Talk:Eric Margolis (journalist)

Paleoconservative

Is Eric Margolis a genuine paleoconservative? True paleoconservatives tend to have isolationist foreign policy perspectives, while Eric Margolis does not - he fervently supported the Kosovo War for example. I'd think of him as a moderate Republican who despises neoconservatism purely due to his pro-Muslim sympathies. GCarty 11:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He's also part Albanian hence his support for the Kosovo War. [[User:|User:]] 14:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The article makes two strong points for him being a paleoconservative: he identifies closely with Dwight Eisenhower, and he writes for Pat Buchanan's magazine. I don't think we should change the article without a good reason, e.g. Margolis himself denying that he's a paleoconservative. - Mcasey666 01:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Aside from being printed Pat Buchanan's magazine (for the single reason - Eric Margolis is critical of current Bush administration policy in the Middle East), what else identifies him as paleoconservative ? He is a Canadian who never criticized Canada's policy of multiculturalism, social liberalism or open immigration policy. He never advocated social conservatism. His anti-communism or strong support for capitalism is no different from attitudes of such Democratic party supporters as Zbigniew Brzezinski , his views on foreign policy (aside from the Middle East) and other issues are more close to Brzezinski or Wesley Clark than Pat Buchanan. Fisenko 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The answer to the question is that he is neither paleoconservative isolationist nor neoconservative interventionist but one who favours any policy that is advantageous to Muslim peoples of any region of the globe. This couldn't be more obvious if you would just read several columns of his. Wikipedia should find out if his Albanian mother is Muslim, and if she is, it should definitely be noted.

What brought me to this discussion was his "article" on palluxo.com website, a site dedicated to spreading hatred against Serbs. I'll definitely call CBC and other publications in which he writes under to notify them of his biased views. Now I'm wondering if people have any sources that actually identify his bias?. If so, it would help ruin his "writing" career by putting that in the article. This guy is not a writer, he is equivalent to a Nazi propaganda writer who doesnt care if people are suffering in other countries because of his writing.Rex Dominator (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

i wonder if these users would apply these standards when it's coming to people with other background/other views.--Severino (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Can anyone confirm Margolis is "founding editor of Pat Buchanan's American Conservative". I'm unable to find this fact either on Margolis' own website or the American Conservative website. The few references I have found could just have come from this Wikipedia page. In fact the Wikipedia page for American Conservative magazine says: " founded in 2002 by Scott McConnell, Pat Buchanan, and Taki Theodoracopulos" Margolis has certainly contributed to the publication. Also, what is the meaning of "founding editor"? Does it simply mean he contributed articles when the magazine was founded? This should probably be removed if we cannot confirm or clarify.BashBrannigan (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reliable confirmation of Margolis association with "Institute of Regional Studies". I can't find this either on Margolis' website or the IRS website. The only references I can find likely came from this Wikipedia page. It could very well be true that he has an association, but we should have some confirmation of it.BashBrannigan (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I added citations for this article. Enough that I removed the "needs citations" issue. Whatever I could not find, I removed.BashBrannigan (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Margolis still with the Sun, or not? Need reliable source

I'm sorry, but I still feel we need a reliable source of Margolis being dumped by the Sun. We have 2 blogs, Anti-war and SunFamily. Both are under editorial control, but when we are dealing with biographies of live persons we need more. For example, a column by margolis appeared today [1]. Yes, I know it may have been written before his being let go. I'm still putting a "citation needed" tag until we have something besides blogs. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is verified by reliable sources. As I said, some blogs are taken as reliable on en.WP. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, but I won't get into an edit war with you on this. Personally, I will still look for a source other than a blog. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

More will show up. As I said, some blogs can be taken as reliable: It's not the "medium," it's the source and its editorial reliability which have sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I still strongly disagree. i suspect myself that this story is correct. However, you are still wrong here. Wikipedia should have higher standards. Once a reliable news organization picks this up, then we can use it. When we are dealing with bios of live persons we should have higher standards. This is an encycopedia NOT a news source. On the basis of principal, you are jumping on this too quickly. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think the story is correct, it seems to me that removing a reliable source and mistakenly calling it unreliable because it's from something called a "blog," might be straying into WP:Point. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You think the story is correct. I think the story is correct. Neither is relevant. It's what can be reliably proven. Blogs, regardless of "editorial control" are not reliable. Established media have their reputations to worry about, and editors have their jobs to worry about. Blogs come and go. Fact is, if the Margolis email to SunFamily turned out to be a fake, no one at the blog would be fired! BashBrannigan (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Some blogs are quite reliable, as I've already said. Moreover, your thoughts as to what would happen as to any misreporting are your own original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That last comment isn't worthy of a response. OR? Gimme a break? I will no longer debate with you. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"The lives of millions of Western civilians and soldiers would have been spared."

There is no need to point out that Western civilians, or soldiers, didn't die by the milions at WWII...

Europe, and Germany, is considered part of the "western" world. BashBrannigan (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

911 conspiracy theorist?

The 9/11 section makes it sound as if Margolis is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, saying "Margolis has argued that the American government may have been behind the 9/11 attacks." None of his articles actually state this. The only one cited which attacks Margolis as a conspiracy theorist is by Jonathan Kay, a noted conservative and often defender of US foreign policy.However, others have suggested Kay is in the wrong while Margolis simply "calmly laid out some facts and asked some questions about 9/11.". The wiki article suggests Margolis repeats "the theory that 9/11 was "staged by Israel’s Mossad and a cabal of right-wing US Air Force generals.” However, in his own article, which is cited in the wiki article, Margolis doesn't endorse this theory but simply states "one of the most colorful theories comes from Gen. Hamid Gul, former director of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI." Further, in that article he lays out what he views as inconsistencies, unanswered questions and anomalies; he does believe that the anthrax attacks and Bin Laden to have been faked but defends this by alluding to proven historical instances of similar frauds by the American and other governments. Further, Margolis says he met Bin Laden and, to him, those on the tapes are not him. However, no where does he give any indication that he believes 9/11 to be an inside job, which is the staple of conspiracy theorists. In fact he clearly states "I’ve seen no hard evidence to date that 9/11 was a plot by America’s far right or by Israel or a giant cover-up." Rather, he agrees with the official story that "of the 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudis, two from the United Arab Emirates, one an Egyptian and a Lebanese," but, unlike those who claim their acts were the result of religion or a hatred of US values, to him the aim of these hijackers "was: a. to punish the US for backing Israel’s repression of Palestinians; and b. what they called US “occupation” of Saudi Arabia. Though they were all Muslims, religion was not the motivating factor." This is no different a position held by many mainstream analysts, like Michael Scheuer, and shown by numerous polls of the Middle East, as done by Pew, for instance. Despite laying out what he sees as inconsistencies and anomalies, he concedes 9/11 may represent "the Mother of All Coincidences. In the end, it may just have been 19 angry Arabs and a bumbling Bush administration looking for someone else to blame." Apparently to many, any deviation from the standard version, any questioning of the official story, any attention to the inconsistencies and anomalies of the accepted narrative, any suggestion that the US government may have invented evidence despite it having been done before (such as the incubator babies story from the first Gulf War) or that it let 911 happen is labeled a conspiracy theory. Just as any claim that 9/11 was blow back for US foreign policy, no matter all the evidence in its defence, is misconstrued as anti Americanism, hating freedom or as saying the US deserved it.