Talk:Susan Roesgen

message: I think this could be resolved by everyone simply reading WP:BLP, "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability, No original research" --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Roesgen's notability is that she is a reporter for a major network, and the Tea Party section is about a report she did for that network.  While she has done scores of similar reports, this particular one generated considerable follow-up coverage in the media, so I believe it passes the Criticism & Praise requirements and deserves mention in this bio.  You might have a valid concern as to "weight", however, but I don't see how the section can be further trimmed while still conveying all significant sides of the issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP dispute

message: I think that adding information to the Tea Party section about Roesgen's reaction to another protestor likening George W Bush to Hitler adds additional context to her reaction to the Tea Party protestor likening Obama to Hitler.  In the case of the Bush protestor, she did not challenge the protestor and actually said that he was a Bush "look-alike."  In the case of the Tea Party Obama protestor, she strongly challenged the protestor.--Drrll (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be trying to create new perspectives by saying two plus two equals she is a ------- put whatever you think is correct there. It would be original research. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The source I would include is actually the one making the point, not just me.--Drrll (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Oh right, would you post it here so I can have a read please. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "According to Mark Hemingway of National Review, in 2006, when a protester likened George W. Bush to Hitler (by costume),  Roesgen did not challenge that protester as she did the Tea Party protester likening Obama to Hitler. Instead, she referred to him as a Bush "look-alike.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

text: It looks like opinionated partisan content to me. She goes about things with all the subtlety of a brick through a window, and in the end it appears she's just an angry jerk. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that opinion sources were allowed as long as it is attributed to the source.--Drrll (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No BLP. Perhaps the solution would be to simply state that she referred to the Hitler-Bush as a "look alike," and include the source, but say nothing more. Allow the reader to draw her or his own conclusions.  It's extremely relevant, given the assertion that one of the interviewed individuals at the Tea Party was holding a sign referring to Obama as Hitler. If that's relevant, then her Hitler-Bush look alike is relevant.76.4.72.225 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Roesgen and another protestor likening another president to Hitler

message: An IP,76.4.72.225 with ten edits is insisting and repeatedly inserting the there was significant criticism from all and sundry, of course there was, she is left wing and the right wing criticized her...this is not what wikipedia is here for.. it is totally partisan and has no value here in this BLP perhaps in another article like obama or whatever,  it is totally clear to m that this issue is being given excessive weight in her life by people with an issue to coatrack on her life. This will not alter anything politically at all, as wikipedia editors we should protect living people from becoming coatracks for the right wing or the left wing pushers, we should do all we can to keep this kind of partisan pov out of articles. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding? This is Wikipedia for crying out loud... the king of political bias. If an article has even the slightest potential for being spun - however remote - you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be spun to the left. The only way to fight these college drop-outs is to be as bat-shit-crazy persistent as they are. You have to just keep coming back and keep coming back and keep insisting (and changing) an article until it is neutral. It's sad, but that's the way it goes.76.4.72.225 (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you not find another outlet for your opinions? Off2riorob (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant critism from the opposition 

message: A recent revert by Off2riorob has an edit summary claiming disputed content, but I can't find his explanation of what he is disputing here.  The edits he has reverted consist of:
1) My change of the word "source" to "sources", because that is what the cited article says.
2) My addition the words "as Roesgen was reporting" directly from the cited article, for clarification.
3) I moved the sentence about how she concluded her report after the sentence about what happened during her report, exactly how it is in the cited article.
It would be helpful if you could refrain from reverting constructive edits without discussion, and it would also help if you could be a little more specific in your edit summaries. Simply claiming an edit is "disputed" doesn't give us much to work with if you don't explain that dispute. Could you please elaborate? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That word reported, has been a cause of reverting for a few day, lets say, perhaps I was a bit trigger happey and was surprised I thought the article was fully protected,did you change the citation? if you did and it is directly from the citation then it can go back, I see you reverted it anyway, so..sorry about that ..perhaps we should start again, what we need to agree on it the wording and the size of the comment. I think presently the interview is being given excessive weight and an editor also said that just above, perhaps we should have a look at it here and make a deal? This is one interview on one day in one year of a multiple year career, has she not done any other interviews? I would like to see the section trimmed and put back at the bottom of CNN section. Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The present version doesn't have the weasel word, "reportedly" in it. That word was the reason for many of the previous reverts. As I said above, I agree with you that the tea party interview is being given too much weight in this article - and should be trimmed, and certainly doesn't deserve its own header any more than the scores of other news reports she has done. I think some editors here won't be happy unless Roesgen appears to be defined only by the tea party content in this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I totally agree, its a bit coatracky but what to do, anyway there doesn't appear to be any opposition here as yet to your addition. If there is no opposition in the next day or so we should get the artice unlocked, funny how everyone has disappeared.Off2riorob (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Is there anybody who does not accept Zeno's version? Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I don't. She or he needs to get a reliable source for that obscenities nonsense.Jt14905 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As established in above sections, the source meets RS requirements. Gamaliel (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree the source meets WP:RS standards. I'm the one that crafted the final version, more or less. I believe TVNewser's reports should be after the Roesgen quote, where I originally placed it. I do believe this section is too much. I wouldn't mind getting rid of the quote, President Obama, the Fuhrer and Honest Abe. Maybe just the reporting of the segment, reactions good and/or bad, as they relate to Roesgen. I'm not even sure if she's gone from CNN, or that this was the reason. †TE†Talk 00:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I would also like to see the back of abe, hitler and obama. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yo , sole how are you doing, cool, yea, write a little-ish comment and we can have a look. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  tea party discussion 

message: Another user is reverting without any discussion, I have left him User_talk:ExitW3Must a warning on his talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again 

message: I've asked the page be protected again, due to various SPAs deleting information from the page and claiming the sources aren't reliable. I can find no evidence on this talk page that the material is anything other than properly sourced, and the various accounts haven't bothered to explain their deletion. I'm opening up this section in hopes of getting some discussion on the matter. Dayewalker (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like an attempt to appease multiple disruptive editors, rather than writing from the available sources.  --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, I have always thought that this political partisan stuff was being coat acked on to her bio. I am looking for a stable article and I have no preference for either the republicans or democrats. Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text: As I pointed out in the past, I think we've been giving it undue weight. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes I remember your comments now, if the report favors neither one side or the other the article can stabilize. I have found this really works. and if people want the titillating detail they can click on one of the links.  Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that we don't remove the very facts that make this incident worth noting.  There are no "sides" being favored here, only sources and information from those sources.  --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text: The issue actually has its own page and in the lifelong career of the subject here it is getting undue weight. To me the comment as we have looks as if it is an attack on republicans but as I said I am neutral and have little understanding of the complexities and as you said, it's all in the citations  oh well locked again. Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any mention of Roesgen in Tea Party protests.  Are you referring to somewhere else? --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the actual Tea party article, when I said this issue, I was referring to the tea party not to Roesgen, although it is interesting that this interview is unworthy of a mention there. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Here she is, Tea_Party_movement at first glance it looks like a cut and copy of what we have here or the other way round. It is not exactly the same, hey don't have abe and adolf and barack larging it up there and they don't have the additional information of Shut up bitch  and damn cnn . Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sourcing 

message: Currently this article states: "On April 15, 2009, Roesgen interviewed a number of people at a 2009 Tea Party protest in Chicago. The interview attracted a degree of partisan commentary.[19][20]" This isn't very informative. Why not state what she said, and what was controversial about it? 'A degree of partisan commentary' is so vague as to be useless. Robofish (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A 2-minute news broadcast in the life of a 40-something year old career journalist - not exactly stunning biographical content, I agree.  I'm surprised it is even mentioned, but someone thought it was important enough to squeeze in here.  You can probably find more information on it in the cited sources, or in the Tea Party movement article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tea Party coverage 

message: This article is one of a  number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes"  would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pending changes

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Susan Roesgen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100418021111/http://www.cnn.com:80/CNN/anchors_reporters/roesgen.susan.html to http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/roesgen.susan.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Susan Roesgen. 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://archive.is/20070212201254/http://suncoast.emmyonline.org/emmy/2000Awards/winners2000.htm to http://suncoast.emmyonline.org/emmy/2000Awards/winners2000.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified