| Revision as of 18:07, 23 April 2024 editBeeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,514 edits OneClickArchived "Oz Katerji" to Talk:Robert Fisk/Archive 3← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:31, 20 November 2024 edit undoKolano123 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users570 edits Notification: listing of Fisking at WP:Redirects for discussion.Tag: Twinkle | ||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkheader|noarchive=yes}} | {{talkheader|noarchive=yes|search=no}} | ||
| {{ITN talk|5 November|2020|oldid=987138052}} | {{ITN talk|5 November|2020|oldid=987138052}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|living=n|listas=Fisk, Robert|1= | {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|living=n|listas=Fisk, Robert|1= | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| You cant find "authoritative sources" on this because it's all from the world of armchair warrior war bloggers. It probably belongs in a footnote about internet culture, it doesn't belong in the lede. ] (]) 19:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC) | You cant find "authoritative sources" on this because it's all from the world of armchair warrior war bloggers. It probably belongs in a footnote about internet culture, it doesn't belong in the lede. ] (]) 19:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :I think it may have made more sense to start a new thread rather than trying to restart this one, which has been inactive for 13 years. ] ] 18:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Deletion of Fisking section== | ==Deletion of Fisking section== | ||
| Line 41: | Line 43: | ||
| :(b) How is a point-by-point rebuttal "an insult made up by one faction"? If someone takes apart some BS, such as pseudo-science or conspiracy theory, it is only contentious if you are the promoter of said BS. --] (]) 20:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC) | :(b) How is a point-by-point rebuttal "an insult made up by one faction"? If someone takes apart some BS, such as pseudo-science or conspiracy theory, it is only contentious if you are the promoter of said BS. --] (]) 20:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC) | ||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| == Syria/Arabic/Katerji == | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The following passages from an earlier version of this article have been deleted: | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 20#Fisking}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 15:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| #From September 2012, Fisk's reporting on the ] met with accusations that he was siding with the ].<ref name="Spencer">{{Cite news|last1=Spencer|first1=Richard|last2=Philp|first2=Catherine|url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/critics-leap-on-reporter-robert-fisk-s-failure-to-find-signs-of-gas-attack-fx7f3fs2r|title=Critics leap on reporter Robert Fisk's failure to find signs of gas attack|work=The Times|date=18 April 2018|access-date=23 June 2019|issn=0140-0460}} {{subscription required}}</ref><ref name="Al Haj Saleh">{{cite news|last1=Al Haj Saleh|first1=Yassin|last2=Allaf|first2=Rime|url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/syria-dispatches-robert-fisks-independence/|title=Syria dispatches: Robert Fisk's independence|work=openDemocracy|date=14 September 2012|access-date=2 January 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Nashed|first=Mat|url=https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2017/1/9/pity-the-fisk|title=Pity the Fisk|work=The New Arab/alaraby|date=9 January 2017|access-date=23 June 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Ahmad|first=Muhammad Idrees|url=https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2016/11/3/dead-doctors-and-a-poisoned-pen-in-aleppo|title=Dead doctors and a poisoned pen in Aleppo|work=The New Arab/alaraby|date=3 November 2016|access-date=1 January 2020}}</ref> ], among others, accused Fisk of ] with the ] in Aleppo and Damascus and of "trumpet" Syrian and Russian government propaganda.<ref name="Al Haj Saleh" /><ref name=":0">{{Cite news|last=Hamad|first=Sam|url=https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/robert-fisk-wont-tell-truth-syria-because-like-bashar-al-assad-he-fears-it-1575581|title=Robert Fisk won't tell the truth on Syria because, like Bashar al-Assad, he fears it|date=11 August 2016|work=International Business Times|location=UK|access-date=23 June 2019}}</ref> According to ], Fisk said the Syrian government "did not use chemical weapons in various attacks on civilians".<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|last=Mrie|first=Loubna|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/problem-leftist-myths-syria-180304145557984.html|title=The problem with leftist myths about Syria|website=aljazeera|date=4 March 2018|access-date=23 June 2019}}</ref> | |||
| #Fisk's command of Arabic has been questioned.<ref>{{Cite web|last=AbuKhalil|first=As'ad|date=2020-12-01|title=Robert Fisk & the Decline of Western Reporting on the Middle East|url=https://consortiumnews.com/2020/12/01/the-angry-arab-robert-fisk-the-decline-of-western-reporting-on-the-middle-east/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-11-04|website=Consortiumnews|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Beeston|first=Richard|title=Great reporter, lousy prophet|url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/great-reporter-lousy-prophet|url-status=live|access-date=2021-11-04|website=The Spectator|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Miles|first=Oliver|date=2005-11-19|title=Review: The Great War for Civilisation by Robert Fisk|url=http://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/nov/19/highereducation.news|url-status=live|access-date=2021-11-04|website=the Guardian|language=en}}</ref> ] of ] wrote that "Fisk did not speak fluent Arabic, not even after living in the Middle East for more than 40 years."