Talk:Nick Cohen/Archive 1

Atheism

excellent article, SV, but what about his Presbyterian ancestry? Jacquerie27 14:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jacquerie, I'm about to change a few details in the text that you added e.g. that he writes under the Without Prejudice byline, as he writes under his own (the former is the name of the column); that he occasionally contributes to the JQ, as he occasionally contributes to many publications. Also, do we know he's an aetheist? Removing until we find reference.

I'm not sure what the "however" means: "Cohen is an atheist and strongly opposes a proposed British law against incitement to religious hatred, believing that it violates fundamental principles of liberalism and freedom. However, he supports proposals by New Labour to enforce a blanket ban on members of the neo-Nazi British National Party joining the British Civil Service."

So I'm going to remove the "however", as there's no obvious juxtaposition. Also, I found a good interview with him on an anarchist website, so I'll be adding more as soon as I find the time. Also, not sure the Presbyterian ancestry is relevant, and I don't know whether he has published it anywhere. SlimVirgin 21:39, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

He is an atheist (come on, he's a left-wing radical, for Darwin's sake!). This is from one of his columns in the Observer:

But there remains something unnerving about the determination of this Government to destroy one of the best reasons to be proud to be British: our defiant atheism.[1]

But he's wrong: the British aren't atheist, just indifferent. Jacquerie27 10:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jacquerie, I've reverted your edit because Cohen's personal atheism is still not referenced. His reference to the UK as a whole doesn't quite take us there. Even if he is an atheist, I don't see the relevance of that to his bio, which I'd be grateful if you'd explain. I also removed (again) the reference to his contributions to the Jewish Quarterly. You've elsewhere made it clear that you appear to have a degree of antipathy toward Jewish people, and you have expressed some very odd views about Cohen on other pages. I apologize if I have misunderstood that, but that's the way I've interpreted your edits, so I'm concerned that this is a POV edit on your part. If you want to retain it, you have to include the other publications he is an occasional contributer to, or you have to show that his contributions to the Jewish Quarterly are frequent or in some other way significant, and therefore worth mentioning. Most print journalists contribute occasionally to a large number of publications throughout their careers.

Perhaps if you'd explain where you're coming from regarding some of your edits, I'd be able to understand the motivation behind them, which might help us to find consensus faster. I don't just mean with this article, but generally. Just a thought. Don't feel you have to explain your own views. SlimVirgin 12:59, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

My motives are to give important facts about NC. I can't yet find an explicit statement to the effect that he's an atheist, but he must be and it's an important fact about him. I've reverted to most of my edits ("hard-hitting" is really journalese etc), but I've left the Jewish Quarterly bit out. Jacquerie27 14:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why would his being an atheist be an important fact about him? SlimVirgin 14:50, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Because it informs his opinions on the value of religion. Jacquerie27 14:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(a) How do you know that? and (b) even if true, how does that affect his bio? We don't mention his views on the value of religion. SlimVirgin 15:48, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

a) I can use logic; b) I meant in the particular context I mentioned his atheism. As a biographical fact, his atheism is important in any case. And do you not remember reading his comments on famine before the invasion of Afghanistan? Jacquerie27 19:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of logic or memory, we need references. SlimVirgin 20:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Breaking News! - the following sentence comes from Cohen in today's Evening Standard: 'I am an atheist.' As to the value of religion issue.. well, the article is all about the Iraq war bringing forth various hypocrisies in certain self-declared 'moral' positions -- left-wingers supporting the theocratic fascists of the Iraqi 'resistance', and that kind of thing. And more to the point, the church of England, which he says should be denouncing sin, is implicitly defending it when it offered its recent 'apology' for removing Saddam Hussein, a man responsible for over a million deaths. He does go on to say that the small print of the 'apology' shows that the CofE do however oppose religious extremism, which makes them good eggs at heart, just a bit silly. 86.137.209.170 oh, and for reference today is 21 September 2005. In a couple of weeks the article might be archived at findarticles.com

