Talk:Robert Fisk/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fisking, again

The material on fisking has been deleted and restored a few times, and I think it may be time to get rid of it for good: the term just doesn't come up much anymore. It's a piece of recentism that, more than a decade after the fact (going by the sources used to establish notability), is well past its expiration date. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It never past WEIGHT anyway. Zero^talk 23:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• In fact, has gotten INDEPTH in books and articles (including scholarly) over the years and in 2018. More to the point, it REDIRECTS to this page and, therefore, ought to appear as a subhead. To me, this seems somewhat unfair to Fisk, the page could be recreated as a stand-alone, with recent sources to support it. But I frankly don't agree with the editors who simply wiped it off the page without even a formal RFC, WP:NOTTEMPORARY.13:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)
• Agreed with the contribution from E.M.Gregory, the term is still in occasional use and if its use has declined it is still more useful to have it explained in context, at least as a subheading if not a standalone article. I searched after seeing it in the title of this FT article, Fisking the Trussay and wanting more explanation of a half-recalled derivation. Dannuk (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with both E.M.Gregory and User:Dannuk that it is very odd the article was deleted, without even a consensus! It was an article that even the NYT cited Wiki and hyperlinked to it: « Fisking — described by Wikipedia as a “detailed point-by-point criticism that highlights errors, disputes the analysis of presented facts, or highlights other problems in a statement, article or essay” —­ was one of the original glories». Needs be restored.XavierItzm (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That level of circular reasoning is absurd. It never had the weight for including it, and then the idea that a source citing Wikipedia makes it so that there is weight is far out there that it could only be made in jest if in good faith. And I think you know youre not agreeing with E.M.Gregory, youre agreeing with a many times banned editor. nableezy - 23:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

1.Fisk Robert on Egypt(2015)-BOOK : with tragic predictability, the new regime degenerated. Corruption, incompetence and repression provoked a counter-revolution; the elected president was ousted and jailed, his supporters massacred or rounded up.This powerful anthology of his journalism describes the full cycle of Egypt’s awakening and relapse, episode by episode, as it happened – from the first stirrings of unrest to the glorious dawn of Tahrir Square, and the days of shame and atrocity that followed.No commentator is better qualified to tell this tragic tale than Robert Fisk, unflinching critic of the Mubarak regime and acclaimed chronicler of Middle-Eastern affairs for The Independent for 25 years. https://www.independent.co.uk/independentbooks/robert-fisk-on-egypt-a6876776.html, https://www.amazon.co.uk/ROBERT-FISK-EGYPT-Revolution-Betrayed/dp/1633533794

2.Fisk Robert(2017) has published a book called : Arab Spring Then and Now. In December 2010, the "Tunisian Revolution" touched off a wave of protests, riots, revolutions and civil wars throughout the Middle East. Initially the world hoped for positive change - democracy, free elections, and human rights. But, by 2012 the Arab Spring had morphed into "Arab Winter" bringing death, destruction, and despair. The Independent's Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn, two of the most acclaimed Middle East correspondents of our generation, examine the events of this regional tsunami that threatens to have an impact on our world for years to come. https://www.independent.co.uk/independentbooks/arab-spring-then-and-now-a7567231.html

3. Fisk Robert Entrenched Beliefs: The Fifth Richard West Thriller(2018)Independently Published on 25 May 2018. Fisk is a master of complex plots and is well worth reading." S Burns.An IRA bomber believes a priest betrayed him and seeks revenge. https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Entrenched_Beliefs.html?id=oKJLuAEACAAJ&redir_esc=y — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivien-Yvette (talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Oz Katerji

Oz Katerji, a podcast host and freelance journalist, has no academic expertise, no publishing record, no nothing to make his opinion worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Including an op-ed by some random person fails WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. nableezy - 03:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Oz Katerji is a journalist specialising in the Middle East, and was published by an excellent magazine. Katerji has written for many, including Foreign Policy. Ever Grounded (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

