Talk:Alexander Cockburn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Pronounciation of the name "Cockburn" 2 Socialist father? 3 Forced to leave Voice? 4 Citation 5 Irish 6 Alexander Cockburn an anarchist? 7 Uhh... 8 "Hostility" 9 Recent edits 10 The question of progressive, radical, anarchist, or communist? 11 Citizenship? 12 Allegations of anti-Semitism 13 ARoyal vs. Anti-Semites 14 Removed misattributed quote 15 Proportions of Anti-Semitism to General Information 16 Scientology Section 17 POV to discredit criticism 18 RE: POV to discredit criticism 19 Responses to Criticism 20 Removing paragraph 21 More POV Edits 22 Original Research

[edit] Pronounciation of the name "Cockburn"

Why is it spelled Cockburn if it is pronounced Coburn? M123 18:40, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is pronounced "Coburn" (as Bruce Cockburn's name is known to be). I saw (Alex) Cockburn in the early 1990s and seem to remember him saying that his name is pronounced as it looks. I think I'll ask him directly.

--66.52.186.106 18:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[not a registered user yet]

I just received an email reply from A.C. which confirms that I was wrong:

"Cockburn, pronounced Coe-burn here." says he. As to why it's pronounced so unlike how it looks, you'll need to consult an etymologist, I guess.--66.52.186.129 20:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed up the IPA pronunciation, hope I got it right. :) FiggyBee 13:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist father?

I'm pretty sure that Cockburn's father, Claude, was a communist rather than a socialist. Orwell thought so, and the article on him seems to imply that this is the case. In the interests of accuracy, could someone confirm this?

Claud Cockburn covered the civil war in Spain for the Daily Worker (a paper of the Communist Party) and he also travelled with the communist Fifth Regiment there: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPcockburn.htm. Claud Cockburn quit the Communist Party and moved from the USA to Ireland in 1947: http://CounterPunch.org/cockburn04102004.html So he was a Communist for about a decade or so I guess.

I remember Cockburn wrote a column in which he lovingly referred to his parents as "Reds." -- Gerkinstock 02:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forced to leave Voice?

The only sources I can find for this claim (recent edit) just offhand are ones that have a bone to pick with Cockburn already. Anyone have any further information? Schissel : bowl listen 20:35, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Cockburn was forced to leave the Voice after it was purchased by Rupert Murdoch for a trumped up charge of confict of interest. He had accepted fees from a Palestinian organization and did not disclose this when criticizing Israeli policies.

How is that a trumped up charge, it does sound like conflict of interest to me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I inserted a citation.

It's essentially a weblog that contains a summary of Alan Dershowitz's jeremiad against Cockburn, including a brief synopsis of what led to his departure from the "Press Clippings" column in The Village Voice.

Until someone manages to find an archive of the original Wall St. Journal article about his separation from The Voice-which Dershowitz alludes to-I think that should suffice.

Ruthfulbarbarity 03:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Has anone ever been fired for accepting money from Israel?

[edit] Citation

The source for the Village Voice suspension allegation is this article by Alan Dershowitz, who has has been attacked by Cockburn in the past. Dershowitz cites this source:

"Village Voice Suspends Alexander Cockburn Over $10,000 Grant," Wall Street Journal, January 18,1984, p. 12.

If anyone has access to Nexus/Lexus, perhaps they can check it. -- Viajero | Talk 00:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irish

If Cockburn was born in Scotland, and his father was British, and he has spent the better half of his life living in the United States, why in God's name does the article say that he is "Irish"? I find it very unlikely, especially since I've read a lot of his writings and I don't hear him talk about Ireland, at all, if I remember correctly. [User:68.45.229.208 01:51, 30 Mar 2005]

He grew up there. In various places in his collections of essays, he talks about his youth in Ireland. -- Viajero 08:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Cockburn an anarchist?

What about Alex's political views, there is mention of anarchism, is this correct? Why would an anarchist want to reform Democrats, support Nader? More likely he's a socialist, like his father.

Not every anarchist believes that electoral politics is totaly meaningless, Noam Chomsky for instance, embraces "tactical voting" - Green in areas were the Democrats are sure to win anyway (to build support) and Democrat in swing states. --Sus scrofa 13:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying Sus scrofa, but i've been searching the net and still can't find any evidence of Alex's political self-definition. can you help? -- james

This cockburn article is under a subject heading of ANARCHISTS...Cockburn is by no stretch of the imagination a socialist. He doesn't, as far as I know, necessarily spell out his views, but if one just reads his articles, they are clearly Marxist and fall into a revolutionary socialist, anti-capitalist tradition, but not anarchist.

(I took the liberty of rearranging the discussion page a bit.) As for Alexander Cockburn's political label, I don't really know if he is an anarchist. I don't ever recall reading that he identified himself as such (and I've read his articles on CounterPunch for a couple of years now) so perhaps the label of "socialist" would be more accurate. Perhaps an email to him would clear things up? --Sus scrofa 21:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the best label for Cockburn and his politics (especially in the last 10 years or so) would be "independent radical." For quite a few years now, he has been associating with libertarians and anarchists, as well as Greens and independent socialists.--Charles 04:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uhh...

Sorry to be such an immature, gutter-minded asshole, but, in the second to last paragraph, I noticed the following line: "Cockburn was recently fingered by Alan Dershowitz..." which doesn't sound right. Perhaps there is a reasonably substitutable word.

You're right I changed the wording to a more NPOV one, in the future can you please sign your comments even if its anon, it prevents confusion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Hostility"

Does the word "hostility" here seem like a POV characterization to anyone else? Perhaps some might interpret his opinions as "hostility" but I'm sure there are others who would consider them fair and deserved. How exactly are they hostile? Any exemplary quotations? "Critical" might be a better word - criticism is not the same thing as hostility.

[edit] Recent edits

I agree with the changes made by 66.69.237.114 (I wish this person had a real identity, rather than an IP number), and would like to see the page reverted to his version. Alexander Cockburn is much more readily identifiable as a radical than a progressive. Indeed, he has been very critical of the so-called "progressive" movement, refering to it many times in his Beat The Devil column as "pwogwessive". I do not ever recall him referring to himself as progressive. Furthermore, his father, Claud, was a Communist, not a Socialist. He never minced words about this.--Charles 20:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and make these changes; I agree with everything you've said. One thing A.C. is not known for is mincing words, denks gott. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 20:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not certain how to revert the page. --Charles 20:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the changes you're talking about, which amount to a total of two words. No need to revert; just edit the page. I'm leaving it for you to do. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 01:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. You're right---I don't know what the hell I was thinking. --Charles 04:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mackensen went and reverted my edits. It is time for a serious discussion on terminology in this article. Claud Cockburn is well known to have been a Communist. And, I stand by the assertion that Alex is a radical. --Charles 04:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted his revert. He's wrong on this one. Let's see if he shows up here to 'splain himself. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 05:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

He reverted it back, yet again! This Mack fella is really getting on my nerves! --Charles 03:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I pointed out above (under the "Socialist father?" headline), it seems Claud Cockburn was a Communist for about a decade or so, until 1947. Not sure how this should be reflected in the article though.--Sus scrofa 07:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty simple to me: say he was a Communist for some time, after which he quit (I'm guessing about the time of Kruschev's denunciation of Stalin, which is the time of the mass exodus from the party; speaking as a "red diaper baby"). ==ILike2BeAnonymous 07:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't it get a little cumbersome to insert that into this text? "son of the well-known Communist-for-some-time-and-then-Socialist author and journalist Claud Cockburn"? Maybe "leftist" is a better label in this article? --Sus scrofa 08:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You know what they used to say in HUAC and elsewhere in the '50s: "once a Communist, always a Communist!". Which actually is true enough for present circumstances, I'd say (at least for the purposes of identification). In other words, only a slimy, troglyditic creature like David Horowitz, say, would totally disavow his former existence as a Commie (or whatever). So, to make a long story short, "son of the well-known Communist" should about cover it. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 09:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I heartily agree! Every source one checks calls him a Communist. Now, as to Alexander, I still say "progressive" is not the right word. Leftist would be better, if "radical" is, well too radical. --Charles 18:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Cockburn's bio at The Nation website [1] says he's a "radical journalist". Assuming that this description wasn't written by the editors without his approval "radical" is the correct term I guess.--Sus scrofa 18:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The question of progressive, radical, anarchist, or communist?

Hi. I've seen this issue before. Alexander's description has changed between these four terms. It all is interpretation though unless we cite Alexander specifically. Let's find a good citation as to how he describes himself. Also later in the article it may be useful to figure out how others describe him. It is completely POV to put in a description if we can't trace it to a source, especially given it is controversial how to describe him and some of the descriptions so far have been close to poisoning the well. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 18:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citizenship?

Is Cockburn an Irish citizen? His father, Claud, was British it says in the Claud Cockburn article. --Sus scrofa 03:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of anti-Semitism

I've added this section. His publications on anti-Semitism are some of the things he is best known for, and as a result he receives quite a bit of criticism for being anti-Semitic himself. He also seems to spend a lot of time defending himself of these accusations, if anybody would like to write a response or defense section.--ARoyal 11:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This section you've added is extremely one-sided and cries out for some rebuttal or counterpoint, either interspersed or appended. I've tagged the section accordingly. While I'm a strong A.C. partisan, I do think this topic needs to be discussed; however, what you've given us is basically just a litany or laundry list of complaints that "Cockburn hates Jews" without any countervailing commentary. I think if you actually take the time to read some of his The Politics of Anti-Semitism, you'll find that he is decidedly not anti-Semitic himself. Anyhow. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism sections are always one-sided. This is because they explain the criticism and give the issues from the stance of the critics. However, nothing in the criticism violates NPOV. It isn't a result of the editor making POV statements or POV claims. Rather, these are the statements and opinions of critics. The editor (myself) has never claimed he was anti-Semitic. Rather, the criticism section pointed out that many people out there do think he is. The fact that people think he is is an objective fact, not a POV statement. A rebuttal or counterpoint would be great. Cockburn spends a lot of his time these days attempting to defend himself from accusations of anti-Semitism. I'm sure someone could write up a 'response' section. And of course the response section would be equally one-sided. Though I'm not sure tagging the article is justified at this point unless something about it actually violates the terms of NPOV.--ARoyal 17:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not enough to say "so-and-so says Cockburn is anti-Semitic," the sources quoted have to be credible. Criticizing the policies of the Israeli government, or the ideas of the Likud Party and its right-wing allies, does not make one an anti-Semite. The accusation is used so often, and its definition now so all-encompassing, that it has become nearly worthless. Cockburn has demonstrated in a number of ways that he is a friend of the Jewish people, but no friend of the government that claims to represent them and their best interest. The section you have created, ARoyal, is a travesty and does not meet the standards of Wikipedia. ---Charles 17:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what are considered credible, verifiable sources. Each source quoted is a professional in their field, and fit the criteria for credibility. Each source quoted is just as credible, and accredited, as Cockburn himself. Now, it is your personal opinion that criticism of Israel isn't anti-Semitic. That would be POV. I havn't stated in the section that AC is or is not anti-Semitic. Rather, I pointed out many credible sources that believe he is anti-Semitic. In addition, you claiming it doesn't meet the standards of wikipedia because you don't want to see AC undergo any criticism is absurd. Unless you can somehow demonstrate that a source listed is not credible, then you have no basis for your claim. And even then, it would only justify the removal of that particular source. I think you'll find that each fits the criteria for credibility, however. --ARoyal 17:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This last response indicates a serious forest/trees problem on your part, one that is unfortunately endemic to this whole so-called "encyclopedia". In falling back on the Wikipedia "rules" as a defense, you miss the larger context of what you've created here. Sure, technically speaking you have the rules on your side; the sources you quote are, by and large, "credible". It's the combined effect of the mass of quotations you've assembled here that we (speaking for the congregation here) object to. It's also true, technically speaking, that you yourself haven't accused A.C. of anything, but again, the mass of material you've inserted pretty much speaks for itself.

You notice I removed nothing from your stuff; in the interest of free speech and intellectual honesty, I think this subject should be broached and discussed here. But in its current state, it pretty much is a "travesty" as Charles commented above. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for a response section to the criticism. However, at this point in AC's career defending himself from allegations of anti-Semitism is an important issue that needs to be brought up when discussing the man. I can't Google "Alexander Cockburn" without getting at least one article in 20 pages that accuses him of some form of anti-Semitism. Right now, it almost appears as if AC groupies are calling it a travesty because they don't want to confront the issue. In reality, this is a very big issue surrounding Cockburn right now.

Regarding what you call "mass quotations", I feel as if I've only selected some of the more important ones. The list is rather short compared to the number of persons who have accused Cockburn of being an anti-Semite, or the number of accusations aginst Cockburn you can find out there on the net. Again, I'd love to see a response section or something if it makes everyone feel that it balances it more. Cockburn has written entire articles defending himself of anti-Semitic allegations, and those could make up the body of the response section. I'm sure they could be just as long if not longer than the criticism section here, too.

A person's career, especially a journalistic career such as this, is effected in large part by what they report on and how they report it. As I've already pointed out, the anti-Semitism issue with AC is a large one. The real tragedy would be for the wikipedia article to read as a pro-Cockburn gloss-over without addressing and pointing out some of the real issues that people would want to be aware of when researching the man. Thus, I believe the information has a serious place in this article. And I can empathize with those of you who support Cockburn and want to make it appear not so one-sided. Write a 'response' 'support' 'defense', etc. section. --ARoyal 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Proposal (to "ARoyal"): How about showing good faith and compromising by removing some of the references you inserted? I was going to do so, but didn't want to just start hacking away at random. If you reduced the bulk of the section, that would go a long way toward indicating you're willing to deal on this issue. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Its frightening that Cockburn groupies would ask me to remove valid and legitimate information from his entry. It almost seems as if people are less interested in a thorough wikipedia, but rather in painting a positive picture of Cockburn. In any case, I'm willing to compromise and remove some of the bulk of the section for a good faith measure, as you've requested.--ARoyal 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed 3 out of the 7 sources (forgot to append that to the eidt summary). I'm quite willing to compromise with everyone on this issue. I just think it is valuable information that deserves a place here. As do Cockburn's responses to anti-Semitism, which I'm sure someone will write.--ARoyal 18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's better. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 05:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

---

My attempt to clean and balance this section could probably use some copyediting and aditional reworking, but I think it should be safe to remove the NPOV flag now. I'll leave the decision on that to group consensus, rather than taking action unilaterally - be bold, but don't be cocky. ;-) --KGF0 ( T | C ) 12:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to hate Jewish ( Israeli/Zionist ) behavior but still love Jews? The anti-Semitic label seems to inply that the answer is no.

[edit] ARoyal vs. Anti-Semites

In looking at the recent controversy over the new criticism section, I dug a bit beyond the mere words to see what could be the heart of the matter. You know, kinda like one evaluates the quoted sources for credibility and bias, one can also evaluate those who proffer such sources. In this process I noticed what appears, at casual glance, to be a pattern in the edits of ARoyal (talk • contribs), who created this controversy (at least so far as this article is concerned):

1. ARoyal's first edit with this account on 1 July adding a section to Human Rights Watch accusing them of "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Zionism". The sources cited include, for example, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, which appears to have as its specific mission the protesting and exposure of what it perceives to be a pro-Palestinian slant in the media, and Honest Reporting, a self-admitted pro-Israel organization, making the criticism at least as biased and POV as that which they purport to critique.
2. Second article edited on 7 July, removing accusation of "pro-Israel bias" from Honest Reporting (correctly, IMHO, because of the use of weasel words in the edited version.)
3. Numerous strong (but I won't say "heated") discussions from 7 to 10 July in Talk:Gilad_Shalit without editing the article itself; particular focus on countering Ashley Y (talk • contribs) who made the "pro-Zionist" edit referred to above (#2).
4. Third article edit on 8 July, and the last addition to an article made to date, the Criticism section here accusing Cockburn of anti-Semitism.

