Talk:Joe Stork

Arbitrary break- BLPN

WP:BLP states "Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects; or which is a conjectural interpretation of a source..." You have completely ignored the discussion on the talk page and the cited policies, as well as the template on the article.--69.208.131.53 (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have requested further input here.--69.208.131.53 (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Coming from BLP/N, my first question is is the sole claim for notability/importance of the two op-eds/commentary for inclusion in the article the response from Joe Stork? Or has there been mention of the op-eds discussing Stork in other reliable secondary sources? In other words, have these claims received attention from reliable secondary sources? Incidentally while unrelated to the BLP issues, 69 has a point. Per policy, there's nothing explicitly wrong with editing from a dynamic IP. I see mention of an account, if 69 does have an account then it's possible he or she may be violating policy (e.g. WP:Sockpuppetry but unless evidence can be found for that, the issue should be dropped. If there is evidence for 69 not acting in good faith, I suggest this be brought up at WP:ANI not here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an account. I have been doing my best to simply ignore the charges since they seem counterproductive to discussion. If the user continually charging me without evidence would like to submit something to WP:ANI or checkuser this would be fine.--69.208.131.53 (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said a while ago this does not seem to have moved out of the relm of Blogs and Opp-Edds, certainly it has not appeared in the wider news media (not even the JP, which usualy pickes up on these things.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nil, thanks for weighing in. I think the notability hangs on both -- op eds are often reliable sources -- for what they themselves assert. And Stork does not appear to directly deny the event in question. As for the anon ip, it's clear this is not the main account. And per ARBPIA, there is supposed to be greater scrutiny as to who is editing in these areas. This collection of IP addresses is evading that scrutiny. It's a sock, and one that is difficult to track. I will absolutely not bring it up on AN/I: far too many times have I seen legitimate complaints desultorily jeered at by some of the lulz-loving denizens of that page. (Not saying everyone there is like that, but enough to make it toxic and often worse than useless.) IronDuke 15:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

