Talk:Robert Fisk/Archive 1

message: Why are users turning this into a fan page? 
Every time I try to put up a parody of Robert Fisk, it's promptly deleted by the president of the fanclub.
Good writer - eloquent,literate - who often uses illustrations from history etc that he knows little about. Ends up with messy but eloquent position pieces that are a little scrambled. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 18 October 2006  (UTC)
::Maybe people think that that kind of joke has another better place to be put.  Maybe "the president of the fanclub" thinks you better post it in your personal blog, apparently dedicated to soap gossip, and leave more serious stuff to be dealt here.201.19.222.35 00:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I object to the reference to the term "Fisking" in this article.
It is obviously derived from the word fisting which is a "sexual behaviour that involves inserting a hand or fist into a vagina or anus. It often leads to orgasm." 
[Methinks Viajero doth protest too much  -ed.]
Robert Fisk is a brave and highly respected journalist, dedicated to reporting the complex reality of conflicts. He dares to speak the truth even when this offends the powerful of the day. The term "fisking" seems to have been coined by extremist hate groups, expressing their disgust towards people who stand upright and speak the truth. During the seven years I have spent in England, and despite reading a lot of news and opinion articles, I have never even once come across this word ; which means that it's use is restricted to these hate groups. The only purpose of it's inclusion here is therefore defamatory. It is also a very subtle violation of the Wikipedia rules that profanity and bias should be avoided.
If I misunderstand the word "fisking", please do explain it to me. If no-body can explain why it would be important to leave it in this article, I will delete it.
- 12. September 2003 pir
:I did a Google search and came up an alternative definition: 
::"A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story." 
:and it is indeed derived from Fisk:
::The leftist British writer Robert Fisk has been ripped apart so many times by bloggers and others that the act of comprehensive rippage has become known as "Fisking." 
:-- Viajero 09:49, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Fisking is quite clear on the origin - it is others who repeatedly criticised his work line by line who coined the term. AFAIK Robert Fisk has never "fisked" anyone. Rd232 talk 17:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Left Wing bloggers use the term now. So it's only his fanclub on wikipedia who are trying to erase that very popular word simply because it points out how many times Mr. Fisk has been Fisked. Further, the bit about it sounding like Fisting or at all emerging from that term is priceless. I think some people are really showing how desperate they are to keep that term out.
This is probably the most biased article I have read on Wikipedia and thats something. Why is a right wing blog a source? I have never seen "fisking" used anywhere by anyone other than right wing bloggers and you depict it like it was in the dictionary. Its clear the authors are out to get Fisk but dont really explain why.
I fail to see why the source is important in this instance. This isn't a blog being quoted because they have put forward some kind of evidence for why Fisk has been "fisked" - it's simply being stated that "fisked" is a widespread term used and/or referenced in the political "blogsphere". Surely you're not disputing that "fisked" is widespread enough to warrant inclusion? Edders 11:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fisking 

message: Hello,
I do object to the edits from Guy Montag to the article, which are:
 although, as famously demonstrated by Walter Duranty and a long list of others, journalism awards are not always proof of ethical standards or truth in reporting..   This is in relation to the awards that Fisk has
produced. 
This is a property of *journalism* and not a property of Fisk's awards.  So either the same text is added
to every reference of journalism, or added to the journalism page, but picking on Fisk's integrity as a journalist
because you happen to disagree with him.
In any case, the use of the expression "famously demostrated by X and a long list of others" is a weasel term,
and it is not recommended to be used: Avoid_weasel_terms
:I agree that we should stick with the facts - which appear to be that "Fisk has received several journalism awards, including the British International Journalist of the Year award seven times". Readers are perfectly able to make up their own minds about how meaningful, or not, that these awards are, jguk 22:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's also not logical to say "these guys won awards and they were bad, so this guy must be bad too" - which is what the addition gives the impression of trying to say -- sannse (talk) 22:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that non-blog criticism is more relevant.  Fisk is merely a favorite sounding board for extreme rightwing bloggers because his interpretation of events, which he witnesses at first hand, is often so radically different from their own, which they for the most part experience vicariously.  Their views add nothing in most cases.  --Tony SidawayTalk 12:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found a short piece of criticism from Simon Hoggart, so I've put that in. --Dannyno 11:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promoting of political opinions on awards. 

