This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Delete this minor footnote in the September 11th story. He's not notable enough to merit an entire article. Beingsshepherd ( talk) 00:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
IF that's true, then the article should contain their attestations, rather than just pointing to them. Seemingly, his only significance, is once having taken photographs (of an unknown quality) in an interesting place at an interesting time.
'notable ... for being the only working photojournalist to perish in the attacks' Why is that remarkable? Beingsshepherd ( talk) 14:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
Currently, one has to explore external sources to appraise Biggart's noteworthiness; which should be conveniently evidenced within the encyclopaedic article.
Are they the rarest people in the world? Beingsshepherd ( talk) 01:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
working photojournalists (obviously). Beingsshepherd ( talk) 00:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
As I see it, the mystery of the "only working" photojournalist should now be clear to one and all with the most recent expansion of the article. There was another photojournalist who was killed in the attacks but he was a passenger on the AA flight. I have listed his name as well as the 6 TV engineers to add perspective. Hopefully readers in the future will have this point clarified (although a rewrite up top at the lead will still need to happen first). I know you're having a different conversation but if BS is not seeing how the person is notable (and we both believe he is), then perhaps the article itself (from that start point) was at fault. I hope the additional edits since your conversation began helps. The article now 1) includes notable exhibits of his work both discussed at the top and detailed below, 2) clarifies through additional context the significance of his death, 3) provides more background material about his career and creative work, and 4) uses an infobox to help readers discover Biggart quicker faster than before. Peace, Crtew ( talk) 20:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted the deletion of section called "Context." Let's talk about it first and see if we can come to a consensus!
If you want to retitle it, I have no problem with that (please feel free to do so), but the information is relevant to Biggart's case. He was neither the only photojournalist nor the only media worker to die in the WTC attacks. This information, therefore, offers readers perspective and clarity. This is a section and does not diminish from the focus of the article. Moreover, it would be unreasonable to create articles about them as they are not notable. Yet sources at the time mention them in relation to Biggart. Therefore, they properly belong mentioned in this article. Crtew ( talk) 20:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Lists are also appropriate within articles when additional articles would not be suitable as per WP policy. Crtew ( talk) 20:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
As for the relevance of the additional material: "No man is an island." It's important to understand that he was the "only" "working" photojournalist -- without the other information you might as well delete those two words. Another photojournalist died in that attack. Without the other section, we don't understand the importance of "working." He was not the "only" media worker. Nobody is saying that a media worker is a journalist, but the work is related. There were 8 media-related deaths in that attack, as sourced. The article seems to exclude this information in favor of "a narrative" that he was the lone media death. That's not accurate. The other deaths, again, do not diminish from his importance. Articles should provide a perspective that places the person in relation to what is going on around them. Crtew ( talk) 09:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I took to heart your valid complaints and revised the section and related it more closely to Biggart in a way that will still put him into a larger perspective. It's important to note that most of the sources I used, such as CBS News, IFEX and IFJ all speak to Biggart as well as the others. Therefore, external sources have created this connection. This means that it is not up to me to falsify your opinion, but it's up to you to challenge the sources and the connection first (and before potentially having it deleted). And, yes, if this is deleted, we will be bringing in outsiders to review the addition and your revert. I think I have addressed your challenge as I see it in relation to the relevance to Biggart. So I thank you for instigating this rewrite. Crtew ( talk) 12:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
And you are actually the one who risks the block for reverting one edit 3 times -- to be strict about policy -- without conducting a serious conversation. If you're going to be "strict about policy", you might want to familiarize yourself with it a bit more closely, since this comment by you is yet example of your ignorance of it. The 3RR rule refers to 3 edits made within a 24 hour period. Try again.
And please clean up your copy vios immediately. Stop trying to make provocative statements. You have not demonstrated any copyright violation, and a discussion is currently ongoing in the section below in which other members of the community have been asked to weigh in on whether that accusation by you has any merit. The matter will not be resolved until that discussion is over, so stop pretending that you have the authority to issue orders to any other editor to do anything, let alone "immediately". This comment by you is transparently intended to be obnoxious, especially given your previous denial that you made that accusation. Please familiarize yourself with WP:CIV and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Just knowing what we know about Biggart makes it seem (without this information) makes it seem as if he were the only media-related death. No, it does not. While the Lead section previously stated something to that effect, that was due to poor paraphrasing of the source that is cited for his notability, which actually states that he was the only photojournalist killed during the event while covering it. That passage has since been fixed, and now reflects that distinction. The statement cannot make something "seem" something other than what it merely says. He was the only photojournalist killed while covering the event, that's the only thing it now says, and therefore, the only thing it seems like. If you don't believe me, contact a group of random, uninvolved editors, and ask them what impressions they garner from that sentence.
This kind of context enriches our understanding of the danger media face in covering events like this.... That is not the role of the article. The role of the article is to document its subject. The subject of this article is Bill Biggart. The subject of this article is not the media, or the danger the media faces in covering events like 9/11. That is simply a tangent. Why is this so difficult for you to accept? Subjects that are not only tangentially rather than directly related to the article subject belong in other articles devoted to those subjects. Why don't you just create one?
I honestly cannot understand why you delete information without having a reasonable discussion about material and material that in no way compromises the integrity of the article. In every single delete -- up to 3 now -- you have deleted after I have made a good faith effort to approach you and without even allowing me to address your concerns. It doesn't work that way. If you have a controversial edit to make, you discuss it on the talk page first. Not after. And not at the same time. Adding such material while a discussion is ongoing is called edit warring.
Moreover, you continue to characterize my points rather than actually attempting to understand and see how we can reach a consensus. I have addressed each one of your points directly, and even quoted them where applicable. I have explained what was wrong with their reasoning, and while sometimes I employ different approaches in my responses, such as characterization, it is false to say that characterization is somehow the sole type of response I have employed. When one puts forward an idea or argument that is false, fallacious, intellectually dishonest, etc., I response by explaining why it is so. Just because characterizations are sometimes employed as a rhetorical device does not mean that they are equated with the whole.
Are you really an administrator? I just verified that but none of your actions (like your copy vios) or your misunderstanding of policy (see below) seems to indicate that. Well, far be it from me to ignore the advice of an editor whose experience so far outstrips my own, but if you can name a particular policy of which I've displayed ignorance, and explain how, then by all means, feel free to do so. I regard my activities on Wikipedia as a constant learning experience, even now, after having been on it as long as I have, so I look forward to your insights. I hope you understand, however, that I remain a tad skeptical, given the multiple instances I've demonstrated of ignorance of policy on your part. Let's look at some:
I want to know why you refer to Thomas Pecorelli to make your case above. If he's not necessary and totally unrelated, how is that you use him to make your case about Biggart, even while arguing that any info about Pecorelli be deleted? If you want to know why I mentioned Pecorelli, then why don't you try actually reading the passage in question, since it was quite clear in its meaning, and in its mention of Pecorelli? Do you really need me to respond here by saying, "Well, I was merely explaining why Pecorelli and those other industry employees, whom you insist on mentioning in the article, do not belong in it."? I mean, seriously, what is wrong with you that you can't comprehend that by just reading that passage, when it makes that so clear? If you're the one insisting that he and those others be in the article, how is it somehow an inconsistency or flaw in my counterargument for me to mention him when explaining why I disagree with his inclusion? It's when you make statements like this that I am genuinely perplexed as to whether you are being tendentious, or just really revealing yourself to be that inept at participating in a coherent discussion, especially in light of your childish little remarks about my ignorance and admin duties.
When or where did I ever say Biggart was not notable? I would never say that. And I never said otherwise. What's your point?
...but I for one would appreciate you only putting quotation marks around my real statements. Quotes are also used to indicate irony. If you do any amount of reading as a past time (and I'll assume for the sake of argument that you do), then you should know this. You might also look at the Lead section of the article on quotation marks, which states Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it and are often used to express irony.
I also don't think you make your point at all by using formatting - either bold, italic or otherwise. Just because you put "tendentious" in bold doesn't make anything that I've done mean what you say. I never implied otherwise. I employ formatting for reasons of clarity. The content of my statements and the reasoning or evidence I employ is what makes my point. Not the formatting.
I've requested Third Opinion on this matter. Nightscream ( talk) 03:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Biggart and other US media-related, terrorist-related deaths
- Bill Biggart was not the only media-related death or photojournalist to die from the attack on the World Trade Center. According to the International Federation of Journalists, which counts both journalists and media workers, there were eight media-related deaths as a result of the September 11 attacks. The IFJ noted that in addition to Bill Biggart, six broadcast TV engineers, who are counted as media workers, died inside Tower One where they worked. The IFJ also reported that another freelance professional photojournalist, Thomas Pecorelli, was killed as he was a passenger on the American Airlines flight that was the first airplane flown into the WTC. Biggart, however, remains the only photojournalist to die while reporting the event.[25 CBS News]
- Biggart was one of 31 to 37 journalists and one of 100 media workers who died in 2001 worldwide depending on the source used. Paris-based Reporters Without Borders reported that 31 journalists were killed worldwide while reporting in 2001.[26 IOL] New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, using a different counting standards, listed 37 journalists who died in 2001, including US journalists Biggart and Robert Stevens, a photo editor, who died on 5 October from on of the serial anthrax attacks following 9/11.[27 Oakland Tribune][28 CPJ] The IFJ, using an expansive definition that includes workers in addition to journalists, reported that 100 media workers were killed around the world in 2001.[25 CBS News]
- Other journalists and media workers killed at the World Trade Center
- Rod Coppola, TV engineer for WNET-TV, WTC (North Tower)[6 IFEX]
- Donald DiFranco, TV engineer for WABC-TV, WTC (North Tower)[6 IFEX]
- Steve Jacobson, TV engineer for WPIX-TV, WTC (North Tower)[6 IFEX]
- Bob Pattison, TV engineer for WCBS-TV, WTC (North Tower)[6 IFEX][25 CBS News]
- Thomas Pecorelli, professional freelance photojournalist, American Airlines Flight 11 passenger[25 CBS News]
- Isias Rivera, TV engineer for WCBS-TV, WTC (North Tower)[6 IFEX][25 CBS News]
- William Steckman, TV engineer for WNBC-TV[6 IFEX]
Please add the following issue to our dispute about material to review. I added the following and Nightscream deleted it. This deletion borders on POV editing as the statement doesn't seem favorable to the subject and comes from an eyewitness observer (another photojournalist working the same event). The source material backs this point up and there is another position that being so close was his trademark. How can this be off topic (as he claims in the edit history)? Preposterous. Comment added (as nobody answered our call for a third opinion yet) Crtew ( talk) 14:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Bolivar Arellano (eyewitness source and photojournalist for NY Post): ... and closer than he needed to be to safely cover the event.[21, Friend (book)]
I have left a message on his page for him to stop deleting material without discussion. See above Bolivar Arellano, which was deleted. Crtew ( talk) 14:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Would you please focus on the edits and please stop speaking for me. If I say I have two issues in this section, then I have two issues. Crtew ( talk) 17:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
What you wrote above is so disrespectful. Perhaps you should go through history and actually look at how much I have contributed in comparison with your edits to get a little bit of appreciation for other editors. I seriously cannot believe you are an administrator and you treat people like this. I wished I had never edited this article. Crtew ( talk) 17:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Bill Biggart and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
After skimming over the discussion above, and looking at the content which was removed, I have formed an opinion. If others do not believe my opinion helps form a
consensus that resolves the impass at hand an editor can create an
request for comment to get additional opinions, or take the issue to
dispute resolution noticeboard. |
Thank you, I'll pursue the other avenues you suggest in your 3O to get more opinions. Crtew ( talk) 07:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
A 3O is not the end all be all, and if you will read it, the person lists other avenues (see above). It's all there an black and white. I'm only pursuing what the 3O has said that I can do. I believe you need to be warned that if you remove the unbalanced template, I will be reporting your behavior as an administrator for a review of your actions on this article. Let's let the process unfold. Crtew ( talk) 21:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm now not happy with a section. I want the lead to reflect the other side of this notability statement. I also want a section in the article to detail this point. And not to do so is neither fair nor balanced, in my opinion. You believe otherwise. That's why there's a tag for that. It's called a dispute over whether this article is balanced under the category of neutrality. I'm letting the process unfold and I suggest you do the same. Crtew ( talk) 22:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
How is this article still a stub-class? Please explain using the standard assessment. Crtew ( talk) 20:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The new material that replaced my citation needed template and added later today is a clear copyright violation. First, the source is not independent. Second, the paraphrase is so close and the extent so much that it violates WP policy outright and has to be stricken immediately. Crtew ( talk) 21:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
From billbiggart.com : "Bill ran home, grabbed three cameras (two film, one digital) and began heading toward the WTC."
From the present copy: "Biggart ran to his apartment near Union Square, grabbed three cameras (two film, one digital) and began walking the two miles toward the Center,[20] down Fifth Avenue, through Greenwich Village and then to West Street, along the Hudson River ..."
Mistakes:
It's even worse below, which is currently live.
From website: "After being overtaken by the dust cloud, he photographed the devastation all around him. Wendy, his wife, reached Bill on his cell phone shortly after the first tower fell. He told her not to worry, he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio. "I’m safe,” he assured her, “I’m with the firemen.” It was the last time they ever spoke."
Added the other day: "After being overtaken by the dust cloud, he photographed the destruction in the area. His wife, Wendy, called Biggart on his cell phone shortly after the first tower fell. He told her not to worry, saying that he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio, and assured her, "I'm safe. I'm with the firemen." It was the last time they ever spoke."
Added today and after my previous deletion and warning:
"After being overtaken by the dust cloud generated by the collapse of the first tower (the South Tower), he photographed the destruction left in its wake. His wife, Wendy, called Biggart on his cell phone shortly after tower's collapse fell. He told her not to worry, saying that he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio, and assured her, "I'm safe. I'm with the firemen." It was the last time they ever spoke"
Delete this material immediately. Crtew ( talk) 22:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'm here in response to a request at Wikipedia talk:Close paraphrasing. I do not have a clue how extensive the copying here is believed to be or how much of it is done, but I want to clarify that copyright infringement does not require verbatim copying. To draw from that essay:
Paraphrasing rises to the level of copyright infringement when there is substantial similarity between an article and a source. This may exist when the creative expression in an important passage of the source has been closely paraphrased, even if it is a small portion of the source, or when paraphrasing is looser but covers a larger part of the source. A close paraphrase of one sentence from a book may be of low concern while a close paraphrase of one paragraph of a two-paragraph article would be considered a serious violation. Editors must therefore take particular care when writing an article, or a section of an article, that has much the same scope as a single source. The editor must be extra careful in these cases to extract the facts alone and present the facts in plain language, without carrying forward anything that could be considered "creative expression".
See also m:Wikilegal/Close Paraphrasing, a document prepared on request by a legal intern to the Wikimedia Foundation, which answer the question "Is close paraphrasing of a copyrighted work a copyright infringement?":
Yes. Among other rights, copyright law grants a copyright owner exclusive control over any unauthorized copying of the copyrighted work. Paraphrasing may be construed as copying if it is “substantially similar” to the copyrighted material. Such paraphrasing infringes on one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. There is no hard and fast rule to determine what is substantially similar. Substantial similarity need not be a “virtual copy” of the protected work, nor does the ordinary observer need to confuse the work entirely. Ultimately, the question boils down to whether there is enough similarity between the allegedly infringing work and the original elements of the copyrighted work to convince the ordinary observer that the alleged infringer wrongfully took something of significance from the copyright owner.
(Footnotes omitted - please see the original for more)
The real question should be, really, whether content is close enough that rewriting it would suit better with our copyright policy, which says "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely" and, a bit higher up, "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble."
Generally, concerns of close paraphrasing are best met by revising the content to eliminate them. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
source | Article |
---|---|
After being overtaken by the dust cloud, he photographed the devastation all around him. Wendy, his wife, reached Bill on his cell phone shortly after the first tower fell. He told her not to worry, he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio. “I’m safe,” he assured her, “I’m with the firemen.” It was the last time they ever spoke. | After being overtaken by the dust cloud, he photographed the destruction in the area. His wife, Wendy, called Biggart on his cell phone shortly after the first tower fell. He told her not to worry, saying that he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio, and assured her, "I'm safe. I'm with the firemen." It was the last time they ever spoke. |
Biggart learned of the plane crash at the World Trade Center when a passing taxi driver yelled the news. After returning home for his cameras, he began documenting first the buildings and then, after the collapsing of the first tower near him kicked up dust, the situation on the ground. At this point, he had his last phone call with his wife, reassuring her that he was safe with the firemen and would see her in about 20 minutes at his studio.
Biggart learned of the plane crash at the World Trade Center when a passing taxi driver yelled the news. After returning home for his cameras, he walked the two miles back to ground zero, documenting first the buildings and then, after the collapsing of the first tower near him kicked up dust, the situation on the ground.<this source><ref Daily Beast> Shortly after 10:00 a.m., he had his last phone call with his wife, who was also photographing the event, reassuring her that he was safe with the firemen and would see her in about 20 minutes at his studio.<this source><ref Daily Beast> Biggart took his last photo at 10:28:24 am EST.<that source> In that very minute, about twenty minutes after the phone call with his wife,<this source> the North Tower collapsed.<that source> Biggart was not heard from again. His wife searched for him to no avail at news agencies and in the hospitals.<that source> Four days later, his body and his badly damaged camera equipment were recovered under the debris.<that source> He had been killed by the falling debris of the collapse of the second tower.<nowiki><that source>
Biggart used the two film and one digital camera he had retrieved from his home to take digital, color film and slide images.<that source><this source> His friend, photographer Chip East, was able to recover 154 images from Biggart's digital storage devices, which have become part of the exhibits of Biggart's most well-known photographs.<that source> His last photograph was presented as a highlight of the 2002 exhibit at the National Museum of American History.<that source>
Crtew: It's important to note that nobody is accusing you. This is a learning experience. Um, no, you did indeed accuse of me of copyright infringement, and repeatedly. You don't get to backpedal on that now. You also exhibited other aspects of intellectually dishonest and indecent behavior during your editing and during this discussion that hardly goes to the spirit of Wikipedia's editing model, including misrepresenting or making up policies that don't exist, doing an end-run around the subject's notability, reacting to falsification of your arguments by either stonewalling or by repeating the same original argument, etc.
Moonriddengirl: I have bolded the words that are precisely the same in both the source and the article. No, the text in the "Article" cell is not the text as it appears in the article.
Regarding your proposed rewrites:
Unrelated to the paraphrasing question, do we have any quotes about the importance of these photographs to documenting the event? Shouldn't an unrelated matter be in a different discussion? Nightscream ( talk) 20:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Edit conflict
Ok, I've seen your comment above, and I intentionally refuse to respond to it. Crtew ( talk) 20:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
After looking at the text above, it look like the text that was issued the other day when I first issued the warning about too close paraphrasing. However, the text in the article yesterday when I issued the second warning is only slightly different (see above). I used strikethrough to compare the two above. I essentially agree with what Moonriddengirl is saying to you now but I'm the "bad guy" :-( Crtew ( talk) 20:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
source | Article |
---|---|
As his pictures indicate, Bill was eventually shooting straight up at the burning buildings..... After being overtaken by the dust cloud, he photographed the devastation all around him. Wendy, his wife, reached Bill on his cell phone shortly after the first tower fell. He told her not to worry, he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio. “I’m safe,” he assured her, “I’m with the firemen.” It was the last time they ever spoke. | He eventually found himself shooting straight up at the burning Twin Towers, as indicated by his photos. After being overtaken by the dust cloud generated by the collapse of the first tower (the South Tower), he photographed the destruction left in its wake. His wife, Wendy, called Biggart on his cell phone shortly after tower's collapse fell. He told her not to worry, saying that he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio, and assured her, "I'm safe. I'm with the firemen." It was the last time they ever spoke. |
Crtew and Moonriddengirl, I've tried to make some slight adjustments to the passage in question, in order to bring it yet farther away in wording from the source. I don't know if this is sufficient for you, but let me know what you think.
I have also left messages on the talk pages of 10 other editors who have participated on the WP:Close paraphrasing talk page, requesting their opinions here, since so far only one person has done so. Nightscream ( talk) 03:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Source | Current Article |
---|---|
As his pictures indicate, Bill was eventually shooting straight up at the burning buildings..... After being overtaken by the dust cloud, he photographed the devastation all around him. Wendy, his wife, reached Bill on his cell phone shortly after the first tower fell. He told her not to worry, he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio. "I’m safe," he assured her, "I’m with the firemen." It was the last time they ever spoke. | He eventually found himself at the World Trade Center shooting the Twin Towers as they burned. After being overtaken by the dust cloud generated by the collapse of the first tower (the South Tower), he photographed the destruction left in its wake. His wife, Wendy, called Biggart on his cell phone shortly after the first tower's collapse. Biggart reassured her that he was safe, explaining to her that he was with the firemen in the area, and that he would meet her in 20 minute as his studio. It was the last time they ever spoke. |
Your emphasis on the first fragment, about the dust cloud, gave me cause to look at that part, and realize that it's irrelevant to the central point, which is essentially that Biggart filmed the Towers burning, and continued doing so after the first tower's collapse. The smoke cloud is not really relevant to this, unless it's the case that he ran from the collapse and stopped after the cloud overtook him, which is not clear in the sources. So I changed the passage to say that he just continued taking pics after the collapse. However, I don't know if the final sentence is "creative", nor do I know how to convey that differently than how it already is. At least the first fragment is different, so the paragraph is now farther from the sources than it's been so far. What do you think? Nightscream ( talk) 04:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Source | Current Article |
---|---|
As his pictures indicate, Bill was eventually shooting straight up at the burning buildings..... After being overtaken by the dust cloud, he photographed the devastation all around him. Wendy, his wife, reached Bill on his cell phone shortly after the first tower fell. He told her not to worry, he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio. "I’m safe," he assured her, "I’m with the firemen." It was the last time they ever spoke. | He eventually found himself at the World Trade Center shooting the Twin Towers as they burned, and continued taking photos after the first tower, the South Tower, collapsed. His wife, Wendy, called Biggart on his cell phone shortly after the first tower's collapse. Biggart reassured her that he was safe, explaining to her that he was with the firemen in the area, and that he would meet her in 20 minute as his studio. It was the last time they ever spoke. |
I had a problem with the overdetailed description as not relevant to readers and too detailed for encyclopedic text: "Biggart ran to his apartment near Union Square, grabbed three cameras (two film, one digital) and began walking the two miles toward the Center,[20] down Fifth Avenue, through Greenwich Village and then to West Street, along the Hudson River, where fire trucks were located,[2]" Crtew ( talk) 08:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The facts surrounding his camera equipment (number and type) is important as it has to do with the fast changing nature of photojournalism that was happening at just this time. Biggart was on the cusp of the change toward digital cameras. Half of the shots we have from him are digital and half are old film. I've been looking for a better source before I place this in the article. The one I have now is a weak source. Crtew ( talk)
Um, no, WP:SURNAME only applies to the article subject, not their relatives. Using given names is standard when referring to others. However, this is moot, since you removed her name entirely from that passage, along with the details of which streets he walked down when making his way to the WTC, which I agreed was not necessary, and helps paraphrase the passage further. Seeing that passage as it is now, do you still believe it is too closely paraphrased? Nightscream ( talk) 19:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'll be reviewing it shortly. But I'll be busy for the next few days and will be on sporadically. Crtew ( talk) 22:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Delete this minor footnote in the September 11th story. He's not notable enough to merit an entire article. Beingsshepherd ( talk) 00:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
IF that's true, then the article should contain their attestations, rather than just pointing to them. Seemingly, his only significance, is once having taken photographs (of an unknown quality) in an interesting place at an interesting time.
