Talk:Jeff Bergosh

Conflict of interest

I must assume that the recent contributor to this Jeff Bergosh article is either Mr. Bergosh or a close friend/relation. We appreciate your participation on Pensapedia, but please understand that you have a conflict of interest on this issue. If you feel the article is inaccurate or has misrepresented the facts, please make a note of your concerns on this talk page. Some of your revisions promote a biased viewpoint and contradict statements cited in the News Journal sources. I understand the frustration of making verifiable claims when you have a conflict with the newspaper-of-record, but I'm sure we can come to a compromise. Thanks for your cooperation. --Admin 12:15, 23 November 2007 (CST)

I believe your second revision was better than the original. I still believe the piece is inaccurate, however, with the latest changes I believe it more accurately portrays both sides than the original. I do not agree with the use of the term "Scandal"--this would give the appearance of something illegal or innappropriate. look to the unbiased sources to clear that up ( UWD Voyager article and/or NWFl daily news article ) Additionally, it is very widely known that Bergosh was critical of the PNJ's editorials slamming Educational Quality in Escambia County. I would suggest that you find and link Richard Schneider's editorial (as well as associated forum posts) from August 12, 2007. Also Mark O'brien's piece from September 30, 2007, (and associated forum posts). Both of these editorials and responses were prior to the erruption of the "controversy", and many feel these editorial responses were the impetus for the PNJ's expose on Bergosh. I would caution, particularly on this piece, against using too much of the PNJ's material to create an accurate page, as there has been extreme tension between the subject of this piece and the PNJ editor/editorial staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.58.82 (talk • contribs) November 25, 2007

I will agree on the word "scandal". It is not appropriate for the situation. I certainly feel that the situation was/is a "controversy", though, and have restored the "Godzilla controversy" heading. I would even go as far as to support an omission of the "Godzilla" phrase in the header (despite the fact that I feel it is a good identifier for the controversy)... something like "PNJ forum pseudonym controversy" perhaps...? As for your other edits, I don't care for the way you have phrased them, and am going to rewrite them, but I am going to try to work out something you will accept. dcosson ··· talk 14:19, 25 November 2007 (CST)

• The contention that the Godzilla admission was made "off the record" but published anyway is a serious allegation which I don't believe is accurate. The phrase "off the record" has a very specific meaning in journalism; such testimony has to be negotiated with a publication in advance and can't be applied retroactively. Bergosh may have asked Rabb not to publish the story, but she had no obligation to obey.
• To make a connection between Bergosh's responses to specific PNJ editorials and the subsequent "outing" is speculative at best, and in any event it was already addressed in the article: "Bergosh asserted ... that the left-leaning newspaper had engaged in 'yellow journalism' as retribution for his conservative opinions..."
• The verbose contextual qualifiers after each one of the Godzilla quotes are unnecessary, in my opinion, even in the format of "Bergosh contends that..." (which itself raises new issues of how to cite quotes by an anonymous contributor to this project whom we assume is Mr. Bergosh).
• Finally, I must repeat my request that the anonymous contributor (Mr. Bergosh or his friend/relation), due to conflict of interest concerns, broach any concerns about the article's content or wording on this discussion page before making any edits. Otherwise we will be forced to protect this article from anonymous edits. Thank you. --Admin 17:19, 25 November 2007 (CST)

  I agree with basically everything you said... I appreciate it if you'd take a stab at some changes. I'm trying to build consensus, even if it is just among three people. dcosson ··· talk 17:37, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Joe, good job condensing my verbose lead. About the Godzilla admission/off the record status... I would say that if the anonymous contributor still takes issue with that section, and we can figure out some way to source/cite it, we could clarify that section with something like "Bergosh maintains that the admission was "off the record"." or something like that. I don't know. Trying to be as neutral as possible. Sigh. dcosson ··· talk 19:03, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Why change Godzilla?

I don't understand why "Godzilla controversy" is not an acceptable section header. The same editor has repeatedly tried to remove Godzilla from the intro paragraphs as well. It's a much more concise and accurate descriptor, since the controversy wasn't just about the fact that Bergosh used a pseudonym, but rather extended into the subsequent actions by both Bergosh and the News Journal. To the anonymous contributor (who should consider creating a username), please detail your reasoning on this talk page or I will revert to the previous section header. --Admin 09:39, 28 November 2007 (CST)