I note a few seeming facts from looking this over: this editor sems to have a single interest; s/he has a rather thorough working knowledge how to game the rules for someone who's been editing a mere 10 days; and s/he appears to have an agenda or an axe to grind, in one sense or the other. None of that makes any of ARoyal's edits unusable or revertable per se, yet at the same time I think it's prudent to note such a pattern when trying to come to a consensus on what constitutes WP:NPOV. It certainly appears to me that ARoyal has a POV that is, minimally, pro-Israel and anti-anti-Semitic; a noble POV perhaps, but not a neutral one. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 07:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your research. You shall, of course, be punished by the Wikipedia cabal for engaging in "original research". However, the rest of us who actually value independent, verifiable and, if not unbiased, at least having a clearly identifiable and up-front bias, scholarship, will thank you, as I do now. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 19:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I thank you as well. This is singular work, KGF0, and you are to be congratulated! ---Charles 03:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, at least I keep my OR on the Talk pages. ;-) Thanks for your kind words. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 08:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed misattributed quote

I have removed the following from the article:

Plaut has also written, "Cockburn has been repeatedly denounced as an anti-Semite by The New Republic and by a variety of other journals and columnists, including the Seattle Times, Declaration Foundation, Prof. Edward Alexander, LewRockwell.Com, LeftWatch, and Christian Action for Israel. Cockburn has openly given credence to reports that Jews spread anthrax in the US and that Israel was part of a conspiracy to topple the World Trade Center."[2]

The article cited is misattributed to Plaut; the original was posted on think-israel.org (about half-way down the page) where it clearly refers to Steven Plaut in the third person, having been written by Richard Lakisher instead. As such, this is an uncorroborated blog post and does not meet the standards of verifiability for reliable secondary sources. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 09:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proportions of Anti-Semitism to General Information

If you Google Cockburn you get 2,260,000 hits. If you Google "Cockburn" and "anti-Semite" you get 17,300 hits. "Cockburn" plus "anti-Semitic" gets 35,000 hits.

So allegations of anti-Semitism make up about 1/43 of Cockburn's internet fame, but about 1/2 of his Wikipedia article. Katsam 21:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee, you don't suppose it has anything to do with the fact that the owner of this site happens to be a Randian objectivist, do you? +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The easy solution to this issue is, um, write more.  ;-P --KGF0 ( T | C ) 10:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology Section

This used to be such a great article, and then slowly but surely, people started fucking it up. Even though the antisemitic entry pissed me off, I eventually accepted it because I think even Cockburn would abmit that it is charge that is frequently leveled against him. However, only a seriously deluded soul would think that Cockburn is a shill for scientology. I know whoever wrote this article is goin to say,"Hey, I put the word nuanced in there, so that proves I'm not just attacking Cockburn". Then why put this in the article other than to tar Cockburn's reputation by associating him with scientology. By no means can Cockburns opinion's in this matter be deemed controversial. I read Counterpunch a lot and I hardly ever hear him talk about being attacked for being a shill for scientology. There is no contoversy here accept in the mind of the person who added this entry. I deleted it because it's irrelevant and is by no means something that Cockburn spends a lot of time on. User:anonymous 10:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, speaking as a supporter of A.C., this section should stay in. It's a knotty problem that deserves examination. For one thing, I'm familiar with Tilman Hausherr (you can see his writing on alt.religion.scientology), who is a credible $cientology critic, not a kook. I'm not sure what to make of all this myself. It certainly raises important questions. (I sincerely hope A.C. is not a Co$ "shill"!) +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If your an A.C. supporter that's fine, but I've found that on wikipedia there's a childish phobia towards scientology that seems to trump everything else. I personally think the religion is a bunch of bullshit, but so are other religions. Just because Cockburn is critical of the pharmaceutical industry doesn't automatically make him a devotee of the religion. As I said before I don't think is a controversy. When the name Alexander Cockburn comes up I don't think the thought that comes into most people's minds is that great scientology defender. This to me is a prime example of what's wrong with wikipedia. In another post I called it a childish contrarianism. If often seems me that no matter which end of the political spectrum you fall on wikipedia there's this need to somehow defend established authority and present people with alternative viewpoints as dangerous kooks out destroy the world. I do think scientology is a crazy cult, but so are other major religions. Not everyone who's critical of our current over medicated culture is worshipper at the hands of L. Ron Hubbard. It just looks like and indirect attempt to make Cockburn look like a cultish kook and if you were a true A.C. fan as you say you are you'd think about putting up this citation. user:annonymous 14:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was intended to be part of a larger section that you hadn't completed yet. It's just that I saw that scientology line and and it sent me into a rage because it felt like a guilt by association smear job. Now with the new additions you've added it has context within the larger piece. I overeacted and I'm sorry. Please accept my apology. user:annonymous 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The criticism portion wasn't intended as some sort of anti-COS jeremiad, but rather part of a larger section devoted to opinions Cockburn holds that might be controversial, and which have received criticism from other sources.

