Talk:Richard A. Falk - Wikipedia


1 person in discussion

Article Images
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

The sentence “Falk began his teaching career at Ohio State University and Harvard expressing his communistic beliefs in the late 1950s.” was sourced to Martin Griffiths, Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations, Routledge 1999 p.74

Well, it is not there. Not on p. 74, anyway; Falk is not mentioned. If we are going to have such a statement in the article (“expressing his communistic beliefs”) it should be impeccably sourced. Seriously, folks. Huldra (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

When reading this article for the first time, I was struck that the article's final paragraph (before the list of published works) duplicated an earlier passage. The ordering of footnotes seemed to confirm this -- after note 129, it ended, strangely, with note 100. So I was tempted to remove the duplicate passage, which had the ring of an editing error (or, more cynically, as an attempt to promote a point of view). On closer inspection I discovered that the quote was indeed duplicated, but its introduction was modified. And I could see the reason for the duplication: the quote, in which Falk's comments on the Boston marathon bombings are described as "anti-Semitic", is included under both relevant sections: 3.6 "[Notable opinions:] Boston marathon bombings" and 4 "Accusations of antisemitism".

As a first step, I decided to leave the quotation duplicated but I changed the introduction to its second appearance to reflect that it has previously been quoted, so it sounds less like an accident of poor editing. Also, I added a second footnote to the quote's second appearance, one derived from the original and far more extensive discussion of Falk's comments on the Boston marathon bombings and some of the reactions they provoked (both negative and positive). This footnote leads to Falk's original commentary which provoked the quoted accusation of anti-Semitism, and its inclusion could help a reader to judge whether the accusation of anti-Semitism is merited.

I hope these changes make the article both more professional and more neutral, but I still wonder whether the duplication of a quote -- especially a controversial quote -- is appropriate in an encyclopedia article, and if not, how best to handle this case. Any thoughts or suggestions are welcome. --Macam14 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Richard A. Falk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Aaronovitch lacks the qualifications to credibly assess the validity of Griffin's thesis or Falk's support of the book, and his comment should be removed as unsupported personal opinion. He is a journalist with an undergrad history degree, with no qualifications in science or engineering. There are many people who actually do have relevant scientific and engineering qualifications whose expertise convinced them that the evidence supports controlled demolition. That group used to include the late Danny Jowenko, a Dutch expert in controlled demolition whose company operated around the world. Shown a video of the WTC7 collapse without being told what building it was, he said without hesitation that it was an example of expert-level controlled demolition and pointed out the relevant stigmata. When finally told what building it was, it took him a long time to accept that the interviewer was being truthful. 184.56.20.130 (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please start new sections in chronological order. The two points at which David Aaronovitch's April 2008 Times article is cited are purely descriptive and do not depend on having a "science or engineering" degree. He is following mainstream findings from individuals who are suitably qualified; these take precedence over the thinking of fringe conspiracy theorists like David Ray Griffin, a theologian/philosopher by academic training. Philip Cross (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Cambial Yellowing regarding the short description, I don't see how my change violates WP:BLP with unsourced content, as it states in the article that he is both a professor, as well as a part of many UN boards, etc.. I could see how he might not be considered a true "politician", but that certainly isn't unsourced. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I believe that "American professor emeritus and politician" is an appropriate description. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
No sources cited in the article refer to him as a politician, and hence no content in the article body refers to him as a politician. Information that lacks a reliable source directly supporting it is, by definition, WP:UNSOURCED. A description that is unsourced is both inappropriate and unacceptable, particularly as this is a WP:BLP. Unsourced content is to be removed immediately. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Understandable, I've switched the short description to be a bit more detailed: "American professor emeritus and activist", both terms that are used in the article. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
The word "activist" does not appear in the article as you claim. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Oh hmm sorry about that, I don't remember writing that but I was probably looking at Richard A. Falk#Activism a well as the categorization of the article (not that that is a source). Thank you for correcting my mistake! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Cambial Yellowing. "Politician" is unwarranted, "activist" does not relate to what he's most well-known for. We should use concise and neutral descriptions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply