Talk:John F. Burns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John F. Burns article.
Article policies
WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a message to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.

[edit] Controversies and Criticisms

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

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)

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)

[edit] Image

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] American?

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)