Talk:David Bergman (journalist)

Research question
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)

War Crimes File
Sourced to this But it just a list of names, it does not mention a documentry? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Citations for Section "Personal"
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Or you need to also explain how this fact is contentious?Crtew (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * Restore those bollocks refs again and I will report your continuing violations of BLP policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 Darkness Shines (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The result of this debate was that the sources were provided for non-contentious material, the section stands and a new fact was added. Debate over. End of discussion.Crtew (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think so, please respond to the questions put to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 'Father in law' and 'wife'. CarrieVS (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

Works of journalism
Has one link, which is already used as a reference. Any reason in particular for keeping that? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

BLP allows for bibliographies for authors and the same is true of journalists. Other sources were added. In addition, the section has been renamed to avoid confusion with notable works of journalism.Crtew (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Who verify this blogger account?
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)

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

it is also WP:SELFPUB vio, as your source is cited to provide info about David's wife, but this policy states- So don't revert my edit. Thank you.-- FreemesM  (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ...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 does not involve claims about third parties.
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130413063404/http://www.allvoices.com:80/contributed-news/9375343-sons-and-daughters-of-political-parents to http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/9375343-sons-and-daughters-of-political-parents ✅
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141021045700/http://books.google.de/books?id=uBbmVGaFBpAC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=%22Bhopal+Action+Group%22&source=bl&ots=Uo7XHSeu8-&sig=YUeWPLK0tTh9uKDStrJdSplTuV0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bNklUdXIKqmw0AXJt4CQDw&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCQ to http://books.google.de/books?id=uBbmVGaFBpAC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=%22Bhopal+Action+Group%22&source=bl&ots=Uo7XHSeu8-&sig=YUeWPLK0tTh9uKDStrJdSplTuV0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bNklUdXIKqmw0AXJt4CQDw&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22Bhopal%20Action%20Group%22&f=false ❌
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021235739/http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/archive_details.php?date=2011-10-01&nid=35250 to http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/archive_details.php?date=2011-10-01&nid=35250 ✅

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).


 * Two OK, one failed, but can be repaired by hand. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)