Talk:Joe Stork

reason

Stork, at the center of an ongoing controversy about the qualifications and objectivity of the Middle East staff of HRW,, merits an article. Type him into gooogle news. All that is required is time.Historicist (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This may qualify under CSD:G10, but Ill see how it progresses before tagging it. nableezy - 19:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP concerns

This biography focuses on only one aspect of Stork's work, and seems to only be repeating accusations made by one Israeli journalist in his op-eds. I do not believe these are well-sourced enough to form the entire article about Stork.--69.208.131.94 (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree (see talk page threads [[1]] [[2]] But I felt we should at least rry to make thisdd a balanced article. But it may be this needs to be nominate4d for deletion (it a bit POVforky).Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the Maariv as it was published in an op-ed and the allegations seem unverified and thus inappropriate for a BLP. The rest of the material seems well-sourced, so it could stay.--69.208.131.94 (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Munich 1972 terrorism attack praise

This seems to be the main bone of contention (the point that is brought up by far the most frequently by Stork's critics), so if there is to be any controversy or criticism section in the article at all, this should be mentioned specifically... AnonMoos (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Any reliable support for this outside the IDF here?--69.208.131.94 (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea whether the allegation is factually correct or not, but it's the main concrete specific accusation which has been made against Stork, so it's very difficult to see why this article should have a criticisms or controversy section at all if the praising Munich thing is not included... AnonMoos (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added more. IronDuke 19:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ID, you are simply repeating defamatory charges made by a single op-ed, that is not acceptable for a BLP. nableezy - 19:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nab, you are simply not reading the actual edit I made. There's more than one source, including Stork himself responding. Are his opinions on this not relevant? IronDuke 19:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

People respond to bullshit, it is human nature to say something when somebody defames you. That does not mean we need to repeat the defamation or the response. nableezy - 20:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is notable then perhps a a non blog source would prove usefull.Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It's necessary to repeat when it's notable. This has been covered by multiple sources, including Stork himself. It's an explosive charge, and goes to the heart of why some have an axe to grind with him, rightly or wrongly. IronDuke 20:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There's Commentary, whose blog we can use per RS, and there's NGO Monitor quoting JS himself. IronDuke 20:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Why can we use Commentry as an RS if its a blog? and not volokh.comSlatersteven (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the Commentary blog is attached to a reputable pub, and Volokh isn't. I'm not sure I love this distinction on WP, and would be interested in seeing more thoughtful discussion on blogs as RS's -- for example, re the Garlasco thing, it was broken on a blog and Garlasco defended himself on a blog -- but AFAIK Volokh doesn't count for our purposes. If people wanted to go to RS/N and bat it around (or if someone wants to point me to a consensus that is already extant) that'd be fine. IronDuke 02:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What concearns me is that unlike the Galasco affrair this does ot appear to have slipped out into the wider media. This tends to make me a bit dubious as to the real notablility of this, or indeed its legaltiy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Legality is in no way an issue here. Maariv, Commentary and NGO monitor are, I think, quite enough to confer notability. IronDuke 17:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the material to the talk page as it is inappropriate for a biography of a living person. The material may be found below.

---

In August 2009, Yemini accused Stork in another op-ed of supporting the 1972 Munich Massacre, quoting Stork as having said,

“Munich and similar actions cannot create or substitute for a mass revolutionary movement. But we should comprehend the achievement of the Munich action… It has provided an important boost in morale among Palestinians in the camps.”

Noah Pollak, writing for Commentary, condemns what he views as Stork's "explicit support of terrorism against Israel," and that Stork "lauded the murder of Israeli athletes at Munich in 1972.

According to NGO Monitor Stork responded to this and other quotes purporting to show his support Palestinian terrorism:

“Most of them I do not recognize, and they are contrary to the views I have expounded for decades now. For instance, selective excerpts about the Munich massacre come from an unsigned editorial that appeared 37 years ago where at the time I was one of seven volunteers that produced the publication.” All my work since then shows that I would never support such an attack.

---

--69.208.141.228 (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please sign in with your real account, then say why specifically you think this is a BLP vio. IronDuke 22:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

First I didn't think anything was wrong with editing from an IP.

Second, the following Wikipedia policies are relevant to this article:

• WP:V states that "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight... if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so... self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer."

• WP:RS states that "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces... In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used."

• WP:BLP states that "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page...Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability...Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims...Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject."

--68.78.0.78 (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There is something wrong, actually, very wrong, about using a dynamic IP (especially when you have a real account already) to make bad edits which push POV. And I'm still not seeing any actual argument from you. IronDuke 18:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As to legality not being an issue "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims. See Wikipedia:Libel.".Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, I am aware of what libel laws are, and what WP policy is, and that the edit in question violates neither. IronDuke 18:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The argument would be that questionable sources making controversial claims are inappropriate for a biography of a living person because of the Wikipedia policies outlined above. And I don't see what an IP has to do with BLP policy.--68.78.0.78 (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old argument by assertion; it remains unconvincing. And your being an ever-shifting IP has nothing whatever to do with BLP, it's more to do with POV-pushing disruption. IronDuke 01:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Your commentary about me has nothing to do with the quality of the sources.--68.78.0.78 (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

<-I reverted IronDuke. This material is being challenged/removed for good reason. The WP:BLP/N is there to resolve issues like this. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for following the discussion.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted Sean Hoyland. The material has been added for good reason. IronDuke 21:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP states "Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects; or which is a conjectural interpretation of a source..." You have completely ignored the discussion on the talk page and the cited policies, as well as the template on the article.--69.208.131.53 (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have requested further input here.--69.208.131.53 (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)