This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography Start‑class 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Economics Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Alternative Views Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Canada: Ontario Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.

Template:BLP noticeboard

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)[reply]

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)

You can get his books at any Chapters or Indigo, we use two of his texts as text books in my university.

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)[reply]

This section really needs some improvement. He has written thousands of articles. I do not think that HAARP and Swine flu should have their own category. We could could have a thousand categories if we wanted to but there should be some efforts to improve this. Maybe a category called middle east / northern africa - instead of just Syria and then we can add details of Iran and Libya , etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifersen (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is MEDIA RESEARCH who is falsely claiming that the research is top notch and brilliant. I have found it to be blatantly false and more propaganda than fact on most occasions. For example, his Fukushima stuff is pure anti-nuclear bluster - I expect this will not last long, but the article praises a fraud and leads more lambs to the slaughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.32.139 (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[OBJECTION to some of the comments below. As someone who knows the material well that is referred to here it is clear that the work of www.globalresearch.ca ,which is top notch and brilliant research, is being deliberately targeted here and disrespectfully. The work of Professor Michel Chossudovsky is immensely important and the website www.globalresearch.ca that he established is one of the most important and significant free speech websites in the world. It is very well done and useful for news agencies to consult and represents the work of vast numbers of journalists with academic credentials. The way that the work on an important living academic of significance and note is being consistently targeted by one or two individuals here wanting to discredit the important work is something that ought to be brought further to the attention of Wikipedia mediation on the basis that is violates the principles of Wikipedia. It is not acceptable to have these on-going attacks on a living academic. Prof Michel Chossudovsky is clearly as significant and important as Noam Chomsky. That is why the attempts to discredit the work cannot be left without comment. I have contacted Wikipedia about the issue and will do so further. This web entry is one that requires attention.] [contributor: MEDIA RESEARCH]

This page really needs a "Conspiracy Theory" Moniker. I think that we need to scale up the discussion. (talk)

Is there any connection between Michel Chossudovsky and Lyndon LaRouche? They seem to have the same agenda and share many beliefs. Shouldn't the text about Michel Chossudovsky focus a bit more on his conspiracy theories about the New World Order (conspiracy), globalization and such things. Now they are just mentioned. - Johan, Sweden

He is not a conspiracy theorist. He states very clearly that there are institutional structures which result in the outcomes which he highlights. He never implies a dark cabal of shadowy figures plotting to rule the world. Those who characterize his work as being conspiracy theory are using a straw man. Troyc001 13:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

he does claim e.g. that al qaeda is controlled by pentagon [1], or that u.s. military received advanced warning of the 2004 tsunami, but withheld this information from asian countries [2] [3]. sounds like conspiracy theories to me. - Ktotam 16:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Al Quaeda is known to have been helped by the CIA and perhaps even created by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war. The aim was to draw the Soviets into the "Afghan trap." The CIA funded and trained militant Islamic fanatics in the hope that they would wage Jihad on the Ruskies and weaken them significantly. It's no conspiracy theory.

Honestly folks, whether you believe him or not is not in question, but a man who has articles on his own website that posit the theory that the United States government can contr

ol the weather is clearly catagorizable as a conspiracy theorist. This is not POV, this is common sense. See [4]. I have returned the category to the article and I believes it deserves to be there unless someone can address my points. Zabby1982 21:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't say, that the US gov can control the weather. Btw. have you heard about global warming?--Raphael1 23:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's exactly what he said. The article's title is "Owning the weather for military use" - how else would you like to interpret it? Yes I have heard about global warming, that is totally a separate issue from believing the HAARP program is a clandestine effort to control the weather for military purposes.Zabby1982 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rubbish. Al Quaeda is known to have been helped by the CIA and perhaps even created by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war." - rubbish.

"The aim was to draw the Soviets into the "Afghan trap." The CIA funded and trained militant Islamic fanatics in the hope that they would wage Jihad on the Ruskies and weaken them significantly." - entirely correct.

The salient point is that the ISI did not want to have the CIA (whom they distrusted as much as depended on) snooping in their own backyard. Combine this with a language/culture barrier and the CIA's need to maintain some degree of deniability; do some research, ask some Afghan refugees for Abraham's sake; every major country should have quite a number by now, after all the miscellaneous crusaders for "the supreme" civilization have done to that country. The Mujis were/are a diverse bunch, and the CIA only had control over part of them; some were handled by Pakistan alone, some were joint Pak-US enterprises, some were sorta independent, some were supported by Iran and I believe there was even some Iran-US cooperation. But the al-Qaeda idea was only born as a consequence of all this - to create an opt-in platform that would render such endeavors independent of Western interference. OBL's Afghan adventure is vastly exaggerated in most sources; his group back in the early 80s were mainly smugglers, and the CIA had little if any direct contact with them. The ISI, greedy for Osama's greenback stack, didn't want external forces to jump on their gravy train, and the aversion of core members of the OBL group to associate with shirkers certainly helped. The ISI has always held personnel for such cases, people who were "pure" enough in matters like tawhid can succeed in negotiations where pig-eating Westerner theological relativists who use their ass-wiping hand to manipulate food (i.e. your average CIA agent) would not stand a chance. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way folks: Chossudovsky is not involved in the "propagation" of alternative theories on 9/11. They get published on Global Research along with a great deal of other stuff that wasn't written by Chossudovsky or approved by him. For a real conspiracy, try checking out Chomsky's work on the "Manufacture of Consent" and the use of big media conglomerates to keep people in check. Chossudovsky's work is mild and uncontroversial when compared to real conspiracies and large scale dissemination of propaganda (anyone remember the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Information? Nope, it was NOT closed down, either, contrary to what you might think by reading only the mainstream media reports).

That's ridiculous, of course the 9/11 articles are approved by him, as with anything else on that site, he's the editor of globalresearch.ca [5]. That's what editors do, they approve articles and manage content. Zabby1982 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he was part of a speaking tour about "alternative theories on 9/11". [6] Zabby1982 19:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who hates America says the American government is either hatching complex and dark schemes of conquest and suppression or are stumbling, silly clowns without a clue... which is it? Just pick an America that fits your hate and make it "real."

Chossudovsky does not hate America, he is one of Canada's most brillent academics who has been a contributing factor to international research in economics. He is grossly and deliberatly misrepresented to belittle his work. He was in Chile when Pinnochet took over--- in fact all his collugues, American economists teaching in Chile, started running the country's economic affairs with Pinnochet's take-over. He was also in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia and saw first hand the truth behind what was really happening there. He is respected greatly in Europe and Asia where he is very popular in countries such as Malyasia, South Korea, and Serbia. His work on 9/11 uses offical and mainstream sources such as CNN transcripts which prove that the Bush Administration had meetings with Pakistani intelligence which was funding the 9/11 terrorists. 74.101.98.235

If he is such a brilliant academic, Why aren't any of his books published by an academic press? Quackgrassacrez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

"he is one of Canada's most brillent academics" - I hope not. Brilliance in the humanities should encompass at least some ability to adequately predict the future, or aspects of it, from analysis of the past. Chossudovsky's analyses regarding US foreign policy in the aftermath of 9/11 have a failure rate approaching a whopping 100%. He might be better off if he constrains himself to economics, of which he seems clearly capable enough. Global politics-wise, he has been cranking out regression fallacies by the dozen. Prove me wrong, but his predictions e.g. regarding Iran have fallen flat. He is still, like so many others, mentally stuck in the 20th century, failing to acknowledge that the "only superpower left standing" has become much worse for the wear and is only one big playa among several (US/NATO, Russia, PRC, India, EU, the Ummah and MERCOSUR for example). Tehran still stands, the Russians have overwhelmingly won the W Caucasus war, and Hugo Chavez' Bolivarian game ist stil running at full speed and Israel is deadlocked in its domestic problems and arguably lost the S Lebanon war, and all the while the one and only satisfying and comprehensive theory on how 9/11 happened was published by as-Sahab. All events that Chossudovsky did not anticipate - to the contrary! The narrowness of his analyses compares "well" with people like Ledeen or Perle who thought that their grandiose Straussian ideas simply could not, under no circumstances, backfire. In a nutshell, few if any of these people are historians, and it shows in their undue emphasis of has-been philosophers' ephemeral pipe dreams.

A few actual quotes by the man would be in order to spice up this article beyond the factual yet positively hagiographic "oh he's so educated and so VIP and so cool" stuff. I mean, Rumsfeld held a spade of high offices, but he despite having the world's mightiest military at his beck and call and near-carte blanche on how to use it ("We don't do body counts."), he nearly lost a war against a ragtag guerilla. A war, moreover, in which he had in theory a level of C3I never achieved before. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking as if conspiracy is not an actual category in the criminal law or the subject of historical and social scientific (especially criminological) study and, furthermore, that there can be no theories about them. A conspiracy is any plot by two or more persons planned in confidence designed to advance, at the expense and likely objection of others, the material interests of the planners or of those they represent. In science, one can have theories about anything that isn't supernatural. Clearly conspiracies are within the scope of scientific inquiry. There is no rule that a scientist has to use a natural science method based on models induced from those domains where things and systems do not plan or are planned. Human beings have a complex brain that allows them to act intentionally and coordinate their actions (this is why we have social science). In short: humans plan. The fact is that there are conspiracies. If there were no conspiracies, then one would be hard pressed to explain why so many people sit in prison for having been convicted of one. And without theories about them, no criminal trial in which conspiracy was entered as a charge would be possible. Moreover, it is not as if the only valid conspiracy theories are the one's the state legitimizes through the official ritual of a criminal trial (at that point they are not theories anymore, but findings or rulings). In fact, conspiracies and the competing theories about them are, for historians and social scientists, mundane. The denigration of the term "conspiracy theory" is designed or at least functions to dismiss certain theories that risk undermining elite projects and official narratives. Why would Wikipedia perpetuate the ideological twisting of a valid construct by labeling some pages "conspiracy theory" with the meaning imposed here? This transforms Wikipedia into an obfuscation machine. If this practice were regularized, Wikipedia would be stamping some knowledge as legitimate while casting doubt on other knowledge with a label that benefits some interests over others. How is that in keeping with the goal of providing an objective source of information for the world community? On the contrary, it makes Wikipedia an instrument of propaganda. Let there be an entry on “conspiracy theory” and have all views regarding the meaning of that phrase covered. But do not employ the use of the term as a designation for other entries. No stamps of disapproval should be allowed. Wwsword (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very clearly should be an entry for him. He eschews traditional institutional analysis... or, its not so much that he ignores it... He posits a theory and then finds and organisation which seems to exemplify, or be an expression of his ideas, then posits that this "instituion" is actually an example and proof of his theory. eg. see his latest article on how the US and Canada are "training combat troops in Haiti" -- for his conspiratorial mindset he just couldn't fathom that military forces have been traditional first responders to all sorts of emergencies... Canadaman1(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.116.40.235 (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Chossudovsky is very clearly eligible to be in the conspiracy theory category. Not only is he a 9/11 conspiracy theorist as previously discussed on this page, but he also believes the United States has a malicious weather machine that they use against their enemies to great effect. See this source : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7561. Please do not revert this edit without discussion. Zabby1982 (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is a distortion of the meaning of the term 'conspiracy theory.' His work on HAARP is meant to highlight that the US has researched weather manipulation technology that has some degree of success. His own work on 9/11 has been to focus on the unanswered questions, such as "Why has no other skyscraper collapsed in the spectacular fashion of the Twin Towers, despite experiencing similarly hot fires?" It is not a conspiracy to question officialdom on the matter. Chossudovsky in no way fits in with Lyndon LaRouche or Alex Jones or David Icke. They are conspiracy theorists.

