Jump to content

Talk:David Bergman (journalist)

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

Research question

[edit]

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)[reply]

War Crimes File

[edit]

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)[reply]

Fixed reference placement to avoid confusion.Crtew (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation

[edit]

Have been removed, do not restore them. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for Section "Personal"

[edit]

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)[reply]

Do not restore BLP violations, I have reverted you. It was explained on my talk page why those sources cannot be used in a BLP, yet you restored it? Do not do this again please. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DS, Your last edit seems more like war editing. You need to explain here in the appropriate place why we can't have access to the material with templates placed. The appropriate templates of DUBIOUS and FACT were put in place to signal questioned points of matter. How are we to reasonably discuss this matter or to improve upon the copy without access? Furthermore, DS has clearly violated WP:3R with the initial revert, another later edit that deletes the section (which is another form of revert, and this latest incident? How can we move on in a reasonable way and without strife? Any proposals? Crtew (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DS keeps saying that BLP allows him to delete without debate material. While I agree BLP asks for strict sources and I also applaud DS for questioning the sources in the article, I believe he misses the spirit of BLP. The idea is that this is about a living person and so the facts have to be right. The facts in this case are poorly sourced, however, the facts are not as controversial as the edit warring (see above) indicates. The blog is from the person who the article is about. So if the source says a fact, it is not verified but it is not controversial. What we're talking about here is verification. DS seems to be saying the fact is false in his use of BLP to delete and not allow for reasonable requests for scrutiny. This is a misuse of WP:BLP policy.Crtew (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blog source is used to support content with regards to two other living people, not just Bergman. Another source is to a website which has user generated content on it, another nono for a BLP. BLP policy is very clear on this. There is nothing to discuss, restore it when you have decent sources which adhere to policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DS now acknowledges that the Blog is associated with Bergman but adds that it also has other writers. I accept this as a fact. The key word in WP:BLP is that the fact discussed is "contentious". What DS is saying contradicts this contentious standard because Bergman is represented on this site as connected to the family. What is the problem here is additional verification. There should be NO PROBLEM with allowing the community of editors access to material so that this verification can happen. Policy is there not to enslave us but to give us guidelines on to act consistently and in the best interests of the project. Crtew (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I wrote, I wrote the blog was being used to source information not just on Bergman, but on two other BLP's. And that quite simply is the end of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can quote policy in WP:BLP that supports this for non-contentious situations. Quote also the sections for the same for citizen journalists. Crtew (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or you need to also explain how this fact is contentious?Crtew (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the facts are contained in a blog that also falls WP:SELFPUB, which is within the WP:BLP.Crtew (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the use of templates like DUBIOUS or CITATIONS NEEDED? You've given no reason why we can't find a middle ground.Crtew (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The gist of all of the above is that you (DS) should attempt to communicate clearly and exactly how the policy applies in this situation or context. You keep repeating the same point over and over again (with minimal mentions of BLP) and not making connections from policies to facts. I apologize if I have mischaracterized you DS but you don't seem to be communicative unless you're reverting edits. Furthermore, when you are reverting others, there is no dispassionate or clear explanation in your editing comments (exampe: "erm, no"), which leaves me with the strong impression that this is more about a power game than it is about improving this particular article. However, I'm open to being corrected in this matter.Crtew (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SELFPUBLISH "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" Given the shite sources being used are making the claim that he has a wife and naming her along with her dad, and that this wife represented a well known BLP is contentious IMO. Now I really cannot be arsed to continue a pointless discussion, get decent sources. Funny thing of course is that none of that information belongs here anyway, the article is about Bergman, not his missus nor who she supposedly represented nor about his dainlaw. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Restore those bollocks refs again and I will report your continuing violations of BLP policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm not having a discussion with you. You've more than violated WP:3R and you refuse me any chance to be productive. Crtew (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why a person his dainlaw represented has any place in this BLP? Also She did not represent Yunus according to the source you used[2] Darkness Shines (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I do not think so, please respond to the questions put to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, write any questions directed to me using standard and correct English (and also without any cusswords as appeared in previous discussions). A "dainlaw"? A "missus"? Crtew (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Father in law' and 'wife'. CarrieVS (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The material fits under WP:BLP as the subject's spouse and her father, his father-in-law, are both high-profile "public figures" in Bangladesh. This was brought up, as a matter of relevance, in the court case involving the subject as anyone can see in the references. Moreover, the relatives of subjects often appear in Wikipedia articles and they are also a standard in Template Infobox person. If you want to add a line DS that makes the connection more apparent, then I would encourage you to do this as it would be a positive contribution to the overall article. The material has a strong source, properly fits policy, and it stands as is. Crtew (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works of journalism

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

"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)[reply]

Google is not the only way to find information. Many other databases exist. Relying on Google only and using it in arguments about the validity of a source is amateurish. The rules of Wikipedia are very clear about this. Nothing tells me that I must only exclusively use Google hits.Crtew (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You did not respond to the question, were did you find the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found it in another index using (old school) techniques for out of print material. If you want to improve your research skills, I'm sure there are courses in your home town or at your local library.Crtew (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again you do not respond to the question. Were did you find this source. I want it's location. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You won't be able to find it on the Internet. I suggest you go to your local library and ask your reference librarian there how to find the source. He or she will be able to help you and this person may use a different method than I did (which is ok). Good luck in your search, Crtew (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

For the final time, were is the physical location of the source. If you continue to refuse to give a response I will tag it as unverifiable. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes I will, as you refuse to tell me were you got it from. I cannot verify it if you refuse to let me know which database/library you got it from. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The citation located in an index is what I used to locate the source. That's very clear. Look it up!Crtew (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps your local librarian may educate you about the many different indexes available to achieve the same result -- FIND INFORMATION. The arguments above show no knowledge about the basics of document searching or retrieval.Crtew (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fucking hell, where "Hamlyn, Michael (1986-09-17). "Briton caught up in 'Bhopal vendetta': David Bergman". The Times (London)." in that is the location of an index? I am tagging the source as you refuse to state where you got it from. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bit for you to pay attention to in the future: WP:Verifiability#Accessibility. Crtew (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bollocks, if you do not say where you got it then I cannot get if checked can I? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're not paying attention to the policy. You need to take a breath. Read the above. Then go to either WikiProject Resource Exchange or your local library and find the source material. You can use multiple indices to find the article and other databases or catalogs to gain access. But it requires more than an edit. Please pay attention to the rules about reverts. In order to reapply a warning tag you would need better policy to back up your point or a community consensus. You're on very flimsy ground -- So do not revert again.Crtew (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I do not recall mentioning the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami at all previously, it is not RS for a BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW you are now on 3RR. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Darkness Shines, do you think you could clarify your request a little? I'm not quite sure what you want. It sounds like you're insisting on knowing the address of the library where Crtew read the publication in question, or something of that ilk, and I can't see how that is relevant (and unless you happen to live near the same area, it would be unlikely to help you obtain a copy). The citation gives details of the publication from which the material is taken, is that not enough? Is it incomplete, and if so what information is missing?
Just because it cannot be found on the internet does not mean it does not exist - it is apparently from 1986, it would be surprising if it was online. Although the discussion has been somewhat more heated than is ideal, Crtew offered you sound advice for finding sources that aren't available online: visit a library and, if you aren't sure how to find it yourself, ask a librarian for assistance.
Also, if I might be permitted to offer some general advice (not directed at any particular person) for talk pages, I would urge all editors to remember that, unlike face to face conversations where once you have said something it is said, your comments on talk pages can be reviewed before submitting them. In particular, excessive emphasis or expressions of frustration which don't do anything towards advancing your point can be deleted. While leaving them in does not actually harm anyone, they can hurt feelings and certainly aren't conducive to a WP:COOL discussion. Just because you are upset doesn't mean you have to sound like you are. CarrieVS (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crtew, the essay WP:offline sources says "the user who cited the offline source ... might even be able to provide you a scan or an excerpt." You are not required to do this, but if you are able to without difficulty, perhaps it would be worthwhile. After all, you already know where the source is and can get access to it, whereas Darkness Shines does not and might not. CarrieVS (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care what library he got it from, I just want to know what database the library used. I do not have a well stocked local library so they would need to know who to contact. And we have the verify source template for a reason, so people who for not have access to place so one who does can go look it up. Crtew I only made one revert. That was removing the crappy Jamaat source. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Who verify this blogger account?

[edit]

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)[reply]

WP:SPS vio ref removed

[edit]

Crtew says Bangladesh Chronicle is not SPS, but it is WP:SPS. Because the WP:SPS policy says --

  • ...Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

it is also WP:SELFPUB vio, as your source is cited to provide info about David's wife, but this policy states-

  • it does not involve claims about third parties.

So don't revert my edit. Thank you.--FreemesM (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is very disappointing that Crtew again redo 'Bangladesh Chronicle' reference, which is nothing but a WP:SPS. He didn't explain his point here in talk page. I am reverting him again.--FreemesM (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you are wrong, and you need to be corrected. A news article is not a WP:SPS in the sense that you refer to it. Read the entry closely. Very closely! Notice that the WP:NEWSBLOG is distinct from a blog. The difference is that it appears in a published source that is edited. Notice that the article cited comes from the Bangladesh Chronicle, which is a news source. Make the connection! You should revert immediately and redo my edits, and furthermore you need to cease with the "disappointing" whining that I see above. Crtew (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still now I am "whining"(!), because at first you must decide that whether your source is a "News article" or a "News blog". You've used the Bangladesh Chronicle article to justify his family info! see the diff here. Ok, it is opinion piece, but WP:NEWSBLOG says to use this type of ref by introducing the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."), should that work here? Further more where does WP:SPS says it excludes self published news articles? As far as I can read, it says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." I think, I have expressed my points clearly. Thanks.--FreemesM (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you read the entire policy instead of just the lines or parts that serve your own purpose. Yes, we are looking at the same policy: The point above was that the source, Bangladesh Chronicle, does not in anyway compare to the rejected media you supposedly point to. And if you would read lower, WP:ABOUTSELF, you may learn about other exceptions, which this article also fits. In any case, you are wrong and you should immediately revert your own edits. Crtew (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I am reverting. But in your last edit you have put Toby Cadman's article on human rights concern web site, which is nothing but a propaganda site against war crime trial in Bangladesh, clearly a POV source. Keeping that link on this article means promoting that propaganda website. I am also removing that. Thanks.--FreemesM (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Two OK, one failed, but can be repaired by hand. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Bergman_(journalist)&oldid=1206257153"