<ref name=":4" /> Asser Khattab of '']'' said that "circumstances have repeatedly confirmed to me that his Arabic was almost non-existent." According to Khattab, Fisk had been using the services for years of a Syrian Arabic interpreter who did "not speak English well".<ref name=":3">{{cite news|last1=Khattab|first1=Asser|date=30 October 2021|title=Robert Fisk, the Man Who Died Twice|work=]|url=https://raseef22.net/article/1085047-robert-fisk-the-man-who-died-twice|access-date=3 November 2021|ref=raseef22}}</ref> Many critics referred to the instances when Fisk had confused the words ''umm'' with '']'', rendering ]'s slogan ''أمة عربية واحدة'' into "'Um al-Arabia wahida', the Mother of One Arab People, as the Baathists would have it",<ref>{{cite news |last1=Fisk |first1=Robert |title=Robert Fisk: Syria is used to the slings and arrows of friends and enemies |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-syria-used-slings-and-arrows-friends-and-enemies-6297648.html |access-date=4 November 2021 |work=The Independent |date=1 February 2012}}</ref> rather than simply ''Ummah Arabiyya Wahida'' ("One Arab Nation").<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref>{{cite web |last1=Whitaker |first1=Brian |title=Robert Fisk's comedy of errors |url=https://al-bab.com/blog/2013/10/robert-fisks-comedy-errors |website=Al-bab.com |access-date=4 November 2021}}</ref> | |||
| #Conversely, British-Lebanese journalist ] took a divergent stance on Fisk in a piece for '']'', in which he called him a "fabricator and a fraudster", doubted his ostensibly fluent command of Arabic, and concluded that the "glowing obituaries" were a "fitting tribute. Like him, they preferred to tell a story that was not true, because stories are often far more comforting than the reality".<ref name=":4">{{cite web|last1=Katerji|first1=Oz|title=Fabricator and fraudster|url=https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2020/fabricator-fraudster/|url-status=live|access-date=3 November 2021|work=The Critic|date=25 November 2020|ref=katerji}}</ref> | |||
| I see Katerji is being discussed up the talk page, but I don't see a discussion of the other two edits. The Syria material seems to me self-evidently important and of due weight. Proficiency in Arabic is extremely important and this seems to be well sourced. What's the problem? (There was also a dubious tag next to his Arabic speaking, for the same reason; this has also been removed.) ] (]) 15:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC) (By the way, there are additional sources along the same lines: | |||
| * {{cite web | title=Robert Fisk: A Conscience Adrift | author=Ronnie Chatah |website=New Lines Magazine | date=2020-11-15 | url=https://newlinesmag.com/argument/robert-fisk-a-conscience-adrift/ | ref={{sfnref | New Lines Magazine | 2020}} | access-date=2022-06-06}} | |||
| * {{cite web | title=The Legacy of Robert Fisk - Newlines | website=YouTube | date=2022-06-02 | url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQnDqBb5pEc | ref={{sfnref | YouTube | 2022}} | access-date=2022-06-06}} | |||
| * {{cite web | last=Snell | first=James | title=Robert Fisk: Middle East correspondent or novelistic storyteller? | website=The Critic Magazine | date=2020-11-11 | url=https://thecritic.co.uk/robert-fisk-middle-east-correspondent-or-novelistic-storyteller/ | access-date=2022-06-06|quote=The first series of death notices erroneously maintained that Fisk was fluent in Arabic, despite evidence the man himself continually produced to the contrary. }} | |||
| ] (]) 15:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::All of these are commentary by unqualified non-experts, though Muhammad Idrees Ahmad comes closest to being a reliable source. I do not see the need to include individual opinions on Fisk without secondary sourcing showing those opinions have been given any weight among sources covering Fisk. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::{{tq|All of these are commentary by unqualified non-experts}} - so ] (Middle East editor of Telegraph then Times), Mat Nashed (regular contributor to New Arab and al-Jazeera), ] (one of the Arab world's leading intellectuals), Rime Allaf (a prominent Syrian journalist), Sam Hamad (another leading MENA analyst), ] (a well known Syrian writer), ] (Lebanese public intellectual), Richard Beeston (Times foreign editor), ] (UK ambassador to Libya and an Arabic Studies scholar), ] (Guardian MENA editor), Ronnie Chatah (Lebanese historian), and James Snell (New Arab columnist) are ''all'' unqualified non-experts? Not sure that's right. ] (]) 17:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC) I notice I missed Asser Khattab off my list, so adding his credentials for completeness. ] (]) 11:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Spencer be fine, if Nashed is writing a news article thats reliable sure, ] appears to have no academic qualifications or publishing record, neither does Rime Allaf, ] is certainly reliable though I dont see why youd want to cite . Id be fine including that attributed view though. Oz Katerij is reliable for his news reports when vetted by some independent agency, but he has no academic qualifications to be used for his work in commentary pieces. I dont see how Oliver Miles is an Arabic Studies scholar, his biography here makes no mention of such scholarship other than to say he studied it as an undergrad, and a politician isnt a reliable source for anything other than their views, Whitaker is fine. Your link on Chatah gives his qualification as podcast host and walking tour guide. Dont see how that makes him a qualified source, Snell is a columnist, and that doesnt grant him reliability. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::Thank you Nableezy for that thorough response. I don't think our criteria for including noteworthy opinion is that someone is an academic. You're right that Miles isn't an academic; I misread his WP article (he has studied Arabic though). Agree Consortium is not a good source. I'm not sure why you think Saleh has no publishing record. His co-author Allaf has less of a publishing record but not negligible. Only some of these are sources we should use for facts, but I suspect lots of them are noteworthy for attributed opinion. ] (]) 11:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Spencer, a journalist, is not an expert; afaik he speaks very little Arabic. Not sure appending the opinion “{{tq|leading}}” to otherwise prosaic desriptors and or careers makes any difference to their real or imagined prominence or expertise. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 17:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The Middle East editor of the Times and Telegraph is not an expert on reporting on the Middle East? That's a strange view. Can't comment on his Arabic but our article says he's lived in Egypt and Lebanon for over a decade and I'm anyway if you read my comment I don't suggest he's used as a source for the Arabic item above. ] (]) 11:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No it isn't. Senior or widely-recognised academics are subject experts, and occasionally officials of relevant institutions are experts. Journalists are not. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 11:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Is it WP policy that journalists can't be regarded as experts? I've not seen that before. ] (]) 15:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well, that's not quite what I meant. Being a journalist does not necessarily ''exclude'' someone from being a subject expert. But it's not a sufficient condition to regard someone as a subject expert. And, this has nowt to do with policy, but IMHO only very few journalists are considered subject experts; many of those very few who are only get the recognition when they get academic credentials to match (e.g. ]). <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 17:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I think for commentary or opinion pieces to be used they basically need to be acceptable as a self-published source. And being a journalist doesnt meet that bar, it is being published academically that allows for a ] to be used. I was wrong on Saleh, I dont think the Hurst works give him any reliability in our understanding of it but some of the scholar results arguably do. I do think being an editor would be enough to be quoted though. Whitaker works I think because he has focused on translation issues and he has some experience with the language. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 03:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *Came here from the request at NPOV/N, happy to share my (non-expert) impressions. 1) seems DUE. Too much weight is given to Sam Hamad (a politician) but otherwise the sources look good. 2) also seems worthy of inclusion, although the proposed text gives too much weight to Oz Katerji (who?); I have a very low opinion of '']'', it does not have the established reputation of its competitors '']'' and '']'', and when I've come across it before I've found the accuracy of some of its journalism doubtful and its taste calculated to be provocative, something . Today its front page seems to be leading with transphobia? The first Khattab sentence seems repetitive and could be cut; the second Khattab sentence (modified to include the mention of Raseef22), and the sentence on his misreading of the Syrian Ba'athist slogan, seem informative. 3) isn't appropriate – looks like an attack piece, and neither the author nor the publication have any claim to expertise or authority. While I agree with nableezy that caution is needed generally with journalists, I think his criteria is slightly too strict – I'd be prepared to cite commentary/analysis published in an RS media outlet from a journalist who has worked a long time in a region and established a reputation, provided any controversial claims are attributed. An example that springs to mind would be ]'s reporting for the BBC in Thailand, or '']'s'' international reporting (generally the work of an anonymous country-based correspondent, which is then subject to editorial scrutiny). I can also think of journalists who've gone on to publish books on their areas of expertise, and if their work was well-regarded/well-reviewed this would make them an accepted expert whose SELPPUB opinion may be notable, in my opinion. Obviously academics remain the ideal authority, although they too should be scrutinised. ] • ] 17:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :Mostly agree with Jr8825 above, though if you combine 2) and 3) into a single sentence it should be fine.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :Folks, we're not in the business of deciding what a "qualified" vs "non qualified" expert because that way lies ] and POV. What matters is whether sources are reliable or not.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with that last sentence, which seems uncontroversial. The sources are opinion pieces, and are not reliable sources. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 14:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::We are in the business of deciding if somebody is an expert on the topic though. And Katerji is not and his opinion has no weight, and that appears to be the consensus here and at NPOV/N. Why did you return it? I said above Im ok with some of these sources, but including that one is absurd. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::Not really. We are in business of deciding if a source is reliable but that's a different thing altogether.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For an opinion piece the two are equivalent. But again, there seems to be a clear consensus against using the Katerji piece, or anything from him at all. Why are you restoring it? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::Just to substantiate the above: Raseef22 articles adds a disclaimer - "The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Raseef22"; al-bab clearly states in both the URL and on the post itself - "Blog" and refers on the left to previous blog posts. The Guardian and Spectator book reviews are reviews - not merely opinion pieces even if they inherently consist of opinion. As they are reviews rather than simply opinion pieces, and published by mainstream news orgs, I think they could be used for their author's opinions, but they do not support the text as previously written. Guardian makes a reference to literally one Arabic word, and Spectator says Fisk not a "great Arabic linguist". <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 15:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::al-Bab is a blog but by an obvious subject expert (someone who was Middle East editor of one of the world's major newspapers for many years). | |||
| :::Are there any views on Chattah, Ahmad/Rowell and Snell above, who I think also support some version of the removed text? | |||
| :::By the way, my reading of the discussion so far is that, although some editors support inclusion of Katerji there is definitely not consensus in favour of it, but that there is strong consensus for including some version of the other two bits of removed text. There is also strong consensus that Consortium is not a good source to use. ] (]) 17:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{yo|Bobfrombrockley}} You're entirely right about al-bab, I missed it was authored by Whitaker. Agreed that he is one of those who could well be considered a subject expert, and thus his views included with attribution. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 17:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Im going to try to break the logjam here in which one user restores obviously unsuitable material as part of a large revert that includes material that is fine while another user removes obviously suitable material as part of a large revert that removes material that is obviously not fine. Im going to do this based on my response to Bob up above on who I think is usable here and who is not. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :The Beeston piece just barely says anything about Arabic, it belongs in a section on ''The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East''. Going to refrain from citing it in the "Arabic proficiency" section though. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Im a little confused on where this should go though. Logically this wouldnt be in his views section, but as a part of a wider reception. The As'ad AbuKhalil piece could be in there too (along with obviously a bit from the wide praise Fisk received). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :I think the right place would be in reception if there still parts to add. The relevance is still discussed here, but some critical reception from Asser Khattab from the same article is already in the article (source 50). Oliver Miles is already included with his main points. Same for Richard Spencer (generally Syria criticism is covered, mind due weight). Nableezy now also added the criticism from Beeston. Kat/Critic isn't relevant, especially considering the article covers already so many voices and considering how prominent Fisk is and how long he worked, there would be endless reception otherwise. The deleted passages would therefore be in part redundant if they're added and it wouldn't be reasonable to emphasize the opinions by quoting every point or interpret the sources further (I've read the article of Miles and he points out regarding Arabic a typo of Fisk, you can't use it as a reference for Miles questioning Fisk's command of Arabic; that's clearly misrepresenting the source). AbuKhalil in Consortiumnews and Whitaker in al-Bab are still missing. al-Bab's a blog, though Brian Whitaker was an editor for the region in the Guardian for some years. I would advise against it, but don't mind much if it's added. The post of Whitaker is however with its mocking style a rather typical private blog post (would probably be written a bit different in a paper) and the biggest quotes in it are Miles (already in this article) and AbuKhalil (still discussed here). --] (]) 08:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| {{talk-reflist}} | |||
Latest revision as of 15:31, 20 November 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert Fisk article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A news item involving Robert Fisk was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 November 2020. |  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
.svg)
 Archives | |||
|
|||
Fisking
Consider the following:
The blogosphere term fisking 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)
- 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)
Nevertheless: the one line remark about "Fisking" is wrong-- this was a dig against Fisk that came out of the Iraq war era of "war bloggers", who fancied themselves capable of demolishing opponents with responses based on detailed quotations. It was publicized (if not invented) by Eric S. Raymond, who insisted on injecting his opinions into his "Jargon File" and pretending they were representative of the entire community of programmers. "It's time for me to give him a thorough fisking" meant "I am going to take him down just like Sullivan did Fisk."
You cant find "authoritative sources" on this because it's all from the world of armchair warrior war bloggers. It probably belongs in a footnote about internet culture, it doesn't belong in the lede. 2600:1700:5B20:15A0:2711:A0DB:D6A1:5807 (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think it may have made more sense to start a new thread rather than trying to restart this one, which has been inactive for 13 years. Just Step Sideways 18:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Deletion of Fisking section
An IP user deleted the Fisking section of the article. While I think some mention of the term should be included I'm not sure whether the whole section should be reinstated and was wondering what everyone else thinks. Should the section be reinstated or not? Mrmatiko (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- While I was not the editor who deleted the section, I agree with its removal. There are many things about this man's career that merit attention and expansion. I would say this rates fairly low. Certainly does not deserve an entire section. Wikispan (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Considering how notable the term “fisking” has become excluding it in its entirety doesn’t seem like the right move. The length of the material is fairly short and concise. While it may or may not warrant an entire section, the material’s notoriety shouldnt be in question. ZHurlihee (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is simply no indication of significant notability. See below. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I got here through a link to 'Fisking' that now does not exist anywhere on Misplaced Pages thanks to the merge. It's absurd to merge and then delete. 172.251.74.216 (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is simply no indication of significant notability. See below. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I also got here via "Fisking". Why delete Misplaced Pages's only explanation of this notable internet term, which has its origin in this notable person? "There is simply no indication of significant notability" -- there are 864k results for "fisking" on Google! (More than "borking", which has a significant section in Robert Bork's article, as it should!) Congrats Misplaced Pages scolds, your quest to eliminate eponyms is... succeeding inconsistently? Brw12 (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Should be restored. Still in use in 2023, by noteworthy media such as the Financial Times. XavierItzm (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
It belongs in a footnote about internet blogger culture and Fisk, it's not at all central enough to go in the lede.
The issue, the reason discussions of "Fisking" have always been contentious is it's an insult made up by one faction, so the question is, is it in any way "neutral" to help them promote this insult, to make it seem as though there's something authoritative about it? 2600:1700:5B20:15A0:2711:A0DB:D6A1:5807 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- (a) Internet bloggers may have taken it up but the term predated that usage and continues to be used in the real world too.
- (b) How is a point-by-point rebuttal "an insult made up by one faction"? If someone takes apart some BS, such as pseudo-science or conspiracy theory, it is only contentious if you are the promoter of said BS. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
References
- Louis Ashworth (7 February 2023). "Fisking the Trussay". Financial Times. Retrieved 15 April 2023.
a Truss-essay, or Trussay, you could say — billed in the UK media as the launch of a political comeback
"Fisking" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Fisking has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 20 § Fisking until a consensus is reached. Kolano123 (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in People
- C-Class vital articles in People
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (military) articles
- Low-importance biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Ireland articles
- Mid-importance Ireland articles
- C-Class Ireland articles of Mid-importance
- All WikiProject Ireland pages
- C-Class Journalism articles
- Mid-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- C-Class Palestine-related articles
- Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class military historiography articles
- Military historiography task force articles
- C-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles