Talk:David Pakman

View on Circumcision

Is this mention worthy of attention? It does not seem to merit any as the man is neither health practitioner nor religious. ~2025-32759-16 (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree and have removed. Ceoil (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Typo in Views (date: 23/02/2026)

This wiki article misspells the paraphrasing of reference 22. The quote from reference 22 is: "Pakman, for his part, has previously asserted that Israel would never “waste ordnance” on Palestinian civilians and that he views Congressman Ritchie Torres, who is perhaps best known for being one of AIPAC’s top recipients of funding, as the kind of person who he would like to see lead the “progressive movement.” The wiki article refers to it as ordinance, which has quite a different meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-12083-82 (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, reference 22 itself refers to a youtube clip of David Pakman himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuXjPz1tKbk). So having the clip as a reference might be more complete. ~2026-12083-82 (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

View on Israel

The current phrasing seems slanted against David, as Pakman has been critical of the Israeli government fairly consistently since 2023, has been critical of AIPAC, and it cites one fairly biased and outdated to back up this claim. This should either be replaced with a more credible source or reworded to better reflect David Pakman’s views in a neutral manner. CastawayFaraway (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Also the line about Ritchie Torres and AIPAC seems irrelevant to an article about David Pakman. Seems again like another negative swipe at Pakman. CastawayFaraway (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm tagging this with an NPOV tag for persistent efforts to inaccurately portray him as being affiliated with Israel.

Why does he have an entire section devoted to him taking a vacation to Jerusalem 10 years ago?

Why is the bulk of the "Views" section sourced to a small magazine whose editor prints it himself inside his own apartment?

We all know the answer. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest the tagging editors find sources that show that Pakman's positions have evolved. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

"I struggle to think that they are going to—quite frankly—waste ordnance on 4 random civilians walking down a road"

This is the quote. He is talking about 4 specific civilians. In a video where he talks about how he agrees with a lot of views about Israel not being concerned with civilian casualties, he makes one comment about how he doesn't think these 4 random people were specifically targeted.

Our current text:

• Pakman has asserted that Israel would not "waste ordinance" on Palestinian civilians (cited to an Indy magazine with a circulation of under 4,000)

Obvious POV. Quit wasting our time defending this. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't care one whit about the magazine's circulation if it is otherwise reliable. I will have a look and make sure the source is not being misrepresented. If it is I'll change accordingly. If it not then the onus lies on those who want to make the change to find another source.Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I checked. The source is not being misrepresented. Please find another source if you wish to see this changed. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

You may not care if the magazine is reliable, but WP:BLP does. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and the claim that he doesn't think Israel would waste ordnance on civilians is an exceptional one, and all you have is one low-quality source that misrepresents his quote. You know the source is misrepresenting his quote, and your silence on that means you agree that your indy magazine is representing this living person's words.

WP:WEIGHT also makes this clearly unsuitable. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

It's Current Affairs. It's absolutely a reliable source. And, again, your whole reason for removal is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you believe Mr. Pakman's views have evolved please find additional sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

It's an op-ed. It's clearly unreliable for any statement of fact, even more so given it is not a mainstream publication. That you say I don't care one whit about the magazine's circulation if it is otherwise reliable proves you don't understand the reliability policies or WP:BLP. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Here’s David Pakman’s own words from the exact clip referenced in the opinion piece.

https://youtube.com/FuXjPz1tKbk?si=lSrggIkLipZohOZh

He says just after saying he does not believe Israel would deliberately target four Palestinian civilians that he agrees with the caller’s criticism that the Israeli military is too careless with civilian casualties. It’s pretty clear that the article took his words in bad faith as it did not show the full context. If anything, this video should replace the article referenced as that article referenced this video, so it’s a reference to a reference.

I would also like to state my skepticism that there would be this level of fixation on his stance on Israel if he was not Jewish. My guess is no. CastawayFaraway (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:AGF friend. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

But also your personal interpretation of a primary source does not trump a secondary reliable source per WP:SECONDARY. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright, assuming good faith. The section on his beliefs is incredibly brief and only focused on Israel (and Congressman Ritchie Torres for some reason) despite his content focusing on a broad range of political issues, if anything he spends more time talking about domestic policy instead of foreign policy, and there is not one mention of any of his positions on social or fiscal issues. His personal life section focuses in on his one trip to Jerusalem without mentioning the importance of said trip, and I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to why this needed to be mentioned. CastawayFaraway (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Update, I just saw the article was modified, apologies I was working most of today and only just now had time to respond. CastawayFaraway (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Would it be possible for someone who has the permissions to do so to either modify his views and personal life sections or just delete the thinly-veiled antisemitism entirely? CastawayFaraway (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Please provide appropriate sourcing and I'd be happy to. But the sources come first. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The contrary is true, Mr. Simon: please read wp:weight, check the article and check the shows: Mr. Pakman is not a commentator on Israel's politics. I may have watched about 80-90% of his public shows since 2021, and Pakman concentrates near-exclusively on internal US politics and rarely explores non-US topics, and the latter also only when it is connected to internal US affairs. From my admittedly non-perfect memory, he may have mentioned Israel about as often as he did Denmark, and certainly less than for example Russia and Ukraine.

If the article had a ton of (properly sourced) information on Pakman's political views about internal US affairs; THEN I could imagine a few sentences being added about his views on the politics of other countries; but even then it should not be limited to such a misrepresentation. This was an appropriate action, thanks.

I also agree about the complaint on the "Personal life" paragraph: the typical key facts about personal lifes in our biographies are not the tourist destinations, but the marital status, the number of children, and the place/area of living. Instead, our article focuses on one single of his tourist destinations years ago. And yet by his own tellings, Mr. Pakman has visited not just Jerusalem, but also at least Argentina, Spain and Portugal several times in the last years, and I think other countries as well. He also journeyed other states within the US. So again, this focus on his Jewishness (which is the topic of the cited source, after all), violates wp:Weight.

--Enyavar (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a reliable source being used for a single line. the WP:WEIGHT concerns are nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

United States government is no longer consider a valid source???

I added the following statement:

The United States Government officially declared David Pakman to be a “deranged leftist” “media offender” on the White House's website.

This was reverted with non-primary source needed by User:Bridget

Now, the White House website IS a secondary source when it officially assesses David Pakman's positions as an important enough media figure, and acknowledges tracking him. Even more, that website is THE source of government information. Even this Wiki's page about the White House itself references whitehouse.gov as sources, in fact eleven times. Obviously, the house is not a neutral source, but it's not like Mr Pakman wrote this assessment himself.

References

--Enyavar (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC) Enyavar (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This sentence quotes the White House website on Pakman and solely cites the source where you're getting the quote from. That's a primary source. For a political BLP like Pakman's, strong, secondary reliable sources should be preferable. Bridget (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

If we added that David Pakman is a "deranged leftist", then the website would be used as a secondary source (as it cites primary sources). But it's not reliable/neutral, so it can't be used as a secondary source.

But the proposed addition is not using the website as a secondary source. It's using it as a primary source, because it's about the declaration itself. In that case, the website is reliable, but it's no longer a secondary source. That's why the addition was removed. Paditor (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I reinstated the edit with the addition of a secondary source. --Enyavar (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I've adjusted the statement to more appropriately neutral and encyclopedic language - and to language that side-steps the thorny question of whether grievances expressed on the White House website are equivalent to official statements of the United States government. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2026

Change the descriptor “progressive” to “centrist”, a more accurate descriptor of Pakman’s political views. ~2026-39092-53 (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. The progressive descriptor is reliably sourced. As long as the sources describe him as such, Wikipedia must follow suit (per WP:NOR, WP:VOICE, and WP:V). A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2026 (UTC)