Talk:Bill Biggart/Archive 1

Notability
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


 * The sources cited would suggest otherwise. Nightscream (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * "should contain their attestations, rather than just pointing to them..." I don't know what you mean by this. Can you clarify?

Currently, one has to explore external sources to appraise Biggart's noteworthiness; which should be conveniently evidenced within the encyclopaedic article.


 * "Why is that remarkable?" It simply is, in itself. Nightscream (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Are they the rarest people in the world? Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd


 * "They" who? Nightscream (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

working photojournalists (obviously). Beingsshepherd (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd


 * This conversation doesn't seem to be improving the article. BS, you may nominate for delete if you think this. And please leave a person a message when you revert as a courtesy and as way to track changes. Crtew (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * working photojournalists (obviously). Well, it wasn't obvious, otherwise I would've known what you meant. No, working photojournalists are not "rare", but that's irrelevant to the issue, since notability for Wikipedia's purposes isn't determined by rarity, as you should know. It's determined by coverage in secondary sources.


 * This conversation doesn't seem to be improving the article. It wasn't intended to. It's a notability discussion, not a content discussion. Nightscream (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

Notability and Context
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)


 * The issue is not the title of the heading. With regarding the heading, the problem, which I though I made clear in my edit summary, is that context is not provided by a discreet section. Context is provided by virtue of the sources and description of the subject's notability, which should be established in the Lead.


 * Biggart was the only photojournalist to cover the event to be killed in it (which as it turns out, is what the cited source actually says). Whoever wrote that original passage wasn't accurate in relating that information. The only other photojournalist on that list was Thomas Pecorelli, who died aboard American Airlines Flight 11, and was therefore not covering the event. The others on that list are not journalists at all, but TV engineers. TV engineers are not journalists. They're a type of electrical engineer, whose work is mechanical or technical, rather than editorial or journalistic. I have amended the sentence in the Lead that describes Biggart's notability, making it clear that he was the only photojournalist killed in the event who was covering it.


 * The people on that list are not relevant to Biggart, or to his notability, and their inclusion in the article comes across as an attempt to implicitly mitigate the prior description of Biggart's notability. If you want to discuss or dispute a subject's notability, or the manner in which their notability is described, then do so on the talk page. You don't do an end run around that quite proper protocol by including information not relevant to the subject. Obviously, lists are appropriate in articles, but only when they are relevant to the article subject. None of those TV engineers, nor Pecorelli are relevant to Biggart, and I am unaware of any policy that says otherwise (though please point me to the policy in question you were referring to that you feel makes those TV engineers relevant to Biggart).


 * If this does not convince you, I will request Third Opinion. Let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest that you learn a bit more about policy yourself, and about copyright infringement, before removing properly paraphrased and sourced material, along with the source cited for that material, with the false accusation to that effect. Even if you felt that the material was not properly paraphrased enough, why would you remove the citation for it??? Or argue that different information can be added to "replace" it? Nightscream (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't make a false accusation. There are policies about the extent of material/quotes taken and on the close paraphrasing of material and the line over which a copy vio is crossed. Policies are also clear: all copy vios must be deleted immediately.


 * Moreover, the source for the old as well as the new information under section Sept 11 is not reliable and was/is the only source. A person's web site, even in a memorial, is a self-interested source. It would be alright to use this site if you could verify the information elsewhere and add it along with others. I haven't yet found a taxi in any other source, and I've read them all. Perhaps I missed it, but I suggest you find other sources for the weak information added. Find secondary sources. The tone of the article switches over to non-encyclopedia writing at this point, too.


 * The fact that you reverted the context section with my note on this talk page and without holding a conversation about the matter is disheartening for collaboration.Crtew (talk) 08:53, 2 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)


 * You have not established a copyright violation, so I suggest you stop making that false accusation. I don't know what you mean by the source being "not independent", but this has nothing to do with copyright violation. Independent of what? Independent of whom? You obviously have no idea what copyright violation is, much less Wikipedia policy, since you seem to be referring to standards or principles that you have just made up, rather than those that are actually in place on this site. The source in question is Bill Biggart's official site, which is perfectly reliable for the passage in question, and the material was indeed paraphrased, so it was not "so close", nor does it violate any policy, except in your imagination. Copyright violation refers to material that is copied verbatim, without the benefit of paraphrasing. That's why it's called COPYright. Nothing was "copied" in this case, as it was paraphrased, as aforementioned.


