Talk:Nir Rosen

message: He has Iranian/Israeli Jewish heritage on one side
http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:35qO5XFiu3sJ:jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com/2006/11/education-of-nir-rosen.html+nir+rosen&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us&client=firefox-a  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.161.132 (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rosen's background

message: I'm not sure if the quote in the lead belongs there at all, but in any case, can someone indent it please? -- 92.225.78.48 (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blockquote 

message: He wrote one article for Harper's magazine almost six years ago: http://harpers.org/subjects/NirRosen. It is not accurate to say he "regularly contributes" to it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.54.28 (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harper's 

message: "extensivly" should be spelled "extensively"
Quiltingbuddy (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Quiltingbuddy, 17 February 2011 

message: First let me point out the obvious: this is a biography of a living person. Because of this all editors should be erring on the side of caution. When in doubt, leave it out. Secondly we need to reexamine the "controversy" section. In order to meet both WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE we need to ensure that this section is not simply a compiling of contemporary statements by the subject that some might consider to be brash. There's needs to be actual evidence of controversy over the content and it has to be presented in a contextually appropriate "big picture" sort of way. My recommendation is to eliminate the section and to include the resigning of of his position(s) with a  brief explanations of why and a robust set of footnotes and external links. Suggestions? TomPointTwo (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The controversy section 

message: Please restore this 31-month-old paragraph to the end of the lede section:
From 2005 to 2008, Rosen was a fellow at the New America Foundation.  In September 2007, he was the C.V. Starr Distinguished Visitor at The American Academy in Berlin.  On April 2, 2008, Rosen testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee at their hearings on political prospects in Iraq after the surge.
Please remove this unsourced, inaccurate  addition  from the third sentence of the first paragraph of the lede section:
He is a fellow at the New America Foundation …
 
Neutralitynow (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Tentontunic (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request from Neutralitynow, 17 February 2011

message: Since when are Op-eds a reliable source for facts in a BLP? Tentontunic (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They can be, sometimes. If the writer is an authority on the subject or the piece is cited to reflect the position of the author then it's not a big deal. This is Goldberg's wheelhouse and he's not really a controverisal figure, I don't see an inherent partisan bias issue. Furthermore, none of the statements sourced to the Atlantic piece seem to be in dispute. They're all acknowledged or cited by other sources and don't seem to be denied by Rosen. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Atlantic article is not an op-ed. Truthsort (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in the technical sense because of the magazine format but it's a de facto opinion piece which, I'm assuming, was Tentontunic's ultimate point. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that was the point, plus of course the source does not actually say that what it is reporting is controversial Tentontunic (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Atlantic. 

message: The section on the twitter controversy is now over a hundred words longer than the section devoted to his entire career.  That section also mentions the controversy, about as much time on it as it does on his widely-reviewed book.   This is, of course, inappropriate due to WP policies and guidelines and we should make an effort to either reduce this section or expand the article so the section is of appropriate weight. Gamaliel (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My two cents:  Nir Rosen is notable mostly for the Twitter controversy.  I never heard of him before reading what he said about Lara Logan and Anderson Cooper.  As is often the case, people become famous, after long careers, because of one incident, good or bad.  Example:  Chesley Sullenberger, pilot of US Airways Flight 1549.  Who in the general public had heard of Sully before this?  But he has a total of 40 years of flying experience.  The section about the "Miracle on the Hudson" is longer than the bio of his early life and career, military and commercial.  I think it's the same in this case with Nir Rosen:  that he is now more notable than before because of the Twitter controversy, and as such this section will be longer, but at the same time not enough to sprout its own article.  Make sense?  --Magmagirl (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your argument, but it doesn't apply in this case.  Neither of us had heard of Rosen before this, but that doesn't mean he wasn't notable.  A quick database search will reveal dozens of reference work listings and book reviews that predate this controversy, not to mention those major fellowships.  It's clear that his career and notability were well established before this. Otherwise no one would care what he said on twitter. Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, don't misunderstand me -- I didn't say he wasn't notable. The original article (created in 2006 as a stub) would have been deleted otherwise.  I'm just saying he was not heard of by the majority of Wikipedians (Wikizens?  Wikivillians?  :-D) before this controversy. --Magmagirl (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the misunderstanding, I seem to have conflated what you said with some other arguments I've heard before. Gamaliel (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Imo the twitter coverage is undue and a recent attempt to post the subjects apology was immediately reverted, I actually support that last edit - the coverage in the lede is also undue at present. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

text: The content in the lede has been removed as undue and I fully support that edit. Wiki editors have the dubious ability to make a person notability as regards his whole carer focus on a single titillation. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

text: The bulk of the information doesn't belong in the lead but it's obviously worthy of inclusion with a sentence in the lead and it's own section. It's been noted by a wide range of reliable sources and was a substantial personal turning point for him. It ended a prestigious fellowship and garnered him name recognition in places he didn't have before. So while the actual twitter posts may be of debatable importance in understanding the man himself the fall out is a clearly notable biographical point from both a cultural and professional perspective. Let's be honest: half the hits on this article are looking for information on exactly this incident. So let's figure out exactly how much detail we want in the section, how we should phrase the snippet in the lead and how much peripheral analysis of the incident from RS we want to include. Then, when we've come to a consensus, we can make then changes, cut out the back and forth edits and all move on. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to the lead, I have no problem with including it in the lead as long as the lead accurately summarizes his entire career and isn't just "Nir Rosen is a reporter who did some crazy shit in 2011."  In regards to the section on the incident, it is too long and out of proportion to the rest of the article.  The section should be trimmed or the rest of the article should be expanded or (preferably) both.  Time constraints have prevented me from entering this section with gardening tools, but it will be weeded eventually as this article must conform to WP:UNDUE. Gamaliel (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. I figured a mention in the lead centered on the controversial reaction and his resignation of the fellowship would suffice to let people know they're in the right place if that's the incident which brought them here. As for the dedicated section my preference was for a simple and brief synopsis of his comments and the resulting backlash/apology with the tangible results mentioned. I don't think a blow-by-blow, timestamped, TMZ style disaster porn entry is constructive or appropriate. There are already reliable sources which have done this and I figure an external link along with inline citations will be enough for those who are looking for that sort of unencyclopedic but still relavent content. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what bearing that has on the discussion. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone upthread said "notable only for twitter controversy" or something like that. walk victor falk talk 01:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight 

message: User:Off2riorob expunged all mention of the sexual nature of Lara Logan's assault in Egypt, citing "trim unconfirmed sexual assault" and "trim" in his edit summaries. In light of the fact that CBS itself confirmed that Logan "suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/15/60minutes/main20032070.shtml), I've restored the content and included a reference to the report.—Biosketch (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My initial, cursory impression was he was removing the sexual assault element in relation to the Cooper which could be construed as incorrectly indicating that Cooper's assault was also sexual in nature. Looking over it again I think your changes are correct and should stand pending a more detailed explanation by Off2riorob. Good catch. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of content by [[User:Off2riorob]] 

message: Only one user, user:Spacepotato wants to ad a section about Rosen primary school and where his aunt lives... It doesn't seem very interesting to most of us... but let's talk about it here, instead of indulging into the edit war which took place between Spacepotato and IP!
Remi Mathis (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've followed this article in the past few days, and would like to echo Remi's comment, especially in light of the previous section ("Israeli-American") on this talk page: the modifications that are being disputed seem to concentrate on showing a link between Nir Rosen and Judaism. The existence of sources is important, but most important is whether this information belongs to the article -- and whether it could be hurtful for the subject o the article. In particular, I doubt that having "close family connections in Israel" by itself is encyclopedic (or the article should explain why it is important -- I can't remember other biographies in which we mentioned family ties to some countries in this way). Schutz (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not include it?  It's useful to have more information on Rosen's family and ethnocultural background as it helps to understand how Rosen came to his current ideological position.  The editors removing the information gave no justification for that. Spacepotato (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about school and family