Talk:Alexander Cockburn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"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. —Preceding unsigned comment added [1] by Joomba 21:37, 15 November 2005

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)

It's one of those peculiar English spellings. Cockburn's is, incidentally, the name of a well-known brand of port. They used to run a TV ad with an actor playing a crusty old British military gent, who was supposed to be irritated about the constant mispronunciation of the brand of his preferred port; his parting line was "One doesn't say 'Cock' - one says 'Coe'!" This formed the basis of a whole series of ads, like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JEgJjz3Oz4 79.76.188.150 (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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?

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)

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)

That doesn't make him Irish-born; merely brought up in Ireland or with Irish roots. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [2] 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)

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)

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)

Allegations of antisemitism 1

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.

I have reduced the size and unneeded complexity of this section.Haberstr (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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."[3]

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)

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)

No, the solution is to edit down that section, those sections, which anyone is free to do.Haberstr (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Having just walked in on this, I just want to say that ARoyal's conception of a criticism section strikes me as utterly bizarre. Why on earth would you have a criticism section that isn't allowed to address rebutals? An encyclopedia /explains/ events and controversies and criticisms, it doesn't simply present them in a list. This explanation is then supposed to present /all/ notable view points. This means that when you present a criticism, you present the other side. You don't present a whole list of them as if there is no response, and then put the responses down at the bottom where they may not even be found. In addition to being biased and misleading, this is profoundly unhelpful to the reader.

The criticism section here clearly needs an overhaul to include responses, and clearly needs to be converted into a NPOV style. The fact that you put "criticism" as a label doesn't mean it stops being an encyclopedia. It should then /also/ have a response section to the criticism, in which Cockburn gets to counterattack, including any notable responses to that. I would work on it, but I have other things to do at the moment. Mackan79 19:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Environment

I am finding Cockburn harder to pin down all the time. Considering the fact that he co-edits CounterPunch with Jeffery St. Clair (who writes extensively on the environment) I assumed Cockburn had similar opinions. But I have read pieces by Cockburn where he expresses scepticism about human contribution to global warming (saying it is a regular trend) and says he doesn't believe in peak oil (the idea that oil will run out). Is Cockburn just joking, (it's hard to tell what he really means sometimes) or is he serious? I just read a column by Cockburn saying that he enjoyed "Happy Feet" which is seen by many as being subversively pro-environment. I'm confused. Rlh 1984 06:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

He mentioned something similar in the C-Span interview. I was surprised, too. A caller mentioned Gore, and Cockburn said he wasn't a fan of Gore OR Gore's movie. He thinks the world is simply getting warmer on it's own, and that it's not anyone's fault and there's nothing we can do about it. I agree--quite a surprising view coming from a non-corporate exec. M. Frederick 18:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Iraq Controversy

What exactly is controversial about Cockburns views on U.S./British policy on Iraq? Isnt it just his point of view? If anything his opinions are shared by most of the worlds public opinion(view international opinion polls)and its the US/UK policy thats controversial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.214.200 (talk • contribs). (comment added 16 February 2007)

since no one has bothered to explain their position why Cockburns stance is controversial in the 6 months that the above comment has been here ive deleted the reference. just because you dont agree with him does not make his views controversial. Not NPOV. -iv aprill 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.214.200 (talk • contribs)

What I see here is a poorly-worded, atrociously-written, opinion stating that the writer (whomever he or she may be) does not think that Cockburn's opinion on Iraq is controversial. Fine. I happen to agree. But, what, in the final analysis, does that mean? Absolutely nothing. This is an encyclopedia, which means that facts must be stated, sources must be cited, and opinions supported. The two comments above hardly amount to a discussion, and certainly do not justify the removal of that section of the article---which is, I should mention, actually supported by references. In the context of the Anglo-American intelligentsia, Cockburn's opinions on Iraq and the sanctions regime were very controversial. If you have sources that indicate that this opinion was in keeping with worldwide opinion, then please add said information to the article. But, do not, based only on this exchange, delete that section again. ---Charles 00:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Cockburn in his own words

answering some of the questions above, three hour C-SPAN, InDepth interview, April 1, 2007 http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segid=7879&schedID=482 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.215.75.17 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Other controversial opinions

• "This stance has led some critics to accuse him of being a shill for the Church of Scientology."

On 4 April I fact-tagged this claim and removed the citation link to a non-WP:RS website source per WP:BLP. Unless someone can come up with credible critics who made this allegation in print, I'm going to remove this weasel-worded passage ("some critics") after a decent interval. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The decent interval has elapsed without "some critics" being named. --Rrburke^(talk) 00:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

His Daughter

Apparently Cockburn has a daughter according to his C-Span interview. I was shocked to find this out. She apparently lives in London and is some sorta physical therapist. Does anybody know anynmore about this or where you could find links to verify it.annoynmous 17:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, pardon me, what does this has to do with this article? If the man says he has daughter, I would think that is a good enough source. What "more" could there be to know really?--Sus scrofa 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And why are you "shocked"? Think folks like him are incapable of breeding, or shouldn't be allowed to? And besides, who the hell cares about that bit o'trivia? This isn't supposed to be a celebrity fanzine. Get serious. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For Christ sake! I wasn't saying it to slam the guy. I was just suprised because in everything I've read about him there was no indication that he had any children. I only brought it up because it isn't mentioned in this article. I wasn't saying it out of some cheap tabloid mentality, it was just something I was suprised to learn.

Why do I get attacked like I just accused the man of murder? I happen to admire the man and think he's one of the best political writers around. I only brought it up because it isn't in the article and I think it qualifies as relevant personal information. I wasn't trying to make a big deal out of it, I just wanted to know if anybody else knew anything else about her in more detail apart from the interview.

Why the overly hostile response. annoynmous 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there isn't much more to say about his daughter (unless she did something "wikiworthy" in her own right) other than basic information like her name & age. For which the C-Span interview is a perfectly good source, I would think.--Sus scrofa 22:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I wasn't trying to make a big deal out of it. I guess I was just suprised that no one apparently new this until Cockburn gave the interview.

I guess I was also wondering who the mother might be, since from what I can tell Cockburn was never married. He didn't mention it in the interview.

Whatever, I Tivoed the interview, I'll just watch it again and try and add the information as accurately as posssible.annoynmous 02:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotation mark discussion

The article says:

'...but he was suspended "for accepting a $10,000 grant from an Arab studies organization in 1982."'

I tried to remove the quotation marks a couple of times, only to have them put back. My main thing is that I think that is not the best style of writing. It makes it look like that is not the real reason he was suspended. I don't see what is wrong with taking of the quotation marks and saying that that is the reason the paper gave for suspending him. The quotation is from their own story. I also don't think there is any problem with copyright on a simple statement of fact. I'm going to try a compromise change and see if that works for everyone. Thanks. Steve Dufour 00:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not all quote marks are used to delineate scare quotes. The sentence in question is a direct quote as the reader can tell from the reference note. Also, as far as I know, scare quotes never encompass entire sentences. There's nothing wrong with the text as it is now, but if the quotation marks are a problem the quote could easily be rewritten so it doesn't plagarize the source. It's my understanding that word-for-word copying from a text is still plagarism (if minor), and I don't see how "a simple statement of fact" enters into it.--Sus scrofa 01:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I did some studying on the question for my wife, who is an artist. A statement of fact like that is not protected by copyright laws. Anyway, it was a minor point. I did't think the quote was intended as a scare quote. Steve Dufour 02:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of antisemitism 2

There are several problems with this section. One is the obvious: WP:BLP. Kinda surprising no one's brought that up. Another is WP:UNDUE. The section is too large, consisting of three little wrinkled raisins soaked in warm bathwater til they're bloated enough to fill up a custom-made display case. Sorry, guys, but this stuff should be concentrated into its essence or removed altogether. As a consolation, we could create a WP:LIST of People Alan Dershowitz and Steven Plaut have described as "antisemites", and link to there from Character assassination. The third thing – you guessed it – is WP:NPOV. He has written about antisemitism, and has edited a volume of essays on it by a range of writers, some scholarly, some popular. This section could be retitled "Views of Antisemitism," and we can build a little peanut gallery into it for hecklers. But the way this is now – you gotta be kidding me.--G-Dett 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this section to the talk page. It will need to be drastically overhauled, obviously, before it can go back in.

Allegations of anti-Semitism

Cockburn has been accused by some of anti-Semitism, although he strongly denies these allegations, calling them a means to cover up Israel's bad behavior.

One of these charges has come from Alan Dershowitz, a long-time nemesis of Cockburn. In November of 2005, Dershowitz wrote a letter to the National Catholic Reporter calling Cockburn's Counterpunch.org web site "anti-Semitic,"[11] in response to a review of Norman Finkelstein's book Beyond Chutzpah by Counterpunch contributor Neve Gordon. Cockburn had previously accused Dershowitz of various charges including plagiarism in 2003,[12] and of supporting torture in an exchange one month prior to Dershowitz' accusation.[13] Both Cockburn and Dershowitz have denied their respective charges.

Another accusation has come from Steven Plaut, a subject of his own controversy, and who was recently found liable in an Israeli court for charges of defamation arising from similar accusations against Cockburn's colleague Neve Brown.[14] In a 2005 article titled, "Counterpunch’s Self-Hating Jews" Plaut compared Cockburn with David Irving, a convicted Holocaust denier, for having praised Israeli musician and Counterpunch contributor Gilad Atzmon[15] whom Plaut also calls anti-Semitic. Plaut went on to suggest that Atzmon and Cockburn would like to destroy Israel,[16] in addition to various other accusations.

In a letter to the publisher of The Boston Globe regarding "Problems with your editorial page" on March 11, 2004, Eric Alterman, a liberal journalist for MSNBC and The Nation, raised several issues. Among them, Alterman wrote:

So too, are my credentials as a long-time and quite vocal critic of anti-Semitism and its relationship to the discourse on Israel, beginning, as I have noted, with an article I published on the topic in The Boston Globe when I was the paper’s stringer at Yale approximately twenty years ago, and including frequent criticism of my own employer, The Nation, for publishing a writer I believe to be genuinely anti-Semitic, namely Alexander Cockburn. (How many journalists do you know sir, who have gone on the public record attacking their own employers for promoting anti-Semitism? ...[17] Controversy over Cockburn's Billy Graham article

In 2002, Cockburn published an article in Counterpunch,[18] reprinted elsewhere,[19] discussing the furor over recently released tape recorded conversations between the Reverend Billy Graham and President Richard Nixon. Cockburn contrasted the response to revelations in 1989 that Graham had "put his imprimatur" on the idea of destroying Vietnam's irrigation infrastructure, potentially killing a million civilians, as an acceptable resolution to the Vietnam War, which had gained, in Cockburn's view, little press coverage, with the taped anti-Semitic remarks, which caused a media firestorm.[20][21][22] Taking issue with what he argued was the media's selective shock, Cockburn wrote: "Don’t they know that this sort of stuff is consonant with the standard conversational bill of fare at 75 percent of the country clubs in America... ? But they didn't say they wanted to kill a million Jews. That's what Graham said about the Vietnamese and no one raised a bleat."

Following publication, Cockburn was accused of spreading anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, based on the summation of the article:[23][24]

"It's supposedly the third rail in journalism even to have a discussion of how much the Jews do control the media.… Certainly, there are a number of stories sloshing around the news now that have raised discussions of Israel and of the posture of American Jews to an acrid level. The purveyor of anthrax may have been a former government scientist, Jewish, with a record of baiting a colleague of Arab origins, and with the intent to blame the anthrax on Muslim terrorists. Rocketing around the web and spilling into the press are many stories about Israeli spies in America at the time of 9/11. On various accounts, they were trailing (Mohammed) Atta and his associates, knew what was going to happen but did nothing about it, or were simply spying on US facilities."

One of these criticisms came from Franklin Foer of the New Republic, which first noted Cockburn's response:

To be fair, Cockburn doesn't exactly endorse these theories. Rather, by noting that all of these Jewish conspiracy stories are "sloshing around the news," Cockburn seems merely to be pointing out that, hey, anti-Semitic ideas are still out there today--so why the shock that Graham endorsed them 30 years ago? Indeed, when I reached Cockburn to ask him about these conspiracies, he insisted he was just reporting what was already in circulation. "I don't think I said they are true. I don't know there's enough exterior evidence to determine whether they are true or not."

