Talk:David S. Rohde

Biography Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Journalism Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia hits bottom; keeps digging

Stop pretending to be an "encyclopedia"

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)[reply]