Talk:Michael Deibert

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

Comment[edit]

I have heard Deibert on the radio here in New York several times and read his book, as well. He is a fairly well-known writer here in New York, at least, and as such, deserves inclusion here. --- IP addresses 98.171.191.251 (Santa Barbara, California, USA), which has also vandalized other entries, added irrelevant blog and meessage board postings to entry. As per Wikipedia standards, blog entries and message board postings are in no way notable.--MultiWorlds (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Deibert and his Haiti reporting[edit]

Michael Deibert's writing on Haiti are highly contentious in light of this, this wikipedia article reads like PR for Deibert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.106.162 (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Some of the articles included by Context23 accuses Deibert of libel - a charge that has never been proved in any forum - thus making the article itself potentially libelous and thus in violation of Wikipedia' standards.MultiWorlds (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Deibert evidently did hotly dispute Elie's allegations. MultiWorlds (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in need of cleanup[edit]

This article is a pro-Deibert advertorial piece that doesn't take any criticisms into consideration. Context23 (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Barahona article included by Context23 accuses Deibert of libel - a charge that has never been proved in any forum - thus making the article itself potentially libelous and thus in violation of Wikipedia' standards.

Have tried to re-do the pro/con section in a more neutral way based on what I could find online, taking into account both critics and support. Problem I found with many pieces critical is that they tip over the line into potential libel. The New Left Review piece, while highly critical, does not, and is suitable for inclusion here as per Wiki policies. I am still not convinced articles for or against this individual are really worth an entire separate section, though, but best to have if neutral and present both sides, if so. MultiWorlds (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that you previously removed mention and links to Justin Podur's rather harsh criticism [subtitle of article: "Justin Podur on Michael Deibert, Notes from the Last Testament. Untenable defence of Aristide's overthrow, as Haiti's poor come under siege..."] was deemed 'libelous' by you. [See your frequent edits/removal of that link.] What prompts that inclusion now? Context23 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles deleted for cause[edit]

User Multiworlds continuously deletes any material critical of Michael Deibert, [see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Deibert&action=history ] including newspaper articles with references. The claimed reason for deletion given is that the links are directing towards potentially libelous material but the user fails to give any references or arguments why this may be so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Context23 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, I deleted one potentially libelous article. MultiWorlds (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the edit history shows, multiple links news-media articles were deleted by you in addition to the text they served as reference to. [see link above Context23 (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the articles in question were deleted for libel concerns and because they do not meet BLP standards. MultiWorlds (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No reasons given for deletions[edit]

You have not given any reasons as to why this newspaper article from Haiti Progres is offensive or when and where Deibert, or someone else has taken action against the perceived infringement of his rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Context23 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the two articles linked are potentially libelous. MultiWorlds (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claims re libel[edit]

Please do state in which way the linked to print media articles might be defamatory. And: in order of being in a position to engage in civilized discourse, please do not continue to make blanket statements, but instead give concrete examples. The charge of libel is serious and as such there ought, no must be a discussion of specifics Context23 (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Context23, and glad you've calmed down a bit. It appears the Deibert did accuse Elie of libel here and apparently responds to his claim with a third party source. As already noted by others, someone not remembering being on the steps of a church on particular day does not rise to BLP standards. It seems important to you to present a critical view of Diebert's work, but I think the New Left Review article does that well and much more convincingly than the other two articles you have attempted to link to both of which, in my view, cross the line into potentially libelous. MultiWorlds (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion articles are citable only as specific opinions[edit]

Per WP:BLP the sentence making factual charges does not stand. It is all opinion, and the authors must be specified and qualified only as having opinions. Meanwhile, the only "factual error" enumerated in the cites was a person saying he did not recall attending a church service, which is not of sufficient weight for a BLP. One person did cite "typographical errors" which is decidedly not of any weight for a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, Collect. I have been trying to bring this article up to speed for several days now. MultiWorlds (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

links to articles by....interviews by...interviews of...[edit]

I removed a large list of externals to such as the header suggests - wikipedia is not a link station, WP:LINKFARM - this article is supposed to be a biography of the life story of a notable person. Most such journalists imo are not really notable, they appear in the press because that is what they do for a living only. Has he won any major industry awards? There are links to his articles on his personal website,http://www.michaeldeibert.com/ that link is in the external link section and if readers want to see the articles he has written they can click on that. Off2riorob (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit, Off2riorob. I think the piece looks much better and less cluttered now. MultiWorlds (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of media outlets listed[edit]

The amount of publications listed borders on the excessive. A minor article about a journalist most well known for his 2001 to 2003 stint in Haiti, lists (and links to their Wikipedia pages) 12 media outlets. This is not re;levant and echoes M. Diebert's webpage and blog as linked to from within the article. An encyclopedic article should not read like a résumé. 22:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.134.114 (talk)

I think Diebert is better known for his book than his stint as a journalist in Haiti. I think it also lasted (at least the reporting) a lot longer than that, something like from 2000 or so to present. MultiWorlds (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks good[edit]

With the addition of the Taylor review and one I found from Don Bohning, I now think the article looks good and addresses the concerns of those here. It's good to see that, after the contentiousness, Wiki editors can come together and do something productive. MultiWorlds (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bohning articlet (525 words) is less than a qualified review, but a re-amplificationn of the same talking points employed by Deibert in his book. The statements have been refuted time and time again. I do like the inclusion of this article though, because this is the kind of article Deibert cites in his book and therefore is very much in context. For those who even cursory knowledge about Haiti, Bohning's article is immediately evident as being from a long line-up of made up allegations against Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Context23 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that way, Context23. But didn't Bohning report on Haiti for something like 35 years or so (according to his bio) and act as the Latin American editor of the Miami Herald for many years? He would seemed to be, actually, the MOST qualified of the folks cited, pro or con, to have an opinion. MultiWorlds (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about feelings, but the inability to back up ones own statements, an accusation that has been made by some against Deibert as well. Bohning's Haiti reports are very uninformative and often repeat extreme right wing content from Haiti. BTW: Just look at where you got his article from: "wehaitians.com"... But thank you for including it, it is very much inline with all that Deibert writes and is informative in that regard! Context23 (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Deibert. 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) 16:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Deibert&oldid=1206919754"