Talk:Jonathan Cook

message: I await your responce here. --Striver 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to go ahead and use the picture. JonathanCook 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I e-mailed Jonathan Cook the same time i wrote the above message. As it is clear, it is only possible for the receipiant of the e-mail to know that it contained a request to use the pictures, hence i am convinced that the above comment is from a person reading Jonathan Cook's e-mail, presumably Jonathan Cook himself. A socpupet test can prove that we do not share an ip-range, specialy since we presumably are not even on the same continets. Nice to hear from you Jonathan! Peace. --Striver 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

message: IMHO there are now sufficient referenced criticisms of Jonathan, that we can shift the "colonial enterprise/client state" claims here to the talk page (rather than removing them totally). If someone can come up with some external references or discuss sensibly what an WP:NPOV summary of these claims would be, then that could be returned to the article. 
What i removed:
:It has been claimed that in his journalism and writings, Cook takes a view of Israel as a colonial enterprise, and as a client state of the U.S..
Please also see Jonathan's comments above. If there are criticisms against Jonathan which are serious enough to have been made verifiably, externally to the wikipedia, then Jonathan will presumably also respond to those claims in an appropriate way externally to the wikipedia (if he wishes to), and then that could be referenced in the wikipedia article. Boud 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  colonial enterprise/client state claims 

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

message: I would like to add the following under "views."
In his article on David Duke website “Israel’s Jewish Problem in Tehran” Jonathan Cook claims that since Iran is tolerant towards its Jewish community there is no  chance Iran will commit genocide against Israel Jews.[www.davidduke.com/general/jonathan-cook-debunks-delusional-zionist-propaganda_2642.html] --Rm125 (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because David Duke reprinted something does not make it an article written for David Duke's website. nableezy - 05:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Contribution to David Duke website

message: Jonathon Cook's own words are a RS for his own words. For the nonsense brew just put back in, the David Duke section is about Duke reprinting something by Cook that was published in a large number of sources. Editors cant just make up their own controversies, especially about living people, to try and defame somebody. This is unacceptable and brewcrewer you should know better. WP:BLP is clear, any contentious material needs multiple reliable secondary sources to be placed in the article. nableezy - 05:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, a small amount of searching will show how blatant a violation of WP:BLP this inclusion is. The daviduke reference cites its publication date as 8/21/2007. It was published on al-Ahram on on 8/2/2007 and here on 8/9/2007. Just because David Duke likes something somebody said does not allow you to say somebody wrote this for David Duke and make up a controversy. nableezy - 06:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: David Duke only publishes stuff that further his antisemtic and white pride agenda. He doesn't just run run-of-the-mill news stories. If his stuff got published on his website, its not something that should be ignored.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: (ec)also, the "contribution to Iranian media" section is also incorrect. The article cited  was originally published by ei 27 days before the reprint. This attempt to try and associate a living person with supposed bogeymen and known racists is beyond ridiculous. nableezy - 06:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (re brew) You dont get to make up a controversy based on David Duke liking what somebody said. This is a living person and the addition of defamatory content is against policy. You dont need any reminders on this. nableezy - 06:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Chill out please. If his articles appeared in these publications there's no good reason to censor this information. If you want to add that his articles also appeared in Electronic Intifada, or some other beacon of truthtelling, you won't run into my protests. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont have a problem with including his views, but the idea that because David Duke reprinted something that means we say he contributed to David Duke's website is nonsense. Wont be chilling out with that. You know you cant do that, you cannot make up a controversy without multiple reliable secondary sources bringing it up. nableezy - 06:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where there's no tertiary sources, we use primary sources. If we can't find any tertiary maybe we should delete the article cuz he's apparently not that notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken the issue to the BLP noticeboard here. nableezy - 06:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I saw this on the BLP board and will repeat what I said there - the dukes piece is nothing more than a reprint of the introduction and a link to the original article - it's "published by" in the same way that something is published if I stick it on my blog. The example provided above is clearly worded to make it sound like this writer (who I have never heard of) is working for or providing permission for reproduction to the Dukes. It should not be included. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (from BLPN) Agreed - there is no legitimate reason for mentioning it. None whatsoever. Rd232 talk 10:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, see also my comment on BLPN. P.S. Looking at the article I agree that I'm not seeing any RSS which isn't a good sign notability wise Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSs and BLP 

message: Most of the information contained in this article about Cook comes from Cook himself. We must find reliable sources. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP explicitly says that Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. What is the problem with using articles by Cook? And the contrast of this argument with what you said in the section immediately above borders on being stunningly hilarious. nableezy - 18:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was too much self-published material in here about issues that weren't notable in any way. I've defluffed it a little. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self published sources 

message: Please stop tagging articles and reverting when someone removes them. It is mindless. It often only takes a few minutes to fix the problem. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're being disengenuous. This edit did not resolve the issue. You just removed around stuff. The article is still primarily sourced only to himself. Also, don't mark edits as minor when they're not and don't edit-war.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

