Talk:Robert Fishman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
|
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
Contents |
[edit] Self-editing
Previous references to self-editing have been deleted by the editor who was being questioned about self-editing (and claiming to be only a student at GW).
That open question has now been closed.
Repeatedly, "161.253.41.42" (an IP at GWU where the subject of the biography works) divulges superfluous information that only the subject could have known.
One glaring example (there are others) is when the editor states below: "in reference to a phone interview with Fishman where he said"
As the Forward article in question never mentions how the interview took place, where it took place and by any/which medium, only the journalist and Fishman could've known this fact. As the IP address is GW's that rules out the journalist.
The rest of the talk page has been cluttered by a clumsy attempt by Fishman to have his biography removed because it is unflattering (and not because it is untrue). For this reason alone the points below are without merit.
Fishman's name is cited in at least two other wiki entries and had been previous tagged by editors as worthy of a biography. That biography is now retroactively written and sourced by three publications of major repute. The Forward, which is attacked below, is of the highest and national standard and is seen as the best Jewish newspaper in the country.
This biography should remain and the subject should stop self-editing and attempting to seek its removal.68.239.79.66 05:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Terrorist Claim
First sentence of second paragraph "He called a pro-Palestinian..." is vague and requires context. No background is given, nor is the individual name. Could be perceived as misleading or biased. Vague Tag or further clarification suggested.03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Line line is still encyclopedic, vague, and biased. Suggest the following rewrite:
Prior to a political rally occurring on campus, he called a pro-Palestinian law student a recognized terrorist, citing both Israeli and US state department arrest records, and subsequently apologized when threatened with a lawsuit. [1] [vague]. The student had declared in a Michigan student publication his desire “to strap a bomb to one’s chest and kill . . . . The enemy is not just overseas, the enemy is also amongst us.”[2]
161.253.41.42 01:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bias
Third Paragraph regarding the carter visit is biased and misleading. Students did not block the microphones, the article cited even mentions that students waited in line. Additionally, although the article supports the fact that the media perceived the campus as pro-Israel, nowhere does it support the claim that such an impression was false.161.253.41.42 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The activist students waited in line to prevent others from getting to the microphone. The article states they "stood up and blocked anyone else from asking a question" and that four of the eight questions asked can from a single sheet of paper that a dozen activists shared among themselves . . . in a sea of 1700 students. The article and video further show continious standing applause for the president. The audience gave no indication of being critical of carter and this premeditated attempt to dash the microphones to read prescripted questions gave the media a false impression and was designed to do so 68.239.79.66 05:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Waiting in Line
The article mentions that the students waited in line. You're interpretation takes the quote out of context. That is in reference to a phone interview with Fishman where he said that the students waited in line, outside the auditorium, just like any other audience member. Because the speech was general admission, audience members arrived early and waited to be seated. The students did not strong arm the ushers in anyway, nor was their a conspiracy to gain any advantage. They chose to sit near microphones because they knew that they had questions, just as if you or I were there and were planning on asking a question.161.253.41.42 01:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Blocking others
The accusation that they blocked others from asking questions is unfounded. The only sense in which they blocked others from asking questions, was by nature of asking a question when carter had announced in advance that he was only taking a limited number. By that interpretation, any student who asked a question would be considered "blocking" others from speaking.161.253.41.42 01:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tone of the Audience
The audience applauded and gave no indication of being critical because it was (A) on a university campus in the middle of Washington DC, an academic institution where such dialogs are common and handled respectfully, and (B) because it was presented as speaker, out of several, that showed varying points of view. Furthermore, out of a campus of roughly 20,000 it is erroneous to say that because the 1700 audience members, who CHOSE to hear Carter speak, didn't openly and publicly criticize him, that the campus must be predominantly in favor of Carter's views. Even if that were such a case, would you not expect the audience to openly and publicly support Carter, and criticize or otherwise heckle those who asked questions?161.253.41.42 01:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Media Bias
You claim that the entire conspiracy, mind you, focusing around twelve college students was a plot to sway national media coverage. In order for that to be true, the students would have had to have know that the event was going to be so highly publicized, that they would be filmed, and that reporters would take notice of their questions. Additionally, if their motivations were such, would you not expect them to indicate such sentiments in their questions? Not one of the students made any statement such as "Those of us at GW think X..." or "The vast majority of students here argue Y..." instead, they asked questions, critical of the book, and in my opinion, of an academic tone. Although they may have been difficult questions, they were not based on general campus sentiment, but rather, and correct me if I am wrong, referenced specific passages of the book, specific events or factual errors that required clarification, and specific criticisms made by other academics. 161.253.41.42 01:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Campus Sentiment
If those questions were enough to mislead the media into believing that the campus was strongly pro-israel, I would argue that it is not the fault of the students, but rather the fault of the reporters for not properly researching the issue before making claims. If you look at the reputation of the article cited, the fact that it is consistently a left leaning publication, and no major national publication picks up the story leads one to question its credibility and the credibility of its claims. On the other hand, I would argue based on the demographics of the campus, that it would not be out of line to claim that the university student body is predominantly pro-israel. You give no evidence to support otherwise.161.253.41.42 01:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Biographies of Living Persons
Article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons.
[edit] Writing Style
Article is not encyclopedic. Article does not document the events in an unbiased manner, sources are not reliable, and the overall tone is one of advocacy journalism. Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons:
Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted. The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
161.253.41.42 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious materia
The forward article should not be cited. It does not meet wikipedia requirements for attribution as outlined in [Wikipedia:Attribution]. Information is derogatory and poorly sourced. Recomend that article is deleted as per NPOV policy.
Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).[3]
161.253.41.42 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Non-public figures
Fishman is not a public figure, nor by nature of his job does he seek public attention. Although the incident might be notable for documentation, the individual is not.161.253.41.42 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Biased or malicious content
While the views of critics are widely welcomed on wikipedia, they must be balenced by non-critical sources to provide fair and accurate analysis of the issue at hand.
The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.[4]
Given that no major publications represent the views expressed in the Forward article cited, and it is the only article that makes such accusations, it does not represent the predominant sentiment on the issue and must either be balanced, or if no balancing article can be found, removed.161.253.41.42 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
