Talk:Robert Fisk: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:26, 26 April 2009 editStrikehold (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers21,477 edits →9/11 / Non-sequiturs?: r← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:31, 20 November 2024 edit undoKolano123 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users581 edits Notification: listing of Fisking at WP:Redirects for discussion.Tag: Twinkle
(239 intermediate revisions by 78 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{talkheader\|noarchive=yes\|search=no}}
	{{WPBiography
			{{ITN talk\|5 November\|2020\|oldid=987138052}}
	\|living=yes
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|living=n\|listas=Fisk, Robert\|1=
	\|class=B
			{{WikiProject Biography\|military-work-group=y\|military-priority=Low}}
	\|priority=mid
			{{WikiProject Ireland\|importance=mid}}
	\|auto=yes
			{{WikiProject Journalism\|importance=mid}}
	\|listas=Fisk, Robert
			{{WikiProject Palestine\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Military history\|class=C\|b1=yes\|b2=no\|b3=yes\|b4=yes\|b5=yes\|Biography=y\|Historiography=y\|British=y}}
	}}		}}
			{{archive basics\|counter=3}}
	{{WikiProject Palestine\|class=start\|importance=mid}}
			{{Archives}}
	{{WikiProject Journalism}}

			==Fisking==
	{{Archive box\|]}}
			Consider the following:

			{{quotation\|The ] term ]<sup></sup> 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.}}
	== Criticism: Journalist Integrity "no longer relevent" and CAMERA assertion ==
			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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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."
	I have dug up the original article . 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. ] 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Look, , 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 ] 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. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:22, 29 March 2007 (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)
	::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. ] 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::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. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::: 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''. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Good points. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:24, 30 March 2007 (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)
	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." ] 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

			==Deletion of Fisking section==
	::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. ] 11:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
			An IP user deleted the ] 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 09:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
	== Nelofer Pazira ==

			: 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. ] (]) 18:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
	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/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::There is simply no indication of significant notability. See below. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:40, 28 April 2016 (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? ] (]) 21:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
	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.. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

			::Should be restored. Still in use in 2023, by noteworthy media such as the ].<ref>{{cite news\|access-date=15 April 2023\|author1=Louis Ashworth\|date=7 February 2023\|language=en\|quote=a Truss-essay, or Trussay, you could say — billed in the UK media as the launch of a political comeback\|title=Fisking the Trussay\|url=https://www.ft.com/content/290bdbaf-549e-4cca-8628-05bd5768b00f\|work=]}}<!-- auto-translated by Module:CS1 translator --></ref> ] (]) 02:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
	Do not make hollow ]. However, the information would require a ] none of which are forthcoming.--]<sup>g</sup> 09:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

			It belongs in a footnote about internet blogger culture and Fisk, it's not at all central enough to go in the lede.
	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 Misplaced Pages, but I can assure everyone that this fact of his personal life is 100% accurate. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			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? ] (]) 20:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
	== WikiProject class rating==
			:(a) Internet bloggers may have taken it up but the term predated that usage and continues to be used in the real world too.
	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. ] 03:49, 28 August 2007 (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}}
	== Lockerbie bombing ==
			== "]" listed at ] ==
	] 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.] 11:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
			]
	:Care to explain why? -- ] <sup>] \| ]</sup> 11:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
			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)
	::It seems to me that the whole of the current ] debacle could benefit from scrutiny by Robert Fisk. He will doubtless uncover much ] on the part of the British and US governments.] 12:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::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? Misplaced Pages 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. -- ] <sup>] \| ]</sup> 12:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
	I am content that – contrary to your assertion – Fisk does indeed have an interest in Lockerbie, and the paragraph should stand.] 13:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
	: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. -- ] <sup>] \| ]</sup> 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
	::I've already dealt with the relevance issue.] 20:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::Actually, you haven't. You said "It seems to me that the whole of the current ] debacle could benefit from scrutiny by Robert Fisk." That does not exactly explain why it's relevant to his bio. -- ] <sup>] \| ]</sup> 23:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
	::::Seriously. -- ] <sup>] \| ]</sup> 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
	I removed the section again. You've had 3-4 days to explain the relevance of that section. -- ] <sup>] \| ]</sup> 16:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
	:Premature removal: don't do it again!] 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
	::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 ]. 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 ] debacle could benefit from scrutiny by Robert Fisk ... He will doubtless uncover much hypocrisy") is ] and ] about something which may or may not happen. --] 08:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

	==Democracy Now! links==

	I've removed this list of links from the article twice as I think that it violates ] and might be linkspam but ] 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. --] 05:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

	==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. --] (]) 10:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

	== 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/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons). <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== 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. ] (]) 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


	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?] (]) 11:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:What sources do you have for these people having those political opinions? --] (]) 11:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	(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 Misplaced Pages'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. ] <sup> ]</sup> 11:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	: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. ] <sup> ]</sup> 11:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

	::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. ] (]) 15:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::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. --] (]) 09:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::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.] (]) 18:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::::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. ] (]) 23:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

	(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. ] (]) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

	: No other biography has critism directly inserted in the body of the career section. Why should this be an exception? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	: 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?] (]) 20:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

	::The IP is incorrect. While many bios still have separate criticism sections, Misplaced Pages has been attempting to move away from this. See for a closely-watched example ]. ] (]) 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

	:::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. ] (]) 02:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

	::::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 ]. 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. ] (]) 16:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

	(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. ] (]) 10:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

	::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 ] is used in this article under a claim of ], but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the ] when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an ] linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

	:* That there is a ] on the image's description page for the use in this article.
	:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
	<!-- Additional 10c list header goes here -->

	This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. --09:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

	== bin Laden characterises Fisk as "neutral" ==
	Regarding 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. --] (]) 11:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

	== 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 , 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". "

	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 . "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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:Edit boldly :)] (]) 12:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

	: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. ] (]) 13:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

	::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.)? ] (]) 21:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

	:::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. ] (]) 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

	::::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"''. 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. ] (]) 22:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

	:::::User ]: ''"A conspiracy theorist espouses a conspiracy theory"''

	:::::I agree. From ]:- '''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 ]: ''"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 "]" 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)] (])

	::::::Since you want to be semantic instead of substantive, "espouse" was my own word choice, here is what wiktionary calls a "]": ''"One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory"''. Or, you can go by what the wikipedia article on "]" 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 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? ), (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 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. ] (]) 14:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

	:::::::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. ] (]) 15:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

	::::::::In my last response I said I was done with ]. I've said my piece, and you've said yours. Of course, feel free to continue yourself, though... ] (]) 17:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

	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. ] (]) 09:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

	: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 ], 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. ] (]) 17:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

	::User ]: ''"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. ] (]) 23:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

	:::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 paragraphs relate. It 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 a third party for it to merit inclusion in the author's own article. But since you asked, '']'' and two different '']'' writers clearly think he is a conspiracy theorist. The last one essentially calls him a truther. The '']'' wrote a piece on Fisk's article (the article is down, but here's a blog with an excerpt) . Fisk's article was discussed by '']'' . I personally don't think '']'' is a reliable source, but Fisk wrote for it himself, so it's somewhat ironic one of their writers completely dismembered Fisk's 9/11 article . ] mentions Fisk's article . ] (]) 00:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

	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. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

	: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. ] (]) 00:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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.

Misplaced Pages

This

level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / Historiography / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Military historiography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

Categories: