Talk:David S. Rohde

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pakistan Army Scout 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Neutrality and conflicts of interest 

message: 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)
replies: text: Either there was no discussion prior to March 2009 or it was oversighted. See the talk page history. –xenotalk 20:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 . 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)

text: huh? You mean Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_65#Censorship_at_David_Rohde? –xenotalk 21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: What exactly was the source originally cited on Nov. 13?  —72.74.13.164 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pajhwok Afghan News (http://www.pajhwok.com/viewstory.asp?lng=eng&id=65117). See this edit. –xenotalk 00:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  The "unreliable" Afghan news agency 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  significant role 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rohde's trial 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've changed the link target. Regards, Jujutacular talk 19:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to WP namespace 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. Buy you may create a cropped version of it? IQinn (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Photo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified