Talk:Nick Cohen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents


[edit] Economic views

Cohen rarely writes on economic issues, but there is some evidence that his views there have shifted right-wards. In January 2007 in the Evening Standard he argued that couples earning 100,000 GBP a year were finding it difficult to survive financially in London due to the pressures of school fees, house prices and council tax, and unless the governing Labour Party addressed their concerns it would lose the next general election.

I think there were several problems with this paragraph. First, he has actually written fairly extensively on economic issues, see for example Pretty Straight Guys chapters 8-11. Secondly, I am unconvinced that concern that Labour will lose ground in London if it fails to address the concerns of middle class voters is in itself evidence of a shift to the right. Third, the argument is particularly weak in the context of the article cited, which also includes statements like "the council tax is a regressive tax that caps the bills of the wealthiest as it falls with all its weight on the less fortunate". As it's a short article which is not particularly notable for any other reason than its alleged evidence of a rightwards shift, I don't think a reference to it is warranted, so I've removed the paragraph. Aretnap 22:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also the references given appear to be polemics from minor leftwing websites rather than books or from other leading figures. A lot of this article seems to be about trashing Cohen from a "hard-left" perspective, a tactic Cohen himself often writes about and despises. He has a lot of enemies on the self-perceived "left" and Wikipedia oughtn't be a slamsheet for them. 86.141.142.150 (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Apologies if I've not quite understood how to format this.

I've restored the paragraph is a modified form, but I have no intention of getting in a wikipedia war over this so delete if you wish. However, to reply to your points.

1. If he has written extensively about economic matters, and I agree he has, then it is absurd for the article not to mention them. So I suggest contributors work on improving this paragraph rather than deleting it. I have made a small start in that direction and will consult PSG to add some more.

2. We're not talking about 'middle class voters' here, but those on £100,000 or more a year. This puts them in the top 3% of London households. The idea that they are short of money is palpably absurd, and that Cohen believes they are, in part because they can't afford to send their children to public schools, is surely indicative of a right-wing bias? If not, it is certainly indicative of a shift in his views. I will check, but I can't believe he made similar comments in PSG.

3. Yes you are right he talks about council tax being regressive, but this is in itself not consistent with the concern on those being paid £100,000 a year. There is no way in which you could have a system of local taxation in which those on £100,000 a year would be paying less than under the current council tax system. The Lib Dems local income tax would raise their bills by three or four times.

80.177.168.152 11:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Matthew

[edit] if the price was right

I have added the following paragraph to the end of the Domestic Politics section: 'In an article on the RCP's turn to the right, written in 2002, Cohen noted that "[f]ormer lefties can make a good living in the media by attacking their ex-comrades - I'd do it myself if the price was right." Critics of his recent change of heart believe that Cohen has found the right price.' I first came across the quote on the comments section of a blog -- can't remember which. I wasn't sure whether it was necessary to balance the last sentence and thought it best to leave it for someone else to rework. Or leave. I don't think it contentious -- but i must be clear on my own position, I do believe that Cohen's turn is partly motivated by the financial rewards of ex-leftism. I added the paragraph because I felt it relevant -- and because I was suprised the quote was not already in the article. -- james

This isn't factual or informative in any way and it's quite possibly libellous. It's just clumsy rhetoric that certainly isn't as clever as its author fancies. It doesn't even make any sense to the disinterested cynic. If Cohen really wanted to make money he would have found it easier, for example, to get a polemic against the Iraq war published than a rant about the decline of the Left.

[I should point out that, although I helped to write the Euston Manifesto, I am generally to the Right of Cohen and disagree strongly with him about many things, but I have no doubt that his views are genuinely held and unmotivated by financial concerns. Either way, it's not the business of an encyclopedia to speculate colourfully about people's private motivations.]

Counsell 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My paragraph was not libellous. I did not claim that Cohen's change of heart is merely financial. However, his book on the left is a bit shoddy and would be more appealing to the international market than the domestic one (I'm thinking of the USA here, Ann Coulter was a bestseller, after all). Who'd want to read another "iraq was a fuck-up" rant anyway? It's stating the obvious. Cohen has produced a more interesting commodity. He's a "leftist" who still supports the Iraq war! This is interesting!

I'll wait for your reply before I put the paragraph back. I hope you'll let me, because it really isn't libellous. Perhaps you could add something to the effect that Cohen's supporters insist he isn't interested in the money. -- james


The fundamental problem is that the paragraph in question was not factual or informative, merely sloganeering based on unsupported inference about Cohen's motives. Anyone coming to Wikipedia to learn more about Nick Cohen would gain nothing from the inclusion of this text. If there was independent evidence that Cohen had changed his views in exchange for money then that would be a matter of great interest, but there isn't. Those who want to read slurs against Cohen from his political opponents can browse the Web elsewhere for them. There's plenty to choose from.

It's the exact equivalent of inserting something like the following into an article about George W. Bush: "On the 10th October 2003 Bush said in a speech "We must fight for truth"; many of his opponents believe that he has lied again and again". It might make you feel righteous, but it's unsubstantiated opinion and rhetoric, completely out of place in a reference work. Assigning that opinion to unnamed others merely promotes it to unsubstantiated hearsay. Counsell 09:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Gee, you're touchy about this, aren't you? I thought I was the one with nothing better to do -- you replied on the same fucking day! I take it you don't want the quote included in the article? Would I be permitted to include it at all? Does it not tell the reader something about Cohen's 360 turn? I think it does. The example you gave about Bush -- what's the problem? I think that'd be fine. If I claim something, then act in the opposite way, should this not be highlighted? Is it not relevant that I say one thing yet do another? Where's the hearsay -- he did write that article, didn't he? Am I mistaken? No?