'notable ... for being the only working photojournalist to perish in the attacks' Why is that remarkable? Beingsshepherd ( talk) 14:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
Currently, one has to explore external sources to appraise Biggart's noteworthiness; which should be conveniently evidenced within the encyclopaedic article.
Are they the rarest people in the world? Beingsshepherd ( talk) 01:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
working photojournalists (obviously). Beingsshepherd ( talk) 00:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
As I see it, the mystery of the "only working" photojournalist should now be clear to one and all with the most recent expansion of the article. There was another photojournalist who was killed in the attacks but he was a passenger on the AA flight. I have listed his name as well as the 6 TV engineers to add perspective. Hopefully readers in the future will have this point clarified (although a rewrite up top at the lead will still need to happen first). I know you're having a different conversation but if BS is not seeing how the person is notable (and we both believe he is), then perhaps the article itself (from that start point) was at fault. I hope the additional edits since your conversation began helps. The article now 1) includes notable exhibits of his work both discussed at the top and detailed below, 2) clarifies through additional context the significance of his death, 3) provides more background material about his career and creative work, and 4) uses an infobox to help readers discover Biggart quicker faster than before. Peace, Crtew ( talk) 20:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted the deletion of section called "Context." Let's talk about it first and see if we can come to a consensus!
If you want to retitle it, I have no problem with that (please feel free to do so), but the information is relevant to Biggart's case. He was neither the only photojournalist nor the only media worker to die in the WTC attacks. This information, therefore, offers readers perspective and clarity. This is a section and does not diminish from the focus of the article. Moreover, it would be unreasonable to create articles about them as they are not notable. Yet sources at the time mention them in relation to Biggart. Therefore, they properly belong mentioned in this article. Crtew ( talk) 20:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Lists are also appropriate within articles when additional articles would not be suitable as per WP policy. Crtew ( talk) 20:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
As for the relevance of the additional material: "No man is an island." It's important to understand that he was the "only" "working" photojournalist -- without the other information you might as well delete those two words. Another photojournalist died in that attack. Without the other section, we don't understand the importance of "working." He was not the "only" media worker. Nobody is saying that a media worker is a journalist, but the work is related. There were 8 media-related deaths in that attack, as sourced. The article seems to exclude this information in favor of "a narrative" that he was the lone media death. That's not accurate. The other deaths, again, do not diminish from his importance. Articles should provide a perspective that places the person in relation to what is going on around them. Crtew ( talk) 09:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I took to heart your valid complaints and revised the section and related it more closely to Biggart in a way that will still put him into a larger perspective. It's important to note that most of the sources I used, such as CBS News, IFEX and IFJ all speak to Biggart as well as the others. Therefore, external sources have created this connection. This means that it is not up to me to falsify your opinion, but it's up to you to challenge the sources and the connection first (and before potentially having it deleted). And, yes, if this is deleted, we will be bringing in outsiders to review the addition and your revert. I think I have addressed your challenge as I see it in relation to the relevance to Biggart. So I thank you for instigating this rewrite. Crtew ( talk) 12:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
And you are actually the one who risks the block for reverting one edit 3 times -- to be strict about policy -- without conducting a serious conversation. If you're going to be "strict about policy", you might want to familiarize yourself with it a bit more closely, since this comment by you is yet example of your ignorance of it. The 3RR rule refers to 3 edits made within a 24 hour period. Try again.
And please clean up your copy vios immediately. Stop trying to make provocative statements. You have not demonstrated any copyright violation, and a discussion is currently ongoing in the section below in which other members of the community have been asked to weigh in on whether that accusation by you has any merit. The matter will not be resolved until that discussion is over, so stop pretending that you have the authority to issue orders to any other editor to do anything, let alone "immediately". This comment by you is transparently intended to be obnoxious, especially given your previous denial that you made that accusation. Please familiarize yourself with WP:CIV and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Just knowing what we know about Biggart makes it seem (without this information) makes it seem as if he were the only media-related death. No, it does not. While the Lead section previously stated something to that effect, that was due to poor paraphrasing of the source that is cited for his notability, which actually states that he was the only photojournalist killed during the event while covering it. That passage has since been fixed, and now reflects that distinction. The statement cannot make something "seem" something other than what it merely says. He was the only photojournalist killed while covering the event, that's the only thing it now says, and therefore, the only thing it seems like. If you don't believe me, contact a group of random, uninvolved editors, and ask them what impressions they garner from that sentence.
This kind of context enriches our understanding of the danger media face in covering events like this.... That is not the role of the article. The role of the article is to document its subject. The subject of this article is Bill Biggart. The subject of this article is not the media, or the danger the media faces in covering events like 9/11. That is simply a tangent. Why is this so difficult for you to accept? Subjects that are not only tangentially rather than directly related to the article subject belong in other articles devoted to those subjects. Why don't you just create one?
I honestly cannot understand why you delete information without having a reasonable discussion about material and material that in no way compromises the integrity of the article. In every single delete -- up to 3 now -- you have deleted after I have made a good faith effort to approach you and without even allowing me to address your concerns. It doesn't work that way. If you have a controversial edit to make, you discuss it on the talk page first. Not after. And not at the same time. Adding such material while a discussion is ongoing is called edit warring.
Moreover, you continue to characterize my points rather than actually attempting to understand and see how we can reach a consensus. I have addressed each one of your points directly, and even quoted them where applicable. I have explained what was wrong with their reasoning, and while sometimes I employ different approaches in my responses, such as characterization, it is false to say that characterization is somehow the sole type of response I have employed. When one puts forward an idea or argument that is false, fallacious, intellectually dishonest, etc., I response by explaining why it is so. Just because characterizations are sometimes employed as a rhetorical device does not mean that they are equated with the whole.
