![]() | 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: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() | 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What exactly was the source originally cited on Nov. 13? — 72.74.13.164 ( talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | 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: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() | 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What exactly was the source originally cited on Nov. 13? — 72.74.13.164 ( talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)