Talk:David S. Rohde



Untitled

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The information is now included in the article. If you wish to discuss the fact that it was removed in the first place, see Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_65. –xenotalk  13:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Removing info
Who the hell is removing the bit about him being kidnapped? It's confirmed by several sources and even if it's not on the news, doesn't make it a false statment, someone should really look into this. 218.188.3.124 (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Information on Rohde's 2008 kidnapping has been included with multiple references. Multiple references were included due to the apparently controversial nature of this issue, judging from the above comment and the article's history page. The original AKI article seems to be no longer available on the AKI website (which states that news items are removed from the website after 15 days). I am trying to locate it in its entirety elsewhere, without much luck. Here is the original link: http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.2698112746 70.79.212.223 (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You were endangering Mr. Rohde's life by adding that information during that time. Background: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html?src=twr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.117.20 (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Doubtful. 76.10.128.105 (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a policy is required "Wikipedia is not a foreign policy instrument of the New York Times"?Fifelfoo (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps a policy that states whither or not Wikipedia belongs to Jimmy and he can do what he pleases? Wouldn't be the first time Jimmy exercised his discretion over consensus on a BLP page.  Although, for the sake of Mr. Rohde, it seems to have been a wise move... this time.
 * This would, however, make an excellent case study for an ethics class. 165.95.11.84 (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; where and when did Jimmy edit this article? Being one of the ones who made the actions that you're apparently all worked up about, I can say that I did so because I felt it was appropriate.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Be smart don't add kidnapping information that would raise the value of the target to kidnappers. Thanks to wikipedia for doing the right thing. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, because suppressing information is what the internet is for...... 192.136.16.3 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Pakistan Army Scout
Can someone mention that an Pakistan Army Scout helped him during his escape. Sources: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8111250.stm http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NYT-reporter-escapes-from-Taliban-captivity/articleshow/4682012.cms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.141.53 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and conflicts of interest
As is admitted in this New York Times article following Rodhe's escape from captivity, this article has been edited to present a certain slant on the topic: "Two days after the kidnapping, a Wikipedia user altered the entry on Mr. Rohde to emphasize his work that could be seen as sympathetic to Muslims, like his reporting on Guantánamo, and his coverage of the Srebrenica massacre of Bosnian Muslims."

While it's understandable that the neutrality and factual accuracy of the encyclopaedia was not the primary goal of the editors of this article while the safety of Mr. Rodhe and his driver was in jeopardy, now that the crisis has passed it is incumbent on us to present the facts in context, free of bias, and in appropriate weight. The sections dealing with Srebrenica need either to be rewritten entirely, without an agenda, or excised until a neutral version is proposed. Skomorokh  04:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just read the article and I agree. While some of the information is cited and relevant to his work there are far too many weasel words sprinkled throughout those sections.--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I took a quick stab at cleaning up the article - moving some unbalanced detail into cites, combining repeated sentences, and removing some weasel words. What we really need is better information about his reporting history and style - anything about his work since the Pulitzer would be a useful addition.  +sj +  15:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

source details
The last sentence under 'Kidnapping by the Taliban' about sources for the NYT article on his release seems unnecessary. I don't feel strongly enough to remove it, but the article might read better without it there. +sj + 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedia hits bottom; keeps digging
What happened is just ridiculous. A man's life doesn't justify censorship of informations on Wikipedia. What are good reasons for censorship? The ones that Jimmy Wales chooses? What if someone who has 'power' decides that something must not be published, for his alleged "good reasons". A life perhaps has been saved (are we sure that it was because of the media blackout?), but Wikipedia's neutrality and freedom has been seriously undermined. Not counting the fact that the New York Times editor, with only several phone calls, succeeded in making all the other media not to publish the news... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.217.15.245 (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the neutrality of a Wikipedia article is worth more than the life of a human being? What do you think Wikipedia is? I think you overvalue Wikipedia's importance. Quite frankly, it's just a website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.91.45.121  (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The suppression of relevant facts to please powerful outside interests proves that this leftist propaganda site is just that. 208.127.106.147 (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't be a troll. If you honestly think that you are incredibly narrow minded and partisan.  Do you know what propaganda is?  What do "leftist" politics have to do with this?  This was suppressed because it was thought it could better lead to a man making it out of a kidnapping alive.  If you want to argue that Wikipedia is devoted to the free exchange of information and this is counter to that, go ahead, but to say it was wrong to suppress information because he was working for an allegedly left wing newspaper (which in my view, the New York Times isn't) is the kind of garbage you should take to conservapedia, or somewhere with comparable standards.  TastyCakes (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am appalled that Wikipedia would violate its published principles to prevent publishing the truth. It will be the beginning of the end. Jimmy Wales claims to exercise no influence. Hah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.151.142 (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Wales claims to exercise no influence? Where did you hear that?  TastyCakes (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

