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)

Arbitrary break- BLPN

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)

Coming from BLP/N, my first question is is the sole claim for notability/importance of the two op-eds/commentary for inclusion in the article the response from Joe Stork? Or has there been mention of the op-eds discussing Stork in other reliable secondary sources? In other words, have these claims received attention from reliable secondary sources? Incidentally while unrelated to the BLP issues, 69 has a point. Per policy, there's nothing explicitly wrong with editing from a dynamic IP. I see mention of an account, if 69 does have an account then it's possible he or she may be violating policy (e.g. WP:Sockpuppetry but unless evidence can be found for that, the issue should be dropped. If there is evidence for 69 not acting in good faith, I suggest this be brought up at WP:ANI not here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an account. I have been doing my best to simply ignore the charges since they seem counterproductive to discussion. If the user continually charging me without evidence would like to submit something to WP:ANI or checkuser this would be fine.--69.208.131.53 (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said a while ago this does not seem to have moved out of the relm of Blogs and Opp-Edds, certainly it has not appeared in the wider news media (not even the JP, which usualy pickes up on these things.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nil, thanks for weighing in. I think the notability hangs on both -- op eds are often reliable sources -- for what they themselves assert. And Stork does not appear to directly deny the event in question. As for the anon ip, it's clear this is not the main account. And per ARBPIA, there is supposed to be greater scrutiny as to who is editing in these areas. This collection of IP addresses is evading that scrutiny. It's a sock, and one that is difficult to track. I will absolutely not bring it up on AN/I: far too many times have I seen legitimate complaints desultorily jeered at by some of the lulz-loving denizens of that page. (Not saying everyone there is like that, but enough to make it toxic and often worse than useless.) IronDuke 15:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

From the NGO monitor source "and they are contrary to the views I have expounded for decades now."I think thats a denile he hold those views. Or that "and did not espouse the anti-Zionist views attributed to him". I think these are specific deniles. Now if this were notable (and not libalous) why has The JP, NYT, or the BBC not reported on this?Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If there's a problem with IPs editing then take it up thru appropriate channels, this page is for discussing this article: Aside from the simple fact that this is one single quote from 30 years ago there is the problem that it's only been taken up in one op-ed piece (repeated in toto by Pollack) & NGO monitor which acctually states: "While noting that this [the quote] did not justify the murders" [3]. So we have questionable sources, demonstrable complete lack of notability for the single quote with one of the sources acctually giving the game away & stating that it doesn't quite say what they want it to say. And you want to put this in a BLP? It's just not going to work, give up on it. PS yes Stork does effectively deny it "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." see above.--Misarxist (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed about the lack of utility in discussing IP's here. You are, however, wrong about Stork, he makes a non-denial denial. IronDuke 18:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How is saying tnat he did not say the things he is accused of saying not a denile? Moreover how reliable is a source that makes a non-accusation accusation?Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Where does he definitively state, "I had nothing to do with that editorial," or "That sentiment does not now and has never reflected my views"? He speaks instead of what he believes since the attack, and criticizes the taking of certain quotes out of context. And saying he doesn't "recognize them" isn't a denial either. He does a good job of distancing himself from the editorial without making an actual denial. IronDuke 21:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"All my work since then shows that I would never support such an attack".That states he does not support it now and has never done so. Its ture he says he indeed did have something to do with the editorial, so did 6 other people, who produed the contenious sections, is there any evidance that Mr Stork did, as you ccan see above he says he does not (and never would) support the defence of the munich massacre. His wording could beed to defend a negative ( I was not there, or did not do that). that is to say how can he say he nevere did it if he has no documented proof, other then by using examples of his work for decades. If Mr Stork said I did not defened the Munich massacre would you accedpt his word? I would also ask again what evidance is there that this is notable?Slatersteven (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The statement is still subject to interpretation, in terms of the conditional tense. He "would never support such an attack..." does that mean now, or that he never had? And "support" is a nebulous word here -- he could argue that the original editorial wasn't mean to, in a strict sense, support the attack, merely to point out the positive after-effects. Not a proper denial. But it doesn't really matter: JS thinks it's notable, so notable he replied to it. His opinion outweighs that of WP editors in this case, IMO. IronDuke 22:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also this. It's from the IDF, so we wouldn't be using it as a "this definitively happened source" but rather a "according to the IDF" source. IronDuke 23:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just my opinion: If someone called you Satan Hitler the baby killer and you denied it, that doesn't automatically make it notable to your life and your biography. What exactly would be encyclopedic about that?--69.208.131.53 (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Op eds are frequently avoided in BLPs unless they have been discussed in other sources. The fact that some person has made a claim in a reliable source is rarely sufficient reason for us to mention it in an article. The thing is (depending on how well know the person is and how controversial they are), it's not uncommon that plenty of people often offer an opinion in reliable sources. We should only report major opinions. The fact that someone has offered such an opinion is therefore rarely taken in itself as sufficient to mention it in an article since we have no way of knowing if it's a major opinion. If an opinion is widely reported or discussed in other RS then that would usually be a sign that it's a major opionion. But I've seen no evidence for that here. If the opinion was coming from a highly reputable source, e.g. the NYT or since this is an Israeli issue, Hareetz or from someone highly notable, e.g. a member of the Israeli cabinet then it may also be okay to mention it even if there's no evidence it was widely reported, particularly if the opinion is not unduly controversial and the person is not that well known but none of these seem to be the case here. But none of this seems to be true here. Nil Einne (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I again second this, if it is notable why have no major news outlets picked this up. You have obviously looked so have you found any? Hell if the JP are so unsure about this that they have not repaeted it why should wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with this sentiment.--69.208.131.53 (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)