Removed the category of British Jews from this article as Cohen has explicitly and repeatedly stressed in his writings his personal atheism and his secular upbringing (see for example the external link to his website for more information) Rmackenzie 20:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Erstwhile darling of the left

SV — I won't be here much longer, but trust me: "Once a favourite of the left" is much better. For one thing, it's easier for non-native speakers to understand. Jacquerie27 18:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Still a leftist

To my mind, you've gone a bit hard on the notion that he attacks the left. He's still a leftist! You wouldn't think so to read this.Grace Note 06:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By all means add something, Grace, to clarify. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:26, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I was simply giving my impression, Slim. You're welcome to ignore it if it displeases. While I'm familiar enough with Nick Cohen and his work to believe that he's still a leftist, I'm not well informed or interested enough to rewrite the article.Grace Note 05:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-fascist left

The 'meeting place for the anti-fascist left' comes from the Evening Standard a couple of weeks ago. Paper's not online, but here's evidence, from the site itself. [2]

(the post also gives an example his criticism of his fellow journalists' softness towards 'Islamofascism')

I think it's important to get into this article that his stance on foreign policy is explicitly framed as an opposition to fascism. Also, that his praise for Harry's Place is based on this rather than, as possibly implied, on their critical co-support for Labour. Finally, it seemed worth mentioning that he sees a (small) 'anti-fascist left' emerging, and identifies himself with it. Christopher Hitchens said a similar thing recently.. might be worth comparing them as well.

Thanks anon. Could you sign your posts, please? See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. That link is very useful, thank you, and what you say about the anti-fascist left is definitely worth getting in. The problem with your edit is that what you write has to be sourced in some way, especially if you're quoting, but there was no source for him saying he supports Labour and was only critical before 2001 (he has been very critical since then). See our editing policy Wikipedia:No original research. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Cohen's political views

I see you removed the quotations. Can I ask why? Maybe they were too long, but I think it's important to understand Cohen's change in political view, and this can only be understood if you realise quote how strong a critic of Tony Blair and the US and their foreign policy before he had his conversion. He was, as in the quote that you removed, attacking the idea of an Iraq war well in 2002.

80.177.168.152 13:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Matthew

References and edit conflict

I've started converting from embedded links to foonotes if no one minds. Let me know if someone does, because I can easily stop. If I don't hear otherwise, I'll finish it up in a couple of days or so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why you're reverting my edits? I'm making them in good faith, because I think they improve the article, and I don't think your reverted version reads as well or provides as much insight into Cohen's views. Thanks. 62.56.57.74 19:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the edits are an improvement. You seem to be largely removing material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Fahrenheit 9/11 quote because I find it flat and uninteresting, and also because that film is about three years old, so why is it of any relevance to a 2006 biography of Cohen? Similarly, the George Bush quote doesn't reflect Cohen's views of Bush particularly well - he has criticised him on a number of occasions, examples of which criticisms I added, and you then removed.

I also added a reference to his critiques of the Afghanistan war, because I think they're important to understanding how Cohen's views have shifted since late 2001. You removed these too. In fact, the "you seem to be largely removing material" charge applies as much to you as it does to me.

As I said, I'm making these edits in good faith, and where I'm removing sections I'm trying to do so to improve the structure and flow of the article. I'm happy not to make these removals, though, if you explain why you're removing my additions. 62.56.57.74 20:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to reorder the article so that Cohen's views of the SWP/MAB/Respect/StWC organisations are together; Cohen's views were previously mentioned separately in three places and are better confined. The international politics section was really a continuation of his views of a domestic political formation, except for his divergent responses to the Berman book and Moore film, which are best contrasted. In other words, the Respect material is specific, while the war on terror material is more theoretical. I also added that he voted Lib Dem in 2001; the article's comment that he "returned" to the Labour Party thus implies more than Cohen thinking about a vote for the Socialist Alliance stated in the introduction.Philip Cross 14:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Little info

There is very little about events before 2000 in this article.