This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
David Bergman (journalist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 8 December 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Bangladesh may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Gita Sahgal mentioned in an interview that she first met Bergman while working on Bhopal. Can anyone find any information on what he was doing on the Bhopal issue and when that was? Crtew ( talk) 23:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Sourced to this [1] But it just a list of names, it does not mention a documentry? Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Fixed reference placement to avoid confusion. Crtew ( talk) 17:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Have been removed, do not restore them. Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
User:Darkness Shines has challenged the references in the personal section which show a connection between Bergman and his wife and father in law. He deleted the entire section. I have restored the section and added the appropriate templates that challenge the facts and citations. Sufficient time should be given to find the sources. It seemed extreme to delete them and not let anyone know about this on the talk page. This is an announcement that DS has a point but the community of editors interested may try to fill in the gaps and come up with better references that are not from blogs or citizen journalists. I have taken the matter into my own hands as DS as refused to restore the material or raise the matter here. This is what talk pages are for. Crtew ( talk) 13:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course, you didn't read lower then your quote on self pub where it also includes a section "Using the subject as a self-published source". And of course you fail to state how the facts are contentious, which is the cornerstone of the point you quote. You want to make everything all encompanssing to suit your purposes. I note by the way in history that you've not made a single, poistive additive edit. So I can see there is no way to be reasonable with you about the definition of contentious, even as you belittle the point. Lastly, there is no need for crude expressions in WP TALK. Please learn to clean up your language. Crtew ( talk) 09:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The result of this debate was that the sources were provided for non-contentious material, the section stands and a new fact was added. Debate over. End of discussion. Crtew ( talk) 11:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Has one link, which is already used as a reference. Any reason in particular for keeping that? Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
BLP allows for bibliographies for authors and the same is true of journalists. Other sources were added. In addition, the section has been renamed to avoid confusion with notable works of journalism. Crtew ( talk) 15:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
"Briton caught up in 'Bhopal vendetta" has two hits on Google, one this article the other Crtews subpage. Please let me know were you found this source. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Btw, I noticed the construction of your Google search above was really bad and won't bring you many results. Perhaps you want to try something like "Bhopal Bergman" or some variation. Crtew ( talk) 11:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
NO, YOU WILL NOT! Just because I made an effort to get information, and you are too lazy to verify it, doesn't make it unverified. That would show not only a lack of effort but also BAD FAITH and -- I'm not sure which is worse. As for the "physical location" this is called a "citation" in research and it is given. Moreover, there are many old paper books that are not available to the general public over the internet or in some other electronic form (like an e-book). Those clearly stand as sources all over Wikipedia. You would need to show me policy and rule (and not one of your loosey-goosey interpretations of BLP either), where I can not use a source that you COULD but WILL NOT make the special effort to locate. Unbelievable. If you do what you say above, I will immediately take this into arbitration. Crtew ( talk) 12:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's a bit for you to pay attention to in the future: WP:Verifiability#Accessibility. Crtew ( talk) 13:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Quote: "Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. This implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may only be available in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help obtain source material."
Furthermore, you have been warned about your foul-"mouthed" behavior elsewhere. Once more, and I will report you for lack of civility. Crtew ( talk) 13:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
So we now have another source which only exists on this article. I also do not think that Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami can be a reliable source for a BLP. Darkness Shines ( talk) 23:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Your edits are harping on the same points that we have already gone over. You need to read the policy above. This is all within a 24 hour window frame in which you've been warned not to revert or display edit warring like behavior in a BLP. If you want to check the source, great. Go to your library. Once more, and you'll be reported. Crtew ( talk) 23:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record (and future reporting purposes), after 13:23 on 24 February 2012 and after the above user had been warned he made two more reverts on this page. After the 2nd revert, he then sent ME a warning on MY talk page about my reverts. No acknowledgement that I can honestly see on this page answers the policy quoted above on a BLP page. This is a simple statement of fact. Crtew ( talk) 00:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, you can ask for a copy of the source at Wikipedia:RX. Historical articles from The Times are available to subscribers online, so this shouldn't be too hard. -- regentspark ( comment) 13:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This article is sourced few times with this blogger account. Who verify this? Why we should get information from this self published source?-- FreemesM (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Crtew says Bangladesh Chronicle is not SPS, but it is
WP:SPS. Because the
WP:SPS policy says --
it is also WP:SELFPUB vio, as your source is cited to provide info about David's wife, but this policy states-
So don't revert my edit. Thank you.-- FreemesM (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on David Bergman (journalist). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
