Talk:Michel Chossudovsky

Criticism vs placing a label

The rest of the article is objective, but feedback given is from one source and is a label placed on the person. The journalist in question has no such section on his page. Whoever is monitoring this page - i suggest balancing feedback for mr.Ch, or moving the criticism in its current state to this talk page. 71.191.189.240 (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Availability of books

Are his books available online? I can't find them. -Mel

I have added ISBNs to the bibliography so that should help you. --Theo (Talk) 11:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can get his books at any Chapters or Indigo, we use two of his texts as text books in my university.

Writings

This section included a claim that Chossudivsky "is a frequent contributor to Le Monde diplomatique". The claim, however, was referenced with a link to one article he wrote for the magazine in 1996. A Google search seems to bear out that he hasn't contributed to the journal in over ten years. I removed the claim. No-itsme (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This section really needs some improvement. He has written thousands of articles. I do not think that HAARP and Swine flu should have their own category. We could could have a thousand categories if we wanted to but there should be some efforts to improve this. Maybe a category called middle east / northern africa - instead of just Syria and then we can add details of Iran and Libya , etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifersen (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is MEDIA RESEARCH who is falsely claiming that the research is top notch and brilliant. I have found it to be blatantly false and more propaganda than fact on most occasions. For example, his Fukushima stuff is pure anti-nuclear bluster - I expect this will not last long, but the article praises a fraud and leads more lambs to the slaughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.32.139 (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

[OBJECTION to some of the comments below. As someone who knows the material well that is referred to here it is clear that the work of www.globalresearch.ca ,which is top notch and brilliant research, is being deliberately targeted here and disrespectfully. The work of Professor Michel Chossudovsky is immensely important and the website www.globalresearch.ca that he established is one of the most important and significant free speech websites in the world. It is very well done and useful for news agencies to consult and represents the work of vast numbers of journalists with academic credentials. The way that the work on an important living academic of significance and note is being consistently targeted by one or two individuals here wanting to discredit the important work is something that ought to be brought further to the attention of Wikipedia mediation on the basis that is violates the principles of Wikipedia. It is not acceptable to have these on-going attacks on a living academic. Prof Michel Chossudovsky is clearly as significant and important as Noam Chomsky. That is why the attempts to discredit the work cannot be left without comment. I have contacted Wikipedia about the issue and will do so further. This web entry is one that requires attention.] [contributor: MEDIA RESEARCH]

---

I agree. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Michel Chossudovsky & Conspiracy Theories

This page really needs a "Conspiracy Theory" Moniker. I think that we need to scale up the discussion. (talk)

Is there any connection between Michel Chossudovsky and Lyndon LaRouche? They seem to have the same agenda and share many beliefs. Shouldn't the text about Michel Chossudovsky focus a bit more on his conspiracy theories about the New World Order (conspiracy), globalization and such things. Now they are just mentioned. - Johan, Sweden

He is not a conspiracy theorist. He states very clearly that there are institutional structures which result in the outcomes which he highlights. He never implies a dark cabal of shadowy figures plotting to rule the world. Those who characterize his work as being conspiracy theory are using a straw man. Troyc001 13:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

he does claim e.g. that al qaeda is controlled by pentagon [1], or that u.s. military received advanced warning of the 2004 tsunami, but withheld this information from asian countries [2] [3]. sounds like conspiracy theories to me. - Ktotam 16:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. Al Quaeda is known to have been helped by the CIA and perhaps even created by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war. The aim was to draw the Soviets into the "Afghan trap." The CIA funded and trained militant Islamic fanatics in the hope that they would wage Jihad on the Ruskies and weaken them significantly. It's no conspiracy theory.

Honestly folks, whether you believe him or not is not in question, but a man who has articles on his own website that posit the theory that the United States government can contr

ol the weather is clearly catagorizable as a conspiracy theorist. This is not POV, this is common sense. See [4]. I have returned the category to the article and I believes it deserves to be there unless someone can address my points. Zabby1982 21:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say, that the US gov can control the weather. Btw. have you heard about global warming?--Raphael1 23:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's exactly what he said. The article's title is "Owning the weather for military use" - how else would you like to interpret it? Yes I have heard about global warming, that is totally a separate issue from believing the HAARP program is a clandestine effort to control the weather for military purposes.Zabby1982 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Rubbish. Al Quaeda is known to have been helped by the CIA and perhaps even created by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war." - rubbish.

"The aim was to draw the Soviets into the "Afghan trap." The CIA funded and trained militant Islamic fanatics in the hope that they would wage Jihad on the Ruskies and weaken them significantly." - entirely correct.

The salient point is that the ISI did not want to have the CIA (whom they distrusted as much as depended on) snooping in their own backyard. Combine this with a language/culture barrier and the CIA's need to maintain some degree of deniability; do some research, ask some Afghan refugees for Abraham's sake; every major country should have quite a number by now, after all the miscellaneous crusaders for "the supreme" civilization have done to that country. The Mujis were/are a diverse bunch, and the CIA only had control over part of them; some were handled by Pakistan alone, some were joint Pak-US enterprises, some were sorta independent, some were supported by Iran and I believe there was even some Iran-US cooperation. But the al-Qaeda idea was only born as a consequence of all this - to create an opt-in platform that would render such endeavors independent of Western interference. OBL's Afghan adventure is vastly exaggerated in most sources; his group back in the early 80s were mainly smugglers, and the CIA had little if any direct contact with them. The ISI, greedy for Osama's greenback stack, didn't want external forces to jump on their gravy train, and the aversion of core members of the OBL group to associate with shirkers certainly helped. The ISI has always held personnel for such cases, people who were "pure" enough in matters like tawhid can succeed in negotiations where pig-eating Westerner theological relativists who use their ass-wiping hand to manipulate food (i.e. your average CIA agent) would not stand a chance. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way folks: Chossudovsky is not involved in the "propagation" of alternative theories on 9/11. They get published on Global Research along with a great deal of other stuff that wasn't written by Chossudovsky or approved by him. For a real conspiracy, try checking out Chomsky's work on the "Manufacture of Consent" and the use of big media conglomerates to keep people in check. Chossudovsky's work is mild and uncontroversial when compared to real conspiracies and large scale dissemination of propaganda (anyone remember the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Information? Nope, it was NOT closed down, either, contrary to what you might think by reading only the mainstream media reports).

That's ridiculous, of course the 9/11 articles are approved by him, as with anything else on that site, he's the editor of globalresearch.ca [5]. That's what editors do, they approve articles and manage content. Zabby1982 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently he was part of a speaking tour about "alternative theories on 9/11". [6] Zabby1982 19:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone who hates America says the American government is either hatching complex and dark schemes of conquest and suppression or are stumbling, silly clowns without a clue... which is it? Just pick an America that fits your hate and make it "real."

Chossudovsky does not hate America, he is one of Canada's most brillent academics who has been a contributing factor to international research in economics. He is grossly and deliberatly misrepresented to belittle his work. He was in Chile when Pinnochet took over--- in fact all his collugues, American economists teaching in Chile, started running the country's economic affairs with Pinnochet's take-over. He was also in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia and saw first hand the truth behind what was really happening there. He is respected greatly in Europe and Asia where he is very popular in countries such as Malyasia, South Korea, and Serbia. His work on 9/11 uses offical and mainstream sources such as CNN transcripts which prove that the Bush Administration had meetings with Pakistani intelligence which was funding the 9/11 terrorists. 74.101.98.235

If he is such a brilliant academic, Why aren't any of his books published by an academic press? Quackgrassacrez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

"he is one of Canada's most brillent academics" - I hope not. Brilliance in the humanities should encompass at least some ability to adequately predict the future, or aspects of it, from analysis of the past. Chossudovsky's analyses regarding US foreign policy in the aftermath of 9/11 have a failure rate approaching a whopping 100%. He might be better off if he constrains himself to economics, of which he seems clearly capable enough. Global politics-wise, he has been cranking out regression fallacies by the dozen. Prove me wrong, but his predictions e.g. regarding Iran have fallen flat. He is still, like so many others, mentally stuck in the 20th century, failing to acknowledge that the "only superpower left standing" has become much worse for the wear and is only one big playa among several (US/NATO, Russia, PRC, India, EU, the Ummah and MERCOSUR for example). Tehran still stands, the Russians have overwhelmingly won the W Caucasus war, and Hugo Chavez' Bolivarian game ist stil running at full speed and Israel is deadlocked in its domestic problems and arguably lost the S Lebanon war, and all the while the one and only satisfying and comprehensive theory on how 9/11 happened was published by as-Sahab. All events that Chossudovsky did not anticipate - to the contrary! The narrowness of his analyses compares "well" with people like Ledeen or Perle who thought that their grandiose Straussian ideas simply could not, under no circumstances, backfire. In a nutshell, few if any of these people are historians, and it shows in their undue emphasis of has-been philosophers' ephemeral pipe dreams.

A few actual quotes by the man would be in order to spice up this article beyond the factual yet positively hagiographic "oh he's so educated and so VIP and so cool" stuff. I mean, Rumsfeld held a spade of high offices, but he despite having the world's mightiest military at his beck and call and near-carte blanche on how to use it ("We don't do body counts."), he nearly lost a war against a ragtag guerilla. A war, moreover, in which he had in theory a level of C3I never achieved before. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You are talking as if conspiracy is not an actual category in the criminal law or the subject of historical and social scientific (especially criminological) study and, furthermore, that there can be no theories about them. A conspiracy is any plot by two or more persons planned in confidence designed to advance, at the expense and likely objection of others, the material interests of the planners or of those they represent. In science, one can have theories about anything that isn't supernatural. Clearly conspiracies are within the scope of scientific inquiry. There is no rule that a scientist has to use a natural science method based on models induced from those domains where things and systems do not plan or are planned. Human beings have a complex brain that allows them to act intentionally and coordinate their actions (this is why we have social science). In short: humans plan. The fact is that there are conspiracies. If there were no conspiracies, then one would be hard pressed to explain why so many people sit in prison for having been convicted of one. And without theories about them, no criminal trial in which conspiracy was entered as a charge would be possible. Moreover, it is not as if the only valid conspiracy theories are the one's the state legitimizes through the official ritual of a criminal trial (at that point they are not theories anymore, but findings or rulings). In fact, conspiracies and the competing theories about them are, for historians and social scientists, mundane. The denigration of the term "conspiracy theory" is designed or at least functions to dismiss certain theories that risk undermining elite projects and official narratives. Why would Wikipedia perpetuate the ideological twisting of a valid construct by labeling some pages "conspiracy theory" with the meaning imposed here? This transforms Wikipedia into an obfuscation machine. If this practice were regularized, Wikipedia would be stamping some knowledge as legitimate while casting doubt on other knowledge with a label that benefits some interests over others. How is that in keeping with the goal of providing an objective source of information for the world community? On the contrary, it makes Wikipedia an instrument of propaganda. Let there be an entry on “conspiracy theory” and have all views regarding the meaning of that phrase covered. But do not employ the use of the term as a designation for other entries. No stamps of disapproval should be allowed. Wwsword (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am very uncomfortable with having Chossudovsky and his organisation branded as 'conspiratorial' from the outset. This is denigrating to a well-respected academic and scholar. Yes, let there be space in the article for such discussion. But there is no need for such an epithet from the very beginning. I am not able to contact Bobrayner, who seems pivotal in reverting any such attempt at neutralising this 'conspiracy' term. This seriously needs to be addressed - Paradigmatic-example (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I am ALSO uncomfortable with having Chossudovsky and his organisation branded as 'conspiracist' from the outset, even though I disagree with Paradigmatic-example's assessment of MC. Whereas info/criticism detailing the 'conspiracy theories' the site puts forward is valid, (even an attributed statement such as 'the organisation has been described as advancing conspiracy theories'), the label is vague to the point of being meaningless (as well as being seemingly unsourced). Pincrete (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not uncomfortable with Chossudovsky and his organization being branded "conspiracist" at all, because that's what it is. Also, to the anonymous IP from 11 years ago who accused the CIA of helping Al-Qaeda, you've obviously confused them with the Afghan Mujahadeen. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories evolve when we are not told the full facts.

We feel it does not add up, have no idea what is being withheld, and then we connect our own dots. How often have we heard something years later and say 'oh that's how it was, now it makes sense'. Afghanistan was a trap for the Soviets, some people just used a fluid situation there to make it a trap. The German Karsten Voigt (Shadow Defense minister in the Bundestag) confirmed that to me when I was a journalist in 1980. It was not set up as a trap but came in handy.

Am I a conspiracy theorist when I say that anybody could dress and kit out like a paparazzi on a motorbike, drive the Princess's car into the Alma tunnel where the cameras were turned the wrong way round? From what I see globalresearch provides additional information and interprets them differently from the official line. If I do not believe something, I can fire up a search engine. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:31C2:2914:FFD6:C99C (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory Category

'Conspiracy theory' is a pejorative term, which simply demonstrates a hostile POV. It adds no useful information. Better, especially in the case of a recognised academic, to use a neutral term such as 'critical geopolitical analysis'. For critics to add meaningless labels like this simply subverts the idea of presenting neutral information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KateLVM (talk • contribs) 05:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Very clearly should be an entry for him. He eschews traditional institutional analysis... or, its not so much that he ignores it... He posits a theory and then finds and organisation which seems to exemplify, or be an expression of his ideas, then posits that this "instituion" is actually an example and proof of his theory. eg. see his latest article on how the US and Canada are "training combat troops in Haiti" -- for his conspiratorial mindset he just couldn't fathom that military forces have been traditional first responders to all sorts of emergencies... Canadaman1(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.116.40.235 (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Michel Chossudovsky is very clearly eligible to be in the conspiracy theory category. Not only is he a 9/11 conspiracy theorist as previously discussed on this page, but he also believes the United States has a malicious weather machine that they use against their enemies to great effect. See this source : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7561. Please do not revert this edit without discussion. Zabby1982 (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

this is a distortion of the meaning of the term 'conspiracy theory.' His work on HAARP is meant to highlight that the US has researched weather manipulation technology that has some degree of success. His own work on 9/11 has been to focus on the unanswered questions, such as "Why has no other skyscraper collapsed in the spectacular fashion of the Twin Towers, despite experiencing similarly hot fires?" It is not a conspiracy to question officialdom on the matter. Chossudovsky in no way fits in with Lyndon LaRouche or Alex Jones or David Icke. They are conspiracy theorists.

I don't even know the definition of 'conspiracy theory' but this guy seems to qualify. I think it can be argued that he has some say into how his books are presented for sale on the CRG web site http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html. What does it say? "In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky's 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by 'Islamic terrorists'." That's enough for me; I'd say he fits community definition of a conspiracy theorist.JakartaDean (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyc001 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ The 'Criticism' Section: I have removed that section on the basis that section was absurd. This article has been highlighted for improvement and so removing the last section is a start towards that. Professor Chossudovsky is an important academic and ought to be treated with respect at the very least. The website www.globalresearch.ca is an important source of information and is the work of many people who have academic credentials and so to simply dismiss it all is not appropriate for an article that introduces such an important person and such fine work. [Ian] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.62.67 (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC) [ in addition] With the greatest of respect to those who are part of this discussion forum, I feel that the last section of this article ought to be removed and I did so on the basis that it is extreme. I have not been able to do so. My contribution has been considered and thoughtful and respectful and I would appreciate it as being seen as such please. It is true that I have not a 'signed name' here, but it is true that I appreciate the work of Professor Chossudovsky and would like more respect to be shown to a living academic in order to fit in with the Wikipedia guidelines on that. If the final section cannot be removed then how can this article be improved? To say that someone who does the work that he does as 'nutty' is a comment that will leave others feeling ill at ease and misinformed. I think it is disrespectful and not appropriate for a Wikipedia article and that it falls short of the quality standards expected. I will leave this comment here for others to reflect on and hope that people will view it as being in keeping with the Wikipedia philosophies of respect and consideration. The article falls short and there seems to be no obvious way to be able to improve it. The changes I made were immediately reverted and it means that the article is still not adequate. Perhaps the standards will improve. All the best.

[Ian] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.62.67 (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, once you add context to some of the criticism's here, you are only validating that Chossudovsky seemed to be keen at predicting some things. Terry O'Niell considered the banking system collapsing as a "wild eyed conspiracy". Galvin said Chossudovsky thought that Chossudovsky was mouthing "Assad propaganda" for noting the violence of the Syrian rebels towards Christians, etc. Maybe Galvin's opinion would be different today, what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifersen (talk • contribs) 21:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

you would have to ask him. wp:notforum. Sayerslle (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is interesting since you can find many sources that say Syrian rebels joined forces with Al-Nusra and Al-Nusra pledges allegiance with ISIS. By the way, Sayerslle, when I do edits, I explain my reasoning, then you undue them and call me Assad loving or Putin loving. Very grown up of you! Ifersen (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

undo them ,- you don't explain anything , you just express your prejudices in edits that wipe out material you find incompatible with your political cosmology. that's how I see it anyhow. Sayerslle (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sayersslle, as I said on my talk page, is it not good enough for you guys that half of Chossudovsky's page is not fully explained criticisms made by people much less distinguished than he is? You guys (you, and BobRaynor mostly) make any attempt to omit information that credits Chossudovsky and you watch his page like a hawk to protect these criticism's that have been frequently discussed on talk page and mostly do not belong here. Oh, Jewish Tribune had a problem with what commenters said on a website with disclaimer, which were removed? This is a note worthy criticism to you but yet you will erase paragraphs that discuss his actual work / life.