All of you who are "outraged" that the fact of his kidnapping was kept quiet on this page and elsewhere should log off this website, sit back, and think about what you are advocating. Your edits to try to spread this could and might have put his life in danger. If he would have died, and your edits been the cause of it, would you feel the same moral outrage you claim now? You should be disgusted with yourself. Seriously - you are pathetic. - JRH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.191.214.8 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The argument that the integrity of Wikipedia has been compromised is nonsense. Who was harmed by this temporary suppression of information, and how is Wikipedia compromised? A limited omission of information when there is a clear understanding that this poses a threat to an individual's life, and has no effect on the public at large, is justified and appropriate. There are many examples where information is deliberately omitted from news stories in order to serve the "public good." By example, the recent spate of suicides in Japan by mixing specific household cleaners omits the specific recipies that are used; it is difficult to argue that widespread publication of this information would serve the public good. In the kidnapping of Mr. Rodhe and his driver, it is understood by individuals in the field, including counterterrorism experts and the editors of various news sources, that it was in Mr. Rodhe's best interest to at least temporarily suppress the details of his kidnapping in order to maximize the chances for his release. Neurodoc (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Who was harmed? Freedom of the press. Why bother? Here's why: have Wikipedia and the New York Times (or another news agency/government) colluded on any other entries for any reason? Has Wikipedia expunged accurate, relevant information that some media outlet/reporter doesn’t want published? I don't see them as trivial questions. I repeat what I said before: *who* decides what is public good and what has to be censored? Malicious or fraudulent edit of Wikipedia never ceased and never will, of course, but this is a Jimbo-Authorized(tm) "from-the-top" action that needs to be condemned... My 2 cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.217.15.245 (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

None of the above is helpful for the improvement of this article; please take discussions about the incident itself to the village pump or other community discussion forum. Skomorokh  14:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Michelle Malkin blog
Does this story reach reliable source standards, especially for a biography? It appears to be a self published blog by a woman that doesn't seem to have all that much idea of how Wikipedia works and is a shrieking partisan. I think the link to her article should be removed, and if no more reasoned commentary can be found the sentence removed. TastyCakes (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone who would call Malkin a "shrieking partisan" is in fact, a shrieking partisan. We know you are biased. We know the NYT is biased. We know Wikipedia is biased. Let's just cut through the nonsense, ok? You are not fooling anyone. 64.53.136.29 (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, are you being sarcastic? I really can't tell on here.  The Malkin blog was almost as ridiculous as the Conservapedia article on Barack Obama.  It wasn't even close to being reasoned or supported.  The logic behind it was twisted to the point of absurdity: an imagined monolithic Wikipedia went and made ridiculous concessions to the New York Times in the hopes of helping the chances of a kidnapped reporter, a disgusting betrayal of Wikipedia's principles for the clearly unworthy cause of a man's life.  Apparently she would rather Wikipedia had shouted from the belfries that this guy had been kidnapped, even if it could have led to his death.  As for your claims about me personally, if you look through my edit history I think you will find that I am more right leaning than left, and rarely "shrieking" either way.  Please don't be a troll.  It would be fantastic if you could add something to Wikipedia beyond the sad, partisan hackery you have shown today.  TastyCakes (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, you haven't read sad partisan hackery until you've read Rohde's New Yorker piece on Barr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.213.194.59 (talk • contribs)


