Talk:CounterPunch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Pol pot

just out of curiosity... where is the page debating the factuality of Pol Pot's killings or the page defending milosivic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.106.182 (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2005 (UTC)

• http://www.counterpunch.org/johnstone.html
• http://www.counterpunch.org/germanmemo.html
• http://www.counterpunch.org/disinfo.html

These are some of the main ones, however, there are at least a dozen more. Large list located here, though not all of them defend Milosovic so much as deny that there was genocide occuring:

• http://www.counterpunch.org/serbia.html

Diana Johnstone is a contributor to one of these articles and has written a book which feverishly argues that genocide in the Balkans was propaganda and that Muslim families who have missing fathers or brothers are "liars". See:

• http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/158367084X/ref=pd_sim_b_2/002-4708238-8009614?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.229.208 (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

thanks... and pol pot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.106.182 (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

"Junk Science"

The current construction of that sentence, "It is noted for its highly critical coverage of [..], its extensive reporting of [...] and the use of junk science" makes it unclear whether they report on junk science or utilize it. Can someone clarify this? I am going to remove it until it is clarified.--Tedpennings 4 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)

Recently I have read several articles about 911 - Manuel Garcia et al on Counterpunch. The articles, amusingly, are junk science in favor of the government's 911 story. For some reason Cockburn is ablaze about 911, somehow feeling that it is diverting attention from corrupt building inspectors, etc - quite rabid/enthused. I have heard the Garcia articles were even commissioned - true?? Garcia is up against too much to even have flights of anti-conspiracy conpriacy stuff work, but he is entertaining. Anyone know why Cokburn is hot in this direction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it's claptrap. RubyQ 01:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

consolidation of criticism section

This recently added material criticism section appears to have been the effort of one editor, David Cohen, to inject his personal disapproval of CounterPunch by means of a pseudo-neutral "Criticism" section that offered a cherry-picked selection of quotes from right-wing critics. I have removed it, consolidating the names of the critics and types of complaints they make in the body of the article, where this material belongs. If readers are interested in the particulars of the given critiques, they can follow up the external links. -- Viajero | Talk 11:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Viajero, I don't have anything against CounterPunch. But I have done some editing on this page, and yes, I originally added the criticism section (because CounterPunch has indeed been criticized, and the article seemed incomplete). It's not "cherry-picked," though, and it's not slanted--CounterPunch has published each of the positions listed, and isn't, to my knowledge, backing away from them. (It's "muckraking with a radical attitude," not tepid mainstream media reporting.) And every specific position was cited to a CounterPunch article--which is the part you cut. Are you removing them because you don't like those positions? Sorry, but that's why they're in the "Criticism" section. And per Wikipedia policy, criticism should be consolidated into one section: as the NPOV policy states, "refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section." That said, I like your new paragraph better than the old one (with the exception of your addition of scare quotes), so while I'm going to put the specific bits back, I'm not going to remove your contribution. That's the beauty of Wikipedia: lots of people make it better. --David Cohen 10:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A given publication's motto/slogan/mission statement cannot be taken as the final word. "Fair and balanced"? "All the news that's fit to print"? Enough said. At best these are naive exhortations; at worst, marketing slogans. However it positions itself, CP publishes in fact a broad spectrum of opinion, as is indicated in the article, from discussions of civil liberty issues which would not be out of place in old-stream conservative or libertarian forums, to speeches of Fidel Castro. Cockburn himself enjoys a reputation as a firebrand, yet recently downplayed the Hubble Curve, a decidely reactionary POV. St Clair writes mostly about environmentalism, and given that polls show, IIRC, that a good 60% of Americans are in favor of stricter environmental protections, his ideas are not so out of line with the mainstream, only Beltway politics.

Inclusion of the quotes you cite fosters the impression that CP is a forum for anti-Semitic ideas. As someone who has subscribed to the newsletter since it was launched in the mid 1990s, read various of Cockburn's books, and been a regular visitor to the website since it was launched in 1999, I assure you that this is a profoundly inaccurate characterization. Anti-semitism is a serious charge, and you better come up with way more substantial evidence than this; evidence that conclusively demonstrates that across the thousands of essays by hundreds of writers they publish every year Cockburn and St Clair systematically endorse anti-Semitic ideas. A couple of chrry-picked citations by blatantly ideological opponents simply doesn't cut the grade. Viajero | Talk 18:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that you're a devoted reader and ardent defender of CounterPunch, Viajero, but you missed my point entirely.

1. Per Wikipedia's NPOV Policy, criticism belongs in a separate section. We treat the opinions of opponents with the same deference we give to the subject of the article.
2. The proper response to the fact CounterPunch has been criticized is to face it and reply to it, not to sweep it under the rug and pretend it's not there by deleting citations from Wikipedia. That's called Information Suppression and it violates Wikipedia's NPOV Policy. Cutting facts from an article does a serious disservice to Wikipedia's readers.
3. Re: your first para: You are responding to a straw man, expending a whole paragraph on a parenthetical about the publication's motto. Sure, CounterPunch publishes a variety of opinions, some mainstream and some extreme. The article says so; the criticism doesn't contradict it. The cited critics have simply taken issue with a few of the things CounterPunch has published. That's fair.
4. Re: your second para: I didn't accuse anyone of anti-Semitism. Nor did I mischaracterize the critics or imply that CounterPunch is systematically anti-Semitic, as you argue above (another straw man). And citing CounterPunch articles the critics complain about isn't "cherry-picking"; this isn't making any broader generalizations about CounterPunch. Citing sources is key to Verifiability, another fundamental Wikipedia Policy. The critics are properly, neutrally attributed.
5. If you think the criticized positions aren't representative of CounterPunch, then someone else has probably published a reply to the critics, and you can certainly cite them and their counter-arguments here. Add information to Wikipedia rather than removing things you don't like.

To sum up: Don't delete well-cited, neutrally-presented criticism just because you want the article to reflect only your POV. --David Cohen 20:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am neither a "devoted reader" nor an "ardent defender" of CounterPunch; I only claim familiarity with it. Also, you don't have to quote NPOV gospel to me; I have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2003 and I am intimately aware of how NPOV works.

If I were to scour the Internet, I could probably come up with quotes which argue that CP is:

• anti-Democratic Party
• pro-Democratic Party
• anti-Republican Party
• anti-George Bush
• pro-Green Party
• anti-Green Party
• pro-Ralph Nader
• anti-Ralph Nader
• pro-Al Gore
• anti-Al Gore
• anti-Bill Clinton
• anti-Hillary
• anti-Michael Moore
• pro-Michael Moore
• anti-union
• pro-labor
• anti-PETA
• pro-PETA
• pro-vegetarian
• pro-meat-eating
• anti-war
• anti-pacifist

etc etc etc etc

Now, if you think it would be a service to our readers to flood this article with all of these POVs, turning it into a vast, ungainly collection of back-and-forth quotes, then you have no conception of what it means to create an encyclopedia article. This is not a repository for undigested primary materials; we are supposed to be creating useful, reader-friendly syntheses of information and viewpoints. If there exists a significant wedge of public opinion that CounterPoint lends itself to being a forum for anti-Semitic ideas, then by all means this should be included in this article, backed up by citations indicating that observers have determined that this is a systematic problem, either with the editors themselves or the writers they publish.

In the meantime, dumping a bunch of quotes which happen to suit your POV in this article and hiding behind Wikipedia NPOV philosphy for justification is unacceptable. Viajero | Talk 10:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I NPOV'd some of this. I also removed the Foer link, as all it was was advertisements.

Counterpunch covers many issues, and Viajero was quite correct to remove the half of the article that deals with Counterpunch's supposed anti-Semitism. You simply can not take up half the article on this simply because you have an axe to grind with CP because it points out that Israelis are "aliens in another people's land". Ruy Lopez 04:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added some recent criticism of the newsletter a bit higher in the article. The article otherwise just "flicks" at the criticism toward the bottom. --Mantanmoreland 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

removed this confusing sentence

I removed this confusing sentence:

While offering much more material not published in the newsletter, the latter continues to publish commentaries by St. Clair and Cockburn that are not published on the web.

Please rewrite it if it is readded to the site.Travb (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The memory hole

The following has been removed from this wikipage:

==Criticism==

Plaut takes issue with several CounterPunch articles:

• Cockburn (in an essay about Jewish control of the media) surmised that a Jew spread anthrax in the U.S., and that Israel pushed the U.S. into war with Iraq; [1]

• St. Clair (while praising a novel that envisions a Palestinian state replacing Israel) called Israelis "aliens in another people's land" and claimed that Israel teaches its children "the same enthusiasm" for death "as a suicide bomber from Hamas";[2]

• Gilad Atzmon endorsed arming Islamic militants so that they can "endanger our existence" in order to win their political goals;[3]

• Kurt Nimmo (who no longer writes for CounterPunch), in a 2005 article lauding Ward Churchill and his views on the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, expressed doubt "if indeed Osama had anything to do with those planes", described the attacks as "nothing personal", and claimed that they were a "natural . . . reaction" because "Zionist settlers . . . seem to actually like murdering Palestinian school children.";[4] and

• Amiri Baraka both contended that Israel knew about the 9/11 attacks ahead of time and got Israelis out of the World Trade Center, and maintained that Israel and its "Zionist lobbies control American foreign politics."[5] [6]

In contrast to such allegations, CounterPunch has also published articles such as David Vest's criticism of Billy Graham's remarks about Jews[7] after White House tapes revealed Graham expressing "the rankest, crudest, most heart-sickening anti-Semitism" when counseling President Nixon; and Michael Neumann's essay tracing the history of the U.S.-Israel relationship and debunking the myth that Jews control America.[8] (Although Neumann argues that Jews have power in Hollywood and much influence in American political life, and then urges Americans to resist "Jewish tribalism" and act to "hurt Israel" by declaring it a rogue nation and severing all military, financial and diplomatic ties).

signed: Travb (talk) 07:01-07:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed two sites

• http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/4054/
• http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=cockburn+site%3Amsnbc.msn.com

Are both broken. Travb (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"allegedly anti-Semitic"?

The article The Case for Israel describes Counterpunch as "allegedly anti-Semitic":

Far-left (and allegedly anti-Semitic) newsletter publication, Counterpunch published The Case Against Israel, a response to The Case for Israel[3] by Michael Neumann, a professor of philosophy at Trent University. The response-book was not as commercially succesful as the original.

Is this true? There is no citation in that article for the claim. --64.230.120.63 19:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

See Alexander Cockburn for more info. Alan Dershowitz has used that epithet in relation to Counterpunch. -Will Beback · † · 21:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Biased Paragraph

First off whoever you are that keeps insisting on putting in the extended paragraph after the anti-semitism allegations, it is you who is pov pushing, not me. The accusations of antisemitism are already there so your attempts to add more serves as nothing more than an extremely transparent attempt to biased the article against counterpunch. Oh, and by the I quotes like "anti-semitic, neo-nazi Rascists" should bar you from any further serious commentary on this article. This is not a place to work your own grievances against counterpunch, unless you have some factual information to contribute to this article, you are out of line in saying I should be banned from this article. I am registered user and have been for longer than you and if anything your the one who should be banned from this article, not me. annoynmous 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by annoynmous (talk • contribs) was actually added by 66.227.137.56 (talk • contribs) -

The passage you object to concerns Gilad Atzmon, whose article's on the Counterpunch website have garnered much criticism. It is therefore just for it to be included in a section called 'Criticism'. Philip Cross 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected pending consensus

Due to a recent revert war I've protected this page. The disputing parties should come to some agreement on acceptable text. -Will Beback · † · 07:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that allegations about CounterPunch's publication of anti-semitic material is perfectly appropriate to this article, in a criticisms section. CounterPunch publish Gilad Atzmon and defences of him, even though much of the rest of the left see Atzmon as an anti-semite for his statements on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion etc. It needs to be made clear that this is a contentious issue (i.e. clearly the article shouldn't say that CounterPunch is antisemitic, but that it has been described as such).

Also, the protected version is the version without the italics for publications, which were removed by reverters removing the Atzmon material. These need to go back into italics whatever the consensus on the hotter topics. BobFromBrockley 10:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article should mention the criticism; which I did with my brief para on the complaint by anti-Zionist Jews. The longer paragraph was too long in the context of this brief article (nearly a quarter of the whole article). Nor is it referenced. As it currently stands, the article contains brief, documented, references to complaints by critics both from left and right; it would be a mistake to expand this any further. RolandR 14:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that any criticism of Atzmon should be on his page, not on counterpunch's. However, I respect RolandR's judgement and he and I came to a compromise that he would write a more neutral criticism. Unfortunately, the unkown editor who originally added the paragraph will have none of this and insists in having his own highly slanted version of events in the article. His stated goal, readily apparent from the tone of his writing and his calling me a Nazi apologist, is not to make a legitimate point. He hates counterpunch and wants to defame them by biasing the article against them. RolandR I feel has come up with a very satisfactory compromise and if the unkown user won't listen to reason and keeps reverting his changes I think he should be banned from this article. I don't like banning anybody, but unless he's willing to compromise I fear there may be no other way. annoynmous 15:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by annoynmous (talk • contribs) was actually added by 155.138.32.55 (talk • contribs) -

The para was written as a criticism of the articles as published by Counterpunch, not of the writers themselves, which is why I reverted your later amendment to the article. There is no suggestion in the linked references that Atzmon is a priori excluded from writing for Counterpunch; the argument is that Counterpunch should not include articles expressing these views. I agree with annoynmous's complaint about the anonymous editor who seems bent on distorting the article, without even discussing it. And his/her personal attack on annoynmous in an edit summary is at the very least bad practice. See Help:Edit summary, which notes: "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Instead, place such comments, if required on the talk page". I have warned him/her against repeating this. RolandR 22:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is my "discussion" of it: The paragraph that I inserted was all about direct quotations from articles that were published in Counterpunch, not simply a point about Atzmon - and the even more explicit anti-semite Israel Shamir, whose Nazi politics are by now undeniable, and who has also contributed articles to Counterpunch. This is not "defamation" but simple documentable FACTS. So too is the fact that Counterpunch's newsletter chose to publish an article in support of holocaust denier Ernest Zundel by Alan Cabal which defends not merely Zundel's "free speech" but his views themselves (which Cabal has also done on many other websites). I feel that the comments of "annoynmous" as well as the constant "reverts" to my easily documentable quotes reveal his/her own PRO-Counterpunch bias and desire to silence any criticism of the journal (most evident in the call to "ban" me). I will in future confine my criticisms of this editor to the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.198.231 (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't provide any sources or links to confirm anything in your paragraph. The conclusion that Atzmon and Shamir are rascist Nazi anti-semites is your opinion and is not verifiable by facts. Your paragraph consisited of a long ad hominem attack on counterpunch. I don't understand why the criticism section in which it says that counterpunch is accused of anti-semitism isn't enough. Mention the accusations in a neutral manner and let the reader investigate further and then come to there own conclusions. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp. Your paragraph was POV pushing, plain and simple. You wanted to make counterpunch look bad because you don't like it that they criticize Israel. I'd wager that everyone from Noam Chomsky to Norman Finkelstein is an anti-semite in your book. The only reason I accepted any of this at all was because RolandR beleives that there is some legitimate criticism here and I respect his judgment. I happen to think he is wrong about Atzmon, but I accept that he is a controversial figure. As for this Ernest Zundel nonsense, for someone who constantly likes to proclaim things as fact you sure are skimp on providing any actual links or sources to back up what you say. RolandR's paragraph has actual evidence to back it up. RolandR was very gracious and kind enough to act as a mediator and try to come up with a mutual compromise. Well, you obviously would have none of that and decided it was either your way or no way. I'm sorry if my tone sounds really angry, but I get pissed off when I get called a Nazi apologist for reverting a crazily written POV paragraph with no evidence to support it. I think RolandR constructed a very fine version of your criticism and that you should respect what he's written. annoynmous 22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anonynmous is knowingly LYING about what I have posted: I mentioned the title of the pro-Zundel article and its author, as well as the fact that it appeared only in Counterpunch's print edition, not online (hence "no links"). But Zundel's wife has helpfully reposted the entire article, along with her apprecation of counterpunch for publishing it, on her Fascist website the Zundelsite: http://zgrams.zundelsite.org/pipermail/zgrams/2004-March/000779.html.

And of course, I quoted extensively from several Atzmon Counterpunch articles which are also available on Atzmon's website. Is "annoynmous" really claiming that I just made this all up? So an apology to me for all of his/her libels is long overdue. If it does not appear, it may well be appropriate to remove "annoynmous"'s editing privileges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.198.231 (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh My! a reposting from some nutjob blogger who says counterpunch posted and article in there print edition that we convientently can't see at Counterpunch! I shudder and shake at such earthshattering evidence! Is this guy serious? You expect us to believe that Alan Cabal actually wrote this based on what someone said on there blog. I'm curious as to why you didn't post this link originally in your article when you first wrote your paragraph. I tell you why because it would be utterly laughable and ridiculous to include such a dubious source. Sense you probably don't read the print edition of counterpunch I bet this is the only source you have that this "supposed" article even exists. I bet that this blog is where you originally got the information and in your delusional state you actually believed it. Even if this article was actually written by Cabal the tone of it hardly amounts to an endorsment of Zundel's views, just that his freedom of speech should be defended. You are a rude, crass, fanatic and I've just about had it with you. Theres no way in hell I'm ever apologizing to you. RolandR, Will Beback I'm sorry about my tone, but I literally can't stand this guy anymore. In my opinion he is a vandal of the worst kind who should be permantely banned from this article. He refuses to compromise and to come to a settlement that we can all agree with. I think the article should be left as it is with RolandR's edits and that if the unkown user continually fails to listen to reason than he should be discplined.

Oh! and for your information I happen to believe that Nazi holcaust did happen and that between 5 to 6 million jews, gypsies, communists, homosexuals and others were killed. So I still think I'm owed an apology for the Nazi apologist comment, but I'm not holding my breath. annoynmous 06:50, February 8 2007 (UTC)

You have slandered me, anonymouse, as a liar: If I knew your real name, I would sue you for libel -and I would WIN! The Alan Cabal article absolutely DOES exist - and he has never denied writing it. In fact, he has continued to champion Zundel on many other websites and made clear his support for Zundel's views. Time only permits me to post these links (among many others) that attest to the original article's existence (If you demand, I will come back later and post some updates on Cabal's continuing crusade):

• http://www.ihr.org/news/040326zundel.shtml (leading holocaust denial organization)
• http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2004-denialreport.php
• http://untrue_madhouse.blogspot.com/2004/05/i-lived-in-new-york-for-eight-years-or.html (left-wing anti-zionist opponent of holocaust denial)
• http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w12/msg00111.htm

Oh, and -whadda you know? - it's mentioned on Counterpunch's own website:

• http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03192004.html.

Oh, I guess all of these people across the political spectrum made this up too?

As far as apologies go: I confess to getting VERY VERY ANGRY at the continued existence of nazi genocidal racists in the world (i.e Zundel, Israel Shamir, Ziopedia and others) as well as their apologists and enablers such as Gilad Atzmon and quite frequently the editors of Counterpunch; my policiy in such matters is to "shoot first and ask questions later" - and I make no apologies for THAT! Your seeming apologia for Counterpunch's association with these racist vermin so enraged me that I may have jumped the gun a bit in describing YOU. However, I am equally due an apology FROM YOU in light of your attacks on my integrity and charachter -i.e your UTTERLY VILE insinuation that I made up the existence of this article or in any way misrepresented it's contents. I simply was too lazy to produce these links earlier; they are now posted above, and are irrefutable. And if you demand, and when you have time, I can produce quite a few others.

I simply think that for anyone that wishes to understand why SOME people consider Counterpunch to be if not consistently anti-semitic (or more precisely, anti-Jewish), it is essential that they be exposed to this material in order to obtain a balanced understanding of the website. You can reduce the length, etc. but it should be in some way represented. And if you like, you can balance this out by extending the "praise" section with additional quotes, testimonies of support etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.198.231 (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the unkown user is finally starting to show his true colors. Question the fact that his original article didn't have one source or link to support it and he threatens to sue you. Now of all of suddens he comes up with all these sources that show the article that he admits he was originally "too lazy" to include. He also admits that his policy is to "shoot first and ask questions later", basically he never had any intention of being fair or neutral. He wasn't adding this because he wanted to make a legitimate point, he doesn't like counterpunch and wants the reader to come away with a skewed view of them. He uses terms such as "explicitly rascist" to describe shamir and atzmon, which for a man who likes to threaten people with slander and libel suits seems rather hypocritical. Whatever yours or mines opinion of these two men, they are actual people and calling them explicitly rascist is defamation.

As for the Zundel article I will concede that I was wrong in that it does appear that the article exists. However, I'm still not apologizing because contrary to your claim I never once called you a liar, I only questioned the articles existence because of the lack of evidence to support it.

Also, you were wrong in your paragraph that when you suggested that Cabal was defending Zundels views. Not once in the article does he at all endorse Zundel, he only says that it is wrong to jail a man for having unpopular views. I may disagree with Zundel, but I don't think he should be kidnapped and and locked away for that.

Will Beback, RolandR I am again extrememly sorry for my tone and wish I could be more civil, but I am extremely frustated right now. I think you guys should talk to the unkown user from now on. To satisfy him add some things about Israel Shamir, because believe it or not I actually believe counterpunch may have made a mistake in posting his writings. I still beleive the Zundel reference should be stricken form the article because it feels random and out of place in connection to the criticism of Atzmon and Shamir. I would prefer that any further rewrites be written by RolandR. annoynmous 17:12, February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by annoynmous (talk • contribs) was actually added by 155.138.32.55 (talk • contribs) -

So this is what I get for my apology to anonynmous - further slander and abuse re: my intellectual integrity and motives. I just said that I "jumped the gun" about him in particular (not Shamir, Atzmon, Cabal etc.) and in response not only does he refuse to apologize for calling me a liar (which he DID by implying that I had invented the existence of the Alan Cabal article), he proceeds to misrepresent my statements.

I only stated that I "shot first and asked questions later" in regards to Nazis and their sympathizers, not about matters in general, including Counterpunch. Or do you feel that these poor, oppressed creatures deserve special solicitude?

It is in no way defamatory to describe actual racists AS racist; in regards to Shamir and Atzmon, see the multitude of examples provided on the Wiki pages, as well as the attached links (and I certainly wouldn't expect Roland Rance to disagree with me on this point). Shamir, in particular, makes a specific point of allying with David Duke, the German Nazi Horst Mahler and leaders of the British National Party such as Martin Webster, and has explicity endorsed signficant aspects of their programs (e.g. holocaust denial, immigration restriction etc.). Therefore, it is every bit as accurate to label them racist as the people with whom they ally.

As far as Alan Cabel: while the Counterpunch article is somewhat muted in this respect, Cabal has on other sites endorsed Zundel's views, not just his rights to free speech, called him a "pacifist" etc. ; when I am not at work, I will be happy to dig up the neccessary links. Will anonynmous read them without first filtering them through his pre-established pro-Counterpunch bias? More central to our topic: why does Counterpunch continue to publish writers like Cabal, Shamir and Atzmon? Would they do the same with people who regularly bashed Muslims, or apologized for their persecutors? This is relevent to a balanced discussion of the website and it's politics.

I agree that it is best that anonynmous and I ceased communicating, as he seems incapable of fairly representing my editing efforts, or even accepting my earlier "olive branch". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.198.231 (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny I didn't see the words "I Apologize" or "I'm sorry" anywhere. The only thing you said was that you might have jumped the gun. Might have jumped the gun! I revert your extremely POV heavy paragraph and then you respond with the gut zionist reflex of calling me a Nazi apologist and you think you just might have jumped the gun? I'd say you dropped the gun and went right for the rocket launcher. You on the other hand will not find the word liar anywhere in my posts. I simply made the observation that you had no evidence to support the article's existence.

Also I think that reasonable people would agree that Atzmon and Shamir's supposed rascism is at least controversial. In the case of Atzmon I feel it has no merit as he said that he isn't one and has in fact filed suit against organizations that label him as such. Shamir is another matter and I do agree that there is sufficient evidence that he may be a right winger pretending to be a left-winger. However, he has still never plainly endorsed holocaust denial or anti-semitism. The ambiquity of his statements may point to this conclusion, but it is far from a certain fact.

Anyway I don't feel counterpunch should be blamed for including a diversity of viewpoints. You can argue over being more careful of whose articles they publish, but I challenge you to find one article in counterpunch that steadfastly supports holocaust denial. RolandR may have a problem with there publishing of Atzmon, but even he acknowledges that counterpunch isn't a bunch of Neo-Nazi rascist's as you would have us beleive they are.

As for the "Shoot first and ask questions later" comment, you stated that your targets also included the editors of counterpunch, not just Nazi sympathizers. I realize that you beleive them to be Nazi sympathizers, but it seems to me in interest of fairness when righting about a somewhat popular internet newsletter you should try to contstruct your criticism in a more professional and neutral way.

Will Beback I suggest you lift the ban and let RolandR make some additional edits and see if we can at all satisfy the unkown user's demands. annoynmous 19:18, February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by annoynmous (talk • contribs) was actually added by 155.138.32.55 (talk • contribs) -

Per the suggestion above I will remove the protection. Please discuss potentialy contentious edits first, and please don't revert one another. -Will Beback · † · 21:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, I would like to see some references made to the Cabal article, in addition to the Atzmon/Shamir references. These are all crucial as evidence for why many people who oppose anti-Jewish racism have made accusations against Counterpunch. I will hold off on posting if an acceptable compromise version is written.

By the way, it is certainly NOT true that Shamir has "never plainly endorsed holocaust denial or anti-semitism"; he most certainly HAS done so on a great many occasions - most recently endorsing the Tehran conference - and there is nothing "ambigious" about this, as there is -occasionally- about Atzmon. This is a "certain fact" as you should know if you had done the most minimal research on this utterly hideous being. But it is not so crucial to me that all of these examples be spelled out in the article itself; only that there be some indication that there is some solid basis for suspicion about Counterpunch's attitude towards anti-Jewish racism, as opposed to their relentless opposition towards all other forms of discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.198.231 (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have left a message on RolandR's talk page asking him to come up with a new paragraph that mentions both Atzmon and Shamir and address's your concerns. I've suggested that he leave out the reference to the Cabal article and if after he makes his edits you still want it in then you can take that up with him directly and see if you can come to some kinda agreement.

Also supporting the Tehran conference does not necessarily make one a anti-semite. As you probably know there were several anti-zionist jews at the conference who while supporting it, condemned the holocaust denial present at the conference. In the long run I probably will end up agreeing with you on Shamir, but calling him a rascist is still technically a matter of opinion. There are conservative personalities who I personally think are rascist such as Ann coulter, but I would never say it's absolute fact that they are rascist.annoynmous 22:31, 8 February (UTC)

This article is about CounterPunch, not about Atzmon or Shamir. Most criticism of them belongs in the respective articles about them, not here. I have edited both pages, and been involved in endless and bitter arguments there. I don't want to go through the same here, and my real criticism of CounterPunch is its failure to print responses. I certainly would not agree that it is racist (though I have used this term to describe both Atzmon and Shamir)or neo-nazi. I would be reluctant to expand the criticism section unless the praise section was also expanded. And, although I could write briefly (and I hope objectively) about the link with Shamir, I had never heard of Alan Cabal until I read this page, and I still know next-to-nothing about him. RolandR 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

He apparently wrote an article in the print edition of counterpunch that is critical of Ernest Zundel's arrest for holocaust denial. He does not in the article, as the unkown user claims, endorse Zundel or the work he published, he simply said it was wrong to kidnap and imprison Zundel for taking an unpopular viewpoint. The unkown user claims to have links to sites where Cabal flat out endorses Zundel and his theories, but so far has failed to produce them. At any rate even though article has been reproduced on several blogs, the original is still only avaible in the print edition of counterpunch and I therefore beleive it shouldn't be included as it is not easily linked to. However, the unkown user insists on it so I'll leave it for you two to argue about. annoynmous 23:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by annoynmous (talk • contribs) was actually added by 66.227.137.56 (talk • contribs) -

Roland, here's a representative example of some of Alan Cabal's recent comments (see in particular the charming conclusion to the first paragraph):

"At Sun Sep 03, 09:58:00 PM EDT, Alan Cabal said... I'd rather harvest Zionist trolls for organs, myself. We've already paid for the parts. An independent Jewish state is a great idea, y'all should try it sometime. See if you can actually support yourselves without the welfare you get from America (who saved your worthless asses) and Germany (who you framed and defamed for a crime they should commit right now).

"I$rael can't stand on it's own feet, because the Jews as a group really have no talent for anything but plagiarism. Your century is OVER."

This completely unedited comment is taken from the following exchange on a blog to which Cabal regularly contributes:

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/israel-is-fake-regime-that-explains.html

Cabal certainly does not deny writing this - and there is similarly vile anti-JEWISH, not "anti-zionist" invective written by him on other posts on both the above and other blogs. It would take me many hours to locate them all. The more central question here is why is this blatantly genocidal fascist racist pig STILL published on Counterpunch (2 articles within the past month in fact)? Is it not relevant that they find such a "person" worthy of publication on their site and on their pages, albeit not (recently) on the topics above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.198.231 (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Is just me or does anyone else find it funny that all of the unkown user's sources come from nutjobs blogs and comment pages on them. He still hasn't produced any solid evidence of Alan Cabal endorsing Zundels views or Holocaust denial. Of course Cabal doesn't like zionists, I happen to not like them either, but that doesn't make him anti-semitic just anti-israel. If the unkown user can produce one solid article written by Cabal that endorces holcaust denial I'll shut up. Not some comment page on a blog either, but an actual article from any website or newspaper. RolandR I leave it in your hands, look at the unkown users sources and decide for yourself. annoynmous 03:55, February 9 2007 (UTC)

This comment has nothing whatsoever to do with CounterPunch. It may be of relevance to an article on Cabal, but I have no interest in him and don't intend to write it. Nor do I have any intention of writing to him.

His article in CounterPunch may be of relevance, but I haven't yet read it because it's not in CP online and I don't trust zundelsite or other neo-nazis to have an accurate version. As far as I'm concerned, any reference to Cabal's alleged article would be redundant in this article, and any reference to views apparently expressed in his name elsewhere are totally irrelevant.

Incidentally, annoynmous, this is why I insisted that the reference to Atzmon note that it was claimed that it is the articles in CP, and not Atzmon himself, which "blur the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism". RolandR 11:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an email to Alan Cabal and asked him to clarify his views on this discussion page. Who knows if he'll respond. In Counterpunch it says that he lives somewhere in California and the address on this guy's blog say's San Franscisco so it could be him. Although, I'm not sure because there isn't any political writing on his site that I can tell of, at least any political talk concerning Israel or for that matter Ernest Zundel. RolandR I wonder if you could also try and contact this Alan Cabal, if he's the same one who wrote the article, and ask him to express himself on this page and maybe we can finally settle this

I've also written an email to counterpunch asking Alex and Jeffrey to contribute. Sense it's there newsletter that's being defamed I feel they have a right to contribute and give there two cents. annoynmous 3:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Annoynmous: it is completely UNACCEPTABLE POV to ask the subjects of an article to contribute to it -and evidence yet again of your own far-from-neutral position on this topic (which is also apparent in some of your comments on Roland R's talk page). So please stop blasting me for MY "bias", OK? Roland, I agree that Counterpunch should not be held responsible for the vile points of view that Cabal has expressed elsewhere, but it is certainly relevent in explaining how he came to his pro-Zundel position which they DID publish. Do you honestly believe that someone who argued that extermination of Muslim's is a crime that "should have been commited" would be published on their site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.88.208 (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Settle down would you! I was just trying to find a way so that we could settle this matter faster.Sense the normal way of solving the dispute didn't seem to be working, I figured let's try and get some actual comment from the people mentioned in this article. In all likelihood they will probably ignore the emails I sent them because they probably have better things to do. I don't understand the sensitivity here. Is it so out of line that the people mentioned in this article might have a right to respond to potentially misleading information that could be damaging to them. You know, like it or not it is still just your opinion that Alan Cabal is a Nazi apologist and accusing him of that when it is far from certain is defamation. Your the one who talked about sueing me earlier because you claimed I called you a liar. Who knows! maybe Cabal will come to this page and post some outrageous Nazi rant and I'll admit you were right all along. I think if people are being accused of something negative they have a right to at least give there side of it. I'm not asking them to edit anything in the article, just discuss it, are you opposed to just talking. I just thought it was way we could end this arguement in a quicker fashion that's all. annoynmous 19:54-19:57, 9 February (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by annoynmous (talk • contribs) was actually added by 66.227.137.56 (talk • contribs) -

Oh, it's "just my opinion" now that Alan Cabal is a Nazi holocaust denier, is it? I just posted a DIRECT QUOTE UNDER HIS NAME (which on the site is linked to his blog which has his email). Here it is once again:

"I'd rather harvest Zionist trolls for organs, myself. We've already paid for the parts. An independent Jewish state is a great idea, y'all should try it sometime. See if you can actually support yourselves without the welfare you get from America (who saved your worthless asses) and Germany (who you framed and defamed for a crime they should commit right now).

I$rael can't stand on it's own feet, because the Jews as a group really have no talent for anything but plagiarism. Your century is OVER."

"FRAMED AND DEFAMED FOR A CRIME THEY SHOULD COMMIT RIGHT NOW"? Does this count as racism and a call for a genocide in YOUR book, nony dearest? It does in that of any reasonably sentinent individual. I'm sure you would agree were it directed against any other minority group. Why is that you hard-left Counterpunch types (and I don't mean genuinely democratic socialists) are so bleeding oblivious to the continued existence of anti-semitism -or more accurately, Jew-hatred - especially when it occurs "on the left"? How much more blatant would it need to be? Is anything short of physical proof of a man personally tossing Jews into a gas chamber (which again, Cabal, like his hero Zundel denies ever occured) not evidence of anti-semitism or nazi apologias in your view? Are you ever willing to admit that I just might know what I'm talking about?????????????????????

I DESPISE RACIST NAZI VERMIN such as Cabal and Zundel and I will not "settle down" while their agenda is (in your case, probably unintentionally) whitewashed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.88.208 (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for not wanting to condemn someone for a FUCKING COMMENT ON A FUCKING BLOG!!!! Okay, I'm sorry to everyone else for my tone and language, but this line of conversation has taken me to a breaking point. All I wanted was to hear Alan Cabal's and Counterpunch's take on things. That's all! Discussion, nothing more. You know! That thing civilized people do. You can't expect us to except your characterization based on a comment page on a blog do you. Who know's what the context of such words were, maybe it was written in anger. It's not made clear what crime he's referring to, it's just your paranoid mind that immediately see conspiracies against Jews everywhere. If he come's to this page and says the holocaust never happened and Jews are pigs I'll give up and say I was wrong. However, until then we know very little about this Alan Cabal. Unlike Shamir and Atzmon there isn't much on the net to give a fully accurate view of this man. You know for someone who is obviously so emotional about this issue did you think maybe your not the best person to give an impartial judgement.

RolandR would you please come and talk to this guy because I literally can't take this anymore. I've tried and tried, but it's obvious no matter how much vitriol we through at each other that we aren't getting anywhere. The unkown user and I have an obvious dislike for one another and it's obvious we can't engage in a civilized discussion, so can you talk to him sense he seems to have a more cordial relationship with you.

I apologize once again to everybody for my tone and language. annoynmous 21:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by annoynmous (talk • contribs) was actually added by 66.227.137.56 (talk • contribs) -

Oh, I dunno what crime do you think he's talking about in a discussion about GERMANY and Jews? Especially when he's a pro-Zundel activist? It is your willfull blindness and steadfast determination to deny any and all examples of anti-Jewish hate that so enrages me; I'll certainly be much calmer if you did not post on a topic in which you continue to present such willfull and determined ignorance, and worse yet -seek to prevent readers from learning more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.88.208 (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay this is it. This is the last time I respond to you so listen closely. You have not provided any solid evidence that Cabal endorses his views. The article you originally sighted was a defense of Zundel's freedom of speech and a critique of the way in which he was arrested. The only evidence you have for his supposed anti-semitic views is a comment page on a blog which isn't sufficient evidence sense we don't know the context of the words or the way they were written.

Here's another thing, If you attempt to restore your original paragraph I will revert it. We will probably get in another back and forth revert war and Will Beback will be forced to reinstall the Block.

Why don't you stop wasting your time with me and go to RolandR's talk page and see if you two can come to some mutual agreement. Then this can be solved and our blood pressure's can go back to normal. THE END. annoynmous 21:25-22:56, 9 February (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by annoynmous (talk • contribs) was actually added by 66.227.137.56 (talk • contribs) -

I presented the full context of Cabal's blog comments by posting the URL of the entire exchange in which they appeared (certainly, it would have taken far too much space to have simply cut and paste it all here). There is ABSOLUTELY NO circumstance in which they would be morally acceptable or uttered by anyone other than a degenerate genocidal racist/fascist pig. The fact that you can state otherwise is indicative once again that you simply do not care about - let alone oppose - any level of racism or hatred directed against Jews. You and Counterpunch more generally would not respond in this way were any other ethnic/racial/religious minority group so targeted. Sadly, it's beginning to appear that it was my apology to you that "jumped the gun" rather than my original comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! So I'm a Nazi apologist again. Now I'm really glad I didn't apologize to you. I think I said several posts ago that I believe the Holcaust happened. I simply want to get context in which these arguements were written. In the context they appear on the site they are ambigous as to there meaning. They could be a expression of anti-semtism, or simply just a rather harsh critque of zionism. That's why I asked Cabal to contribute to this article so his views could be made clear. If he did and his comments came off as supporting Holcaust denial, I've said before I'd admit I was wrong. I mean I'm not even sure if this is the same Alan Cabal since there is no plitical writing at his blog.

As for the rascism charges I beleive that criticism of an ethnic or religous group based solely on the fact that there relgion isn't yours is wrong. I think one can criticize jewish religious pratices and even jewish culture as one can do of all cultures. When you criticize a group on the basis that they are gentically inferior because of there ethnicity that is rascism and utterly descipable.

I know I said I wouldn't resond anymore, but I can't take laying down the unkown user painting me as a rascist and getting away with it. It seems rather pathetic that because someone wants actual, solid, uambigous proof that someone is a Holocaust denier that they should be called a rascist.annoynmous 20:59-22:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by annoynmous (talk • contribs) was actually added by 66.227.137.56 (talk • contribs) -

Alternative media (U.S. political left)

When unlocked, add article to Alternative media (U.S. political left) category. --Kitrus 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalinist racist weekly ?

I just deleted some vandalism ... had "Stalinist racist" right on the first paragraph Pendolatrice 14:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

wsj

I deleted the Wall Street Journal- Opinion Journal related comment from the criticism section. It wasnt a criticism it was just name calling and completely irrevelent. and give citations for the holocaust denier piece or else delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.214.200 (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial

I've removed a sentence about alleged "holocaust deniers" which is potentially libelous and isn't supported by any reliable sources. Please don't re-add it without providing a source. Spacevalid 18:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you had bothered to look at the article history, or the discussion here on the talk page, you would see that the fact tag had been placed only recently, and time was being given for a source to be found. As such, I am reverting your edit. ---Charles 18:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We must not keep potentially libelous material in an article, even with a fact tag. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately, not tagged. [9] Adding this material without a source is vandalism, and I will remove it every time you re-add it. Spacevalid 18:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 18:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced this information in a non-libellous form. All of these individuals' WP articles mentions Holocaust revisionism. References need to be inserted here, which I will do if I have time. BobFromBrockley 11:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Note, there are more than one Daniel McGowans! The WP article for him (Daniel McGowan) is NOT about the alleged denier Daniel A McGowan. BobFromBrockley 12:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have toned down the phrasing to remove any possible suggestion of libel. The references give documentation: On Cabal: Holocaust Denial: A Global Survey - 2004. On McGowan: Sue Blackwell's anti-Zionist page; CAMERA. On Shamir: LabourNet. The sources for Sue Blackwell and LabourNet, incidentally, are far from pro-Zionist. It wouldn't take much googling to add more references making the case for these people being apologists for deniers, notably Ernst Zundel. BobFromBrockley 11:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Bob, for pulling up those references. As we see, once again, "anonynmous", a steadfast apologist for anti-Jewish racism on "the left" -(see the earlier parts of this discussion page where he refused to acknowledge, let alone condemn, Alan Cabal's documented calls for genocide against Jews) is once again attempting to vandalize this article. He has in the past even attempted to contact Cockburn, St. Clair and Cabal directly and get them to write the article themselves - that apparently is his idea of scholarly objectivity. Obviously, he worships Counterpunch and that is his right, but he does not have the right to seek to censor well-documented evidence that portrays his idols in a less than fully favorable light, when that evidence is as clear and irrefutable as it is. Of course, that is the way that Leninist-Stalinist regimes in power have always operated, seeking to silence -when they are not simply killing - their opposition. Anonymous needs to be reminded that Wikipedia is not Pravda, Gramma etc. where only officialy sanctioned views get printed. It is obvious - yet again!- that anonynmous refuses to participate in good faith and clear that he deserves another suspension (perhaps a permanent one) of his editing priviledges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifascist (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am now officially never going to accept anything anti-fascist contributes to this article. Once you call someone a fascist and supporter of the Nazi Geonocide you've crossed a line. My denfense of Alan Cabal was based a fanatical zionist rantings who provided no evidence that Cabal endorsed holocaust denial. All he did was defend Ernest Zundels freedom of speech, nothing else. There is not one article that can be found were cabal endorses the view that the holocaust never happened. I have plainely stated in other posts that I believe that the holocaust happened and that it was a terrible event in modern history. Calling someone a supporter of the Nazi's is in my mind grounds for being banned from this article.

Bob I think it is important to know that anti-fascist has libeled me by calling me a holocaust denier and fascist which to me is grounds for him to be restricted from editing this article.

This is the zionist mindset for you. Criticizing Israel equals anti-semitism.

This issue was already dealt wih by RolandRs contribution dealing with Atzmon. If you wish to add Shamir to this criticism fine, but I will not allow people like Mcgowan and Cabal to libeled by some zionist hoodlum who wants to bias this article because he hates it that counterpunch criticizes Israel.

Bob, In case you haven't figured it out I'm trying to control my anger, but I think you must agree that calling me a supporter of the Nazi geonocide was uncalled for. I will be willing to discuss to some sort compromise with you, but I refuse to dignify anti-fascist any longer with a response. His rude and fanatical demeanor I think speaks for itself. annoynmous 19:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys have been unproductivey edit-warring over this. I checked the references and only one mentioned the subject. I've shortened the material to reflect that criticism, which appears noteworthy. I don't see any general criticism over publishing other authors. -Will Beback · † · 02:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reasoned approach, but I still have a few problems with using this passage. First of all the article is beginning to become overloaded with this type of criticism. After a while people are going to start to say "All right, we get it, Counterpunch is accused of anti-semtism". The criticisms by Steven Plaut and the Jews aginst Zionism criticism should suffice, why do we need a third one.

The other thing is that the article about Zundel is only in Counterpunch's print addition and therefore can not be directly accessed in any way. Also as I have stated before the article in question by Alan Cabal does not endorse Zundels views in any way, it only defends his freedom of speech. I don't think a newsletter should be penalized for simply allowing someone views to be expressed when nothing on there website or there newsletter directly endorses those views. Also outside of this one Global survey report, this really isn't something that is a source of controversy in regards to counterpunch. Counterpunch gets criticized for a lot of things, but this fairly obscure article on ernest zundel is not soemthing that's readily pointed too. It seems the only people who for whom this is big issue is several people with agendas on wikipedia. annoynmous 18:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If there's a lot of a certain type of criticism then the article should reflect that. A Google search for [+Counterpunch +Zundel] shows that this matter has received considerable attention in blogs etc, making this one criticism appears to be the tip of the iceberg. The fact that the article being criticized was not reproduced on their website hardly seems significant, but if you want we can add that fact. -Will Beback · † · 19:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: McGown and Cabal: as annoynmous DOES know, Alan Cabal has EMPHATICALLY expressed his agreement with Zundel's views on the Nazi holocaust - the evidence for this was presented earlier on this very discussion page. While in the 2004 Counterpunch print article, Cabal may have appeared to have merely endorsed Zundel's right to free speech (something I agree with by the way), in the years since then he has made clear his agreement with the holocaust denial perspective, and even openly called for genocide of Jews (again the evidence is above on this page). Furthermore, although not as vitriolic in his criticisms, McGowan is also on record -and he in no way denies this! - as doubting that 6 million Jews were killed. See this quite recent article here: http://rense.com/general75/viv.htm -as you can see this article was enthusiastically linked to on the website of the Institute for Historical Review, the world's leading pro-Nazi holocaust denial organzation:http://www.ihr.org/rounduparchive/0703.shtml, as well as by the loathsome Nazi-style racist Israel Shamir ( an open ally of the National Alliance, British National Party and similar fascist groups) to his yahoo group :http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/message/917 which can be linked to from the official Israel Shamir website: http://www.israelshamir.net/. As you will see, Shamir favorably contrasts McGowan's approach to that of the Palestinian Azmi Bishara who as a genuine anti-racist does not doubt that 6 million Jews among many millions of others were specifically targeted by the Nazis and perished in the war.

Of course, it is true that neither Cabal nor McGowan's most loathsome pieces were published by Counterpunch (even Annon admits that Shamir is anti-Jewish)but it is interesting that they are considered acceptable contributors on related subjects and themes. Would a diehard white supremacist (which in fact, many of McGowan's closest fans such as "Curt Maynard/Chris Womack" of PC Apostate truly are) be published in Counterpunch if they wrote on the supposed evils of Affirmative Action even if they -this time- avoided the use of racial slurs? It is this widely perceived "softness on anti-semitism" (or more precisely, on anti-JUDAISM) that has alarmed some critics of Counterpunch and that makes it a relevant theme for this article. As I have demonstrated, I have plenty of documented sources and evidence at my command, and the only reason I can see for anyone to challenge them is because of a fairly obvious pro-Counterpunch bias and unwillingness to see it portrayed in a less than euphorically positive light. It is also clear that merely describing Zundel as an "extremist" is insufficient is making the point. He is a utterly GENOCIDAL racist, author of the Hitler we loved and why, and ally of white supremaicst groups, even if it is true that he is entitled to free speech on the Nazi holocaust, provided that he does not put his views into ACTION! (antifascist).

Oh, and by the way, Anonymous was the first to introduce libels and slurs by labeling me - on the basis of absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER - a 'zionist hoodlum" which he did both on this page and in the editing summaries. I suggest that HE be banned from editing till that loathsome libel is withdrawn. Clearly, he regards all serious opponents of anti-Jewish racism (as well as racism of all types) as ipso facto "zionists', which in fact reveals something quite ugly about his own racial/ethic/religious attitudes. There are plenty of ANTI-Zionists who feel the way that I do about Cabal, Shamir, Atzmon and McGowan, the Jews against Zionism foremost among them. (antifascist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifascist (talk • contribs) 20:54-21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-fascist is flat out lying. The unkown user who originally brought this issue up produced Zero, I repeat "Zero" evidence to support his claim that Cabal endorsed Zundels views. All he produced was a comment page on some obscure blog that may not have even been the same Cabal. There is nothing in either Cabal's or Mcgowans writings that directly endorses the view that Holocasut didn't happen. So Mcgowans work is quoted by Holocaust deniers? Big Fucking Whoop!!! Everyone from Noam Chomsky to Tony Judt is quoted by Holocaust deniers, that proves absolutely nothing. Holocasut deniers will quote almost anyone who's even remotely criticizes Israel, that doesn't mean they are Holocaust deniers. I find it interesting that Raul Hilberg also doubts that 6 million were killed and yet there is no criticism of him.

Ani-Fascist is also lying about who started with the libelous comments. He referred to me as a "Cockburn lackey". Anyway I don't think calling someone a zionist hoodlum warrants calling me a geonicidal rascist who supported the Nazis. I think I've been pretty generous in not going to the wikipedia adminstration and having anti-fascist banned, but I beleive that no one shoould be excluded from a debate no matter how much I may depsise them.

Will Beback, Bobfrombockley, I think you'd have to agree I have been libeled by anti-fascists disgusting comments. I think it is pretty clear from anti-fascists tone and language that he is vicious fanatic who wants to bias this article. You guys seems to be reasonable and I might be willing to discuss some sorta compromise. However, If anti-fascist continues with his libelous remarks I will be forced to ask that this article be protected from his vandalism. annoynmous 00:07 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to realize that a lot of this is not productive and that the conflict as gone away from dispute over the article too a childish "You called me names you meaney" mentality. I'm going to attempt to be the big man and try to be civil by making and offer to anti-fascist.

Anti-Fascist. I"m sorry I called you a zionist hoodlum. I don't your political beliefs so making that claim was ill-informed and wrong. It was childish name calling and I apologize.

Now I think anti-fascist would agree that calling me rascist and supporter of the Nazi's was rephrensible and disgusting. A look at some of my previous comments on this page would show that your claims were wrong. It was an ugly personal attack that requires an immediate apology.

Now, I've admitted what I said I said was wrong, now it's your turn. The balls in your court. annoynmous 01:03 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you certainly should be sorry for labeling me with that disgusting libel -which was indeed what preciptated my over-the-top description of you. I am sorry for mislabeling you a racist holocaust denier. Unfortunately, however, as your last comment demonstrates, you remain an apologist for some other writers who truly ARE. There is only one Alan Cabal who is known to write about Zundel, and several other anti-nazi and anti-fascist observers (and yes, many of them "anti-zionist") have noted his views. There can be no reasonable doubt that the utterly vile comments quoted earlier on this page were indeed from the one and the same Cabal. I have never claimed that he made those comments in Counterpunch, only that he continues to publish there.