I don't even know the definition of 'conspiracy theory' but this guy seems to qualify. I think it can be argued that he has some say into how his books are presented for sale on the CRG web site http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html. What does it say? "In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky's 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by 'Islamic terrorists'." That's enough for me; I'd say he fits community definition of a conspiracy theorist.JakartaDean (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyc001 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ The 'Criticism' Section: I have removed that section on the basis that section was absurd. This article has been highlighted for improvement and so removing the last section is a start towards that. Professor Chossudovsky is an important academic and ought to be treated with respect at the very least. The website www.globalresearch.ca is an important source of information and is the work of many people who have academic credentials and so to simply dismiss it all is not appropriate for an article that introduces such an important person and such fine work. [Ian] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.62.67 (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC) [ in addition] With the greatest of respect to those who are part of this discussion forum, I feel that the last section of this article ought to be removed and I did so on the basis that it is extreme. I have not been able to do so. My contribution has been considered and thoughtful and respectful and I would appreciate it as being seen as such please. It is true that I have not a 'signed name' here, but it is true that I appreciate the work of Professor Chossudovsky and would like more respect to be shown to a living academic in order to fit in with the Wikipedia guidelines on that. If the final section cannot be removed then how can this article be improved? To say that someone who does the work that he does as 'nutty' is a comment that will leave others feeling ill at ease and misinformed. I think it is disrespectful and not appropriate for a Wikipedia article and that it falls short of the quality standards expected. I will leave this comment here for others to reflect on and hope that people will view it as being in keeping with the Wikipedia philosophies of respect and consideration. The article falls short and there seems to be no obvious way to be able to improve it. The changes I made were immediately reverted and it means that the article is still not adequate. Perhaps the standards will improve. All the best.[reply]

[Ian] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.62.67 (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, once you add context to some of the criticism's here, you are only validating that Chossudovsky seemed to be keen at predicting some things. Terry O'Niell considered the banking system collapsing as a "wild eyed conspiracy". Galvin said Chossudovsky thought that Chossudovsky was mouthing "Assad propaganda" for noting the violence of the Syrian rebels towards Christians, etc. Maybe Galvin's opinion would be different today, what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifersen (talk • contribs) 21:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you would have to ask him. wp:notforum. Sayerslle (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is interesting since you can find many sources that say Syrian rebels joined forces with Al-Nusra and Al-Nusra pledges allegiance with ISIS. By the way, Sayerslle, when I do edits, I explain my reasoning, then you undue them and call me Assad loving or Putin loving. Very grown up of you! Ifersen (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

undo them ,- you don't explain anything , you just express your prejudices in edits that wipe out material you find incompatible with your political cosmology. that's how I see it anyhow. Sayerslle (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sayersslle, as I said on my talk page, is it not good enough for you guys that half of Chossudovsky's page is not fully explained criticisms made by people much less distinguished than he is? You guys (you, and BobRaynor mostly) make any attempt to omit information that credits Chossudovsky and you watch his page like a hawk to protect these criticism's that have been frequently discussed on talk page and mostly do not belong here. Oh, Jewish Tribune had a problem with what commenters said on a website with disclaimer, which were removed? This is a note worthy criticism to you but yet you will erase paragraphs that discuss his actual work / life.

Oh, some unknown made an editorial calling him nuttiest professor based on three wild-eyed conspiracy's, one of which actually came true (banking system collapsed). You consider this noteworthy but will erase anything about his works on the global economy, etc. I don't watch this page like a hawk, I just check it every now and then because of you and BobRaynor. On the contrary, you or BobRaynor seem to be always online and watching reverts of your criticism's. How long before one of you erase the context to Galvin's criticism again? (Because let's face it, further explanations of things often discredit the criticism). Who is really trying to slant this to their political cosmology? Cheers.Ifersen (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's 'criticisms', plural - why do you keep writing criticism's? - anyhow - I don't see it like that - I see you obsessively remove the apologist description - the fact you think 'further explanations of things often discredit the criticism' - as relating to Syrian Civil War for example merely marks you out as a pro-Assad imo, happy to see civilians and unarmed protestors massacred, and mass torture - did you see the Caesar report/ ifersen? - or did that escape your chossudovsky-RT-PressTv views of everything ? - because its all terrorists really - and foreign CIA/NATO etc - IslamicState is a Zionist/Western conspiracy in the Assad-ist lexicon isn't it? - two wrongs don't make a right anyhow - chossudovsky is against terror unless its his fascist Donbass rebels taking out civilian airliners, or Hezbollah, or assad-ist barrel bombs, or gadaffi, - Assad released islamist extremists in early 2011 - while he jailed liberals - he's a machiavel - does chossudovsky ask why he released islamist extremists? - and worked with them for anti-American purposes in Iraq before that? - its cynical politics ifersen, - its a machiavel world -is sunni terror wrong and Shi'ite terror right in chossudivsky land? - as for chossudivsky being more distinguished than his critics - that's just in your demented Putin-ist loving soul imo - he doesn't appear in the least distinguished to me as he rants his awful rubbish on RT and is fawned over by puppet interviewers. I find it grotesque. - now my political cosmology is very different to yours but none of that matters - what matters is your incessant removal of RS material with the demented insistence that what is discovered therein , is not there , as with the karadjis sourced sentence. Sayerslle (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, Why is this a concern? I have read thousands of wiki articles and I would find it very odd if one of the first things said about the subject were the opinion of a journalist of a magazine such as Western Standard or Jewish Tribune. Call it what it is - a critisism. Wiki is supposed to be neutral, but it seems Chossudovsky's work is being cherry -picked to paint him in a bad light. Cheers. Ifersen (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2012

