Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Farrell (journalist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not another David S. Rohde case

[edit]

There seems to be some editing back and forth about reports of his abduction. There are multiple reports in the media, citing sources, mentioned at http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=105379&sectionid=351020403 and http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=nw20090905164708693C937284. Even with extreme interpretations of BLP and any other policy, I fail to see how and why it should be removed from the article. You can follow ongoing international press coverage (mostly in italy/italian language) right now at this page. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So re-add it with reliable sources (or re-add it when quite a few of those sources arrive). It's better to be on the conservative side when living people are concerned; we're not investigative journalists, we post items from secondary sources. Cbrown1023 talk 21:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. The New York Times told you to remove the links. What happened to freedom of the press? Farrell's life is not in danger. Did Jill Carroll and Alan Johnston die when their kidnapping was made public? This isn't over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.98.163 (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a BLP case to be made for censoring the information, but [1] is reliable - they have an established reputation, editors, and decently high standards of professionalism. RayTalk 15:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is, in fact, another David S. Rohde case

[edit]

Sigh. Alright, everyone, prepare for the stories in the media about Wikipedia's role in all this, for the Pandora's Box of arguments to be opened once more... PBP (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, not so much. He wasn't kidnapped for long enough. Basically there was an edit war between User:Iohannes Animosus, an IP author, and another IP author. That's it. RayTalk 05:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case:

  • An anon put in the information.
  • A signed-in user queried it on the page but did not remove.
  • There was a brief edit war while two anons removed it and two signed-in users put the info back in.
  • The page was protected and, simultaneously (same minute), a different sysop removed the info.

I'm curious whether Seddon was acting on his own initiative or whether there was any directive from on high, as in the David Rohde case? I am neither condemning nor supporting what went on, I'd just like to know. Evercat (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The protecting admin (Cbrown1023) refers to an OTRS ticket: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2009090610014951 Some information about that would be enlightening. The reverting admin (Seddon) is also an OTRS member. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is too late to do much about this one. If something similar happens in future, I suggest that it be brought up at WP:AN/I and other noticeboards to get as wide a field of people knowing as possible, and then perhaps a community decision can be made. Or leave a note on my talk page, or better yet, email me or other admins. This should not be decided by one or two people. It is very simple. If you see this going on, not in particular Afghan kidnapping of journalists, but anything where such decisions are made without community input, leave word on noticeboards patrolled by other admins.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't a larger discussion about Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:OTRS take place before this happens again? Joshdboz (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that, based on my experiences here (Wikipedia, not this particular page), WP:NOTCENSORED is essentially dead as a matter of policy. RayTalk 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion about the general principles after the Rohde case at Wikipedia talk:News suppression. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also an OTRS volunteer. I didn't close this ticket and can't disclose the contents of the e-mail (such communication is private), but I can say that based on the contents of the ticket and the protection summary, I believe that the purpose of protection was to help ensure that only the highest quality sources were used, in compliance with BLP. The article was not fully protected, after all, but only semi-protected, and the protecting admin stated in the section just above, "So re-add it with reliable sources (or re-add it when quite a few of those sources arrive)." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a pretty tall order considering the longwarjournal and PressTV are used as sources hundreds of times on WP and IOL (granted the article appears to have been pulled/or url changed since (see original) is listed by us under Wikipedia:News_sources/Africa and similarly used as a source hundreds of times. Is the NYT now our only ref and source of permission (no denigration intended, I love the paper)? Granted, two of the sources don't name him specifically, but it would seem that this would call for constructive editing as opposed to simple deletion. Perhaps a wording change "according to x report..." Joshdboz (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Personally, I'm not familiar enough with the sources to assert myself if they'd clear for this under BLP. I used to volunteer at BLPN a lot, and I would have had to ask for consensus on that one. The fact that these sources are referenced in other articles might be relevant, but, of course, different sourcing standards exist for different situations. BLP says, "Be very firm about the use of high quality references." The longwarjournal reference is self-described as "A Blog of the Longwar Journal". BLP says, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs." But, really, the protecting admin didn't say "So re-add it with reference to the New York Times." :) He didn't say that the "international press coverage" referenced in the section above was unreliable. Given how quickly all this unfolded and how little actually happened in this article, I don't know if there's reason to believe that if consensus had found sourcing reliable, it would have been removed again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, I think that's reasonable. I think the reason this stands out is that WP was censored in a similar situation before and possibly in this situation as well (even if the sourcing was a legitimate topic of concern in itself), and the lack of discussion or transparency on this issue seems to go against WP values. As for Longwarjournal, it may be a blog, but it has also been cited by Foxnews, CSMonitor, and UPI again. Not NYT, but not exactly fringe. Joshdboz (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, as Mathias Schindler linked to at the time, very mainstream Italian sources were openly implying (based on NYT's reporting) that Farrell was the one captured. Joshdboz (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate Moonriddengirl's guess at the motives of the two admins involved, but I suspect it is more likely that they would have removed anything, through a combination of wikilawyering (which they did) and questionable use of admin powers (there was really no need for semi protection, though it was helpful to them in keeping down IP edits adding the information). Keep in mind that these were not editors involved in the article, in fact one has only a handful of recent contributions. They were there for a purpose. As for not full protecting the article, that would have raised red flags, since relatively few articles are fully protected, and several admins would have looked at the article, wondered why full protection was imposed, and very likely have lifted it or else would have required explanations. Semi protection was much more likely to keep this low profile. I suggest that editors seeking more ante facto discussion monitor web sites such as the ones that reported the story. There are other things that can be done as well, but that is the easiest.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen Farrell (journalist). 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, 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) 20:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Farrell_(journalist)&oldid=1205151974"