And if you had bothered to read the McGowan piece you would have seen that it is not a mere matter of his being "quoted" by holocaust deniers, the way Chomsky and Tony Judt sometimes are. McGowan expressely makes the case for the denier's POINT OF VIEW, not just their rights to free speech. In fact, his organization Deir Yassin Remembered (along with its cofounder Paul Eisen) is by now so associated with this argument, as well as with the publication of articles that explicitly target Jews and Judaism AS SUCH (see for example Eisen's "Holocaust Wars" and "Jewish Power") that a great many of its original board members have since resigned (e.g. Jeff Halper). This has been well covered by various anti-zionist groups and blogs such as Sue Blackwell's, Jews San Frontieres and JPUK. See also the writings of Ted Greenstein and Roland Rance. To its credit, Counterpunch refused to publish McGowan's pro-Zundel pieces but he did recently appear there with an article on Elie Wiesel. That is all that people like me, Bob Brockley and Will Beback have been trying to say, and it was therefore in fact quite petty of you to let your personal anger at me cause you to reverse my latest edit -which was really just a clarification of points made by Will. And again, explicitly documented points. I will not reverse your latest edit, but hope that you yourself will see fit to reinstate them. (antifascist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifascist (talk • contribs) 05:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of you should stop referring to each other. Please comment on the edits rather than the editors. -Will Beback · † · 05:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You know I love this, I tried to be nice and anti-fascist only half heartily apologizes and then trades one insult for another by calling be an apologist instead of an out right rascist.

Ow and by the way as I said before I didn't start this, anti-fascist did when he called me a cockburn lackey. That's what provoked my comment.

As for Mcgowan, how does he endorse the deniers point of view. He simply states that are legitimate questions that can be asked. In the same article you referenced he also praises a Holocaust museums work, doesn't that contradict him being a holocaust denier. You have not provided one bit of evidence to support any of the claims you just made. There is nothing at sue blackwells site that shows Mcgowan directly endorsing holocaust denial. So what if he criticizes Eli Wiesel, a lot of people such as Norman finkelstein have criticised Wiesel as the resident holocaust clown. That doesn't make you a denier. As I stated before no one criticise's Raul Hilberg who only believes that the number killed is 5 Million.

Will Beback I agree with you that Anti-fascist and I should stop communicating. I tried to be decent and civil and in my opinion he responded very rudely with a half hearted apology. It's Interesting he mentioned RolandR who agrees with me that Anti-fascists comments were rephrensible. Maybe it's just me, but I think calling someone a rascist Nazi is far worse than calling them a zionist. annoynmous 06:52, 3o April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's just no pleasing some people, it seems! I offered a quite genuine heartfelt apology and anonynmous continues to hold a grudge, misstate events and make additional excuses for holocaust deniers. McGowan's article is BY DEFINITION a piece of holocuast denial, which is hardly surprising given the views of his close friends and organizational associates Paul Eisen and Israel Shamir. And no, there are NO "legitimate questions that can be asked" unless one is like Zundel and McGowan a pro-Hitler racist who seeks to minimize Nazi atrocities. Blackwell was forced to remove some of her materials on McGowan because that great believer in free speech threatened to sue her for libel (and as we all know, British libel laws are far more punitive than those of the U.S). In any event, McGowan's efforts are far from limited to criticizing Elie Wiesel, as you put it. And, finally, you did not initially call me a mere "zionist" but a "zionist hoodlum" which is a far more pejorative term than "lacky". I will cease responding to you if you stop reverting the article as it now stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifascist (talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the articlet to make the wording more neutral and Substituted revisionist for extremist. The Term "anti-jewish" is a prejorative term and has no place in encylcopedic entry. Oh! and by the way this doesn't mean I in any endrose Zundels views, because I don't.

As too Mcgowan, once again anti-fascist has not provided not one bit of evidence that Mcgowan is a denier or anti-jewish. He is once again using the guilt by assocaition slur, that becasue he's quoted by certain people, that must mean he endorses there views. Questioning the official zionist orthodoxy of the Holocaust does make one anti-jewish or in anti-fascists words a Holocasut minimizer. Numerous times in his writings, Mcgowan ackowledges that Holocaust happened and that it was terrible, he just takes iisue like Norman Finkelstein with the way zionist's exploit it in order to suppress the palestinians. Once again I state no one takes issue with Raul Hilberg for saying that the numbered killed was less than 6 million. Why does saying that maybe it was just 5 million instead of 6 million make you a Holocaust denier. 5 million people killed in space of five years still sounds pretty bad to me. There's no getting around the fact that there some holocaust stories that have been proven false, such as the use of Zyclon B. They actually found that they had to mix Zyclon B with other chemicals because several Holocaust deniers did some research and said that there was no way Zyclon B could have been used. It's the Devils advocate principle, in that in way someone with a despicable motive is indirectly trying to help you. People such as Finkelstein and Hilberg have embraced this doctrine and say in a way Holocasut deniers make Holocaust historians better researchers because they ask the questions no one esle will ask, and sometimes beneath there venom they sometimes come up with true conclusions. Acknowledging that doesn't mean that Nazi's were any less evil and despicable than they were or that the Holocaust wasn't one of the worst atrocities in Human history.

Anyway I see no reason to add Mcgowan or Cabals name to article. As I've said before If someone wishes to add Israel Shamirs name to the Jews against Zionism croticism, I'm fine with that. annoynmous 23:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed revistionist back to denier, but added "defending freedom of speech" at the beginning sense no where in this article does Cabal directly defend Zundels views. annoynmous 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

annonynmous has once again rejected the olive brach I offered by reverting the edits re: cabal, mcgowan and zundel - in fact, McGowan wasn't even specifically mentioned in the edit that he vandalized but he continues to whitewash the viewpoint of this loathsome racist nonetheless. McGowan -and Cabal's - views go well beyond Norman Finkelstein's and Noam Chomsky's as I and others have documented time and time again. They do not merely defend Zundel's "freedom of Speech". They specifically legitimize his VIEWS. It is certainly appropriate to use terms like "anti-Jewish" in an encyclopedia when they are warranted, just as it would be to label George Wallace and Lester Maddox as "anti-black" or more generally as "racists". i Will not immediately revert his vandalism, but will give others a chance to edit this appropriately. As it stands now, however, this is a completely inaccurate representation of the "criticisms" that have been made. (antifascist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifascist (talk • contribs) 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again I love this. I tried to be decent and come to some sorta mutual compromise that we could both agree on and anti-fascist will have none of it. He doesn't care ablout fairness or neutralty it seems, he just wants his own point in the article.

I know this is starting to sound like a broken record, but once again you have failed to produce any hard evidence from Cabal or Mcgowans writings that his specifically anti-jewish. Neither one of them has directly denied the Holocaust and anti-fascist knows it. All they hve done is defended Zundels freedom of speech and suggest that maybe not everything about the holocaust orthodoxy is true. I know anti-fascist doesn't like any one asking questions and loves to brand them as rascist nazi supporters, but that doesn't mean his own persoanl rants should be in this article. Epitaphs like "Anti-Jewish extremists" are his opinions and his alone and should not passed off as fact.

By the way, I didn't revert his edits, I just made the language more neutral. Shouldn't a encylopedia value neutrality. I think says a lot that I haven't reverted this text and am willing to come to a mutual compromise, but anti-fascist obviously wants it his way or no way. annoynmous 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There are so many different issues here it is difficult to know where to start. Fact: CounterPunch has published Israel Shamir.[10][11] Fact: Shamir is widely believed to be heavily involved with anti-semitic and neo-Nazi movements. This is documented, for example, by Sue Blackwell, who no-one can accuse of being in any way pro-Zionist.[12] Fact: Daniel A McGowan has been published by CounterPunch.[13] Fact: McGowan has been strongly supportive of Zundel, not just of Zundel's freedom of speech:

"Ernst believes that Jewish groups have wanted him jailed for promoting views that the Jewish-Zionist lobby considers harmful to its interests.Ernst Zuendel is neither a monster nor a heretic. He is a man with strong convictions and the courage to express them. He views himself not as a Holocaust "denier," but rather as a Holocaust revisionist....Those who would incarcerate revisionists like Ernst Zuendel and hold them, without bail, for years on end to drain them of their resources and to silence them as "Prisoners of Zion" could well be labeled as "justice deniers.""

This is clearly more than defending his free speech; it is legitimising his views and indeed providing him with a mouthpiece. More info here. It is therefore no suprise that McGowan is widely published in neo-Nazi websites, like CODOH. Fact: Alan Cabal is published by CounterPunch.[14][15]. Fact: Cabal has defended Zundel in several forums, and is widely published by neo-Nazi sites like FPP. I think it is important the article reflects these facts. It is also important that the article does not say that CounterPunch itself is supportive of Holocaust revisionism, or that its contributors are anti-semitic, but confines itself to the facts. BobFromBrockley 09:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again the guilt by association tag, just becasue neo-nazi sites quote them doesn't mean they endorse there views. Mcgowan is simply stating what zundels position is. That is not endorsing.

Mcgowan has referenced seversl times in his article to a Holocaust museum that he considers excellent. So that kinda contradicts him being a Holocaust denier.

I happen to agree with you on Shamir. I personally think he's a right winger whose fooled people into thinking he's a left-winger.

Until someone produces something by either Cabal or Mcgowan that soecifically denies the Holocaust and is specifically anti-jewish I remain with my reservations. I'm not talking about some comment page on an obscure blog either, I want and actual full article they have wrote.

I am happy with the article as it is as long as the freedom of speech part stays on because that's what the article is about. annoynmous 17:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, no actual evidence would ever really convince annoynmous of the reality of McGowan's and Cabal's vehemently anti-Jewish and pro-Nazi views, as that evidence is irrefutable and has already been presented many times. That is why annon says "it can't be a comment page on some (in fact,not so obscure) blog" because he KNOWS that Cabal DID in fact express those views on such a blog, has never denied them, and is regarded by virtually everyone sane as an anti-Jewish holocaust denying racist. But annon will not yield one inch -come what may - in his quest to have the article appear exactly the way he would write it, i.e. one that reflects his own ideological fantasies, rather than well-documented EVIDENCE. Hence his incessent vandalism and reverts. I think Wiki editors should be contacted re: his POV editing violations (outside observer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.164.223 (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is this everyone you refure too that knows Mcgowan and cabal are anti-jewish rascists. You and your friends at wikipedia. I know that people beleive that if they same soemthing enough times without providing any real evidence that it's true. You guys keep using these words that you are certain are absolute fact, but you've produced very little too back it up. What right do you have to use phrases like "anti-jewish rascists" on this article. This is and Encyclopedia!!! Your supposed to be neutral. Who knows, given time I may come to agree that these guys are rascists, but even then I wouldn't want such language in the entry becasue it's innapropriate and unprofessinal.

The only reason to use such language is too bias the article. I haven't reverted the article, all I've done is make the wording more neutral, that's all. Isn't that the point of us discussing this, to come to a mutual compromise.

By the way it would would rather absurd to try and ban me seeing as I haven't violated the 3rr rule and I haven't reverted the passage, only change it a little. annoynmous 02:00 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the article should say that Cabal or McGowan are anti-Jewish racists. But I think they do more than defend Zundel's freedom of speech. This is precisely why they are promoted by neo-nazi sites, and they have never (to my knowledge) published anything disassociating themselves from the neo-nazi sites which publish them. First, Cabal. Look at what they have written. According to the Wyman Inst:

in the February 1-15 , 2004 edition of the political newsletter CounterPunch... 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.”[16] (Same text according to Zundelsite [17])

Cabal also says "The man [Zundel] may hold provocative views, but he is a committed pacifist. He is guilty only of expressing an unpopular viewpoint." (zundelsite ibid) SO, Cabal says Zundel is guilty only of being unpopular. I personally do not support the prosecution of Holocaust deniers, but to reduce their views simply to "provocative" and "unpopular" views is to legitimise them.

Further, Cabal's description of "Ernst" (as he always calls him) as this cuddly old pacifist painter is to defend him, the man, not just his free speech.

Second, McGowan. His association with Shamir is clear: Shamir calls him "our friend". [18] McGowan also does more than defend the free speech of Zundel. The facts about the Holocaust that Zundel denies, he calls "facts" (in scare quotes - an act of denial). His interview provides Zundel with a voice to express his views.

McGowan also defends Zundel the man, not just his freedom of speech. He writes:

An admirer once described Ernst Zuendel as "an outgoing, good-humored man who is blessed with a rare combination of unflagging optimism and practical ability. He maintains this infectious spirit even under very trying conditions. He is an unusually alert and sensitive individual with a keen understanding of human nature. He inspires confidence, loyalty and affection." On December 7, 2006 I witnessed his trial in Mannheim and found this description to be uncannily accurate.

This "admirer", as far as I can tell, is the neo-nazi Revisionists.com website.[19] Like Cabal, McGowan portrays Zundel as a sweet, pacifist painter. The final para of McG's article is most distasteful:

He is a man with strong convictions and the courage to express them. He views himself not as a Holocaust "denier," but rather as a Holocaust revisionist... Those who would incarcerate revisionists like Ernst Zuendel and hold them, without bail, for years on end to drain them of their resources and to silence them as "Prisoners of Zion" could well be labeled as "justice deniers."

This phrase "deniers of justice" is horrific moral equivalence: Zundel's life is made equivelant to those of the millions of Nazi victims. The phrase "Prisoners of Zion" is rather dodgy, to say the least. BobFromBrockley 12:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal preference is neither "defending the free speech" (far too week - would not cause much controversy) nor "sought to legitimize" (I believe this is true - but is perhaps too strong) but rather the more neutral and simple "defended". Also, what happened to the footnote on McGowan? BobFromBrockley 17:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask how saying someone has a cheerful demeanor means you endorse there views. Holocaust deniers cam have a very cheerful personalities. In a way that's what makes them so terrifying. Would you rather McGowan lie and say Zundel is a mad raving rascist dog.

I repeat an earlier criticism, So what if Neo-Nazi websites promote Mcgowan. That proves absolutely nothing. This guilt by association and it has no place in an encyclopedia. No one so far has produced any bit of either Cabals or Mcgowans writings that endorses zundels views.

So what if Israel Shamir calls Mcgowan a friend. Has Mcgowan acknowleded this in any of his articles. You guys are constantly mistaking your own personal sensitivities for evidence. Just because you say "Clearily this means" and it's "Obvious from" doesn't mean it's true. It still remains your opinion.

It's obvious that vague phrases likee "Defended" or "Legitimized" aren't going to work. so how about we get really technical and state what the article by Cabal actualy says. How about "Objects to the prosecution and imprisonment of" sense that is the subject the article actually deals with. annoynmous 00:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by annoynmous (talk • contribs) was actually added by 71.13.216.47 (talk • contribs) -

Anon continues his willful ignorance in the service of whitewashing "leftist" holocaust deniers; McGowan certainly DOES consider Israel Shamir a close friend - indeed, it was insistence on putting him on the board of directors of McGowan's organization Deir Yassin Remembered that led many other anti-zionists, -both Jewish and Palestinian - to resign from the organization. One prominent example is Jeff Halper. This has all been well-covered in the anti-zionist blogosphere, particularly in the U.K on such sites as Sue Blackwell's, Jews San Frontieres and others. McGowan and his co-director Paul Eisen enthusiastically endorse both Zundel and Shamir's vile racist writings about Judaism and Jews and are close political allies of them. Roland Rance can certainly confirm all of this, as can anyone else who has actually followed these controversies up close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.199.143 (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the page to reflect Anonn's correct point that the denial articles are not in Counterpunch but elsewhere, and to make it clear that legitimizing views is the belief of the critics rather than an encyclopedic fact. I hope this is a satisfactory compromise! BobFromBrockley 10:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Bob, I accept your compromise and think the article is fine as it stands. I think we have reached a good mutual compromise. I fully endorse your most recent edit and will make no further attempts to revert it. I hope anti-fascist will do the same. annoynmous 06:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by annoynmous (talk • contribs) was actually added by 71.13.216.47 (talk • contribs) -

I have simply added one word to this compromise as a point of clarification. Althogh far from perfect, I am now prepared to accept this existing version and hope that we can all go forward without any new reverts. (antifascist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifascist (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor amendment looks fine. Phew. BobFromBrockley 08:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Praise

This citation appears to be purely a self-written ad on the website which is used to provide reference. A more appropriate citation is needed, I will leave the current cite for now, but will also add a cite needed tag. Tiggerjay 03:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the claim of scoops that have been picked up by other news outlets? I doubt that a better source is available. I've seen similar claims in at least one other news outlet article. Beside the outlet itself, no one else is going to track the info. We may have to edit the assertion to make it clear that this is a claim they make about themselves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ron Jacobs

The link connected to Ron Jacobs in this article is incorrect. The Ron Jacobs referred to here is an activist and the author of The Way the Wind Blew:A History of the Weather Underground (Verso, 1997) and Short Order Frame Up (Mainstay 2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.194.132 (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Have linked it instead to Ron Jacobs (author). Is that a satisfactory solution for the moment? BobFromBrockley 15:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Have restored criticism wording to previous state, as this was consensus reached after long discussion here, involving number of editors - see above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)