This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alexander Cockburn article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
I've tried to pound this article into shape, but am now seriously considering removal of the entire 'Political views and activities' mega-section, as little content therein is referred to secondary sources, most of the topics are tangential to Cockburn, etc. Thoughts? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly looking much better. I think there needs to be something for his views, as that was his schtick, but I think it might have to be done with a healthy dose of WP:TNT. I wouldn't object to removing it wholesale, for now. Same with the friendship with Hitchens section, which should be a couple sentences in his personal life. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More condensation and trimming, perhaps making things a bit more encyclopaedic. Cites to Cockburn's primary published works remain, which might not be optimal but it was either that or remove pretty much everything. To any one reading this: please feel free to restore content that you deem absolutely essential. I haven't touched the Hitchens material yet, but yeah, there's plenty to do there. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a shame that you guys have managed to totally wreck this article in the name of 'pruning'. It had lots of interesting material before, which was useful in determining what kind of political figure Mr. Cockburn was. It's perfectly fine to use primary sources to verify personal views. In this case, it's even more ridiculous to remove CounterPunch references on 'reliability' grounds, considering that the man himself literally founded the magazine. smdh 81.191.204.248 (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JoJo Anthrax and ScottishFinnishRadish: I am wondering if you might have some feedback regarding WP:SPS/WP:ABOUTSELF and how it applies to this article since Cockburn's own writings (rather than secondary sources) are used to back-up what he apparently believed. For example, the section titled "Opposition to conspiracy theories" has four Cockburn/CounterPunch articles strung together to make the point that he was not a conspiracist. (The editor(s) who strung this together did not add material that he was a firm believer in the CIA drug trafficking allegations.) The "Social topics" section is built similarly. -Location (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Location, what is left is the result of a huge amount of pruning. It was much worse before, and as I noted above I'd have been fine with removing all of it, but there should be something about his views. I'm not terribly fond of using articles written on a topic as ABOUTSELF, since writers can and do explore different points of view in their work. It also puts too much interpretation in the hands of the editor, as they're deciding what's worthy of inclusion and what's not. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, I intentionally left some of Cockburn's publications as primary sources because if they were all removed, little sourced material would remain. I know that is sub-optimal, but because I thought the content was non-controversial, having something in the article was better than nothing. Perhaps I was wrong about that. As SFR wrote above, the article was significantly worse prior to the pruning of March 2022. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I've quickly harvested various secondary sources (with difference biases, levels of reliability, and levels of coverage) for future reference:
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