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)[reply]

The Conservative Western Standard is clearly cited as the source for this. If you believe the comments are unsubstantiated or derogatory, feel free to add material to the contrary.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps it should be pointed out that this article was written before the stock market crash. That "nutty" theory of his became true upon the collapse of several lending institutions in the Unites States having world wide reprecussions.Ifersen (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HAARP

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bobraynor, When I looked up the source to the quote it was the description of the book and did not lead to the quote. It was only until I saw that you could click on the book and read the preface that I understood your point here. I do apologize for this misunderstanding, as I was just trying to match what the source said (http://www.amazon.com/Americas-War-Terrorism-Michel-Chossudovsky/dp/0973714719#reader_0973714719).

However there are much larger concerns on this page. The fact that you try to pretend that you just want this article to be neutral after most edits you have done have been fabricated / or erasing information for no good reason is pretty funny. The mistakes on the swine flu and IMF categories you created, it was like you did not even read the sources you even provided (don't worry I fixed them so they are now "neutral"). If you want to be neutral, at least stop trying to erase the write-up on Global Economic Crisis or whatever. If anything more categories need to be added, not erased to suit your POV. I know you don't like Globalresearch as it doesn't suit your views on Yogoslavia. You don't strike me as a neutral fellow at all. Cheers, Ifersen (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please look at the editing history and their activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.131.58 (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This warrants a closer investigation, made possible in part by you being blocked for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Removed the "Writings". Whether it makes him look like a lunatic or not (apparently he holds those opinions) is less relevant than the fact that this was simply a lengthy rehash of the man's opinions sourced to his own publications (his own website, mostly). That cannot be. Especially with BLPs in the field of politics and media, rigorous secondary sourcing should determine content. Some of it (some) could conceivably be brought in to "counter" the "Criticism" section--but note that "Criticism" sections really are discouraged. What's needed is not the typical stupid pro and con, but a balanced assessment based on secondary sources of the man's thoughts and actions, including critiques thereof. But this article should not be turned back into a resume, summary, tenure document, or whatever. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article really needs to be checked. It is trying to make Chossudovsky look like an anti-Semitic bigot.

re "criticism" section

1. Karadjis isn't necessarily reliable [7] and no detail is provided such as to qualify it as "criticism" rather than assertion
2. this minor incident has been moved to Globalresearch.ca; it's barely worth keeping there, there's no argument it merits inclusion here.
3. unknown journalist from minor paper provides insults. Justification for inclusion: none.

Podiaebba (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC) "Mike Karadjis' 2000 book Bosnia, Kosova, and the West, Chossudovsky is referred to as a "pro-Milošević leftist", as well as accused of "systematically distorting events in Albania and the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s". This is never said in book. I keep removing it because this quote does not exist in the book whatsoever. Please stop putting it here.Ifersen (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section has been repeatedly restored without any attempt at discussion. Please do not do so - see WP:CRITICISM and WP:BLP. Podiaebba (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[8] - 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 [9] -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)11:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ps: have posted at the BLP noticeboard. N-HH talk/edits 12:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'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)[reply]

trying to find comment on this man - and RS really do seem to not bother with him - I came across this [10] "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,[11] 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)[reply]

People keep returning here and republishing items that were not appropriate in the first place. One of these items is the criticism from Karadjis' 2000 book. I looked into it long ago because the user that entered it here put some other highly suspect (untrue) information here. Anyways, the online copy of Karadjis was available for free at the time and these quotes never existed in the book. If you want to find a criticism, fine, but if you are quoting material from a book, make sure that it actually exists (and that you re-copying something that was taken off as it was made up). Sorry, I did not sign the last time (technical difficulties). Ifersen (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Project Censored is still WP:FRINGE by definition. bobrayner (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why the continuous attempts to whitewash the article? bobrayner (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Text was well sourced. Restored. On the other hand the POV "Highlights" section was based on the site itself and was in violation of WP:PRIMARY. A short summary based on the website itself would be fine though. One or two sentences.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed an edit war is occurring at this page. I have started this section so we can deal with it appropriately. Let's discuss the issue rather than reverting each other. Johnny338 (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the issue is that BobRaynor authored a quote himself and cited it as Karadjis. I have said many times that this quote does not exist as the on-line copy of the book is available. All you have to do is press control + F to find the quote and it is not there. Users such as BobRaynor will not deny this, yet they will continue to repost this quotation. I am sure that this is illegal. Below is the "quote" in issue. Is there implications for "editors" that do these types of actions?

"In Mike Karadjis' 2000 book Bosnia, Kosova, and the West, Chossudovsky is referred to as a "pro-Milošević leftist", as well as accused of "systematically distorting events in Albania and the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.104.159 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read an article , published by green left review in 1999 apparently , which is credited to Mike Kardajis , which is critical of Chossudovsky - it seems to be in line with the gist of the quote from the book that the ip says is invented by bobrayner. karadjis is an important independent leftist critic, a political historian/academic[12] and chossudovsky seems a kind of Russian chauvinist commentator so the criticism from karadjis looks authentic. ( btw I don't buy this ip editor saying 'oh I don't want to talk at the talk page because I haven't got time to learn all there is to learn about wp.i'm just tired of seeing others basically vandalise the article' - what a load of absolute garbage - as if just exactly what they are already doing isn't sufficient , what else is there to learn ip about debating it here?- absurd , awful garbage, as for 'Yes the edit war is regarding some posters who want to post quotes from novels that are not in fact in the novel' - I mean, ffs, a 'novel'? - disingenuous garbage) Sayerslle (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow so after all of this time, an editor actually took the time to (presumably) find a quote that really exists? I am shocked, I just could not believe the intellectual laziness of supposed "editors" that just rehash the same old lines that do not exist, acting as if they are trying to better articles. They do this at the same time as omitting anything at all that credits Chossudovsky. Funny how you say disingenuous garbage at the same time as reposting some petty very dated "criticism" from the Jewish Tribune, which is not actually a criticism at all. You know all about disingenuous garbage. And no, I do not have time to learn how to use the functions in Wikipedia at this point in my life, I just hate when I see people not acting within the spirit of Wikipedia on this page. There has never been a debate or learning on this page, just a few select posters trying to paint him in as bad of a light as possible without any attempts at adding substance. Just look at BobRaynors history here, it is quite obvious.142.162.238.150 (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the criticism of Milosevic was real all the time though , while you were kind of saying it was all invented really. it wasn't. I deleted the criticism I added from the Canadian journalist saying he was/is an apologist for gaddafi / assad because although I think it is a good article it was an opinion piece so on reflection probably wasn't suitable to use. I didn't write the jewish tribune material but restored it - I was nt sure myself how suitable it was as a criticism of him exactly - its easily taken out again I suppose. I think if RS criticize him , its fair enough to add - RS in fact seem to ignore him totally as far as I can see though he is always welcome on RT and Press TV - is that what passes for being a 'radical' these days? good heavens. Sayerslle (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerslle has made some big improvements to a difficult article. I'm glad we're making progress now.

