Talk:CounterPunch

List of contributors and red links
There is a very remarkable list of contributors in the current revision of the page, reproduced below. It's remarkable for its seeming irrelevancy, for its formatting (as you will see if you edit this page to reply), and for the fact that many of these names are not notable enough to be the subject of Wikipedia articles. My gut is to be BOLD and delete these two "paragraphs," but I want to check first.


 * Contributors to CounterPunch have included Robert Fisk, Edward Said, Faisal Kutty, Tim Wise, Ralph Nader, M. Shahid Alam, Tariq Ali, Ward Churchill, Lila Rajiva, Peter Linebaugh, Tanya Reinhart, Noam Chomsky, Frank "Chuck" Spinney, Paul Street Diana Johnstone, Boris Kagarlitsky, Franklin Lamb, and Alexander Cockburn's two brothers: Andrew and Patrick, both of whom write on the Middle East and Iraq in particular.

ZackTheCardshark (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The site regularly publishes articles by left-wing authors, such as Lenni Brenner, Fidel Castro, and the late Stew Albert, as well as newer contributors, such as Vijay Prashad, Diane Christian, Joshua Frank, Pam Martens, Gary Leupp, Cynthia McKinney, Kelly Overton, David Price, Sherry Wolf,  Gilbert Mercier, and Richard Silverstein. Some paleoconservative and libertarian writers, such as Paul Craig Roberts, William Lind, Sheldon Richman, Sarah Gillespie and Anthony Gregory are also regularly published in CounterPunch. Franklin Lamb contributed a series of articles on the Libyan Civil War from his location in Libya American journalist Patrick O. Strickland is also a regular contributor of on-the-ground dispatches and editorials on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader Middle East.


 * It was just expanded further, with another useless redlink to a non-notable writer. Deleting. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Bad sources, repeat content
In the section of content, there are repeat allegations about two particular articles, one by journalist Allison Weir and another an interview with Roger Waters. These issues should be put in "reception" section. Additionally, it is repetitive to include the same allegation more than one time.

After moving said content to new section, bad sources remain. Neither source, nor any I could find, accused CounterPunch of publishing Holocaust denial. Additionally, DailyKos article that was referenced was not written by, nor quoting their management's position on CounterPunch, therefore it shouldn't be included. It's also redundant, and preceding content indicates CounterPunch has been accused by certain groups.

Scottyhines (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trusting the system (and welcome to Wikipedia and to WP:DR!). To respond to each of these two points:


 * The "Open Letter to Counterpunch" from Jews Against Zionism's Tony Greenstein is subtitled "Who’s Afraid of Gilad Atzmon and the Holocaust Deniers?", and is primarily a takedown of Holocaust denial by Counterpunch writers. A couple of sample quotes: "Ms Rizzo is also somewhat disingenuous about Paul Eisen’s ‘The Holocaust Wars’, also to be found on the site of Israel Shamir. This is a full-blooded defence of Holocaust Revisionism and in particular, Ernst Zundel, a neo-Nazi presently incarcerated in a German prison." "Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial can have no place in the Palestine Solidarity movement."
 * The Daily Kos post was not written by the management, but refers to them: "I was warned on this site for posting a Counterpunch article since they are anti-Semitic. I trust the judgment of management, so I deleted the diary and did my own research and found that it was true."
 * ZackTheCardshark (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Two points,


 * First, the alleged Holocaust denial was not against CounterPunch, or anything they published, but against a former writer about a piece not published by CounterPunch. I can't find any article, nor accusation that CounterPunch promote Holocaust denial.

Scottyhines (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Secondly, again, it is inaccurate to state that Daily Kos management holds a particular view on CounterPunch given this comment. Blogger is not a reputable journalist, nor does blogger use a real name, therefore not worthy of using as a source on this issue.


 * "not against Counterpunch, or anything they published..." Except that it begins with "On 17 June Counterpunch, which styles itself "America’s Best Political Newsletter", printed an article, ‘Who's Afraid of Gilad Atzmon?’ by one Mary Rizzo."
 * "Blogger is not a reputable journalist..." This is true, and certainly a Daily Kos article would not be an acceptable source for factual claims about anything other than the Daily Kos. So this is an interesting question.
 * ZackTheCardshark (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The article in question, which you note by Mary Rizzo, found here http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/06/17/who-s-afraid-of-gilad-atzmon/ is not about the Holocaust, only about Gilad Atzmon. The current sourced article claims Atzon is a Holocaust Denier, this is accurate. However, CounterPunch itseft is not accused of publishubg Holocaust Denial, only guilty of publishing Atzmon in general (not his alleged Holocaust denial). Therefore, still not an accurate allegation against CounterPunch.

