Talk:CJ Hopkins

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on CJ Hopkins. 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/20130624003827/http://www.broadwayplaypubl.com/authors.htm to http://www.broadwayplaypubl.com/authors.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130305172547/http://www.fu-berlin.de/sites/philbib/a-z/veranstaltungen/deraufstand.html to http://www.fu-berlin.de/sites/philbib/a-z/veranstaltungen/deraufstand.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611003315/http://www.theatretoursinternational.com/PastShows/PSInternational/PSHC.html to http://www.theatretoursinternational.com/PastShows/PSInternational/PSHC.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) 15:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So the infamous "Philip Cross" has begun "editing" this page now, despite his blatant conflict of interest. It appears this "editing" is being done in direct response to a recent piece by Hopkins specifically referencing the "Philip Cross" controversy. (https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/11/the-ministry-of-wiki-truth/).
WP admins, please do feel free to pretend to explain why this is allowed.
Also, since "Mr Cross" is being so thorough about everything, here's another production of screwmachine/eyecandy, in Atlanta, GA, and a review for the citation. (https://creativeloafing.com/content-181088-theater-review---screwmachine-eyecandy-at-pushpush). 
"Mr Cross" should feel free to use quotes from the review, that is, if they are not too positive. Königubu (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Found yet another production, in San Francisco (https://www.sfchronicle.com/performance/article/A-case-for-the-Fringe-Festival-as-central-12192223.php). It's a bad review, so "Mr Cross" will definitely want to quote this one ... unless that would force him to quote the good Time Out New York review that he has carefully buried in the footnotes. Königubu (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  How does  have a WP:COI here? (If you talk about a wikipedia user, you should ping them, it's simple good manners). Everything in the edits that I saw seem pretty neutral, perhaps you could explain. This is not the location for reporting particular users for their editing, nor for reporting any potential COI (which would be Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, but I don't think they would use the above off-wiki as any sort of proof.) I'd love to be able to help the article be written better, but I don't think complaining about the situation off-wiki helps the situation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained "Mr Cross"'s COI clearly in the first paragraph above.Königubu (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

text:  Yesterday, I added positive reviews about Hopkins' plays (except for the article cited to Variety), and did not add the negative comments they contain because those refer to aspects of the production which are transient, unlike the play text. All of my citations were among the first google results for these works, usually the best reliable sources available. In his original piece, Hopkins admits to having one editor keeping a watch on this article who thus has a strong COI as he has a direct connection with the subject. Philip Cross (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, hello, "Mr Cross", pleased to meet you. Yes, I believe I confessed to having "a connection with the subject" after I was alerted by WP admins about this (and a big yellow warning box was displayed at the top of this page). This is why I immediately ceased editing the page, and am now acting strictly as a liaison, unlike, for example, you, who immediately commenced "editing" the page after Hopkins posted his recent piece referencing your past controversial activities. That said, I am sure Mr Hopkins appreciates your sudden, completely objective interest in the details of his career. Please do carry on. Kindest regards, Königubu (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and thank you so much, "Mr Cross", for the helpful message you sent warning me about conflict of interest, including a list of dos and donts. Just for the record, point by point: (1) avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;(I did not create the page, and I ceased adding factual information to it when I was advised to do so. (2) propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template); (That is exactly what I am doing now) (3) disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI); (I have done so) (4) avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam); (I have not done so)(5) do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. (I am doing so). Shall I go back and add a request edit template to all the citations I have provided above, which WP "editors" have ignored? And if you have any other advice, fire away. I'm new to all this WP-speak and these rules, so this was very helpful. Thanks again, and all best wishes,Königubu (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Well, I do agree that's a bit indelicate to edit the article on some author who has written about you. Philip Cross, please stop: there is no urgency to edit this article (or to have it at all, perhaps). Nemo 21:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Philip Cross edited the article first, then Hopkins wrote about him, or did I get that wrong? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Philip Cross suddenly became interested and began editing a few hours after Hopkins's piece was published, as I clearly explained above.Königubu (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  as you seem to be ignoring your talk page, please note that you have not complied with WP:PAID and may be blocked if you do not. Also note that being attacked by someone doesn't automatically mean they have a conflict of interest - if you wish to pursue this line of argument I suggest you do it at WP:COIN. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Seconded. If there was some appearance of vindictiveness, it might raise some issues, but I haven't seen Philip Cross make any changes that I can really take issue with. We shouldn't incentivize off-site abuse by discouraging people from reasonable editing just because someone wrote a diatribe about them.  Nblund talk 15:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not "pursuing a line of argument". I was simply correcting Gråbergs misrepresentation of the facts. I have no interest in filling out your forms. I've made my "connection to the subject" clear, several times now, and have ceased adding factual information to the subject's page, as you requested. But go ahead and ban me if you want to prevent me from correcting misrepresentations of facts related to the subject on this talk page.Königubu (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

text: For the record, the first comment on Mr Hopkins's article at The Unz Review was posted November 5, 2019 at 15:47 GMT. Philip Cross began editing at 17:34 UTC. Once again, I would request that WP assign objective admins to this article or at least attempt to represent the facts related to this subject accurately. Königubu (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it looks like that editor made changes all the way back in January, but the point is ultimately moot, because they don't have a COI just because someone wrote a screed about their Wikipedia editing. If you want to request changes to the article please make an edit request. Wikipedia doesn't assign admins to pages, and, if you're not willing to comply with the policies on WP:PAID, you're going to end up blocked no matter who the admin is.  Nblund talk 17:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not being paid by anyone to liaise with WP editors regarding Mr Hopkins's article. Please stop demanding that I fill out a bunch of forms and provide you with personal information in order to be allowed to supply you with verifiable factual information on this talk page. Königubu (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is asking you to give any personal information beyond what you have already hinted at yourself. The reason people are asking about paid editing is because you linked to an article that appears to describe you as someone whose job is to supervise this Wikipedia page. If that's incorrect, then you probably shouldn't be linking to it here. In any case, you clearly have a conflict. If you insist on editing around that conflict, you should stick to making edit requests and non-controversial edits. You should absolutely stop attacking other editors, and refrain from linking to stories that are neither factual nor verifiable. Nblund talk 19:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interest: Philip Cross 

message: And we're in the blogosphere (Zero Hedge). I guess we could add it as an EL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Zero Hedge. It is a self-published blog. Philip Cross (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but EL are not necessarily generally RS. Could be considered per WP:ELMAYBE #4. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, why should we give him publicity? And although I don't care for his pathetic comments about my userbox, his attacks on other editors shouldn't be given publicity, especially as they can't rebut them. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article has now appeared in other sources as well as ZH. Yes we should add it as an external link. It isn't being used as a source for any statement and point 4 of ELMAYBE seems relevant. It is funny and I think readers will appreciate it. Burrobert (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry it seems the editors mentioned in the article would prefer it not be added as a link. I generally don't agree with censoring information but in this case I would accept their veto on including it. However, isn't there a part of wikipedia that keeps a record of articles written about it? Burrobert (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. Sometimes we link to external coverage in talk page headers, but this is just invective directed at editors. We should refrain from feeding the trolls. Nblund talk 15:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It could also be considered a BLP violation. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Same article now also at Natural News. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

text: The rant is funny to read but doesn't say much about the subject, so it's not relevant as an external link. It's also scarcely connected to reality given it starts from the assumption that the entire article has been turned upside down while in reality it changed little apart from some trimming of the non-content sections and some addition of sources to existing sentences. The body of the article was largely confirmed. Nemo 21:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  CJ Hopkins Exposes The Ministry Of Wiki-Truth 