I didn't attempt to portray him as some sort of mindless apologist for Scientology-or even a rabid Luddite who opposes pharmacology without exception-but simply raised the issue within the broader context of controversial opinions he has espoused publicly.

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV to discredit criticism

I was the first one to introduce the anti-Semitic criticism section of this article. When I came back, to my dismay it would seem that the Cockburn groupies that monitor this have infused it with POV terms and words in an attempt to discredit the criticism. Here are some examples:

Alexander Cockburn has been accused of publishing anti-Semitic material by conservative and/or pro-Israel media analysts, academics, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other journalists.

This was the first statement from the criticism section. Someone has inserted the qualifiers "conservative" and "pro-Israel" in an attempt to discredit the criticism as legitimate. The fact is that accusing them of being conservative is relative to your own political stance, and thus POV, whereas "pro-Israel" isn't even factually true by any account. The Jewish Political Studies Review, for example, is neither pro-Israel nor conservative. Its an academic peer-reviewed journal. I would accept that NGO Monitor is pro-Israel and that FrontPage is neo-conservative, however to insert those terms into the introductory paragraph would infer that every following group is one or the other. Its misleading and POV. Times Watch I would argue does not demonstrate a conservative political bias in its analysis of Cockburn's anti-Semitism.

Here are a few more examples of blatently POV insertions that attempt to distort and discredit the criticism. These come in the form of inserted rebuttals in the criticism section. The POV insertions will be put in bold:

The Jewish Political Studies Review published an article by Jerome A. Chanes that stated Cockburn was "an intractable foe of Jewish interests." However, he does also go on to say that "to tar all critics of Israel with the brush of antisemitism is unfair, so the argument goes, and may be counterproductive in that it is the first principle of community relations that counteraction of an activity should be premised on the motivating factor of that activity." [11] Still later, Chanes draws a distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, following Gavin Langmuir,[12] and Cockburn is assuredly an outspoken anti-Zionist.

What this has done is attempt to make the article's statement that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic apply to Cockburn. However, Jerome Chanes clearly accused Cockburn of anti-Semitism. Likewise, Jerome Chanes also noted in the article that anti-Semitism can be disguised as anti-Zionism and accused Cockburn of doing just that. Nor did he "follow" Gavin Langmuir. Gavin Langmuir occurs nowhere in Chanes' work nor do his claims follow from Chanes' work. The addition here has attempted to make it appear that Cockburn's criticism of Zionism and Israel is not anti-Semitic when the Jerome Chanes article clearly stated that Cockburn was a prime example of what Chanes asserted was the "new antisemitism." Turning an article critical of Cockburn into a pseudo-defense is silly and misleading. Its wrong, and its POV.

Yet another example of POV insertions. I'm taking the time to go over most of these and list them because I intend to edit them out:

In 2005, David Horowitz's neo-conservative publication FrontPageMag printed an article by editorialist Steven Plaut, titled "Counterpunch’s Self-Hating Jews." Ostensibly about anti-Zionist communist CounterPunch writer Gilad Atzmon, the article compared Cockburn with the widely-reviled author David Irving in passing: "It is always of interest to see Alexander Cockburn and David Irving, who has actually been convicted of Holocaust denial in a[n Austrian] court of law, sharing the same affections."

The insertion of "anti-Zionist communist" is an attempt to make it appear that this is some battle between critics of Cockburn and critics of Zionism. "Anti-Zionist" doesn't describe Gilad Atzmon in any better or relevent way for this article. The statement "in passing" is an attempt to distance Cockburn from the criticism, as if it were only an off-the-wall remark. The fact is, it wasn't "in passing." The insertion of "[n Austrian]" is an attempt to discredit David Irving's criminal history and conviction in court, as if an Austrian justice system was somehow notable and needed to be specified. If it were an American court of law or a British one, would we have to put that in to specify? Would we turn "A court of law" into "A[n American] court of law?" What is interesting about this is that the editor attempted to defend not only Cockburn's anti-Semitism, but David Irving's criminal history of Holocaust denial. But I digress, the issue at hand is that it is POV.

Another example:

Clay Waters, Director of the conservative online publication Times Watch, itself a project of the Media Research Center (crusaders against liberal media bias), made similar accusations in an article attacking New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.

I explained above the problem with labeling Times Watch a conservative group. However, the term "crusaders" and in fact the whole statement is POV. Again, it attempts to depict it as a conflict between right-wingers and Cockburn's left, attempting to make the reader believe that there is some inherent right-wing bias in the criticism. It would be as if I went back through the article and inserted "liberal" in front of organizations or groups that are liberal. Example:

Before

Since leaving the Voice he has also written columns for the Wall Street Journal, New York Press and the New Statesman.

After

Since leaving the neo-liberal magazine Voice he has also written columns for the left-wing magazines the Wall Street Journal, the New York Press and the New Statesman.

I hope you get my point now. I am going to remove these POV attempts to discredit critics based on pro-Israelism or conservativism. I'll also do everyone a favor by not going back and inserting things such as 'far-left' in front of far-left publications, like CounterPunch. --ARoyal 12:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: POV to discredit criticism

Henry Kissinger used to say of his years spent in academia that "the battles are so fierce because the stakes are so puny". So I'd have to say, ARoyal, that your energetic hairsplitting is indeed impressive. But for all your rhapsodizing about objectivity, it's plan to see in the edit history that you were the one who excised the only passage in the section in which Cockburn defends himself against charges of anti-Semitism in his own words. So if you are really adhering to WikiPedia's ethos of balance and neutrality, it would seem that you have a lot to explain in regards to why you suppressed the accused's response to these allegations. The quotation was verbatim and precisely referenced so I'll presume that your removing it had nothing to do with scholarship.

This passage has now been restored. In future please avoid excision without explanation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.63.147.69 (talk • contribs) .

Actually I did explain it above. A response to criticism doesn't belong in the criticism section. It belongs in its own section, the title "response to criticism" would be good. To insrt it along with the criticism is a tactic used to discredit the criticism, as it undermines it. Cockcburn's responses to his critics are fine, but they belong under their own heading and not under the criticism section.

If you'd like to go back and restore it, do it under the heading of "response to criticism" or something. It doesn't belong in the section it is currently in, however. --ARoyal 06:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to Criticism

As per above, I went ahead and moved the offending material into an appropriate section. --ARoyal 06:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing paragraph

I've removed a mis cited paragraph. The quote is actually merely a posted follow-up to the article by some registered user of the site, and is not WP:RS. -- Kendrick7 04:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More POV Edits

Now I just covered this, so I'm not sure why people are doing it again. Let's review:

Changing the following:

Alexander Cockburn has been accused of publishing anti-Semitic material by media analysts, academics, and other journalists. To the following: Alexander Cockburn has been accused of publishing anti-Semitic material by media analysts, academics, and other journalists. In his essay My Life as an Anti-Semite, from his co-authored book The Politics of Anti-Semitism, he defined his own form of anti-Semitism as "to have written an item that pisses off someone at The New Republic."

Is a violation of wiki standards for POV. This is because it is an attempt to discredit criticism of anti-Semitism by inserting Cockburn's response in the criticism section. It's a form of negation, an attempt to rebuff criticism of Cockburn by asserting that he is the victim of New Republic junkies. It's the use of what wikipedia calls "weasel words." Cockburn's responses can go in the responses to criticism section, but not in the actual criticism section.

Likewise:

In 2005, David Horowitz's publication FrontPageMag printed an article by editorialist Steven Plaut, titled "Counterpunch’s Self-Hating Jews." The article compared Cockburn with the widely-reviled author David Irving, because they had a friend in common: "It is always of interest to see Alexander Cockburn and David Irving, who has actually been convicted of Holocaust denial in a court of law, sharing the same affections."

No, the article doesn't say "because they had a friend in common." It gives criticism of Cockburn's anti-Semitism, not his friendship. Again, the use of weasel words, as well as what wikipedia calls "original research." You're giving your personal opinion on the criticism rather than external, verifiable claims about the article.

Clay Waters, Director of the online publication Times Watch, made similar accusations in an article[11] quoting at length from an article by Cockburn. Cockburn's article[12] discussed the furor over recently released tape recorded conversations between the Reverend Billy Graham and President Richard Nixon. He contrasted the response to their agreement that genocide would be an acceptable resolution to the Vietnam War, which gained little press coverage, with their subsequent anti-Semitic remarks, which caused a media firestorm. Comtemporary headlines lambasted Graham for claiming Jews had a "stranglehold" on the media which Nixon might someday end were he to win re-election.[13][14][15] Cockburn expressed his concern at what he felt to be misplaced media outrage, writing: "Don’t they [the press] know that this sort of stuff is consonant with the standard conversational bill of fare at 75 percent of the country clubs in America... ?" Without any context, Clay Waters partially quoted the end of the article:

The entire new introductory sentences, plus the use of weasel phrase "Without any context" renders the new edits POV. Again, it's an attempt to discredit criticism by inserting Cockburn's response. A form of negation. If you'd like to write Cockburn's defense, put it in the appropriate section.

I'll be reverting all of these POV edits.

On a final note, I was the one that wrote in full and introduced the "Allegations of anti-Semitism" section. At that point, it was at least twice as long. And although it strictly adhered to Wikipedia rules and standards, people complained that the length of it unbalanced the article. So I cut it in half so it was a suitable length. It went quite some time without major edits as we see now.

Now, if the Cockburn groupies don't want to cooperate (like I did) by simply maintaing the criticism section without inserting pro-liberal, pro-Cockburn POV edits then I see no reason why I shouldn't go back and insert the full, original version of Cockburn's anti-Semitic criticism. When the Cockburn moonbats are willing to police their own and make sure the criticism section is up to par, I'll be willing to compromise like I did before. --ARoyal 04:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

1. How is Cockburn's self-accusation, if not confession, of his own anti-Semitism not relevant to to a section about accusations of his anti-semitism? If it was perhaps in the wrong section, you should have moved it, not deleted it.

2. Plaut's entire article, which I read, seemed to be about a Jewish writer for Counterpunch, which Cockburn edits, and perhaps I could have been more precise. The way it is written after your revert, there is no indication that the object of affection is in fact this writer. I'll have to study what the article says again.

3 Regarding the Water's article quoting Cockburn, I was merely providing context. Nothing there has anything to do with Cockburn himself. That that quote was taken "without context" is a statement of fact anyone can see by reading the Water's article themselves.

4 I never heard of Cockburn until I got into a minor editorial disagreement with User:Isarig over a source I used to bang out this stub, which had spilled over from some of our earlier discussions about WP:RS Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Failure to provide NPOV, sourced context has nothing to do with allowing critism to be displayed. I am reverting your reversions on points 2 and 3. -- Kendrick7 05:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

1. He isn't confessing to be an anti-Semite. He's giving a cynical definition of 'anti-Semite' in the context of his claim that he is accused of being an anti-Semite for unpopular criticism of Israel.

2. The "object of affection" doesn't change the fact of what Plaut said. It doesn't have to be an article about Cockburn for Plaut to have criticism of Cockburn in it.

3. No, you weren't providing context. You were asserting, by your own personal analysis, that it was "without context." That is against wiki criteria, it's called original research.

4. Allowing responses to criticism to be displayed in the criticism section violates NPOV rules. As I pointed out above, this is because it is a negation. Responses to criticism belong in the responses section, not in the actual criticism section. --ARoyal 05:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Some further comments on Plaut's article. It has criticism of Cockburn all throughout, denoucning him as an anti-Semite. It doesn't compare with David Irving on the basis of them both being fan's of Gilad Atzmon's second-rate jazz music, but compares them by the fact that Irving and Cockburn both rely upon Atzmon's Holocaust denial in their work. The way it reads makes it sound like the only thing the two have in common is the fact that they listen to Atzmon jazz instead of the fact they both use Atzmon as a Holocaust-denying research source.

As far as the statement that Cockburn wasn't the "object of affection," which is in itself a red herring, Cockburn's name occurs nine times in the article.--ARoyal 05:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but I don't see how liking a Jazz album that the BBC called best of 2003 makes Cockburn an anti-Semite. It's really not my fault if Plaut has built himself a house of cards; that's the only connection I saw Plaut make between the two men in his article. Everything else is guilt by association. I'll read it again though. I did replace "without context" with the mere fact the Waters never mentions Nixon or Graham. -- Kendrick7 06:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets go over the Steven Plaut statement. Kendrick7, your edit reads as follows

In a 2005 article titled, "Counterpunch’s Self-Hating Jews" Steven Plaut compared Alexander Cockburn with convicted Holocaust denier David Irving; "It is always of interest to see Alexander Cockburn and David Irving, who has actually been convicted of Holocaust denial in a court of law, sharing the same affections" for jazz musician Gilad Atzmon.

However, the article does not state that they share the same affections for jazz musician Gilad Atzmon. Likewise, the insertion of the term "jazz musician" is violates Wiki policy for [weasel words]. This is because it doesn't add to the information, and attempts to make it seem as if jazz music is their common point. Yet, it says nothing about his jazz music in the article. Rather, it is referring to Atzmon's rabid anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. The article actually says this

Greenstein has publicly declared that Atzmon is an open anti-Semite, that Atzmon is associated with open anti-Semites, and a Holocaust Denier or, at the very least, an apologist for them. In any case, the open Holocaust Deniers themselves proudly proclaim Atzmon to be one of their own. David Irving just loves Atzmon. It is always of interest to see Alexander Cockburn and David Irving, who has actually been convicted of Holocaust denial in a court of law, sharing the same affections.

I would suggest going and reading the wiki policy on [weasel words]. Your attempt to stress Atzmon's jazz music as the common factor between Irving and Cockburn violates that policy, as well as failing to add relevent content. --ARoyal 06:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I did miss that Atzmon has written for the magazine. Plaut's case still seems to be rather tenuous. Of course anti-Semites love anti-Zionists. That doesn't make all anti-Zionists anti-Semites. I'll remove the weasel words. -- Kendrick7 06:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The following comes from WP:LIVING:

1. The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.

2. Reliable sources: Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers which print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip ask yourself consider if the information is true and if it is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?

3. The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.

Wikipedia:Criticism says the following:

1. In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet (see quotes in See also section below).

Reasons to create a separate "Criticism" section include using a source which only criticizes the topic or only describes criticisms of it. Also, not having the time or knowledge to integrate criticism into the other sections of the article might be a reason to create a separate "Criticism" section. In that case, however, the separate "Criticism" section might be only a temporary solution until someone integrates the criticism (in the mean while the "separate" section might be tagged {POV-section} or similar).

2. Criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow. For example a section entitled "Early success" should not contain one paragraph describing the success of the topic and three paragraphs qualifying or denying that success. This is often why separate criticism sections are created.

My take: There is some relevant criticism, but it should probably be re-evaluated to ensure that it is not "advocacy journalism", "gossip", or "positive or negative claims that rely on association". Further, the criticism section seems to be functioning as a 'troll magnet', creating argument rather than progress on the article. The criticism section should be filtered, possibly tagged, and ideally worked in to the rest of the article. I will reiterate that a fair amount of the criticisms deserve representative acknowledgement in the article. We just need to work to ensure that the criticism doesn’t amount to advocacy journalism, that it is representative of opinion outside Wikipedia, and that it is spread relevantly throughout the article rather than isolated in one pole of controversy.

--YoYoDa1 06:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On that note, there is quite a bit we could edit in this Cockburn article that comes from "advocacy journalism." Cockburn's entire career has been writing for tabloids. I don't think spreading the criticism throughout the article is a good idea, however. I think that will cause more conflict than has already arisen with people attempting to water down the criticism. A section for criticism and a section for responses has always seemed to work well with controversial people. Perhaps some of the Cockburn groupies could put some time into the new responses section I made instead of trying to water down criticism as it stands. --ARoyal 06:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think that there is advocacy journalism inside of the main article, then it would be good for everyone if you worked to correct it. Leaving the criticism section on its own might also work since everyone apparently agrees that this is a controversial person. Association with a Holocaust denier for the sake of association with a Holocaust denier, and some of the sources (Left Watch, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jewish Indy) appear to have a bias. You can learn more about this at WP:Reliable_source. There is an especially high standard for including inflaming material on the biography of a living person.

I personally think it would be better for the reading public and critics themselves if the sources shied away from polemics and apologetics. This is the article of a 'controversial tabloid writer', but Wikipedia still has standards it must meet as an online encyclopedia.

--YoYoDa1 07:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

Wikipedia has a policy against what it calls original research. This includes things that are not verifiable. An example of original research is this

Also referring to the Billy Graham: War Criminal article, Journalist Suzanne Fields wrote in "The Multiple Faces of anti-Semitism", a 2002 article, "Alexander Cockburn, an American left-wing columnist, who publishes a newsletter 'Counterpunch,' writes about the nasty stories against Jews 'sloshing around the news.' He doesn't endorse these stories, but he doesn't shoot them down either. He's clever, all the while giving them a legitimacy more commonly found in the Arab press. One unsubstantiated story includes the slur that 'the purveyor of anthrax may have been a former government scientist, Jewish, with a record of baiting a colleague of Arab origins.' Another such story says that Israeli spies trailing Mohammed Atta knew September 11 was going to happen 'but did nothing about it.'"[5]

The article does not explicitly refer to the "Billy Graham: War Criminal" article. This was a conclusion drawn by a wiki editor, and violates wiki standards of original research. Unless you can cite a source that explicitly states that it is a reference to the article about Billy Graham, it must go.

Another example of original research by Kendrick7 is as follows

According to Plaut's own link,[9] Counterpunch had written a brief blurb praising the BBC naming[10] Atzmon's CD Exile "Best Jazz CD" of 2003.

This violates wikipedia policys on original research because it attempts to draw the conclusion that Cockburn's criticism for Atzmon was based on Counterpunch praising it. The Plaut article does not state that. It is something that can't be verified and is simply being implied by Kendrick7.

Further examples of weasel words and original research

Clay Waters, Director of the online publication Times Watch, made similar accusations in an article[12] quoting at length from an article by Cockburn. Cockburn's article[13] discussed the furor over recently released tape recorded conversations between the Reverend Billy Graham and President Richard Nixon. He contrasted the response to their agreement that genocide would be an acceptable resolution to the Vietnam War, which gained little press coverage, with their subsequent anti-Semitic remarks, which caused a media firestorm. Comtemporary headlines lambasted Graham for claiming Jews had a "stranglehold" on the media which Nixon might someday end were he to win re-election.[14][15][16] Cockburn expressed his concern at what he felt to be misplaced media outrage, writing: "Don’t they [the press] know that this sort of stuff is consonant with the standard conversational bill of fare at 75 percent of the country clubs in America... ?" Without mentioning Nixon or Graham, Clay Waters Waters accused Cockburn of "spread[ing] anti-Semitic conspiracy theories" and partially quoted the end of Cockburn's article:

To begin, the statement "without mentioning Nixom or Graham" is the use of weasel words. It's an attempt to water down criticism by implying a bias against Cockburn. It may belong in the response to criticism section, but not here.

The larger bold part is an example of original research. The Times Watch article makes no explicit mention of the conclusions drawn here - rather, the conclusions are the personal research and opinion of Kendrick7. --ARoyal 06:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not OR. Notice the citations? -- Kendrick7 07:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I already admitted to my error regarding Plaut's article above, and fixed that edit. Sorry for the mistake. -- Kendrick7 07:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You gave citations to the article. They aren't citations that verify claims you make, however. You're drawing conclusions based on an amalgaim of articles, which is original research. Every time you asserted that one article was referring back to the Billy Graham article was original research. None of them stated that.

The statement "but he didn't comment on Nixon, etc." is a weasel word issue, too. --ARoyal 07:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any reasonable person having read the Cockburn article and the quotes Suzanne Fields makes would consider the statement that she was quoting that article, verbatim, Original Research. Since I provide a link to the Cockburn article, it's completely verifyable that that is the case.

I don't understand in what way I am "drawing conclusions from" the articles. If you don't agree with the synopsis of Cockburn's article, present a countervaling edit. -- Kendrick7 07:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw, the link to the Brian Carnell article is now working again. It seems perfectly clear that by refering to an article that Cockburn wrote involving Nixon and Billy Graham which trails off with a listing of anti-Semitic press reports what article he is referring to. I hope that will refresh you memory; I'll clean up the ref tag. -- Kendrick7 07:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually they make more sense now under the new heading, I'm okay with them they way they are. Good work. --ARoyal 07:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I did end up changing the summary of the Cockburn article, my version was a little over the top. The concern that Cockburn may have been sneakily using the Graham issue to present an anti-Semitic rant is more or less presented fairly, even in context. I have appreciated your feedback. -- Kendrick7 07:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)