Talk:Kidnapping of David Rohde

Xinhua contemporaneous reference.

here then the Xinhua agency seems to also have got this out BUT without the full name. We should probably mention this agency too. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

neutrality re: "wikipedia's involvement" section

i didn't place the tag, but i'm inclined to agree with it;

right now we have 2 quotes:

1. from jimmy whales saying how great it all is

2. is from some times blog, also saying hoe great it all is

not exactly balanced, or NNPOV

"houston, we have a problem... "

Lx 121 (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Second. I hope someone locates a notable, reputable counter opinion, and then cites it in text.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

NPR has an analytical piece here: Reporter's Escape From Taliban Spurs Ethics Debate. Using Google news (currently) provides: Google News story page
— V = I * R (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Ohms, at the moment however, debate is centering on the "Press in a civil society" issue, which I feel will be adequately documented in secondary sources for us to create an encyclopedic entry. My concern is that the debate within Wikipedia at the moment over due process (the WP:OFFICE it debate) is unlikely to be credibly reported by secondary sources, or in credible form by ethicists of the press. In relation to this article, we should watch closely for credibly reported examinations of the ethics of Wikipedia and its internal systems. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia and the Kidnapped Reporter: Censor or Savior? and Wikipedia blackout to protect kidnapped reporter raises questions about censorship -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Censor or Savior has been edited in due to the quoting of an expert journalist sitting on an organisational ethics committee.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a very interesting article on the topic - Wales Denies Censoring Wikipedia over Journalist Rohde's Kidnapping -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed sentence from eweek article:

David Ardia, media lawyer and fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, speaking on the use of power to mediate the publication of information in general said, "it's unclear to me but it appears the normal Wikipedia process for arbiting editing disputes did not kick in. Instead it was a decision by Jimmy and others at the top of the organization to prevent this information from being included in the entry."(Clint Boulton, source listed above in Seths post of 3 July).

Seeking advice if this is of any value to the article's section on wikipedia before editing it in. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that most of you reading this will likely not agree with what I'm going to say here, but I feel that it needs to be said. It's questionable in my mind whether internal Wikipedia debates are notable enough for mention in an encyclopedic article. I'm not suggesting that anything be whitewashed here, but the issue brought up that: "the debate within Wikipedia at the moment over due process (the WP:OFFICE it debate) is unlikely to be credibly reported by secondary sources" is certainly true, and ought to be an indicator that a POV is being sought here. I have no issue with inserting a sentence or two where a reliable secondary source can be found to directly cite the materiel, but an entire subsection on Wikipedia's role in the Kidnapping of David Rohde seems to break both WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.
— V = I * R (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The section appears to derive from the gleeful pleasure that US reporters took in the possibility of Wikipedia seeming less credible or more mature than they imagine the public believes it to be. The presence of the section was press-driven. Should it remain? Probably. Should it be trimmed? Probably. Doing a trim should wait a week or so to let the US press finish its news cycle on this, at which point (unless new material arises) we can probably trim it to a terse 4 line para.

As far as seeking a POV; yes. Jimbo gets a selective quote and write-up in all sources (press-release feel), that feels POV to me; and, certainly feels not NPOV from the inside. Asking people to keep their eyes open for press reporting of alternate POVs feels reasonable on a live issue. They appear to be not forthcoming, and we appear to have only edited from credible published secondary sources. Nor do I believe that anyone has gone running to the press with press-releases to cause a news cycle on it.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...on all of the above.
— V = I * R (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's late to the party now, but this topic is also addressed in my recent column The moral quandary of involving Wikipedia in online 'censorship' -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's always interesting to see how people can collate disparate data in order to synthesize support for their own points.
— V = I * R (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the title itself was written by an editor, not me. It's not really wrong, but as a title, I'd say it doesn't quite sum up what I was trying to examine in that column. I was attempting to consider a broad moral question, and then use Wikipedia as a worked example. I've long been interested in issues of who gets heard, and why, and Wikipedia is often touted in connection with these matters. So I was trying for a global issue, and then local case study, structure of punditry. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am not an expert Wikipedia user; please pardon any infringement of etiquette. No doubt, someone will delete this or nominate it for deletion, as it's in the wrong place, or poorly annotated or somesuch. BUT when seldom the North American media chooses silence over its mandate to broadcast/publish/expose, it is for good reason, that being: no news story is more important than a human life. I have the utmost for journalists and for Wikipedia and was deeply impressed by their opting to increase the odds of Mr. Rohdes' survival by observing media silence.

--99.245.253.158 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This is a brand new article. The previously-existing NPOV dispute is here. --JHP (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If you see the history here then clearly the NYT reporter started WP:POV edits to the Wikipedia article over a day prior to the first edit that reported the kidnap here. We say,

"Anonymous Wikipedia users repeatedly amended the entry on Rohde to include news of his kidnapping. In response, Times reporter Michael Moss changed the entry to emphasize work that Rohde "

which is clearly wrong. It should be,

"Prior to any references to the kidnap being added to Rohde's article in Wikipedia, the Times reporter, Michael Moss, changed the entry to emphasize the work that Rohde had done so that Rohde could be seen by his captors as being sympathetic to Muslims. Subsequent reporting on the following day of the kidnap by other editors were removed by Michael Moss and Wikipedia administrators."

Objections ? Ttiotsw (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

works for me. this whole story is very much "in process" & i expect there will be more changes in the future, but that fixes a few of the points; i didn't even catch the "anonymous users" thing. Lx 121 (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that "Michael Moss changed the entry to emphasize the work that Rohde had done so that Rohde could be seen by his captors as being sympathetic to Muslims" is now in the article. Has your complaint been addressed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The 3-revert-rule section (which does nothing but include, in an even handed way, links to Wikipedia policies) has been removed (a third revert, by the way, thus breaking Wikipedia rules) and replaced by a blanket statement by Wales that "all policies were followed". This seems pretty damn non-NPOV to me. Should we replace the entire OJ Simpson court case article with "Simpson states that no laws were bent or broken" ? At the very least we should include the links to the policies that Wales is referring to, AND Wales' assertion that the policies were not broken, yes? TJIC (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A random mid-text "see also" section has been replaced by a reasonably reliably sourced statement of opinion (marked as such) by Wales, which conveniently includes mentions of Wikipedia rules and processes, which could therefore be wikilinked to basically obtain the same effect as the previous "See also" section (actually, now it's more comprehensive) without looking as utterly unencyclopedic.

So, I really don't see what your problem is here, and as I just stated (here and in a section below), I have included the links about policies that Wales is referring to. Perhaps you didn't read the short phrase I included very accurately.

Also, I think you might not have read the 3-revert-rule very accurately, either, if you accuse me of breaking Wikipedia rules, because 3RR says that "a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any material) on any one page within a 24 hour period, may be considered to be edit warring" (emphasis mine). I, personally, did not make three reverts at all (actually, I didn't revert anything at all, I just "changed the text" much as you called for.

LjL (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

One of the most newsworthy aspects (as testified to that the NYT and all other outlets mentioned it) is the fact that the editing of the David Rohde during the kidnapping saga was REPEATED. With that in mind, I think it's quite important to reference Wikipedia's Three Revert Rule. This was mentioned in the David Rohde article at one point, but when the article was split to create this current "Kidnapping of David Rohde" article, it was lost. I've restored it. TJIC (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

i agreed that this point is notable; but jimmy whales & co were the ones who broke the 3-revert rule here, likely also rules about sockpuppeting & meatpuppeting. that point is going to have to be clarified Lx 121 (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

100% agreed - I'd be all in favor of a clarification stating that it's Whales and admins who broke the rule. Also, I agree with you about the sockpuppeting & meatpuppeting point; I'd like to see that added. TJIC (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

also; obvious point: there was more than just one person trying to tell the truth; this was an edit war, just with the power all stacked up on one side of the fight, the side that way trying to hide/bury the story Lx 121 (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, 100% agreed. TJIC (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on, it wasn't really an edit-war !. Initially the IP-based editor was fighting the NYT reporter and then a revert 'bot when they tried to link to a blog. I'd revert that blog link on WP:BLP grounds, and I think we all would. I wouldn't have reverted the FIRST link that the IP editor provided because I know that after the most basic of checks it is a pretty good source. I would have dug and found the other sources (the Arab, Chinese, and Italian). That would have been the end of the secrecy because they would have to use WP:OVERSIGHT to lose the edits. You know the deal. If a source doesn't stick you take it to Talk BUT with BLP then you argue the sources without discussing the subject. When you win the reliable source argument (which we have easily done for this USAID funded Afghani news agency with it's award winning directors !) *then* you go back to talk to discuss the change and then post the change into the article. The IP edit made a mistake and tried to make a reference to a blog stick WITHOUT using the processes that WP has in place today. That's not an edit war that is worth mentioning. Ttiotsw (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

the problem with your assumption is that you are expecting people to play-by-the-rules. jimmy & the group of "trusted" admins who did this broke the rules (& wp:bar does NOT cover this one) they made a joke of wikipolicy. & if jimmy is actually going around now saying how "no rules were broken" (!?) that just makes it worse. once the story broke, he should have addressed the community, with an explanation & apology at the very least. Lx 121 (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

& it is still my understanding that there was more than one anonymous IP editor trying to put the true story up on the article page; this blackout was (secret) wikipolicy for 7 months; i can't believe that was the only "encounter" between the censorship crew & the truth Lx 121 (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I took out something about see also 3RR and meat puppetry. I was kinda garbled, but I'm guessing its related to this thread. We should only be including stuff that is in reliable sources (ironically). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you take it out? It was quite relevant (see the above conversation). I'm restoring it, but if you'd like to change / improve the phrasing, that'd be great. 65.78.1.161 (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I took it out again, sorry. It's considered Original research. We need a reliable source to bring up edit warring or 3RR or whatever. Try this search, or something similar. One of the sources says "Ein kleiner "Edit War" entspann sich, bis ein Administrator die Seite sperrte." Unfortunately I don't speak German. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"it's considered" ... by whom? I can't believe that a list of Wikipedia policies is considered verboten ... in Wikipedia. Shall we speedy delete the page on edit wars and Wikipedia policy while we're at it? There's not a single reference link on the page, so the entire thing is original research... TJIC (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pages in the Wikipedia namespace are not encyclopedic content. Therefore, they do not need to abide by the same set of rules that encyclopedic articles (those in the main namespace) do need to abide by.
— V = I * R (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I included a reference that you asked for. Please don't edit war / revert again / a third time. If you've got suggestions as to other references, or a change in text, I'm more than happy to listen. TJIC (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me also suggest that a sentence that says "See also" is incapable of being original research. I've never heard of the See also links requiring references. In fact, the policy is "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. " It strikes me as completely common sensical that someone interested in the Wikipedia revert war over an article would like to know what a revert war is, and what Wikipedia's policy on reversions is. Do you assert that someone who is interested in Wikipedia redacting information would be harmed, or at least deeply bored by a link to Wikipedia's relevant policies? TJIC (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what in that German article that's cited backs up the inclusion of those links in any way. Does it talk about those rules? If so, please provide the specific parts (sentences) where it does.

The current "See also" looks entirely gratuitous and "stuck" in the middle of the article. It's simply off-topic unless you can make that into a full sentence ("it's been claimed by ... that these rules have been broken in the process"), with citation. And being off-topic, aside from being obviously bad, can also mean introducing original allegations in a weasel way.

Note also that this is not an article about Wikipedia redacting information, but an article about Rohde's kidnapping.

With all this in mind, I'm toning down considerably the reference to Wikipedia rules, at least in order to make the article a bit more stylistically acceptable.

LjL (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"right to privacy" quote?

the long quotation cited in favour of censoring wikipedia talks about "right to privacy"; which has absolutely nothing to do with the issues here; it's completely off-base & a poor choice of material; the issue was openess vs. harm caused; "right to privacy" doesn't figure in at all.

i'm removing it from the article. it's quoted blog-talk anyway, aside from failing to address the issues under discussion properly, it's debatable whether this item is notable enough for inclusion; a lot of people have blogs & give their op-ed opinions on them; by itself, that doesn't make the material either notable or encyclopedic. even paid columnists don't get a free-ride on that.

i'm up for debating anyone who actually thinks that "right to privacy" was the key issue at stake

Lx 121 (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

See Also section

I'm confused by the See Also section. First, it's placed in the middle of the article. I've never seen a Wikipedia article that has a See Also section in the middle of the article. Second, there are no reliable sources cited. Third, is it proper to have a See Also section that links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines? The See Also sections I've seen links to Wikipedia articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this WP:OR masquerading as a See Also section? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for raising... my own concerns ;-) I have just removed that part, and replaced it with (sourced) prose saying what Wales stated on the issue of rule-breaking. You still have the point about linking to internal WP pages - I'm still doing that - but I think it's quite appropriate in this case, it's self-reference but in an expected way. LjL (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What did the See Also section link to? As its no longer on the article... Sephiroth storm (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It linked to certain Wikipedia policies, such as WP:3RR and some others. See this revision of the article. --LjL (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

New Title and direction of article

Wouldn't this be better titled "Media Response to Kidnapping of David Rohde" or something even more generic such as "Media REsponse to Kidnapping in the 21st century." or "meida response to journalist kidnapping." That seems more appropriate as to both what the article is about and what is encyclopedic. THe article could state both sides of the debate, talk about other kidnapping responses, (for example, from Jill Caroll and Mellissa Fung, to Laura Ling and Euna Lee in 2009 imprisonment of US journalists by North Korea, as well as Daniel Pearl. It could also go back to Bob Simon during the first gulf war, Terry Anderson and Charles Glass of the Lebanon hostage crisis. The article could then be factual -- past journalists kidnapped/taken hostage, response of the media at the time, and then a listing of the arguments for and against a media blackout. This would move the article away from bickering about what Wikipedia should and shouldn't not have done, and instead move towards a greater understanding of all sides and risks involved, and make a truly encyclopedic article. XinJeisan (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The media response is only part of the story of the kidnapping of Rohde. The kidnapping itself and the subsequent response to it should be kept together in a single article. There certainly isn't enough on the media response to justify spinning it out of this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree.
— V = I * R (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Rohde's account is out

"Held By The Taliban". Published: October 17, 2009.  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kidnapping of David Rohde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090621221737/http://wbztv.com:80/local/David.Rohde.new.2.1052900.html to http://wbztv.com/local/David.Rohde.new.2.1052900.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kidnapping of David 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pajhwok.com/viewstory.asp?lng=eng&id=65117
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130811103120/http://gawker.com/5301151/what-was-the-real-reason-for-the-nyt-david-rohde-kidnapping-news-blackout to http://gawker.com/5301151/what-was-the-real-reason-for-the-nyt-david-rohde-kidnapping-news-blackout

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)