Talk:Richard A. Falk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"expressing his communistic beliefs"[edit]

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]

Repetition of quote claiming that Falk's comments on Boston marathon bombings are anti-Semitic[edit]

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]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

David Aaronovitch's comment on Griffin's book and Falk's support should be deleted[edit]

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]

Short description[edit]

@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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_A._Falk&oldid=1207174534"