Talk:Michel Chossudovsky

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticism vs placing a label

message: 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)
thread_title: Availability of books

message: 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)
thread_title: Writings

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Verifiability, truth, and sources 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: HAARP

message: 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)
thread_title:  Let's try to keep this neutral 

message: 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)
replies: text: There's a good reason for that. He is one. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  14:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Page is working to Smear Chossudovsky and make him look like a Lunatic 

message: re "criticism" section
# Karadjis isn't necessarily reliable  and no detail is provided such as to qualify it as "criticism" rather than assertion
# this minor incident has been moved to Globalresearch.ca; it's barely worth keeping there, there's no argument it merits inclusion here.
# unknown journalist from minor paper provides insults. Justification for inclusion: none.
Podiaebba (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. - 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  -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)
replies: text: 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)

text: ps: have posted at the BLP noticeboard. N-HH talk/edits 12:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: '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)
replies: text: trying to find comment on this man - and RS really do seem to not bother with him - I came across this  "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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, 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)
thread_title:  "Criticism" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Project Censored 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Project Censored is still WP:FRINGE by definition. bobrayner (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Why the continuous attempts to whitewash the article? bobrayner (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  radical 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good work. Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting the recurrent disruptive editing to rest 

message: 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)
thread_title: Bob Raynor is at it again

message: 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)
replies: text: It's a blog with copyvio. Removed. bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio on external link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Blind revert 

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

text: Thanks for the notification. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section's neutrality in dispute 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism section, again 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Russian propaganda front 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Standard stonewalling again? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why does this read like someone's resume - or hagiography? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theories 

message: 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)
replies: text: FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Then again, these are groups which are ideologically hostile to the Centre—lest we forget that. El_C 12:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: You've totally missed my point. N-HH talk/edits 12:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  That's an editorial. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How about http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/11/23/bush-the-warmonger-in-his-own-words? El_C 19:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's an op-ed. An op-ed in a garbage publication to boot. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: I have requested arbitration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotyacd (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please avoid spamming each thread?  New comments should be posted at the bottom.  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Reverts | Marek 

message: Fellow editors, I have opened a discussion 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I agree with TheTimesAreAChanging's view. He's identified routinely as a conspiracy theorist in reliable sources. Neutralitytalk 06:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I think we certainly can streamline the language a bit. Neutralitytalk 15:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thrice. It read like it was written by a five year old with attention deficit issues. The work by  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Please refrain from bringing your personal opinion and bring reliable sources. FkpCascais (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bin Laden Clarification  

message: 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. Neutralitytalk 05:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to know if that is a dominant view. FkpCascais (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. Neutralitytalk 05:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

text:  And what actual reliable sources (not conspiracy junk) describe him as a "critical geopolitical analyst"? This is purely unsourced junk. Neutralitytalk 05:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits at odds with sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Very NPOV page 

message: 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 . — Newslinger talk 10:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of the Centre for Research on Globalization (globalresearch.ca) on the reliable sources noticeboard 

message: * AndroidCat (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the news