Talk:Jonathan Cook

Image

I await your responce here. --Striver 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to go ahead and use the picture. JonathanCook 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I e-mailed Jonathan Cook the same time i wrote the above message. As it is clear, it is only possible for the receipiant of the e-mail to know that it contained a request to use the pictures, hence i am convinced that the above comment is from a person reading Jonathan Cook's e-mail, presumably Jonathan Cook himself. A socpupet test can prove that we do not share an ip-range, specialy since we presumably are not even on the same continets. Nice to hear from you Jonathan! Peace. --Striver 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way Mr Cook, did you try to email me? I am under the impresion that my e-mail account can not receive e-mail from certain people. Just as a test, could you try to e-mail me anything and write a line here on this page to confirm that you tried? Thanks. --Striver 12:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Views ascribed to me I have never expressed etc

As the subject of this page, I assume I have the right to express my opinion of PoV comments being ascribed to me, especially when they have no obvious basis in reality. I notice that two final sentences have been inserted:

However, many have criticised Cook for being overly apologetic towards and misrepresenting the history of the Palestinian terrorism.[1] In his journalism and writings he takes a predominantly far-leftist perspective viewing Israel as a colonial enterprise, and as a client state of the U.S.

I have a number of observations about these additions:

1. A couple of Zionist organisations, namely Camera and the ADL, have accused me of misrepresenting Palestinian terrorism. Then again, they would, wouldn't they. But by any normal understanding of the word, that hardly constitutes "many". I assume the writer of this line chose "many" because it implies near-universal agreement. I hardly think two Zionist pressure groups qualify as near-universal agreement.

2. As far as I remember i have never referred to Israel as a colonial enterprise. If ever I have in the past, I certainly wouldn't say that was my position today. Shouldn't a recent citation be required to substantiate this claim?

3. As a matter of fact, I do not subscribe to the view that Israel is a client state of the US. I don't take the opposite view either. In recent radio interviews, such as one with George Kenney on his site Electric Politics, I have taken a distinctively different position: I argue that pro-Israel elements in Washington, the neo-cons, have so enmeshed themselves with US power elites that it is almost impossible to disentangle whose policy dominates, or whether there is anything on which they disagree.

4. Who says that the two opinions ascribed to me (wrongly) are "far-leftist"? Far-leftist by whose standards? Your average Zionist's? Your average American's? I have not openly subscribed to any political view apart from my trenchant criticism of Israel and my warnings about the West's credulous acceptance of the "clash of civilisations". So how does the writer know I am a far-leftist. This is just pure (parochial) PoV, presumably inserted by a Zionist American.JonathanCook 00:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Jonathan Cook

i've removed "predominantly far-leftist perspective" since that's a rather vague term and doesn't seem to be the main aim of the person who added the claims about Israel as a colonial enterprise and as a US client state. For the moment, i'm just putting {{citation needed}} on those two claims to see how it looks. Back soon... Boud 00:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• "israel as a colonial enterprise" - i'm not sure if this is necessarily meant to be a direct quotation, it could be someone trying to sum up your general work. i guess we should see if anyone provides a citation.
• "israel as a US client state" - i'm just trying to think of process issues. It's clear that here you say you have quite a different point of view, neither US nor Israel is a client of the other, but rather they are so deeply enmeshed, that you can't separate them (my rewording, your original is above). i guess the wikipedia no original research guidelines would ask whether or not the information is externally verifiable. Given that your website has your email address and wikipedians could email that address to verify if you (the jonathon cook editing this talk page) and the externally verifiable (by email) jonathon cook are the same person - and i personally (as one wikipedian) am satisfied that you are the same person, my feeling is that this is reasonably verifiable. So my suggestion is that we add something like Cook himself denies having ever stated that Israel is a colonial enterprise and says that he does not view Israel as a US client state, but in fact believes that "pro-Israel elements in Washington, the neo-cons, have so enmeshed themselves with US power elites that it is almost impossible to disentangle whose policy dominates, or whether there is anything on which they disagree." On the other hand, if nobody comes up with citations, then it might be better to delete the sentence. In any case, i suggest let's leave it some time and see what others think and whether anyone brings along citations. Boud 01:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's better but the problem now is that as far as I know no one has claimed either of those things about me. I am sure lots of people think it but that hardly counts. Most of my critics don't engage with my arguments, they just slur me. If you are looking for dirt on me, there's not much:

I was the runner-up in Honest Reporting's Dishonest Reporting Awards 2004

I have been called an anti-Semite (in public and in print) by Steven Plaut (and by lots of other people in emails)

As for me denying that Israel is a colonial enterprise, I've only done that here in the talk section. It's not something I've expressed a view on so why would it be in my wiki entry. Similarly for the client state bit unless you external link to the George Kenny interview

—Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanCook (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 October 2006

colonial enterprise/client state claims

IMHO there are now sufficient referenced criticisms of Jonathan, that we can shift the "colonial enterprise/client state" claims here to the talk page (rather than removing them totally). If someone can come up with some external references or discuss sensibly what an WP:NPOV summary of these claims would be, then that could be returned to the article.

What i removed:

It has been claimed that in his journalism and writings, Cook takes a view of Israel as a colonial enterprise,‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  and as a client state of the U.S.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› .

Please also see Jonathan's comments above. If there are criticisms against Jonathan which are serious enough to have been made verifiably, externally to the wikipedia, then Jonathan will presumably also respond to those claims in an appropriate way externally to the wikipedia (if he wishes to), and then that could be referenced in the wikipedia article. Boud 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My reply to Camera

As this page seems (over)excited by the criticisms of Camera, it might be fair to include my responses to their criticisms. regarding the complaints about my territorial views, my letter of defence was published in the electronic intifada:

http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/7/1865

i also had a letter published in the IHT on sept 8 2004 in response to camera's criticisms of my non-violence article. unfortunately it is no longer available on the net but here are the contents that were published in the paper:

Writer response

I note with dismay the correspondence provoked by my commentary last week ("Nonviolent protest offers little hope for Palestinians," Views, Aug. 31). My critics fall into two camps. The first accuses me of excusing or justifying violent Palestinian attacks on Israelis. This is a gross misrepresentation. I simply explained why Arun Gandhi's message of nonviolence is likely to fall on stony ground in the occupied territories. Sadly, the suicide bombing in Beersheba on the day my commentary was published appears to confirm my point.

Let me restate my core argument for those who missed it: A peaceful solution to this conflict will emerge only when the Israeli left shows true solidarity with ordinary Palestinians. That will require that Israeli peace activists take the same risks as nonviolent Palestinians in facing down their own country's tanks and armed soldiers.

The second camp accuses me of ignoring the violence repeatedly used by the PLO leadership during their long exile in Jordan, Lebanon and Tunisia. I should have made my meaning clearer. When I wrote that the Palestinians were nonviolent "for most of the 37 years of Israel's occupation," I was referring only to those Palestinians who were living under occupation. I was making a historical assessment of the value of nonviolence as a tool for ending the occupation by those Palestinians who actually lived under Israeli rule. My point was that Israel responded, not by recognizing the moral rights of the occupied Palestinian people, but by entrenching its hold on the territories. In contrast, though I did not mention it in the original article, the exiled PLO leadership, which did use violence, was allowed to return by Israel in the 1990s and set up shop in the occupied territories in the new guise of the Palestinian Authority. Again, sadly, the lesson to be learned is that, in the realpolitik of this conflict, violence does work.

Jonathan Cook, Jerusalem

—Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanCook (talk • contribs)

Confusion

When I searched this page, I was looking for a bio about Jonathan Cook from "Forever The Sickest Kids". Shouldn't there be a disambigation for this name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CelineDeStar (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Contribution to David Duke website

I would like to add the following under "views."

In his article on David Duke website “Israel’s Jewish Problem in Tehran” Jonathan Cook claims that since Iran is tolerant towards its Jewish community there is no chance Iran will commit genocide against Israel Jews.[www.davidduke.com/general/jonathan-cook-debunks-delusional-zionist-propaganda_2642.html] --Rm125 (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a very interesting and educational article. Unfortunately someone erazed my previous post claiming it is vandalism. Sorry I don't understand why. Please be kind and explain in detail. I am new here and I might make some mistakes but for Gods sake say it in plain language. If you don;t agreewith me at least correct me, don;t just eraze everything I post. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm125 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because David Duke reprinted something does not make it an article written for David Duke's website. nableezy - 05:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

RSs and BLP

Jonathon Cook's own words are a RS for his own words. For the nonsense brew just put back in, the David Duke section is about Duke reprinting something by Cook that was published in a large number of sources. Editors cant just make up their own controversies, especially about living people, to try and defame somebody. This is unacceptable and brewcrewer you should know better. WP:BLP is clear, any contentious material needs multiple reliable secondary sources to be placed in the article. nableezy - 05:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, a small amount of searching will show how blatant a violation of WP:BLP this inclusion is. The daviduke reference cites its publication date as 8/21/2007. It was published on al-Ahram on on 8/2/2007 and here on 8/9/2007. Just because David Duke likes something somebody said does not allow you to say somebody wrote this for David Duke and make up a controversy. nableezy - 06:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

David Duke only publishes stuff that further his antisemtic and white pride agenda. He doesn't just run run-of-the-mill news stories. If his stuff got published on his website, its not something that should be ignored.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)also, the "contribution to Iranian media" section is also incorrect. The article cited was originally published by ei 27 days before the reprint. This attempt to try and associate a living person with supposed bogeymen and known racists is beyond ridiculous. nableezy - 06:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(re brew) You dont get to make up a controversy based on David Duke liking what somebody said. This is a living person and the addition of defamatory content is against policy. You dont need any reminders on this. nableezy - 06:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Chill out please. If his articles appeared in these publications there's no good reason to censor this information. If you want to add that his articles also appeared in Electronic Intifada, or some other beacon of truthtelling, you won't run into my protests. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with including his views, but the idea that because David Duke reprinted something that means we say he contributed to David Duke's website is nonsense. Wont be chilling out with that. You know you cant do that, you cannot make up a controversy without multiple reliable secondary sources bringing it up. nableezy - 06:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Where there's no tertiary sources, we use primary sources. If we can't find any tertiary maybe we should delete the article cuz he's apparently not that notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the issue to the BLP noticeboard here. nableezy - 06:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw this on the BLP board and will repeat what I said there - the dukes piece is nothing more than a reprint of the introduction and a link to the original article - it's "published by" in the same way that something is published if I stick it on my blog. The example provided above is clearly worded to make it sound like this writer (who I have never heard of) is working for or providing permission for reproduction to the Dukes. It should not be included. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(from BLPN) Agreed - there is no legitimate reason for mentioning it. None whatsoever. Rd232 ^talk 10:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur, see also my comment on BLPN. P.S. Looking at the article I agree that I'm not seeing any RSS which isn't a good sign notability wise Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Self published sources

Most of the information contained in this article about Cook comes from Cook himself. We must find reliable sources. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP explicitly says that Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. What is the problem with using articles by Cook? And the contrast of this argument with what you said in the section immediately above borders on being stunningly hilarious. nableezy - 18:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There was too much self-published material in here about issues that weren't notable in any way. I've defluffed it a little. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is still problematic in that most of the information comes from himself. I've looked for independent sources that actually cover him, but was unable to. Maybe he's just unnotable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Tags

Please stop tagging articles and reverting when someone removes them. It is mindless. It often only takes a few minutes to fix the problem. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You're being disengenuous. This edit did not resolve the issue. You just removed around stuff. The article is still primarily sourced only to himself. Also, don't mark edits as minor when they're not and don't edit-war.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm sorry, I should apologize for calling it "mindless." It's just that taggging is one of my pet dislikes on Wikipedia, because it defaces articles when they're often quite easy to fix. It should only be used when all else has failed. But regardless, I shouldn't have referred to it the way I did. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As an article writer myself when time permits, I'm no fan of tags. However, in this case, I searched for third party sources about Cook, but was unable to come up with any. As long as there are no independent sources on Cook, the article remains a self-promo article, thus an article diametrically inopposite of what Wikipedia is all about. Until this problem is resolved, the tag must remain in order to 1) alert other editors to this problem so that it can be rectified and 2) alert readers that this is far from an ideal article. You removed the tag twice. Kindly replace the tag until the issue is resolved. Signing off now. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look around tomorrow to see if I can find secondary sources. I'm thinking with three books published, he's likely to survive an AfD, and if that's true, we can't tag him, because it would mean the tag staying on indefinitely. But there may be other sources out there, which would solve the problem. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It stays there until the article conforms with WP policies. We can't have articles sitting around representing to be good articles when they are not. If there is a problem with the article we must notify readers that the article is problematic. Another purpose of the template is to alert editors to find secondary sources. If one editor can't find any sources, another editor, with off-line sources, may be able to. Please don't remove the templates until the problem is resolved. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

copy and paste of old article version now being used a source

This article is very problematic in that there are barely, if any, reliable sources that give any coverage to the subject of thsi bio. All the personal information we had originiated from Cook, and only Cook. In an attempt to rectify this problem, User: Tiamut sourced the material to some a website that looks like a news source, "TimeTurk." However, a very basic analysis reveals that the information on Cook in the TimeTurk article was a copy and paste of an old version of this article.In this article, with a November 18, 2008 timeline there is a "Who is Jonothan Cook" section that is word for word the English Wikipedia article at that time.

As this source clearly cannot be used, we'll have to go through the article to remove this source. And the fundemental issue with the article, that its a selfpublished vanity piece, has yet to be resolved. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"And the fundemental issue with the article, that its a selfpublished vanity piece, has yet to be resolved." And has yet to be resolved now, five years later. It's still a self-published vanity piece. MosheEmes (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Brew, given that the article exists, you can't add fact tags all over it, or phrases like "he says he has a degree from ..." If you really feel he's not notable enough, you could consider taking it to AfD. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Books

He has written at least four books, perhaps more by now, but there's no need to list them all in the lead. Three are listed, and therefore I wrote "several books, including ..." SlimVirgin 16:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I only count three.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are three books written by him, not four.Jeppiz (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

so called reliable source criticism

Which "reliable source" was removed? Is it the OR of Cook "contributing" to Iranian media and that he "wrote" an article on David Duke's website, both of which have been shown to be patently bogus above? Or is it the two CAMERA citations? This is a BLP, which requires that contentious material be cited to highly reliable sources. If CAMERA's criticisms have been repeated by a reliable source they can and should be included, but including effectively a primary source for their interpretation of Cook's works is inappropriate. Quoting WP:BLP If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources. If somebody wishes to place CAMERA's opinions in the article a third-party reliable source showing that those opinions are taken seriously should be provided. nableezy - 02:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

His website

Perhaps it isn't necessary to say "according to his website" in the text. As his website is the source, it is evident that the information is according to that source. I agree that if we use any praise of his book or his person (though I think we've got rid of the most by now) we should indicate it, same thing with anything even remotely POV. Preferably, we should not incorporate any such material from his website, such as his claim that he has a "unique insight" which is WP:POV and WP:WEASEL. The information listed is just what newspapers he has worked for and what education he has. Should anyone raise doubts over any of that, we can always make it clear that it's according to his website, but for now I suggest we cut that part. It makes the reading less fluent for the reader.Jeppiz (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the heavy slanting, etc., to date, I would suggest retaining that phraseology or alternatively deleting the material that is only on his website. If its not reflected elsewhere, query whether it is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again you make a fair point. I would suggest a middle-road here. We could either remove the part about his education or reinsert that it is according to his webiste. We could perhaps check with articles on other journalists to see what is the general guideline. The newspapers he has written for is more relevant, and there I don't think we need to say it's according to his website as it should be able to check that in other sources as well.Jeppiz (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, either approach is fine. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to be very careful here. This is a living person whose livelihood depends on his honesty. It's perfectly standard to source a person's education to their own website, or to information they've given about themselves to their publisher. Yet here you are questioning it, without any grounds. SlimVirgin 04:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Slim left me the following related note as well "Just a heads-up about BLP. Regarding your comments about Cook's qualifications being sourced only to his website, you're coming close to calling him dishonest. I know that's not your intention, but some of your comments are giving that impression. Per BLP and common sense, there's no reason at all to suspect that Cook's education is not exactly what he says it is. It's quite standard to source a BLP's qualifications to their own statements about it, for obvious reasons. We have no reason to behave differently in this case."

My response is that cleary wikipedia does not view a subject's own website as as reliable a source as a third party RS. In fact, it lumps them in with "questionable sources". WP:SELFPUB clearly limits the use of self-published sources. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves... without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as ... the material is not unduly self-serving..." I would say that this is clearly self-serving; whether it is unduly self-serving is a judgment call. I've suggested two ways to address that issue. But the caution was, I believe, --thought no doubt well intentioned--misplaced.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Admitting to having a degree from Southampton University is self-serving? :-) Ok, sorry for the joke, especially to the alumni of Southampton. Epeefleche is right, but I would pay attention to what he said about "unduly" self-serving. Someone listing Harvard, Cambridge and Sorbonne could be self-serving. Although SOAS is a good school, there is nothing about his education that is striking, neither in a positive or in a negative way.Jeppiz (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, he is not right. I wrote that part of the policy, and it is certainly not intended to be used to make people look like liars, which is what is being done here. Enough, please. SlimVirgin 06:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Slim--please read what I quoted above, rather than tell us "enough". As you can see, self-published and questionable material are treated in the same manner.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not. SlimVirgin 06:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure they are. WP:SELFPUB states: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves... without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as ... the material is not unduly self-serving..."--Epeefleche (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, factual information regarding his education is no more or less self serving than factual information regarding his age, nationality or where he lives, all of which will produce a positive, a negative or no reaction according to a reader's personal views on these matters which are of course an arbitrary result of a myriad of complex interacting factors. It is not a 'judgment call'. The notion 'unduly self-serving' is clearly not intended for factual information of this nature about a living person provided by that person. To question the veracity of this material by saying that it is 'self serving' and suggesting that it might be 'unduly self-serving' is inconsistent with BLP as indicated by Slimvirgin. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Clearly, there is some information that is not self serving (eg, date of birth), but other information that could be self-serving (such as "graduated with honors", or the earlier today-deleted "has a unique perspective because I live in Nazareth and not in Ramallah". And, while Jep makes a valid point that some education (Harvard; Imperial College London) may reflect better on a person and serve them better than other education, graduating w/honours and 2 advanced graduate studies may well be viewed as self-serving, just as any other accomplishment would be self-serving. The fact that information is "factual" does not mean that even if unduly self-serving it should not be reported if we don't have any third party source reporting it. And I'm hard-pressed as to why Slim has now given me written warnings twice for simply stating as much. I think that's over the top.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You have not explained how someone saying they have a B.A. and M.A. could be seen as "unduly self-serving." SlimVirgin 07:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Most people don't have a B.A. (Hons) in Philosophy and Politics, a postgraduate diploma in journalism, and an M.A. in Middle Eastern studies. But all I've asked is that we either: a) as it was, indicated that the source of that information is his website; or b) if its really that non-notable, let's delete it. Either approach suffices as far as I'm concerned. The fact that this article has been slanted so already (misrepresentation as to the number of books he wrote; deletion of critical commentary; etc.) suggests to me that we should be very careful here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A small point but the Hons in BA/Bsc Hons is just a standard technical term in the UK. Nothing special. See British undergraduate degree classification. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec to Epeefleche) Lots of people do have those things though, or equivalent, and it's perfectly obvious from his writing that he's an educated person, so there's no issue of it being "unduly self-serving". Since this AfD started three days ago, you've made 23 edits to the AfD, several to the RS noticeboard about the sources used, about 13 to this talk page, and about 10 to the article, with many of the posts in the direction of undermining him. This despite the fact that it's an article you'd previously shown no interest in. That kind of negative focus on a BLP is never a good thing, so you might want to consider leaving the editing of it to others. There are plenty of fresh eyes on it now, so it's not going to end up slanted in either direction. SlimVirgin 07:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a completely unfair characterization, a blatant attempt to bully me to not edit or participate in this discussion, and crosses the line of wp:own.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources used in this article

See RS/N discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Order of newspapers

Slim--you changed the order of newspapers in the lead, indicating that it was in the order of those he has done the most of his work for. What is the basis for the order that you changed it to meeting that criteria? From what I can see, for example Al-Ahram Weekly should be first.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to make him look bad, and I think your editing here has gone far enough. He's a legitimate journalist—a good journalist, whether you agree with his views or not—and most of his work has been done for the Observer and the Guardian. SlimVirgin 06:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Slim--you comment is an unwarranted personal attack, as it states as fact motives that are not mine. Why did you change the order, which you wrote in your edit summary reflected the order that he writes most for. What was your basis for determining that that order, rather than the one that existed, reflected your standard? I've asked you above, and you've ignored me. And instead attacked me. And said my editing here "has gone far enough"? That's uncivil.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Slim -- What was your basis for determining that that order, rather than the one that existed, reflected your standard? This is the third time I'm asking; it would be greatly appreciated if you were to respond.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Has he even written anything for the Tehran Times? They have picked up a number of his articles, but they invariably were first published in either Al-Ahram Weekly or The National (which should be added as he regularly writes for them). nableezy - 06:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Tehran Times, and added The National. Epeefleche, please don't restore the former (or any other) without evidence that he actually wrote for them. SlimVirgin 06:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nab--good catch. I checked a dozen, and they all appear to have been printed elsewhere first (though in some places they indicated that at the top of the article. BTW__Slim has twice ignored my question as to why she re-ordered the newspapers from the order they were in, as I can't find her basis for stating that her order matches the order of those publications he wrote for most often. Do you have any thoughts? I would suggest that we use alphabetical order if we can't find an agreed way to follow Slim's preferred approach.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If I were allowed to edit the page I would start with The National as that is currently where most of his pieces are published (and his byline there reads as "Foreign Correspondent", see [1], [2], [3]) and then in chronological order as follows: The Guardian, The Observer, al-Ahram. Either that or strictly chronological with the same order except with The National at the end after al-Ahram. Dont know why The Times is listed, my, admittedly not in-depth, search is not showing anything there. nableezy - 20:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Slim -- I've asked you three times now what the basis was for your assertion, when revising the order in which the newspapers were listed, that that was in fact the order in which he has written the most articles. As you've not responded, I'll assume you have no support for that statement, and will put them in alpha order.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why avoid metadata in book citations?

In this edit, User:SlimVirgin reverted my work in providing metadata in citation templates for the book references. The reason given was "please don't add templates: see WP:CITE".

So i have seen WP:CITE, and i see that citation templates are neither encouraged nor discouraged, the first major contributor has priority if there's an unresolvable dispute about "distinctive citation formats", and that metadata are not mandatory.

So, let's discuss and see if this is really controversial. It's up to "us" as the editors to come to a consensus.

What are arguments for and against including metadata in this article?

The general argument for is that including metadata allows computer programs of all sorts to much more easily and reliably analyse the data and find the interesting data than if the metadata is absent. Metadata means that the information that we can say in English as "the title is bla, the author is bla, the publisher is bla" is written in a formal context in the html code of the web page. Web browsers (like firefox), plugins, robots, e.g. programs that you can write on your home computer, can systematically look for this type of information in wikipedia web pages if it is coded formally in the html code. Humans who read the page will not notice this formality, unless they edit the page.

Why do we want the information in this article to be easily available to computer programs? Just a few ideas that come to mind - people studying Israel-Arab League conflict issues might wish to use a robot to analyse wikipedia articles and select all references containing certain keywords in the title and published between such-and-such a pair of years. Or they might wish to systematically search for bias in the english-language wikipedia. People from Arab League countries might wish to see Israeli points of view in a systematic way or Israelis might wish to see Arab League POVs in a systematic way. Having metadata means that some of the boring mechanical work gets done by computer programs that take advantage of the wikipedia way of writing an encyclopedia as opposed to traditional ways that are closed and more likely to be viewed with suspicion by people worried that "the other" POV overwhelmingly dominates.

Another argument is the semantic web or in other words - how do we try to enable an alternative to Google Inc.. The obvious way is by to some degree having more "intelligent" web pages that organise key (searchable) information in a network that can potentially override the googlan near-monopoly.

