Talk:Martin Bashir/Archives/2021

Disgraced

There is some debate about using this term. I would like to point out that there are multiple references supporting this based on the subject’s actions.

WP:NPOV specifically allows for this: ”It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias.”

Also WP:ASSERT applies, considering the source material that is being cited. Ng.j (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks loaded to put that into the first sentence, instead of saying facts about scandals and allowing the reader to come up with their own adjectives to describe him. Here are some pages about other journalists involved in scandal, where this is done: Jayson Blair, Sabrina Erdely, Johann Hari. It is hard to assert where being "disgraced" starts and finishes: one could call Hari that for losing his job after using Wikipedia to attack his rivals, but he seems to have had subsequent successes with books and speeches. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

hear, hear

Actio (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I should think the term "disgraced"  did not, and does not, belong in this article. This is the palace line, but there is no reason for the Wikpedia article to fall in line (especially as there seems to be a note from Diana , an adult, who claimed that she chose to bare her allegations because it might constitute her only opportunity.

This policy, regrettable or not, "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias" does not include opening an article with a new allegation in a fraught moment. "Disgraced" is a moral term; there are many better ways to express this, and source it--but not in the intro para. Actio (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Disgraced is not a good word here because it evaluates and that is not good. There should probably be a separate page for the many aspects and facts of Diana interview. Now that the forgery has been admitted we ought to know who forged the papers. What were they paid. Who were the individuals in the BBC who tried to blow the whistle but were punished with career repercussions, demotion or resignation. The Prince of Wales had a very devoted servant, the late Paddy Whiteland, who said in 1986 (page 43 in the "Housekeeper's Diary", Wendy Berry) that 'the sooner he gets rid of that one the better'). The animosity displayed in that remark could well point to the fact that Bashir himself was a victim of some kabale. Was he really familiar with the names of the servants whose bank records were forged? As the interview caused the Queen to suggest the divorce this is a complex worth a separate page. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:B9EF:7644:906A:EB02 (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"Disgraced"

I have added this in the lead sentence, since events of the past three days (proof of forgery, a formal judgement against him by Lord Dyson, and resignation from the BBC) leave no ambiguity in the matter. Would anyone inclined to revert please leave a word here? Thanks. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Disgraced is not a legal term and not a term that should be applied. Bashir was judged to have acted inappropriately; but although you and I may agree with that judgment, he has had a long career, and it is once again a moral judgment, and in effect 'of the moment' to proclaim him "disgraced.' like it was a scarlet letter.  Compare the language applied by Wikipedia to  the former US journalist Charlie Rose, accused of a pattern of serious sexual misbehavior. I deplore the judgment that suggests misleading a member of a monarchy is more important than misbehavior in interviewing others. Wo

uld the writer apply this term to James O'Keefe, whose doctored interview brought down the social service agency ACORN? Actio (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Intro

The third sentence in the current introduction to this subject is a complete mess! May I suggest it be changed to the following:

"It was his 1995 TV interview with Diana, Princess of Wales, for the BBC's Panorama programme, that has attracted controversy. Firstly at the time, for the candid disclosures made by Princess Diana about difficulties in her marriage and mental health struggles, and subsequently when it emerged Bashir had fraudulently obtained the interview using forged bank documents as leverage." 31.125.76.2 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you are quoting, more or less verbatim, the change I just made. It has since been altered again. I'm going to leave this for a while. Hanoi Road (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)