Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:14, 2 March 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject History of photography

It is requested that an image or photograph of Bill Biggart be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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. 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)

Assessment

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

Copyright Vio

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)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class New York City articles
• Low-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of journalists
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in the United States