Talk:David S. Rohde

This is not the place to discuss the administrative decisions made with respect to this article. Please see the discussion at the policy village pump or initiate a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about David S. Rohde. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about David S. Rohde at the Reference desk.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography 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 Journalism Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Greg Mitchell (2009-06-23). "Why 'E&P' Went Along With Media Blackout on Kidnapping". Editor & Publisher. Richard Pérez-Peña (2009-06-28). "Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia". The New York Times. Matthew Shaer (2009-06-29). "Was Wikipedia correct to censor news of David Rohde's capture?". The Christian Science Monitor. Michael Calderone (2009-06-29). "NYT scrubbed Rohde's Wikipedia page". The Politico. Alejandro Martinez-Cabrera (2009-06-30). "Wikipedia blackout to protect kidnapped reporter raises questions about censorship". San Francisco Chronicle. Clint Boulton (2009-06-30). "Wales Denies Censoring Wikipedia over Journalist Rohde's Kidnapping". eWeek. Agence France-Presse (2009-06-30). "Cat-and-mouse at Wikipedia over New York Times journalist's kidnapping". The Sydney Morning Herald.

Material from David S. Rohde was split to Kidnapping of David Rohde on 2009-06-30. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)[reply]

• 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)[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]

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)[reply]

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

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]

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)[reply]

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 Category:Place of birth missing. 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)[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:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_65#Censorship_at_David_Rohde? –xeno^talk 21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

For those who is interested, here is a collection of occasional past links: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] --Yms (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Ya, it's looking good. TastyCakes (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Kizor 05:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We make an exception for "blogs" - really opinion columns in blog format - on news organizations' websites. See WP:RS#Statements of opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. –xeno^talk 14:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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?[7]" --JHP (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree on that. The section David_S._Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? --Kizor 10:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. –xeno^talk 17:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? –xeno^talk 13:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. –xeno^talk 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

...two (or many) wrongs don't make right, as the expression goes.
— Ω (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#Community. Jujutacular ^talk 18:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:SELFREF describes how we should refer to Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia#Community 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)[reply]

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#Community 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)[reply]

I've changed the link target. Regards, Jujutacular ^talk 19:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done. Buy you may create a cropped version of it? IQinn (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]