From the NGO monitor source "and they are contrary to the views I have expounded for decades now."I think thats a denile he hold those views. Or that "and did not espouse the anti-Zionist views attributed to him". I think these are specific deniles. Now if this were notable (and not libalous) why has The JP, NYT, or the BBC not reported on this?Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If there's a problem with IPs editing then take it up thru appropriate channels, this page is for discussing this article: Aside from the simple fact that this is one single quote from 30 years ago there is the problem that it's only been taken up in one op-ed piece (repeated in toto by Pollack) & NGO monitor which acctually states: "While noting that this [the quote] did not justify the murders" . So we have questionable sources, demonstrable complete lack of notability for the single quote with one of the sources acctually giving the game away & stating that it doesn't quite say what they want it to say. And you want to put this in a BLP? It's just not going to work, give up on it. PS yes Stork does effectively deny it "For instance, selective excerpts about the Munich massacre come from an unsigned editorial that appeared 37 years ago where at the time I was one of seven volunteers that produced the publication." see above.--Misarxist (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed about the lack of utility in discussing IP's here. You are, however, wrong about Stork, he makes a non-denial denial. IronDuke 18:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How is saying tnat he did not say the things he is accused of saying not a denile? Moreover how reliable is a source that makes a non-accusation accusation?Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Where does he definitively state, "I had nothing to do with that editorial," or "That sentiment does not now and has never reflected my views"? He speaks instead of what he believes since the attack, and criticizes the taking of certain quotes out of context. And saying he doesn't "recognize them" isn't a denial either. He does a good job of distancing himself from the editorial without making an actual denial. IronDuke 21:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"All my work since then shows that I would never support such an attack".That states he does not support it now and has never done so. Its ture he says he indeed did have something to do with the editorial, so did 6 other people, who produed the contenious sections, is there any evidance that Mr Stork did, as you ccan see above he says he does not (and never would) support the defence of the munich massacre. His wording could beed to defend a negative ( I was not there, or did not do that). that is to say how can he say he nevere did it if he has no documented proof, other then by using examples of his work for decades. If Mr Stork said I did not defened the Munich massacre would you accedpt his word? I would also ask again what evidance is there that this is notable?Slatersteven (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The statement is still subject to interpretation, in terms of the conditional tense. He "would never support such an attack..." does that mean now, or that he never had? And "support" is a nebulous word here -- he could argue that the original editorial wasn't mean to, in a strict sense, support the attack, merely to point out the positive after-effects. Not a proper denial. But it doesn't really matter: JS thinks it's notable, so notable he replied to it. His opinion outweighs that of WP editors in this case, IMO. IronDuke 22:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also this. It's from the IDF, so we wouldn't be using it as a "this definitively happened source" but rather a "according to the IDF" source. IronDuke 23:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just my opinion: If someone called you Satan Hitler the baby killer and you denied it, that doesn't automatically make it notable to your life and your biography. What exactly would be encyclopedic about that?--69.208.131.53 (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Op eds are frequently avoided in BLPs unless they have been discussed in other sources. The fact that some person has made a claim in a reliable source is rarely sufficient reason for us to mention it in an article. The thing is (depending on how well know the person is and how controversial they are), it's not uncommon that plenty of people often offer an opinion in reliable sources. We should only report major opinions. The fact that someone has offered such an opinion is therefore rarely taken in itself as sufficient to mention it in an article since we have no way of knowing if it's a major opinion. If an opinion is widely reported or discussed in other RS then that would usually be a sign that it's a major opionion. But I've seen no evidence for that here. If the opinion was coming from a highly reputable source, e.g. the NYT or since this is an Israeli issue, Hareetz or from someone highly notable, e.g. a member of the Israeli cabinet then it may also be okay to mention it even if there's no evidence it was widely reported, particularly if the opinion is not unduly controversial and the person is not that well known but none of these seem to be the case here. But none of this seems to be true here. Nil Einne (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I again second this, if it is notable why have no major news outlets picked this up. You have obviously looked so have you found any? Hell if the JP are so unsure about this that they have not repaeted it why should wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with this sentiment.--69.208.131.53 (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. One op-ed should generally not warrant inclusion for a WP:BLP. However, this issue that was covered in multiple op-eds and deemed valid enough for a Stork response, meets the standard for inclusion. It should not not be overdone. We don't need an entire "Munich Massacre" section. A short mention would be the most WP:NPOV solution here.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There's one op-ed, translated on GoogleDocs by who knows who, and another op-ed which simply repeats the first op-ed. And there is no coverage in reliable sources. If the event were notable, it would have some kind of coverage in reliable secondary sources.--68.248.147.184 (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Per consensus above, the allegations resulting from the 1976 confrence are a BLP breach because they give undue weight to a dubious claim in an op-ed by an obviously partisan individual. The slow edit warring over these allegations has been going on long enough that the next stop will be requesting arbitration enforcement (Wikipedia:ARBPIA) WP:ANI or the like. Thanks for your consideration. Misarxist (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

agreed this is an opinion piecew that basicly makes an accusation that no one else has picked up (we can assume for legal reasons I suspect).Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, Stork found it notable enough to respond to. I don't see it as violating BLP, but I'm certainly happy to discuss it. Misarxist, thanks for jumping in with your threatening post. Generally, Israel/Palestine talk pages lack reflexive suggestions for punitive measures, and you've solved that with the press of a button. IronDuke 23:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The main concern I have is that statements of fact can't be sourced from op-eds. Information in BLP's has to actually be true rather than someone's opinion about or personal interpretation of the truth. Also, if the information looks like an attempt to smear Stork then it is a BLP violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP says: " If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". It further gives an example: "Example A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source". This is what we have here. Stork may not like the criticism, but it was publsihed by reliable sources. BLP is not a license to remove critical material the subject does not like. Cloud Connection (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't what we have here. It isn't well-documented by reliable published sources like the New York Times. What we have are opinion pieces. BLP's are not the place to include factual data from opinion pieces. If it had been reported by sources like the New York Times we wouldn't be having this discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP actually says "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested...")." What else you got? IronDuke 22:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I take the view that that isn't intended to allow inclusion of op-ed material like this by partisan journalists who accuse a living person of supporting a massacre/terrorism shortly after that person's human rights organization has accused the journalist's country (for which he advocates passionately) of war crimes. I'm willing to consider that I'm mistaken and that BLP policy now allows for the inclusion of this kind of attack piece. What if they had made statements about his sexuality, accused him of criminal acts, things like that in the op-ed ? Would that be okay if we attributed it or is the inclusion criteria a function of the degree to which a living person's work is perceived to be acting against the interests of something a wiki editor likes ? At what point does it become an obvious attempt to smear a living person and a clear BLP violation ? Why hasn't it been repeated as factual news in RS ? You asked 'What else you got?', I'm tempted to say ethics but I would suggest you re-read BLP and ask yourself whether this material complies with it. All sorts of things jump out like 'Be very firm about the use of high quality references.', 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid', 'Remove any contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies on self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability.', 'The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article.' etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears we agree that op ed pieces can go in. We could change BLP to read OP-ed pieces are allowable at the ethical discretion of Sean Hoyland, which would have the non-trivial advantage of our always being able to know what does and does not belong, as we could simply ask you. The difficulty, however, would be that it doesn’t scale very well, yes? So, with a firm salute to your fine ethical sensibilities, do you have a specific policy reason why this should not go in, as opposed to more or less random quotes from BLP? (I’ll also add parenthetically I find it a bit… ironic… that you ask me to reread it, when you have demonstrated that you are manifestly unfamiliar with is contents.) IronDuke 00:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please quit with the pretense that this is a problem with other users behaviour. Consensus is against you so you'll have to convice other users before you put the disputed quotes back in. It might help if you refreshed your memory on the consensus by re-reading all the above section, you could then avoid having to rehash points already replied to above. Doing so would also remind you that yourself & one or two others have been banging on about this for several months now & no-one, even univolved's from the BLP noticeboard, buys your non-arguments. So it's probably time to move on, this is pretty much a dead horse. Misarxist (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Please quit with the pretense that this is a problem with other users behaviour."

• Huh? When have I done that? Behavioral issues are not a problem here. we’re discussing whether information should or shouldn’t go in.

"Consensus is against you so you'll have to convice other users before you put the disputed quotes back in."

• Um, right. Notice how I’m not putting it back in?

"So it's probably time to move on, this is pretty much a dead horse."

• Ah, so I’m to gather consensus, and yet also move on? Seems an odd request.

Misarxist, If you have something substantive to add, please feel free. I am listening. IronDuke 23:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Things aren't always as they appear particular for the neutrality challenged. There is no scaling problem because what is blindingly obvious to me as inappropriate in a BLP is blindingly obvious to anyone else not intent on contaminating BLPs to advance some righteous cause. Either an editor reads the BLP policy and understands what is expected of them as a human being editing a BLP article in an encyclopedia about another human being or they don't. I don't really care which it is but it isn't possible for me to make an editor see something if they simply can't see it because a giant flag keeps obscuring their view. If they can't see that this is an obvious attempt to smear someone (which naturally is not allowed by BLP), don't care about the quality of the sourcing, have no concern about this astounding revelation about a senior human rights worker not being reported as factual news in multiple RS, feel free to ignore the BLP policy of removing poorly sourced contentious material, think that the views of a tiny minority need to be splashed across a tabloid wikipedia then there isn't much I can do about it apart from asking them to put the flag down and re-read BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sean, that was a lot of verbiage for essentially no point. Perhaps you missed mine. It wasn’t terribly important, so I can’t blame you if you did. But just to hammer it home: you needn’t keep going on about how I should “reread BLP” when you demonstrate, manifestly, on this page that you are unfamiliar with its contents. Do you need me to show you via diff and quote how you did just that? I don’t see it as being necessary, but if you insist, I will certainly do so. Now, and again, does anyone have substantive arguments against this going in other than “BLP! BLP!” or WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Are the sources used, e.g., Joe Stork, non notable or non-reliable? Please explain, one by one, how they are bad sources. IronDuke 23:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an interesting parallel discussion going on here. One of the editors who has argued here strongly against the inclusion of dubious material sourced to an Op-Ed ("simply repeating defamatory charges made by a single op-ed, that is not acceptable for a BLP") has already flip-flopped when the BLP subject is someone he does not like quite so much. These strong worded objections about defamatory charges made in op-eds are nowhere to be found, and he's now arguing for the inclusion of defamatory charges sourced to an error-riddled blog post and an Op-Ed by a partisan journalist. Perhaps Sean will show more consistency. Cloud Connection (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I havent flip-flopped Sherlock, Robert Fisk is a professional reporter and the Time piece is not an op-ed. And sign in with your main account, that is if it is not currently blocked. And if it is blocked stop editing. (ID, I expect an amen) nableezy - 01:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Preach, brutha 'Bleezy... testify! Close enough? Seriously, yes, and for the record, people should not sock on IP issues, on either side. (And Nab, you can help me revert the disruptive sock on Marc Garlasco, if you're a true believer like myself.) As to Cloud's point, well, Fisk is highly partisan, and his piece is advocacy journalism if not a full-blown op-ed. Arguably, it's even more biased than the latter. IronDuke 03:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other article I am fine with how NMMNG put it as at least that part is supported by a ton of sources, including the picture itself, but Fisk may be "partisan", and I am not saying that he is, but he is one of the most decorated foreign correspondents on the planet and to not accept what he writes as a RS is bogus. But thats a discussion for another place. And I suppose I may help out on Garlasco, but that content should be discussed on the talk page. nableezy - 04:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Most decorated"? Not really. Maybe years ago. These days he's mostly known as the father of fisking.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 11:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

