Talk:Fisking

message: Fisking can be thought of as a side effect of the way weblogs behave as social software.
This sentence needs elaboration.  I'd do it, but I don't understand what it's trying to say.
 - Does my elaboration help? Brendano 01:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: I've always been under the impression that "to Fisk" meant to deliver a well-deserved beating- Fisk was beaten and claimed he deserved it (well, not exactly, but somewhere along there). When one "fisks" an article, they are beating someone who deserves it (metaphorically). I may be mistaken, however.
kaisersean
 - No, I think you got it.  There's a substantial bit of irony embedded in the term. Brendano 01:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A clarification 

message: Still unclear to me: is it referred to Fisk's original article or to Sullivan reply? And it identifies an out of context picking on someone else thoughts or just generically a vehement attack?
--Balubino 09:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still unclear 

message: I reverted the addition of Eoghan Harris' usage of "fisking", as it bears no relation to the present meaning, does not seem to have any connection with it at all, and was not picked up by anyone else. Incidentally, the first usage in the "modern" sense that appears in LexisNexis is June 8, 2002, National Post (Canada), appearing in inverted commas. Rd232 talk 16:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're right that it is somewhat unrelated to the present meaning.  I don't know what you mean by "anyone else," I just googled Fisking and origin for a while until I found that link.  I'd like to reinstate it as a section for historical reasons and we can insert the fact that it is unrelated to the current usage.  I hope that will address both of our concerns (mine that the original usage be noted for historical accuracy, and yours that we make it clear what the current usage is).  Regards,  Kaisershatner 17:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean no-one else has used "fisking" in Harris' sense; Harris' usage isn't notable and I wouldn't have it at all. I hope the footnote is enough. Rd232 talk 17:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the footnote is a reasonable compromise.  I agree that the Harris usage shouldn't be overstated.  Thanks for working with me on this. Kaisershatner 21:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1999 Eoghan Harris usage 

message: I have made no reversions, and probably will not do so.  But I think it is being forgotten that this is not an article about Robert Fisk per se.  It is an article about a bit of right-wing political invective, based upon a well-known episode in the career of Robert Fisk.  Given those constraints, of course the article is not going to have a neutral POV.  I therefore suggest that fans of Mr. Fisk post their accolades and defenses of him in his biographical article.
4.154.73.48 01:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's an article about a term. And the origin of the term is a characterization by the conservative blogosphere of an article by Andrew Sullivan that, while it was critical of "extreme leftists", really was not "a bit of right-wing political invective", it was more substantive than that ... and I'm a leftist. "those constraints, of course the article is not going to have a neutral POV" -- that's nonsense, based on a misunderstanding of what NPOV is. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition Drift 

message: The opening lines of this article characterise "fisking" as, among other things, a logical, ruthlessly factual point-by-point criticism that involves the highlighting of errors, etc.
However, the original example of "fisking" is then cited, and we discover that this original contains none of the above features:  it is neither logical nor factual, and does not highlight errors.  Instead, the original is a piece of politically motivated abuse.
This definition of fisking needs to be modified:  fisking is a right-wing jargon-term that describes a vicious piece of criticism against a political opponent, in which the community that looks with favor on the attack has congratulated itself that the attack was based on a ruthlessly logical, point-by-point argument (etc:  see the existing supposed characteristics), but where in fact none of these features are present, and the attack is just a common polemic.
As it stands, this article is a complete betrayal of the neutral standards of the Wikipedia, and should be removed.
-- LimitingFactor
: I'm inclined to agree that the article has problems.  Quoting ESR as an authoritative source on something is dicey... his glowing opinion of "fisking" is a reflection of his low opinion of Robert Fisk.  I note that there are other people who have a completly different take on the meaning of "Fisking" because they have a different opinion of Robert Fisk: 
:: Wholly undeservedly, Robert Fisk has become something of a joke online, after socalled "warbloggers" back in 2001 picked on a single incident in his long reporter career to ridicule him as an out of touch wet, even racist liberal. And this by people whose closest contact with the Middle East had been their local kebab shop. From there we got the nasty term fisking, which refers to any sort of unfair argument in which an article is not criticised on the merits of the whole, but rather is taken apart and attacked line by line, usually by putdown rather than logical argument. -- | Review of "Pity the Nation"
: An actually neutral write up of the term "fisking" would need to reflect both points of view, without endorsing either.  -- Doom 10:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The opening lines of this article characterise "fisking" as, among other things, a logical, ruthlessly factual point-by-point criticism that involves the highlighting of errors, etc. -- That's what the term means. this original contains none of the above features -- That isn't actually relevant. You might compare this to "You can't should fire in a crowded theater, which was originally given as an example of the limits on First Amendment rights of free speech ... offered by Justice Holmes against defendants encouraging people not to enlist in WWI. The invalidity of the phrase in its original context doesn't change the validity of its common meaning. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article is Self-Contradictory and Politically Biassed 