 * The decision to include or exclude a source should be made on firmer ground than this. If you have an argument for excluding it beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT, please present it. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS ? –xenotalk 17:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps I wasn't clear about my concerns in using the site. It appears to be a self published blog that adds no new information and seems to just throw out her own (unqualified) opinions.  That does not seem to be an acceptable source under Wikipedia's BLP guidelines.  TastyCakes (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Absent a good rebuttal, I support removal of the link. –xenotalk 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Malkin herself is notable as a prominent far-right blogger, but her opinions are generally not unless they are reported in reliable third-party sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think the problem with the source is probably more with the author's politics rather than the content, but the parallel reference to the NY Times piece seems sufficient for the basic point, so I won't object if it's removed. I would like to see a little more time pass for discussion here first, but that's kind of secondary. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree in part - I think added to the fact that it's not a typical reliable source for a biography, Malkin's criticism is unfair because she is portraying it as a political issue when she has no real evidence of that. She claims Wales and Wikipedia at large wouldn't have suppressed information if it had been a Fox News reporter because they are not part of the "liberal media establishment", which I personally think is completely false and she certainly can't prove.  She is harping on that angle of the story and ignoring the salient criticism here: that Wikipedia suppressed information, for a very good cause but nevertheless against its main principles (although she clearly has no fond feelings for Wikipedia's principles).  If any reliable source could be found to make that claim, I'd be all for including it.  TastyCakes (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think Malkin's problem is more with the NY Times, which seems to have a selective policy for this kind of thing. But that's certainly a discussion for some other venue. Mark Shaw (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I get the feeling you're right, she seems mostly angry at the Times (and has been for a long time) and her beef with Wikipedia is that it bent its rules to accommodate the Times' requests. But the Malkin article has been replaced by a (in my opinion) more reasoned one from Gawker.com so I guess it's a moot point.  TastyCakes (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why an intentionally partisan political blog needs to be involved in this at all when the mainstream media is covering this in some depth (admittedly, the coverage is on "the second page", but it does exist). NPR has an excellent analytical piece here: Reporter's Escape From Taliban Spurs Ethics Debate, for example. Using Google news (currently) provides: http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ncl=dYd3LE1-2lGdhnMJJL8eBnxselwcM
 * The conspiracy buffs and political hacks can add stuff all they like, we (as responsible editors) simply need to remove or correct that material. It's not all automatically bad anyway, it just needs work to comply with policy and style. "They" may not like that editing, but so what? Forget them (they largely just want the attention anyway, which providing them with encourages their behavior) and just carry on.
 * PS.: In my opinion it would probably be a good idea to create an New York Times censorship of David Rohde kidnapping article (or something similar. the name itself isn't important). The event is not the man, and the man is not the event. The notoriety that the story has garnered, along with the ethical debate which it has clearly engendered seems to push the event to the level of notability appropriate for a Wikipedia article, in my opinion. — Ω (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I know it has been eleven years since this discussion took place, but I opened a discussion at WP:RSN. Geo Swan (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Archive?
This talk page only dates back a few days. Surely there have been discussions here before. Where are they? -- 87.178.46.134 (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Either there was no discussion prior to March 2009 or it was oversighted. See the talk page history. –xenotalk 20:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets not create yet another conspiracy theory here - the history of this talk page dates back to February 2007 (the same time the article was created - which is more than a few days) but had very few comments since. This is not unusual for article talk page which generally are not extensively edited unless there is some need for extensive collaboration about the article itself which clearly was not the case here (based on the page history of the actual article). - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok so the talk history page goes back to 2007, but where is the talk? I don't see it archived. -- 137.138.4.23 (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You can see the early edits to this page in the history. As that page indicates, the only edits in 2007 and 2008 were to the headers at the top of the page (e.g. the WikiProject banners), and to the category . According to the history, no comments have ever been removed from this page by an edit. The logs show that no administrator has deleted any edits either. So, unless the page has been oversighted, it's very likely that what you see is all there is to see. Hope this helps,  Skomorokh   12:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No conspiracy theory! Nice. It's just been openly admitted that there ARE conspiracies and there IS censorship of this supposedly free site.. Where is the discussion site on the village pump recommended above? Pnd (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * huh? You mean Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_65? –xeno<sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The "unreliable" Afghan news agency
What exactly was the source originally cited on Nov. 13? &mdash;72.74.13.164 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pajhwok Afghan News (http://www.pajhwok.com/viewstory.asp?lng=eng&id=65117). See this edit. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 00:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also probably Adnkronos International, see this edit. Hipocrite (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've updated the article on Pajhwok because it was a bit slim and someone could have mistaken it for some local gutter press. The source agency for the breaking story was in fact founded by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting with support from the USAID, the UN’s International Organization for Migration, Internews, and the Open Society Institute. More importantly the director and deputy director have won International awards issued by the CPJ International Press Freedom Award and the International Women's Media Foundation. They don't strike me as being not reliable. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

For those who is interested, here is a collection of occasional past links:      --Yms (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite in progress
I'm currently systematically rewriting and expanding the article. Bear with me - it should be completed in a few hours' time. I've just done the first tranche. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Great work Chris. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 00:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm done for the night. I'll pick this up again tomorrow and see if there's anything more that needs to be added. I think I've covered the most significant points. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, great job. Hipocrite (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya, it's looking good. TastyCakes (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Note to all
Wikipedia has rules when it comes to dealing with information, but as with all rules, they cannot predict every possible situation and no one can write in every possible clause. In some situations the rules needed to be stretched. Why? A life, a human life, was at risk. I would like those who protest Wikipedia's actions here think about which has more consequence. The quite possible death of a human from a force that is NOT known for pacifist tendencies, OR the temporary suppression of information. My own moral compass tells me that Wikipedia's actions was the better one, rather then breaking a media blackout and reducing his chances of escaping alive.

After seeing some old comments, I would also like to point out that this is Wikipedia and should this situation (hopefully, never) come up again in the future, people stop and think about what effects information they post can have on other's lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Ashton (talk • contribs) 23:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sice now blackout every kidnapping. I suggest to censore articles about drugs, that will probably save lives too. 89.61.138.136 (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

NPOV warning
It's painfully obvious that the apologists for censorship have only put up their side of the story. I mean, the only quotation is "Wikipedia has finally grown up"? Gosh, you'd never think that there was ever any argument about the issue from the way that sounds!!! In addition ChrisO is assuring everyone there is no controversy and there is no disagreement! Gosh no, only haters and cranks on blogs hate Wikipedia's actions, everyone else loves them! Non-neutrality at its finest. 99.160.9.30 (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some bloggers don't like it - that much is obvious. But blogs are not reliable sources and until this becomes a mainstream controversy covered in depth by reliable sources such as newspapers and TV stations, there's not much for us to cover. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL...Wikipedia is in bed with NYT, so I guess there's no chance of that happening, huh? But wait, you say that Blogs are not reliable sources? Then what's with the last line of the article?