"Excellent" is a value term and not how we determine whether a publication is a RS. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

An opinion magazine is definitionally not a reliable source, and the inclusion of challenged material requires consensus. See WP:ONUS. nableezy - 12:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I support inclusion on the basis of DUE WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Katerji's views are significant, and representative of one large current of views (see below). He is a British-Lebanese journalist, widely published in New Statesman, Newlines, Foreign Policy, Rolling Stone and other mainstream sources, specialising in the Middle East and on foreign affairs journalism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not Katerji's opinions that he gives in this online comment magazine are significant is determined by reliable secondary sources. Given that none whatsoever have mentioned Katerji's opinion, we have our answer. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

all it requires is that we have reason to believe Katerji is a notable voice on this topic. We don't need to show the publication is an RS, because it counts as an RSOPINION. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that isnt true. What it requires is a reliable source showing that this view has some weight to include it. And it does not. Of course Katerji is reliable for his own opinion. His opinion however is not a reliable source for Robert Fisk. And his viewpoint, because it isnt a reliable source, has no weight in secondary reliable sources, so it can have no weight in our article per WP:DUE. nableezy - 22:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that Nutez reinstated this but it was reverted. Three editors for and two against is probably too weak a consensus for a BLP so I will not contest unless other editors weigh in. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I have now posted at the NPOV noticeboard re this issue. The section is Avoiding hagiography. Thank you. Nutez (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing the edit history, I also note that Ever Grounded and Cipherpunksah both asserted that The Critic is a reliable source, while Nableezy asserted that it isn't. Do we have evidence either way? I wonder if we need to take The Critic to RSN? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The article on the Critic website is part of a regular series of posts called "Sacred Cows". Its six most recent posts have been about: Harold Pinter; Virginia Woolf; the (de)merits of literary festivals; The Beatles; and the filmmakers Ben Fogle and Joe Wright. The article is an opinion piece, and it looks like all articles on the website are published as opinion pieces. We need some secondary coverage of Katerji's views to indicate that they are significant, given his lack of credentials of any stripe. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, an account registered to participate in an edit-war and then abandoned, thats the account we should be treating as a good faith contributor and pinging here. As far as reliability, it is certainly reliable as a source of opinion, but the opinion lacks weight to be included here. nableezy - 13:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Had a check to see if Katerji on Fisk has had any secondary coverage in RSs. No he hasn't, but some indication of weight given by the fact that multiple outlets (Monthly Review,[1] Counterpunch,[2] and Common Dreams[3] all published Jonathan Cook's long response to Katerji on Fisk, which noted the large number of "establishment journalists" amplifying Katerji (he mentions Guardian columnists and Times reporters). Middle East reporter/author Hugh Pope also mentioned it,[4] and Mosaic Magazine published an extract.[5] I wouldn't cite any of these sources, but it suggests that Katerji's piece has at least some weight. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree entirely, you cant have "some weight" if your views are not given coverage in secondary sources. And lets be real, we include criticism of Fisk, and I said below Id be fine including some of the other sources removed myself. But this one? The only reason one would include this would be to include the claim that Fisk was a fraud, a fabricator and a fantasist. And that his legacy of award-winning reporting is destroyed. And that view is, to be blunt, given 0 consideration by any serious source. It is a diatribe that simply does not belong in a serious source, eg an encyclopedia. And I cannot seriously believe that anybody actually believes that the view that Fisk was a fraud, a fabricator and a fantasist who has destroyed his legacy should presented sourced to a "freelance reporter and podcast host". Because that is a distinct fringe-sized view, given the numerous sources dedicated to Fisk's legacy upon his passing. As far as Cook's response, having a column reprinted in a number of websites (some of which you previously have claimed should not be used at all?) doesnt change that its one column, and if you do want to include Katerji then I assume youd want to include Cook calling him a con-man and an attack dog? Cook's columns are nearly always published/re-printed by those websites. nableezy - 14:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Either those three publications are generally reliable sources, in which case a lot of rediscussion needs to take place at RSN and a lot of content needs to be restored to a lot of articles, or they’re not, in which case their publication of those pieces is not relevant. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Disagree, I think the weight of Jonathan Cook's response to Katerji makes Katerji a notable voice. Additionally, the man has 200k twitter followers, has been published in The New Statesman, Foreign Policy, Vice, and Haaretz. His opinion on middle east politics is considered noteworthy by these publications and others. Therefore, his opinion on Fisk, as a prominent player in those politics, is relevant. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian has 73.3 million twitter followers, how do you imagine that to be relevant to her expertise on Robert Fisk? Being a freelance journalist sometimes published in respectable places doesnt make you a notable voice, it does not make you an expert. No, they do not think his opinion noteworthy, the considered the reports he offered from Syria and then Ukraine to be useful to them and after using their own editorial discretion used some of his work. That does not translate, at all, to they consider his opinions important. Cook's response to Katerji was, like most of his columns, carried by a couple of leftist opinion sites. At most you could cite Cook saying that "an attack dog beloved by establishment blue-ticks: he is there to enforce accepted western imperial narratives, disguising his lock-step support for the establishment line as edgy, power-to-the-people radicalism" attacked Fisk in an act of "complete and utter cowardice". Do you want to include that? Either way, Katerji's opinion of Fisk is not treated seriously by any reliable secondary source, he has no expertise, and, most importantly, there is a consensus against his use here and at NPOV/N. nableezy - 22:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I see 2 v 2 here, that's hardly a robust consensus. And the proper board would have been RSN.