That's a rough outline of my motivation for including metadata - let the world use the results of our work as much as possible rather than create artificial and unnecessary barriers.

WP:CITE has the interesting point:

"Metadata such as this allow browser plugins and other automated software to make citation data accessible to the user, for instance by providing links to their library's online copies of the cited works."

That sounds cool to me. Don't we want people to use plugins that show when books in wikipedia articles are in their local libraries?

SlimVirgin: could you please give the specific reason why you are opposed to a standard citation template including metadata? If you don't like Cook's name in bold, then you can remove his name from the authorlink= tag (the bold occurs as a way of avoiding a self-referential link) and you could drop the dates to years instead of exact publication dates. i'm not trying to argue for any particular style. Maybe other people here have preferences. However, it would be a pity not to include metadata.

Could you please explain? Why not include the metadata? Boud (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good question. Slim--I was wondering the same thing.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates are contentious and shouldn't be added over objections if the references are already properly written. They make the material harder to read in edit mode, and when there are lots of them, they make the page slower to load. In addition, the citation formats used in the templates are often wrong, inappropriate, or non-existent outside WP.

I don't follow what you mean about the metadata. We're writing this for human readers. SlimVirgin 23:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Citation templates ... make the material harder to read in edit mode," - well, they do make the material more bulky (more text) to read, though i'm not convinced by "harder" to read. An inline reference necessarily makes the material harder to read if you use the simplest sort of editing tools. But then, i would say that the distinctive syntax of a templated reference, with | keyword = value makes it a bit more obvious what is reference and what is text. This does relate to how much people tend to be WYSIWYG versus source-editors in their preferred editing styles. In the present case, the references are not even inlined, so the harder-to-read argument seems even less convincing to me in this case.

• "...and when there are lots of them, they make the page slower to load." - i guess that could be true, because the templates need to be substituted. However, what is slow in 2009 will be instantaneous in e.g. 2012. Should wikipedia editors think short term or long term?

• "In addition, the citation formats used in the templates are often wrong, inappropriate, or non-existent outside WP." - i don't see how a template can be wrong, unless you mean the specific way that the fields are formatted, e.g. title in italics vs title in roman font, title first or author first, year second or fourth, comma or fullstop after year, etc. These styles vary even within individual academic domains, and i don't see any harm in having a uniform "reasonable" style across the whole en.wikipedia. On the other hand, i'm sure that individual styles could be developed, e.g., Template:Cite_web_(humanities) or Template:Cite_book_(Israel-Arab_League conflict). As for being non-existent outside WP, COinS lists several websites, server-side applications, and client tools that use this standard. It also seems easily-enough parseable that it could be converted to another metadata format if needed.

• "I don't follow what you mean about the metadata. We're writing this for human readers." - Please read my comments above more carefully. i'm not suggesting that we humans should start serving robots, i'm rather suggesting that we make it easier for robots to act as efficient slaves with the ultimate aim of helping humans. E.g. take the WP:CITE example: "Metadata such as this allow browser plugins and other automated software to make citation data accessible to the user, for instance by providing links to their library's online copies of the cited works." - this refers to a human user, not an android, who likes physically walking to (e.g.) his/her local public or university library and picking up a physical book, reading it and then returning it, rather than buying online. For example, the plugin might automatically add a coloured box or highlight all the books in a wikipedia page that are available at your local library(ies). This plugin is, i would guess, (relatively) easy to write if the metadata is in place. Without the metadata, the plugin would, in general, have to "use common sense" to decide that certain content on a wikipedia page indicates that it's a book, or would have to require that the ISBN and the ISBN acronym itself are present and that there be no errors in the ISBN. If the ISBN is present according to the mediawiki standard and contains no errors, then this does allow the local library example - assuming that the local library ISBN is also correct. The ISBN crosscheck digit does allow error detection, but not error recovery (i assume). Having enough fields of COinS metadata would (i presume) allow more robust error recovery - e.g. any title as long as the titles of Jonathan Cook's books is most likely to remain unique and sufficient to identify the book. Boud (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• What Boud said.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

RSN query

Do you folks regard the query about sourcing for this article on RSN as resolved, or are there still sources you could do with an outside opinion on? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No. It looks like everyone went away after the deletion discussion which is ashame since so many people mentioed that clean u was needed. A few of the sources just aren't good enough to be included and the whole Further reading section should be converted to inline citaitons and works, or removed.Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK then. I already posted comments on two of the sources originally mentioned and will gradually work through the others. Will post on RSN so keep watching it. And am just going to rename the Further reading section External links, as all is online, and move one item. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree w/Cptnono, and w/renaming section external links. I think some of the mentioned sources are non-RSs, as discussed by me and some others on that page, and should come out. There is enough proper RS support in the article, that there's no need to have it supported in part by non-RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

personal information attributed to Cook's website

There are no reliable sources supporting this idea that an Englishman by the real name of Jonathon Cook was born in England, attained numerous degrees, and then moved to an Arab city from where he writes on the Israel-Arab conflict. There is a good reason to doubt these claims and if Wikipedia were to publish these unsupported claims, at the very least it should attribute these claims to a website. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Jonathan Cook is an WP:RS for information pertaining to himself. There is no reason to doubt what he has written on his website. Is there? Tiamut^talk 19:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Cook is not the only source to note that he is from Britain but now lives in Nazareth. Neil Barry in The New Statesman writes: "Jonathan Cook and John R Bradley are maverick British journalists who specialise in writing about the Middle East. What distinguishes them from many other western commentators is that they have gone native in the Arab world, living among Arab people and immersing themselves in Arab culture." [4] Tiamut^talk 20:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A freelance journalist who is only published by fringe publishers it not reliable. and to say that he is reliable for his own biographical information, is at most a unfunny joke.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cook has been published by academic presses ([5], [6], would you care to retract any of the above? nableezy - 22:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

To ignore what the other sources cited here are saying is what's unfunny. Please collaborate in good faith with your fellow editors. Tiamut^talk 21:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"There is a good reason to doubt these claims". But if you told us what it was, you'd have to kill us? PS Additional concise source is Macmillan Publishers. [7]. Rd232 ^talk 20:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

See the opening comment to this thread. it doesn't have to be spoon-fed. indeed, we wouldn't have to continuously by reminded that he's "only western journalist in that city" if that claim were't notable, and hence doubtful (unless of course reliably sourced). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but given what other sources have to say on this issue, you are going to have to sponn-feed, if you want a response. Tiamut^talk 21:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

BrewCrewer, how is this anything other than a re-hash of the (failed) deletion attempt from last month? You've been given sources and also pointed at WP:RS. If you don't like the article then Wikipedia has many others to choose from. Newt ^(winkle) 02:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• In BrewCrewer's defense, at much of the AfD that info was retained only w/the references that they were from his website. I, for one, think that's reasonable.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The only info sourced solely to Cook's website is that he was born in Buckinghampshire and got degrees from Southhampton, Cadiff and SOAS. These are not boastful claims, and Cook is considered a reliable source for this information on his personal and educational background. I see no reason to note that this is mentioned on his website explicitly in-text. The citation at the end of the sentence to his website allows the reader to check where it is offered if they are so inclined. The only reason to mention explicitly that it is from his website is imply that the information is somehow unreliable because it is from him. I don't see the need for that and would tend to AGF for a writer who hgas shown no demonstrable proclivity for lying. Tiamut^talk 14:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

IHT

The following is a list of columns Cook has written for IHT:

• A Nelson Mandela for the Palestinians? ; Marwan Barghouti September 24, 2002
• Israel's broken promise seals a village's fate; October 9, 2002
• Arab legislators aren't equal ; Democracy in Israel October 29, 2002
• Labor fakes it again -- and the settlers stay on ; Hilltop hypocrisy November 12, 2002
• Israel's politicians target minorities ; The 'demographic time bomb' November 27, 2002
• Under Nazareth, secrets in stone December 17, 2002
• Coming home: A film bares Nazareth's soul February 11, 2003
• The lions of Ramallah give Palestinians hope March 6, 2003
• Israelis join Palestinians for somber anniversary April 17, 2003
• A 1,000-kilometer fence preempts the road map ; A cage for Palestinians May 27, 2003
• The forgotten palaces of Palestine October 8, 2003
• Why Arab women wear the veil in Israel November 20, 2003
• Nonviolent protest offers little hope for Palestinians ; A Gandhi in Jerusalem August 31, 2004
• In Nazareth, cheering Brazil June 16, 2006

nableezy - 18:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No Critism or even mention of his wildly anti-Israel bias?

Is this Wikipedia's endorsment of his views which are OTHERWISE well known to the informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.225.227 (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't endorse the views of the subjects of its articles. If you would like to add a balanced section based on reliable sources that discuss how his work has been received by both critics and supporters that complies with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, there is nothing stopping you. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This "article" reads like a CV. It's also quite curious how this freelance journo and "writer" has a bigger entry than, say, Jon Lee Anderson. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It did read far too much like a CV and that needed addressing. But it would have been better to rewrite the sourced material instead of deleting it. Don't worry about the length or comparing it with other bios. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

True, but it's also curious that you removed writer from the lead given that he's a writer and most of the article is about that. I restored it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I think you're a little confused as to what journalism is. Some journalists manage to publish books of their journalism - doesn't necessarily qualify them to be called "writers". At any rate, no big deal. Robert Fisk??????? ;-) - Ledenierhomme (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

CAMERA is not an acceptable source to use in a BLP. If you feel "writer" is not acceptable you could replace it with something else that cannot be disputed, like, i dont know, lets go with "author". nableezy - 17:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not confused. These are not books of his journalism. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Also the use of CAMERA as a source conflicts with the statement on your user page so you need to either not use CAMERA or rewrite your user page. The former is more consistent with Wikipedia policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Writer" is neutral and descriptive. Not "author", please - British English pedants only accept it in relation to a particular book. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Can Ledenierhomme please explain what is "peacocking" about including the books he has authored in the lead? nableezy - 19:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And also why he or she is returning material removed on BLP grounds without making any comment here despite 2 editors commenting on the inappropriateness of using CAMERA in a BLP? nableezy - 19:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• It is not customary to include a list of publications in the article lead. Doing so makes it look like a CV, not an encyclopedia article.

• Please explain exactly WHY you believe CAMERA to be "inappropriate". CAMERA's criticism of Cook is not libelous, there's nothing personal. Cook is - I gather - a highly polemical, inflammatory writer. What reason is there that CAMERA's criticisms ought not to be included? (They seem to be the only ones who have bothered themselves to criticize this journalist). Cook is an advocacy journalist, CAMERA is an advocacy group. I don't see how you can apply such a double-standard. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is CAMERA not an acceptable source in a BLP? Because WP:BLP requires high quality sources for negative information on living persons. You can peruse the various RS/N threads about CAMERA to see that there is no consensus that this comes anywhere near to being a high quality source, much less one that can be used in BLPs. Also, WP:BLP explicitly says that material removed as a BLP violation must have consensus to be returned to an article. You have multiple times violated WP:BLP. nableezy - 19:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you still haven't given any REASON as to why CAMERA's criticisms are not valid - am I supposed to just take your word for it? Please advise. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be awfully confused about WP:BLP. The CAMERA criticisms are not criticisms of the journalists' person, but his arguments. How can you possible construe that as potentially libelous? - Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't made up my mind yet about the review in CAMERA, but have a few comments and questions. Firstly, it is an authored piece so attribution should be to the writer. Secondly, there is no question about including reviews in the mainstream sources that regularly review journalistic/current affairs books. I've been looking for reviews in newspapers but can't find any at the moment. Can you show that CAMERA regularly reviews books, that publishers send books to it for review? Thirdly, it is the writer as well as the publisher that affects reliability. Do you know anything about the person who signed the CAMERA review? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What some editors consider a reliable source can verify the criticism.[8] (the source is just as biased as CAMERA but it has received better reviews) Cptnono (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No-one had any doubt that CAMERA had made criticisms. The issue is whether they are worth including in the article. The Electronic Intifada piece notwithstanding, it's looking to me that this is too minor and too out of date. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought the issue was CAMERA not being RS? Notability guidelines do not impact content. We have a secondary source discussing complaints from the organization and individuals. But if we want to play that game, there is still some puffery in this article and it might be decided that that is not worthy of mentioning. I mentioned whittling this down to a stub in the deletion discussion. We may not need to introduce the more negative reception of his work at all if we can remove blatantly biased sources such as the Electronic IntifadaCptnono (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What game are you accusing me of playing? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, a source called "The Electronic Intifada" is reliable but an American-based, pro-Israeli source, C.A.M.E.R.A, isn't? Looks o me like this is a fanpage, dominated by a couple of partisan Arab nationalist editors. And I say this as an anti-Zionist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.170.220.173 (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC) This IP has been blocked as it was used to evade a block by Ledenierhomme