Are you really an administrator? I just verified that but none of your actions (like your copy vios) or your misunderstanding of policy (see below) seems to indicate that. Well, far be it from me to ignore the advice of an editor whose experience so far outstrips my own, but if you can name a particular policy of which I've displayed ignorance, and explain how, then by all means, feel free to do so. I regard my activities on Wikipedia as a constant learning experience, even now, after having been on it as long as I have, so I look forward to your insights. I hope you understand, however, that I remain a tad skeptical, given the multiple instances I've demonstrated of ignorance of policy on your part. Let's look at some:
I want to know why you refer to Thomas Pecorelli to make your case above. If he's not necessary and totally unrelated, how is that you use him to make your case about Biggart, even while arguing that any info about Pecorelli be deleted? If you want to know why I mentioned Pecorelli, then why don't you try actually reading the passage in question, since it was quite clear in its meaning, and in its mention of Pecorelli? Do you really need me to respond here by saying, "Well, I was merely explaining why Pecorelli and those other industry employees, whom you insist on mentioning in the article, do not belong in it."? I mean, seriously, what is wrong with you that you can't comprehend that by just reading that passage, when it makes that so clear? If you're the one insisting that he and those others be in the article, how is it somehow an inconsistency or flaw in my counterargument for me to mention him when explaining why I disagree with his inclusion? It's when you make statements like this that I am genuinely perplexed as to whether you are being tendentious, or just really revealing yourself to be that inept at participating in a coherent discussion, especially in light of your childish little remarks about my ignorance and admin duties.
When or where did I ever say Biggart was not notable? I would never say that. And I never said otherwise. What's your point?
...but I for one would appreciate you only putting quotation marks around my real statements. Quotes are also used to indicate irony. If you do any amount of reading as a past time (and I'll assume for the sake of argument that you do), then you should know this. You might also look at the Lead section of the article on quotation marks, which states Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it and are often used to express irony.
I also don't think you make your point at all by using formatting - either bold, italic or otherwise. Just because you put "tendentious" in bold doesn't make anything that I've done mean what you say. I never implied otherwise. I employ formatting for reasons of clarity. The content of my statements and the reasoning or evidence I employ is what makes my point. Not the formatting.
I've requested Third Opinion on this matter. Nightscream ( talk) 03:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Biggart and other US media-related, terrorist-related deaths
- Bill Biggart was not the only media-related death or photojournalist to die from the attack on the World Trade Center. According to the International Federation of Journalists, which counts both journalists and media workers, there were eight media-related deaths as a result of the September 11 attacks. The IFJ noted that in addition to Bill Biggart, six broadcast TV engineers, who are counted as media workers, died inside Tower One where they worked. The IFJ also reported that another freelance professional photojournalist, Thomas Pecorelli, was killed as he was a passenger on the American Airlines flight that was the first airplane flown into the WTC. Biggart, however, remains the only photojournalist to die while reporting the event.[25 CBS News]
- Biggart was one of 31 to 37 journalists and one of 100 media workers who died in 2001 worldwide depending on the source used. Paris-based Reporters Without Borders reported that 31 journalists were killed worldwide while reporting in 2001.[26 IOL] New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, using a different counting standards, listed 37 journalists who died in 2001, including US journalists Biggart and Robert Stevens, a photo editor, who died on 5 October from on of the serial anthrax attacks following 9/11.[27 Oakland Tribune][28 CPJ] The IFJ, using an expansive definition that includes workers in addition to journalists, reported that 100 media workers were killed around the world in 2001.[25 CBS News]
- Other journalists and media workers killed at the World Trade Center
- Rod Coppola, TV engineer for WNET-TV, WTC (North Tower)[6 IFEX]
- Donald DiFranco, TV engineer for WABC-TV, WTC (North Tower)[6 IFEX]
- Steve Jacobson, TV engineer for WPIX-TV, WTC (North Tower)[6 IFEX]
- Bob Pattison, TV engineer for WCBS-TV, WTC (North Tower)[6 IFEX][25 CBS News]
- Thomas Pecorelli, professional freelance photojournalist, American Airlines Flight 11 passenger[25 CBS News]
- Isias Rivera, TV engineer for WCBS-TV, WTC (North Tower)[6 IFEX][25 CBS News]
- William Steckman, TV engineer for WNBC-TV[6 IFEX]
Please add the following issue to our dispute about material to review. I added the following and Nightscream deleted it. This deletion borders on POV editing as the statement doesn't seem favorable to the subject and comes from an eyewitness observer (another photojournalist working the same event). The source material backs this point up and there is another position that being so close was his trademark. How can this be off topic (as he claims in the edit history)? Preposterous. Comment added (as nobody answered our call for a third opinion yet) Crtew ( talk) 14:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Bolivar Arellano (eyewitness source and photojournalist for NY Post): ... and closer than he needed to be to safely cover the event.[21, Friend (book)]
I have left a message on his page for him to stop deleting material without discussion. See above Bolivar Arellano, which was deleted. Crtew ( talk) 14:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Would you please focus on the edits and please stop speaking for me. If I say I have two issues in this section, then I have two issues. Crtew ( talk) 17:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
What you wrote above is so disrespectful. Perhaps you should go through history and actually look at how much I have contributed in comparison with your edits to get a little bit of appreciation for other editors. I seriously cannot believe you are an administrator and you treat people like this. I wished I had never edited this article. Crtew ( talk) 17:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Bill Biggart and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
After skimming over the discussion above, and looking at the content which was removed, I have formed an opinion. If others do not believe my opinion helps form a
consensus that resolves the impass at hand an editor can create an
request for comment to get additional opinions, or take the issue to
dispute resolution noticeboard. |
Thank you, I'll pursue the other avenues you suggest in your 3O to get more opinions. Crtew ( talk) 07:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
A 3O is not the end all be all, and if you will read it, the person lists other avenues (see above). It's all there an black and white. I'm only pursuing what the 3O has said that I can do. I believe you need to be warned that if you remove the unbalanced template, I will be reporting your behavior as an administrator for a review of your actions on this article. Let's let the process unfold. Crtew ( talk) 21:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm now not happy with a section. I want the lead to reflect the other side of this notability statement. I also want a section in the article to detail this point. And not to do so is neither fair nor balanced, in my opinion. You believe otherwise. That's why there's a tag for that. It's called a dispute over whether this article is balanced under the category of neutrality. I'm letting the process unfold and I suggest you do the same. Crtew ( talk) 22:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
How is this article still a stub-class? Please explain using the standard assessment. Crtew ( talk) 20:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The new material that replaced my citation needed template and added later today is a clear copyright violation. First, the source is not independent. Second, the paraphrase is so close and the extent so much that it violates WP policy outright and has to be stricken immediately. Crtew ( talk) 21:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
From billbiggart.com : "Bill ran home, grabbed three cameras (two film, one digital) and began heading toward the WTC."