Foer stated that this last statement was a "giveaway," however, alleging that each of the stories mentioned by Cockburn had been discredited, and had not been reported in any prominent media outlet. Responses to Criticism

In his ironically entitled essay My Life as an "Anti-Semite", from his co-authored book The Politics of Anti-Semitism, Cockburn wrote that "these days it's clear evidence of anti-Semitism to have written an item that pisses off someone at The New Republic."[25]

Cockburn also wrote in the essay that:

Over the past 20 years I've learned there's a quick way of figuring out just how badly Israel is behaving. You see a brisk uptick in the number of articles here accusing the left of anti-Semitism. ... Back in the 1970s when muteness on the topic of how Israel was treating Palestinians was near-total in the United States, I'd get the anti-Semite slur hurled at me once in a while for writing about such no-no stuff as Begin's fascist roots in Betar, or the torture of Palestinians by Israel's security forces. I minded then, as I mind now, but overuse has drained the term of much clout. The other day I even got accused of anti-Semitism for mentioning that the Jews founded Hollywood, which they most certainly did, as Neil Gabler recently recounted in a very funny, pro-Semitic book.[26]

--G-Dett 03:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Just a couple sentences (not even) for each person and yet it is undue? G-Dett, no false cries of BLP vios, you have either seriously misunderstood the policy or are exploiting it. --Shamir1 07:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the older version approached fairness. Regarding the Alterman quote, though, the BLP violation is quite clear; you can't simply paste that kind of accusation. Mackan79 13:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with G-Dett, and have always felt that this section was entirely too overblown. The accusations that have been made are paltry and have no factual basis. Cockburn vigorously defended himself against these insinuations and attacks when he was on C-Span2 some time back (I believe a link to this interview is still included in the article) and his denials should have at least as much weight as the accusations against him. ---Cathal 16:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So because Cockburn defended himself from the allegation it now means that the allegation does not exist? Please make sure you are familiar with WP policies, not personal opinion. Each allegation seems to have less weight anyway. --Shamir1 05:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Shamir, here's the relevant part of WP:BLP:

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception.

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that 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 if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject.

This would automatically rule out the FrontPageMagazine material, even if the author of the article in question wasn't a convicted libeler. Then there is WP:NPOV generally and WP:UNDUE in particular. This is an article on Alexander Cockburn, not an article about what this or that person once said about Cockburn in this or that context. The sections should be driven by his work, his positions, etc., and then relevant criticism can be incorporated into those sections. So we can have sections on his criticism of Israel, his take on the misuse of "antisemite" as a political epithet, his allegations of plagiarism by Dershowitz, etc., and then incorporate Dershowitz's counterattack there. I'm sorry if you've grown attached to the Plaut garbage, because it won't be staying. And bear in mind Shamir that the 3-revert rule does not apply to violations of WP:BLP.--G-Dett 20:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, you cannot go around crying violations of policy while not even quoting which part of the policy it violates. Does Howard Dean's calling the Republican Party "a white Christian party" constitute a violation of BLP? Is Ken Mehlman's criticism of it? Does it violate BLP to note the speculation that Mehlman is gay? No, it doesn't. The section is not saying "Alexander Cockburn is antisemitic" that section says that "XXX says that Alexander Cockburn is antisemitic because of..." or "XXX says that Alexander Cockburn's article was antisemitic because..." There is a world of difference between the two. Each argument is pretty darn concise despite the fact that such serious allegations should be accompanied with an explanation. It is stating the opinion of these people, it is not gathering information from those news sources as you suggest with the WP policy you cite above. (And FrontPageMag.com is hardly different in treatment than Counterpunch.)

Bottom line: stop citing the wrong Wikipedia policies. The ones you cite have nothing to do with an editorial by Plaut, which all we have to do is quote. --Shamir1 05:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't appear to have understood the problem with FrontPageMag and BLP. You compare FPM to Counterpunch. So did I. According to an article in Counterpunch, "Dershowitz is a vicious apologist not just for Israeli occupation but for Israeli atrocities." Do we create a section in the Dershowitz article for "Accusations of Vicious Apologetics for Atrocities"? No, we don't. Per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. Same deal as here.

Here's the broader issue, Shamir1. Take any hot-button issue you like; there are specific predictable accusations that attend it. In the case of Israel-Palestine, it's antisemitism on one side and apologetics for oppression on the other. There is no pundit or scholar who has published strong criticism of Israeli policies who hasn't at one time or another been accused of antisemitism. That's not a rhetorical exaggeration. Let's try to list them: Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Tony Judt, Jimmy Carter, Robert Fisk, Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer, Alexander Cockburn, Juan Cole, George Soros. Every last one of them has been prominently called an antisemite (and most of them have been called an antisemite by Alan Dershowitz). Feel free to add to this list; it's off the top of my head.

Just as every pundit or scholar who supported the war in Iraq has been called a "warmongerer" or neo-con or any number of other things. Now, do we create sections in the articles on Michael Ignatieff or Christopher Hitchens for "Accusations of Warmongering"? No, Shamir1, we don't. But we could create a section for Ignatieff's positions on Iraq (he has since rued his early support) or the shift in Hitchens' position on liberal-interventionism post 9-11 (and the fallout with former Nation cohorts), and in the context of those sections we can certainly mention the strong criticism each received for their positions. It probably wouldn't be ideal to quote someone calling them "warmongerers," but if both the accuser and the accusation were prominent, then yeah maybe we could do that. Same deal as here. Let's cover and summarize Cockburn's positions on Israel-Palestine and on antisemitism, then within those sections cover and summarize the criticism he's received for it, per WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. I hope this is clearer this time.--G-Dett 00:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is C-Span a source?

In the Book TV interview, Cockburn himself addresses several of the key points being contested here. The author indicates that: (a) critics find his views on Iraq controversial, (b) critics have accused him of anti-semitism, and (c) critics have associated him with scientology. Often he mentions his critics by name, or he notes the periodicals in which they've critiqued him. Perhaps this C-span program is the starting for those who know the Wikipedia rules and don't want their legitimate contributions to be deleted. M. Frederick 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, C-Span is a source. Allegations of antisemitism at any rate certainly have a place in the article, for two good reasons: 1) Cockburn is a strong critic of Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories, and accusations of antisemitism are a regular feature of that general debate (with or without Cockburn); and 2) Cockburn has written specifically about the use of "antisemite" as a political epithet, so the accusation in this context has special relevance. The issue here was only partly one of good sources and WP:BLP, a hurdle that a convicted libeller writing in FrontPageMagazine will never be able to clear. (If ironies console, neither would Cockburn writing in Counterpunch be likely to clear that hurdle, which is high for a reason.) The more important thing, once the junk is swept out, is to rewrite what remains so that it complies with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.--G-Dett 17:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and Re-Arrangement

Can people please expand his 'Career' instead of expanding on 'controversies'. The 'Other Controversial Opinions' should go before 'Allegation of Anti-Semitism' because they are his political opinions. And even though it may be true, can you stop using the words 'controversial' because controversial is a relative term and has a negative slant on it.

The only 'controversial' opinions I think are those on 'Global Warming' because they are contrary to a magnificent amount of evidence. His political opinions are not controversial because they can be justified rationally and with good reasoning. Uwaisis (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cockburn and Hitchens

I think this section is unnecessary if not trash. Just because a couple of pundits are swearing at each other doesn't make their fight worthy of an entire section or much at all. What Hitchens and Cockburn think of each other on a personal level is infinitesimally insignificant.Haberstr (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree; it's essentially a journalistic pissing match, not the first time nor the last. I propose it be boiled down to one or two sentences and put elsewhere in the article. (Worthy of mention, but only in passing.) +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. There should be some mention of it, but it hardly merits as much room as is currently devoted to it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest Haberstr and RepublicanJacobite propose a re-wording on this page. It may be that ILike2BeAnonymous prefers not to contribute, depending on who he is and whether he perceives a potential WP:COI. Even if he recognises there may be one, that would not of course wholly preclude him from commenting. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your basis for any presumption of a potential conflict-of-interest on the part of +ILike2BeAnonymous? I fail to understand what you are driving at. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what you said! I have no conflict of interest here: I'm a fan of AC's, but I don't have a dog in this fight. I think the section should be cut down to size and reduced in virulence, but I don't want to do it myself. So sue me. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I condensed it considerably, trying to keep the focus on three major substantive disputes. I'm not sure where I'd move it (suggestions appreciated), so I'll leave it where it is.Haberstr (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Incoherent Themes and Opinions section and its lead-in: "outside the U.S. mainstream?"

Under the bullet points in Themes and Opinions, we read this: "Aside from the perspectives described above, Cockburn has others outside the U.S. mainstream." The wording is ambiguous. It could intend to mean that the bullet points are within the U.S. mainstream, but that the following views are not, or it could intend to mean that in addition to the out-of-the-mainstream views in the bullet points, here are some more. But no matter how I try to understand this term "U.S. mainstream," neither the bullet points nor the views that follow are consistently in or out of it.

For instance, even if depressingly large numbers of Americans poll as believing one 9/11 conspiracy theory or another, "criticism of 9/11 conspiracy theories" isn't "outside the U.S. mainstream." On the contrary, the current administration just had to boot a cabinet member for seeming to agree with such theories. (Not for criticizing them.)

And what is this "U.S. mainstream" anyway? Is it general popular ideas by opinion poll, or the "respectable" opinion of the mass media? -- two streams that do not always coincide. The U.S. foreign policies that Cockburn has opposed usually have a general popularity by poll but have frequently been opposed, to at least some extent, by major outlets of the press. Can you really be far outside the U.S. mainstream on these issues if editorials of major newspapers frequently agree with you?

Should I conclude that the bullet points are supposed to be Cockburn's within-the mainstream views? But Naderism fails both the popular vote and respectable editorial test.

Then we come to the views after the bullet points, definitely asserted as "outside the U.S. mainstream." But are they all so? Is Cockburn is out the mainstream for criticizing German restrictions on Scientology? I dislike Scientology, many Americans do, but the restrictions Cockburn criticizes involve what would be unconstitutional rights violations in the U.S. It can't be outside the U.S. mainstream to assert core U.S. speech and religion values (oh, maybe if we were talking about the Nazis marching in Skokie, but until the U.S. public starts treating Cruise and Travolta like Nazis, I have to assume it doesn't put Scientologists that far outside the fold.)

And if the "mainstream" isn't restricted to the prominent press, but includes a broad swathe of public opinion, then Cockburn's opposition to AGW theory isn't outside the mainstream, either. Surely it is not controversial now, in December of 2009, to point out that U.S. public opinion on this matter is far from settled. The respectable press has opened its op-ed pages wider to skeptical views, too. Six months ago, I would not have quibbled over a description of AGW-skepticism as "outside the mainstream," but it seems like whistling past the graveyard now; rightly or wrongly, AGW has been called into question in the U.S., and the mainstream is occupied with debate, not a settled opinion.

This incoherent criterion about the mainstream makes for a disorganized and incoherent section. If the section is about Cockburn as a controversialist, for instance, then probably the single most controversial view listed -- the one it would be hardest to find many commentators agreeing with -- is the attack on Norman Borlaug. Yet that surprising view is almost buried near the end, just before gentle reflections on the pulchritude of Laura Bush and Tipper Gore.

In short, this section needs a different principle of organization, one not based on something as vague, subjective, and undefined as what is or is not "outside the U.S. mainstream."

Mandrakos (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Cockburn left New Left Review

After having a quarrel with Mike Davis over the latter's article in the 50th anniversary issue of NLR, Alexander Cockburn stepped down from the editorial board of the British Marxian quarterly. See, http://live.thenation.com/doc/20100322/wiener —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaykaramba (talk • contribs) 19:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cockburn's US Citizenship

Cockburn's far left background has apparently posed no obstacle to his obtaining US citizenship. Nor has he ever been the target of the FBI, apparently, or of the various self-appointed right-wing character assassins who make it their business to police the left. 173.52.247.146 (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently dead

According to this:

https://twitter.com/VersoBooks/status/226591836460969985

He died. While that is not RS, it is a reputable source. As soon as RS are available we need to change this.--Cerejota (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

COunterpunch confirms it. RS for this news. http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/21/farewell-alex-my-friend/--Cerejota (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

On his anti-semitism

According this obituary notice by David Horowitz "Needless to say, the Times obit failed to mention the fact that Alex and his father were shills for Communists, or that Alex was anti-American and an anti-Semite and a cheerleader for the Islamo-fascists of Hizbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood who are bent on destroying us." http://frontpagemag.com/2012/david-horowitz/alex-cockburn-a-bitter-life-2/ Opportunidaddy (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. If a reliable source decides that nonsense is worthy of publishing then we can discuss its inclusion. Until then, kindly keep such garbage on frontpagemag. nableezy - 23:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

All of the above quotes are from comments to an article [posted by Cockburn (see page history for link); the comments were from readers on his web site]. As such, they are not reliable sources and may not be used in any way in the article. If independent sources have reported on the selective deletion of comments from his articles, then we can consider using those sources to support material about the bias. —C.Fred (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Global warming

I removed the following and bring it here for discussion:

Cockburn's views on global warming have been addressed point-by point in an accessible popular article by physicist John Farley. Farley points out that Cockburn's key argument, that global warming by greenhouse gases violates thermodynamics, not only contradicts familiar thermodynamics and experimental data but also the well-established fact that the natural greenhouse effect already warms the earth some some 35°C.

This short paragraph, with one source, gives undue weight to one opinion, with no statement of Cockburn's views on global warming. There is a paragraph earlier in the article, in which a summary, with no quotes, of Cockburn's opinion is given, but most of that paragraph is devoted to people who disagreed. All of this needs to be rewritten, in one place, so that Cockburn's views are fairly stated, and opinions of those who responded to him are also clearly stated. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 22:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 July 2012

"His descendants included Sir George Cockburn, 10th Baronet.[1]" Descendants should be ancestors. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/descendant?s=t&ld=1065 & http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ancestor

67.240.81.214 (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Good call. I fixed it.--Sus scrofa (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alexander Cockburn/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The discussion is great and I do comncur that this bio is now "messed up". I question the following statement a project of the Media Research Center (crusaders against liberal media bias), made Why the "crusaders against liberal media bias" comment. That is pure opionon with no basis in fact. So who added that BS? If you know then you knoe that editor is promoting an agenda in the guise of informing.

Last edited at 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Cockburn and the Milita Movement

There's an article Alexander Cockburn wrote that warrants mention here.

In June 12, 1995 Cockburn published an article, in The Nation, "Who's Left? Who's Right?" in which he wrote approvingly of a "gun rights" rally in Macomb County, Michigan, describing it as having it thus: "the mood was amiable". Cockburn said he dismissed his "leftist friends' " criticism of his attendance, claiming "these young workers should be getting decent radical analysis and some respectful attention" and said "Tell someone he's a Nazi long enough, and he may just become one, just for the hell of it, as a way of giving the finger to the powers that be".

Later in the article, Cockburn took issue with progressive journalists who were surveying the Militia movement, stating "There's a post-Oklahoma City cottage industry in left/prog journalism, featuring the whole of redneck or working-class America as part of some vast Neo-Nazi or KKK network, thus giving an agreeable "frisson" to the genteel reader".

The full article is here, behind a paywall : [4]

"Who's Left? Who's Right?" drew several responses. Janet Biehl in "Militia Fever", cited it as an example of the dangerous of rejecting the traditional left-right dichotomy: [5] The World Socialist Web Site, in an article strongly antagonistic towards Cockburn, took issue with his sympathetic description of the "Patriot" rally, stating such movements "represent the potential nucleus of a fascist movement in the US." [6] 176.61.97.121 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The Afghanistan article

The controversial article Cockburn wrote about Afghanistan on January 21, 1980 and a later article , where Cockburn points out the first article was meant to be ironic, are both available here at Dennis Perrin's blog:

http://dennisperrin.blogspot.ie/2012_07_01_archive.html 176.61.97.121 (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander Cockburn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070107091414/http://diplo.uol.com.br/2006-12,a1465 to http://diplo.uol.com.br/2006-12,a1465

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Alexander Cockburn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070119110741/http://www.counterpunch.org/ninelevenconsp11252006.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/ninelevenconsp11252006.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://diplo.uol.com.br/2006-12%2Ca1465
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061101054537/http://www.counterpunch.org/alexgraham.html to http://counterpunch.org/alexgraham.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nypress.com/15/11/news%26columns/wildjustice.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231050356/http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2003/0716.asp to http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2003/0716.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629133440/http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08202005.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08202005.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)