Scottyhines (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I would argue that this blogger still is not necessarily reputable, nor a representative of Daily Kos. Daily Kos has tens of thousands of contributors with very little fact-checking and editorial oversight. Happy to get more opinions on this, but from my searches on Daily Kos, there are 100s of links to CounterPunch, so it's clear management may have mixed views if they have a view on this at all.


 * It's something like a set of nesting dolls, but I think that's more or less it—not so much that CounterPunch published direct Holocaust denial in this case, but they published a defense of the views of a Holocaust denier. So how about wording the reference to that effect?
 * Good point about Daily Kos links to CounterPunch (though I'd be very surprised if any of those are about Jews, Israel, or the Holocaust). Needs some more thought, or as you said, more opinions—anybody else want to comment? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that'd be far more accurate. Holocaust Denial is a very serious charge, so it's good to be careful who it's actually being made against. Perhaps something along the lines of, "CounterPunch has been criticised for publishing Gilad Atzon, who some believe is a Holocaust denier." Or something like that.


 * Also, Atzon has an entire wikipage, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Atzmon - you will see a fair portion is about the allegations against him. Would be good to link to that perhaps. Again, I think it's less of an attack on CounterPunch in regards to Holocaust Denial, and more of an attack on Atzon for essays he's written in different venues. Very important to make the distinction I think.


 * I'm not sure one can say Daily Kos has an editorial or management position on CounterPunch, given that nobody officially working for Daily Kos has written anything about CounterPunch. Still seems like a fishy source. Also, I'm not sure it adds anything to the section since the allegations are just a repeat of the previous ones mentioned.

Scottyhines (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Suggested wording for point 1:
 * CounterPunch has been criticized by Jewish and anti-racist groups, including the Anti-Defamation League and Jews Against Zionism, for publishing material regarded as antisemitic and in some cases bordering on Holocaust denial (including articles by and in praise of Gilad Atzmon) and blood libel beliefs (in articles by Alison Weir of If Americans Knew).
 * ZackTheCardshark (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This is the sort of terrible writing that occurs when editors decide to enter negative information, then google search for anything they can find. All opinions, including that Counterpunch is anti-Semitic, must follow neutrality.  We need to show who says it ("was also criticized" doesn't do it}, why they hold this opinion and the degree to which it is accepted.  A quick search of the SPLC, the main body that investigates and reports on hate speech and which itself has been attacked in articles in Counterpunch shows that they have only mentioned it once, each referencing an article.  To say the Daily Kos management call it anti-Semitic means nothing unless the reader knows who they are.  It is also important to know why they say this.  What in the publication is anti-semitic, or is it that some writers have been accused of anti-Semitism?  But then the writers have contributed to the New York Times and CNN.  Do we have any reliable sources that discuss this?  If not, I suggest we blow it up, remove the innuendo and replace it with actual information.  TFD (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with TFD on this entirely regarding Daily Kos as a source as well as the anti-Semitic allegations. I have a problem saying that certain CounterPunch articles are "bordering on Holocaust denial" and "blood libel". Both criticisms, as currently cited, do not claim CounterPunch is anti-semitic, only that certain authors may be and in the case of Atzmon, it seems to be a guilt by association ordeal rather than something CounterPunch actually did. One article by Weir seems be to criticized by certain groups/people, but again this is one single article. I am not clear how this really should fall under "reception" when it seems to be to be a squabble about one article and not the entire editorial content of CounterPunch more generally.

Scottyhines (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The Daily Kos source does seem pretty thin. But as to the broader question, I don't think there's any question that the publication is at least comfortable with anti-Semitism. The Alison Weir article was a particularly dramatic example (did they ever retract it?); the long tenure of Gilad Atzmon is probably more noteworthy. A bunch of specific examples are at http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/07/25/guardian-praises-anti-semitic-site-counterpunch-as-progressive/ (though in defense of the Guardian they also published this about Atzmon, Weir and CounterPunch: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/25/gilad-atzmon-antisemitism-the-left). Leaving this out entirely is not realistic. The question is one of specifics. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Allgemeiner article is an editorial by someone working for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. He refers to The Guardian as "far left," which makes his judgment questionable.  (If they're far left, then what is Counterpunch?)  In his other articles, he accuses CNN, the Telegraph, the Independant and other mainstream media of an anti-Israel bias.  In other words, his viewpoint appears to be fringe and we would not include them in articles about the mainstream news media he criticizes.  The Guardian article is an opinion piece by a member of a splinter Trotskyist group, which is itself was a splinter group of the Communist Party, which itself represented a tiny segment of the left in the UK.  "Due and undue weight" says, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."  You need to establish how widespread this view is, not just that a few people whose views are outside the mainstream have criticized them.  Can you find a description of Counterpunch in a news article in a mainstream publication or journalism textbook?  I don't know if they are anti-Semitic or not, but the sources you presented support so many fringe views, that I do not know if their opinions are accurate in this case.  TFD (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks like we all agree that the Daily Kos source ought to be deleted. Let's remove that. Allegations by pro-Jewish organizations like ADL, if they are levied at the magazine itself, should be included. However, I don't think allegations against particular writers, whose views on the issue weren't even published by CounterPunch, ought to be included. In particular, why include Atzmon when the article in question about alleged Holocaust denial was not even published in CounterPunch? I've searched a bit through their archives and found many, many articles defending their position against Zionism and being critical of those that accuse them of anti-semitism. They even published a book on the ver issue, which is included in the book section. To be neutral and fair, we must also include their responses to such allegations, like this one from one of their current editors: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/09/this-week-at-counterpunch-more-hollow-smears-and-baseless-accusations/ where he writes: "Readers of CounterPunch are well aware that we don’t take the issue of anti-semitism lightly. The charge is a serious one, but it’s lost its punch over the years as it is so often hurled at critics of Israel that it has little potency, which in turn only emboldens actual anti-semites. (For the record, I’ve been labeled a self-hating Jew and even a Zionist! So I know the terrain.)"Scottyhines (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are not even allowed to edit here per WP:ARBPIA3--186.137.109.32 (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * All that the ADL sources about Counterpunch say is that it is "an anti-Zionist radical left newsletter." That's not a criticism, it's basically what they are and claim to be.  No reason to mention the ADL.  It's like finding a mention of the Moon on the ADL site and adding to the Moon article, "the Moon is described by the ADL as a satellite of Earth."  TFD (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Fine by me, scrap the whole thing. The ADL never called CounterPunch anti-semitic as far as I can tell. And I too did a search on SPLC and it showed up nada for CounterPunch and hate speech.Scottyhines (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you find a description of Counterpunch in a news article in a mainstream publication or journalism textbook? That's a remarkably good question. In fact, I can't find anything about CounterPunch to any effect in anything more than a passing mention in an opinion piece, usually in media (such as What Next) that are as low profile/fringe as CounterPunch itself. Whether CounterPunch has a problem with Jews is not the only thing needing sourcing; you'll note that almost all the references are to CounterPunch itself. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * CounterPunch is mentioned in many mainstream publications, see The New Yorker piece in the section in discussion. And it's mentioned even more so in regard to the late editor Alexander Cockburn. This isn't to say that more references must be updated, but the ones in this section are the most glaring, especially given that the allegations are very serious. I say let's fix this section first and go from there.Scottyhines (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The New Yorker article merely mentions them in passing. There's an entry for them in The Nation Guide to the Nation, p. 137. They don't seem to have a problem with it, although they mention it has some unusual views for the Left, such as global warming denial. TFD (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * CounterPunch's old editor was a global warming skeptic, but they run a lot of stuff now, especially since he's been gone a few years. Even their other editor at the time who is now the editor in chief disagreed with him. 72.174.169.235 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we move forward with editing this? Seems we all agree on the main points. Scottyhines (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

One of the most poorly sourced Wikipedia articles I've encountered
I removed more than 12,000 (!) bytes of atrociously sourced text from this Wikipedia article:


 * 17 sources that were Counterpunch op-eds or books by the CP-affiliated 'AK Press'
 * 10 sources that were 'Project Censored' primary sources

If text does not have secondary RS coverage, it simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It's as simple as that. Note that I kept 8-10 CP sources for text that can reasonably be sourced to the organization itself (e.g. the group's descriptions of itself and its history).

There is one piece of text that was erroneously removed by me and that’s Shamir’s slander in CP against a plaintiff in the Assange rape case. This text should only source ABC and the Guardian, and only be one sentence. It shouldn’t be a whole paragraph of primary sources, with two RS tucked in at the end noting only that the "allegations in CounterPunch were the topic of controversy in the mainstream media”.

My removal was reverted by another editor who insisted that the 12,000 (!) bytes of text sourced largely to primary sources was "not poorly sourced". Can we please move towards the inevitable outcome here and scrub this article of completely ludicrous content? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In what way is AK Press affiliated with CounterPunch? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is what the Wikipedia article says: "CounterPunch Books, an imprint of AK Press,[51] has published a number of books, typically works by individual CounterPunch contributors, or collections of essays by CounterPunch contributors." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you have the relationship backwards. AK Press isn't "affiliated" with the magazine, it prints books for them. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Either way, books and essays published by CounterPunch contributors for 'CounterPunch Books' are not good sources for CounterPunch. If text can't be sourced to secondary RS, then it doesn't belong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see that association with CounterPunch makes a source unreliable. By that reasoning we would exclude any sources on relativity published by Springer because it was Einstein's publisher.  In any case there is no policy based reason for that.  Each source should be evalutated on its own merits.  TFD (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This whole section is "Here is a random list of CounterPunch books" sourced to the CounterPunch books themselves, with some ludicrous puffery sourced to CounterPunch itself ("Is this the most controversial book of 2003? It was denounced by liberals and neocons alike, numerous reviews in mainstream papers were quashed by editors"). There's nothing to suggest that the content is notable per WP:DUE. Am I seriously going to have to start a RfC to get rid of this ludicrous self-serving content? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that a press release by a publisher is not a good source, no matter which publisher it is. But that's s different issue from saying that no books published by AK or written by anyone who has ever written for CounterPunch can be used in the article.  TFD (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Large-scale removal
has removed a big bunch of text from the article - this edit - with the explanation it's been more than a week since the discussion stopped. no plausible arguments for keeping this extremely poorly sourced text. I missed the discussion (it was Boxing Day) which mostly focused on the AK Press issue and did not explain the specific edits. Although it looks like a lot of the deleted material is poor quality, lots of footnotes have been deleted in this big edit, and at least one inaccuracy introduced, so I'd urge editors to look very carefully at the deleted text and see if any of it should be discussed or put back in. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC) I have corrected the inaccuracy and restored one paragraph, which seemed to me a well-sourced paragraph on a clearly notable topic, but I think I support the other deletions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * On the face of it, the removal of so much information from the article looks unjustified. The article was basically gutted, so that now a third or so of the article is about one allegation of Russian disinformation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

There was no reason to delete this whole section. has an agenda, clearly, and must be stopped. You have to have input before deleting entire sections. A week is not enough time. I hope someone will also chime in so we can reevaluate.Scottyhines (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticisms of Rogers Water's Counterpunch interview and NPOV
The two sentence on a Roger Waters in the Reception section had serious NPOV issues. First, it did not state who was making the criticism but implied it was CAMERA when in fact it was Shmuley Boteach, writing in an opinion piece for The Observer, something you had to follow the citation to learn. When quoting controversial opinions or opinions in general, Wikipedia author's should always state who is saying it, rather then weasel words like "...has been criticized for saying...". State who said and where (what publications, outlet, or venue the statement(s) was/were made. Also, never use phrases like "extreme comments" as if the are facts. Words like extreme are subjective so someone actually used that word (or a similar word) then you should be able to state exactly who made the accusation and make it clear it's their opinion not incontestable fact. It was Shmuley Boteach who made the accusation that Water's comments where extreme and that referring to "Jewish Lobby" was wrong in and of itself and so I clarified that. Wikipedia NPOV policy requires us to specifically attribute criticisms to specific notable individuals and make it clear it's those people opinions not simply statement of fact. --2600:1700:56A0:4680:5AB:840E:BDDB:ECFA (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what you are doing is called labeling, editorializing and POV-pushing. Come back after you read Wikipedia's rules.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. I was struck by the same issue while reading this article, and it seems not to have been resolved. I have attempted to improve the NPOV of this passage in the simplest way possible by changing the editorial characterization of Waters' remarks from "extreme" to "controversial". It is apparently a matter of fact that they generated controversy, while "extreme" is indeed an expression of opinion and actually mentioned in the WP Manual of Style as an example of a "value-laden label" that is generally "best avoided". I think this is fair and hope that it will be generally acceptable. Cbhack (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)