message: I think Osama bin Laden actually said he considered Fisk "objective" (mawdu`i), not neutral. Palmiro | Talk 12:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such big difference I think.  A subjective perspective will never be neutral.  Neutrality implies objectivity.  Obviously one can be objective without being neutral, but he will be partial. I think 'neutral' was what Osama bin Laden meant.  But Fisk is objective too.201.19.222.35 00:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osama 

message: User:Rd232 has removed the paragraph detailing Little Green Footballs' "Fiskie," an award that implicitly criticizes Fisk's viewpoint.  The edit summary "rm irrelevant blog," is pretty harsh, to me suggesting that deleting this criticism of Fisk was akin to removing vandalism, however, despite what in my view is User:Rd232's failure to assume good faith, I will open discussion here on Talk, something I wish my co-editor would have done along with his deletion.  I contend that if a website with 672,000 daily hits criticizes Fisk, it is relevant.  Is there so much stuff named after him that this item is not notable?  Looking forward to your reply...  Kaisershatner 01:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, opinions on private weblogs do not belong here regardless of how many hits they get.  --Zero 02:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I realise it wasn't a good edit summary; and I assure you I'm assuming good faith. We just disagree on the relevance of the name of a blog award to an encyclopedia entry about Robert Fisk (it's named after him - so what?). I had asked the previous person who wanted to add the award (Zeq) to justify it here, but he chose not to. Looking at Little Green Footballs (what a mess that article is!) the blog is more prominent than I realised. However, the award name itself is deliberately insulting, and not "criticism". The award has achieved no mention in real media (according to LexisNexis). I still see no place for it here. Rd232 talk 18:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks so much for your reply.  I particularly appreciate the tone.  I won't take it personally and thanks for providing your reasoning.  We agree on two points - (1) the LGF article is a mess (I spent some time editing it today), and (2) we attribute different relevance to the LGF "award."  It is true that the name is deliberately insulting and I trust your L/N search is correct (although I would avoid the term "real media," as times are changing).  Neither of those things, in my view, intrinsically should lead to noninclusion, but in the end it's a matter of opinion.  The fact that there is a "Fiskie" in my view is evidence of the degree of antipathy he has inspired in certain political spheres.  I certainly am not arguing it deserves major mention, but my logic is that as Fisk is notable enough to have a wikipedia entry, and there is one thing named after him (derisively), it ought to be in there.  I guess that makes me an inclusionist?  Maybe a section entitled "Trivia?" would work?  It is certainly "trivial."  Kaisershatner 19:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal/Revert of Little Green Footballs info

message: The title of Fisk's 2005 book is a deliberate use of irony.  After the First World War, the Victory Medals issued in bronze to all those who had received the 1914 or 1914/15 stars, and to most of those issued with the British War Medal. These were inscribed on reverse "The Great War for Civilisation 1914-19".  The medal was authorised in Britain on 1 September 1919. See . Fisk's book starts with a description of some of the consequences of the Great War, in which his father Bill Fisk was a soldier. DFH 21:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fisk is an extreme Israel basher - his biases are infamous - when I have the time I will begin to edit this article to make it less a hagiography.Incorrect 13:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some rather light edits, removing some repeticious wording and making npov.Incorrect 16:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great War for Civilisation

message: The introduction states that Robeert Fisk "speaks good vernacular Arabic", but the main article describes him as being "fluent". Which is correct? Philip Cross 17:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: As an Arabic speaker

message: I've removed the word "alleged" from the last sentence in the introduction: "... in his emphasis on reporting the [alleged] ills done to the Middle East by the West from the Great War onwards."
Even a neutral observer cannot deny there have been at least some negative consequences of British-French and later U.S. interference in the Middle East. Examples: 
- Creation of the state of Israel (nobody asked the actual inhabitants if they agreed giving up their lands ... and please don't start with that baseless nonsense that the Palestinians came from neighbouring countries)
- The toppling of an elected government in Iran in 1953 (Iran's Mossadegh committed the greatest sin: he suggested the oil on Iran's territory should belong to Iran and not to foreign companies !) 
- The sanctions against the Iraqi population in the 90s (in July 1989 before the sanctions, 387 children per month under the age of five died in Iraq. In July 1998 after the sanctions, 6,495 children per month under the age of five died, a 16-fold increase from before the sanctions) and the subsequent occupation of the country.
You should sign your comments, but your entry itself displays a definite passion, which while I think it admirable in a world of apathy, is an approach unlikely to meet with much succes on this site. Boldymumbles 21:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A true passion matched with a passion for the truth by the way. 201.19.222.35 00:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Alleged" ills: choice of words reflecting a right-wing POV

message: I've started cleaning up the references section for this article. There are still quite a few links that need to be cited properly. Help would be appreicated :) sikander 01:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References section 

message: I removed a superfluous parenthetical statement, which was obviously quite biased: "In his graphic account of his own beating, published in The Independent of 10 December 2001, Fisk considered his attackers blameless ('I couldn't blame them for what they were doing,') and excused the attackers of responsibility (thus ignoring the significance of the Afghani who saved him)."Smitty Mcgee 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest Edit

message: :"If Scientist A and Scientist B agree that Pluto is not a planet but do not mention each other in their reasoning, than their agreement is still relevant, especially if they are both viewed as experts on what defines a planet."
:My point here, to use your example, is that the common subject is Pluto, not the scientists.  So in the article about each scientist, you'd include what they individually said, and in an article about Pluto, you would compile what they both said.  To include that compilation in each of the individual scientists' articles is overkill, redundant and off subject unless one of the scientists refers to the other.  
:If the line is not drawn there, someone else will add something that Aristotle wrote once or Roosevelt or Bono; articles would be bloated beyond their original subject and someone going to read about a particular subject would have to wade through a lot of extra stuff.  That is why people, not just myself, are going to continue reverting, not because the content is not worthy or over-simplistic.....
:Also, to add your user ID, there should be a button on the edit-bar (right above) that says "signature with timestamp when you hover the cursor over it....  just hit it to add that.  Or use 4 tildes (or is it 3?).  Just use "show preview" to see if you got it right before you save the page.
:--Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Antelope In Search Of Truth has given you a perfectly clear explanation of why the Scheur opinion is WP:OR. Please read the linked policy and stop reinserting it because it's not even a borderline case. For signing and timestamping your posts, all you need to do is type 4 tildes (a tilde is the wavy line beside the number one/exclamation mark key on your keyboard. It looks like this: ~) Armon 00:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why that particular bit of Scheur content does not belong in this article

message: I've just looked at the 2 versions in dispute and I'm going to side with Hiddekel. The OBL quote is notable and the 9/11, Osama bin Laden, and the War in Afghanistan section makes it clear that Fisk doesn't approve of OBL's methods. I really don't see what the problem is. If some editors feel it makes Fisk "look bad", tough, it's still a fact, and removing it ends up becoming POV pushing via whitewashing. Armon 00:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OBL Quote 

message: I as a Swede thought that this guy was Swedish, cause his name could just as well be Swedish; Robert is a very common name here, on the other hand, I don't think I've head the second name used as a surname. "Fisk" in Swedish means "fish", so I wonder, is he of Scandinavian ancestry? --Shandristhe azylean 20:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Brits are of Scandinavian ancestry. See Danelaw -that might explain it. Armon 14:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surname 

message: I think that it would be useful to add to certicism of Fisk by including a few examples of actaul bad fract form this reporting perhaps under a subseciton of ctiticism calle "Bad Facts"
for a start, his assertion that Israel used nuclear weapons (a "secret uranium bomb")  in Lebanon here: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1935945.ece
refuted here: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=79896# —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Athena's daughter (talk • contribs) 21:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ctiticism section  and bad facts 

message: Substituted at 15:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment