamir's originating the accusation of "CIA agent": factually incorrect, as actually bothering to read the article in question would show. He neither originated the claim, nor said she was a CIA agent, he described her as having an "anti-Castro, pro-CIA streak". Shamir's small role in the Wikileaks saga might be worth a sentence, except I can't find his name in any of the relevant Wikipedia articles about Wikileaks/Assange, which rather suggests it isn't worth mentioning at all.

Rd232 ^talk 16:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, rd, for finally responding. I will chew over and respond properly. On the blood libel issue, see http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2009/09/blood-libel-promoted-by-counterpunch.html and http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2009/10/alison-weir-continues-to-promote-blood.html which are not RS by WP standards, but are well researched. The key bit is not the Israel stuff, but the Ariel Toaff material at the end of Weir's article. Re-reading the Levick article I cited, I think that would not be a good citation after all, as it merely links to the article itself, but I don't see what is wrong with the ADL citation. On CIA, probably wording is wrong, but the Wikileaks/Shamir/Counterpunch connection is surely notable, whether it is best fitted into the sort of sentence I am suggesting or not. I'll come back with alternative proposal and hopefully we can find a consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC) [Correction: Levick doesn't even link to the article itself but to a different article, I didn't check his footnote. I totally agree Levick is bad source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)]

The Holland stuff is indeed detailed, but misses the point that Weir's CounterPunch article is concerned with the use of the "claim of blood libel" accusation to ward off taking seriously the rather unrelated issue of unauthorised organ transplants. That concerns about the use of the accusation are being used to support the accusation is ironic, and worrying about whether anything ever happened that vaguely overlaps with blood libel territory is entirely missing the original point (though admittedly in her blog Weir goes off on this tangent, which CounterPunch is hardly responsible for). Given sufficient coverage, an NPOV description of this nonsense might be warranted, but I don't see it. Rd232 ^talk 17:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

So the fact that Noam Chomsky wrote for Counterpunch makes the magazine controversial. He also wrote for The Guardian, the Washington Post, BBC News, the International Herald Tribune, The Independent, the Toronto Star, the New York Times, Foreign Policy, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Review of Books, and other mainstream publications. Do we spam into those articles the fact that they published Chomsky and he is controversial or do we accept that there is nothing controversial about magazines and newspapers publishing articles by people with different viewpoints? TFD (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

4D, I think you've misunderstood me, if you are replying to me point about Chomsky above. The point I was making was about how you cite a claim. How do you cite a claim that Chomsky wrote for Counterpunch, a claim made in the article as it stands? Currently, the citation is to an article he wrote in Counterpunch and not to "news or journal articles" saying he did. I presume we all agree this is OK, as it has been there in the article for some time and no-one has disputed it. So, how do we cite the more complicated question of criticism of Counterpunch and of Counterpunch's controversialness? I suggest, by examples of citing notable examples in reputable sources where we can see such criticism, particularly where this explicitly describes CP as "controversial" or similar. That is, by using a similar model to the one used to cite all the other claims in the article, such as the (un-problematic) claim that Chomsky is a contributor. Does that make sense? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just re-read TFD's comment, and realised he is objecting to the mention of Chomsky in the article - describing it as "spamming in" Chomsky. Do we need to discuss this? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion will in practice very easily fall foul of WP:SYNTHESIS. Rd232 ^talk 09:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is a risk, but I don't think it is necessary. We just need to find the right words.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Re 1. rd says my sentence "made accusations which are BLP-problematic". On the one hand, I don't think the sentence makes "accusations". I think it reports that there is controversy because of allegations made, which are described as allegations and not as facts. On the other hand, I agree that the material here is BLP-problematic, but don't think it is BLP-violating. WP:BLP says this: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source." This is exactly the sort of formulation we need to go for. If we can find the right wording ("responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone", and neither whitewashing nor accusing), there are plenty of sources that can be cited. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that merely by mentioning Holocaust denial you're tarring with a very black brush - regardless of how much space you spend arguing the merits of the accusation (and the more space you spend, the more WP:UNDUE it is). Since CounterPunch hasn't (AFAIK) published anything like that, it's irrelevant anyway - quite apart from the dubiousness of the allegations themselves (even Shamir manages to teeter on the line without crossing it, publicly at least). More broadly, most of the stuff you want to include (not just on this point) is simply internet echo chamber stuff by political opponents, and to compare that to the BLP policy's New York Times coverage example is disingenuous. Rd232 ^talk 10:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Re 1. Rd says sources "also of limited relevance since the accusations don't relate to CounterPunch publications". I disagree. Harding, on the accusations against Assange's rape accuser, says "Actually, as far as I can tell, the only source for that claim is an August Counterpunch article". Moynihan says more or less the same thing: "So what’s this evidence of CIA perfidy that Olbermann finds so convincing? A few clicks in and one comes to an article posted on Alexander Cockburn’s far-left website Counterpunch by the writers Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett (more on them in a moment) positing that because [Ms. A.], who wrote a master’s thesis on the Cuban opposition movement, visited the "Ladies in White"—a group comprised of female relatives of jailed Cuban dissidents—while conducting research in Havana, and the vile extremist Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles (who was once employed by the CIA) went to a Miami protest on behalf of the Ladies in White, it follows that [Ms. A.] is therefore connected to the CIA." Leigh and Harding say something similar: "On 27 August, in Counterpunch, a small radical US publication, Shamir said Assange was framed by "spies" and "crazy feminists". He alleged there had been a "honeytrap". On 14 September, Shamir then attacked "castrating feminists and secret services", writing that one of the women involved, whom he deliberately named, had once discussed the Cuban opposition to Castro in a Swedish academic publication "connected with" someone with "CIA ties"." All three of them reference their claims with hyperlinks to the relevant articles.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, internet "somebody's opinion today" echo chamber stuff, easily disproven by going to the primary source. Rd232 ^talk 10:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"(even Shamir manages to teeter on the line without crossing it, publicly at least)" I object to this, I infer that you're implying that he is a hypocrite. This is the sort of comment you've been reverting.Keith-264 (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I was merely being clear that we can't deduce his private opinion from his public statements. Rd232 ^talk 11:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the well sourced sentence about controversy involving counterpunch. Saying someone is an "alleged holocaust denier" is not a BPL violation when supported by multiple reliable sources. Saying something is "disproven by going to the primary source" is textbook OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not well-sourced, there's a substantial discussion here. And if you think WP:V is satisfied by relying on opinion pieces' inaccurate presentation of an opinion piece instead of on the opinion piece itself, well, WP:RSN is that way. Rd232 ^talk 11:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not yet replying to some of the substantive points. I agree that there is a discussion here and that this should conclude rather than reverting the revert, but rd's use of "who are you to come charging in and restore it?" strengthens my sense of an WP:OWN issue that makes me fear change is always going to be blocked regardless of the discussion. I hope I am proved wrong. I also agree with No More Mr Nice Guy that what we think of the claims made by the Guardian, Australian Broadcasting Commission and ADL are irrelevant and to follow the links to disprove them constitutes OR. The point is not whether the claims are correct or not; the point is that these articles clearly evidence criticism and controversy, which is what the single sentence is about. Saying the Guardian, ABC, ADL etc are merely "internet echo chamber" stuff is not good enough. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to do with WP:OWN, it was a reaction to the blatant failure to respect an ongoing talkpage discussion on a highly contentious BLP issue. Rd232 ^talk 11:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is indeed well sourced. If you think David Leigh writing in the Guardian is not a RS, well, WP:RSN is that way. What you happen to think the primary source says is irrelevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian is the only which would normally be called RS. Rd232 ^talk 11:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Normally"? It is an RS. It specifically mentions counterpunch, the people they publish, and the controversy surrounding those publications. What policy based argument do you have to disclude this? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The ADL not considered an RS? The Australian Broadcasting Corporation? I note that World War 4 Report, another possibility (see examples above) is considered RS by 50+ articles. Scanning quickly up the page, the Tablet Magazine and the Washington Times have also been proposed. I think that Michael C. Moynihan is more borderline, but don't think he is a priori out.BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, reflecting on rd's incitement to OR ("easily disproven by going to the primary source") could equally be used in relation to the insistence that Alison Weir did not raise blood libel, as going to the original source she used, Toaff, we would say that she was wildly inaccurate and that the historian she (inaccurately) leaned on had changed his mind by the time she published. But our job here is not to weigh in for or against Counterpunch or its commentators. Rather, our job is to give a succinct, encyclopaedic account of Counterpunch, a job we would be failing if we pretended this "muck-raking" periodical had never been criticised or controversial for some pretty heavy reasons.BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I thought we were getting somewhere, but it seems the arrival of reinforcements has scotched that, and we're back to pretending that WP:RS is the only policy in town, and WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are just random letters you might find in your soup. Shall we just give up talking around this and do an RFC on including your sentence? Or do you want to suggest something else? Rd232 ^talk 12:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope, rd, that you are not suggesting that I summoned up reinforcements, which I didn't. Other editors have taken the same line as me in the discussion above. I have made comments on the BLP issue too above, but the BLP issue, for the editors defending the status quo, seems to always come back to whether what we are saying is cast-iron, which leads immediately to RS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"I hope, rd, that you are not suggesting ..." no, I wasn't. Rd232 ^talk 12:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is not just letters you might find in your soup. I'd like to hear how your insistence this information should not be included complies with "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". We have several RS discussing an issue related to counterpunch. We want to add one sentence about it. If anything, trying to keep it out of the article is a violation of NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

the words "significant" and "reliable" are not optional, and pretending that limiting it to "one sentence" is compatible with an NPOV discussion of the merits of the accusations is silly. Worse, giving enough space to make the issue discussion NPOV on balance and context will violate NPOV in another way by requiring a vastly disproportionate proportion of the article (WP:UNDUE), for discussing things that are inaccurate and largely irrelevant. This whole thing feels frankly like the mess I'm only familiar with in the Israel/Palestine topic area. It seems to be some sort of ~~cancer that eats people's brains for breakfast and makes them unable~~ [fog which somehow makes it hard for people] to comprehend that an encyclopedia article is not enhanced by an assorted jumble of horrible accusations of little to no accuracy and little to no relevance or significance in the context of the article subject. That is why I don't want so spend any more time than necessary debating it further without opening it up to a wider audience, either via RFC, or at least at BLPN. Rd232 ^talk 13:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it only fair to point out that RD has stuck to Wiki criteria, which I find a more persuasive practice than listing claims about Counterpunch which dissolve when scrutinised according to those criteria. In the recent exchanges the grounds for an edit which tacitly criticises Counterpunch have been the same as the ones which were rejected earlier. I can't see how calling it 'controversial' because it's been called controversial is right, it would be a mud slingers' charter. Oh and I dispute the claim that the Guardian is a reliable source, the deconstruction of its Wikileaks disclosures in Counterpunch suggests that the Wiki page for the Guardian should be the one carrying the 'controversial' tag.Keith-264 (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Way back up the page, TFD was arguing that unless a source was found that said "Counterpunch is controversial" we couldn't call it so. Now, several sources have been suggested which say it, but that's not good enough. As I said already, it is not the fact they SAY it is controversial that makes that claim true (altho I have repeated that because it seemed to be TFD's criteria for saying it was). These are evidence of controversy and criticism in themselves, in that Guardian, Reason, ABC, ADL, etc are widely read, mainstream, reputable locii where controversy and criticism is occurring. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Re your last remark: someone recently started Wikipedia:Reliably sourcing statements, which is a perspective I've argued for for a long time. The black-and-white position "Publisher X is reliable, yes or no" isn't really tenable - and that's what not RS says, but it's often what editors try to boil it down to. Reliability belongs to a particular document, and the reliability of that depends on a combination of factors, of which the publisher's reputation is only one. Rd232 ^talk 13:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not against opening up to a wider audience. I am not sure which place is better, am not familiar enough with them; have never been involved in this sort of dispute at WP - have always managed to find consensus before. Agree that it is not a question of which source in general, but it might be specific to the context, although I find Keith's reasoning about the Guardian bizarre. I agree that keeping mention of obvious controversy out of argument seems much more POV than mentioning it carefully and succintly in a sourced way.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point probably the best thing is for you to propose text you want to add (I'll be disappointed if after everything I said you propose the same as before, but that's up to you), in a new section, and slap an WP:RFC tag on it. It's not that difficult, though if you've not done it before it may seem a Big Deal, which it isn't really. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 14:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and open an RFC. I'm getting tired of your accusations and insinuations. As for your "cancer that eats people's brains for breakfast" crap, I doubt your mop will protect you if you keep this up. Consider this your warning. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, well, not my most tactful moment, but really, lighten up. Rd232 ^talk 14:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll note for future reference that you didn't redact. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of curious what exactly you're threatening ... I'm not sure what people are going to say about this other than that you should watch out for the boomerang. But perhaps you're aware of some policy that I'm not. Anyhow, maybe we should get back on the topic of discussing why we should include some factually inaccurate, ad hominem criticisms from non-notable op-eds in an encyclopedia article? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You didn't ask me to, and my reply to your grumpiness indicated that it hadn't been meant in any serious way, it was just an exaggerated-for-humourous effect expression of frustration. I'll note for future reference your willingness to (a) take offence unnecessarily and (b) not let things go. Rd232 ^talk 17:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care how you rationalize it to yourself as long as you cut it out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian is there to be read you are free ro form your own conclusions like me but not free (also like me) to dictate them on Wikipaedia. Clearly the dispute about the revert has demonstrated rd's mastery of Wiki criteria and a certain wry humour to boot. No doubt this can be galling but I support his(?) suggestion to ask others (BLPN RFC). Keith-264 (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, will put some time and thought in to re-wording and right citations and propose with an RFC tag. Have read the RFC page and it looks more straightforward than I feared. Not sure when I'll have time, but will try not to leave it too long.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. If you change the proposed text substantially enough, you might wait on putting the RFC tag on it, to see if we can manage agreement without it. Rd232 ^talk 15:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Material for Reception section

A single sentence about controversy

recent revert

Related Articles