 * A person's web site, even in a memorial, is a self-interested source. It would be alright to use this site if you could verify the information elsewhere and add it along with others. You have no idea what you're talking about. There is no restriction on using a subject's own website for material, so long as it is not used to establish notability. A subject's own website is obviously reliable to establish details that other sources might not have, and no WP policy requires it to be verified elsewhere. I've been relying on personal websites for select information for the past eight years I've been editing here, as this is perfectly fine, so long as the subject's notability does not rely on such sites.


 * The fact that you reverted the context section with my note on this talk page and without holding a conversation about the matter is disheartening for collaboration. See WP:BOLD. You were doing an end-run around the notability description by adding material intended to mitigate it. I explained above why this was not justified. If you disagree with my arguments, then falsify them.


 * It's important to understand that he was the "only" "working" photojournalist..." No, that is not his notability. Again, do you actually read my messages? Or are you just skimming them? His notability was that he was the only photojournalist killed while covering the attacks. This is explicitly indicated by the Newsweek/Daily Beast story, which states, "He was the only professional photographer who died covering the disaster." I made this explicitly clear above, and in the article edit in which I fixed this. His notability has nothing to do with being a "working" photojournalist, or with "media-related deaths". I made this clear above; why have you not responded to it? Why are you requiring me to repeat it? Nightscream (talk) 17:37, 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)


 * Your reasoning is specious. You're concluding that because said source or sources mention both A and B (where A is Biggart and B is other people), that therefore, B is relevant to mention in an article about A. You're reasoning is essentially, "Biggart worked in this profession, and was the only person killed in the attacks while performing that task, so let's mention other victims who worked in the same profession". This is a non sequitur. One more time: This article is not about media deaths on 9/11 or related to terrorism. It's about Bill Biggart. Some of the activities or statements of Biggart's wife on that day are relevant to mention. Some of the activities or statements of fellow photographer Bolivar Arellano are relevant, which is why they are mentioned. The article does not say that Biggart was the only media-related death or photojournalist to die from the attack on the World Trade Center, so there is no reason for an entire section to argue otherwise. That material properly belongs in an article on the 9/11 victims. Not in an article about one victim who worked in the same profession as he did. Your obtuse inability to comprehend this, and your insistence on reverting that section constitutes tendentious editing, and if you do not stop reverting without a discussion, you risk being blocked from editing (from an uninvolved admin, of course). I will call for Third Opinion if you wish, but please do not revert that portion of the article until this matter is resolved. Nightscream (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's not what I'm saying at all. Let's bring in outside help. After our previous discussion on copyvios, I don't think we can come to any kind of satisfactory agreement. 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. When one discusses something, one does not delete before the other party can answer, unless there is policy that says one must delete (as in the case of copy vios or BLP). Crtew (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And please clean up your copy vios immediately.Crtew (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The issue here for me is essentially about the context necessary to brings clarity and perspective to the facts and focus of the article. Nobody is saying that Bill Biggart is not the focus of this article and nothing about this new information is trying to detract from that in any way. 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. That's a narrative. That's not factually accurate. Without the other information readers do not get a sense of his proportion in relation to this fact. He is journalist. He dies at the event. His name is the only name associated with the media-related death at WTC in this article. Yet valid sources make the connection between Biggart and the others even as those struggle with the definition of journalist and media-related death. (That's part of a larger significant conversation and not the focus here but spills into this person's portrayal.) This kind of context enriches our understanding of the danger media face in covering events like this and allows readers to evaluate Biggart with other information available (unless its deleted). This takes away nothing from the work he did, the images he took, or the importance of those images for getting a sense of what happened. Moreover, I have rewritten the info from the previous 2 versions you deleted as I said above because it was poorly titled (something I acknowledged from the first draft) and it was not written so as to be properly integrated (the second draft), and have tried to make an honest effort to meet you halfway. 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. Moreover, you continue to characterize my points rather than actually attempting to understand and see how we can reach a consensus. You're response was a harsh over reaction to additional information relevant to understanding the subject.


