Talk:Ben Wedeman

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/wedeman.ben.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

attempt at whitewashing

The current version of what happened with the CNN coverage of the attack last week is a thinly veiled attempt to whitewash both Wedeman and the CNN. Many, many news agencies picked up this story without making the errors that CNN made, so CNN's attempt to blame it on the Israeli ministry seems farcical, as is this page's attempt to minimize Wedeman's role in this. Tkuvho (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Saw your note on the Jerusalem synagogue attack talk page. If this is what you're talking about your complaint has no merit. Coretheapple (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand that this is your opinion, User:Coretheapple. However, the narrative of the events as they really happened take the sting out of what was actually reported by the CNN and Wedeman. A casual reader may have difficulty separating what we are narrating and what CNN reported. Furthermore, the editor who reported "Wedeman's tweeting" certainly appears to believe in the latter's integrity, but it should be kept in mind that the WP:BLP guidelines don't obligate us to believe everything the said LP writes on his tweet. Tkuvho (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Tkuvho,

• please read WP:BLP (I mean that) and please note that this policy applies everywhere in Wikipedia, including Talk pages.
• I made the edit and you are attacking my intentions by calling the edit "whitewashing". WP:AGF is also policy. The content I wrote aims at respecting WP:BLP and the WP:NPOV policy in tone and length (it probably has too much WP:WEIGHT in the overall article right now, but Wikipedia can be flexible to deal with current events). If you don't know what I mean about weight, please read WP:WEIGHT - a section of NPOV policy that deals with how much space a given topic takes up in an article.
• If you want to discuss further, please discuss content, not contributors per the talk page guidelines, and please base your comments on policies and guidelines. per BLP, If you want to make a claim that Wedeman was responsible for the headline and scroll or that his actual report was biased somehow, you must bring a very reliable source for that, even here on the Talk page. (for "very reliable source" think New York Times, not blogs). comments on Talk that make such claims and don't include reliable sources will be deleted.
• The current content says nothing about "CNN's attempt to blame it on the Israeli ministry", so I don't know why you are mentioning that.
• if you read the source I provided on Wedeman's and CNN's responses, you will see that they were reported in that reliable source. I did not do WP:OR.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Jytdog, I am all in favor of abiding by BLP standards. However, you did not respond to my comment concerning the presentation of the material. Why should we present a narrative of the events as they happened rather than report the version given by CNN and then point out the relevant discrepancies? Furthermore, your comment makes a basic assumption that the headline is never coordinated with the reporter in the field, and places the burden of proof on whoever wants to hold the reporter responsible for what appears under his name. That's surprising. What you are basically saying is that we should accept uncritically the CNN's damage control spin on the events. Note that the CNN did blame the ministry for their own gaffe. This is a telling detail and should be reported appropriately, not as a way of whitewashing the CNN but in a way of giving the readers a chance to decide for themselves. Tkuvho (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

you've added nothing new in your comment. as i said, if you want to make a claim that Wedeman was responsible for the headline, please bring a reliable source for that. this article is about Wedeman, not CNN. There is no reason in this article, to elaborate on what CNN did or didn't do on their way to issuing an apology. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Examining the edit in question, I candidly don't believe the text described above belongs in the article at all. Wedeman did not write the headline. No one seems to dispute that. This is a BLP and in my opinion having any mention of it as all is unwarranted. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I hear that perspective, Core, and I think a good argument can be made for that. but there are plenty of reliable sources discussing it so there are some arguments to keep it. I try to find "ugly middles" that work... and with all the emotion around this now I doubt we could have a stable article and not mention this as briefly as we can. In a few months when the emotion has died down I imagine that this content will be shrunk (for example, the description of the attack removed and just a wikilink used) and perhaps in more time it will disappear altogether. I would not revert a complete deletion at this time, but i imagine that others would, and it would lead to lots of drama due to all the emotion. but do as you will! Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm just throwing it out there for discussion. This whole area is a minefield and I'm already beginning to feel fatigue. Oh, and the header about discretionary sanctions needs to be put on this talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence of any whitewash. There is, however, plenty of evidence to suggest this is all part of a campaign to besmirch the reputation of a BLP, the absence of any corroborating data notwithstanding. To wit: this is the actual first headline/banner CNN ran (at 10pm, EST, on Tuesday 11/17): "Israeli Govt. Radio: Police Shot, Killed Two Palestinians.". In the broadcast itself, Wedeman - who, as a reporter, does not write headlines - provided as much detail as was then available, as verified with the IDF. Watch and listen to the broadcast yourself - it's all there on the Wayback Machine. (To do so, just click on the the links provided.) The reason I provided the reference to O*Net (the standard dictionary of job descriptions for all of North America) is that it describes who does what in a TV newsroom, and it is clear that banners are written by producers and editors in the main office, not reporters in the field. The erroneous banner did not show up on TV until the next day, under a clip showing Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat commenting on the incident. There is no way to know who conducted the interview, since the interlocutor does not speak or appear on screen. Certainly, there is no legitimate basis for blaming the headline on Wedeman, or even associating him with the clip under which it appeared.

I was watching when the news broke, and followed the story as it unfolded. There is nothing there that suggests to me any bias and/or cover-up thereof. Moreover, it is inappropriate publish accusations - especially in a BLP - without mentioning the identity of the accuser(s). Any and all are of course free to investigate themselves, but if you would like to be spared the trouble, I have already looked into the question. The first accuser was Yossi Dagan, "media relations liaison" for the Samaria Regional Council, an organization run by and for settlers in the Occupied West Bank. He was first quoted in Arutz Sheva , after which the story caught was picked up by others. If there is bias here, it is most likely on the part of the accusers, not the accused. That the original author of the defamatory material about Mr. Wedeman (in Wikipedia) referred to Dagan as an "Israeli Official" certainly speaks to this point.

Honestly, I don't see why any mention of this flap should appear in Wedeman's bio at all. To publish material so lacking in substance, so demonstrably inaccurate, and so clearly reflective of the writer's agenda (whatever that may be) would be to violate Wikipedia's neutrality and to defame an innocent person. Keep in mind that reporters get imprisoned, shot, and beheaded all the time these days because one side or the other doesn't like the reality upon which they are reporting. Why give credence to either side? It makes no sense. If there is concern that deleting all mention of the controversy would cause even more drama, just take it out of this BLP and leave it in the article on the attack itself - but take Wedeman's name out of it. The reason is very simple: this "story" is not about him, and his presence on the scene (at considerable personal risk) should not make him fair game for partisan attacks from any quarter.

Incidentally, to Jytdog and Coretheapple, I do appreciate your patience/intestinal fortitude in hanging in there. Press freedom is critically important. Auroraz7 (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your comments, auroraz7. A few things. This is not a forum for general discussion, and much of your comment above is not directed to the article's content, but rather to the subject in general. Please avoid doing that in the future. Along those lines, neither your nor anyone else's personal experience doesn't matter in WP. And your original research as to who said what first, also has no place in WP. What we need, are reliable sources for content. In addition, the preaching about reporters has no place here either. And shorter is always better. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Got it, Jytdog. Thanks very much for your guidance. I appreciate it and will proceed accordingly. Auroraz7 (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Afterthought: I still believe that if you are going to mention accusations against a person you should also say who made them. If it's good enough for the Constitution (Sixth Amendment, Confrontation Clause), it's good enough for Wikipedia. Auroraz7 (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

i hear you, but i have no desire to expand this section further. if readers want to know who was making the accusations they can read the sources. that's my perspective. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with the changes you just made, Jytdog. Auroraz7 (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Still I'm bothered by that paragraph. If there are accusations of bias, reported in reliable sources, it's one thing, but this is something that clearly did not involve action by Wedeman. The paragraph should not be in the article at all. Discuss? Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

so far no one is objecting.... perhaps be WP:BOLD and try it :) Just be ready to be reverted and discuss, of course. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Although I do think that Jytdog's changes represented an improvement, I agree with Coretheapple even more. The bias claims revolve around headlines Wedeman did not write. The paragraph is inappropriate, especially so for a WP:BLP. It should be removed. Auroraz7 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've taken it out. If reverted of course I'm bound by the 1RR rule (see notice on top of page). But I hope we'll discuss it here instead of reverting back and forth. Coretheapple (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. At very minimum, it smacks of recentism and undue weight to give such a minor event prominent descrption in the bio of an accomplished reporter. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I notice that several of my changes have been reverted, so I am writing here to register my objection. 1) I took out references to Ben Wedeman because he is beside the point -- TV reporters don't write those headlines, he has said he didn't write them, and so has CNN - which immediately apologized for its error. I don't know why Wedeman is an issue at all. In fact, I don't know why the "media coverage" section should even exist. Auroraz7 (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

what are you talking about? there is no reference to the incident in this article. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Mea culpa; mea maxima culpa - I got confused and wrote the comment into the wrong page. I meant to write it into the article on the Synagogue attack (which I did) - I must have been switching back and forth between tabs and gotten mixed up. Auroraz7 (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That's OK. So I trust there is no further dispute concerning this? Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

apparently not. i'm watching this page :) (the synagogue attack article got too stupid for me to bear) Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidently the squabble concerning this has moved there. It is as problematic there as here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

to Jytdog and to Coretheapple: I concur. NPOV's endlessly reversed; problematic material continually re-inserted Auroraz7 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And that's just what happened in the other article. Have turned it over to RfC. Screw it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Wedeman. 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/20130118214619/http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/cnn-finds-possible-yellowcake-uranium-in-libya-20110922 to http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/cnn-finds-possible-yellowcake-uranium-in-libya-20110922

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)