Talk:Robert Fisk

Fisking

Consider the following:

The blogosphere term fisking^{Word detective, 2003} refers not to what Fisk does but to what is done to him, and others; the fisker begins by copying text from the fiskee, and then constructs a point-by-point criticism of the text.

Can somebody kindly produce a reliable source for the terms "fisker" and "fiskee"? I note that Andrew Sullivan's original "fisking" was not a point-by-point rebuttal but instead a familiar, short three paragraph attack. The formatting of Sullivan's criticism fails to meet the definition outlined above. Indeed, I can't find a single "fisking" of Robert Fisk anyplace (lots of random criticism, yes, but nothing that can accurately be described as a "fisking"). Perhaps this needs rewording. Wikispan (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A quick google search shows that this term is used quite often. As for what you might call a reliable source, well if you mean the OED or something like that, they are far too slow to catch up to be relevant. The term exists, there is nothing abusive or untrue in the paragraph, it is one of the more notable things about the subject. It would be biased and misleading to omit this point from the article. If the rules you want to follow say otherwise, it is the rules that are wrong. Luwilt (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless: the one line remark about "Fisking" is wrong-- this was a dig against Fisk that came out of the Iraq war era of "war bloggers", who fancied themselves capable of demolishing opponents with responses based on detailed quotations. It was publicized (if not invented) by Eric S. Raymond, who insisted on injecting his opinions into his "Jargon File" and pretending they were representative of the entire community of programmers. "It's time for me to give him a thorough fisking" meant "I am going to take him down just like Sullivan did Fisk."

You cant find "authoritative sources" on this because it's all from the world of armchair warrior war bloggers. It probably belongs in a footnote about internet culture, it doesn't belong in the lede. 2600:1700:5B20:15A0:2711:A0DB:D6A1:5807 (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it may have made more sense to start a new thread rather than trying to restart this one, which has been inactive for 13 years. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of Fisking section

An IP user deleted the Fisking section of the article. While I think some mention of the term should be included I'm not sure whether the whole section should be reinstated and was wondering what everyone else thinks. Should the section be reinstated or not? Mrmatiko (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

While I was not the editor who deleted the section, I agree with its removal. There are many things about this man's career that merit attention and expansion. I would say this rates fairly low. Certainly does not deserve an entire section. Wikispan (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering how notable the term “fisking” has become excluding it in its entirety doesn’t seem like the right move. The length of the material is fairly short and concise. While it may or may not warrant an entire section, the material’s notoriety shouldnt be in question. ZHurlihee (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There is simply no indication of significant notability. See below. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I got here through a link to 'Fisking' that now does not exist anywhere on Wikipedia thanks to the merge. It's absurd to merge and then delete. 172.251.74.216 (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I also got here via "Fisking". Why delete Wikipedia's only explanation of this notable internet term, which has its origin in this notable person? "There is simply no indication of significant notability" -- there are 864k results for "fisking" on Google! (More than "borking", which has a significant section in Robert Bork's article, as it should!) Congrats Wikipedia scolds, your quest to eliminate eponyms is... succeeding inconsistently? Brw12 (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Should be restored. Still in use in 2023, by noteworthy media such as the Financial Times. XavierItzm (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It belongs in a footnote about internet blogger culture and Fisk, it's not at all central enough to go in the lede.

The issue, the reason discussions of "Fisking" have always been contentious is it's an insult made up by one faction, so the question is, is it in any way "neutral" to help them promote this insult, to make it seem as though there's something authoritative about it? 2600:1700:5B20:15A0:2711:A0DB:D6A1:5807 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

(a) Internet bloggers may have taken it up but the term predated that usage and continues to be used in the real world too.

(b) How is a point-by-point rebuttal "an insult made up by one faction"? If someone takes apart some BS, such as pseudo-science or conspiracy theory, it is only contentious if you are the promoter of said BS. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)