Talk:David Pogue

message: 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.
[- Recovering from a Hard-Drive Disaster]
Giantangrysquid 14:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just add a link

message: 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)
thread_title: The ''Real'' Pogue Page in WP

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: It seems like this article is a good example of the difficulties in applying the Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Controversy" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lock down 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citation for musical career 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More Controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Arrested 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

text: . . Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Stevecarre, 22 June 2011 

message: 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
: Done. CE request that agrees with the Harold Eugene Edgerton article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: stroboscopic work Enderton's, not Pogue's 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making More Stuff 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit Request to Verizon consumer overcharge figue 

message: Have commenced tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified