Talk:David Pogue

Just add a link
In the article, the controversy section refers to a radio broadcast, but contains no link to it. (Apparently, it's more important to link to a generic page about September 12 as an annually recurring date??) So here is the broadcast from NPR's archives - I am unable to add it myself. [|NPR - Recovering from a Hard-Drive Disaster]

Giantangrysquid 14:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Real Pogue Page in WP
Let’s discuss what should be included or excluded about this currently influential figure in technojournalism. It’s only a matter of time before a profile of Pogue (himself) appears in an authoritative source. So let’s be on the lookout for PogueSources. . .   ---ecs Schweiwikist 18:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Request for Comment: Dispute (edit war) by a Pogue detractor. Each day, the detractor returns to add false and derogatory comments !! time=07:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this is David Pogue, the subject of this entry.

I seem to have inspired the enmity of one particular Wikipedia contributor, who monitors the page daily. He ensures that his defamatory material is restored, even if other contributors remove it. (The History reveals that numerous people have tried to clean up the entry.)

Each day, he returns to add the following sentences:

"He has no educational background in computer science, the focus of his career."

--This is not true. I studied computer science at Yale, and worked for technology companies on and off for eight years in the 80's. Nor is computer science the focus of my career! My focus is *consumer electronics*, including cellphones, digital photography, audio recording, Web services, home entertainment systems, and so on. This comment, then, is both inaccurate and irrelevant.

"he launched his own series of computer books called the Missing Manual series, which includes over 60 titles covering Macintosh software predominantly, but also including some Windows and cross-platform software."

--This is not true, either. There are 31 Windows-only titles and 17 Macintosh-only titles in the series. The full list is at http://www.missingmanuals.com.

"His articles are usually critical of Microsoft products while praising Apple products.[citation needed]"

--He's entitled to an opinion, but it's not fact. Here's a list of some of the critical articles I've written about Apple: http://www.davidpogue.com/bio_photos/fanboy.html

"He focuses attention on new Apple products by writing articles about them before they are released, such as the new iPhone and Apple TV, though he does not do this for other companies' products.[2]"

--Definitely untrue. Tech companies often offer prerelease review samples to large-publication reviewers (NY Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.), so that the review hits the streets to coincide with the product's release. Apple, interestingly, RARELY does this--they like to create the biggest possible impact by keeping things secret until the last moment. (The iPhone was unusual in this regard.)

All tech reviewers ALWAYS take advantage of this advance access, for two reasons: (1) to serve the readers better, and (2) to enhance their own reputations as "early access" guys! In 2007 alone, here are some of the products I reviewed before they were released: Microsoft Windows Vista, Microsoft Office Live, Tivo Series 3, Sansa Connect wireless player, JVC hard drive camcorder, Canon T1, and many others. You can confirm each of these by searching at http://www.nytimes.com--for example, "pogue Canon T1".

"His articles are folksy in style and minimal in technical explanation and comparison, targeting an audience that is unspecialized in technology."

--Actually, technical explanation AND product comparison are hallmarks of my writing. I never review a product in isolation--only as a roundup with its competitors, if any. See, for example, my 6/21/07 review of inexpensive digital SLRs. (It IS true that the New York Times audience is an audience of laymen, but this comment is clearly intended to denigrate me and my readership.)

My anonymous detractor then goes on to add a Criticism section whose source is a blog entry (written by a rival tech reviewer who wasn't one of the 4 to receive prerelease iPhone samples)! If this is legitimate Wikipedia material, I could certainly add dozens of blog entries that are supportive of my writing.

Clearly, the general idea of these edits is to defame me. And they violate Wikipedia's policy about Biographies of Living Persons: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed."

This seems like a classic case of Wikipedia "edit wars" and vandalism at work. How can truth win out here? -- 14:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC) July 5, 2007 David Pogue

Tech columnist, The New York Times

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
It seems like this article is a good example of the difficulties in applying the Biographies of living persons policy, with editors who seem to have a dislike for Mr. Pogue reverting what it seems to me, as a disinterested observer, are perfectly valid changes, to versions which are quite over the top. It is all pretty sad. - Grammarian 23:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy"
Compared to the NPR thing, the controversy over whether Pogue is a Mac fanboy seems rather minor. The sourcing is problematic, coming only from a blog with Pogue's response supposedly a comment on a blog post. I believe we are not adhering to the high standards of WP:BLP. --C S (Talk) 11:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely you're not serious that it's smaller than the NPR controversy. The argument over whether there is a conflict-of-interest throws into question the legitimacy of most of Pogue's reviews.  The sourcing should not be problematic as Josh Quittner is an esteemed tech critic with 7 years of experience at Time Magazine under his belt.  What does it matter if it comes from his blog, it's  a reasonable medium for criticism.  Besides, Pogue found the criticism significant enough to respond to Quittner, and the argument received mention on a popular tech news website.  (++ungood 11:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC))


 * You've just convinced me this material is not suitable for inclusion, as you don't seem aware of the relevant issues cf WP:BLP. All we have are allegations thrown out by Quittner in his blog, not a controversy.  Wikipedia's role is not to propogate libelous statements.  If you don't understand the rationale, you should read the relevant policy pages first.    --C S (Talk) 11:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're throwing allegations at me willy-nilly without responding to anything I said. Whether a fellow editor aggravates you is not criteria for including or excluding material. (++ungood 12:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Who's aggravating whom? If I see a policy violation, I act on it.  I saw no need to respond directly to anything you said, because your comments were uninformed.  It does matter where the information comes from.  That is the point of WP:RS.  We don't know that Pogue responded to him.  A mention on some tech site does not define a controversy worthy of inclusion.  --C S (Talk) 12:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ignoring your very own inflammatory language, I'll say this: you've only misrepresented my argument for why the controversy is worthy of inclusion by simplifying it down to the least significant of several parts, you haven't refuted it. Also, there's very little question about whether Pogue truly responded to Quittner.  If he had not, he would have denied it then and now. (++ungood 12:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

All this arguing is pointless. I'm talking about the BLP violation discussion underneath here, too. Both ++ungood and C S have stated his/her arguments. Everything else beyond this has gotten nowhere. The arguments mainly seems to hinge on whether the blog material from the Business 2.0 editor (on their site) is an acceptable source or not. I happen to think it is not a reliable source. But I'm just one voice. Maybe you guys should move to have a vote and see what the community thinks. Then maybe this dispute can be settled and this page can be unlocked, or at least only semi-protected (to account for the clearly NPOV-violating edits from mostly anonymous users, that David Pogue pointed out and that I have seen over the past couple of weeks). Nam1123 18:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as a note, the NPOV-violating edits from anons you mention are mostly from the person operating as ++ungood as I pointed out in the next section below. --C S 15:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP violations
Recent edits by User:++ungood are probably BLP violations. First s/he insists on interpreting Pogue's comment a certain way which is not supported. Second, s/he insists on including a quote by Quittner which adds nothing except inflammatory language. I have become convinced this material is not worthy of inclusion, especially in a BLP. ++ungood should note that it is up to him/her to argue that this material, particularly the quote and intepretation of the (alleged) Pogue quote, should be included. The burden of proof is on ++ungood. I will continue to revert as often as needed, per the BLP policy, and take whatever further actions are needed. --C S (Talk) 11:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First point: You should be more specific when you make such a charge against someone.  I assume you are referring to my edit where I simply changed "Windows" to "Windows software."  This should't be controversial.  If the edit stays the way you changed it, then there are even fewer books about Windows in comparison to Mac.  "Macintosh" does not refer to Mac OS, whereas "Windows" often refers to the various Windows OS's.  Clearly, Pogue meant "Windows software" (which includes the OS's) or it would work against him.


 * Second: In my edit summary I stated that the quote summarizes Quittner's argument succinctly. That is my argument for why it should be included, though I was under no obligation to give you an argument.  You may consider it inflammatory language, which is its own debate, but it's clearly a quote from a critic of Pogue being listed in the criticism section of the article.  Also FWIW, a Wikipedia moderator who revised the criticism section did not find the quote inappropriate, so it seems out of place for you to suddenly pounce on me over this.  (++ungood 11:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Again, we don't know what he meant, or if it is even him. Quittner's allegations are properly summarized without using his purposefully inflammatory language.  And yes, you are under obligation to give an argument, or do you think you can keep inserting material without explanation?  Lastly, there is no "moderator" here, unless you are referring to me, as I am experienced in these policy matters like the several other experienced Wikipedia editors who came here because of the BLP noticeboard.  --C S (Talk) 12:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't know what he meant, or if it is even him? Please, try to remain reasonable here.  Pogue would have denied he wrote the comment in his post above.  The administrator I was referring to is user John254, btw.  Quittner's arguments were not summarized, and I believe his quote enhances the article by summarizing his argument succinctly in his own words.  I do not think the quote is in any way unreasonably inflammatory.  It's criticism, what do you expect? (++ungood 12:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC))
 * The main problem I have with ungood's edits is the line: The catalog at the Missing Manuals website contradicts Pogue's claim. It reads like came from an opinion article in a newspaper not an "unbias encyclopedia" and it is aiming to defame someone. That sentence came righ after the mention of the suppose blog comment quote by David Pogue. --Souphanousinphone 14:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, remove this line for the moment, but don't remove that entire section as its cited and hardly libelous, as C S has accused. My own count of the catalog at the site showed more Windows than Mac books, but this was disputed by two people, including Pogue.  I should add that the catalog at the Missing Manuals website is far from complete, and does not include many of the older books from the series, which as far as I can tell, are almost if not entirely Mac-related.  Again, no citation for this anyway, but something to be aware of.  If there were to be a citation, I believe it would be appropriate to include this fact in some way.  I can't consider a list of books from a publisher to be original research. (++ungood 15:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Your recent edit shows you as User: 218.229.196.168, which perhaps not surprisingly belongs to the same Japanese ISP as the anonymous IPs (e.g. User: 219.97.108.254 and User: 219.97.106.12) that have been so hell-bent on pushing an anti-Pogue agenda. I'm afraid that this edit history is going to cause me to give you less benefit of the doubt here.  You seem to like to edit as an IP to make the most radical changes, and then switch to an account once your edits have been reverted.  Not to mention your repeated attempts to post 3RR warnings on my user talk page can only be regarded as aggression.   --C S (Talk) 16:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for another condescending attack, C S. You're clearly out to get me, but I haven't done anything wrong.  The 3RR warning on your page was entirely legitimate, and would be assuming bad faith (and convenient for you) to label as harassment.  It's ironic, really, that you're accusing me of harassing you.  I'd appreciate it if instead of attacking me you did something constructive and responded to my arguments against your censorship of critical content in this article. (++ungood 16:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC))


 * 3RR warnings are meant to be instructive, to explain to editors not familiar with the rule. Since I clearly am aware of the rule, and another editor was kind enough to place one already on my talk page...what purpose do you have in repeatedly trying to put another one on my user page?  WP:Harassment (cf user space harassment) is very clear on what constitutes harassment, and your actions are a textbook example.  I am willing to believe that you are just clueless in persisting in your behavior, like you have been with much of your behavior.  But don't expect me to put up with more user space harassment.  --C S (Talk) 17:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My actions are a text book example of harassment how, exactly? I clearly stated that you 3RRed on material that was not clearly libelous, the exception to the 3RR rule that you claimed applied in your case.  If you felt this was inaccurate, the appropriate thing to do would be to dispute it on your talk page, not remove the warning as if it never happened.  Also, as if it's not obvious, you constantly use a lot of needlessly hostile language toward me.  For you to be accusing me of harassment is completely hypocritical.  You're not God's gift to Wikipedia; you should show some respect to others. (++ungood 00:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I gave you a link to read. If you read it, you will find out your actions are a textbook example, as I said.  For example, if I were to now post a 3RR warning to your usertalk page for something you already got a warning for, it would border on harassment.  If you remove it (after having been notified thus), and I try to put it back, it is definitely harassment.  I am aware of the rules, and I am aware that you dispute it.  If you wanted to make it clear to me, just say so.  No need to try posting templates to my user page repeatedly.  My primary concern here is only to be civil, not show you the respect you feel you deserve but have not earned in my eyes.  I would appreciate civility in turn, but that is of minor concern to me here.  Whether David Pogue is being slandered here is of the utmost concern.  --C S (Talk) 02:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You hadn't already received a warning for 3RR, so there was nothing wrong with me posting it on your talk page. I gave you full explanation for it, and yet you didn't dispute it in anyway, nor have you still.  Instead, you hid it from your talk page.  That's not okay, but it's even more ridiculous for you to then turn around and claim harassment, especially after you attacked me with a baseless BLP violation claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ++ungood (talk • contribs)


