Talk:Bill Biggart

RFC: Can background info be included to a bio article when the article creates the false perception that subject was the only media-related death at an event?
Can background info be included to a bio article when the article creates the false perception that subject was the only media-related death at an event? Crtew (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no "false perception" except on the part of people with a severe reading comprehension problem.


 * The article states that this: [Biggart was] the only photojournalist covering the event to be killed in the attacks.


 * You're alleging that readers would instead understand this: [Biggart was] the only media-related death in the attacks.


 * Readers are not stupid. They can generally read plain English. Nightscream (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion
Do you Support the inclusion of the section, which helps the reader, or do you Oppose it because it's not relevant to the biography?


 * Support The lead states that Biggart was the "only photojournalist" and although this is qualified with "only photojournalist covering" or reporting the event, the word "only" and the fact that the information that qualifies "only" has been missing, misleads readers into a false assumption that Biggart was the only journalist or media worker to have died in the WTC attacks or they don't have enough information to evaluate the statement(s). The fact that there were others is well documented and is not in dispute. The question is whether the fact should be in the article, whether it's relevant to Biggart, and whether it needs a section in the article for clarification. I support the inclusion of this fact in both the lead and as a section. Not to include it in either the lead or as a section would introduce POV into the article. The information is needed for WP:NPOV and for context about Biggart and his role as the "only photojournalist", and so I believe it is also relevant to the bio. My opinion is, Let the readers decide if they want to know more and read it/not read it and let them make their own evaluation of its merit.Crtew (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The lead states that Biggart was the "only photojournalist" and although this is qualified with "only photojournalist covering" or reporting the event... No, it says that he is the only photojournalist covering the event to be killed in the attacks, which comes from the source cited for that statement. It does not say "he was the only photojournalist" or "only photojournalist covering or reporting the event". This is a deliberate lie on your part. Stop misrepresenting what the sentence says.

...misleads readers into a false assumption that Biggart was the only journalist or media worker to have died in the WTC attacks No it does not. It leads them to understand that the was the only photojournalist killed while covering the event. It does this because that's exactly what it says.

Information in an article must be about that article's subject. Information that is not about that subject does not go in that article. Period. That's plain common sense, and if this little personal agenda of yours hampers your ability to comprehend this, then you need to find another Web hobby. You have had this explained to you, and a requested Third Opinion supported this, yet you edited against that finding anyway, while simultaneously trying to prolong the matter with another discussion. If you want to hold a consensus discussion, that's perfectly fine. But you will not revert the article until that discussion is concluded. The next time you engage in edit warring, you will be blocked from editing. 19:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Nightscream (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

--Lexein (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion of the section as written - too much detail not relevant to this photographer. Some of it may be usable as prose or footnotes. The current article's sentence might be rephrased . This emphasizes his solo death, while it avoids any hint that he was the only photographer. Furthermore:
 * 1) Crtew, your RFC question is biased by the inclusion of reasons. It's better to let people state their own reasons, rather than preloading the question with the reasons you see. Should be simply:
 * 2) It's called "Discussion", not "Consensus Discussion". See prior RFCs as examples.
 * The following comment was moved out from inside my comment, and refers only to my "might be rephrased", above --Lexein (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I like your wording here.Crtew (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Inclusion of the section as written, as it's way off topic. The article is only about Mr. Biggart, and doesn't need to list all these other folks, just rewrite the one sentence in question so as not to state or imply that he was the only photojournalist who happened to be present, but rather the only one covering the event (per Crtew's Lexein's suggestion, e.g.). siafu (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC) (ammended 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC))
 * As much as I would love to take credit for this thoughtful edit :-) it was actually Lexein's idea.Crtew (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lexein, how is your proposed rewording different in meaning? The only difference between that wording and the current one is that the current one is clear and straightforward ("He was the only photojournalist killed while covering the event"), and this one you've proposed is needlessly tortured. The current wording does emphasize his solo death, and does not convey any hint that he was the "only photographer", which is a silly thing to infer, since everyone and their grandmother has seen the event in photos taken from a gazillion different angles, from different burroughs, from different cities in New Jersey, on video and in still photos, etc. How does the current wording "state or imply that he was the only photojournalist present"?

Siafu, in what way was he the only one covering the event? Or did you word that statement incorrectly? You don't seriously there was only one photojournalist covering the 9/11 attacks, do you? (I apologize if I'm misunderstanding you, but I'm just going off of what you wrote.)

Also, what's wrong with calling this a consensus discussion? Isn't that was it is? Isn't that what Crtew wanted? Nightscream (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My rewording removes all ambiguity, acknowledging the multitude of photogs explicitly, and it's not at all "tortured." We disagree, no big deal. And btw, "Consensus Discussion" implies that it's a discussion about consensus, which it isn't: Crtew took some snarky heat from another editor about that phrasing, and I just wanted to state the facts plainly, sans snark. --Lexein (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I want a consensus discussion and the two who have offered their opinions on this matter have been helpful. By just eliminating ONLY or any indication in the article that he was one media-related death, then that would make me happy.Crtew (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no indication that he was the only "media-related death". That is an idea of your sheer invention, which is born out of your own person agenda (which you mentioned here, and which violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL), and not something that any reasonably intelligent person would make. The idea that anyone would infer one idea from the other is just plain inane.


 * Biggart's notability is that he was the only photojournalist killed in the event while covering it, which the article explicitly states, and which is supported by the cited sources. How do we describe that without the word "only"? Nightscream (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Nightscream, you seem to be ignoring the intent of Siafu, Crtew and I, which is to reduce possible misunderstanding by native and non-native English speakers alike, due to the densely packed form "He was the only photojournalist killed while covering the event". My final suggestion: "Among the many photojournalists covering the towers, he was the only one killed." --Lexein (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That further revision is better. I do like the specificity on photojournalists and the clarity that you are trying to achieve. The other photojournalist was on the plane that was flown into the tower and he was not covering the event. Still, I still don't understand why we can't even have one single sentence that says something about this other photojournalist. Is that so wrong to give people information that would qualify the emphasis on photojournalists and information for them to evaluate the importance of covering. At no time in this discussion, before or now, has this fact been in dispute. So why should this fact be a secret? One sentence cannot detract from the relevance of the bio, can it? For me, not.Crtew (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Continuing the thought: The killing of a journalist is a rare event in the United States. A little bit of context introduced here would place Biggart into perspective. There was another journalist in the US who died in a hostage situation back to the 1970s but this wasn't called terrorism back then. Biggart's death is the beginning of a new trend, which may be a different angle on his notability. The anthrax death follows shortly afterward. Daniel Pearl comes later, too. Just focusing on Biggart would not allow a reader to gain a more in depth way to learn about him or make the reasonable connections with this phenomenon and others like him. Let's say we had other sources available that would make this article worthy of feature status. There would be no way to achieve a "comprehensive" article under featured article requirements (see WP:Assessment) given the way the direction we seem to be taking. Crtew (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream, you seem to be ignoring the intent of Siafu, Crtew and I, which is to reduce possible misunderstanding by native and non-native English speakers alike, due to the densely packed form "He was the only photojournalist killed while covering the event". Densely packed? It's a sentence. It's not "densely packed", it's direct and straightforward in the information that it conveys. Your final suggestion merely shuffles the different aspects of the sentence around in a way that is less straightforward, and less intuitive vis a vis the way sentences are written. Again, how does the current wording raise possible misunderstanding of a meaning that it does not contain nor resemble? Who are these native and non-native English speakers whose reading comprehension is so compromised that that you can make this assertion about them? Your wording does not "remove all ambiguity", it introduces it where there previously was none.

And btw, "Consensus Discussion" implies that it's a discussion about consensus, which it isn't: Crtew took some snarky heat from another editor about that phrasing, and I just wanted to state the facts plainly, sans snark. This is a consensus discussion. That's what Crtew and I agreed upon, and that's what we called for.

I still don't understand why we can't even have one single sentence that says something about this other photojournalist. Because the article isn't about him. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Biggart's death is the beginning of a new trend, which may be a different angle on his notability. The article is not about such a "trend", nor are there sources for this in the article. Please see WP:Verifiability and WP:No Original Research. If you can find sources that support this idea, then adding them along with this idea would be fine. Without such sources, this is an idea of your invention, and adding it to the article is not permitted. Again, these are core policies, yet you speak as if you're completely unaware of them. Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you see this point of notability in this article? Do you see that this is a talk page? On talk pages, one may talk about research leads -- points to search for. Do you see the difference and where policy applies and where there is free room for discussion? And for the last time, please stop speaking for me. Crtew (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're trying to say with regarding to "research leads", and I am not "speaking for you". Why do you keep accusing me of this? Where have I spoken for you? Nightscream (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A wording occurs to me. How about this: Although Biggart was not the only journalist killed in the attacks, he is notable for being the only professional photographer killed while covering it. How does that sound? Nightscream (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Taxi Driver
Where in the press does it say that Biggart talked to a taxi driver? This is a small matter of verification. His own website is not a reliable, third party. Crtew (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bill Biggart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130203060436/http://www.newseum.org/scripts/journalist/main.htm to http://www.newseum.org/scripts/Journalist/main.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Biggart. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222053532/http://www.filmjournal.com/pdn/esearch/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1991209 to http://www.filmjournal.com/pdn/esearch/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1991209

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)