message: Fisk's argument:
*; His conclusion : He "understood" refugee anger toward Westerners, and "could not blame" for what they did to him.
This conclusion does not exist in a void, however, within the SAME piece, Fisk provides a reason, otherwise known as a premise, for this conclusion.
*; His premise : Westerner activity in the region (arming them during the Russian conflict in the 80's, then withdrawing support as civil war broke out after the Russian conflict, subsequent bombing of the region, etc.) led anger toward Westerners.
Stripping this premise away when we present his conclusion, makes it look like he didn't provide a reason for his conclusion, which is simply NOT true.
Sullivan's argument posted in response to Fisk's argument:
*; 1st conclusion : Fisk's piece was, "a classic piece of leftist pathology" 
*; Premise in support of 1st conclusion : "He (Fisk) refuses to see them as morally culpable or even responsible.
*; 2nd conclusion :  Fisk is racist.
*; Premise in support of 2nd conclusion :  He "believes" that "the color of a person’s skin condemns him automatically and justifies violence against him".
*; 3rd conclusion :  When Fisk says, "There were all the Afghan men and boys who had attacked me who should never have done so but whose brutality was entirely the product of others," it amounts to an a priori moral absolution.
*; Premise in support of 3rd conclusion :  Fisk supposedly does not establish "extenuating circumstances - things that might help us understand or contextualize the hatred of one people for another."
*; Overall conclusion ("supported" by conclusions #1-#3) :  The left-wing intelligentsia "won’t recognize reality, or abandon their racism, or moderate their spectacular condescension to the inhabitants of the developing world – even when reality, literally, crushingly, punches them in the face".
These are the basic elements of the arguments posed by Sullivan and Fisk, that led to the word, "Fisking".  Failing to depict all the conclusions with their premises, makes that depiction biased and/or incomplete and inaccurate.
--Antelope In Search Of Truth 03:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of this is remotely relevant to the article, which is simply about the term, its origin, and its current meaning. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of Fisk & Sullivan's arguments

message: The article notes Andrew Sullivan was one of the original sources of this term. Hardly a "right-wing" source, so I have removed the reference to the term's predominant use by the right.
210.84.33.128 01:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's "right" compared to Fisk -depends how far left you are. It may be true that the term's more often used by people who lean "right" but it's certainly used by both sides. Armon 22:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sullivan's own blog claims he "Advocates gay rights as well as conservatism." Is conservatism now no longer considered right-wing?Wnjr 14:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subtle addition of Right-wing

message: That is woefully insufficient as a description of the differing effects.  Even in the limited context here.  82.152.46.201 22:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posting styles 

message: This style of writing obviously existed before him (I know I wrote that way sometimes, and it has historical precedent in other writers too). What was this called before Fisk? Wouldn't it be better to place the article under that name instead? Rhialto 02:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it was just "point-by-point criticism" (it was also called "the way we do things on usenet"). -- Doom (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Whatever it was called then, for better or worse it's called "fisking" now. Wikipedia's policy on names and usage is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Raymond Arritt 03:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is descriptive, true./ It is also npov. I think a reasonable case could be made that where it is used, it is used as a way of denigrating a particular author's writing style, and as such using it as the article's title would break WP policy regarding self-identification of subjects. Rhialto 06:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fisk was the original inspiration, but the term has taken on a meaning that no longer directly indicates the person who inspired it (think sandwich, diesel, hooker, etc). There's already an article on Robert Fisk for those who wish to denigrate or defend his writing style per se. Raymond Arritt 13:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are some words which have inherently inflammatory connotations: fisking is a term that edges over toward words like "nigger" -- if you pretend that calling someone a nigger is merely a neutral statement about their racial background, you deserve a throughly "fisking" yourself.  Someone coming into the story in the middle, and looking at just this article could not help but get the impression that Robert Fisk is a stupid jerk. -- Doom (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's at least possible that the right thing to do is to create a larger article discussing this style of criticism (possibly called "point-by-point analysis").  This larger article would have a section on the newer name "fisking", and then the existing article "Fisking" could re-direct to the larger article.  (Bloggers like to think that they invented everything, but is there any reason wikipedia should endorse that pretension?) -- Doom (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  fisking is a term that edges over toward words like "nigger" -- That's about as wrong as a statement can possibly be. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Before Fisk

message: this article is pov, it takes the right wing view, and promotes that with little discussion of the usage of the term outside the right wing, little discussion of what has happened to the usage of the term over the years, and little discussion of the critiques of Sullivan's original critique.
And ESR is a self-proclaimed libertarian, and war hawk.  To deny that in the discussions here is nonsense.  Finally, these days the Jargon File while funny, is little more than a self-written blog. 72.222.192.193 (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  added an npov tag 

message: I was wondering a bit about the "unreferenced" complaint about the "Comparisons and distinctions".  It's certainly true that there are no references there, but what's being said there strikes me as fairly self-evident and uncontroversial.  Is someone here seriously challenging the material in that section, or is this based on a sort of vague feeling that you should see references every few lines? 
Doom (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether serious or not, Dynablaster chose to delete the section without discussing it here.  I've restored it, with a few references added to it. -- Doom (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about the "unreferenced section" tag? 

message: I (that is, Doom (talk)) suggest we remove the neutrality warning on this article.  This is not to say that the article is perfect, but I think the major points of contention are largely covered: that article says what the term means, and where it comes from, without providing a forum for attack on Fisk himself, warns that the term has politically loaded connotations for some, and mentions that it has some similar predecessors. 
So, a poll (if you think there's a major neutrality issue that still needs to be addressed, try to state it briefly):        
Agreed, we can remove the neutrality warning: 
* Doom (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  is the neutrality dispute over? 

message: (Honest question from a random observer who doesn't know/care much about the political/neutrality controversy here) What makes this more than a dictionary definition? It just describes the meaning of a word and the history of its usage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonard of Vince (talk • contribs) 04:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a dictionary definition.  In order to avoid redirection and/or deletion, several editors have added original research and unreliable sources.  I've therefore argued for a redirect, and if necessary, I will argue for deletion. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary definition vs. encyclopedia article 

message: Besides the one I just put in the article, there's another reaction from Fisk here:
: ARRAF:  Thank you.
: Let me take a question from the back, perhaps.  The gentleman over there in the back.
: QUESTIONER:  Gary Rosen from Commentary magazine.  Mr. Fisk, you’ve achieved a degree of immortality in the blogisphere, where these online commentators the verb “to fisk” now means to take a piece of journalism and to respond to it point-by-point for its ideological biases and factual unreliability.  I’m wondering, do you — do you take pride in this coinage?  Does it fill you with indignation?  What are your thoughts on it?  Is it justified?
: FISK:  I don’t waste my time with blogs, I don’t use the Internet, and I don’t use e-mail.  I work.
: Thank you.  (Laughter.)
: ARRAF:  Well, that was concise.  Thank you. Iraq: The Way Forward Series
That was in 2005. I came across that via a blog post by Tim Blair entitled For Email Before He Was Against It where he points out that Fisk spoke about receiving a nasty email a couple of years earlier in the San Francisco Chronicle. Vividuppers (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fisk's reaction 

message: It's claimed that this is a term that is used by "bloggers" of all political persuasions, but the "definitions" that are quoted all include snide attacks of Robert Fisk -- "considered a soft target", "a frequent (and deserving) early target".  Attempts have been made at eliding these attacks, but some people insist that they're absolutely necessary.  So which is it?  Is this term a smear of Robert Fisk, or is this a neutral term?  If it's a neutral term, why are the attacks on Fisk so necessary?
:I don't think anyone is claiming the term is "neutral" (whatever that means) -it's origin is certainly anti-Fisk. Even so, the term has caught on and is used by people of many different ideological positions. Vividuppers (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If no one is claiming that this is a neutral term, why is it that any attempt at making the point that it *isn't* neutral gets deleted?  Quoting ESR's opinion of Fisk is entirely gratuitious, it's not at all necessary to get a sense of the meaning of the term, *if* all you're doing is using it as short-hand for point-by-point rebuttal.  -- Doom (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  One more time: quoting an editorial in order to disguise the fact that you yourself are editorializing, is not by any means neutral.  The bare minimum you can do in controversial cases, is to make it clear that there's a controversy.  Giving one side of a controversy top-billing, and burying the rebuttal is also not being neutral.  Given these few, basic, and rather obvious statements about reasonable factual writing, what do we do with this page? -- Doom (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, it's clearly presented as the guy's OPINION. Just because you don't happen to agree with it, doesn't mean there's a problem with npov. Multiple people on this page (over the years it looks like) have pointed that out to you. Edgespath24 (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Featuring a quote of someone else's admitted OPINION, is not being neutral, it is providing a forum for their OPINION in a place which is supposed to be Neutral.  This stunningly obvious point has been discussed here for years, as you do indeed point out, and yet, this stunningly obvious point is not sinking into the minds of some nominally intelligent people.  It couldn't be you're being willfully obtuse, could it?  -- Doom (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  the constant problem 

message: Did Fisk's article appear in the Sunday Independent as stated (an Irish paper) or in the Independent on Sunday (a British one)? I suspect it's the latter; does anyone know for certain? Tsuguya (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Which Independent?

message: I've always thought that if you're looking for antecedents, you should look at Marx's Critique_of_Hegel's_Philosophy_of_Right, where the paragraph-by-paragraph method is used.  But I couldn't find anyone noting the similarity.  So I note it here to remind me and others to check occasionally. --Dannyno (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Marx's critique of Hegel

message: Fisking looks like a nonfiction/discussion version of written MSTing (which already has a wikipedia article).  If anyone can find a reputable description of the link between the two or at least add the wiki article on MSTing to 'see also' that would probably be valuable?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.172.105.218 (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History in fandom 

message: This would appear to be what was termed "to bogush" a post on some UK car forums at the turn of the Millenium.
Mr B J Mann (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  to bogush