 * As I said, the thought had crossed my mind that you are just being clueless. If you actually look right above your first 3RR warning, you will see someone helpfully posted one already.  Additionally, so what if I remove your 3RR warning?  I am well-aware of 3RR and related policies, and that is the whole point of the template: to explain what the rule is and caution people before they break it.  Insistence on adding it is either ignorance or harassment.
 * Come now, let's not be ridiculous. Obviously you knew that I dispute that I violated 3RR.  I explained on my talk page to the other editor that my reversion falls under the BLP exemption, and then you specifically said in your edit that my edits do not fall under a BLP exemption.  What did you want?  A response by me that "Nunh uh, it is exempt"?  --C S (Talk) 10:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a ridiculous discussion. I was giving you a warning because I felt you violated the 3RR policy and I explained why, that is all.  You hid the warning, I put it back up, that is all that happened.  For you to somehow construe this as harassment and then post about it on this already highly defamatory thread of yours is despicable.


 * You made two accusations against me when you began this thread. The first, that I "insist[ed] on interpreting Pogue's comment a certain way which is not supported" was absolutely false, and I disputed it without any response from you.  The second accusation you made was that I "insist[ed] on including a quote by Quittner which adds nothing except inflammatory language."  This accusation was hardly grounds for accusing me of a BLP violation.  The quote itself summarizes Quittner's criticism.  It is not inflammatory and certainly not obviously inflammatory, and I've argued over this enough.  It's just plain obvious to anyone who reads it. The bottom line is, this thread is completely groundless and should never have been started in the first place, yet you continue to make irrelevant accusations.  Stop with your witch-hunt.  (++ungood 11:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I've been trying to stay out of this particular fight, but I just don't see how you can accurately call a snarky blog post by a rival technology writer "critical content." I'm sure plenty of people have written disparaging or laudatory things about Pogue in their blogs, but that doesn't make them worthy of inclusion. It's precisely BECAUSE conflict of interest is such a serious charge for a journalist that it needs to be based on a weightier source before it's included in a BLP. --MysteriousStranger 17:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To dismiss it as just a snarky blog post is to ignore the arguments Quittner makes. He's not being aimlessly critical of Pogue, he's accusing Pogue of a conflict-of-interest and presenting evidence for it.  Also, Josh Quittner is not just a random guy with a blog, he is a very notable figure and his blog is an integral part of the identity of Business 2.0 (++ungood 00:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Everybody disagrees with you though. You can argue at length why we are wrong, but it is probably in vain, as you are not arguing from a policy standpoint.  This page will, sadly, be locked until you lose interest in editing it.  --C S (Talk) 02:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have been arguing from a policy standpoint, and I've refuted everything you've said with no response to my arguments. Two or three people showing disagreement with me, who can hardly claim impartiality due to their personal interest in Apple, is hardly everybody.  Quit being condescending and make a point rather than making groundless personal attacks. (++ungood 09:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC))


 * EDIT: In retrospect, I should have just said "please stop trolling" and left it at that. Wow. (++ungood 11:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Conflict of interest is certainly a heavy charge, but that doesn't mean the people making the accusation should be held up to a higher standard of notability than for any other type of criticism. It's important, of course, that the source of a claim be explained in the article.  In this case, Quittner is about as "weighty" a source as you can get - another highly-esteemed tech columnist.  Who is more qualified than that? (++ungood 11:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Notability isn't what I'm concerned about, reliability is. If Quittner himself gets the story into the print version of Business 2.0, for example, or any other fact-checked and editorially reviewed source, or if anyone else does, by all means add that to the article. --MysteriousStranger 14:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See my post below made on 15:02, 8 July 2007 in response to your other comment. (++ungood 15:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

(unindent) I have made no personal attacks on you, but your language is coming close to one on me. You've refuted nothing. You still have not explained how one blogger's allegations of journalistic fraud on the part of David Pogue deserves mention in the article. You've not explained why a single blog, with no editorial oversight or fact-checking department, somehow satisfies the strongest interpretation of WP:RS needed according to WP:BLP. You've not explained why this is so notable when there is no statement from the New York Times, Pogue's employer, and no mainstream media source has mentioned it. Plenty of people have been alerted to this page through the BLP noticeboard. If any experienced Wikipedian were to disagree with these conclusions, I'm sure they would make themselves known. In addition, a number of different people have reverted your edits (both anon and as ++ungood) previously. I also expect that your use of the ++ungood account all of a sudden mislead some who may have been unsure, into thinking another editor disagreed, rather than being the same person who insisted on inserting the POV repeatedly into the article.

