Talk:David S. Rohde

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

Journalism C‑class 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance 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

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Richard Pérez-Peña (2009-06-28). "Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia". The New York Times.

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)[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]

Doubtful. 76.10.128.105 (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia hits bottom; keeps digging

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please discuss the "meta" concerns at Wikipedia:VPP#Censorship at David Rohde. –xeno^talk 17:57, 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]

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jimmy Wales claims to exercise no influence? Where did you hear that? TastyCakes (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:SPS ? –xeno^talk 17:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Absent a good rebuttal, I support removal of the link. –xeno^talk 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Either there was no discussion prior to March 2009 or it was oversighted. See the talk page history. –xeno^talk 20:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

huh? You mean Wikipedia:VPP#Censorship at David Rohde? –xeno^talk 21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "unreliable" Afghan news agency

What exactly was the source originally cited on Nov. 13? —72.74.13.164 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pajhwok Afghan News (http://www.pajhwok.com/viewstory.asp?lng=eng&id=65117). See this edit. –xeno^talk 00:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also probably Adnkronos International, see this edit. Hipocrite (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Great work Chris. –xeno^talk 00:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree, great job. Hipocrite (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is not the place to discuss the administrative decisions made with respect to this article. Please see the discussion at the WP:VPP. –xeno^talk 00:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

LOL...Wikipedia is in bed with NYT, so I guess there's no chance of that happening, huh? 64.53.136.29 (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]