To certain people, and yes, he remains one of the most decorated foreign correspondents on the planet. But this really belongs somewhere else. nableezy - 16:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

New source

I've added in a new source. It might be added to, or cut down, or rejiggered, but should obviously not be deleted. IronDuke 23:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't cut it, another passing repetition of a trivial and refuted accusation (please re-read all the above section if you've forgotten this) just won't make it any more important. Also serious problem with WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK as the article is now. (Note giving user final warning about BLP breaches.) Misarxist (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Final warning…" please… no… not the final warning! Tell you what, why don’t you issue a bogus warning to yourself for disruption on this (and related articles)? It’s more obviously more than passing mention – I have neither the time nor the inclination to pause and give you a lesson what the word “passing” means. I’m also wonder what your definition of consensus would be here. Right now, I see three people who want some part of this included, and one who wants none.

I think it’s clear you will accept no source on this, however valid. I’ll be interested in hearing what others think. IronDuke

It needs to be cut down and rejiggered and, surprisingly, added to. The response for Stork about these allegations needs to be included and we dont need to directly quote the article for so much. nableezy - 15:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Misarxist has ruled Stork's response as non-notable, so I'm afraid we're out of luck there. And come to think of it, didn't you also say (with minor editing tweaks) "People respond to bullshit... That does not mean we need to repeat... the response." But I kid, of course. Genuinely, interested to see your take. IronDuke 23:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That was when the bs was only in an op-ed. But as you have found a newspaper that shockingly reprints bs as news I suppose there is no cause for outright removal of all of the bs. And I didnt say the response was bs, I said it wasnt evidence that the bs merited inclusion. (And I deserve a hearty round of applause for manually replacing "bullshit" with "bs" in my response five times). nableezy - 23:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC) (and I just noticed the "editing tweaks", well done)

Ok if Nableezey doesn't think it's that seriously undue weight then the templating was officious twattery and it won't revert it again. But given that that they explain why the initial claim is trivial ("this was all three decades ago, Stork was just one of seven editors of the magazine when its editorial praised the massacre") this new source is equally as much grounds for not bothering to include the accusation. I think that's pretty definitely the case while the article is little more than a stub, but may not be sometime down the track when the article is larger. (link to the actual page for convenience) Misarxist (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the section, I dont think I actually took any information out, just tightened it and relied less on long quotes. Any problems with it? nableezy - 15:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Times further criticized HRW for hiring "activists" who are "so evidently on one side".[4] isn't specifically about Joe Stork. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I dont think it should be in the article. But I am restricted from removing it. nableezy - 15:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agree and have removed it. We should only have comments about Mr Stork, not the organisation he works for.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems crystal clear to me that the article is referring to Stork et al there. Is that really unclear to others here? IronDuke 23:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The line is about Stork and everybody else the article calls out, but it is a general criticism of HRW. We already include the idea that he is so clearly on "one side", I dont see the point of adding the criticism of HRW in a bio of Stork. nableezy - 05:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Its about HRw's recruitment (well staff) policies not about Mr stork.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

language problems

Resolved

My usual superb command of the English language was lacking in the edit I had made earlier and I am now restricted from correcting the error. Could somebody change Kenneth Roth, executive director of HRW, that this had taken to Kenneth Roth, executive director of HRW, said that this had taken? (missing "said") Also, there is a stray period in the last sentence of the text. nableezy - 06:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)