Your comments do not present any new arguments. You will not convince anybody that knows the policies. --C S (Talk) 10:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are nothing more than a troll who makes baseless personal attacks and uses an arrogant, condescending tone to incite anger. I'm getting sick of you claiming that everyone disagrees with me.  By the same token, I have yet to hear from someone who agrees with you.   Let others speak for themselves.


 * Why would there be a statement from the New York Times over this? First, Quittner's criticism is quite recent.  Second, what do they care if their successful tech columnist is criticized by a rival?   There's no reason for the Times to inflate it at their own expense.  It's a criticism for Pogue to respond to anyway, and guess what, Pogue did, both on Quittner's blog, and now on his own website with his sparkling new fanboy defense page.  Mainstream media?  A very popular tech news website did report on it, and it was cited in the article.  (++ungood 10:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC))


 * So now you are making personal attacks on me, after accusing me of the same. Well, why am I not surprised?  --C S (Talk) 10:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ungood, I think you aren't understanding the point C S is making. It doesn't matter if Quittner is an established writer - a blog post is not the same as a newspaper article or a book or a magazine piece or a television segment because, by virtue of the format, it is not subject to fact-checking or editorial oversight. Quittner's blog is no exception, even if it is part of the Business 2.0 site - they still don't fact check blog posts the way they would articles for their print publication. The fact that Quittner's argument is so far wholly contained by that single blog post - despite its mention on Engadget (which is, again, a blog) - suggests that it's is not yet solid or well-grounded enough to meet the higher standards of other sources. You'll note that NPR itself ran a story about the actual, documented conflict-of-interest issue with one of Pogue's data recovery reviews, and articles about that incident ran in other actual newspapers as well. That's why it's worthy of inclusion in the Pogue article here. Despite your implication that everyone who disagrees with you is somehow an Apple crusader, I think everyone would be perfectly happy to see Quittner's argument included as well IF you can find something other than Quittner's own blog post to support it. It doesn't have to be from the NYT, but it does have to be a real, reputable source like the ones I listed above. --MysteriousStranger 11:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I must say I disagree with the suggestion that you're rephrasing C S's argument here, but I digress... What you're effectively saying, as far as I can tell, is that the only criticism that should be listed on Wikipedia is that which comes from mainstream news sources.  That would be ridiculous.  We're stating instances of criticism in this section of the article, not facts that require fact-checking.  Blogs are a perfectl medium for criticism, and criticism from them should be mentioned if the author is notable.  In this case, the author is more qualified than almost anyone else to criticize Pogue.


 * Also, to clarify, I am not implying that everyone who disagrees with me is an Apple crusader, as you say. I have only stated that, based on his contribution history, C S is probably a fan of Apple.  I'm not implying that he is making inappropriate edits because of this, but it is fair to disclose this type of information when someone is adamantly reverting text that goes against a potential bias. (++ungood 12:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I don't think that in general the only criticism that should be listed on Wikipedia is that which comes from mainstream news sources - but conflict of interest is an extremely serious accusation with potential legal ramifications, and this is biography of a living person, with all the BLP-specific concerns that entails. The combination of these factors means we must be very careful about source reliability in this particular case and others like it. I'm not even saying we should leave the material out permanently - just wait on it until a better source shows up that you can use as a reference. If it's a genuine controversy, given Pogue's high visibility it will surely be picked up by other sources soon. If it isn't a genuine controversy, it doesn't belong in the article anyway. --MysteriousStranger 14:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no issue of legality here. I understand that there are BLP articles must be treated with extreme care, but mentioning notable criticism in a neutral manner, whether it's an accusation of conflict-of-interest or not, is completely appropriate.  This is exactly the type of criticism that is to be expected of a critic, especially one who authors books about products they review.  I'm not sure how or why this must be subjectively measured as a genuine controversy.  The section isn't titled "controversy," it's "criticism" - there is a difference - and you're clearly not contesting the fact that the author is notable and Pogue's response is itself significant.  I'm not sure I understand your concern about source reliability.  This is from a notable columnist's blog for a technology/business news magazine owned by CNN.  I can tell you that there have been a number of blog posts that have focused on or made mention of the story, in addition to the major tech news sites engadget and gizmodo, but to only allow criticism that is reported in a newspaper is unreasonable.   Besides, unless there is a big scandal, which this is not since it is subjective and there is nothing potentially illegal going on, any critic like Pogue is not notable enough, nor would it be considered appropriate, for a newspaper to print an article criticizing them or focusing on criticism made by others against them.


 * By the way, and I'm not blaming you, but this discussion really doesn't belong under this thread unless you are arguing that the BLP violation claim against me is valid. (++ungood 15:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

Awards
I notice that a sentence listing awards Pogue has won was removed by an anonymous user at some point during the recent edit war. I wasn't able to find a reference for the 1996 and 1998 Maggie Awards (their winner archives only go back to 2002), but the 2004 Business Emmy was easy enough (http://www.emmyonline.org/emmy/2ndBizEmmyWinners.html), as was the 2006 ONA award (http://journalist.org/awards/archives/000642.php). Perhaps this information should be re-added. --MysteriousStranger 14:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lock down
Nice to see that the admin who locked this article advertises Mac OS X on his user his page. Completely impartial, I'm sure.

I'm curious where the BLP policy violation is here. From what I can tell, the Quittner criticism section in question, regardless of how it came about, was fully cited and not libelous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.204.41.4 (talk • contribs).


 * Because anyone that uses OS X loves David Pogue? If you mean that insinuations that Pogue uses his NY Times column to hype certain products and not others in an effort to boost his income through his books, basically a claim that Pogue has severely crippled his journalistic integrity, are "fully sourced" to an attack piece in a blog and is "not libelous", then you are completely wrong. --C S (Talk) 17:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not your role to determine whether the criticism of Pogue is ultimately reasonable or not; the purpose of the section is to fairly present any notable criticism made against Pogue. In this case, the blogger is notable, and the criticism was significant enough to warrant a response from Pogue.  The material in this article was fully-sourced and neutral in tone.  Also, in the interest of full-disclosure, it's only fair to mention that you yourself an avid Apple fan, as evidenced by your contributions. (++ungood 00:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Thanks for "disclosing" this "fact". Nobody agrees with you that this is "notable criticism" or well-sourced, or anything more than just allegations made in a blog post by someone who got his feathers ruffled.  If you want to build consensus, you're going to have to argue more persuasively from a policy standpoint.  I don't expect your arguments thus far is going to get this page unlocked anytime in the near future.  --C S (Talk) 02:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And how many people have shown agreement with you, oh condescending one? Based on your own edit history in other articles, it's clear that you are not impartial about Apple.   You are continuing to create ridiculous arguments for the purpose of distraction.  If having seven years experience in tech review at Time magazine and being claimed a "rival critic" by Pogue himself doesn't make Quittner notable, I have no idea what does.  There are no grounds for dismissing his criticism over the baseless allegation that Quittner had his feathers ruffled.  And besides, what evidence do you have for this other than the fact that he didn't receive an iPhone early?  Pogue isn't responsible for that anyway, Apple was, and there were 3 other critics (according to Pogue) who received an iPhone early, so if Quittner was lashing out in vengeance, which is a leap in itself, you still haven't explained why he would single out Pogue.  It wouldn't matter anyway because Quittner's criticism is not a personal attack, it's a sourced accusation of conflict-of-interest! Remember when you claimed we don't even know if Pogue responded to Quittner's criticism?  You haven't continued on that ridiculous argument, but you continue to make up arguments that are just as absurd for the purpose of distraction and making this look like a heated edit war so your version of the page can remain up forever.  Give it up.  There was hardly anything controversial in the page before you made your revert and the page was locked.  (++ungood 09:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Let's get one thing straight here. Whether you like it or not, you are fighting a losing battle.  You need to explain your reasons for inclusion of this material convincingly.  So far you have failed to do so.  Now you have resorted to attacking me personally.  Well, fine, go ahead.  But don't expect this discussion to proceed further until you learn restrain yourself from fighting words.  --C S (Talk) 10:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Saying that I am attacking you personally because I accused you of trolling is entirely unfair, and you're only proving my point with every new comment like this one. (++ungood 10:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

Citation for musical career
The line "He spent ten years working in New York as a Broadway musical conductor, arranger, and keyboard player." has a "citation needed" annotation. I'm not sure if the "About the Author" section of *Opera for Dummies* counts since Mr. Pogue is the author of that book. That book does list each of those roles.

I don't know if this counts since it's the subject's Web site, but http://davidpogue.com/bio_photos/index.html does list Mr. Pogue's career on Broadway. It does not say he did so for a decade, however. Llacara 01:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

reference for requested citation Tien mao, "Interview" on gothamist web site. September 15, 2005. http://gothamist.com/2005/09/15/david_pogue_ny_times_technology_writer_author.php

also Buckendorff, Jennifer, "An Interview with David Pogue", The Missing Manual, O'Reilly Publishing, Dec. 17, 2002. http://www.missingmanuals.com/pub/a/oreilly/missingmanuals/news/interview1_1202.html (CJO) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Pogue himself claims a decade doing the above things, but the IBDB, which is impartial about such things, lists exactly one credit, which lasted a week. Sounds like a bit of resume padding. http://www.ibdb.com/person.asp?ID=83472 216.194.4.134 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

More Controversy
I think the Controversy section needs to be updated with his NYT I Want an iPhone Video, and his book/article disclaimer controversy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthritix (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just wrote a paragraph on the book controversy, hopefully keeping it fairly NPOV. Pogue seems to have gone on a spree around that time commenting on practically anything with a comments box to defend his reputation. I'm not sure if the talk page above can be considered canonical from Pogue, but I think there's enough info available elsewhere online that covers it. -66.31.29.198 (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Arrested
http://www.westportnow.com/index.php?/v2_5/comments/33343/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.64.138 (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I started a section on the arrest. It's notable because news reports indicate that he was accused of hitting his wife with an iPhone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.242.132 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that the article doesn't mention this, or even have a "personal life" section. For a man with such impressive achievements to have such a thin biography looks odd. 146.90.47.137 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request from Stevecarre, 22 June 2011
Regarding the Personal Life paragraph about "Pogue and his estranged wife were charged with disorderly conduct"--the charges were later dropped. I believe that the entry should be updated to reflect that. Here's the source URL:

http://www.westport-news.com/news/article/Times-tech-writer-David-Pogue-in-domestic-1434983.php

Thank you.

Stevecarre (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please change the link from AT&T to AT&T for disambiguation, per Talk:AT&T. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Pogue&diff=519851237&oldid=519701499]. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: stroboscopic work Enderton's, not Pogue's
The sentence "He is also a great nephew of Harold Eugene "Doc" Edgerton, a professor of electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and credited with transforming the stroboscope from an obscure laboratory instrument into a common device" sounds like Pogue is credited with the stroboscope work. Suggest changing "Technology, and credited" to "Technology who was credited". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.68.200 (talk • contribs) 15 November 2012
 * Yes check.svg Done. CE request that agrees with the Harold Eugene Edgerton article. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Making More Stuff
David hosted second season on PBS NOVA about materials science called Making More Stuff, which aired on four consecutive Wednesdays starting October 16, 2013 on PBS. [see link below] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/making-more-stuff.html

Jakay11 (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request to Verizon consumer overcharge figue
In the Consumer Advocacy Section, please consider changing the Verizon overcharge figure from $750 million to $850 million. When reading the article cited below he uses calculations to back up his claims and in both the first and third paragraphs the Article Subject refers to the $850 million figure (or specifically, $852,092,500)

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/how-to-bypass-stupid-voicemail-instructions/?_r=1

67.78.166.206 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Pogue. 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://archive.is/20120707185700/http://businessjournalism.org/2010/06/29/nyt-cnbc-each-take-two-loeb-awards/ to http://businessjournalism.org/2010/06/29/nyt-cnbc-each-take-two-loeb-awards/

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) 10:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)