Talk:CounterPunch

The Left-Wing Bias of this article

Given that the Paul Craig Wilson and William Lind are described as "paleoconservative" and Steven Plaut is described as a "right-wing commentator," why is there no mention anywhere about the radical left-wing ideologies of nearly all the other commentators from this newsletter? Cynthia McKinney, Fidel Castro, Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, Ralph Nader and Ward Churchill are notorious for their radical left-wing views. Can't we call a spade a spade here, instead of singling out one side, labeling them, and giving the other side a free pass? --Gerkinstock (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

agreed. a lot of the time conservatives are described in frank terms while radical lefties are indeed given a free pass. Im going in and evening out any bias that I find in this article, if thats okay with you. Smith Jones (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

The "Criticism" section reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expunging Alan Cable (Alan Cabal)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is CounterPunch a RS?

Is CounterPunch considered a reliable source for WP? If a CounterPunch article makes accusations against other people, can that accusation be aired as reliable? Just wondering. Stellarkid (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

the articles at counterpunch can be treated as opinion pieces attributable to the author. If the author is a reliable source then the article is a reliable source. nableezy - 23:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for your response. The article in question is not from a named author but something/one called "CounterPunch Wire."  ? Stellarkid (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case I would just attribute it to Counterpunch itself, but would not use it as source for a statement of fact (and I am a regular counterpunch reader. I do find them to be reliable but it just isnt worth the hassle of using it as a source) nableezy - 19:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Steven Plaut and Faith Freedom International

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

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

Steven Plaut has a long record of unfounded defamation of critics of Israel. An Israeli court has held his comments on one critic to be libellous. His views on third parties should be treated with extreme caution; they are in no way authoritative. The site "Think-Israel" is indeed a blog; it says of itself "Think of this site as a blog site for all of you who love Israel"[1] It is also an extremmist hate site, which argues that "extremist Islam is the norm and normal Islam is extremely rare" The article cited states that the left in America is "filled with treasonous lunatics and Hate-America neurotics, whose politics reflect little more than an infantile anger at Mommy and Daddy"; it is an unbalanced rant that has no place in Wikipedia, and certainly cannot be considered an acceptable source for the defamatory descriptions added to the article. RolandR 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism"

This should stay deleted because

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your assertions have little value. The opion pieces in these cases are smears by ideological opponents. I suggest you read WP:WEIGHT as well. At this point you're just soapboxing. Some asshole calls someone an antisemite and gets it published doesn't mean you get to toss the smear into an encycoclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)