<- Can you point out where someone has said that Electronic Intifada are reliable ? It seems to be used in 3 cases in the article in different ways

• To say that he publised a book - In 2008, Cook authored Israel and the Clash of Civilizations: Iraq, Iran and the plan to remake the Middle East, published by Pluto Press.[9]
• For a descriptive statement about Disappearing Palestine - The book is in two parts, with the second half consisting of reprints of articles written by Cook as a journalist.[13]
• For a Cook quote picked by reviewer Gabriel Ash (activist and writer/core member of International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network) - The first half of the book, according to a review in Electronic Intifada, explores the thesis that, "the goal of Israeli policy is to make Palestine and the Palestinians disappear for good."[13]

Those probably need to be addressed individually. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer about what game I am meant to be playing. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the proposed game was figuring out what is worth including in the article and making trades of material i.e. remove positive material from a "blatantly biased sources such as the Electronic Intifada" and there is no need for negative material from a source like CAMERA. I don't know whether that is sensible but it has one problem. There isn't any positive material from Electronic Intifada in the article. So, removing the EI material won't address the balance issue. I assume EI's status as an RS is complex and depends on context like CAMERA.

As an aside and not that it matters here but I would question the notion that EI and CAMERA are analogous in terms of bias. Bias is measured with respect to a datum, the datum is determined by the consensus views on issues and these two organizations aren't the same distances away from the datum. CAMERA is a organization that promotes what are essentially fringe views whereas EI's editorial positions on the major issues of the Israel-Palestine conflict, settlements, Jerusalem, human rights etc are, for the most part, consistent with the views of the international community in its many forms together with all sorts of other reliable sources. Strange but true. If you are standing on the datum of international consensus, EI won't look that far away on many issues but CAMERA may be below the horizon. So, to say that they are equally "biased" is, at least in my view, incorrect and incorrect in a measurable sense. None of that helps of course. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Except there isnt any "positive material" sourced to EI. This is why people should really read the article before coming to the talk page to say moronic things. The only time EI is used as a source where it may be questionable is the last line sourced to it. Even then, for anybody unfamiliar with the book being reviewed, that is an entirely non-controversial summary of the book. WP:BLP requires that any contentious material on living people be sourced to high quality sources. CAMERA is not that. People want to make these stupid comparisons between EI and CAMERA and pretend that if one is in the other must be but fail to actually look at what each of those sources is being used for. nableezy - 18:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It was addressing the issue of the OK on one source that is terribly biased and realistically also a "minor" line but not another. When editors complain about it looking like a cover letter they have reasons. This discussion thread has proven that the article has some neutrality problems. So there does not need to be a "trade". Simply the removal of puffery. Cptnono (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting to hear what game I was playing. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said "It was addressing the issue of the OK on one source that is terribly biased and realistically also a "minor" line but not another." If we are going to be extra picky then it needs to apply over the whole article.Cptnono (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, then that is incivil because I did not advocate using one biased source over another, did I? I said that I had not made up my mind about the CAMERA source. I was not convinced that the fact it was mentioned by EI made the info referred to it worth including. So I did not advocate using one biased source or another. I specifically said I was undecided. And that, according to you is playing a game? Please apologise or I will take this to ANI. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are reading to much into the comment. Feel free to take it to ANI.Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

<- In terms of puffery (although not strictly in a WP:PEA sense as it's attributed) we have

• Antony Loewenstein notes that, "Cook bravely skewers the mainstream narrative of a Jewish state constantly striving for peace with the Palestinians."
• The Jordan Times calls it, "well-researched and very readable."
• Neil Berry's review in the New Statesman.

So, what to do about those, leave, change, remove, balance using others ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to remove sourced information but if only positive reviews are being kept in then it needs to be toned down by removing a large share of them. Cptnono (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That is an argument not consistent with the policies of this website. Negative reviews are fine so long as they are published in reliable sources. The material that was removed was not published in a reliable source. You cant just remove supposedly "positive" things because you think there are not enough "negative" things. This isnt a jigsaw puzzle. nableezy - 22:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the reception section=Neil Berry section for now, not because I think his views don't matter but because I think presenting them in a separate section gives them undue weight. It could do with a rewrite and maybe integrating with the rest. Obviously, we aren't allowed to create a false balance of views about any issue, in any article, at any time, even if there are editors who want to do that in all sorts of situations. In this case, if all of the reviews in reliable sources available so far are positive then presenting only those views is, by wiki-definition, neutral. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Biographical article

I found the following interesting; hope others do too:

Americans for Middle East Understanding - The Link, Volume 43, Issue 5, November - December 2010 - Jonathan Cook - Publish It Not: (1. AMEU), {2. jkcook.net), (3. Unabridged PDF).

    ←   ZScarpia   19:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I found it interesting as well, especially the part where he rants against "Jewish columnists." I would not suggest we use this rant/article as not to put the subject in bad light, per BLP. It's best that we stick with the other non-secondary and non-reliable promotional pieces for this hagiography article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I take it that you don't agree that sending a preponderance of "foreign correspondents" to report on the Middle East who might have a conflict of interest through, for example, being Israeli citizens, having served in the IDF or having children serving in the IDF might lead to a problem with one-sided reporting, as described by Jonathan Cook?     ←   ZScarpia   03:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My opinion on how newspapers should run their affairs is of little benefit to Wikipedia, so I will avoid commenting on that specific point or other strawmen. My only point is that it would be best that we not utilize this nonsense rant for this article because gems such as "the preponderance of Jewish reporters in the Jerusalem press corps continues to this day" might be taken the wrong way. Complaints about "too many Jews" are generally understood to be antisemitic and we would not want to tarnish Mr. Cook with such implications. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey now. Last time I checked we were not allowed to add anything that could be construed as negative about the guy. But in all seriousness, I think it is a huge problem as discussed previously.Cptnono (talk)

Yes, I can see that there would be a big temptation to take "gems" such as the one you've chosen "the wrong way".

Cook reports on the difficulty that he, Adams and Neff had getting certain reports published, a difficulty that (Adams at least said) was caused due to the self-censorship of a large part of the foreign press corps, who were Jewish. It is made clear that the problem, as I'm sure you'll be pleased to be told, wasn't that they were Jewish, but that "they chose to identify closely with one side of the conflict through their commitment to the ideology of Zionism", ensuring that "non-Zionist reporters could make no impact on the news agenda." Cook states that "the preponderance of Jewish reporters in the Jerusalem press corps continues to this day, especially among the US contingent." He goes on to say that, "Even a few of the Jewish reporters themselves regard this as problematic."

An antisemitic gem? Perhaps to people who make it their business to see antisemitic gems everywhere, yes.

    ←   ZScarpia   02:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The material that was not allowed was from CAMERA and the editor was blocked. They came back as multiple sockpuppets as editors who want to add this kind of material to articles often do. It's a huge problem that dishonest editors like this who lack basic ethics never seem to have any trouble finding support for their edits. If there's negative material from a reliable source that is suitable for a BLP then there isn't a policy based reason for it to be excluded. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What about criticism sourced in the Electronic Intifada? It is good enough for praise so how about using it for criticism? This might belong in the above discussion though. Cheers.Cptnono (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There isn't any praise sourced to Electronic Intifada. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose source 13 isn't praise in the text. The source is complimentary to him, though. So maybe we should just look at EI being used for biographical information which criticism is a part of.Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

One reviewer is Raymond Deane, "a composer, and a founding member of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign" and the other is Gabriel Ash "an activist and writer. Ash is a core member of IJAN (International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network)." Their reviews in EI are almost bound to be positive and we don't use any of their opinions. I think that makes sense because I don't think they are notable as book reviewers, their opinions aren't notable and EI isn't a mainstream source. If you can find criticism from someone notable in an EI review I would be pleasantly surprised. There must be other reviews out there somewhere I would have thought. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Cook. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://museweb02-pub.mse.jhu.edu/journals/holy_land_studies/v005/5.1cook.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725181317/http://rt.com/Politics/2010-07-22/jonathan-cook-middle-east.html to http://rt.com/Politics/2010-07-22/jonathan-cook-middle-east.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 20:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jonathan Cook. 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/20110927161417/http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=1509 to http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=1509
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090526142159/http://www.paltelegraph.com/entertainment/books/856-disappearing-palestine-israels-experiments-in-human-despair-by-jonathan-cook to http://www.paltelegraph.com/entertainment/books/856-disappearing-palestine-israels-experiments-in-human-despair-by-jonathan-cook

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 20:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF

@Avaya1: please read WP:ABOUTSELF, we are allowed to reference a self-published work for basic biographical details. nableezy - 03:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a personal CV for listing works which don't have secondary coverage. As for the other content, the question is whether it's WP:DUE (material sourced to personal sites, but without secondary coverage.Avaya1 (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not a CV, it is a list of published works. See for example Benny_Morris#Published_works. Or Efraim_Karsh#Published_works. And as far as DUE, including basic details about a person in their biography is DUE, and per WP:ABOUTSELF perfectly acceptable. We are allowed to use material sourced to personal sites, but without secondary coverage when it is by the subject of the article. You cant keep going around excising whatever you dislike when it is allowed by policy by pointing to some irrelevant thing. nableezy - 14:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The facts about what school someone goes to or their early jobs, would be DUE, if they were notable enough to be published in a source. If the only source is LinkedIn or a personal website, then it's not DUE, and it's also not WP:RS - they could be inventions by that person, with no reliable source supporting them. As for the list of publications - is no indication that these published works in this list have received any secondary coverage or are notable content. Avaya1 (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Except everything you write is directly contradicted by actual policy. Again, please read WP:ABOUTSELF, Jonathan Cook is a reliable source about Jonathan Cook. nableezy - 20:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Where is the policy that you can include a booklist of publications, without secondary coverage for them? And while Jonathan Cook might be reliable for his own claims if we were using him for important parts of the article, where is the policy that listing details of employment history of the 1990s, which is only sourced to a personal website and has no secondary coverage (we need to change the source as well, as that old website does not exist) is following the policy that "an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Avaya1 (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Ummm, I waited more than a week for a response and you reverted it still. Where in WP:ABOUTSELF is there any indication this content is DUE, when it has no coverage?Avaya1 (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. The policy however is WP:ABOUTSELF. I do not know why you continue to ignore this. Cook's previous employers as a journalist are not minor aspects of a biography of a journalist. Your insistence on a secondary source is directly contradicted by that policy. nableezy - 20:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Unz Review

In the list of publications where Cook's writing appears, the Unz Review, which, among its content, carries that which is racist or otherwise extremely questionable, has been slipped in first, citing the list of articles by Cook carried by the Review as verification. The Lead: "He writes a regular column for the Unz Review and The National, Abu Dhabi." The Journalism Section: "He writes a regular column on the Unz Review and his freelance articles have been published by a number of other publications such as The New Statesman, International Herald Tribune, Le Monde Diplomatique, Al-Ahram Weekly, Al Jazeera, The National in Abu Dhabi, CounterPunch, The Electronic Intifada, Mondoweiss, and AlterNet." The Unz Review site does list Cook as a columnist (in the Columnists drop-down list). However all the articles I looked at in the list had all beeen published earlier in The National or, in one case, on Cook's blog. I see no justification for giving such prominence to The Review or for claiming, based on the cited source, that Cook writes a regular column for it.     ←   ZScarpia   13:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I've contacted Jonathan Cook to find out how he views his relationship with the Unz Review.     ←   ZScarpia   16:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)