 * 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. And I also find it humorous that you think that I'm going to be blocked because you keep deleting me without having a real talk on the talk page -- a very essential part of policy. I admit, I'm flabbergasted at the thought that you really are an administrator -- almost to the point that I really don't think you are, but yet you are. Strange! Crtew (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In rereading your points, 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? I don't understand that reasoning at all. Crtew (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * When or where did I ever say Biggart was not notable? I would never say that.Crtew (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to pry into your communication style, but I for one would appreciate you only putting quotation marks around my real statements. I don't like to see myself attributed and quoted when it's actually just your statement of what you think I've said that is merely filtered through your impression of what you think I've said. 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.Crtew (talk) 02:01, 5 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 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:


 * You deleted material that you thought was a copyright violation, and even removed the cited source. If you genuinely thought it was a copyright violation, why didn't you rewrite it? And why remove the source? Even if the material itself was a violation, why didn't you place the link to Biggart's website in the External link section, which is standard for BLP articles? Weren't you aware of this?
 * You repeatedly have attempted, with a rather authoritative tone, to order another editor (me) to remove the material you claim is a copyright violation, and "immediately", rather than waiting until the resolution of the discussion on that matter. Why is this? What authority do you have to issue orders to other editors?
 * You were apparently ignorant that the 3RR rule refers to reverts made in a 24-hour period. Why is this?
 * You were apparently ignorant that controversial edits should be discussed on a talk page first, and then made to the article, as you continued to revert the disputed portions of the article while discussions were ongoing. This is a blockable offense, yet you seemed to be unaware of this.
 * You stated that Biggart's website "is a self-interested source". There is no policy against "self-interested sources", or against using a subject's own website, depending on the type of material.
 * You cast personal aspersions on me and my being an admin, when Wikipedia's dispute resolution process requires us to focus on article content and on our arguments, not on editors themselves. Were you unaware of this?

''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)


 * Thank your for requesting a third opinion. There are two issues in dispute as far as I can tell here (leaving Nightscream's problems with WP:copyvio and WP:closeparaphrasing aside for below):
 * 1 - Relevance of content (Essay) is in dispute by Nightscream and Crtew. I note that this is not a policy (so that this doesn't become another issue). This section was rewritten to meet earlier objections about its relevance. 1) The section title is clearer and on topic than at first. 2) The material was written to relate it directly to the subject. This is the section taken from history with references pulled and slightly reformatted for review (see issue #2 below):

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)


 * 2 - Deleting material before talking issues out.


 * Nightscream seems to be of the opinion that he can delete this material on his own authority without having a discussion, which I believe violates the essential principle of collaboration that runs through policy and process at WP. All dispute policies first point to the use of the talk page. In my opinion, we should discuss the issue, come to a consensus and then take action. Although there "seems" to be a discussion here (not really), Nightscream deleted the material right away, and I reverted and started this talk section. Before initiating a reply, he deleted right away. I then waited and considered the issue, his comments and made a serious alternation based on objections and again I tried to reach out to Nightscream on Talk after introducing the rewrite. He immediately deleted the section again before talking. At no time has he ever cited a policy that gives him the right to delete immediately. This  is in contrast with the other issue not dealt with here where I spotted COPYVIOs, which does state that material should be removed, I pointed them out and deleted per policy, after that was ignored I made a warning and deleted per policy, and after that was ignored again, we had to seek outside help with this issue (which seems to be resolved for everybody but Nightscream). The only policy I can see that he has to support deletion is WP:Bold (and then only in the first instance). But after the first revert, the talk page should have been used. I have to admit, I am amazed that he thinks I can be blocked after he has done all of this, which brings this issue to the level of a policy dispute.Crtew (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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)


 *  There are two issues in dispute as far as I can tell here... No, just one. The discussion taking place in this section, and the related Third Opinion that I've requested, concerns solely the issue of the list of other media workers you wish to add to the article. Nothing else. The issue of close paraphrasing is taking place in the next section below, for which I've requested a consensus discussion by asking other editors to weigh in. (I could not ask for 3O because 3O is only for disputes involving two editors, and Moonriddengirl's participation in that discussion now precludes that).


 * Please add the following issue to our dispute about material to review. No. The 3O has already been requested, and the topic has been specified. Moreover, the issue with Arellano was derived from the fact when I clicked on the link to the book cited as the source, the pages provided did not display the information in question, which I explained in my edit summary: "Also, the passage about safe covering distance is not found in the cited source." I double-checked that source just now, and fortunately, the link seems to be working, as I found the information in question, and restored that material in the article accordingly. So it was just some link issue. If you disputed what I said about it not being in the source (and you certainly would've been in the right to do so), you could've just said, "Hey, wait, Nightscream, what do you mean it's not in the source? I checked, and it's right there!" Instead of even trying that, you immediately started complaining on the talk page and demanding another issue to be resolved by others. Why is that?


 * At no time has he ever cited a policy that gives him the right to delete immediately. Indeed I did, and you yourself admitted it: WP:BOLD. Moreover, Wikipedia does need to write a policy to explicitly say, "Don't include material in articles that isn't directly relevant to those articles." That's because this is common sense, and a basic part of good article writing. Your inability to distinguish between direct relevance and a tangential relationship underscores your own poor writing skills. In any event, discussion is indeed required, when editors make it clear that they do not agree with each other's reverts, but that does not mean that those who don't know how to write an article worth a damn get to have their way by having material not relevant to an article's topic remain in that article by default until the discussion is closed. You're the one who's going out on a limb by insisting on including material not about the article's subject in the article; therefore, the default version of the article should be for it to omit such information until after you've convinced others that it belongs there. Nightscream (talk) 16:57, 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)

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)


 * If I say I have two issues in this section, then I have two issues. No. The Third Opinion was requested based on the disagreement that we had, not that you had. The request was already made, and thus, it cannot be changed just because you want to change it have the request has been put in. That you cannot retroactively change the scope of 3O request has nothing to do with "speaking for you".


 * What you wrote above is so disrespectful. No, what I wrote was critical. That's not the same thing. The fact that you do not like having the inexcusable behavior that you've exhibited in your edits and throughout these discussions, does not constitute "disrespect".


 * 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. All editors, myself included, contribute to articles. That does not give them the license to repeatedly violate policy by shoehorning irrelevant material into an article to suit, to edit war during ongoing discussions, to employ the most specious, intellectually dishonest reasoning, to attack others with childish, personal comments, or to act as if being criticized for exhibiting such behavior constitutes "disrespect".


 * I seriously cannot believe you are an administrator and you treat people like this. I wished I had never edited this article. You tried to shoehorn material into an article that isn't about that article's subject, using the Astroturf Logic that readers might understand one idea from a completely different one ("only photojournalist killed while covering the event" into "only media-related death in the event"), and when another editor came to offer a 3O to support my point that you're wrong, you reverted the article anyway. That's both edit-warring, and editing against the views of other editors, and it's a blockable offense. When you do that, administrators tend to react by warning you to stop, and by criticizing you for doing this. If this is too much for your sensibilities to withstand, then you need to familiarize yourself more closely with Wikipedia, or stop editing this project immediately. The rest of the editing community here is not going to walk on eggshells around you just because you think that the same policies and guidelines that everyone else must follow somehow do not apply to you, nor just because you delude yourself into believing that your somehow the victim when an admin tells you this. Nightscream (talk) 19:19, 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)


 * I didn't say that a 3O is "the end all be all", nor have I implied anything about the template, since adding a template to indicate a discussion is standard. If you genuinely wanted to gauge my viewpoint on this matter, you could've just read my comment below in the most recent consensus discussion that you opened (whose heading I even retitled for that reason, btw), in which I stated, "If you want to hold a consensus discussion, that's perfectly fine. But you will not revert the article until that discussion is concluded." If it were not for your overly antagonistic nature, and your inability to try to communicate in a sincere manner with those that disagree with you, you would realize how unnecessary your impotent little threats really are. The only who has shown nothing but contempt for that process unfolding is you, since you have repeatedly engaged in edit warring on this article. Nightscream (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Now you're getting personal. I refuse to respond to your POV statements about me for now. However, you've crossed the line, and after this is over, your behavior here will be reviewed.Crtew (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. You got personal the moment you started casting childish aspersions on my being an admin, something that was not only personal, but preposterous, given your own ignorance of so many aspects of editing and dispute resolution policy, your poor writing ability, and your inability to form coherent reasoning. Spare me your hypocritical posturing, and your deluded belief that you have the authority or credibility to issue threats. I welcome reviews, as I made clear during my admin nomination/confirmation process. So bring it. Nightscream (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Assessment
How is this article still a stub-class? Please explain using the standard assessment. Crtew (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Violation
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:
 * The sentence structure is exactly the same.
 * Nine words exactly the same: "grabbed three cameras (two film, one digital) and began"
 * Making thesaurus-like changes is not synthesis. Minor alterations in text: Bill (source)=Biggart, home (source)=to his apartment, heading (source)=walking, toward the WTC=toward the Center
 * and basing the writing too closely on one source

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)


 * No. The paraphrasing (which you indicate above with the striked-out portions) is sufficient that it is no longer verbatim, and therefore not a copyright violation.


 * The sentence structure is exactly the same.....and basing the writing too closely on one source... Similarity of structure and and number of sources is not what copyright infringement is. Copying material verbatim is. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.


 * Nine words exactly the same...Making thesaurus-like changes is not synthesis... Wikipedia doesn't require synthesis. In fact, synthesis is strictly prohibited, yet another indication of your own lack of familiarity with policy. Copyright only requires paraphrasing, which is defined merely rewording of material, and there is no indication in any definition of the word paraphrase that I am aware of (from Dictionary.com, from The American Heritage Dictionary or from Merriam-Websters, all of which I've consulted) as to the degree to which material must be reworded in order to qualify. The amount of rewording I did do (which you indicated above) indeed makes the passage paraphrased, as it is no longer verbatim. In all, that paragraph is stitched together from information from four different sources, including portions from three other sources that are inserted in between the portions that come from Biggart's official site. That, along with my attempts to reword the material somewhat, precludes any reasonable accusation of copyright. Seriously, how much can one reword those simple sentence and paragraph fragments? If you don't believe this, then call in other editors who are versed in copyright, particularly if you cherish the idea of other members of the community here witnessing your hair-splitting with an editor and admin who has spent the past several years not only removing copied-verbatim material from Wikipedia but warning and even blocking other editors for engaging in that activity, and the arrogant tone with which you've conducted yourself here. Nightscream (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have requested other editors at Talk:Close paraphrasing to weigh in on this matter. Nightscream (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing vs. verbatim copying
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:

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?":

(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)


 * The content was already revised when it was initially paraphrased for inclusion in the article, not only by changing its wording, but also by inserting fragments from two other sources in between those coming from the source in question. The information is not extensive, and therefore, there are not many ways it can be rewritten further. Can you look at the passage in question and give your opinion on whether it is sufficiently paraphrased, and/or whether or how it can be done so further? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's important to note that nobody is accusing you. This is a learning experience. Please read the essay recommended and reexamine the current methods that you are using to paraphrase (described in your last passage). When I say "synthesis", I mean the kinds of paraphrasing that occurs in the examples at the bottom of the essay. It's always dangerous to use one source and if you do, you have be particularly vigilant as its easy to make a mistake. Learning how to synthesize will make you a better writer. Crtew (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at the link you give above, I see some content that I believe should be more thoroughly rewritten. A direct comparison one particularly problematic area can sometimes help make the issue more visual:


 * I have bolded the words that are precisely the same in both the source and the article. There is a little bit of a rearrangement in the section that runs "I'm safe," he assured, "I'm with the firemen", but otherwise this particular passage follows in sequence exactly on the source, with many of the same words. Rewriting in this passage is very minimal. Chronology is a fine sequence but there are different ways to organize the content and to express what happened (although sometimes details are lost). For example, I might paraphrase that source thusly:


 * Looking at what we already have in the article, I might go for something like this (off the top of my head):


 * What a moving story. :(


 * Of course, this is not the only way to put it, and there may be better. This is just top of my head stuff. :)


 * Unrelated to the paraphrasing question, do we have any quotes about the importance of these photographs to documenting the event? I think it would be a lovely close for the second paragraph! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

'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:
 * You omitted where his apartment was located.
 * The cited sources do not indicate that his documentation of the event followed a chronological sequence in which the buildings were "first" and then the situation on the ground was "second". It merely mentions that he documented the destruction caused by the collapse of the first tower. But that does not mean that he wasn't photographing the situation on the ground prior to then.
 * "Kicked up dust", in my opinion, does not indicate the amount of smoke and debris generated the way the word "cloud" does.
 * Why did you move the mention of how he was killed and the types cameras he used and photos he took to after mention of the discovery of his body? It should be in chronological sequence, just as it is for any other victim of the attacks.

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)


 * Oh, I guess I apologize for not strictly separating out my conversational streams. :) The text in the article cell was copied directly from this link. I didn't transcribe it; I copy-pasted it, so it is verbatim as it was published on Wikipedia (unchanged following your adding it here). I didn't remove the information; I moved it to a different section - chronological with the discovery of the body and the recovery of the camera. You are welcome to rewrite the content as seems fit to you, so long as content does not follow too closely the source as it did in the diff and the chart above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict
 * What Moonriddengirl wrote was Art! Wunderbar! However, I still think "billbiggart dot com" is a poor source upon which to hang info on. In a BLP article, it wouldn't work -- immediate deletion. Here in a non-BLP, it's a good supplement at best. Essentially, this website is public relations and comes off as a puff piece about Biggart. Journalists and outside writers are independent from the source and his family, neutral and without a conflict of interest, and work to verify information and get all sides of the story. Biggart himself would have understood this essential principle. For example, the NY Post photographer was being critical of Biggart; Biggart should not have been that close to the tower and he had a telephoto lens and so didn't have to be close to safely cover the event. The family or whoever designed the website is never going to say that. They've put a different spin on it: he liked to work close to get the best image he could. The best revision would reflect both sides of this debate, however, the family's point was made in the mainstream press, which is another reason to de-emphasize the website source (use it as a supplementary reference) and let this story hang on better sources. I believe the attraction to this bit of writing is its emotion. The Newsweek and Irish Times stories both covered this part of the event but in a less emotional style. They could easily serve as the source. Generally, you don't bring in sources afterward to support your case unless you add new info. But if you look at the two most important sources in the article it's already those two. Crtew (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

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)


 * Yes, I reviewed the text that was initially removed, referenced in Nightscream's note that "I would also suggest that you learn a bit more about policy yourself, and about copyright infringement, before removing properly paraphrased and sourced material, along with the source cited for that material, with the false accusation to that effect." I assumed that was "the passage in question", as it's the link that he himself provided. My understanding had been that the question concerned the writing of that material, given that was the edit wherein the accusation to which he refers here seems to have occurred. If the revision is also in question, it's certainly better than that paraphrase, which deviated little from the source, but still follows closely:


 * Again, I've bolded, although there has been some rearrangement, a few insertions and some change of wording. I believe it is still closely paraphrased and could do with further revision. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Moonriddengirl, I defer to you to advise me about how I might have been in error about my reaction to the material posted. I'm reading these two policy statements and making the assumption that follows. What am I not getting correct?
 * WP:COPYVIO -- "If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known." (My original message was followed by another message about the weakness of the source this is drawn from.)
 * WP:Close paraphrasing -- "Close paraphrasing of the creative expression in a non-free copyrighted source is likely to be an infringement of the copyright of the source."
 * I don't believe that the examples only have to do with "too close paraphrasing" but that entire stretches of text are taken unchanged from the source.
 * Thank you for your advice in advance. Crtew (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. The quote above, I trust you realize, was said by Nightscream. My notes here have largely been intended to clarify that closely paraphrasing from your source can constitute infringement and to agree that the content needs to be revised. Your initial removal seems entirely appropriate to me, and I agree with teh tagging of what is here now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok that answers my question. If I had made a mistake, then I would want to know about so that I would improve next time. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

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)


 * User:Nightscream asked for an opinion. Comparing the two versions in the table above, I see enough similarity to consider that a court might well find copyright violation. That is not a risk worth taking.  The graphic phrase "After being overtaken by the dust cloud" and the punchline "It was the last time they ever spoke" both clearly contain creative expression. The two paragraphs also present almost exactly the same information in the same sequence. It is a fairly natural choice and sequence, but the selection and arrangement may also be considered creative expression regardless of the exact words.  I did not look at the full article and source, but there seems to be substantial similarity, particularly with the punchline, a key element.  Considerably more than the mere facts has been copied. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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)


 * There was clearly a problem before with the text. I see great effort in trying to fix it. I would suggest that all questionable section(s) be listed here and all of us together should be able to get thru is fast - plus more are coming I would guess from the requests.  We should remove any offending material from main space till it is fixed.(Should be removed altogether but we are working in good faith here)  PS - I like the blunt answer at Copy-paste.Moxy (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT3: My rough attempt at taking the facts from the source would be: "Biggart quickly made his way to the scene on foot, taking pictures on the way. He photographed the first tower from near its base as it burned, and took pictures of the destruction after it collapsed. He was killed when the second tower collapsed." Maybe a bit dull, but drama and human interest do not belong in an encyclopedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For the most part, the current wording seems fine, but I agree that the dramatic phrasing of the last phone call bit doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia and feels a bit too close to the source text. I was suggest something simple like "Biggart was killed when the second tower collapsed." Similar to what Aymatth2 suggests. Kaldari (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT4: I'm in favor of ALT3, plus a straight, concise retelling of the phone call: "Biggart quickly made his way to the scene on foot, taking pictures on the way. He photographed the first tower from near its base as it burned, and took pictures of the destruction after it collapsed. His wife was able to reach him by cell phone; they made plans to meet, but Biggart was killed in the collapse of the second tower." --Lexein (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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)


 * Kaldari: For the most part, the current wording seems fine, but I agree that the dramatic phrasing of the last phone call bit doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia... Would you say that the fact that it was their last conversation could be removed because that is implicitly understood already? Nightscream (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "His wife, Wendy," is not encyclopedic voice. Doremus. Crtew (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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)


 * Understood. Nightscream (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)