Oh, some unknown made an editorial calling him nuttiest professor based on three wild-eyed conspiracy's, one of which actually came true (banking system collapsed). You consider this noteworthy but will erase anything about his works on the global economy, etc. I don't watch this page like a hawk, I just check it every now and then because of you and BobRaynor. On the contrary, you or BobRaynor seem to be always online and watching reverts of your criticism's. How long before one of you erase the context to Galvin's criticism again? (Because let's face it, further explanations of things often discredit the criticism). Who is really trying to slant this to their political cosmology? Cheers.Ifersen (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

it's 'criticisms', plural - why do you keep writing criticism's? - anyhow - I don't see it like that - I see you obsessively remove the apologist description - the fact you think 'further explanations of things often discredit the criticism' - as relating to Syrian Civil War for example merely marks you out as a pro-Assad imo, happy to see civilians and unarmed protestors massacred, and mass torture - did you see the Caesar report/ ifersen? - or did that escape your chossudovsky-RT-PressTv views of everything ? - because its all terrorists really - and foreign CIA/NATO etc - IslamicState is a Zionist/Western conspiracy in the Assad-ist lexicon isn't it? - two wrongs don't make a right anyhow - chossudovsky is against terror unless its his fascist Donbass rebels taking out civilian airliners, or Hezbollah, or assad-ist barrel bombs, or gadaffi, - Assad released islamist extremists in early 2011 - while he jailed liberals - he's a machiavel - does chossudovsky ask why he released islamist extremists? - and worked with them for anti-American purposes in Iraq before that? - its cynical politics ifersen, - its a machiavel world -is sunni terror wrong and Shi'ite terror right in chossudivsky land? - as for chossudivsky being more distinguished than his critics - that's just in your demented Putin-ist loving soul imo - he doesn't appear in the least distinguished to me as he rants his awful rubbish on RT and is fawned over by puppet interviewers. I find it grotesque. - now my political cosmology is very different to yours but none of that matters - what matters is your incessant removal of RS material with the demented insistence that what is discovered therein , is not there , as with the karadjis sourced sentence. Sayerslle (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability, truth, and sources

Hi,
I'm worried about edit summaries like this. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth; articles are supposed to reflect what independent sources say, and if you carry a burning Truth in your heart which disagrees with sources, wikipedia is probably not the best place for it. bobrayner (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the sentiment in your own edit summary though: "I don't really care about <article name here>, I just want neutral articles." This explains why I now have tons of random articles like this on my watchlist. a13ean (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Why is this a concern? I have read thousands of wiki articles and I would find it very odd if one of the first things said about the subject were the opinion of a journalist of a magazine such as Western Standard or Jewish Tribune. Call it what it is - a critisism. Wiki is supposed to be neutral, but it seems Chossudovsky's work is being cherry -picked to paint him in a bad light. Cheers. Ifersen (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2012

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Who is Terry O'Neill and why are his derogatory comments considered merited for use as source?

Who is Terry O'Neill of the Western Standard, and why is one of his (pretty unsubstantiated) comments about who's "nutty" or "nuttiest" from some obscure article in an equally obscure canadian internet publication considered a factoid that has encyclopedic merit? Nunamiut (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Conservative Western Standard is clearly cited as the source for this. If you believe the comments are unsubstantiated or derogatory, feel free to add material to the contrary.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC))

Perhaps it should be pointed out that this article was written before the stock market crash. That "nutty" theory of his became true upon the collapse of several lending institutions in the Unites States having world wide reprecussions.Ifersen (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

HAARP

Some contributors (including Bobraynor's multiple attempts and now Groundzero) keep editing out four words from the HAARP category, specifically the words "from a military standpoint". Clearly these "contributors" only purpose is to discredit Chossodovsky. If you read an article on HAARP by Chossudovsky, he is clearly only stating HAARP's potential "from a military standpoint". I would like to know why these posters keep removing these four words that only clarify Chossudovsky's position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.65.73 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this neutral

Can't we stick with what sources say? Altering the wording of a quote, like this, is fundamentally dishonest. Globalresearch.ca may work differently, but here on en.wikipedia dishonesty is a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Bobraynor, When I looked up the source to the quote it was the description of the book and did not lead to the quote. It was only until I saw that you could click on the book and read the preface that I understood your point here. I do apologize for this misunderstanding, as I was just trying to match what the source said (http://www.amazon.com/Americas-War-Terrorism-Michel-Chossudovsky/dp/0973714719#reader_0973714719).

However there are much larger concerns on this page. The fact that you try to pretend that you just want this article to be neutral after most edits you have done have been fabricated / or erasing information for no good reason is pretty funny. The mistakes on the swine flu and IMF categories you created, it was like you did not even read the sources you even provided (don't worry I fixed them so they are now "neutral"). If you want to be neutral, at least stop trying to erase the write-up on Global Economic Crisis or whatever. If anything more categories need to be added, not erased to suit your POV. I know you don't like Globalresearch as it doesn't suit your views on Yogoslavia. You don't strike me as a neutral fellow at all. Cheers, Ifersen (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This Page is working to Smear Chossudovsky and make him look like a Lunatic

The people doing the biased editing have a bad editing history and negative motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.131.58 (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Please look at the editing history and their activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.131.58 (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• This warrants a closer investigation, made possible in part by you being blocked for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Removed the "Writings". Whether it makes him look like a lunatic or not (apparently he holds those opinions) is less relevant than the fact that this was simply a lengthy rehash of the man's opinions sourced to his own publications (his own website, mostly). That cannot be. Especially with BLPs in the field of politics and media, rigorous secondary sourcing should determine content. Some of it (some) could conceivably be brought in to "counter" the "Criticism" section--but note that "Criticism" sections really are discouraged. What's needed is not the typical stupid pro and con, but a balanced assessment based on secondary sources of the man's thoughts and actions, including critiques thereof. But this article should not be turned back into a resume, summary, tenure document, or whatever. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the article really needs to be checked. It is trying to make Chossudovsky look like an anti-Semitic bigot.

It is because he is too much of a lunatic with all these baseless accusations such as calling Ukrainian post-revolutionary government nazi.

There are editors that are not only changing his entry to discredit Chossudovsky, but if you look at their histories are doing it to an entire series of articles. There is a pattern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.76.215 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a good reason for that. He is one. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"Criticism"

re "criticism" section

1. Karadjis isn't necessarily reliable [7] and no detail is provided such as to qualify it as "criticism" rather than assertion
2. this minor incident has been moved to Globalresearch.ca; it's barely worth keeping there, there's no argument it merits inclusion here.
3. unknown journalist from minor paper provides insults. Justification for inclusion: none.

Podiaebba (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC) "Mike Karadjis' 2000 book Bosnia, Kosova, and the West, Chossudovsky is referred to as a "pro-Milošević leftist", as well as accused of "systematically distorting events in Albania and the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s". This is never said in book. I keep removing it because this quote does not exist in the book whatsoever. Please stop putting it here.Ifersen (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The section has been repeatedly restored without any attempt at discussion. Please do not do so - see WP:CRITICISM and WP:BLP. Podiaebba (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Still no effort to respond to these points, while reinserting the disputed content into a WP:BLP. Podiaebba (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and now it's being put back again. WP pages are not built by digging up random pithy and/or abusive – one of "Canada's nuttiest professors"? Seriously? – quotes from op-eds, of all things, in publications whose writers are always going to find fault with the person in question. Saying "it's sourced" isn't the point. All sorts of things are "sourced" – the policy is that material should be sourced not that being sourced makes it required material. We also have WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and an assumption against dedicated "Criticism" sections, which are as daft as a "Praise" section would be. When one or two people are trying to make a page with 50% criticism, we are in the realm of political point-scoring, not of serious encyclopedia writing. N-HH talk/edits 17:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

leave the academic's criticism please- there is no reason to remove it - it looks reliably sourced - isn't this chossudovsky pro-Putin and pro-Assad - he seems a kind of anti-western totalitarian lover - there should be a criticism section - and there should be more added when it is reliably sourced - agreed the op-ed was not the best to put back. peccavi. Sayerslle (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Karadjis is not an "academic", he's a radical leftist activist, and the book cited is published by what appears to be an obscure far-left imprint. Look harder. Furthermore, it's no secret that there were splits among the left over Serbia/Kosovo, with some viewing the KLA as a genuine national liberation movement and others as stooges of the west. These two men seem to have fallen either side of the gap, and nothing is gained by noting that. I'd have nothing against his page including a genuine appraisal of Chossudovsky's work and his opinions – and for that to include some negative assessments – but that, as ever, needs to be done by finding a genuine, dispassionate and balanced third-party assessment in a serious source or profile; not by cherry-picking quotes in passing from random fringe publications and writers who we can already guess would disagree with him politically and using them to bulk up a one-sided "criticism" section. I'd also advise against describing someone, even on a talk-page, as a "totalitarian lover" whose page "should" have a criticism section – not only does that breach BLP itself but rather flags up the fact that you've already made a judgment and are now looking to back it up with whatever negative evidence you can find. N-HH talk/edits 08:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

what does he say about Assad regime? i'm beginning to get where you are coming from. I see that yu really are determined about this. rrrriiiggghhhtttt.[8] - according to this, Karadjis, he is University of Western Sydney academic, no? I'm putting the couple of sentences back. if people have 'fallen the other side of the gap' of this chussodovsky bloke, then that's part of the story. you really are a bit too much of a censor here imo - btw I just glanced at rational wiki [9] -and it says, about his founded website, 'the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping and bullshit throughout its pages, especially in relation to taking its news from "Russia Today", along with other unreliable and/or open sources.' says pro-gaddafi too, so if describing someone as a dictator lover kind of thing is bothering you perhaps you should discover more about the history of gaddafi and analogous.Sayerslle (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)11:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What's Assad got to do with anything? Fine, Karadjis appears to hold some post at that place (the link you provided isn't working right now and it wasn't in the blurb for the book being used as a source). Anyway, I'm not against including the quote simply because he's a far left activist or because he is not an academic and never said as much; there are an amalgam of problematic factors here, as explained. And yes, I am determined that no WP page should essentially a coatrack attack page in egregious breach of BLP policy. RationalWiki as a source or evidence for anything? Please. If you don't see where you're going wrong here, on several levels, perhaps you should read around the policies and guidelines here a bit more. That's probably more necessary for you than it is for me to read about "the history of gaddafi and analagous". N-HH talk/edits 11:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

ps: have posted at the BLP noticeboard. N-HH talk/edits 12:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

'Karadjis is not an "academic"', - 'Fine, Karadjis appears to hold some post at that place' - so which is it? Sayerslle (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

trying to find comment on this man - and RS really do seem to not bother with him - I came across this [10] "I apply "Neo-Stalinist" to Michel Chossudovsky, James Petras, and Thierry Meyssan of Voltairenet.

