Talk:Philip Giraldi

Neither "claim" nor "reveal" NPOV

Wikipedia:WORDS#Synonyms_for_said says:

Said, stated, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person revealed, pointed out, exposed, explained, or found something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone noted, observed, insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter.

So I think it would be good to find an alternate word for both reveal and claim. (Except when WP:RS describe something as claim or revelation, I assume.) "Reporting and Opinions" section title, as used in a similar person's bio seems good. Still looking. "WROTE" or "SAID" probably best for text. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Notable? Sources?

There is a lack of secondary sources to support this article. Primary sources and author-supplied biographical data backs too much of this article. Please provide secondary sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

University Degree

University of London is not a university but rather a group of universities. A degree certificate might be conferred by University of London, but that is not where he studied. Typically opaque for an intelligence officer, is there a source on where he specifically studied for his MA and PhD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.170.182 (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

The Lead is supposed to summarise the body of the article. At the moment, that is not the case, one indication being the number of source citations given. Normally, citations aren't needed in the introduction because they are given elsewhere in the article.
One source which is cited three times is a Haaretz article by Alexander Reid Ross, which is very clearly labelled 'Opinion', which means that it is not covered by Haaretz's reputation for reliability. It can be used to state Reid Ross's opinions, but it cannot be used to verify statements of fact in the Wikipedia voice.
The ADL, a political organisation, is cited twice. It is not (or at least should not be) a reliable source.
The Daily Beast is cited once. Consideration should be given to whether, in light of the fact that the current article is a BLP, the particular article cited is reliable for the highly critical material it is being used to support. Or whether the use to which it is being put is neutral.
Although, the Unz Review does publish some material which is right-wing and some which is racist, it re-posts material from all over the political spectrum, including the left-wing. To label it as 'right-wing' is therefore inaccurate.
    ←   ZScarpia   12:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Zscarpia, the opinions of the ADL, Alexander Reid Ross and others are clearly in line with the content of Giraldi's articles. That does not mean they are correctly attributed. Giraldi's articles cited to The Unz Review were not originally published by other sources and the sources used in the article about Ron Unz are unequivocal in demonstrating the nature of his website. The sources are cited in this article's summary because it seemed inevitable the content would be queried. Philip Cross (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Statements in the summary all now properly attributed. Philip Cross (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

None of my points has been addressed:

- The Lead is supposed to summarise the body of the article, not contain material unrelated to anything below.

- The Haaretz article is, beyond dispute, an opinion piece in the Wikipedia policy sense of the term. It is not a reliable source for anything except what Reid Ross has written.

- The ADL is a political lobbying organisation. It's statements are not reliable for anything apart from what the ADL has claimed.

- The Unz Review publishes articles from all over the political spectrum. It is not right-wing, let alone far-right. Do you think Patrick Cockburn and Jonathan Cook, for instance, are right-wing.

The article is a BLP. There is a requirement to be scrupulous about sourcing and, when picking them, to err on the side of using conservatively-written ones. Do you think that is the case here? The subject of the article is a prominent-ish anti-Zionist. If he was instead a Zionist, would you be happy about the neutrality of an article sourced heavily to his political opponents?

    ←   ZScarpia   10:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The ADL and Haaretz are reliable sources properly identified, the second is not held in high regard by many Zionists. I think Giraldi's own words cited in the article suggest the accuracy of the claims made in third-party sources. If you can find reliable sources defending Giraldi those could well be added . Philip Cross (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Come off it: repeating once more, a Haaretz article prominently labelled 'opinion' is not a reliable source for what it is being used for here. Just by coincidence the reliability of the ADL as a source was raised earlier this month, no definite conclusion appearing to have been reached. As a political lobbying organisation with a mixed reputation (which I think a Google search for articles on figures such as Abraham Foxman and the Contoversies section of the article on the ADL will confirm), it fairly clearly is a dubious source as far as reliability is concerned.     ←   ZScarpia   14:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I took a stab at condensing the lead to at least remove the stuff that never again appears in the body. I did not remove the sourcing, as it is a lot to go through, but I agree with your point that, technically speaking, the sourcing should appear in the body, not in the lead. Ditch ∝ 00:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Efforting. I will not make it through the entirety of it tonight. Ditch ∝ 02:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Comparing this cited ADL article ("On March 5, antisemite and former CIA employee Philip Giraldi suggested in an article published in the antisemitic and conspiratorial news website The Unz Review that Israel created the coronavirus as “a biological weapon” for use against arch-rival Iran.") with the article by Giraldi it is commenting on, demonstrates why the reliability of the ADL should be regarded as qualified.     ←   ZScarpia   22:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The ADL use an accurate description of The Unz Review. They miss out Giraldi's insinuation of supposed United States involvement to target both China and Iran, but that part of his claim is not in the ADL's remit, off-topic in the passage, as well as also being clearly false. Wikipedia does not exist to advocate fringe theories such as those of Giraldi. Giraldi writes: "It is difficult to explain why coronavirus has hit one country in particular other than China very severely. That country is Iran, the often-cited enemy of both the U.S. and Israel." The phrase the ADL use from Giraldi is contained in the passage: "If one suspects Israel and/or the United States, the intent clearly would have been to create a biological weapon that would damage two nations that have been designated as enemies." So what exactly makes the ADL unreliable? Adding the additional speculation simply dilutes the immediate issues in this section. Philip Cross (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

"So what exactly makes the ADL unreliable?"

The fact that it's a political lobbying organization. All political lobbying organizations are biased by definition, that's why they exist. Sayitclearly (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

In fact, certain political lobbying organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. With regard to ADL specifically, the community consensus documented at WP:RS/P states: "There is consensus that ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that ADL must be attributed in all cases, but there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)