Talk:Anthony Cordesman

Untitled

Hu, he does write a lot, I have to agree. The article however lucks vital details like birth place, family background, year of birth. This would make the article more of a bio than a list of books

Please note that the criticism section does not reflect a neutral point of view, or, at least, magnifies "criticisms" of Cordesman. The cited criticism is not of Cordesman's "work" (as corpus), it is of only one book by him. The citation method also pretends to be linking to multiple critics when it is in fact linking to the same critic. It is also not clear that the website in question conforms to Wikipedia's standards (can someone verify this?) simply because it contains a review of Cordesman's publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.17.165 (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Finkelstein is an RS. His comments about Cordesman's analysis seem valid. However, this bit is questionable "However, interviews and reports by Arab leaders and independent organizations were used in collaboration with Israeli briefings to support his findings." seems to be the last editor's POV Wodge (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, not POV. It is straight from the source, which you dubiously removed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Update, no Norman Fickelstein is not a reliable source and neither is counterpunch. However he is notable and thus we quote him, but he isn't an RS. Like, his editorial alone would not be considered reliable in a encyclopedia context. He's not BBC, CNN, ABC, etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Necessary reversions

The new rewrite includes massive removal of cited material and is almost identical to its POV-state a month ago. The new version removed Cordesman's analysis on the war and relies solely on scattered criticism, most of which is paraphrased incorrectly and could be considered plagiarism. The removal of the reward line was a good move, I missed that one. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture?

Checked commons and nothing was there. He has pics on a his blog but I don't think we can use them without permission - 1.

Gaza War analysis

The following extracts are from the executive summary of Cordesman's magnum opus:

It analyzes the fighting on the basis of briefings in Israel during and immediately after the fighting made possible by a visit sponsored by Project Interchange, and using day-to-day reporting issued by the Israeli Defense Spokesman.

Hamas has only provided a few details on its view of the fighting, other than ideological and propaganda statements. Any military report has to be written largely from an Israeli perspective; although it is already clear that the IDF did not succeed in deterring Hamas from new rocket strike on Israel or made definitive changes in the political and military situation in Gaza. In fact, the post conflict situation looks strikingly like the situation before the fighting began.

Which suggests that he relied almost exclusively on official Israeli sources. Now, just out of interest, where exactly does it say that he bothered to look at any other information, ie, information that was readily available from the UN, NGOs and News reports? Or that if he did look at it that he treated it as credible?

Wodge (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps if you read the analysis instead of 1 page smears:

"There is another key caveat that must be applied to this analysis. It does not attempt to make moral judgments or to take sides in the conflict. It does examine the issue of proportionality, but its does so in the context of fighting and winning asymmetric wars and not as legal or moral issues. To the extent it looks beyond the conflict, it focuses on how fighting affected the perceptions of the combatants and outside states, and the strategic and grand strategic outcome of the fighting, not its legality or humanitarian costs."

The UN and Btselem have yet to release a report covering the mentioned qualities. Cordesman isn't trying to make a moral judgment, but rather prove or disprove the logic of Israeli objectives through available and appropriate documents. It is Fickelstein's nature to criticize Israel so I feel the article would be more balanced if we were to also use a less-partisan pundit.

I'd be concerned about using Palestinian sources within the Gaza Strip too, considering their lack of verifiability and constant-pressure by Hamas (as he emphasizes early in the analysis.) Hopefully a comparable analysis is released to either affirm or dispute Cordesman's. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

---

I have read Cordesman's report. It appears though that you haven't.

What Finkelstein is specifically criticising and debunking is Cordesman's claim that "Israel did not violate the laws of war". A certain user seems to have left out this rather important fact.

Now, given that, it's was known by the UN, NGOs, News Reporters and even Finkelstein that at the time Cordesman wrote his report that Israel, at the very least, had:

1. Used White Phosphorus in densely crowd cilivian areas (Illegal under the international laws of war)
2. Used Flechette Munitions in densely crowd cilivian areas (Illegal under the international laws of war)
3. Killed Medical Personnel and blown up ambulances (Illegal under the international laws of war)
3. Blown up Hospitals (Illegal under the international laws of war)

That Finkelstein is actually correct and that Cordesman is talking what's techinically called complete bollocks.

Wodge (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please go away. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Shan't :-P. Wodge (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the gaza discussion and re-wrote the whole page. This is a Bio, not a discussion page. It now has what a bio should have, i.e. the subject's history. Having some familiarity with Dr. Cordesman's work, I can assure you that his Gaza War analysis is far from his most controversial, widely read, or important piece. And his bio should not have discussions of the criticism of any of his pieces, unless said criticism comes from or is covered by a reputable source (newspaper, peer-reviewed journal, etc.). I'm working now on inserting links and tracking down copyright permissions for his photo. Endstupidity (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC) endstupidity

You deleted practically the entire article and posted non-notable material, such as every book he has written. Following your revisions, the article was supported by a single reference. For similar bios, look at Richard A. Falk and Alan Dershowitz. Notice the content in most sections. Commentary is not excluded, in fact it is the primary focus of those article. Understand, If a notable source says something, we include it if it relates to the character in question. Cordesman is a military strategist, having been involved with NATO, diplomatic initiatives, and domestic media organizations. Therefore the article should revolve around those subjects, and opinions/agenda should naturally accompany that. I suggest you study BLP for more info. Don't feel bad, I also had difficulty fully grasping the rigid rules but also realized articles must ultimately be evaluated based on content, not rulebooks. Removing 10 references which have been properly cited is dubious at best and vandalism at worst. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another war Criminal

... in a long line of many. ---Dagme (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anthony Cordesman. 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/20080720075343/http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/articles/2004/040201-us-saudi.html to http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/articles/2004/040201-us-saudi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090330115352/http://www.saudi-us-relations.org:80/experts/cordesman.html to http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/experts/cordesman.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)