text: (ec) I'm sorry, I should apologize for calling it "mindless." It's just that taggging is one of my pet dislikes on Wikipedia, because it defaces articles when they're often quite easy to fix. It should only be used when all else has failed. But regardless, I shouldn't have referred to it the way I did. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apology accepted. As an article writer myself when time permits, I'm no fan of tags. However, in this case, I searched for third party sources about Cook, but was unable to come up with any. As long as there are no independent sources on Cook, the article remains a self-promo article, thus an article diametrically inopposite of what Wikipedia is all about. Until this problem is resolved, the tag must remain in order to 1) alert other editors to this problem so that it can be rectified and 2) alert readers that this is far from an ideal article. You removed the tag twice. Kindly replace the tag until the issue is resolved. Signing off now. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look around tomorrow to see if I can find secondary sources. I'm thinking with three books published, he's likely to survive an AfD, and if that's true, we can't tag him, because it would mean the tag staying on indefinitely. But there may be other sources out there, which would solve the problem. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It stays there until the article conforms with WP policies. We can't have articles sitting around representing to be good articles when they are not. If there is a problem with the article we must notify readers that the article is problematic. Another purpose of the template is to alert editors to find secondary sources. If one editor can't find any sources, another editor, with off-line sources, may be able to. Please don't remove the templates until the problem is resolved. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: This article is very problematic in that there are barely, if any, reliable sources that give any coverage to the subject of thsi bio. All the personal information we had originiated from Cook, and only Cook.  In an attempt to rectify this problem, User: Tiamut sourced the material to some a website that looks like a news source, "TimeTurk." However, a very basic analysis reveals that the information on Cook in the TimeTurk article was a copy and paste of an old version of this article.In this article, with a November 18, 2008 timeline there is a "Who is Jonothan Cook"  section that is word for word the English Wikipedia article at that time.
As this source clearly cannot be used, we'll have to go through the article to remove this source. And the fundemental issue with the article, that its a selfpublished vanity piece, has yet to be resolved. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "And the fundemental issue with the article, that its a selfpublished vanity piece, has yet to be resolved." And has yet to be resolved now, five years later. It's still a self-published vanity piece. MosheEmes (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Brew, given that the article exists, you can't add fact tags all over it, or phrases like "he says he has a degree from ..." If you really feel he's not notable enough, you could consider taking it to AfD. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy and paste of old article version now being used a source 

message: He has written at least four books, perhaps more by now, but there's no need to list them all in the lead. Three are listed, and therefore I wrote "several books, including ..." SlimVirgin 16:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I only count three.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are three books written by him, not four.Jeppiz (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Books

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

message: See RS/N discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources used in this article

message: Slim--you changed the order of newspapers in the lead, indicating that it was in the order of those he has done the most of his work for.  What is the basis for the order that you changed it to meeting that criteria?  From what I can see, for example Al-Ahram Weekly should be first.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are trying to make him look bad, and I think your editing here has gone far enough. He's a legitimate journalist—a good journalist, whether you agree with his views or not—and most of his work has been done for the Observer and the Guardian. SlimVirgin 06:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim--you comment is an unwarranted personal attack, as it states as fact motives that are not mine. Why did you change the order, which you wrote in your edit summary reflected the order that he writes most for. What was your basis for determining that that order, rather than the one that existed, reflected your standard? I've asked you above, and you've ignored me. And instead attacked me. And said my editing here "has gone far enough"? That's uncivil.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Slim -- What was your basis for determining that that order, rather than the one that existed, reflected your standard?  This is the third time I'm asking; it would be greatly appreciated if you were to respond.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

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

text: Nab--good catch.  I checked a dozen, and they all appear to have been printed elsewhere first (though in some places they indicated that at the top of the article.  BTW__Slim has twice ignored my question as to why she re-ordered the newspapers from the order they were in, as I can't find her basis for stating that her order matches the order of those publications he wrote for most often.  Do you have any thoughts?  I would suggest that we use alphabetical order if we can't find an agreed way to follow Slim's preferred approach.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were allowed to edit the page I would start with The National as that is currently where most of his pieces are published (and his byline there reads as "Foreign Correspondent", see , , ) and then in chronological order as follows: The Guardian, The Observer, al-Ahram. Either that or strictly chronological with the same order except with The National at the end after al-Ahram. Dont know why The Times is listed, my, admittedly not in-depth, search is not showing anything there. nableezy - 20:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of newspapers

message: Do you folks regard the query about sourcing for this article on RSN as resolved, or are there still sources you could do with an outside opinion on? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It looks like everyone went away after the deletion discussion which is  ashame since so many people mentioed that clean u was needed. A few of the sources just aren't good enough to be included and the whole Further reading section should be converted to inline citaitons and works, or removed.Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then. I already posted comments on two of the sources originally mentioned and will gradually work through the others. Will post on RSN so keep watching it. And am just going to rename the Further reading section External links, as all is online, and move one item. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree w/Cptnono, and w/renaming section external links.  I think some of the mentioned sources are non-RSs, as discussed by me and some others on that page, and should come out.  There is enough proper RS support in the article, that there's no need to have it supported in part by non-RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSN query 