From the present copy: "Biggart ran to his apartment near Union Square, grabbed three cameras (two film, one digital) and began walking the two miles toward the Center,[20] down Fifth Avenue, through Greenwich Village and then to West Street, along the Hudson River ..."
Mistakes:
It's even worse below, which is currently live.
From website: "After being overtaken by the dust cloud, he photographed the devastation all around him. Wendy, his wife, reached Bill on his cell phone shortly after the first tower fell. He told her not to worry, he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio. "I’m safe,” he assured her, “I’m with the firemen.” It was the last time they ever spoke."
Added the other day: "After being overtaken by the dust cloud, he photographed the destruction in the area. His wife, Wendy, called Biggart on his cell phone shortly after the first tower fell. He told her not to worry, saying that he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio, and assured her, "I'm safe. I'm with the firemen." It was the last time they ever spoke."
Added today and after my previous deletion and warning:
"After being overtaken by the dust cloud generated by the collapse of the first tower (the South Tower), he photographed the destruction left in its wake. His wife, Wendy, called Biggart on his cell phone shortly after tower's collapse fell. He told her not to worry, saying that he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio, and assured her, "I'm safe. I'm with the firemen." It was the last time they ever spoke"
Delete this material immediately. Crtew ( talk) 22:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'm here in response to a request at Wikipedia talk:Close paraphrasing. I do not have a clue how extensive the copying here is believed to be or how much of it is done, but I want to clarify that copyright infringement does not require verbatim copying. To draw from that essay:
Paraphrasing rises to the level of copyright infringement when there is substantial similarity between an article and a source. This may exist when the creative expression in an important passage of the source has been closely paraphrased, even if it is a small portion of the source, or when paraphrasing is looser but covers a larger part of the source. A close paraphrase of one sentence from a book may be of low concern while a close paraphrase of one paragraph of a two-paragraph article would be considered a serious violation. Editors must therefore take particular care when writing an article, or a section of an article, that has much the same scope as a single source. The editor must be extra careful in these cases to extract the facts alone and present the facts in plain language, without carrying forward anything that could be considered "creative expression".
See also m:Wikilegal/Close Paraphrasing, a document prepared on request by a legal intern to the Wikimedia Foundation, which answer the question "Is close paraphrasing of a copyrighted work a copyright infringement?":
Yes. Among other rights, copyright law grants a copyright owner exclusive control over any unauthorized copying of the copyrighted work. Paraphrasing may be construed as copying if it is “substantially similar” to the copyrighted material. Such paraphrasing infringes on one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. There is no hard and fast rule to determine what is substantially similar. Substantial similarity need not be a “virtual copy” of the protected work, nor does the ordinary observer need to confuse the work entirely. Ultimately, the question boils down to whether there is enough similarity between the allegedly infringing work and the original elements of the copyrighted work to convince the ordinary observer that the alleged infringer wrongfully took something of significance from the copyright owner.
(Footnotes omitted - please see the original for more)
The real question should be, really, whether content is close enough that rewriting it would suit better with our copyright policy, which says "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely" and, a bit higher up, "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble."
Generally, concerns of close paraphrasing are best met by revising the content to eliminate them. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
source | Article |
---|---|
After being overtaken by the dust cloud, he photographed the devastation all around him. Wendy, his wife, reached Bill on his cell phone shortly after the first tower fell. He told her not to worry, he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio. “I’m safe,” he assured her, “I’m with the firemen.” It was the last time they ever spoke. | After being overtaken by the dust cloud, he photographed the destruction in the area. His wife, Wendy, called Biggart on his cell phone shortly after the first tower fell. He told her not to worry, saying that he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio, and assured her, "I'm safe. I'm with the firemen." It was the last time they ever spoke. |
Biggart learned of the plane crash at the World Trade Center when a passing taxi driver yelled the news. After returning home for his cameras, he began documenting first the buildings and then, after the collapsing of the first tower near him kicked up dust, the situation on the ground. At this point, he had his last phone call with his wife, reassuring her that he was safe with the firemen and would see her in about 20 minutes at his studio.
Biggart learned of the plane crash at the World Trade Center when a passing taxi driver yelled the news. After returning home for his cameras, he walked the two miles back to ground zero, documenting first the buildings and then, after the collapsing of the first tower near him kicked up dust, the situation on the ground.<this source><ref Daily Beast> Shortly after 10:00 a.m., he had his last phone call with his wife, who was also photographing the event, reassuring her that he was safe with the firemen and would see her in about 20 minutes at his studio.<this source><ref Daily Beast> Biggart took his last photo at 10:28:24 am EST.<that source> In that very minute, about twenty minutes after the phone call with his wife,<this source> the North Tower collapsed.<that source> Biggart was not heard from again. His wife searched for him to no avail at news agencies and in the hospitals.<that source> Four days later, his body and his badly damaged camera equipment were recovered under the debris.<that source> He had been killed by the falling debris of the collapse of the second tower.<nowiki><that source>
Biggart used the two film and one digital camera he had retrieved from his home to take digital, color film and slide images.<that source><this source> His friend, photographer Chip East, was able to recover 154 images from Biggart's digital storage devices, which have become part of the exhibits of Biggart's most well-known photographs.<that source> His last photograph was presented as a highlight of the 2002 exhibit at the National Museum of American History.<that source>
Crtew: It's important to note that nobody is accusing you. This is a learning experience. Um, no, you did indeed accuse of me of copyright infringement, and repeatedly. You don't get to backpedal on that now. You also exhibited other aspects of intellectually dishonest and indecent behavior during your editing and during this discussion that hardly goes to the spirit of Wikipedia's editing model, including misrepresenting or making up policies that don't exist, doing an end-run around the subject's notability, reacting to falsification of your arguments by either stonewalling or by repeating the same original argument, etc.