 * "Murad Ahmed, writing in one of the London Times's blogs, saw it as a sign that "Wikipedia has grown up" and argued:"


 * OH, I guess you meant left-leaning blogs by left-leaning socialists? My bad. 64.53.136.29 (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then get the CPGB / CPUSA / Whomever paper to report it, or blog it officially. Or look for a contra-opinion piece which will almost certainly appear shortly in a reliable online source. 129.94.30.6 (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If these trolls want some criticism included, it has to meet the standards.  However, if they don't understand that Wikipedia isn't a single entity with a single (liberal) point of view, they clearly don't understand Wikipedia and probably won't be able to figure the difference between a good and bad source.  Fortunately, most of them are only passing by and will leave once they become frustrated that they can't inject their biased world view into the article.  TastyCakes (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What we need now is get accused of being right-wing stooges. I find that the best sign that a contentious article is doing well is having both sides mad at us. --Kiz o r  05:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We make an exception for "blogs" - really opinion columns in blog format - on news organizations' websites. See WP:RS. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a reference to Wikipedia's Three Revert Rule. I tried to do so in NPOV language (using "see also", instead of, say, "in violation of", which is how I would PREFER to state it...). TJIC (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SELFREF and find a reliable source that talks about 3RR or revert wars (which is a CNR) to include this mention. Also, the administrators involved didn't just edit it, they used protection. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 14:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor and Fast Company are both raising the ethical issues surrounding Wales et al.'s actions. These are both blogs published by mainstream publications, but the censorship fan-boys are quoting a London Times blog in this article, so these blogs should be quotable as well. "Wales' excuse still sounds particularly weak. As a result, the next questions about Wikipedia are: What other news pieces is it hiding? And will users trust in the site as a news source take a hit?" --JHP (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For the love of God, it was an embargo not censorship. Paul Roberton Paul Roberton (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC).


 * No, it was reported by a fairly reliable news source (actually the largest independent news agency in Afghanistan - read its credentials) and AFAIKS the source did not ask that the story be withheld. Embargo is when an as-yet unreleased bit of news is withheld. As it was already known then restricting circulation of that is censorship. The Afghan source is a pretty good looking agency with award-winning world acknowledged management. People are picking a bad target here. The Wikipedia policies needs to be updated so WP:OFFICE actions don't have to use WP:PS to pull content but just do it autocratically. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll agree you're right with your definition. I'd still maintain that an embargo can still loosely be applied and is more accurate than censorship in the American sense of this situation as it applies to Wikipedia. NYT asked Jim Wales to ensure the article was not edited in ways that might jeopardise Rohde's life. Now that he's safe, we're free to edit the article again. Paul Roberton Paul Roberton (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind the fact that Wikipedia is not, has not been, and should not be "A news source". At least, not in the sense that the quote from the blogger above is talking about. Wikipedia isn't about journalism, it's about encyclopedism... (now, Wikinews, on the other hand...)
 * Anyway, my point here is that this material does not belong in this article, regardless. This is ostensibly a biography article about David Rohde. The event of his kidnapping is merely one event within his life. The event is obviously significant in its own right, and so it should be briefly mentioned here as with the other significant events of his life but should be treated within it's own article. — Ω (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree on that. The section David_S._Rohde should be simply culled. WP had no real role here. The random editor back in November did have a good scoop here but it ultimately got reverted on weak reliable source grounds here but then they tried linking to a typepad blog here which the User:XLinkBot bot then reverted. The naive IP user then tried an edit war with the bot. Hopefully they've learnt what the right process is i.e. if an edit gets reverted on WP:RS then argue your sources. None of this is remotely newsworthy; it's just internal WP stuff. Ttiotsw (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * An embargo is an agreement not to publish information BEFORE is is released. The information was released on Wikepedia, and then it was redacted.  That doesn't sound remotely like the definition of an embargo.  To assert flatly that it was "an embargo not censorship" is circular reasoning, or begging the question.  Also, an embargo is something "In journalism and public relations".  Is Wikipedia journalism?  Is it PR?  It thought it was an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  Do you have any other examples of reference books "embargoing" information by redacting it from subsequent editions? TJIC (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how Wikipedia defines itself, it is an excellent example of Web2.0 interaction, of online community (as a software engineer might now) . Further, it is a source of information the world over, in multiple languages, over multiple mirror sites. I contend that people use Wikipedia in the same way they use The Drudge Report, The Huffington Post, The Guardian online or the New York times to remain informed. The metaphor of traditional news journalism may not extend to cover wikipedia, but it certainly falls under the provenance of professional writing or copywriting, both of which fall within the field of professional communication, just like journalism and PR- requiring writing to conventions, requiring copy editing and substantive editing, consultation, discussion and review to produce copy for mass consumption. As such there are whole paradigms of knowledge, practice and ethics from similar fields of communication practice etc... that could be affecting Wikipedia praxis in very positive ways.


 * Your extension of a reference book metaphor to include wikipedia would be compelling if it wasn't specious. It sounds good and is extremely convenient if Wikipedia were a written reference book, we are both well aware that it is much more than that. Similarly, my use of the word embargo, in hindsight, wasn't accurate but my contention is still the same- I'm not sure if censoring is the right word. Perhaps both of us need to think more laterally.
 * Paul Roberton Paul Roberton (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this does not belong in this article. It should be in the Wikipedia article. I'm not saying that Wales was wrong, but his actions are at least ethically debatable. The "saving life" argument is the same argument George W. Bush and other Republicans used to justify spying on American citizens. --JHP (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Those who want to do their business in secrecy must be ruthlessly exposed by those who understand that free and open communication is the greater value here. Even if this had been about one man's life (which it never was), secrecy and censorship would have been by far the greater harm. Shame on those who think of themselves as editors, if they actually desire to make secrets. May they be exposed and censured by all.68.178.59.178 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, you talk a big story. I wonder how you would feel if you or someone you cared about was kidnapped.  People knowing someone had been kidnapped is more important than that same person's safety?  How can you possibly justify that? In any case, this page is for discussion of the article, not for soap boxing or fruitless conversation. TastyCakes (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Ethics
I just read this story from a Melbourne Newspaper, the Herald Sun

I find it fundamentality disturbing that people could advocate for freedom of speech over a man's life. The article was simply embargoed until Rohde was safe. It happens in journalism, marketing and PR all the time- why should Wikipedia (as a perfect example of Web2.0 and New Media) be any different? The New York Times simply asked Jim Wales to lock the article until such time as Rohde was safe.

There have been several examples of stories being embargoed for reasons of safety. Prince Harry's tour of duty in Afghanistan one example (leaked by the Drudge Report necessitating the Prince's withdrawal, after the British media had agreed to an embargo ), Australian Deputy Prime Minister's visit to Iraq recently is another, (leaked by The Age who published an apology and retraction when reports of Gillard's trip were made public before she arrived, )

This really isn't about censorship versus free-speech, its about understanding the complex relationship between ethic, morality and the law. Most journalists and other communication professionals either study ethics and the law, are counselled on the topic or have codes of ethics from their professional associations to guide them. My professional association, the Public Relations Institute of Australia is a good example of such.

In conclusion, this article and wikipedia in general, (with its incredible circulation through mirror sites and in several languages could aim to be more ethical than the Drudge Report!

Paul Roberton 05:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proberton (talk • contribs)
 * Please discuss this at Village pump (policy), not here. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

significant role
How can you say wikipedia played a significant role? A correct phrasing is "Wikipedia participated" or "Wikipedia's participation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.48.197 (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He's got a point. How did we? Were we far more silent than other participants? Perhaps we did much more no reporting than anyone else? --Kiz o r  10:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Wikipedia's participation was more significant than regular media outlets. However, the open nature of Wikipedia brought up interesting questions about its participation blackout, and consequently it was reported on to a greater degree than other outlets.  That, in my opinion, increases the notability of Wikipedia's role, if not its importance.  TastyCakes (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Kidnapping of David Rohde
For Pete's sake... I just went ahead and did it for you guys. I've cut and pasted the existing text about the kidnapping to the new page Kidnapping of David Rohde.