message: There are no reliable sources supporting this idea that an Englishman by the real name of Jonathon Cook was born in England, attained numerous degrees, and then moved to an Arab city from where he writes on the Israel-Arab conflict. There is a good reason to doubt these claims and if Wikipedia were to publish these unsupported claims, at the very least it should attribute these claims to a website. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Jonathan Cook is an WP:RS for information pertaining to himself. There is no reason to doubt what he has written on his website. Is there? Tiamuttalk 19:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, Cook is not the only source to note that he is from Britain but now lives in Nazareth. Neil Barry in The New Statesman writes: "Jonathan Cook and John R Bradley are maverick British journalists who specialise in writing about the Middle East. What distinguishes them from many other western commentators is that they have gone native in the Arab world, living among Arab people and immersing themselves in Arab culture."  Tiamuttalk 20:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A freelance journalist who is only published by fringe publishers it not reliable. and to say that he is reliable for his own biographical information, is at most a unfunny joke.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cook has been published by academic presses (, , would you care to retract any of the above? nableezy - 22:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

text: "There is a good reason to doubt these claims". But if you told us what it was, you'd have to kill us? PS Additional concise source is Macmillan Publishers. . Rd232 talk 20:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See the opening comment to this thread. it doesn't have to be spoon-fed. indeed, we wouldn't have to continuously by reminded that he's "only western journalist in that city" if that claim were't notable, and hence doubtful (unless of course reliably sourced). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but given what other sources have to say on this issue, you are going to have to sponn-feed, if you want a response. Tiamuttalk 21:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

message: The following is a list of columns Cook has written for IHT:
* A Nelson Mandela for the Palestinians? ; Marwan Barghouti September 24, 2002
* Israel's broken promise seals a village's fate; October 9, 2002
* Arab legislators aren't equal ; Democracy in Israel October 29, 2002 
* Labor fakes it again -- and the settlers stay on ; Hilltop hypocrisy November 12, 2002
* Israel's politicians target minorities ; The 'demographic time bomb' November 27, 2002
* Under Nazareth, secrets in stone December 17, 2002
* Coming home: A film bares Nazareth's soul February 11, 2003
* The lions of Ramallah give Palestinians hope March 6, 2003 
* Israelis join Palestinians for somber anniversary April 17, 2003
* A 1,000-kilometer fence preempts the road map ; A cage for Palestinians May 27, 2003
* The forgotten palaces of Palestine October 8, 2003
* Why Arab women wear the veil in Israel November 20, 2003 
* Nonviolent protest offers little hope for Palestinians ; A Gandhi in Jerusalem August 31, 2004
* In Nazareth, cheering Brazil June 16, 2006
nableezy - 18:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IHT 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Cook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://museweb02-pub.mse.jhu.edu/journals/holy_land_studies/v005/5.1cook.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725181317/http://rt.com/Politics/2010-07-22/jonathan-cook-middle-east.html to http://rt.com/Politics/2010-07-22/jonathan-cook-middle-east.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jonathan Cook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927161417/http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=1509 to http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=1509
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090526142159/http://www.paltelegraph.com/entertainment/books/856-disappearing-palestine-israels-experiments-in-human-despair-by-jonathan-cook to http://www.paltelegraph.com/entertainment/books/856-disappearing-palestine-israels-experiments-in-human-despair-by-jonathan-cook
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: please read WP:ABOUTSELF, we are allowed to reference a self-published work for basic biographical details. nableezy - 03:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not a personal CV for listing works which don't have secondary coverage. As for the other content, the question is whether it's WP:DUE (material sourced to personal sites, but without secondary coverage.Avaya1 (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a CV, it is a list of published works. See for example Benny_Morris#Published_works. Or Efraim_Karsh#Published_works. And as far as DUE, including basic details about a person in their biography is DUE, and per WP:ABOUTSELF perfectly acceptable. We are allowed to use material sourced to personal sites, but without secondary coverage when it is by the subject of the article. You cant keep going around excising whatever you dislike when it is allowed by policy by pointing to some irrelevant thing. nableezy - 14:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The facts about what school someone goes to or their early jobs, would be DUE, if they were notable enough to be published in a source. If the only source is LinkedIn or a personal website, then it's not DUE, and it's also not WP:RS - they could be inventions by that person, with no reliable source supporting them. As for the list of publications - is no indication that these published works in this list have received any secondary coverage or are notable content.  Avaya1 (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Except everything you write is directly contradicted by actual policy. Again, please read WP:ABOUTSELF, Jonathan Cook is a reliable source about Jonathan Cook. nableezy - 20:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the policy that you can include a booklist of publications, without secondary coverage for them? And while Jonathan Cook might be reliable for his own claims if we were using him for important parts of the article, where is the policy that listing details of employment history of the 1990s, which is only sourced to a personal website and has no secondary coverage (we need to change the source as well, as that old website does not exist) is following the policy that "an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Avaya1 (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ummm, I waited more than a week for a response and you reverted it still. Where in WP:ABOUTSELF is there any indication this content is DUE, when it has no coverage?Avaya1 (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I missed that. The policy however is WP:ABOUTSELF. I do not know why you continue to ignore this. Cook's previous employers as a journalist are not minor aspects of a biography of a journalist. Your insistence on a secondary source is directly contradicted by that policy. nableezy - 20:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] 

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