User talk:Ghita.rachdi

Ahmed Benchemsi

I would advise you to stop reverting changes to this article and read the three revert rule. Thanks. Mato (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Thank you for your feedback! I am just trying to stop one editor from removing a section about Benchemsi (the subject of the page) condoning the usage of torture. The section is properly referenced and linked to the orginal article (in french though) at http://www.telquel-online.com/176/edito_176.shtml Is there anything that can be done? The article as it appears now is obviously biased (although I understand that Benchemsi or some of his friends) dislike being linked to torture). Thank you for any advice you may share!

Best,

Ghita.rachdi (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)ghita.rachdi[reply]

Torture section

Att Ghita.rachdi I followed the controversy between you and the editor who used to remove the torture section, and as you see, I expanded the Benchemsi article without including it. But on the other hand, I moved it to the "discussion" page (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ahmed_Benchemsi). I believe this issue is more relevant as a developed, comprehensive "discussion" matter (since it generates controversy between editors), than it is as a one-sided one sentence material inside the article. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomeditor38 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randomeditor,

Thank you for your message and for the great work on the page. However, I am still of the opinion that the section on torture needs to be included. The main reason is the fact that the op-ed in question has shocked many people in Morocco (including journalist Rachid Nini and blogger Ibn Kafka to name a few). Although I respect Benchemsi's hard work and dedication , I think that particular article was plain wrong (even in its "mildest interpretation" as emphasized by Dilalthart). Codoning torture, or even asking readers whether it is useful or not, was particularly tasteless towards the numerous victims of Morocco's secret police both past and present. Any thoughts?

Ghita.rachdi (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)ghita.rachdi[reply]

Hi Ghita

Glad to see that we're narrowing down the argument and getting closer to consensus. I do agree with you on one point: this torture debate is pretty much distasteful, to say the least. Yet, an editorialist's job is to reflect the ongoing public debates, as unpleasant they may be. Whether we like it or not (and believe me, I don't) the question “should the State deal harshly with suspected terrorists” was at the center of the post-16 May 2003 era. Benchemsi did relay (and not open) this public debate in his editorial. His big mistake, in my sense, was to feature this debate without affirming his personal opinion right away--which made his editorial sound troubling. For that, he deserves to be blamed. As for his personal opinion on torture, he comprehensively gave it earlier and later, as dilat largely referenced. Not only did Benchemsi condemn torture, but he went further by fighting it directly—which few of us did—namely exposing torturers on his magazines and editorials and asking for their punishment. This is definitely not a condoner's attitude, and I think you should, on that matter, give him the credit he deserves. As you noticed, I didn't mention this battle of his in the expanded bio I wrote. Blanking his anti-torture credentials is, I believe, the right punishment he deserves for having been clumsy in this specific 176 editorial. But going further by branding him a torture supporter and making this a core point of his career seems, to me, definitely unfair.

Of course, any controversy deserves to be mentioned. But for all the above-mentioned reasons, I maintain that its just, proportionate handling is to feature it in a discussion page. I hope I was able to convince you

As for torture in Morocco, I see that you proposed to dilat, on his home page, to work together on a related Wiki article. This sounds like a great project. I regret I can't help, for this is not my specialty field. But I do encourage you, and will do my best to share the link when available. Clearly much to tell on Temara and the like…

Best regards Randomeditor38 (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randomeditor,

I must say that your previous message is pretty convincing. Given all of this other articles, the inclusion of the section on torture on the main page may indeed not be fair to Benchemsi's work. So I guess this is the end of it :) Thanks again for the great update and see you soon somewhere on Wikipedia!

Best regards,

Ghita.rachdi (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)ghita.rachdi[reply]

Thank you for being a sport :)

Best, Randomeditor38 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]