The truth is, you don't want the quote by Cohen in the article because it *does* say something about him -- and his critics, perhaps. Would the reader not conclude the opposite? That Cohen's critics are cheeky bastards and hence, he comes off better? You don't believe this, do you? Obviously saying one thing and doing another... He's found his price all right. Et tu? -- james

Okay. That was a bit rude. Sorry. I don't write as well as you Counsell. If I could put it in a more erudite way, I would. Sorry for swearing. You know my motivation for inserting the quote, but does that make it a personal attack? Anyway, I must get back to watching the paint dry. -- james (again, I know!)

The contentious paragraph was added to the article minus the last sentence on two occasions and was removed, first by Chris Chittleborough, then by Slim Virgin. Chittleborough referred to its irrelevancy, and presumably Slim Virgin backs this up -- but niether deigned to comment further. The quote is extremely relevant and to leave it out of this article would be censorship. IF Chris and Slim do not like the wording of the paragraph or its position in the article then perhaps they would like to come up with their own version. - j

(First, a couple of hints. Please "sign" comments by typing "~~~~" at the end. Also, you can indent paragraphs by putting one or more ":" characters at the start; varying the indentation helps separate comments.)
I've seen cases like this before at Wikipedia: an accurate quote from someone's writings plus a little bit of commentary makes an interesting claim or suggestion. The problem is that Wikipedia's rules don't allow Wikipedia editors to put the quote and the commentary together. (That's called "Original Research" around here.) On the other hand, if someone who counts as a "Reliable Source" makes exactly the same point, we can cite that person. Furthermore, you then run into another important Wikipedia policy about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which requires extra care about controversial claims about living people.
I called the quote without the final sentence "irrelevant" as a hurried shorthand. What I should have said is that the quote without the final sentence will not make sense to most readers. Since we cannot explain the possible significance of the quote without violating the "no 'original research'" rule, I say we should not mention it at all (unless someone who counts as a Reliable Source makes the same point).
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true. — Wikipedia:Attribution
This sort of thing disappoints and surprises many (most?) new contributors here, but it's actually a key to Wikipedia's popularity. Please don't be put off by it. Cheers, CWC 11:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The original reason for my contentious paragraph being removed was purely personal -- a "comrade" of Cohen's who did not seem keen on reworking it. as you can see, he merely claimed it as a personal attack. You have at least made the point from Wikipedia policy. I'm not put off by the rules, I just think the quote in the context of the article will make sense to readers, considering the political trajectory of the individual concerned. It is highly cynical of me for bringing it up -- but i think that its relevant. Cohen has claimed to not getting much out of his defence of imperialist aggression, but I suspect that the US sales of What's Left? will reverse his financial situation somewhat. Thanks for clearing it up for me, anyway. Much appreciated, Chris. -- james 81.131.19.192 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a slander; political books almost never make money, even those selling many more copies than Cohen such as ones by Naomi Klein or Noam Chomsky. Cohen's main income is from writing newspaper articles, he won't be getting rich from this book no matter how well it does in the US. Also, unless you have some supported and citable evidence for it's sales and revenues, these points are irrelevant to the article. 86.141.142.150 (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deporting terror suspects

Chris, why did you remove the piece on Nick Cohen's views on deporting suspects to countries that practice torture, for being 'original research'? Surely the article linked to (not by me) is very clear.

85.210.176.45 20:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Matt

Good question, Matt. Here's a long and belated answer.
The Wikipedia:No original research policy is confusing at first, especially because what we mean by "original research" is subtly different from the usual meaning of the term. Moreover, the way NOR works together with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view can be hard to understand at first. However, these policies do produce good, encyclopedic articles when used properly.
Here's the text I deleted:
However, he has suggested terror suspects should be deported to countries where they will almost certainly be tortured, praising France for doing so.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1939959,00.html]
First, something I didn't mention in my edit summary: the "almost certainly be tortured" bit is not in Cohen's article, so the Verifiability rules says we need a Wikipedia:Reliable source ("RS") for it. Secondly, that "suggested ... where" link is not in Cohen's article, and so fails the WP:SYNTH part of the NOR policy.
On the other hand, if someone notable criticized this column, Wikipedia policies do allow us to report that criticism (as long as we're careful, report Cohen's response, etc). Wikipedia is not about "Telling our readers The Truth", it's about "Telling our readers what Reliable Sources say". This suprises many people.
(Now that I've read Cohen's article more carefully, I see him as predicting a policy change to deport terror suspects as long as their home countries give "strong promises that suspects won't be tortured on return". There's a strong implication that he approves of this policy, but he never explicitly says so. Also, I don't agree that Cohen is praising France. In fact, I'd say he's accusing the French government of unscrupulous hypocrisy.)
I hope this helps. (I've just noticed that I already wrote something about these policies a few lines above and several months earlier.) BTW, I recommend creating an account here. Cheers, CWC 02:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CruelBritanni.jpg

Image:CruelBritanni.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)