No, they do not think his opinion noteworthy, the considered the reports he offered from Syria and then Ukraine to be useful to them and after using their own editorial discretion used some of his work. That does not translate, at all, to they consider his opinions important. This is an extremely weak argument and, from the sentence construction, I think you probably know it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the section below and at NPOV/N. No, that is not an extremely weak argument lol, the argument that some non-notable "attack dog" of a freelance reporter (per Jonathan Cook) is a reliable source or a noteworthy commentator is laughable. No, DUE weight is a NPOV/N discussion, not RS/N. Nobody is disputing that an opinion is reliable for itself, thats silly. The point is that opinion is not reliable for Fisk and that the view has no weight in secondary sources. And that has consensus at NPOV/N and down below, with Bob agreeing there certainly is no consensus for including Katerji (though maybe not admitting there is consensus against, but that is as obvious as anything else here). Katerji has a handful of news reports in respectable outlets. Those are subject to the editorial control of those news agencies and as such they are reliable. His personal opinions on this topic however are not treated seriously by any secondary source And as he himself is not a reliable source, his views lack weight to include. nableezy - 22:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Shibbolethink, and I also find the awkward syntax of Nableezy's many replies to be somewhat indicative of their rhetorical strength. Nutez (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

lol, WP:NPA is a fine place to start. Im aware of your position, given youre the one who opened the NPOVN section. A section that showed a consensus against your position. Hows that for rhetorical strength? nableezy - 03:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think someone claiming to derive their position from what they perceive to be the faults of another editor's writing style suggests an inability to defend their view on the strength of their argument’s merits – it doesn’t help if that argument has few to no merits, as in this case. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I agree that there is no consensus for inclusion of Katerji, not that there is consensus against inclusion. Inclusion of opinion is a question of due weight, which falls under NPOV/N, where Nutez raised it. Reliability, is, however, relevant, in that (I believe) we consider opinion in reliable sources in determining due weight, so the reliability of The Critic would be relevant, even if it's an opinion piece. Secondary coverage is a strong bar for due weight, which I argue for where a topic has a lot of opinion coverage; where there is less opinion coverage this bar may be too high. Nableezy is correct that Katerji on Fisk has had no RS secondary coverage, but I think opponents of Katerji's inclusion overstate the case for his weightlessness. Katerji's published articles[6] suggest his expertise includes journalistic disinformation,[7][8][9][10] Lebanon,[11][12] Syria,[13][14][15][16] [17] and the Arabic-speaking world more broadly.[18][19] BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Syria/Arabic/Katerji