message: (1) Please add additional productions of screwmachine/eyecandy, at Push Push Theater, Atlanta, and The San Francisco Fringe Festival. Citations from Creative Loafing and The San Francisco Chronicle: (https://creativeloafing.com/content-181088-theater-review---screwmachine-eyecandy-at-pushpush); (https://www.sfchronicle.com/performance/article/A-case-for-the-Fringe-Festival-as-central-12192223.php). 
(2) Please revise final paragraph (i.e. "His writings have appeared ...") to be specific and add additional publications. Instead of "writings", which is confusingly broad, perhaps "His political satire and commentary has appeared.". Citations for possible publications include: OpEd News (https://www.opednews.com/author/author513589.html); ZNet (https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-war-on-dissent/); Dissident Voice (https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/11/beware-the-trumpenleft/); Tlaxcala (http://www.tlaxcala-int.org/biographie.asp?ref_aut=5167&lg_pp=pt); ZeroHedge (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-04/future-spectacle-or-how-west-learned-stop-worrying-and-love-reality-police?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed); OffGuardian (https://off-guardian.org/tag/consent-factory/); Agora Vox (https://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/la-fabrique-de-la-normalite-187499?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+agoravox%2FgEOF+%28AgoraVox+-+le+journal+citoyen%29); Black Agenda Report (https://blackagendareport.com/war-dissent); "The Voltaire Network (Réseau Voltaire); (https://reseauinternational.net/le-charme-indiscret-des-gilets-jaunes/); Vocidallestero (http://vocidallestero.it/2019/11/08/il-ministero-della-wiki-verita/) Königubu (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I implemented the first request but not the second. If there are one or two places that are more important than the ones currently listed, we might be able to justify replacing them, but we don't need an exhaustive list of ever site that hosts his writings. Nblund talk 17:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for adding the screwmachine/eyecandy productions. Could you please be a bit more specific in terms of what you mean by "important" publications? For example, according to SimilarWeb, ZeroHedge dwarfs CounterPunch in terms of readership. OffGuardian consistently receives over 100K visits monthly, as does Black Agenda Report. I am not arguing for inclusion of those specific publications. I would just like to get clear on what objective metrics qualify a publication as "important" according to WP. Königubu (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, we would rely on what secondary sources say about a person to determine which publications are more notable - e.g. if someone else describes him as a regular contributor to Unz, then that is probably the most important. If we don't have that, then our choice of which outlets to mention is ultimately kind of arbitrary, so I'm open to hearing it if you have a preference. Nblund talk 18:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. My suggestion would be to add one or two more in addition to CounterPunch and The Unz Review, in order to reflect the diversity and contrasting politics of the outlets that republish his satire and commentary, for example, ZeroHedge and Black Agenda Report, or one of the foreign outlets. Also, thank you for replacing "writings" with "commentary". I would, however, urge you to add or substitute "political satire", as 90 percent of his essays are satire, which is, after all, a well-known art form that extends back to the ancient Greeks. Königubu (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Describing it as "satire" is slightly beyond what I'm willing to do because I think that would constitute WP:OR without secondary sources. I don't know that the politics of those sites are especially diverse: with the exception of UNZ, they're all more-or-less anti-establishment left. The BAR is a bit different, but it looks like they just republished one of his counterpunch articles. Nblund talk 19:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Some proposed changes

message: Why is one of Hopkins books linked to an article (presumably by him) about the Hitlerisation of Jeremy Corbyn and others? The linked article does mention the book ZONE 23 but seems quite tangential to the book itself. A number of editors have reverted attempts to correct this. Burrobert (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I added that. Since the book is selfpublished, I wanted something WP-acceptable in context that noted it existed (independent, etc). Rebelion.org is what I found then, and my interpretation was that the mention of the book was independent (hopefully) of Hopkins text. If you have something better like a Publishers Weekly review, use that instead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right-o and fair enough. If I see something I'll make the change. Burrobert (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

text: https://dactylreview.com/2024/04/14/zone-23-by-c-j-hopkins/ ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dactyl_Foundation 95.90.236.251 (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  2A03:1B20:4:F011:0:0:0:1D makes a good point 

message: He's fairly outspoken on his socio-political views:  https://www.foxnews.com/us/the-push-toward-a-new-totalitarian-normal-c-j-hopkins .
:What text do you want to add to the article based on that ref? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting article. His views on the US state apparatus' reaction to Trump are similar to those of others on the left such as Glenn Greenwald. The  article provides some useful material for fleshing out Hopkins' political views on Trump and the response to the COVID pandemic. The page is not locked so anyone, including the person who posted the article, can add the content. Burrobert (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Burrobert, just came across this , not a bad source. I added a little, but more can be used. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång that is a good source. I have been following CJ's troubles from his blog postings and this gives a good perspective of those. It has been fascinating to watch the way the left split over Covid. CJ and to some extent John Pilger took one approach and others such as Chomsky took another. I think we should give readers an outline of CJ's views on Covid since they have been the main focus of his work for the last few years. Burrobert (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Political views

message: The Neue Zürcher Zeitung says (Sept 28, 2023) he and his wife live in Berlin. But (Weltwoche) it seems he will leave Germany for Italy, because of the 2 trials.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Berlin