Jump to content

Talk:Robert Fisk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Luwilt (talk | contribs) at 22:50, 21 February 2011 (→Fisking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Criticism: Journalist Integrity "no longer relevent" and CAMERA assertion

I have dug up the original article [1]. Fisk does not use the phrase "no longer relevent" in the way CAMERA misrepresents it. He is clearly making reference to the institutional practice of artificially and arbitrarily representing opposing sides as being 'equal', as you would in a small town debate (his analogy), when they are fundamentally not equal, as in the case of "disputed" versus "occupied" territories. He is arguing that these practices of so-called 'neutrality' are "no longer relevent" because they are being improperly applied to situations for which they were never designed; to present those two sides as being 'equal', as per the "rules made in the 1940s" to train reporters "for local newspapers", is fallacious. He expands this by saying "when you see child victims pilled up at the site of a massacre it's not the time to give equal time to the murderers. If you were covering the slave trade in the 19th century, you wouldn't give 50 percent to the slave ship captain; you would focus on the slaves who died and on the survivors." It is in this context that he says one is "morally bound as a journalist to show eloquent compassion to the victims". It is unsurprising that some would so obviously distort the context of this. CAMERA is a well known organization which simply slanders anybody who criticizes Israel, CAMERA is not a reliable source, this should be obvious. A student of history 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Fisk said it, and while you may not agree with CAMERA's analysis of his statement, that doesn't make your own take on it any more factual. CAMERA is partisan, but not unreliable, and in any event The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. CAMERA's opinion is eminently verifiable, it's stated as CAMERA's opinion, and you shouldn't be removing it simply because you disagree with them. From what I can tell, CAMERA is far less biased in these matters than, for example, you. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No you look. I have no issue with what someone inserted about CAMERA's concern over his misquoting of Begin. But the entry reads that Fisk stated that "journalistic objectivity" is no longer relevent to the Middle East. That is simply, factually false. It's as simple as that, the wiki entry says Fisk said something, when he in fact, did not. A student of history 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The CAMERA source asserts it, and my reading of the interview with him indicates that CAMERA could well be right in what it says. It's not up to you to decide they interpreted him incorrectly, based on your own original research. Jayjg (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to our article to make it clear that both the interprettation and the criticism of it are CAMERA's. This is not a trivial matter since CAMERA's interpretation is not at all a straight reading of the source. There is also a problem in the report of the "two-legged beasts" matter. CAMERA did not accuse Fisk of misquoting his source, but of correctly quoting a source which was wrong. That's very different (carelessness rather than dishonesty). It's also wrong to say that Begin didn't refer to Palestinians at all and CAMERA doesn't even claim that. They only claim (correctly, imo) that Begin was not referring to Palestinians in general. --Zerotalk 11:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's quite clear that Fisk is saying journalistic objectivity is no longer relevant when reporting on the Middle East (i.e. it's a pretty straight reading of the source). He says that "in a part of the world that is cloaked in injustice" -- the article makes clear that the "part of the world" he refers to is the Middle East -- the "standards of neutrality" he describes -- again, it is clear from the article he refers to journalistic standards -- are "no longer relevant." There obviously is no merit to A Student of History's claim that CAMERA's description is being "simply, fatually false." Gni 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious. He refers to the training that journalists working on local newspapers in America would have received in the 1940s: i.e. give equal time to all parties on any issue. Fisk is explicitly rejecting that approach and defending the taking of a moral point of view (basically, being anti-murder). As he says, and it's fair to give a fuller quote: "the standards of neutrality used in a small-town court case fall by the wayside because they are no longer relevant. When you see child victims piled up at the site of a massacre it's not the time to give equal time to the murderers." Is it really clear that it is better for journalists to be neutral on such matters? That's the question being raised. As he goes on to point out: "When I was close to a pizzeria bombing in Israeli West Jerusalem in 2001, in which 20 were killed, more than half children, I didn't give half the time to Hamas." The article is right to report the criticism, but also to note that it is based on an interpretation. Dannyno 11:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is all entirely irrelevant. The fact is that CAMERA has made this claim and someone might be coming to wikipedia to find out more about it. It's an important part of the man's history and role in public fora. Leaving it out is leaving ouut important verifiable facts which are relevant to the reader. If you think the writing is too credulous and then propose a way to rewrite it which makes clear that the claim is CAMERAs and include any references you want to Fisk's claims to having been misunderstood -- it's up to the reader to read all the facts and draw his own conclusions. But excluding the story is just making the article less useful for the reader.

82.16.16.210 (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important, 'verifiable facts' that have been completely cut out of context in the most intentionally misleading manner, with the poor concession of adding a clumsy disclaimer, do not make a good article. Although somebody (CAMERA) did claim this, the claim is clearly misleading, and as such, no article space should be wasted upon both presenting and describing the claim as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.24.53 (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nelofer Pazira

Update: I removed the initial mention of his relationship status as it has utterly no relevance. For guidelines on this and other issues see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterthomas (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure M Fisk is going to be very happy if you talk about his private life in the biography. I should think you are going to go to court with him.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdemontferrand (talk • contribs)

Do not make hollow legal threats. However, the information would require a reliable source none of which are forthcoming.--Docg 09:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed her alleged involvement with Fisk from her article as well. <<-armon->> 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Nelofer Pazira is Fisk's long-time girlfriend. They've been together for over six years now. How do I know this? Nelofer told me. I know that isn't enough to include it in Wikipedia, but I can assure everyone that this fact of his personal life is 100% accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estlin (talk • contribs) 19:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lockerbie bombing

Mackan is entitled to the view that my edit today is irrelevant to the Robert Fisk article. I happen to think it is very relevant, and am reverting Mackan's reversion.Phase4 11:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why? -- Mackan talk | c 11:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the whole of the current Pan Am Flight 103 debacle could benefit from scrutiny by Robert Fisk. He will doubtless uncover much hypocrisy on the part of the British and US governments.Phase4 12:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he will, but why is it at this stage necessary to point out that he has written one article about it, where he, frankly, didn't uncover anything? Should we not wait until he has actually come up with something? Wikipedia should not be used as a noticeboard, and I doubt that putting that notice up here, that Fisk is interested in Lockerbie, will help you much in your quest on that matter. Please agree to have the paragraph removed. -- Mackan talk | c 12:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am content that – contrary to your assertion – Fisk does indeed have an interest in Lockerbie, and the paragraph should stand.Phase4 13:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. I did in no way assert that Fisk does not have an interest in Lockerbie, I just question that putting that notice up here will 1) do much help, 2) be relevant to the article. -- Mackan talk | c 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already dealt with the relevance issue.Phase4 20:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you haven't. You said "It seems to me that the whole of the current Pan Am Flight 103 debacle could benefit from scrutiny by Robert Fisk." That does not exactly explain why it's relevant to his bio. -- Mackan talk | c 23:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. -- Mackan talk | c 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section again. You've had 3-4 days to explain the relevance of that section. -- Mackan talk | c 16:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Premature removal: don't do it again!Phase4 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. Unless Fisk's appeal results in someone coming forward with new useful information this is highly non-notable and its inclusion seems to be an example of 'recentism'. At present, all that's happened is that Fisk has written an appeal for information. This doesn't seem like a big deal and the only reasons you've provided for keeping it in the article ("It seems to me that the whole of the current Pan Am Flight 103 debacle could benefit from scrutiny by Robert Fisk ... He will doubtless uncover much hypocrisy") is crystal ball gazing and your personal opinion about something which may or may not happen. --Nick Dowling 08:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all a bit nutty. The test for whether this article is notable has nothing to do with what he might turn up in the future or how important wikipedia authors think the topic of lockerbie conspiracy theories might be. The test is how significant the article is to readers trying to understand the subject of the article -- namely Fisk. Since the man's conspiracy theories are an important part of his critics claims failing to list his lockerbie and 9/11 theories is omitting obviously notable items in the man's history. The reader is left with an impoverished understanding about Fisk without them.

82.16.16.210 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this list of links from the article twice as I think that it violates Wikipedia:External links and might be linkspam but User:Sstteevvee has restored them without providing a rationale in their edit summary. I don't see what value this list of individual appearances on this single program adds, especially given that Fisk makes regular appearances in the international media worldwide. For instance, he regularly appears on SBS News in Australia to provide commentary on the Middle East but there doesn't seem any reason to link to transcripts of these interviews. --Nick Dowling 05:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

I think that a section on criticisms of Fisk is warrented. However, the current section is basically a list of individual instances where notable and non-notable people have attacked Fisk and/or his work, with unsourced commentary on the political positions of those critics being added by IP editors. I'd suggest that this section be re-worked to discuss the general issues on which Fisk is commonly criticised, with appropriate citations being provided. At present the section seems to suggest that a handful of biased people have attacked Fisk, when this isn't an accurate reflection of the debates his work has caused. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal information

Re: relationship status / previous relationships.

I support the view that information mentioning the above should remain removed from the article. I have 3 reasons for this: it keeps the page succinct, and relevant, and is more in accordance with wikipedia's guidelines on such information ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterthomas (talk • contribs) 11:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section (again)

I rewrote the section in line with the suggestions made above - grouped the existing material into paragraphs by theme, and tried to bring out the fact (because it is a fact) that Fisk's critics belong to certain groups rather than being widely spread across the spectrum - and if that weren't so, he'd have lost his job by now. Didn't delete much, tho a few references were cut - no more than two or three, largely because they were repetitious (it only takes one reference to support a point, not a whole battalion). I also expanded a few references - in some places there were up to five or more refs for one point, and I went back to the actual websites and found out what they were saying and put that in - sometimes the results produced were a bit different from what I'd expected, notably that "frisking" refers to something done to Fisk, not by him. My overall impression is that the original section was rather biased and trying to show what a bad journalist Fisk is - I hope I've produced something better structured and more balanced. PiCo (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Further to the criticism section: I know it's not normal practice to identify the pov of criticisms, but in Fisk's case it seems to me essential, since I can find only when of the critics cited in the article who is not either neoconservative or pro-Israel. This indicates that the criticism is itself politically motivated, which is an important and notable point - recording the pov of the critics is not the same as stating a pov of our own. Views?PiCo (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do you have for these people having those political opinions? --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

To refer to Fisk's critics in controversial terms such as "neoconservative", and restrict them to one ideological or political aspect, as if they were politically motivated, is to adopt an extremely POV view, which goes frontally against Wikipedia's policies; and I don't see why this article should be exempt from that rule. Many people disagree with this view, and the article should respect that.
It is also worth noting that criticism against Fisk is not restricted to "one side of the court", as much as that may not be (yet) reflected in his article. Rsazevedo msg 11:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore, as Nick pointed out, if this description of Fisk's critics as "Pro-Israeli" and "neoconservative" was to stay in the article, it would need its own (reliable) sources as well. Rsazevedo msg 11:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, and sympathise to a degree. However, I've looked into all the critics cited in the section, and with only one exception they are in fact all either noted for being pro-Israeli or neoconservatives. There's nothing wrong with being pro-Israeli, nor with being neoconservative (which, by the way, is not a term of abuse), but it's an objective fact that Fisk's critics are partisan. This being the case, we owe it to the readers to make this fact clear. And of course you're right in saying that we need to have citations for this - these cites can be provided. PiCo (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it's accurate to say that "it's an objective fact that Fisk's critics are partisan". While many of the people who've criticised his work have done so for purely political reasons, others honestly disagree with the conclusions he draws - which is reasonable given that many of Fisk's articles are basically his opinion. I've also seen Fisk criticised from the left and, most importantly perhaps, by experts with no political axe to grind who simply think that he's got it wrong. I'm actually comfortable with labeling his critics and supporters, but only when these views are supported by reliable sources. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it extremely problematic that user PiCo essentially asserts, "the sources quoted can be called neoconservative; therefore, they are biased and this should be reflected in the criticism". If this is the policy to apply in general, then it should also be assumed that anyone who can be identified as "social democratic" should have their criticism reflect that they are considered heavily biased from a socdem point of view. In my opinion, if a source is notable, and presents criticism, then that criticism should be quoted along with the source - there is not the neccessity to blanket statement that "the critics all appear to belong to the extreme social-democratic side of the spectrum". Refer to the Microsoft article for examples of 'Criticism' sections that can NOT be acceptable if PiCo's view is adhered to - in particular the critics should be examined in detail for Democratic/Socialist sympathies.217.171.129.73 (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no problem with identifying critics as social-democrat if that were the case - tho social democrats are a bit rare in the English speaking world. But it's an objective fact that, of all the critics of Fisk quoted in the article, all but one are either active members of pro-Israel lobbies, or publish in neoconservative magazines, or both. PiCo (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Reduce indent) I have a prposal for merging the Criticism section into the body of the article and making it read less like an attack and more like a genuine issue. I've made an addition to the end of the Career section, which gives a brief overview of the criticism of Fisk and includes one criticism which is not from an obviously partisan source (all the others are clearly partisan). If we can agree, this can be the new treatment of Fisk's critics and the Criticism section can be deleted. However, the paragraph within the Criticism section about "fisking" should stay in the article, but as a new section. For discussion. PiCo (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No other biography has critism directly inserted in the body of the career section. Why should this be an exception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.34.248 (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did it because there's a tag on the top of the page saying we shouldn't have a separate criticism or controversy section; now you're telling me we shouldn't put criticism into the main article; so which is it?PiCo (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is incorrect. While many bios still have separate criticism sections, Wikipedia has been attempting to move away from this. See for a closely-watched example George W. Bush. Kalkin (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Would you mind looking in History for my proposed edit and letting me know what you think? I'm honestly trying to be helpful here. Fisk is very passionate and personal and deals with issues where emotions run hot, and it's inevitable that he attracts criticism. So far as I can see, everything quoted in the Criticism section is indeed from pro-Israeli and/or neo-conservative writers. That being so, we don't need to have quotes from each, we just need to note the general tenor of the criticism and the sources. There's one critic who isn't obviously partisan, and that the man from the New York Times, so I quote him separately. I believe that this improves the article, makes it more readable, and also records the really important fact that Fisk is indeed a lightening-rod for criticism of a certain type, but has also been criticised by cooler heads. PiCo (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed edit was a good start but I see a few issues. 1) In general, it's better not to put anything in the article under a title like "THIS IS A PROPOSED EDIT". The article is the public face, put proposals on the talk page. 2) On the issue of labeling critics, if we want to say that Fisk's critics in general tend to be pro-Israeli and/or neoconservative, we need a source specifically for that broader claim to avoid original research. Absent such a source, though I suspect you're right in general, we should label each critic individually as appropriate. (By the way, I would not label Ethan Bronner unmotivated by partisanship. Just because he works for the New York Times doesn't mean he's got no politics. From his reporting as well as the comment on Fisk I suspect he's a fairly committed Zionist.) 3) If Fisk's "personal and committed" style of journalism is what motivates his critics, we ought to be able to find one of them saying so. Again, I suspect you're right, but we need a source.
I do like using Fisk's style, with its lack of pretense of neutrality, to frame a discussion of his critics. I would suggest we create two new sections, one entitled "Journalistic style", with a "Fisking" subsection discussing the creation of the word, and one entitled "Political views". The "Criticism" section should be eliminated and its contents moved into one or the other of these sections, depending on what's being criticized. There are also contents currently in the "Career" section that ought to be moved to one of the new sections. Kalkin (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) I've merged the Criticism section into the general article, in two parts, one now the last para in the general Career section, the other in the Iraq war section. This (I hope) will allow us to get rid of the tag that notes that articles shouldn't have criticism sections. I've also removed some redundant criticisms - one point from one critic should be enough, since the point is simply to illustrate that criticism exists. This should allow us to get rid of the other tag about lack of balance. Overall, not much has actually been deleted. PiCo (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section of 'Fisking' needs to be tidied up - it's a little unclear, and could do with an example...

Image copyright problem with Image:The Great War for Civilisation - Dust Jacket - Robert Fisk.jpg

The image Image:The Great War for Civilisation - Dust Jacket - Robert Fisk.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bin Laden characterises Fisk as "neutral"

Regarding this edit, Fisk himself mentions it in his book "The Great War for Civilisation" (of course jokingly as that is the only way that it can be viewed) in connection to his interview with bin Laden. Unfortunately I do not have access to the book at the moment (and thus cannot make an exact reference), but I do think that if it the deleted section could be added a sentence about how Fisk regards that statement himself (refering to the book) it would be a noteworthy piece of information. Fisk himself often have an eye for those kind of humourus situations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 / Non-sequiturs?

I think the current wording re 9/11 suggests the Fisk holds a more pro-conspiracy theory view than he really actually does. For example, currently it quotes:

"He added that he does not condone the "crazed 'research' of David Icke [...] I am talking about scientific issues"."

This seems to suggest that Fisk is in the conspiracy theory, though not quite lunacy fringe category. However, if you read the linked article [14], he actually explicitly disavows conspiracy theories but questions the 'official narrative'. This probably should - and would perhaps, on a less emotive subject - be expected of any journalist. Would not a better quote, rather than including the Icke reference be the one below?

"Let me repeat. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Spare me the ravers. Spare me the plots. But like everyone else, I would like to know the full story of 9/11."

The article also states:

"He proceeded to raise his concerns about a lack of aircraft debris, the melting point of steel, the collapse of World Trade Center 7, misidentified suicide-hijackers and other familiar questions that have circulated within the 9/11 Truth Movement. He added that he does not condone the "crazed 'research' of David Icke [...] I am talking about scientific issues". [14]"

It it not clear to me whether, in the referenced article, Fisk is actually questioning the accepted answers to all of these, or whether he is dismissing the questioning of (some of) them. The relevant part seems to be:

From [14]. "It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field?"

Does he mean: - Because there appear to be no engines in the wreakage then, where are the engines? - Or, just because there don't appear to be any engines in the wreakage, that doesn't mean they are not there.

Likewise for the other points.

The use of 'non-sequitur' seems a bit odd, since the term refers to the logic of an argument, not the available evidence. (Which, to me, suggests - to a small degree - the second of the above.)

Further down he does, clearly, question some specifics of the details of the attacks. But he seems to be suggesting that more needs to be done to establish (or make known) the details behind the (apparent) inconsistencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.215.242 (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit boldly :)PiCo (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This aspect is less than clear. While Fisk briefly mentions these things, he has not, so far as I am aware, had anything further to say on the topic. So there is a concern of undue weight, too. Dynablaster (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference between Fisk's expressed view and that of a 'conspiracy theorist' is that Fisk merely hinted at what the latter openly asserts. Of course, a conspiracy theorist is not going to characterize himself as such because of the stigma of that label. Fisk carefully worded his questions so he can deliberately step back and say 'what? I never said there was some type of government cover-up' or whatever other nonsense is implicit in his statements. But then what exactly is he implying with these questions (all of which have rational scientific explanations, if he had bothered to research their answers -- i.e. the steel did not "melt" and no one with anything more than a high school science education has asserted that, but steel weakens due to extreme heat; the engines weren't flung miles from the Pentagon because a jet was deliberately crashed into a structure with inertia carrying the debris into the building which helped contain the debris; etc.)? Strikehold (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are badly mistaken. A conspiracy theorist will shift the goal posts and continue to promote a secret plan, no matter how implausible, long after professionals have weighed in, disproving elements of the conspiracy and providing plausible answers to others. Fisk, in a single article some years ago, wrote plainly and openly that he harboured doubts about the official narrative (after being hounded by "truthers"). He has written not a single word on the subject since that time, so presumably he is happy with the answers from engineers and other professionals. Dynablaster (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, that is not even what the term means. A conspiracy theorist espouses a conspiracy theory: "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators"[2]. Fisk clearly expressed a conspiratorial view, except that he phrased it diplomatically. Whether he actually prescribes to it or whether he just posited his "concerns" out of partisan feelings is really only known to him. Since he expressed this view in the "single article" as late as August 2007, it strains credulity that he neither had the intellectual curiosity to seek scientific explanations on his own nor ever heard any otherwise satisfactory scientific explanations up to that point. Strikehold (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Strikhold: "A conspiracy theorist espouses a conspiracy theory"
I agree. From WordWeb:- espouses
Choose and follow; as of theories
Take up the cause, ideology, practice, method, of someone and use it as one's own
Robert Fisk neither follows nor takes up the "truther" cause, and never has.
User Strikhold: "Fisk clearly expressed a conspiratorial view, except that he phrased it diplomatically"
Now you are trying to have it two different ways at once. Lacking evidence that Fisk follows, defends and theorizes (i.e. construct a theory) about the 9/11 attacks, you simply say he is being "diplomatic" and "worded his questions carefully". That is not a serious argument. Why do you ignore the substance of his piece and impute some ulterior motive to him? If Fisk had written a number of articles on the same topic, gradually advancing the "truther" point of view, then I would be forced to agree with you. Instead, the doubts he had, appear to have vaporized. Again, that is not the hallmark of a conspiracy theorist. 23:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Dynablaster (talk)
Since you want to be semantic instead of substantive, "espouse" was my own word choice, here is what wiktionary calls a "conspiracy theorist": "One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory". Or, you can go by what the wikipedia article on "truthers" says: "individuals that question the mainstream account of the September 11 attacks". Is that not precisely what Fisk does in this article? (An article which is titled "Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11", no less.)
Since he prefaced and concluded with 'I am not a conspiracy theorist', I guess he isn't... No one has ever denied being what they really are, after all. Maybe you object to conspiracy theorist since he doesn't explicitly state his own theory; so what about crank? He clearly believes that the government is engaged in some type of conspiracy (although he never divulges the details); he concluded with: "Karl Rove once said that 'we're an empire now – we create our own reality'. True? At least tell us."
You say I "ignore[d] the substance of his piece"? Did you even read it? Here are some things that Fisk says he "questions": (1) why steel failed below its melting point (though the melting point he gives isn't even correct, but for iron rather than structural steel -- a dubious start to his essay), (2) that the towers collapsed "in its own footprint" (which is patently ridiculous, it is obvious that debris traveled a long way, just because buildings don't topple like trees due to their structure, doesn't mean they fall neatly into a pile -- and they didn't), (3) "female air crew member was found in a Manhattan street with her hands bound" (this one is so bizarre I don't even know where to begin. Of course, why would Fisk bother pointing out a source?), (4) there were no "aircraft parts (engines, etc)" around the Pentagon (oh, really? [3]), (5) two "prominent" but unnamed mechanical engineers who voiced concerns (so why didn't he include their names...? Oh, that's right, because then it would be easy to refute or put in context), etc.
Fisk brings up the same tired old "questions" truthers dwell on (and in the same willfully dishonest or unbelievably ignorant manner), all of which have logical explanations that he either ignored or never searched for. Those can really be the only conclusions: he either purposely ignores the rational explanations that have been established, or he completely lacks basic reasoning skills and the intellectual curiosity to look for rational answers himself. NIST, for instance, published its report disproving the bizarre "truther" engineering/physics claims two years before Fisk wrote that article. The original poster asserts Fisk is saying "more needs to be done to establish (or make known) the details behind the (apparent) inconsistencies", but the fact is this has all already been done. Fisk just hasn't done the reading for himself or he has ignored it.
How exactly am I trying to "have it two different ways at once"? By your logic, no one ever speaks between the lines or (not-so-) subtly hints at anything. By your logic, there is no such thing as a leading question. By your logic, a declarative statement that "I am not a ___" means you are not one. Fisk is "question[ing] the official narrative" while attempting to maintain some semblance of credibility (!). So, he attempts to distance himself from the lunatic fringe, but then turns around and voices the exact same non-questions that they attempt to answer with their (explicitly stated) lunatic theories. Fisk prods his reader to infer their own lunatic theories based off his incomplete—or flat-out wrong—leading "questions".
Saying something "only" once does not negate the fact that it is said. Anyway, I'm done here. I don't have a problem with how the article is currently worded, and I'm not wasting any more time on Fisk – he isn't worth it. Strikehold (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By every definition Robert Fisk is not a conspiracy theorist. Please in your next response provide evidence that Fisk believes the U.S. government plotted to destroy the World Trade Center (he expressly said they did not). Please also in your next reply present evidence that Fisk follows the so-called 9/11 "truth" movement (he unambiguously distanced himself from these people). A single article in which Fisk expressed doubt proves only poor judgment. The same individual had nothing more to say on the topic. Zip. Nought. Therefore it is not unreasonable to conclude he found satisfactory answers to many of the questions he had.
This is exactly the reason I reject calling Christopher Hitchens a conspiracy theorist. He believed Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD and working with members of Al Qaeda. When evidence emerged that stockpiles were destroyed in the early 1990s and the ISI was actively working to apprehend Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, he accepted the point and limited himself to describing Saddam's real connection with Palestinian terrorists. Not so the likes of Melanie Philips, who immediately shifted the goals posts, insisting that Saddam buried some of his WMD and moved other munitions out of the country. And that is a key defining difference. A conspiracy theorist will always look for ways to circumvent the evidence. Dynablaster (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my last response I said I was done with this line of discussion. I've said my piece, and you've said yours. Of course, feel free to continue yourself, though... Strikehold (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the entire section. Frisk only made a single mention of it, in just one column. Given that his career has been devoted to the Middle East, this one-off intervention into the 9/11 affair doesn't deserve the weightage of an entire section in this profile. PiCo (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then expand the rest of the article. His views on this are so radically different from mainstream journalism that it is one of the reasons why he is known. I also suggest you read over WP:WEIGHT, because it does not justify your reasoning. That only provides for limiting minority viewpoints on a subject. Since this section describes Fisk's own professed views, it certainly warrants inclusion. Strikehold (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Strikehold: "His views on this are so radically different from mainstream journalism that it is one of the reasons why he is known."
Then you will have no problem producing on this talk page many mainstream sources who discuss Robert Fisk's piece and describe him as a conspiracy theorist. Dynablaster (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean about him being (arguably) a conspiracy theorist, I'm talking about his 9/11 views as a whole, which is what the removed paragraphs relate. They said nothing about him being a conspiracy theorist. As far as I know, there is no requirement for an author's own work to be discussed by any third party for it to merit inclusion in the author's own article -- Why would it? There is no more reliable source for an individual's own beliefs than his very own words.
But since you ask... A Weekly Standard [4] and two different The Guardian [5] [6] writers clearly think Fisk is a conspiracy theorist. The third essentially calls him a truther. The Herald Sun wrote a piece on Fisk's article (the article is down, but this blog contains an excerpt) [7]. Fisk's article was discussed by Al-Ahram [8]. It's arguable whether CounterPunch is a reliable source, but Fisk wrote for it himself, so it's somewhat ironic that one of their writers completely dismantled Fisk's 9/11 article [9]. Mark Steyn also mentioned Fisk's article [10]. Strikehold (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you question whether CounterPunch is a mainstream source but not some obscure Weekly Standard blogger. Rachel Abrams (a writer in Virginia, no less) can't even describe Fisk's piece without assailing his "noxious ravings about Israel". The first Guardian article is even worse. It was written in 2006 and thus does not broach the topic of his 2007 piece. Rather, the writer is simply angry at Fisk for his criticisms of Israel. Mark Steyn in the Jewish World Review devotes just 33 of a 1202 word article to Fisk. This is unfortunate, too, because not only is Fisk on record explicitly expressing his belief that the U.S. government had no part in the attacks, he also berated others for spreading the "insidious rumour" that "Jews had been told not to go to work at the World Trade Centre on 11 September." [11] These few sources have something else in common: None of them describe Fisk as a "conspiracy theorist" or a "truther". Compare that with the number of mainstream sources who describe Robert Fisk as an experience and knowledgeable Middle East veteran (spend 10 seconds on LexisNexis and you'll get the drift). Dynablaster (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You: "Then you will have no problem producing on this talk page many mainstream sources who discuss Robert Fisk's piece and describe him as a conspiracy theorist." See my reply above. Q.E.D. Your question was whether there are reliable sources asserting Fisk is a conspiracy theorist, not if there are more people who think he is actually a swell guy. Heh, weren't you saying something earlier about "moving the goalposts"? Now you resort to assailing the 'mainstreaminess' of the cited references' authors...
Five of the seven references I cited describe Fisk as a conspiracy theorist (not "none" as you assert). Would you please show the courtesy of actually reading before replying, so that I don't have to waste my time?

1. "Mr. Fisk couldn’t possibly top his own lunatic 9/11conspiracy-mongering..."[12]

2. "Fisk tells us that "the lobby" monitors and condemns academics who are critical of Israel... In the 50s the conspiracy theorists insisted that "the communists" controlled America; now "the Lobby" has replaced "the communists" as the hidden puppet master."[13]

3. "What is about conspiracy theories that fascinate us so much? A few days ago Peter Tatchell wrote a piece for Cif about the problems surrounding the 9/11 Commission ... A few weeks before this, Robert Fisk declared himself "increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11", sparking off a flurry of rebuttals which reminded us of where the phrase "fisking" comes from.[14]"

4. "Robert Fisk, in a special ABC broadcast of his speech just the night before, suggest the September 11 attacks may have been the work of . . . Americans? [ellipsis in original text]"[15] (excerpt of broken Herald Sun link)

5. "Robert Fisk of Britain's Independent, the alleged dean of Middle East correspondents, has now crossed over to the truther side..."[16](Same article published in Washington Times and Orange County Register)

And, yes, the Weekly Standard is mainstream. It is available at pretty much any bookstore; Krauthammer, Hitchens, Fred Kagan: these are mainstream writers and also published in other mainstream American publications like The Washington Post and The Atlantic. Fisk, Noam Chomsky, and Ward Churchill are not and do not, other than perhaps as spectacles. I don't care what your political affiliations are (for the record, I'm not necessarily aligned with the Weekly Standard), but that is something that I think should be self-apparent. Strikehold (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are both mistaken. In the context of our discussion above, only three out of seven sources label Robert Fisk in the manner you describe. I need not remind you what I actually wrote, since you quote me verbatim: "Then you will have no problem producing on this talk page many mainstream sources who discuss Robert Fisk's piece and describe him as a conspiracy theorist." The article in question was written by Fisk in August 2007.[17] I emphasise this to prevent you from wasting any more of your own time.
2 David Hirsh is knocking Fisk for his opinion on a completely separate topic (criticism of Israel). His piece was published in 2006. Why you would choose to recount this, I can only speculate.
3 Conor Foley asks "What is (sic) about conspiracy theories that fascinate us so much?" but stops short of labeling any of the people he mentions in his column a "conspiracy theorist." When he remarks: "I had my own minor run-in with the troofers" he refers neither to Peter Tatchell nor Robert Fisk, but to people who actively promote and defend the theory that 9/11 was an inside job. Don't believe me? Simply read his words: "The problem with debating "troofers" is that you have to be prepared to work through many levels of assertion and rebuttal. First they will point to some inconsistencies in the reporting of the initial incidents. Then they will raise some technical issues to "prove" that the official account cannot be true. [...] After you have dealt with these, they come back with the killer, 'people are lying to us' theory". By any measure of his own words, they discount Robert Fisk.
I could understand why Fisk's piece might be notable if he went on to give a speech in front of a gathering of "truthers", or if he had wrote a second time on the same topic, but there is no convincing evidence of this. His article is an example of how easy it is for a layperson to question an event when confronted by professed experts in fields such as aviation and mechanics. His hatred of the Internet probably means he had never examined the issue before. The CounterPunch article you reproduced earlier makes precisely the same point:
"Fisk's questions are 'intelligent' for a person who does not know physics and has yet to look at the most elementary facts -- and finding -- about the WTC events. A succinct way of putting Fisk's 'questions' in this matter is simply: 'I am ignorant on the subject, I don't know how the mechanics unfolded.' if he were to apply his formidable investigative skills to this subject, then he might answer his own questions."
The same article helpfully provides a couple of links where Fisk can find answers to his "questions". It does not in any way treat him as a proponent of some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Dynablaster (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Strikhold: "[T]the Weekly Standard is mainstream. It is available at pretty much any bookstore; Krauthammer, Hitchens, Fred Kagan: these are mainstream writers and also published in other mainstream American publications like The Washington Post and The Atlantic. Fisk, Noam Chomsky, and Ward Churchill are not and do not, other than perhaps as spectacles."
Robert Fisk is published in The Independent (London) and Noam Chomsky is published in all manner of mainstream publications like the International Herald Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, 'Prospect magazine, The Toronto Star, Los Angeles Times, Le Monde diplomatique and so on. Dynablaster (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) There you go moving the goalposts again. Your post to which my previous reply was directed said: "These few sources have something else in common: None of them describe Fisk as a "conspiracy theorist" or a "truther"." Which is wrong. You did not qualify that with a requirement that it also refer to the 9/11 article. Thus, the Guardian article from 2006 which does lump Fisk in with conspiracy theorists. I will concede the Foley article in the Guardian is ambiguous, but it heavily implies that he considers Fisk among the "truthers". If that wasn't his intent, he failed miserably with his choice of words. I think you are inferring a lot by saying his words "discount Fisk", when he only explicitly mentions him in the first paragraph, and his real intent there is, as I said, ambiguous.

The seven links I provided were in response to both your and Rd232's request (I told him "see above" when he asked for a list). And all of them either refer to Fisk's 9/11 article, refer to him as a conspiracy theorist, or both. I don't know why you're bringing up the CounterPunch article; I didn't mention it because you asked for refs that called him a truther. That one doesn't, and I never implied it did. The fact that some people say one thing does not negate the fact that others say the opposite, so I fail to see your point. Strikehold (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Strikhold: "There you go moving the goalposts again. Your post to which my previous reply was directed said: 'These few sources have something else in common: None of them describe Fisk as a 'conspiracy theorist' or a 'truther'.' Which is wrong."
Why do you ignore my reply in which I acknowledge that error?
User Strikhold: "You did not qualify that with a requirement that it also refer to the 9/11 article."
Oh, you are wrong. I made this plain in my first reply to you. "[Y]ou will have no problem producing on this talk page many mainstream sources who discuss Robert Fisk's piece and describe him as a conspiracy theorist." (diff) You responded: "I don't mean about him being (arguably) a conspiracy theorist, I'm talking about his 9/11 views as a whole. [...] But since you ask..." and then proceeded to list a number of sources which you believed met that very requirement. (diff) But of course, as I just pointed out, not all of these sources say what you believe they do.
User Strikhold: "The fact that some people say one thing does not negate the fact that others say the opposite, so I fail to see your point."
We are trying to establish if, as in your words, "His [Robert Fisk's] views on this [9/11] are so radically different from mainstream journalism that it is one of the reasons why he is known." In respect to the second paragraph, I maintain that a "truther" and single piece of journalism in which the author expressed doubt is not one and the same thing, and the poverty of sources points to the fact. But perhaps we should reboot the discussion. Dynablaster (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of 9/11 section?

I've removed the section again. I might be amenable to adding back a reference to the issue, but the claim that a single newspaper article by a prolific journalist of long standing is notable needs demonstrating, either by secondary comment on or response to it or by some demonstrated effect. Rd232 talk 23:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that the subject himself is the author of the article and those opinions regarding the 9/11 attacks (which you also removed). What policy says that the views expressed in print, in a reliable source, by the subject himself are not notable? So, for example, you think that an opinion on a political issue publicly expressed by a presidential candidate only once is somehow not noteworthy of inclusion in his own political positions? See my response above for several articles that discuss Fisk's '9/11 truth' article. Strikehold (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have it backwards - notability does not have to be disproved, it has to be proved. Your sources don't do it. The first doesn't mention the article, the second mentions Fisk in passing, the third is a short blog, the fourth (counterpunch response) is some evidence of notability for the article but Counterpunch is a fairly minor source. The other sources look minor too. Now please stop reverting - you're going against WP:consensus here. Either bring more evidence or arguments, or do an request for comment. Rd232 talk 00:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are incorrect. You are erroneously applying the criteria for a standalone article to a single piece of information for inclusion within an article, which is in direct opposition to notability standards. You are also essentially saying that an author's own words are not a reliable source for his own opinion, and that a journalist's own body of work is not inherently notable for inclusion in his own article. All of those assertions are wrong, and it seems odd that as an administrator you express them.
WP:BLP says

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

This is even tangential, since the section you removed is neither criticism nor praise, but describes the subject's own self-expressed views. I don't think anyone has debated that. Nevertheless, the information meets that stipulation; Fisk is a journalist who regularly publishes in The Independent and is known for similar views making it relevant to his notability. Your own personal definition of "minor source[s]" notwithstanding, the information was not only written by Fisk himself in a reliable, secondary source, but was also the subject of analysis or discussion in several other reliable, secondary sources. The removed section did not take sides, and I don't think any one questioned its NPOV stance. WP:BLP goes on to say

"Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one."

This does not apply to the section in question since it is Fisk's own self-expressed opinion, not a minority viewpoint (which, as explained in WP:WEIGHT, would be something like including Welteislehre views in the Moon article).
Your dismissals of the references also fall flat. The first one contains a long excerpt of the article in question. The second article was in response to Dynablaster's request for a source identifying Fisk as a conspiracy theorist, which it does. The third mentions the Fisk article specifically. The fourth again refers directly to the Fisk article. The fifth devotes a paragraph to the Fisk article. The sixth is an in-depth analysis of the Fisk article by, notably, his own former magazine. The seventh once again mentions the article specifically.
The ones you dismiss as "minor source[s]" are not. Mark Steyn is a New York Times bestselling author and widely-read political pundit. The Steyn article was reprinted in The Washington Times [18] and The Orange County Register [19] (combined circulation ~.5 million). Al-Ahram is one of the most widely circulated newspapers in Egypt, with a daily circulation of 1 million with 5 million readers. Britannica says it is "widely considered Egypt's leading newspaper" [20].
All of that is really irrelevant though, because you are attempting to incorrectly apply the notability criteria for a stand-alone article to an individual article's content, which is an unreasonable metric and, again, is in violation of WP:NNC. That is the equivalent to saying that each of these statements here needs multiple full-length articles by The New York Times, or whatever newspaper you happen to not consider "a minor source".
And I hardly think that two against one makes a consensus. The information you removed has been included in this well-trafficked article since August 2007 [21], which shows consensus for inclusion. Therefore, since consensus for inclusion has existed and the information meets relevant policy/guidelines, the burden is actually on you to show there is consensus in favor of exclusion. Strikehold (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made it 3:1, including me. And you're the one who brought up notability, so don't now get all excited that Notability guidelines don't apply to content: the equivalent is WP:WEIGHT and the logic isn't that different in this situation. Fisk has written many articles on many topics over the years, you need to make a case to include views he's only expressed in one. Currently we're discussing that case. I believe between Dynablaster's comments and mine on the sources given that case is currently not proven. In general, the sources need to be both reliable and devoting substantial attention to Fisk's views on the subject, which is not currently the case I think. However if you could make your case more clearly it would help: list each source in bullet point form and describe its relevance in a phrase or sentence. Rd232 talk 04:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are the one who brought up notability; I never used that word before you made this comment: "I've removed the section again ... but the claim that a single newspaper article by a prolific journalist of long standing is notable needs demonstrating, either by secondary comment on or response to it or by some demonstrated effect." And that comment is pure bunk. There is absolutely no requirement that an individual's own self-professed views need secondary references. That is equivalent to saying any prominent American politician's political positions require multiple secondary sources discussing each position. Nonsensical. If so, there's plenty of excision to do here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc etc etc. No one in mainstream media gives a shit about most of their pet projects or think it warrants discussion, but it certainly warrants inclusion in their articles, because it is directly relevant to their notability as politicians. Fisk is a Middle East correspondent and "expert" and his views on 9/11 are inherently important to understanding him as such. Additionally, I think you are altogether wrong about WP:UNDUE. It refers only to "minority viewpoints", which means something like giving von Daniken or Velikovsky's crank theories an equal amount of mention as legitimate science. Please, if I am wrong on any of this, refer me to the policy or include a quote contradicting me.
Here is the removed section that is being debated right now:

Fisk condemned the September 11, 2001 attacks as a "hideous crime against humanity." He also denounced the Bush administration's response to the attacks, fearing "a score of nations" were being identified and positioned as "haters of democracy" or "kernels of evil". He argued in favour of a more honest debate of U.S. policy objectives in the Middle East, both past and present.[11]

In August 2007 Fisk expressed doubts about the mainstream historical record of the 2001 attacks. In an article for The Independent, he insisted that the U.S. government was incapable of successfully carrying out such attacks due to its organisational incompetence, but wrote: "I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11." He raised concerns over an alleged lack of aircraft debris, the melting point of steel, the collapse of World Trade Center 7, misidentified suicide-hijackers and other familiar questions that have circulated within the 9/11 Truth Movement. He added that he does not condone the "crazed 'research' of David Icke [...] I am talking about scientific issues".[12]

Where in there does it say anything about Fisk being a conspiracy theorist? It does not. What in there violates NPOV? Nothing. Why do you think that this text has remained in this well-trafficked and -edited article essentially unchanged for almost two years? What in there even has any degree whatsoever of inference or deduction? There is none. It is simply a paraphrasing of Fisk's own published work.
I think that there is a very solid case for Fisk being called a conspiracy theorist or crank. I also think that it is completely within Wikipedia policy to call him as much in this article (see my above reply to Dynablaster for references calling Fisk either a conspiracy theorist or truther). But, frankly, I really don't give a shit if it does, it's a minor point. Any rational individual who reads Fisk's self-professed opinions will draw their own conclusions about his credibility. After providing my argument for Fisk being a conspiracy theorist, I was willing to drop the matter altogether, stating: "Anyway, I'm done here. I don't have a problem with how the article is currently worded [in the removed text quoted above]." Then Pico came along and removed the 9/11 section altogether. I reverted, then Rd232 reverted me, and then we all wasted a bunch of time in this lame discussion. Strikehold (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fisk has written many articles over the years but this is his bio and it's most important to his bio that it include how he is perceived by the general public.. The two Guardian articles go a long way in giving one viewpoint that must be included in the article if there's any sort of claim to WP:NPOV. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry, I brought the word "notable" here, by which I was loosely referring to WP:WEIGHT. The latter policy is written for the inclusion of fringe views in science articles but widely used elsewhere, for example to exclude passing remarks made by a subject subsequently clarified, leading to a controversy of no lasting significance. Now Fisk's article is more than a passing remark, but since he's never come back to it, there is an issue of weight. Generally in WP:BLPs I apply the notional standard of "would it be in a (long) obituary"? If not, it's out. Now I submit that if Fisk substantially comes back to the issue one or more times, then the answer would be yes. At present, the answer is probably no. Also your argument that this material has been here for x years isn't very strong - it often happens that material is around a long time before being removed. OK, now I don't think we're going to resolve this (unless there are a lot more WP:RS sources), so I suggest a request for comment. Rd232 talk 13:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How much coverage this issue was given by Fisk is wholly irrelevant. Fisk doesn't get to decide the notable aspects of his bio. The pertinent coverage is the coverage given of him and this issue by other reliable sources. It's the reliable sources that decide notability and they have apparently decided that Fisk's opinion of the WTC bombing is something that is notable. The total removal of this issue in light of the substantial coverage in reliable sources is POV-violative.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that we agree that the inclusion of it should be based on secondary coverage, but I'm confused that you state this as if I disagreed. (We disagree on the facts - whether the coverage is substantial - not the principle.) Also I don't see what relevance "Fisk doesn't get to decide the notable aspects of his bio." has, unless you think I'm Robert Fisk. Rd232 talk 14:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Rd232:In the post above mine you said "Now Fisk's article is more than a passing remark, but since he's never come back to it, there is an issue of weight". It was in direct response to this assertion that I said it doesn't make a difference what Fisk thinks are the notable aspects of his bio. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again: please, show me where it says this is an inclusion criteria for material within a standalone article. Where does it say that paraphrasing an individual's own work needs third-party references? If that is your basis for trying to keep this material out, then it doesn't hold water, because it simply doesn't exist as policy (as far as I'm aware). Strikehold (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rd232: An obituary? There is a saying about speaking ill of the dead; obituaries are generally whitewashed, which is not a good characteristic to emulate if we intend to write a reliable, useful encyclopedia. What you should be using as a standard for comparison is a legitimate paper encyclopedia. Think about it for a moment: How many individuals have large bodies of work, in whatever field, but have, say, an unorthodox view that garners a proportionately large amount of attention. Fred Hoyle, for example, was an absolutely brilliant astrophysicist, but is really known for his more bizarre ideas. Do you honestly believe that if Fisk, a purported expert on the Middle East, had an article in a real encyclopedia it would for some strange reason exclude his self-professed views on 9/11?
I have a suggestion, and I'm not saying this to be snarky. If you think the section gives undue weight, then why don't you work to expand the article's other sections? Since you have argued that it is a small part of his large body of work, why don't you help better represent the rest of it? The removed content consists of seven sentences, or 177 words compared with 1,251 words in the rest of the replarticle (~12%). It should not be very difficult to expand the rest many times that. That would be better than trying to exclude correct and relevant information (no one has denied either of those points) and it would be better than wasting any more of all of our time resorting to an RFC. It would also make the article and encyclopedia better as a whole in the process.
However, if you insist on mediation, I ask that you act in good faith and self-revert to re-add the material for the following reasons: There was not, and is not now, a consensus to remove. At this moment, it is evenly split 2:2 (two including yourself have vocally supported removal). It is not, as I already demonstrated above, a BLP issue, and it is the man's own words paraphrased in a neutral manner with adequate citation. Also, contrary to what you assert, consensus does indeed come about naturally through the editing process: the material you removed was in the article for two years, with many different editors making 344 edits to the article without ever significantly changing the removed material. Having achieved that de facto consensus for inclusion, it should take a pretty strong consensus to remove information that is clearly correct, neutral, and not in violation of BLP. Since that consensus was never attained (or sought) before removal, the material should be re-added before discussion continues. Strikehold (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well you know what, I just went back to your version [22] with the intention of reverting to it, but changed my mind on looking at it again. Three issues (a) it's in the wrong place: it's not a part of his career in the way the other subsections of Career are (plus it's chronologically in the wrong place within Career too). If it's going to be included, it should be in something like Notable Views. (b) the first para of it is already in the Osama Bin Laden section, where it better fits the context. (c) if we avoid duplicating that first para and move the second to its own section, that feels like it will quickly become a WP:COATRACK on his various views and various people's criticism thereof. In view of these issues I'd rather go ahead with an RFC without restoring the content for now. Rd232 talk 15:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strikehold has presented ample reliable sources in which Fisk is called a conspiracy theorist. The removal of all mention of this obviously-notable issue amounts to a whitewashing of his bio and violates WP:NPOV. The fact that Fisk denies being a conspiracy theorist is laughable. You'll have a hard time finding any UFO-sighter to admit that he or she is a conspiracy theorist. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're aware that the official version is also a conspiracy theory.... Yet "conspiracy theorist" is a very damaging tag and per WP:BLP we should be particularly careful about not applying it based on subjective opinion or WP:SYNTH, but instead rely directly on WP:RS. Rd232 talk 04:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User brewcrewer: "Strikehold has presented ample reliable sources in which Fisk is called a conspiracy theorist."
No, he most certainly has not. Please review our discussion of those sources (above). Dynablaster (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume what you mean by "The official version is also a conspiracy theory" is that the 9/11 hijackers committed conspiracy in the act... And aside from it being a huge leap from that to "conspiracy theory", which has a very specific and very different connotation and denotation, that is essentially like calling gravity a theory. Strikehold (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fisk: Truther?

One method of confirming if Robert Fisk is a "truther", as claimed by a few (partisan) sources above, is to visit the website of the 9/11 Truth Movement to see how many articles they list by the aforementioned author. Conspiracy Theorists are not slow to embrace mainstream sources with credibility whom they perceive as being on their side. We know that Fisk wrote a single piece in 2007, Even I question the "truth" about 9/11, expressing doubt and asking a number of questions. Subtracting that lone article, a search for Robert Fisk turns up only two pages on 911truth.org [23] (the second a printable version of the first) neither of which support the above contention. Dynablaster (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fisk's beating

I added this to the article a while back:

"Fisk has taken exception to and often made reference to comments made by fellow journalist Mark Steyn on his account of the incident [a savage beating Fisk received], when Steyn wrote : "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter."[24]

but it was removed by Jayjg [25] who cited BLP/N. Can you tell us what you mean? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's BLP/N? But the sentence shouldn't be there - it's irrelevant. PiCo (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies of living people. I don't think it's irrelevant; Fisk has written about the comment in articles and a book and made reference to it in lectures. It's obvious he feels strongly about it. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? Where has Fisk written about the comment? Rd232 talk 20:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Journalists are now targets - but who is to blame for this?" The Independent, 23 Feb 2002, p.2. and "Why does John Malkovich want to kill me?" The Independent, 14 May 2002, p.17. He also refers to it in various speeches. Here's a transcript of one: https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/01/50618.html. --Dannyno (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Problems

This article has some serious problems. In an attempt to be uncontroversial it seems to have omitted any of the facts that would actually have led someone to Wikipedia to read about this man in the first place. The man is a poster child for critics of the left and yet if you read this article you would have the opinion the man is entirely uncontroversial.

How can there be no section on his 9/11 and lockerbie conspiracy theory articles? or on the annual Fiskie award? And how can you have a paragraph on "Fisking' without actually presenting an example of the kinds of errors he's been criticised for? It leaves the reader with the impression that there's something unsavoury in the criticism which is extremely non-POV.

All in all the article is a terrible white-wash of a controversial journalist with every criticism of his work ignored entirely. That is in itself a subtle but especially pernicious form of non-POV since it leaves the reader with no hint that he's missing half the story.

82.16.16.210 (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Fiskie award? Dynablaster (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you assuming that only men will read this article? Nick-D (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the coverage of controversy around Fisk's coverage of the Iraq war is appropriately represented. Oddly enough there's nothing at all on his coverage of the Middle East (Israel/Arabs, Lebanon, etc) - this is quite a lapse. PiCo (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's exactly a poster-child of the left - I've never heard him express a left-wing view at any point in the hundreds of articles and one large book of his I've read. He's a poster child of 'let's-get-shot-at' journalism, let's not bring politics into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.24.53 (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category removed

The category Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories has been removed. Andjam (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. See earlier discussion on this topic. Dynablaster (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video documentary, conspiracy theories, and reliable sources

The burden is on Fisk to prove that his documentary was pulled because of pro-Israeli letter-writing, not on me or anyone else that there was another reason. Further, we only have an unreliable source (another wiki) as a reference that he even believes this, so the statement might be potentially libelous. This article does not include any reference to criticism of Fisk, making him one of the few controversial reporters for which no controversy is reported. --Leifern (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that the Discovery channel in fact aired all three films[26]. So the whole paragraph might be an invention --Leifern (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The para doesn't say the series was never shown, it says it was pulled, and that the reason for that was pressure from the Israel lobby. The website you have there confirms the lobbying - it's hard to imagine a more open (and possibly unconscious) display of bias. So we'll keep the para in our article, ok? PiCo (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we will not keep an unreferenced paragraph in the article. Read WP:BLP, particularly the section on "Reliable sources". Docuwiki is obviously not a reliable source, as it is a 'wiki', so it doesn't matter what it says. The paragraph therefore is unreferenced, and the removal was correct. Until you or someone else finds a real source for it, it should be removed. Strikehold (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RS ref added, a column by Fisk that appears in a book on censorship in the media (the column itself was ironically censored as well from Harpers as well). nableezy - 04:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fisking

Consider the following:

The blogosphere term fiskingWord detective, 2003 refers not to what Fisk does but to what is done to him, and others; the fisker begins by copying text from the fiskee, and then constructs a point-by-point criticism of the text.

Can somebody kindly produce a reliable source for the terms "fisker" and "fiskee"? I note that Andrew Sullivan's original "fisking" was not a point-by-point rebuttal but instead a familiar, short three paragraph attack. The formatting of Sullivan's criticism fails to meet the definition outlined above. Indeed, I can't find a single "fisking" of Robert Fisk anyplace (lots of random criticism, yes, but nothing that can accurately be described as a "fisking"). Perhaps this needs rewording. Wikispan (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search shows that this term is used quite often. As for what you might call a reliable source, well if you mean the OED or something like that, they are far too slow to catch up to be relevant. The term exists, there is nothing abusive or untrue in the paragraph, it is one of the more notable things about the subject. It would be biased and misleading to omit this point from the article. If the rules you want to follow say otherwise, it is the rules that are wrong. Luwilt (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Praised by Al Qaeda

Robert Fisk work has been praised by Al qaeda along with George galloway and why isnt this in the article? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ITZx1WFqT4 http://www.nowpublic.com/robert-fisk-even-i-question-truth-about-9-11 http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000776.html♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Fisk&oldid=415218718"