Here's Petras on the anti-Stalinist Left; note that this attack on the anti-Stalinist Left is on Chossudovsky's website. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-western-welfare-state-its-rise-and-demise-and-the-soviet-bloc/31753

Chossudovsky, Petras and Meyssan play a very significant role today, extending well beyond Left circles.

Unlike Chomsky, Trotskyists, Anarchists and the Green Left generally, these writers portray the Jewish Lobby as a Fifth Column manipulating the US, and argue that 9/11 was an inside job.

- !! - wow -

I 've seen him on Russia Today , the man is obviously controversial in his thinking and the criticsm section should stay, not be decorated with a spurious Undue tag, and be extended - he is part of what nowadays I guess is a contemporary equivalent of wht used to be called 'fellow traveler' group in George Orwells time I think. Sayerslle (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It's clear you don't like him or perhaps more accurately his views, or indeed those of anyone who disagrees with your personal view on Assad/Syria and other matters that your contribution history appears to be heavily focused on, with all the interesting edit summaries to boot (now I see why you mentioned Assad out of the blue earlier). But that's the problem – you're clearly not interested in building a neutral biography or appraisal section, or in acknowledging the problems raised by two other editors, just in piling in more and more random criticism culled from the web, including right-wing op-eds again, as you have been on other pages. As I keep pointing out, that is not only not a reasonable way to build a serious encyclopedia but a BLP issue. Nor do I see what the relevance is of the piece you've now cited here, written by someone else anyway, to the actual point at hand, which is about how to write a WP page, including those of possibly controversial people and/or those who go against the grain in the west. As for Karadjis, I would have thought that my use of the word "fine" and my acknowledgement that he does indeed hold some kind of university post rather obviously supersedes my previous comment that he is not an academic. Sometimes, you know, people respond to and accept the points made to them by others, especially when presented with argument or evidence which contradicts that which they had previously relied on. N-HH talk/edits 17:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not just me who objects to your position on this section - I am interested in building an appraisal section - it is not easy because there is very little attention paid him - a writer I do admire , Louis Proyect, has called him an outright crank,[11] which is good enough for me - perhaps this is why RS have little to say about him - btw I notice on aksyonov talkpage you write 'this is meant to be an encyclopedia not a proxy battleground or political blog-fight.' - which is a position I generally agree with , but , inchussodovskys case it is really obvious , surely, that there are both grounds for, and people who do, legitimately take issue with this mans political cosmology, and that to erase a criticism section because you see real world fights everywhere is overkill. imo Sayerslle (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

People keep returning here and republishing items that were not appropriate in the first place. One of these items is the criticism from Karadjis' 2000 book. I looked into it long ago because the user that entered it here put some other highly suspect (untrue) information here. Anyways, the online copy of Karadjis was available for free at the time and these quotes never existed in the book. If you want to find a criticism, fine, but if you are quoting material from a book, make sure that it actually exists (and that you re-copying something that was taken off as it was made up). Sorry, I did not sign the last time (technical difficulties). Ifersen (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Project Censored

In no way should we ever rely on Project Censored for content, or let it set the tone of articles. It's WP:FRINGE by definition. This encyclopædia should reflect the mainstream view, not the incredible controversies that all the other media refuse to print! All the more so on a BLP. bobrayner (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This is unmitigated nonsense. WP:BLP does not encourage the use of fringe insults and trivial incidents, which you're delighted to include (still with no effort to respond to my comments about these in the section above, despite reinserting them 3 or 4 times). On the other hand, Wikipedia:FRINGE#Independent_sources encourages precisely the use of such excellent academic sources as Project Censored, particularly with clear in-text attribution. Wake up: you're not having your way with turning this entry into a WP:ATTACK page. Podiaebba (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Podiaebbal, it seems that you've forgotten to assume good faith. the website in question is clearly fringe, and far from an "excellent academic source." The article is far from academic. on the contrary, it seems to have been highjackecked by either Chossudovsky fans or contributors. --201.216.249.145 (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the circumstances fully justify my comments. Project Censored is an excellent academic source - the best there is in this area of reviewing news not picked up by mainstream media. I'm not a Chossudovsky fan (I'm not really familiar with his work) - I just came across the article and object to seeing people needlessly traduced on Wikipedia, in clear violation of WP:BLP. Podiaebba (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

radical

the subject of this article is clearly on the fringe of any commonly held beliefs by scholars or subject matter experts. his works and those by others on his websites are more based on fantasy and fiction than on research or facts. this should be noted in the article. --201.216.249.145 (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If you can provide commentators who critique what he's actually written, as opposed to just insulting him, that's likely to be worth including (not forgetting to respect WP:UNDUE). NB Your sweeping comments suggest you've neither bothered to follow up the Project Censored use of Chossudovsky's work, or looked properly through the site, which is very much a mixed bag. Podiaebba (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Project Censored is still WP:FRINGE by definition. bobrayner (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's an academic project that looks at under-reported news stories; if this is "fringe" then so is every academic source reporting original content - which would be an interesting perspective to try justifying at WP:RSN. Podiaebba (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Why the continuous attempts to whitewash the article? bobrayner (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That is impressively passive-aggressive, and accompanied by a complete failure to engage with the detailed arguments made on this talk page, not least by myself. Podiaebba (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Text was well sourced. Restored. On the other hand the POV "Highlights" section was based on the site itself and was in violation of WP:PRIMARY. A short summary based on the website itself would be fine though. One or two sentences.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

I noticed an edit war is occurring at this page. I have started this section so we can deal with it appropriately. Let's discuss the issue rather than reverting each other. Johnny338 (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the issue is that BobRaynor authored a quote himself and cited it as Karadjis. I have said many times that this quote does not exist as the on-line copy of the book is available. All you have to do is press control + F to find the quote and it is not there. Users such as BobRaynor will not deny this, yet they will continue to repost this quotation. I am sure that this is illegal. Below is the "quote" in issue. Is there implications for "editors" that do these types of actions?

"In Mike Karadjis' 2000 book Bosnia, Kosova, and the West, Chossudovsky is referred to as a "pro-Milošević leftist", as well as accused of "systematically distorting events in Albania and the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.104.159 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I read an article , published by green left review in 1999 apparently , which is credited to Mike Kardajis , which is critical of Chossudovsky - it seems to be in line with the gist of the quote from the book that the ip says is invented by bobrayner. karadjis is an important independent leftist critic, a political historian/academic[12] and chossudovsky seems a kind of Russian chauvinist commentator so the criticism from karadjis looks authentic. ( btw I don't buy this ip editor saying 'oh I don't want to talk at the talk page because I haven't got time to learn all there is to learn about wp.i'm just tired of seeing others basically vandalise the article' - what a load of absolute garbage - as if just exactly what they are already doing isn't sufficient , what else is there to learn ip about debating it here?- absurd , awful garbage, as for 'Yes the edit war is regarding some posters who want to post quotes from novels that are not in fact in the novel' - I mean, ffs, a 'novel'? - disingenuous garbage) Sayerslle (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow so after all of this time, an editor actually took the time to (presumably) find a quote that really exists? I am shocked, I just could not believe the intellectual laziness of supposed "editors" that just rehash the same old lines that do not exist, acting as if they are trying to better articles. They do this at the same time as omitting anything at all that credits Chossudovsky. Funny how you say disingenuous garbage at the same time as reposting some petty very dated "criticism" from the Jewish Tribune, which is not actually a criticism at all. You know all about disingenuous garbage. And no, I do not have time to learn how to use the functions in Wikipedia at this point in my life, I just hate when I see people not acting within the spirit of Wikipedia on this page. There has never been a debate or learning on this page, just a few select posters trying to paint him in as bad of a light as possible without any attempts at adding substance. Just look at BobRaynors history here, it is quite obvious.142.162.238.150 (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

the criticism of Milosevic was real all the time though , while you were kind of saying it was all invented really. it wasn't. I deleted the criticism I added from the Canadian journalist saying he was/is an apologist for gaddafi / assad because although I think it is a good article it was an opinion piece so on reflection probably wasn't suitable to use. I didn't write the jewish tribune material but restored it - I was nt sure myself how suitable it was as a criticism of him exactly - its easily taken out again I suppose. I think if RS criticize him , its fair enough to add - RS in fact seem to ignore him totally as far as I can see though he is always welcome on RT and Press TV - is that what passes for being a 'radical' these days? good heavens. Sayerslle (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle has made some big improvements to a difficult article. I'm glad we're making progress now.

142.162.104.159, you should log back into your account. bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It has been repeated over and over and over again (because Bobrayner has for years edit-warred to reinsert the disputed material) that the "criticism" is largely irrelevant, decontextualised, meaningless insult from editorial pieces. It should stay out, as has been argued many times by many people. On the other hand, the Project Censored is well-sourced description of some of his work found significant by the best academic source looking at this sort of fringe writing. It should stay, because the alternative is to describe his (post-retirement) work through selective description by editors, opponents, or supporters from mostly poor or primary sources; or not to describe it at all. Podiaebba (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

NB I'm not sure how frequently he is on RT etc, but if it's significant then putting that more prominent in the article (eg in the summary) with appropriate sourcing might satisfy the "we want to show what a douche this guy" is tendency, as the editors with that mission probably consider RT appearances a signpost of a certain kind of douchery, and others wouldn't mind it being given appropriate prominence. Podiaebba (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

'the news that didn't make the news ' - how is that following RS guidelines? seems by definition stuff that didn't make it to RS to me. did volunteer marek suggest a couple of sentences about that? - or was he talking about something different? saying criticism from karadjis and others is 'largely irrelevant' is a fatuous remark - karadjis is an intellectual responding to another public intellectual - that seems fair enough to include - what do you think it should be - all project censored 'highlights', and no criticism? - because its 'irrelevant' - a bit Stalinist approach to criticismSayerslle (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Karadjis' remarks as presented are decontextualised insult. Without some explanation of the context (which nobody has been able to provide), it cannot be considered "criticism", and therefore does not merit inclusion in a BLP. I would point out that the roo of Karadjis' disagreement in this area is covered by Project Censored here, [13], i.e. Chossudovsky was right. Yet all that's repeatedly reinserted is some minor academic's ancient fact-less and bitching. Podiaebba (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Project Censored's very mission ensures that they fail WP:RS. Yeah, let's build a BLP on content which we might charitably describe as "not published anywhere else". That's a great idea. bobrayner (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Project Censored is an academic project. How is that supposed to fail WP:RS, whilst the "criticism" you're dedicated to inserting sourced to commentary from minor journalists doesn't? Also we must take into account that without this we have approximately zero actual, neutral, third-party description of the subject's contentious post-retirement work. Why would you exclude this, if you were to write a reasonable and helpful encyclopedia entry? Podiaebba (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Project Censored's very mission ensures that they fail WP:RS. Yeah, let's build a BLP on content which we might charitably describe as "not published anywhere else". That's a great idea. bobrayner (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Putting the recurrent disruptive editing to rest

Ifersen has repeatedly edit warred to delete material critical of Chossudovsky, alleging that it is "fake". In every case he has blatantly lied, and there is no point in assuming good faith when dealing with such a user (or the various suspicious IPs that occasionally come along and engage in similar behavior). On Ifersen's most recent lie, here is page 207 of Bosnia, Kosovo, and the West, which explicitly refers to Chossudovsky as "a noted left apologist for the Milosevic regime". Every edit by Ifersen should be inspected carefully if not immediately reverted on sight.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Times are a changing - thank you for the link. I could not re-access this until now. The original wording in quotations in what I was arguing was "PRO-MILOSEVIC". At the time, I already busted BobRaynor in several misrepresentations and lies on this page so I was justified in being suspicious of any of his additions. I tried to control + F his quote and it did not exist so I was right all along and not lying as you say. One should not use quotation marks unless they are providing direct quotes - so how am I "blatantly lying" by pointing this out. Now that you changed the wording this is no longer an issue. But if you tried to control + F what was originally there you would not find it in your link. It is also noted that many argue on this page that this is not a valid criticism anyways, so I don't think I was doing anything outrageous by taking it out.

Timesarechanging - I never saw you on this page before but I came across your name on other pages regarding Cambodia and Khmer Rouge the very same day you whitewashed all of my edits in one swipe with no explanation. According to the talk page there, you were also very deeply involved in these tactics where you would mass-erase everything that did not suite the line that you want to toe with no explanation. I just have to wonder what would motivate you to behave this way. Me trying to erase one sentence from Karadjis - whose validity of being a criticism has been questioned by many on this talk page - compared to your behavior and you are accusing me of bad faith? Very funny. Ifersen (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Bob Raynor is at it again

BobRaynor, if you revert the context to Glavin's criticism for no reason I am going to report you. You have no business making "decontributions" to Wikipedia, who is in need for donations, as you undermine everything wikipedia is supposed to be about. It is people like you that might make people not want to donate. Glavin did use Chossudovsky's quote on how groups in Syria were attacking Christians and using death squads as an example for "mouthing Baathist propaganda". Why is this not valid, the reader deserves to know what Glavin means by "Baathist propaganda". Now it just appears that Chossodovsky knew exactly what he was talking about and Glavin probably would like to eat his words now, considering that now we know that there were death squads amongst the Syrian rebels from early on. What is your agenda here Bob? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifersen (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 7 December 2014

Have you ever disagreed with somebody without accusing them of having a sinister agenda? bobrayner (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The biographical entry for Michel Chossudovsky has been re-edited since 2012, but retains errors and violations of WP policy. Notably, the following sentence has been appended to the previous edit:

" Following the crisis in Ukraine, the web site www.globalresearch.ca (controlled by Chossudovsky) became a conduit of anti-Western sentiment and an apologist of militaristic expansion policies of Russia. "

Not only is this assertion unsupported by other sources, it is unsupportable in its current form. It makes editorial statements to the effect that the named website is a "conduit" of "anti-Western" sentiment and an "apologist" for Russian policies. These terms are not defined in the biography, and so do not permit verification. Nor are sources of the quote given. If independent sources of the quote were given, the resulting sentence should be placed in the preceding section, which describes criticisms of Chussudovsky and his website. Please contact the author of this entry and edit it to reflect these criticisms, or remove it from Wikipedia pages entirely. Mehcaver (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Chossudovsky is a KGB spy. End of story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE22:8260:B88B:868:A5E7:9F62 (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio on external link

Is this copyvio for an external link? It is indirectly on YouTube and does not appear to be 'officially posted'.War and Globalization: The Truth Behind 9/11 (Lecture).Pincrete (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a blog with copyvio. Removed. bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Blind revert

I have restored my changes. As noted, the first edit I made was copyediting. The second edit kept some of the criticism, but simply moved it out from a separate subsection. What I did remove was a blog post, and two random op-eds which offered no substantive criticism but more or less simple abuse. Please justify its inclusion before reverting again. Thanks. This is a WP biography, not a forum for political slanging matches. N-HH talk/edits 18:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've kept the copy editing (though there was some potentially objectionable changes in there as well). As to the rest, please look at the talk page. A lot of this has already been discussed. Volunteer Marek  18:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And having reread the talk page myself, I see now that you already participated in those discussions, hence you were perfectly aware that your edits were against consensus when you made them, and then you tried to play it off with "please discuss on talk". That's WP:GAME right there. Volunteer Marek  18:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was. No serious justification beyond "ILIKEIT" was ever forthcoming for, for example, including a description of this BLP subject as one of "Canada's nuttiest professors", sourced to a right-wing op-ed columnnist who wouldn't even appear to be notable enough to warrant their own WP page. Is that a susbtantive "controversy" that simply must be included here or simple political mud-slinging? Nor was any justification given for sidestepping the deprecation of "Criticism" sections and headings, rather than incorporating any genuinely valuable and insightful negative coverage into the main body of the article, as my edit tried to do. There's no gaming here, just revisiting what should be obvious in the hope of seeing saner and less partisan voices here. I'll take this back to the BLP and/or POV noticeboard if the local veto – which did not represent a firm consensus at all btw, as plenty of people have complained about much of this content – still stands. N-HH talk/edits 18:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually looking over the article it's pretty clear that somebody whitewashed the hell out of it. Where's the basic info that this is basically about a conspiracy theory website which publishes all kinds of crazy stuff? Where's the info that Chossudovsky believes, and supports people who believe, that 9/11 was an "inside job"? Where's the info about the other crazy conspiracies that he and his website promotes?  Volunteer Marek  18:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't even mention his "War and globalisation: the truth behind September 11"! If there's POV here, it goes the other way - the article looks more like it's being used for promotion.18:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case and is properly documented in a serious source that has no obvious axe to grind, I'd have no complaint about including such information, under a "9/11" or whatever heading. What I object to – and probably the majority commenting in the discussions above objected to – was the inclusion of fringe commentary under a broad and declaratory "Criticism" heading. N-HH talk/edits 18:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What we have is criticisms published in three major news outlets, so that's not exactly fringe. The only possible fringe is the article by this Karadjis fellah, which I guess could be removed. Volunteer Marek  18:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe not fringe, but certainly marginal. As noted, we're talking, for example, about one newspaper columnist who wouldn't even appear to be notable enough to warrant their own WP page describing the subject of this BLP as one of "Canada's nuttiest professors". How do that source and repeating that content square with the policy requirement that, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone"? I only left the Karadjis piece, reluctantly, over those because it was in a book and because he seems to hold some minor academic post. N-HH talk/edits 18:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

ps: as for "whitewashing" vs "promotion", as I have agreed, this page should include more detail on his positions, whether they involve a belief in little green men or anything else – so long as they are sourced to reputable, serious sources and discussed (and yes if necessary criticised) rationally. The material I and others would like to see removed does not broadly help with any of that but is simply polemical and even insulting sloganeering against him from marginal figures, which illumuinates nothing and is wholly unsuitable for a neutral BLP. And as a point of semantics, including more detail on his verifiable views about 9/11 or anything else would of course be what, if anything, would actually make this page more "promotional" not less so. No one is arguing for the exclusion of any reference to those views, even any that might seem a little out there to lots of people; equally, nor would any such exclusion be "whitewashing", which is about covering up negative things people don't want others to know about. If he and his supporters believe and argue for something, they by definition don't think it's an embarrassing secret. Oh, and the book you refer to which you say the page doesn't mention is listed in the bibliography (although admittedly no detail is included on it). And finally, if you're telling everyone on the talk page that he promotes "crazy conspiracies", you probably ought to be a little more careful about staying within BLP rules and to ask yourself whether you're an objective judge of the content on this page. N-HH talk/edits 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Section's neutrality in dispute

After reading the whole (brief) article, and also the Talk page, it is clear this article is doing a good job in labelling Chossodovsky as a conspiracionist. However, given how the war against ISIS in Syria is unfolding, with Turkey collaborating in smuggling oil and with documented evidence of it (pictures, videos, statements by politicians) it is clear there is a hidden interest by some Western people in harming those who denounce it. And one of the think-tanks who denounced this is this Global Research think tank.

