Talk:Martin Bashir

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2013; 2015; 2018; 2020;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Martin Bashir article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Typo?[edit]

 In response, Bashir and his personal cameraman released a rebuttal interview

Is this right? Who released a rebuttal interview?Createangelos (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pathetic attempt to preserve a positive image for a disgraced journalist who should be prosecuted for fraud and other crimes. RSR, DBA (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amen he is a scumbag who deserves to be prosecuted and sentenced to jail 2600:1700:BCD0:2E30:C147:2BF5:61EB:5E9A (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disgraced[edit]

There is some debate about using this term. I would like to point out that there are multiple references supporting this based on the subject’s actions.

WP:NPOV specifically allows for this: ”It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias.”

Also WP:ASSERT applies, considering the source material that is being cited. Ng.j (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks loaded to put that into the first sentence, instead of saying facts about scandals and allowing the reader to come up with their own adjectives to describe him. Here are some pages about other journalists involved in scandal, where this is done: Jayson Blair, Sabrina Erdely, Johann Hari. It is hard to assert where being "disgraced" starts and finishes: one could call Hari that for losing his job after using Wikipedia to attack his rivals, but he seems to have had subsequent successes with books and speeches. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hear, hear

Actio (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should think the term "disgraced"  did not, and does not, belong in this article. This is the palace line, but there is no reason for the Wikpedia article to fall in line (especially as there seems to be a note from Diana , an adult, who claimed that she chose to bare her allegations because it might constitute her only opportunity.

This policy, regrettable or not, "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias" does not include opening an article with a new allegation in a fraught moment. "Disgraced" is a moral term; there are many better ways to express this, and source it--but not in the intro para. Actio (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disgraced is not a good word here because it evaluates and that is not good. There should probably be a separate page for the many aspects and facts of Diana interview. Now that the forgery has been admitted we ought to know who forged the papers. What were they paid. Who were the individuals in the BBC who tried to blow the whistle but were punished with career repercussions, demotion or resignation. The Prince of Wales had a very devoted servant, the late Paddy Whiteland, who said in 1986 (page 43 in the "Housekeeper's Diary", Wendy Berry) that 'the sooner he gets rid of that one the better'). The animosity displayed in that remark could well point to the fact that Bashir himself was a victim of some kabale. Was he really familiar with the names of the servants whose bank records were forged? As the interview caused the Queen to suggest the divorce this is a complex worth a separate page. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:B9EF:7644:906A:EB02 (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Employment status[edit]

There are multiple references that he is no longer employed. There are no references stating that he is currently employed as a journalist, nor is it likely in the future based on the reports of his actions to secure the Diana interview. Ng.j (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your idea. He left his most recent job officially because of health, he has not retired from journalism and we do not know if he will be employed again. WP:CRYSTAL, stranger things have happened. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully he'll never be employed again and why should he. The whole world has seen him for what he really is. He might take up volunteering in the community instead helping people and learning how to be a good person again if he ever was. I think it's safe to say his job in the public eye is no more.92.19.46.42 (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I say, this contribution disqualifies you for editing this page? I feel no need to defend Bashir, but this is a moral judgment, which you are more than welcome to express--just not in a Wikipedia entry. I do hope you can see this. Actio (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is not an active journalist. He is a former journalist by any definition, and the argument advanced above to avoid referencing this is absurd.

Only if he returns to journalism the “former” should be removed; however, he is no longer working in the industry and is therefore no longer a journalist. Tbidabel (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Disgraced"[edit]

I have added this in the lead sentence, since events of the past three days (proof of forgery, a formal judgement against him by Lord Dyson, and resignation from the BBC) leave no ambiguity in the matter. Would anyone inclined to revert please leave a word here? Thanks. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disgraced is not a legal term and not a term that should be applied. Bashir was judged to have acted inappropriately; but although you and I may agree with that judgment, he has had a long career, and it is once again a moral judgment, and in effect 'of the moment' to proclaim him "disgraced.' like it was a scarlet letter.  Compare the language applied by Wikipedia to  the former US journalist Charlie Rose, accused of a pattern of serious sexual misbehavior. I deplore the judgment that suggests misleading a member of a monarchy is more important than misbehavior in interviewing others. Wo

uld the writer apply this term to James O'Keefe, whose doctored interview brought down the social service agency ACORN? Actio (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

The third sentence in the current introduction to this subject is a complete mess! May I suggest it be changed to the following:

"It was his 1995 TV interview with Diana, Princess of Wales, for the BBC's Panorama programme, that has attracted controversy. Firstly at the time, for the candid disclosures made by Princess Diana about difficulties in her marriage and mental health struggles, and subsequently when it emerged Bashir had fraudulently obtained the interview using forged bank documents as leverage." 31.125.76.2 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are quoting, more or less verbatim, the change I just made. It has since been altered again. I'm going to leave this for a while. Hanoi Road (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like create Angelo's said, typo?[edit]

In response, Jackson and his personal cameraman released a rebuttal interview, which showed Bashir complimenting Jackson for the "spiritual" quality of the Neverland Ranch.

Shouldn't that be ,"In response, Bashir..."? 2601:147:8280:DF20:7C14:EB51:FD46:EB94 (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]