142.162.104.159, you should log back into your account. bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been repeated over and over and over again (because Bobrayner has for years edit-warred to reinsert the disputed material) that the "criticism" is largely irrelevant, decontextualised, meaningless insult from editorial pieces. It should stay out, as has been argued many times by many people. On the other hand, the Project Censored is well-sourced description of some of his work found significant by the best academic source looking at this sort of fringe writing. It should stay, because the alternative is to describe his (post-retirement) work through selective description by editors, opponents, or supporters from mostly poor or primary sources; or not to describe it at all. Podiaebba (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NB I'm not sure how frequently he is on RT etc, but if it's significant then putting that more prominent in the article (eg in the summary) with appropriate sourcing might satisfy the "we want to show what a douche this guy" is tendency, as the editors with that mission probably consider RT appearances a signpost of a certain kind of douchery, and others wouldn't mind it being given appropriate prominence. Podiaebba (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'the news that didn't make the news ' - how is that following RS guidelines? seems by definition stuff that didn't make it to RS to me. did volunteer marek suggest a couple of sentences about that? - or was he talking about something different? saying criticism from karadjis and others is 'largely irrelevant' is a fatuous remark - karadjis is an intellectual responding to another public intellectual - that seems fair enough to include - what do you think it should be - all project censored 'highlights', and no criticism? - because its 'irrelevant' - a bit Stalinist approach to criticismSayerslle (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karadjis' remarks as presented are decontextualised insult. Without some explanation of the context (which nobody has been able to provide), it cannot be considered "criticism", and therefore does not merit inclusion in a BLP. I would point out that the roo of Karadjis' disagreement in this area is covered by Project Censored here, [13], i.e. Chossudovsky was right. Yet all that's repeatedly reinserted is some minor academic's ancient fact-less and bitching. Podiaebba (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Project Censored's very mission ensures that they fail WP:RS. Yeah, let's build a BLP on content which we might charitably describe as "not published anywhere else". That's a great idea. bobrayner (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Project Censored is an academic project. How is that supposed to fail WP:RS, whilst the "criticism" you're dedicated to inserting sourced to commentary from minor journalists doesn't? Also we must take into account that without this we have approximately zero actual, neutral, third-party description of the subject's contentious post-retirement work. Why would you exclude this, if you were to write a reasonable and helpful encyclopedia entry? Podiaebba (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Project Censored's very mission ensures that they fail WP:RS. Yeah, let's build a BLP on content which we might charitably describe as "not published anywhere else". That's a great idea. bobrayner (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good work. Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Times are a changing - thank you for the link. I could not re-access this until now. The original wording in quotations in what I was arguing was "PRO-MILOSEVIC". At the time, I already busted BobRaynor in several misrepresentations and lies on this page so I was justified in being suspicious of any of his additions. I tried to control + F his quote and it did not exist so I was right all along and not lying as you say. One should not use quotation marks unless they are providing direct quotes - so how am I "blatantly lying" by pointing this out. Now that you changed the wording this is no longer an issue. But if you tried to control + F what was originally there you would not find it in your link. It is also noted that many argue on this page that this is not a valid criticism anyways, so I don't think I was doing anything outrageous by taking it out.

Timesarechanging - I never saw you on this page before but I came across your name on other pages regarding Cambodia and Khmer Rouge the very same day you whitewashed all of my edits in one swipe with no explanation. According to the talk page there, you were also very deeply involved in these tactics where you would mass-erase everything that did not suite the line that you want to toe with no explanation. I just have to wonder what would motivate you to behave this way. Me trying to erase one sentence from Karadjis - whose validity of being a criticism has been questioned by many on this talk page - compared to your behavior and you are accusing me of bad faith? Very funny. Ifersen (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The biographical entry for Michel Chossudovsky has been re-edited since 2012, but retains errors and violations of WP policy. Notably, the following sentence has been appended to the previous edit:

" Following the crisis in Ukraine, the web site www.globalresearch.ca (controlled by Chossudovsky) became a conduit of anti-Western sentiment and an apologist of militaristic expansion policies of Russia. "

Not only is this assertion unsupported by other sources, it is unsupportable in its current form. It makes editorial statements to the effect that the named website is a "conduit" of "anti-Western" sentiment and an "apologist" for Russian policies. These terms are not defined in the biography, and so do not permit verification. Nor are sources of the quote given. If independent sources of the quote were given, the resulting sentence should be placed in the preceding section, which describes criticisms of Chussudovsky and his website. Please contact the author of this entry and edit it to reflect these criticisms, or remove it from Wikipedia pages entirely. Mehcaver (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]