This biography deserves more neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boina verde 1980 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not a WP:SOAPBOX. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Dead/broken link [14] in Reference #19 [Terry O'Niell (25 September 2006). "Canada's nuttiest professors". Western Standard.]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.41.219 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for the notification. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Criticism section, again

I couldn't agree more with this edit summary. On that basis, however, pretty much the entire Criticism section should go. As noted by multiple editors over time, it's just BLP-skirting ad-homs and polemics from hostile and often non-notable commentators which offer little illumination or information about Chossudovsky himself. Considered and sober description and critique of his views is one thing, this is something else. Considering that the person who unilaterally edit-warred it all back in last time is now busying clearing out remarkably similar content from other pages, probably quite correctly, could we apply a consistent approach across articles and look again at getting rid of this? Thank you. N-HH talk/edits 10:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the "nuttiest professors" is unwarranted and unserious. The other seems relevant and well sourced. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That quote in particular is an egregious breach of BLP and I've been genuinely surprised that long-term contributors here have been willing to defend it. But even if that exact quote is removed, we are left with sourcing and linking to a pithy column by a red-linked columnist. The opening paragraph of criticism, which also contains an abusive and unclear accusations ("apologist"), is sourced to a minor academic and far-left activist who, like Terry O'Neill, does not appear to have been judged notable enough for his own WP page. The middle two sections – ie the Jewish Tribune and National Post content – could perhaps be salvaged, but need to be trimmed (eg to lose the cheap "mouthing Baathist propaganda" insult) and incorporated into the main text, not kept as a standalone, cherry-picked and unbalanced "Criticism" section. N-HH talk/edits 12:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've removed what I see as the worst of it and folded what's left into the main section about his work with the Centre. If anyone wants to find some serious criticism of him and his admittedly often a bit left-field opinions, feel free to add it into that part. However, it would be great if people didn't just recreate a dedicated, one-sided "Criticism" section and then stuff it full again of whatever can be found lurking in hostile and obscure op-eds. N-HH talk/edits 08:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Russian propaganda front

Does anyone know of any reliable source indicating that Chossudovsky's "Centre for Research on Globalization" is an FSB front? Its publications on Ukraine, and other matters in which Putin's Russia is heavily involved, are so extreme as to suggest that the "Centre" is actually a propaganda front. It certainly isn't independent or balanced.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You cannot find out these things reliably with proof etc. You can read his globalresearch.ca website and reach your own conclusions.

Practically all websites follow an agenda, we just have to read several with several agendae. Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 2001:8003:AC60:1400:3538:F881:D6A7:562A (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Standard stonewalling again?

So I'm told I should take these changes to the talk page. I wait with baited breath for someone to engage. I gave up a few years ago making this page something other than an attack page, so, seriously, not holding my breath. To pick one: any suggestions on why the man's honorary doctorate can't be mentioned? I guess it's that old chestnut that random opinion pieces from non-entities are good sources if they attack him, but eg a university page about the honorary doctorate they've awarded him is suspect. Go on, I'm listening. Podiaebba (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop being a diva and AGF. You're adding a lot more than an honorary doctorate, self-referencing his articles, using unreliable/biased sources to create a WP:COATRACK for his work. It's commonly known as WP:ADVOCACY. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow. WP:LINKINGSTUFFISNOTASUBSTITUTEFORENGAGINGWITHCONTENT. Podiaebba (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, breaking it down.

• What's wrong with awards section sourced to a public university?
• What's wrong with additional career outside academia, sourced to a public university?
• What's wrong with mentioning some Project Censored awards, as deemed important enough by a public university to mention in awarding Chossudovsky an honorary doctorate?

Podiaebba (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Breaking it down, even at a cursory glance at this talk page, you've pushed the limits on WP:PERSONAL and adding content against consensus. You've also had editors, now including me, explain to you that this is WP:COATRACK, and is unacceptable self-referencing. If you don't like policies and guidelines, don't edit. The only stonewalling and refusal to budge is coming from you, end of story. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Is quora.com reliable?

https://www.quora.com/Journalistic-Ethics-and-Norms-How-legitimate-is-The-Centre-for-Global-Research Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Quora is probably not a reliable source, but it is still cited in a few hundred Wikipedia articles. Jarble (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does this read like someone's resume - or hagiography?

It seems from the article on Mr Chossudovsky that he is almost entirely free of blemish - except for possible self-hatred (anti-Semitism). Has this man done nothing wrong, or is his Wikipedia entry being carefully managed?

Could someone who has a clue possibly write a little more about the man behind the hagiography, for those of us who are totally out of clues? Thanks. Ambiguosity (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

I have included/reincluded a section on conspiracy theories. I believe that, by referring to the pre-existing Wikipedia page on theories that are generally accepted as being conspiracy theories and demonstrating that Chussodovsky, in his website has very strongly promoted at least six of these, I have demonstrated that he is a conspiracy theorist by any definition of the term. In some cases those particular theories have been advanced more than once in the website Global Research.

Also Conspiracy theory is very clearly defined in the Wikipedia page on the subject. Anyone (except Chussodovsky's supporters) who reads his website will notice that the above theories are far from being the only ones promoted there and that the website is not only anti-globalization and anti-American but very often anti-rational.

It is therefore misleading for a Wikipedia page on Chussodovsky to exist which fails to mention the elephant in the room - that he is one of the world's arch conspiracy theorists. Any attempt to revert my edit will be blatant whitewashing. I also strongly defend my inclusion of the term "conspiracy theorist" in the opening sentence.

What is less certain is that he has ever been an advisor to the United Nations, since the only evidence we are given of that is a passage (in Spanish) from the University of Nicaragua on Chussodovsky, and he could well have told them that information himself. Why not a link to the UN website on any advice that he gave them?

A sentence on B'nai Brith Canada writing to the University of Ottowa was removed since it appeared irrelevant. PussBroad (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted to restore the section on conspiracy theories. Fyddlestix says "we need a secondary source" (other that Global Research) - does this mean that several Wikipedia pages that have their own sources don't count? Read my comments above, they are still relevant. Clearly removal of the conspiracy theories section was illegitimate use of WP:SYNTH. I have not put two and two together to make five. I have made a watertight case for Chossudovsky being a conspiracy theorist, but the article doesn't even state that. It only states what is incontrovertible and adds information that anyone wanting to read about the subject should know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PussBroad (talk • contribs) 12:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to calling chussodovsky a conspiracy theorist at all actually - and I know it seems obvious: but wiki guidelines are super clear on this: we need a source that actually calls him that. I'm removing the content again per WP:BLP but would happy to see something sourced. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is clear on WP:BLPVIO: no reliable sources, no banana. We're WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. It's that simple. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, and Iryna Harpy, I don't think either of you really gave me the right reasons for removing my paragraph, but I think I have found the appropriate rule that I broke: WP:CIRC "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources." So I have now included an external reference for each of the conspiracy theories listed. This means that there is a pair of references for each, one as evidence that the Global Research assertion in question is a well known CT and the second the corresponding GR article. Surely this is now acceptable! Incidentally the name of the rule suggests that an edit is not allowed when it IS a circular reference but the description says only that there is a RISK of a circular reference. (eg. Page A says X because page B says it, Page B says X because page C says it and Page C says X because page A says it.) My edit was obviously never the latter.PussBroad (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That's textbook WP:SYNTH, so no, not acceptable. None of the secondary sources cited mention Chossudovsky or his website; it's you and the way you've written the content up that is making the connection. However obvious the label might appear to you, or anyone else, this is not properly sourced content, and this is a BLP. You also seemed to be on your own in this argument, so you don't even have consensus. N-HH talk/edits 19:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki link

COI notice: RW editor, as stated on my userpage.

I believe that the RationalWiki (RW) link (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/GlobalResearch) should be included in External Links because it provides extensive documentation of conspiracy-promoting articles and writing on Mr. Chussodovsky's GlobalResearch (GR) site.

Given that the RW link consists of quotations of GR pages, and given that the current page doubly cites external sources and GR (eg, on HAARP, the article cites both an ADN and a GR article), RW seems sufficiently reliable to include in External Links.

While the page does have a POV, it seems to me that most sources on this page do. I'm not arguing that "the sources here are bad, and so it's OK to add more bad sources". I'm arguing that most reliable and reliable-ish sources do not take a positive stance towards Mr. Chossudovsky or towards GR; this source agrees.

I welcome discussion. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: @PCHS-NJROTC: FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I totally get wanting to include it, especially since there's a dearth of RS that actually describe Chossudovsky as a conspiracy theorist, when it's pretty self-evident that that's what he is. But I think that the link you're adding runs afoul of WP:BLP, and specifically WP:BLPEL. It seems like RW is exactly the kind of "questionable" source that the policy was written to rule out. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a better idea. This was pretty much settled until a blatant troll decided to create an account with deliberate intentions of inflaming the situation. Aside from the troll, the only person contesting the removal is someone with an admitted conflict of interest. Even the person who initially challenged the removal has reverted the action of the troll. As initially stated by me, suitable information can be included in this article rather than linking to the POV website. Rational-Wiki is not a reliable source per Wikipedia standards, just as Conservapedia (which I am a member of) is not a reliable source; it is biased, it is snarky, and if there's something suitable they have that we don't, we should expand our own article rather than linking there. If there's no further objections to the simple removal of the link, how about ruining a troll's party by simply not giving it the drama it craves? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This is why I oppose linking to Rational-Wiki. The fact that someone made an WP:SPA to troll FCP and inflame the situation proves that links to Rational-Wiki invites an element we don't need on Wikipedia. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

(Grunting from sidelines): no RW EL. All arguments against inclusion have been eloquently presented. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: I understand where you're coming from. However, I do not understand why you classify this RationalWiki (RW) article as a questionable source. WP:V writes: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." In my view, the RW article appears to abide by the latter part of this section -- namely, the RW article on GlobalResearch (GR) almost exclusively uses sources from GR itself, fitting the statement that "[q]uestionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves". If so, why do you believe that this RW article is a questionable source? I hope you will further clarify. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Rational Wiki is user generated. Our policy on reliable sources explicitly rules sources like that out. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories (again)

I don't disagree with all of the big changes in this short group of edits, but it's still a little too definitive in declaring his website to be about conspiracy theories (plus I think some of the stuff lost could have been retained; it seems more about description, if sometimes trivial, than puffery). I'm not sure a passing barb in an AP "fact-check" about a separate topic is enough to make an assertion that bold in the lead, just as the past reliance on obscure op-eds and WP-editor synthesis failed slightly. I'm not that familiar with the site, but there doesn't seem to be much dispute either among people here or IRL that there's some fairly, to say the least, left-field content on it. But is that all that it is about? And how far does it actually endorse any known conspiracy theories? None of that is clear. What would be ideal would be some form of profile/feature report on him and/or the site that sets the issues out in mroe detail rather than having to rely on random, out-of-context passing criticism and stuffing that in. N-HH talk/edits 11:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

PF, AP and FP have characterized the website as a source of conspiracy theories. A widely cited 2010 study in a medical journal characterizes the website as a source of anti-vaccine misinfo, and a PRI article describes it as a major of the Irish slaves myth. It is therefore uncontroversial to describe it as a conspiracy-peddling source on the basis of reliable sources alone. Of course, one could just actually link to the crackpot articles that it publishes but that would border on synthesis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Then again, these are groups which are ideologically hostile to the Centre—lest we forget that. El_C 12:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Different "reliable sources" say different things. WP should also be wary of just carrying over journalistic labels from selected (and, as noted, unfriendly) media sources as if they were uncontroversial facts. And searching Google for "Chossudovsky + conspiracy" and chucking in everything that comes up is not a useful way to build objective content: you'll just find of course exactly what you're looking for, and it's just creating a "Criticism" section without being open about the fact that is what happening. As I say, an in-depth feature actually focused on Chossudovsky and the website looking at them in the round, rather than these passing mentions, would be a better source to start with (and I don't doubt it would provide plenty of negative detail that would be worth including). The problem is that as noted previously, he doesn't seem to have enough of a profile to warrant one. N-HH talk/edits 12:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add those reliable sources that reject that the website periodically publishes 9/11 conspiracies, anti-vaccine garbage and climate change denial. It would be absolutely no problem at all to actually link to all the crackpot conspiracy pieces that the website publishes. Also, substantiate your claim that Associated Press, PolitiFact and Public Radio International are "unfriendly" media sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You've totally missed my point. N-HH talk/edits 12:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the point has been missed. It's about the polemical tone that is set. El_C 12:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Please substantiate your claim that the Associated Press, PolitiFact and Public Radio International are "ideologically hostile" to the Centre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

How is that not obvious? Those are organs that he heavily criticizes. El_C 12:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the article has become overly polemical and one-sided—there are also BLP concerns when an article becomes so starkly negative in its depiction of an individual whose raison d'être is presented as being of conspiracy and misinformation. El_C 12:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The article has become (not that it wasn't largely before, either) more hyperbole than balanced—any substantive institutional analysis by the subject is overshadowed by the sensationalist spectre of conspiracy and fringe aspects. El_C 12:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

A quick reminder that we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, ergo we are guided by WP:RS and not our own sense of morality. By the same token, the subject of this article is 'Michel Chossudovsky', not the 'Centre for Research on Globalization', therefore this the whole section is being used as a WP:COATRACK. The same thing was done with Robert Parry (journalist) in order to promote 'Consortiumnews' several times... and removed. The entire section should be removed as an WP:OFFTOPIC attempt to create a separate article and dress it up as a subsection. Chossudovsky is not CRG, therefore a brief allusion to having founded it is ample in the existing body content (that is, sans a section dedicated to CRG). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's another reason not to stuff the page with every single passing mention of the site anyone can find with the word "conspiracy" attached (the site is being denigrated rather than promoted currently), but even if it were to get its own page, it surely warrants at least a sub-section here? Although it publishes and republishes a lot of stuff, from what I can tell it's pretty much primarily his baby. More generally, the fact that you can find lots of pithy or polemical criticism in media sources, which are broadly "RS", of something doesn't mean that a page has to be made up of that criticism, or that attempting a more objective treatment of a topic here is about righting perceived wrongs. In fact, some of the worst POV editors on WP are those who disingenuously say "I'm simply following the RS" while cherry-picking media coverage; some of the most informative content here, even about controversial topics, eschews simplistic criticism and labelling. N-HH talk/edits 10:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

An article on CRG would fail per WP:INHERITORG unless it were to be primarily based on mainstream reportage... which is negative, and we don't get to pick and choose how we'd like CRG represented (see WP:GEVAL). Again, unless it is treated according to the KISS principle principle, it will continue to be used as a COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it does deserve its own page (or, equally, that it doesn't), hence my use of the word "if". The point is that his creation of it is part of his biography and hence it is worth including here, to some extent. The other point was about how to write, and how to approach writing, articles about controversial topics, about which "negative" coverage is easy to find. It's not about creating a false balance between the positive and negative judgments, but about not starting with an assumption that we have to build it solely by listing those subjective judgments – especially when they are often just being made casually, in passing, in articles not actually focused on the topic in question. As noted elsewhere, you write an informative article about Hitler by explaining, via sources specifically written about him, who and what he was, not by just collating every piece of random contemporaneous media commentary that happens to mention him in passing, so that all it consists of is lots of quotes simply and simplistically telling us he deserves the "bad man" label. N-HH talk/edits 22:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I was with you until you've just had to invoke Godwin's law. You could not think of another biography as an example? Hitler, really? Sigh. That hurtsted my soul a little bit. El_C 22:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. As ever, just invoking it of an example in extremis (the last time I used it to make the point, I did warn Godwin's was coming). Not necessarily suggesting an equivalence of course. The thing is that even his page shouldn't simply say, "Several op-eds have described Hitler as the world's worst human being". Instead, it should primarily use proper, serious sources to explain who he was, what he said and what he did, and people can work out for themselves what that makes him. N-HH talk/edits 18:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Bad analogy, but it address a critical point: this is a WP:BLP about an academic who hasn't been discussed at length by peers, nor have there been any quality (scholarly) evaluations of his work. This will inevitably attract current criticism by contemporary sources, and treads the fine line between encyclopaedic content and WP:NOTNEWS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well no, it's a perfectly reasonable analogy in so far as it goes, and in order to make a general point, like all analogies. That's the nature of the thing. If you want to try another one, slightly less reductio ad absurdum, George W Bush is decried as a dunce and warmonger, often simply in passing, in plenty of liberal op-eds (alongside more positive ones). His page shouldn't be built around those either. Moving forward, I have tried recently and previously to find some more focused features/profiles on Chossudovsky, which is what we should be using for this page, but they seem to be thin on the ground to the point of being non-existent. If I find one, I'll post it here. N-HH talk/edits 22:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The IP changes are drastic, but I can't say I disagree. N-HH point about GWB not being mentioned as "warmonger" in his BLP entry is well worth considering. El_C 17:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous comparison - no reliable straight-up news reporting sources describe Bush as a warmonger, so why should he described as such in Wiki voice? The comparison that you are looking for is to other individuals who promote conspiracy theories and falsehoods. The Wikipedia pages of those kinds of individuals do mention that they promote conspiracy theories and falsehoods when it can be sourced to reliable straight-up news reporting sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Not ridiculous: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/27/the-guardian-view-on-george-w-bush-a-welcome-return Opening sentence: "During his time in the White House, George W Bush was regarded as a warmonger and hardline conservative." El_C 18:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an editorial. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

How about http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/11/23/bush-the-warmonger-in-his-own-words? El_C 19:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an op-ed. An op-ed in a garbage publication to boot. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Or http://www.globalo.com/george-w-bush-speaks-trump/ http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-vs.-the-bush-family-an-old-animus/article/1050397 https://theamericanscholar.org/dubya-and-me/#.WNa_n2_yvCM — Plenty of passing reference (66,000 in google search). El_C 19:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither of those are straight-up news reporting by RS. I'm fully aware that people consider Bush a warmonger. What I'm saying is that no straight-up news reporting sources describe him as such. They do however say that Chossudosvky and his Centre promote conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Those are reliable sources and I'm sure more could be found. The point is passing reference is not the same as an in-depth examination. When someone is relatively unknown, BLP considerations do not, in fact, diminish. El_C 19:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

None of your sources are straight-up news reporting sources. To be honest, I'm pretty sure you don't understand the difference between an editorial and a news piece. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, for the sakes of our discourse, assume that I do. There's no news reporting requirement: there is a reliable sources one. Like The American Scholar, for example. El_C 19:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

More passing reference (book): "Bush 'the warmonger' was going after Iraq all by himself"—in The Foreign Policy of George W. Bush: Values, Strategy, and Loyalty. El_C 19:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

There's plenty of passing reference, yet we would not use is it in the BLP entry of GWB, why should a relatively unknown scholar be placed under an unequal scale. El_C 20:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you'll find that consensus would be correctly against the use of such material per WP:WEIGHT. Please note, also, that this has moved to WP:OFFTOPIC deliberations over another BLP, and that such discussions on any talk page are WP:BLPVIO. If you wish to discuss or make changes to the content of the George W. Bush bio, feel free to take it to the relevant talk page. It's one thing to allude to other pertinent articles as comparisons in passing, but inappropriate to dwell on the person subject to the comparison. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't my example, but I am also arguing for WP:UNDUE, but I have to be able to advance my point somehow—if claims that all passing reference are unreliable (a ludicrous claim), well, I have to be able prove that wrong, which I did, I challenge. There's no BLPVIO by virtue of discussing this, that is a stretch. El_C 23:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. It was understood to be in good faith. I simply wanted to make it clear to other potential editors joining in that we need to draw a line as to what is and isn't acceptable even on talk pages. Apologies: it was the bureaucrat in me rearing its head! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's uncontroversial to describe his website as a conspiracy theorist website, and him as a conspiracy theorist. This is supported by numerous reliable sources, and they should be described as such. After all, it's what the website is actually known for. --Tataral (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources

As mentioned above, I have been looking for accessible profiles of him, ie things which actually address him as the topic, or serious sources looking at conspiracy theorists in depth which treat him as such and explain why in any detail. These are always going to be better sources than more passing references. I couldn't really find any of the latter (which may or may not be probative in itself). This book mentions his website in the context of conspiracy theories about 9/11, but actually seems to be suggesting it should not be seen as formulating outright conspiracy theories (I can't see the first half of the relevant passage, which would be needed to understand the point it is making more properly).
As for profiles, I found this, which gives brief details about his writings and history. It's sympathetic to him, and the section on him is written by someone who has had work published by his website, but it's edited and written by academics and published by an academic imprint, and at least creates some balance in sourcing. It also, FWIW, addresses the "conspiracy theorist" label. I don't see a problem with noting he has been labelled as such, but equally WP should not take sides. Let's not forget he is a professor at a major university, not some internet crazy. Unfortunately, he has no entry on its website, which would have been a good source for more factual information. N-HH talk/edits 10:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Especially for an article about an academic, I would rather we stick to academic sources than to passing reference from newspapers. El_C 23:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is derogatory. Volunteer Marek is reversing my edit attempts. Dotyacd (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because they're not encyclopedic. Volunteer Marek  23:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit Reverts | Marek

I have requested arbitration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotyacd (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you please avoid spamming each thread? New comments should be posted at the bottom. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Fellow editors, I have opened a discussion[15] at WP:BLPN regarding the lead sentence and the inclusion contained within this edit. Please comment there. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The author of the source is a politics reporter and former fellow of the Shorenstein Center at the Harvard Kennedy School. The press is reputable. Furthermore, this source, even though it is RS, is not even necessary. Literally half the Chossudovsky page is about the conspiracy theories that Chossduvosky personally promotes or that his conspiracy website promotes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

James McEnteer, in the highlighted excerpt from Shooting the Truth: The Rise of American Political Documentaries, appears to suggest that Michel Chossudovsky's view is correct. The term conspiracy theory implies falsity. Dotyacd (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Chossudovsky's principal claim to fame is asserting that the U.S. government perpetrated the September 11 attacks as a "false flag" operation to justify aggressive war in the Middle East. He is routinely described as a conspiracy theorist by RS. I can see no legitimate BLP reason to keep that well-sourced label out of the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If this is so, then there should be multiple reliable sources to support it; and we should reference those sources in the article. Currently, we do not. None of the sources which we use make that specific claim about the article subject.
And, looking at the sources which we do use, there is also an over reliance on passing mentions in sources whose primary topic is not this article subject. As an example: the sources used to describe the book America's "War on Terrorism" are a NYT piece and a Vox listicle, both of which primarily cover the contents of Osama Bin Laden's bookshelf. These interact poorly with WP:RSCONTEXT Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. We should be using sources which focus on the article subject, not those which make passing mentions only; passing mentions do not have the rigour required for bold claims.
WP:GNG requires that there be significant coverage of an article subject in multiple independent reliable sources. If those sources exist, we should be using them. Currently, we don't seem to be using any. So, got source? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

And, to be fair and balanced, there's also an apparent over reliance on sources which are not independent of the article subject; though these are largely not used for bold claims. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TheTimesAreAChanging's view. He's identified routinely as a conspiracy theorist in reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 06:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it absolutely necessary to have him down as a conspiracy theorist twice in the lede? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we certainly can streamline the language a bit. Neutrality^talk 15:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thrice. It read like it was written by a five year old with attention deficit issues. The work by Fyddlestix to address this is appreciated. But the new third sentence is not supported by the sources referenced. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

OH DEAR GOD THEN WE SHOULD RUSH TO DELETE IT!!! Or is there a more subtle problem of some sort that can be specified? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

This understanding of WP:BLP is correct, and I am pleased that the capslock key appears to have unstuck itself. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I added some attribution, but am happy to see it reworded further as long as we're communicating what the article says faithfully. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Article text is: Chossudovsky has claimed that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated by the US Government as a pretext for war in the middle east,.
Source text is:

NYT: Also in his library was a copy of Michel Chossudovsky's conspiracy-minded book "America's 'War on Terrorism'" which argued that the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were simply a pretext for American incursions into the Middle East, and that Bin Laden was nothing but a boogeyman created by the United States.
Vox: The theory: Chossudovsky says 9/11 was a United States government conspiracy to start the Iraq War and enable a "new world order" to help corporate interests. Bin Laden was, at best, a pawn in CIA interests.
Putting the issues described above regarding passing mentions & reliability aside (though they are not insignificant issues), neither source text asserts that the article subject claims that the Sept 11 attacks were perpetrated by the US Government. They get close, but they don't quite get there.
By contrast, the Amazon blurb on the book (linked from the Vox listicle) suggests that the book focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy. This might still be seen as a conspiracy theory, but it's a decidedly different order of magnitude of conspiracy; and (at risk of WP:FORUM; and perhaps influenced by being outside the US) "the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were a disproportionate response to 9/11" is by no means a fringe view.
Essentially, "use" is not "perpetrate"; and in writing this, I discover that changing "perpetrated" to "used" would resolve the concern. In an ideal world, we would also drop the Vox listicle as a low quality source; and, if they exist, use some sources which directly focus on the book.
For those playing along at home, I'm not suggesting that we use an Amazon blurb as a source; I am suggesting that the verb "use" aligns better with the sources that we have. I also have no idea whether the article subject does make the "perpetrated" claim (in "America's 'War on Terrorism'" or elsewhere), and have no objection to inclusion if (and only if) we have high-quality sources which directly support inclusion.
(edit conflict) I also realise now that I should have been more specific about which sentence. Apologies. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, we were talking about different sentences! Point taken about sources, but: Chossudovsky is on record saying that the attacks were "a carefully organized False Flag event which was used to declare war on Afghanistan" and that the towers were "brought down through controlled demolition." I agree that "perpetrated" is probably the wrong word given the sources currently cited, but it's also not exactly an inaccurate statement, since that pretty clearly is his argument. I will fix this when I can but am happy to see someone reword it in the meantime. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Michel Chossudovsky's work is not conspiracy theory. It is reasonable analysis of current events with a focus on oligopoly masquerading as something else. The tone of the language in the article is defamatory because it discredits the work of a bona fide accredited economist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotyacd (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems that anyone challenging the 911 narrative is painted as a conspiracy theorist and that this is something to be avoided. However, an employee of one of the key organizations which contributed to the 911 narrative also challenges it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvAv-114bwM— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotyacd (talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Naming it the "911 narrative" is quite suspicious... —PaleoNeonate – 16:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Bin Laden Clarification

One section in this article lists Chossudovsky's belief that Bin Laden was a CIA asset as an example of his use of unsubstantiated claims, but the CIA did work with Bin Laden in the Soviet-Afghan War. Should this be corrected to say that Chossudovsky was falsely claiming that he was still an asset at the time of 9/11? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.112.54.2 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from bringing your personal opinion and bring reliable sources. FkpCascais (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits at odds with sources

This edit is not supported by the sources (call it WP:OR). The sources say that Chossudovsky and his Centre promote conspiracy theories; they don't say that "detractors" or "opponents" label him as such. Unless someone can bring sources to bear that frame matters in those terms, it's wildly improper. Neutrality^talk 05:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

We need to know if that is a dominant view. FkpCascais (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources expressly contest that Chossudovsky promotes conspiracy theories? No, they don't. And you should self-revert, unless and until you gain consensus for modifying the word -- since the material in the article was longstanding and supported by reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 05:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And what actual reliable sources (not conspiracy junk) describe him as a "critical geopolitical analyst"? This is purely unsourced junk. Neutrality^talk 05:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Very NPOV page

Wow I've never seen a more NPOV page. This is simply a collection of one sided quotes from NATO sources to attack the guy without any attempt of referencing defences from his side. I thought this was not allowed in wikipedia? - Burmesaurus (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

See Identifying reliable sources and the other policy documents linked from there. It may be doubtful if any sources which count as "defences" of Chossudovsky meet Wikipedia's requirements. Philip Cross (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course, "Wikipedia's requirements" include taking most Western MSM as "reliable sources"! And there falls the claims of NPOV...I mean, the Atlantic Council? Sarah777 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of the Centre for Research on Globalization (globalresearch.ca) on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG; globalresearch.ca) on the reliable sources noticeboard. The discussion also includes commentary on the lead section of this article. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § globalresearch.ca. — Newslinger talk 10:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In the news

• VanderKlippe, Nathan (March 13, 2020). "Chinese official promoting unfounded Canadian theory that coronavirus has roots in U.S. military". Globe and Mail. Retrieved March 15, 2020. AndroidCat (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)