A couple of the references are now "broken" on each page. I'd fix them, but digging through the text to straighten it out manually seems excessive in lite of the fact that I know there are a couple of bots which fix those problems. — Ω (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

grr.. I knew it. There was an edit conflict while I was accomplishing the move. So, if you are the editor who made changes while I was moving the text, can you please see [[Kidnapping of David Rohde instead of reverting the change here? Thanks. — Ω (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Already done. I think someone needs to write a paragraph in this article referencing that article. I'm a terrible prose stylist, so I won't. Hipocrite (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving the thing to another page this soon seems a bit like it's sweeping the issue under the rug. Perhaps some background information on the move might be helpful to add with that link. Sethstorm (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal: Wikipedia:News suppression
Regarding the recent discussion, I have made a draft proposal at News suppression.

The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia article. It also aims to define when something should be kept out of Wikipedia, even if it is covered in a few reliable sources. There can be no absolute rules for these situations, but some basic principles.

It is still a draft, comments are welcome. I think a general community discussion on what to do in this kind of situations in valuable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What worries me about this is how effective this blackout was. Things are consolidated enough that a story could be almost completely suppressed.  Are there any other articles being locked right now for the purpose of suppressing information?  I have no doubt that this was a worthwhile instance to suppress a story, ...but...this strikes me as an incredible power to permit.  If we're going to have a WP:News suppression, maybe there should be a board that will identify articles that are currently under suppression and the expected term of suppression.  That way we won't have these behind the scenes antics, with Jimmy using other editors to do his dirty work.  I'd rather he let users know up front.  With such notices we would also be able to address the issue after the suppression is complete ie update the record and debate the validity of the decision in hindsight. 128.97.68.15 (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

comments shut down
Why are the comments being shut down? The comment threads on the censorship that occurred on this page are being archived in less than a day. Why not let people comment on the issue? It seems like this heavy handed approach to the comments section is adding insult to injury. 128.97.68.15 (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they are in the wrong place. This page is for improvement of the article itself, not discussing whether the editorial and administrative actions taken were appropriate. That belongs at WP:VPP or WP:AN. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW (which, admittedly, isn't much), I agree. Besides, now that there's a Kidnapping of David Rohde page their really out of place anyway... — Ω (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. It seems like this is just trying to move the comments on this issue to a more obscure location; essentially to bury the issue. For example, this article is the number one google result on "david rohde", whereas the kidnapping page doesn't even show up in the first page of results.  If I search for "the kidnapping of david rohde" (search in quotes), the forked wiki page doesn't even show up, nor does the villiage pump.
 * 2. The number of comments on this issue that have found their way into this discussion page seems to indicate that at least a few people agree. Moreover, if this is where people are considering natural to put there comments why put administrative time & energy into discouraging it?
 * 3. If Jimmy & the Admins did nothing wrong, I think you should encourage discussion even if you don't consider this discussion page the most germane forum. You can always archive the discussion later on after things have died down.  Or ask people to move somewhere else, rather than taking immediate administrative action.
 * 4. This is the page that was censored. I think there is a very reasonable case to made that this the most relevant location to discuss the issue.
 * 5. Really, the easiest way to stop people from talking about censorship in an article's discussion page is to not censor that article.128.97.68.15 (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussions should be held in the proper place. Several days ago I put a pointer to the proper place at the top of this article talk page to help direct new and unregistered users who want to discuss the issue of censorship. My closing discussions is neither an endorsement or an admonishment of the censorship, nor is it trying to bury the issue - it's simply a gentle push to the appropriate place for those discussions to be held - which is not here. The ongoing discussion at the village pump has already grown to 67kb and it would be taking up valuable space on this talk page that ought be used to discuss improvements to the article. Also, the village pump is a more central location where many Wikipedians, rather than the few that are watching this talk page, can comment on the issue. As to your final point, well it's kind of late for that, isn't it? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 13:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One additional item which you've overlooked mentioning is that article talk pages are not a forum, which is a policy. Actually, it's not so much that you've overlooked mentioning it, it's just that you've restated it (albeit in a less forceful way then by referencing the policy). — Ω (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with gentle pushing. I've seen gentle pushing to central forums before, but I've never seen the discussion pages archived nearly so quickly.  That seems a little more than gentle.  Why not just let people know where to go, without cutting their conversations off?  Basically, what I'm saying is that the harm of off topic discussion is far less than the harm from this topic not getting its fair hearing, or the harm of well meaning admins giving the impression that wikipedia doesn't want this talked about.  If off topic conversations are so serious you could direct your attention to the probable thousands of other discussion pages that have off-topic conversations which are yearning for archival.128.97.68.15 (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Experience has demonstrated that people will often continue a conversation in place even if someone suggests a better venue. I suppose, to be accurate, it's more of a not-so-gentle shove to discuss it in the right place. Directing people to the central discussion will also hopefully ensure that points that have already been made aren't repeated ad nauseum. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with what happened, surely discussing the editing policy that took place on an article, constitutes discussing PAST ways the article could've been improved. You see that sort of thing across Wikipedia. For instance, they'll be some dispute, then the dispute gets sorted out, or the time to change anything has long passed (as here), but people still keep discussing it ON THE ARTICLE INVOLVED'S TALK PAGE.

The notice at the top of the page may well help get people to the so-called correct discussion area, but why then do people keep commenting here regardless? Clearly there's a desire to talk here too! 91.110.231.183 (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...two (or many) wrongs don't make right, as the expression goes. — Ω (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the New York Times has a double standard for this. They easily justify withholding publishing information about the reporter because of endangerment of life, yet they have no problem publishing a story about a soldier taken prisoner, also presumably in danger of his life. So, what I take from this is that a reporter's life is more valuable than a soldier's. Inbody (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Rohde's trial
I am going to edit as a later dated CSM article states "The judge's office was several buildings down the street. It resembled a courtroom about as much as Rohde looked like American actor Brad Pitt, but Rohde hoped it might be the place of his deliverance. A translator was already there, as was the guard who had collared Rohde near the village of Sahanici." This article is already in the links, http://www.csmonitor.com/1995/1121/21015.html, this is the third of the three-part report written after he was freed.Captain Screebo (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, I have referenced the appropriate bit, this article is already in the footnotes at #24 currently, I don't know how to refer to an already existing footnote so it's just created a new #16. If you know how to fix this please do (and send me a message explaining how it's done please). Thanks.Captain Screebo (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to WP namespace
There is currently a line in the article that links to the "Wikipedia:" namespace: "The debate has included Wikipedia itself due to its co-founder Jimmy Wales being asked to maintain the blackout on Wikipedia by the New York Times, which he did through several administrators." It feels misleading to me to link to WP:ADMIN, making it seem as though it were an encyclopedia article. If anything, it would be better to link to Wikipedia.  Jujutacular  talk 18:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I know the story. What has this to do with WP:SELFREF? Why should it link to Wikipedia? The text references to administrators so it seems perfectly fine with me. IQinn (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:SELFREF describes how we should refer to Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia is the most relevant internal encyclopedic link that we have (Wikipedia administrator redirects there). WP:ADMIN is not an encyclopedic article, but linking to it in the body of the text will cause readers to think that it is.  Jujutacular  talk 18:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what WP:SELFREF is but i do not see how it applies here and you did not explain what part of that policy does. Anyway after some investigation i am fine with linking the word administrators to Wikipedia based on WP:CROSS a policy i think that can be applied here. IQinn (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. actually WP:CROSS is just an essay but i am still fine with the relinking. IQinn (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed the link target. Regards,  Jujutacular  talk 19:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding Photo
Could someone please add this photo to his page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David_Rohde_14_400x600.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seloc (talk • contribs) 00:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Buy you may create a cropped version of it? IQinn (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on David S. Rohde. 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://web.archive.org/web/20120116082802/http://www.freemedia.at:80/awards/world-press-freedom-heroes to http://www.freemedia.at/awards/world-press-freedom-heroes/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)