David Bergman (journalist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 8 December 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Bangladesh may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Gita Sahgal mentioned in an interview that she first met Bergman while working on Bhopal. Can anyone find any information on what he was doing on the Bhopal issue and when that was? Crtew ( talk) 23:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Sourced to this [1] But it just a list of names, it does not mention a documentry? Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Fixed reference placement to avoid confusion. Crtew ( talk) 17:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Have been removed, do not restore them. Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
User:Darkness Shines has challenged the references in the personal section which show a connection between Bergman and his wife and father in law. He deleted the entire section. I have restored the section and added the appropriate templates that challenge the facts and citations. Sufficient time should be given to find the sources. It seemed extreme to delete them and not let anyone know about this on the talk page. This is an announcement that DS has a point but the community of editors interested may try to fill in the gaps and come up with better references that are not from blogs or citizen journalists. I have taken the matter into my own hands as DS as refused to restore the material or raise the matter here. This is what talk pages are for. Crtew ( talk) 13:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course, you didn't read lower then your quote on self pub where it also includes a section "Using the subject as a self-published source". And of course you fail to state how the facts are contentious, which is the cornerstone of the point you quote. You want to make everything all encompanssing to suit your purposes. I note by the way in history that you've not made a single, poistive additive edit. So I can see there is no way to be reasonable with you about the definition of contentious, even as you belittle the point. Lastly, there is no need for crude expressions in WP TALK. Please learn to clean up your language. Crtew ( talk) 09:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The result of this debate was that the sources were provided for non-contentious material, the section stands and a new fact was added. Debate over. End of discussion. Crtew ( talk) 11:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Has one link, which is already used as a reference. Any reason in particular for keeping that? Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
BLP allows for bibliographies for authors and the same is true of journalists. Other sources were added. In addition, the section has been renamed to avoid confusion with notable works of journalism. Crtew ( talk) 15:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
"Briton caught up in 'Bhopal vendetta" has two hits on Google, one this article the other Crtews subpage. Please let me know were you found this source. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Btw, I noticed the construction of your Google search above was really bad and won't bring you many results. Perhaps you want to try something like "Bhopal Bergman" or some variation. Crtew ( talk) 11:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
NO, YOU WILL NOT! Just because I made an effort to get information, and you are too lazy to verify it, doesn't make it unverified. That would show not only a lack of effort but also BAD FAITH and -- I'm not sure which is worse. As for the "physical location" this is called a "citation" in research and it is given. Moreover, there are many old paper books that are not available to the general public over the internet or in some other electronic form (like an e-book). Those clearly stand as sources all over Wikipedia. You would need to show me policy and rule (and not one of your loosey-goosey interpretations of BLP either), where I can not use a source that you COULD but WILL NOT make the special effort to locate. Unbelievable. If you do what you say above, I will immediately take this into arbitration. Crtew ( talk) 12:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's a bit for you to pay attention to in the future: WP:Verifiability#Accessibility. Crtew ( talk) 13:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Quote: "Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. This implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may only be available in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help obtain source material."
Furthermore, you have been warned about your foul-"mouthed" behavior elsewhere. Once more, and I will report you for lack of civility. Crtew ( talk) 13:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
So we now have another source which only exists on this article. I also do not think that Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami can be a reliable source for a BLP. Darkness Shines ( talk) 23:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Your edits are harping on the same points that we have already gone over. You need to read the policy above. This is all within a 24 hour window frame in which you've been warned not to revert or display edit warring like behavior in a BLP. If you want to check the source, great. Go to your library. Once more, and you'll be reported. Crtew ( talk) 23:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record (and future reporting purposes), after 13:23 on 24 February 2012 and after the above user had been warned he made two more reverts on this page. After the 2nd revert, he then sent ME a warning on MY talk page about my reverts. No acknowledgement that I can honestly see on this page answers the policy quoted above on a BLP page. This is a simple statement of fact. Crtew ( talk) 00:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, you can ask for a copy of the source at Wikipedia:RX. Historical articles from The Times are available to subscribers online, so this shouldn't be too hard. -- regentspark ( comment) 13:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This article is sourced few times with this blogger account. Who verify this? Why we should get information from this self published source?-- FreemesM (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Crtew says Bangladesh Chronicle is not SPS, but it is
WP:SPS. Because the
WP:SPS policy says --
it is also WP:SELFPUB vio, as your source is cited to provide info about David's wife, but this policy states-
So don't revert my edit. Thank you.-- FreemesM (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on David Bergman (journalist). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)