Moonriddengirl: I have bolded the words that are precisely the same in both the source and the article. No, the text in the "Article" cell is not the text as it appears in the article.
Regarding your proposed rewrites:
Unrelated to the paraphrasing question, do we have any quotes about the importance of these photographs to documenting the event? Shouldn't an unrelated matter be in a different discussion? Nightscream ( talk) 20:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Edit conflict
Ok, I've seen your comment above, and I intentionally refuse to respond to it. Crtew ( talk) 20:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
After looking at the text above, it look like the text that was issued the other day when I first issued the warning about too close paraphrasing. However, the text in the article yesterday when I issued the second warning is only slightly different (see above). I used strikethrough to compare the two above. I essentially agree with what Moonriddengirl is saying to you now but I'm the "bad guy" :-( Crtew ( talk) 20:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
source | Article |
---|---|
As his pictures indicate, Bill was eventually shooting straight up at the burning buildings..... After being overtaken by the dust cloud, he photographed the devastation all around him. Wendy, his wife, reached Bill on his cell phone shortly after the first tower fell. He told her not to worry, he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio. “I’m safe,” he assured her, “I’m with the firemen.” It was the last time they ever spoke. | He eventually found himself shooting straight up at the burning Twin Towers, as indicated by his photos. After being overtaken by the dust cloud generated by the collapse of the first tower (the South Tower), he photographed the destruction left in its wake. His wife, Wendy, called Biggart on his cell phone shortly after tower's collapse fell. He told her not to worry, saying that he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio, and assured her, "I'm safe. I'm with the firemen." It was the last time they ever spoke. |
Crtew and Moonriddengirl, I've tried to make some slight adjustments to the passage in question, in order to bring it yet farther away in wording from the source. I don't know if this is sufficient for you, but let me know what you think.
I have also left messages on the talk pages of 10 other editors who have participated on the WP:Close paraphrasing talk page, requesting their opinions here, since so far only one person has done so. Nightscream ( talk) 03:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Source | Current Article |
---|---|
As his pictures indicate, Bill was eventually shooting straight up at the burning buildings..... After being overtaken by the dust cloud, he photographed the devastation all around him. Wendy, his wife, reached Bill on his cell phone shortly after the first tower fell. He told her not to worry, he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio. "I’m safe," he assured her, "I’m with the firemen." It was the last time they ever spoke. | He eventually found himself at the World Trade Center shooting the Twin Towers as they burned. After being overtaken by the dust cloud generated by the collapse of the first tower (the South Tower), he photographed the destruction left in its wake. His wife, Wendy, called Biggart on his cell phone shortly after the first tower's collapse. Biggart reassured her that he was safe, explaining to her that he was with the firemen in the area, and that he would meet her in 20 minute as his studio. It was the last time they ever spoke. |
Your emphasis on the first fragment, about the dust cloud, gave me cause to look at that part, and realize that it's irrelevant to the central point, which is essentially that Biggart filmed the Towers burning, and continued doing so after the first tower's collapse. The smoke cloud is not really relevant to this, unless it's the case that he ran from the collapse and stopped after the cloud overtook him, which is not clear in the sources. So I changed the passage to say that he just continued taking pics after the collapse. However, I don't know if the final sentence is "creative", nor do I know how to convey that differently than how it already is. At least the first fragment is different, so the paragraph is now farther from the sources than it's been so far. What do you think? Nightscream ( talk) 04:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Source | Current Article |
---|---|
As his pictures indicate, Bill was eventually shooting straight up at the burning buildings..... After being overtaken by the dust cloud, he photographed the devastation all around him. Wendy, his wife, reached Bill on his cell phone shortly after the first tower fell. He told her not to worry, he would meet her in 20 minutes at his studio. "I’m safe," he assured her, "I’m with the firemen." It was the last time they ever spoke. | He eventually found himself at the World Trade Center shooting the Twin Towers as they burned, and continued taking photos after the first tower, the South Tower, collapsed. His wife, Wendy, called Biggart on his cell phone shortly after the first tower's collapse. Biggart reassured her that he was safe, explaining to her that he was with the firemen in the area, and that he would meet her in 20 minute as his studio. It was the last time they ever spoke. |
I had a problem with the overdetailed description as not relevant to readers and too detailed for encyclopedic text: "Biggart ran to his apartment near Union Square, grabbed three cameras (two film, one digital) and began walking the two miles toward the Center,[20] down Fifth Avenue, through Greenwich Village and then to West Street, along the Hudson River, where fire trucks were located,[2]" Crtew ( talk) 08:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The facts surrounding his camera equipment (number and type) is important as it has to do with the fast changing nature of photojournalism that was happening at just this time. Biggart was on the cusp of the change toward digital cameras. Half of the shots we have from him are digital and half are old film. I've been looking for a better source before I place this in the article. The one I have now is a weak source. Crtew ( talk)
Um, no, WP:SURNAME only applies to the article subject, not their relatives. Using given names is standard when referring to others. However, this is moot, since you removed her name entirely from that passage, along with the details of which streets he walked down when making his way to the WTC, which I agreed was not necessary, and helps paraphrase the passage further. Seeing that passage as it is now, do you still believe it is too closely paraphrased? Nightscream ( talk) 19:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'll be reviewing it shortly. But I'll be busy for the next few days and will be on sporadically. Crtew ( talk) 22:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |