Talk:John Fisher Burns

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversies and Criticisms[edit]

Added a Controversies and Criticisms section to article, as I have for other entries. AndreasKQ 12:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BOLD I deleted the controversies section because wiki guidelines advise against them, prefering rather that they be incorporated into the body of the text. I explained my edits in the summary, but the only thing I really deleted was the massive block quote, which was worded sloppy, was poorly edited (the editor who added it never even bothered to remove the footnotes from the text), took up far too much of the article (WP:BLP is clear that critics cannot be given undue weight), and didn't even make it clear what Burns was being criticized for. I feel my one-sentence summary did a better job of conveying the sense of the criticism. In any case, the article cited isn't even about Burns; he's cited in passing, and I don't know if the criticism is altogether fair. The whole Znet piece seems a little over the top. A pulitzer award winning journalist should be stripped of his job becase a source allegedly lied to him??? As for images, please, please read WP:FU. I meant unfair as in copyrighted and fair use, not unfair as in biased, sorry if that wasn't clear from my edit summary. --Beaker342 16:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few more sources for the 1993 Pulitzer criticism from David Binder, Peter Brock, and Ed Herman, found via Google. I have no idea if the criticism is valid, but I found it interesting. It may seem a bit fringe-like, but David Binder was the New York Times correspondent before Burns, and Peter Brock was published in Foreign Policy [1]. Certainly ex-Yugoslavia is a topic where there is violent disagreement. Ideally there would be information defending Burns against the allegations, but I haven't found any. --Kaicarver 21:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is more than one controversy regarding his questionable reporting, believe it is necessary to have a seperate section below to sum up. It would make it more confusing to keep the information inside the main article. Afghanets (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the Controversy section, because, it was written with a political agenda so patently obvious as to render the entire section rubbish. 2writer, has cited two main sources for his attack on Burns; A Book review appearing on an Anti-Globalization website and a ZDNET article by someone who cites a former reporter for the New York Times, and deduces from it that the Pulitzer should be revoked. Both sources are so weak they really do not merit explanation. He may not be a friend to Totalitarian regimes but that is no reason not to accord one of the finest foreign correspondents a little more respect. Ampower99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ampower99 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Znet is an acceptable RS. There is also the book (something you oddly forgot to mention), which is also an acceptable RS. Both these will be reinstated. The quote needs a clearer citation and should be removed, though if I remember rightly the same quote appears in the book. Beyond that your objections are erroneous. I note you have, three times, deleted the information without discussion, I also note you have never made any other edits on Wikipedia. This may be innocent but this has the makings of sockpuppetry. 2writer (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Znet is fine, I mean no disrespect to that publication. You are citing 1 book, by an obvious partisan for one side, with an agenda, to cast Burns in what I think is a false light. I have no doubt that majority of readers would agree with me. Furthermore, there is no need to attack me simply because I have not gone around policing misleading entries. It would be a full time job.
What is the point of your last sentence in the controversy paragraph? You cite one of Burns' own articles to make a point that he accused someone of being a kgb agent? What?? I suggest you read the article you cite. What is your point? The guy worked for the kgb (Burns interviewed the man) and was offering some insight into the current conflict. All the more ironic given his past! There is no point to your quote except to make it appear to the uninformed that Burns simply slandered some guy (FYI-there is no correction at the end of the article cited which suggests no real dispute).
I do not know much about the Sock puppetry thing, honestly, I am just a reader of the Times who stumbled onto this entry.
It is not my intention to disparage Mr. Brock, who I am sure is a fine author, but judging from his books, he seems to be standing at the ready to criticize any journalist who fail to conform to his view, especially those whose job it is to cover wars. Unless there is a real and genuine dispute surrounding a Pulitzer Prize, it is unfair to create one from a Wikipedia entry. Especially one based on spurious sources found on Google, whose validity is uncertain.
The book and Znet are reliable sources. I assume you have read the book. If you can find a rebuttal from John F Burn that should certainly be added. I have looked and there appears to be none. That is not a reason to remove the criticism. You have again removed fully sourced information. There is no justification for such a removal. Regarding the KGB reference. This was not initially inserted by myself. But again the citation is valid. Indeed it is a citation of Burn’s own article. 2writer (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the KGB claim, I have removed the line "...an accusation which the ambassador disputed". He may well dispute it but this is not in the cite given. Cite is needed for rebuttal / rejection of accusations. 2writer (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

The image is back and I understand the article has sufficient discussion to satisfy "discussion of the ... television" per WP:FU. If you wan to compare this to the similar use in other cases, see e.g. Gwen Ifill or Craig Ferguson or any other TV personality. Mhym 21:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is really tricky stuff, but I'm not convinced that the use here or on the Ifill page qualify as fair use. Please explain more. WP:FU is explicit that copyrighted images from media (TV programs, magazine covers) can only be used in cases where the discussion is of the media outlet and not the person in the photo. Merely mentioning that Burns appears on television doesn't seem to qualify. The Ferguson page is different because the image is claimed to be promotional. Images are often misclassified as promotional, but that's a discussion for a different day. Making comparison to other pages is also tricky because other pages often make the same mistakes. I'll turn your attention to the fact that almost every page on a sports star that has a photo makes use of amateur photo, and not an image from the internet or from television. --Beaker342 22:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try. The reason sports star have amateur photo has to do with another fair use clause: "replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph". For active sportsmen this is possible. For news and TV personalities it is not. Now, the issue with the image is whether it illustrates Burns or the show. In the former case it's unacceptable, in the latter it is. I say it's the latter. The point is it shows a foreign correspondent reporting from Iraq. This illustrates the show segments which has Burns' reports. These are the very reports that are mentioned in the article. Here we go... Now, I understand that this is a borderline issue. I say we should accept this image. P.S. PBS is a non-profit corporation which receives a handsome support from the US government. Too bad as of now not everything it did is in the public domain... Mhym 22:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's going to be the reasoning, then it has to be explicit. The image has to say, "this is a copyrighted picture, but it can't be replaced with an alternative because the person in question is in the middle of a warzone." Right now it doesn't say that, it asserts that it is being used for critical commentary on a news program, which is false. If it was being used to identify the show, a picture of Jim Lehr would do just as well, and obviously it wouldn't, because the picture isn't really being used to identify the news program at all. See Template:Non-free_media_rationale. --Beaker342 23:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American?[edit]

Don't think it's accurate to describe him as an American journalist. He was born in England and emigrated to Canada early in his career. It's true he worked in the U.S. for a bit, but I don't see anything indicating he holds dual citizenship. Changing to British, but open to discussion if there is evidence to the contrary.Terrapin7 (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is he a Canadian?[edit]

He emigrated to Canada when he was young and got his tertiary education there. He worked for a Canadian newspaper and was posted to China when he started his career as a journalist. North wiki (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source for expulsion from China[edit]

Here's an AP article that covers the allegations against Burns and his expulsion from China: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1356&dat=19860723&id=q89PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-wYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7135,4182526Siweiluozi (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on John Fisher Burns. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Fisher_Burns&oldid=1194917021"