The following passages from an earlier version of this article have been deleted:

1. From September 2012, Fisk's reporting on the Syrian civil war met with accusations that he was siding with the Syrian government. Sam Hamad, among others, accused Fisk of embedded journalism with the Syrian Army in Aleppo and Damascus and of "trumpet[ing]" Syrian and Russian government propaganda. According to Loubna Mrie, Fisk said the Syrian government "did not use chemical weapons in various attacks on civilians".
2. Fisk's command of Arabic has been questioned. Oz Katerji of The Critic wrote that "Fisk did not speak fluent Arabic, not even after living in the Middle East for more than 40 years." Asser Khattab of Raseef22 said that "circumstances have repeatedly confirmed to me that his Arabic […] was almost non-existent." According to Khattab, Fisk had been using the services for years of a Syrian Arabic interpreter who did "not speak English well". Many critics referred to the instances when Fisk had confused the words umm with ummah, rendering Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party's slogan أمة عربية واحدة into "'Um al-Arabia wahida', the Mother of One Arab People, as the Baathists would have it", rather than simply Ummah Arabiyya Wahida ("One Arab Nation").
3. Conversely, British-Lebanese journalist Oz Katerji took a divergent stance on Fisk in a piece for The Critic, in which he called him a "fabricator and a fraudster", doubted his ostensibly fluent command of Arabic, and concluded that the "glowing obituaries" were a "fitting tribute. […] Like him, they preferred to tell a story that was not true, because stories are often far more comforting than the reality".

I see Katerji is being discussed up the talk page, but I don't see a discussion of the other two edits. The Syria material seems to me self-evidently important and of due weight. Proficiency in Arabic is extremely important and this seems to be well sourced. What's the problem? (There was also a dubious tag next to his Arabic speaking, for the same reason; this has also been removed.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC) (By the way, there are additional sources along the same lines:

• Ronnie Chatah (2020-11-15). "Robert Fisk: A Conscience Adrift". New Lines Magazine. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
• "The Legacy of Robert Fisk - Newlines [ with Muhammad Idrees Ahmad and Alex Rowell]". YouTube. 2022-06-02. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
• Snell, James (2020-11-11). "Robert Fisk: Middle East correspondent or novelistic storyteller?". The Critic Magazine. Retrieved 2022-06-06. The first series of death notices erroneously maintained that Fisk was fluent in Arabic, despite evidence the man himself continually produced to the contrary.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

All of these are commentary by unqualified non-experts, though Muhammad Idrees Ahmad comes closest to being a reliable source. I do not see the need to include individual opinions on Fisk without secondary sourcing showing those opinions have been given any weight among sources covering Fisk. nableezy - 15:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

All of these are commentary by unqualified non-experts - so Richard Spencer (Middle East editor of Telegraph then Times), Mat Nashed (regular contributor to New Arab and al-Jazeera[20][21]), Yassin al-Haj Saleh (one of the Arab world's leading intellectuals), Rime Allaf (a prominent Syrian journalist[22]), Sam Hamad (another leading MENA analyst[23]), Loubna Mrie (a well known Syrian writer), As'ad AbuKhalil (Lebanese public intellectual), Richard Beeston (Times foreign editor[24]), Oliver Miles (UK ambassador to Libya and an Arabic Studies scholar), Brian Whitaker (Guardian MENA editor), Ronnie Chatah (Lebanese historian[25]), and James Snell (New Arab columnist[26]) are all unqualified non-experts? Not sure that's right. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC) I notice I missed Asser Khattab off my list, so adding his credentials for completeness.[27][28][29] BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Spencer be fine, if Nashed is writing a news article thats reliable sure, Yassin al-Haj Saleh appears to have no academic qualifications or publishing record, neither does Rime Allaf, As'ad AbuKhalil is certainly reliable though I dont see why youd want to cite consortiumnews.com. Id be fine including that attributed view though. Oz Katerij is reliable for his news reports when vetted by some independent agency, but he has no academic qualifications to be used for his work in commentary pieces. I dont see how Oliver Miles is an Arabic Studies scholar, his biography here makes no mention of such scholarship other than to say he studied it as an undergrad, and a politician isnt a reliable source for anything other than their views, Whitaker is fine. Your link on Chatah gives his qualification as podcast host and walking tour guide. Dont see how that makes him a qualified source, Snell is a columnist, and that doesnt grant him reliability. nableezy - 17:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Nableezy for that thorough response. I don't think our criteria for including noteworthy opinion is that someone is an academic. You're right that Miles isn't an academic; I misread his WP article (he has studied Arabic though). Agree Consortium is not a good source. I'm not sure why you think Saleh has no publishing record.[30][31] His co-author Allaf has less of a publishing record but not negligible.[32][33] Only some of these are sources we should use for facts, but I suspect lots of them are noteworthy for attributed opinion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Spencer, a journalist, is not an expert; afaik he speaks very little Arabic. Not sure appending the opinion “leading” to otherwise prosaic desriptors and or careers makes any difference to their real or imagined prominence or expertise. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The Middle East editor of the Times and Telegraph is not an expert on reporting on the Middle East? That's a strange view. Can't comment on his Arabic but our article says he's lived in Egypt and Lebanon for over a decade and I'm anyway if you read my comment I don't suggest he's used as a source for the Arabic item above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

No it isn't. Senior or widely-recognised academics are subject experts, and occasionally officials of relevant institutions are experts. Journalists are not. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it WP policy that journalists can't be regarded as experts? I've not seen that before. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite what I meant. Being a journalist does not necessarily exclude someone from being a subject expert. But it's not a sufficient condition to regard someone as a subject expert. And, this has nowt to do with policy, but IMHO only very few journalists are considered subject experts; many of those very few who are only get the recognition when they get academic credentials to match (e.g. Stephen Dorril). Cambial — foliar❧ 17:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think for commentary or opinion pieces to be used they basically need to be acceptable as a self-published source. And being a journalist doesnt meet that bar, it is being published academically that allows for a WP:SPS to be used. I was wrong on Saleh, I dont think the Hurst works give him any reliability in our understanding of it but some of the scholar results arguably do. I do think being an editor would be enough to be quoted though. Whitaker works I think because he has focused on translation issues and he has some experience with the language. nableezy - 03:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Came here from the request at NPOV/N, happy to share my (non-expert) impressions. 1) seems DUE. Too much weight is given to Sam Hamad (a politician) but otherwise the sources look good. 2) also seems worthy of inclusion, although the proposed text gives too much weight to Oz Katerji (who?); I have a very low opinion of The Critic, it does not have the established reputation of its competitors The Spectator and New Statesman, and when I've come across it before I've found the accuracy of some of its journalism doubtful and its taste calculated to be provocative, something it seems to embrace. Today its front page seems to be leading with transphobia? The first Khattab sentence seems repetitive and could be cut; the second Khattab sentence (modified to include the mention of Raseef22), and the sentence on his misreading of the Syrian Ba'athist slogan, seem informative. 3) isn't appropriate – looks like an attack piece, and neither the author nor the publication have any claim to expertise or authority. While I agree with nableezy that caution is needed generally with journalists, I think his criteria is slightly too strict – I'd be prepared to cite commentary/analysis published in an RS media outlet from a journalist who has worked a long time in a region and established a reputation, provided any controversial claims are attributed. An example that springs to mind would be Jonathan Head's reporting for the BBC in Thailand, or The Economist's international reporting (generally the work of an anonymous country-based correspondent, which is then subject to editorial scrutiny). I can also think of journalists who've gone on to publish books on their areas of expertise, and if their work was well-regarded/well-reviewed this would make them an accepted expert whose SELPPUB opinion may be notable, in my opinion. Obviously academics remain the ideal authority, although they too should be scrutinised. Jr8825 • Talk 17:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Mostly agree with Jr8825 above, though if you combine 2) and 3) into a single sentence it should be fine. Volunteer Marek 12:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Folks, we're not in the business of deciding what a "qualified" vs "non qualified" expert because that way lies original research and POV. What matters is whether sources are reliable or not. Volunteer Marek 14:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that last sentence, which seems uncontroversial. The sources are opinion pieces, and are not reliable sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

We are in the business of deciding if somebody is an expert on the topic though. And Katerji is not and his opinion has no weight, and that appears to be the consensus here and at NPOV/N. Why did you return it? I said above Im ok with some of these sources, but including that one is absurd. nableezy - 15:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Not really. We are in business of deciding if a source is reliable but that's a different thing altogether. Volunteer Marek 17:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

For an opinion piece the two are equivalent. But again, there seems to be a clear consensus against using the Katerji piece, or anything from him at all. Why are you restoring it? nableezy - 18:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to substantiate the above: Raseef22 articles adds a disclaimer - "The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Raseef22"; al-bab clearly states in both the URL and on the post itself - "Blog" and refers on the left to previous blog posts. The Guardian and Spectator book reviews are reviews - not merely opinion pieces even if they inherently consist of opinion. As they are reviews rather than simply opinion pieces, and published by mainstream news orgs, I think they could be used for their author's opinions, but they do not support the text as previously written. Guardian makes a reference to literally one Arabic word, and Spectator says Fisk not a "great Arabic linguist". Cambial — foliar❧ 15:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

al-Bab is a blog but by an obvious subject expert (someone who was Middle East editor of one of the world's major newspapers for many years).

Are there any views on Chattah, Ahmad/Rowell and Snell above, who I think also support some version of the removed text?

By the way, my reading of the discussion so far is that, although some editors support inclusion of Katerji there is definitely not consensus in favour of it, but that there is strong consensus for including some version of the other two bits of removed text. There is also strong consensus that Consortium is not a good source to use. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: You're entirely right about al-bab, I missed it was authored by Whitaker. Agreed that he is one of those who could well be considered a subject expert, and thus his views included with attribution. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Im going to try to break the logjam here in which one user restores obviously unsuitable material as part of a large revert that includes material that is fine while another user removes obviously suitable material as part of a large revert that removes material that is obviously not fine. Im going to do this based on my response to Bob up above on who I think is usable here and who is not. nableezy - 18:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The Beeston piece just barely says anything about Arabic, it belongs in a section on The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. Going to refrain from citing it in the "Arabic proficiency" section though. nableezy - 18:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Im a little confused on where this should go though. Logically this wouldnt be in his views section, but as a part of a wider reception. The As'ad AbuKhalil piece could be in there too (along with obviously a bit from the wide praise Fisk received). nableezy - 19:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the right place would be in reception if there still parts to add. The relevance is still discussed here, but some critical reception from Asser Khattab from the same article is already in the article (source 50). Oliver Miles is already included with his main points. Same for Richard Spencer (generally Syria criticism is covered, mind due weight). Nableezy now also added the criticism from Beeston. Kat/Critic isn't relevant, especially considering the article covers already so many voices and considering how prominent Fisk is and how long he worked, there would be endless reception otherwise. The deleted passages would therefore be in part redundant if they're added and it wouldn't be reasonable to emphasize the opinions by quoting every point or interpret the sources further (I've read the article of Miles and he points out regarding Arabic a typo of Fisk, you can't use it as a reference for Miles questioning Fisk's command of Arabic; that's clearly misrepresenting the source). AbuKhalil in Consortiumnews and Whitaker in al-Bab are still missing. al-Bab's a blog, though Brian Whitaker was an editor for the region in the Guardian for some years. I would advise against it, but don't mind much if it's added. The post of Whitaker is however with its mocking style a rather typical private blog post (would probably be written a bit different in a paper) and the biggest quotes in it are Miles (already in this article) and AbuKhalil (still discussed here). --Casra (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

References