Talk:Jeffrey St. Clair

Image not viewable
The image was not viewable, and this could not be fixed. The user who attempted to create the image should try again - text was missing. View the previous version to see the error. Hurrmic 17:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate
This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Docg 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In October 2000, St. Clair wrote, "Is there a more palpable sign of the neo-liberals' mounting desperation than that they are now warning progressives and Leftists that a vote for Ralph Nader is the surest way to elect George W. Bush? This is a malicious game of threat of inflation, where Bush (a pathetic moron who resembles no one so much as our greatest president, Gerald Ford) is puffed up into Midland, Texas' own version of Saddam Hussein. It's a cynical ploy; yet, millions have fallen for it, trembling out of fear.

"A vote for Nader is a vote for optimism and political liberation--a jailbreak from the dank oubliette of the Democratic Party."

Dank oubliette?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.10.200 (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability
I am going to add a notability tag to this article because it does not establish why this person is anything more than a run of the mill author and editor. The fact that he has published books doesnt go far enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * already debated and dismissed. Notable. Removing tag.jackbrown (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeffrey St. Clair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505025436/http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair10272006.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair10272006.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406155105/http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03202004.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03202004.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeffrey St. Clair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927010050/http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/frank08192004/ to http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/frank08192004/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150610000919/http://www.oregonbusiness.com/articles/45/1275 to http://www.oregonbusiness.com/articles/45/1275

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Controversies section
Re: Jeffrey St. Clair

There are a number of problems with this section, which contains a single sentence: "Jeffrey St Clair has been called sexist in the way he has handled running CounterPunch." Most obviously, it is only one controversy. The text is too short for its own section and controversy sections are considered bad style. The other problems however are violations of biographies of living persons policy.

Unless you say who called him sexist it is weasel wording. In this case it was a writer in a Trotskyist magazine. Also, some sort of explanation of why they said this should be included.

Also, weight must be established. Since the criticism was not reported in reliable sources, it has no weight and therefore there is no way to balance the claim with any response.

TFD (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Long quotation.
Why does this article include a long quotation from St. Clair from something he wrote regarding the 2000 U.S. Presidential election? He has clearly written all sorts of things (that's his job), but the article provides no evidence that this random bit of opinionating received any commentary from secondary sources. I can't help thinking that it has been added not because it is relevant to St. Clair's biography, but because a Wikipedia contributor agrees with it's political slant. Which is of course contrary to Wikipedia policy. I removed it previously, and unless a valid reason for its inclusion (i.e. a citation to a secondary source demonstrating its significance) I shall remove it again, per WP:NPOV. 86.147.97.63 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Since nobody has responded, I am going to remove the quote. 86.147.97.63 (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * And yet again, I have removed this quotation, having asked User:Chisme on their talk page why it was being added, to which there has been no response. If there is a legitimate reason why this seemingly random quotation should be included, it shouldn't be difficult to provide it. 86.133.149.185 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * User:86.133.149.185A man can take a break from Wikipedia, right? I'm not at your beck and call here. As for the quote, quotes do well to give you the flavor of the man, to give you a sense of his prescience and foresight. This is why I included the quote in question. Perhaps you know of quotes from sage St. Clair that are worthy of this article. You wrote, "He has written all sorts of things." What things? I'd like to re-include his commentary on the 2000 election. You haven't adequately explained why it doesn't belong. Chisme (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you cite a source for 'prescience and foresight', or is that just your opinion? Because as I've made entirely clear, I don't think 'I like this quotation' is sufficient grounds for inclusion. Not in a short article that already lacks secondary sources. Not without evidence that this particular quote has been commented on. In which case, cite the commentary, and tell the readers what the commentary consisted of. As it stands, as included, it sticks out like a sore thumb, entirely lacking context and leaving the reader wondering whether it was just thrown in for the Bush insult. As it happens, I tend to agree with St. Clair's characterisation of Bush, but I don't see that as a justification for including cherry-picked negative commentary about him in articles on other subjects entirely. It makes the article (and by extension, Wikipedia) look unnecessarily partisan. And the quote does little to illustrate of the perspective St. Clair was actually trying to get across in the article it was taken from - an article that has Gore, not Bush, as its target, with the latter being the victim of little more than collateral damage. If a quote from that particular St. Clair piece is merited (I don't think it is, without secondary commentary), it should be one that gives the reader some idea of what St. Clair was getting so hot under the collar about, rather than one which leaves the reader guessing, or assuming that St. Clair's writings consist of little beyond hyperbole and insults.


 * As for your right to 'take a break from Wikipedia', of course you can. But when you do edit, you are expected to collaborate with other contributors. Which means that when someone explains on an article talk page why they think content should not be included, and ask for comment, you don't just stick it back in again, with a one-word edit summary. 86.133.149.185 (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The quote I selected sticks out like a sore thumb only because the man's hand has but one digit -- the quote I found. If you were to add four other quotes we would have a complete hand and an even better sense of the wisdom of Jeffrey St. Clair. The quote I chose is a good one. It lays bare where St. Claire's politics are. Since you care enough to edit this article, you ought to add some more quotes instead of summarily dismissing the one I labored to find. Thanks for permitting me to take some time off from Wikipedia. I sometimes get bored and need a break. Now a suggestion for you: Choose a name and use it. Writing under an IP address is rather cold and impersonal. Chisme (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:QUOTEFARM, Wikipedia is not a compendium of contributors' favourite random context-free quotes. Your favourites or mine. As the note prominently displayed for readers to see points out, this article lacks secondary sources, and the solution to that is to find such sources, and then (if the sources say such a thing) cite them regarding St. Clair's 'wisdom'. Along with other sources (again, if such sources exist) throwing doubt on St. Clair's 'wisdom'. And then let the readers decide for themselves who is wise.


 * As for your (off-topic) suggestion regarding finding a name, Wikipedia policy does not require me to do so. 86.133.149.185 (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The quote is not "favourite or random" -- it's telling. I'm hoping since you know your way around St. Claire you can find the secondary sources you want me to find for you. As to my suggestion, it was just a suggestion. I never said Wikipedia requires anyone to come out of the IP closet. And I give you credit for being an IP and nevertheless knowing Wikipedia's policies so well. Chisme (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It might possibly be 'telling' to people who are already familiar with St. Clair. For those who aren't (and presumably are looking to Wikipedia to find out more), all it 'tells' is that St Clair doesn't think much of Bush, or of 'neo-liberals', and that he (presumably) is on the side of the 'progressives', though he seems to credit them with little more sense than Bush. It entirely lacks the context necessary to explain ST. Clair's vitriol. And likewise lacks the secondary sourcing to explain why Wikipedia considers it significant. Except of course that 'Wikipedia' clearly doesn't, since I note that since this quote was added (by an IP) in October 2008, it has been repeatedly removed, judging from the limited edit summaries on much the same grounds that I have given, and then reinserted, with no real justification given at all. Almost always, by you. 86.133.149.185 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * His vitriol fascinates me, too. The bitterness. The cynical hostility. Reading him is like drinking sulfuric acid. Chisme (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)