Talk:Jeffrey St. Clair

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image not viewable 

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

message: 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? 
<chuckle>
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.10.200 (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: <chuckle>

message: 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)
replies: text: already debated and dismissed. Notable. Removing tag.jackbrown (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Re:  Jeffrey St. Clair#Controversies
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)
thread_title: Controversies section