Talk:Naomi Robson

message: Mediaa tell me where you get your information that Naomi Robson is the producer of Today Tonight? Neil Mooney is always quoted as the National Producer of the show.
Apart from that, I still question the need for it to be on her wikipedia page. If there was a complaint about 7News having "abysmal reporting standards" (as you so objectively put in) would we go about putting it on all 7News reporters/presenters/producers wiki pages?
Although I definately think a mention could be made about her upcoming appearance at the court case, thus I left in this time, of course with the 'after' part unbolded as it doesn't fit in with the required neutral tone sought after here at wikipedia.
Slj 11:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I have recently been reading this blog: http://ivegotkarmatoburn.blogspot.com/
which has Naomi's photo as the owner of the blog - any insight as to whether it is really her writing?
Thanks
:I did a Google Image Search for Naomi Robson. The first result was a larger, uncropped version of the picture used in the blog. Given that, I'd say this person just did as I did and picked that picture for their profile. DynaBlast 16:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this her real blog? 

message: I removed the information about the court case. My reasoning behind this was that it was simply a copy of Media Watch's transcript (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1473150.htm) and added POV to the article. None of the other articles on journalists named in the court case had this mentioned on their WP articles, so it appears someone tried to find whatever material possible to try and make Naomi look bad. This is supported by the ridiculous link encouraging people to look up Naomi Robson in the Magistrate's Court list (which yields no results).
If someone wants to add in this information once more in a tasteful way, here's a source to get you started:  To my knowledge, the court case concluded with the people involved having to give an apology.
DynaBlast 23:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court Case 

message: Really? ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 12:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, she makes it up as she goes along.--143.92.1.33 06:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Autocue Reader 

message: The "Controversy" section reads like tabloid journalism.
I've tried to tone it down a bit,
but it need more work to get neutral POV.
RJ4 (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Problems

message: I've blocked the article for new and unregistered editors for 1 day.  Max, be aware that when removing sourced content you should have a good reason.  Please editors from all side go through why they think a specific section should be kept/removed on this Talk page. Slac speak up! 03:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporary block

message: Naomi Robson in Wikipedia edit war --60.242.159.224 (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys made it on Conservapedia as well today.  I just had to see for myself if it was true. 65.90.138.150 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war mentioned in the news 

message: It seems the edits of both User:Maxmarkson and User:Marksonsparks have been mostly reverted.  Who is the major contributor with a close connection to the subject? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Max Markson is Naomi Robson's manager. -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: His edits have been mostly reverted, therefore he is no longer a "major contributor", unless he has edited with accounts other than the two I mentioned. Is someone claiming that he edited before 21 January 2010? If not, I don't see the point in the COI tag. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I get what you mean, sorry. And yes, I agree with you, I don't see any other evidence of COI -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag 

message: What exactly is the issue with the controversy section? How is this considered a problem in terms of neutrality? The only thing I think we need to do is to incorporate the material into the body of the article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As per WP:NOTSCANDAL Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering. Much of the material in the 'Controversy' section is just sniping from rival media organisations.  It is being given far too much weight, since it is light weight froth more appropriate to tabloid journalism than to an encyclopedia. See also : Wikipedia:Coatrack#"But_it%27s_true!"  RJ4 (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have to disagree. All of the things that are in the controversy section were widely reported by not just narrow-sheets like the Daily Telegraph, but by such august institutions as The Sydney Morning Herald. Sure, a lot of it is mean and unfair, but we can't really hold a view on the meanness of the whole debacle as this goes against our position of neutrality. I do think we could incorporate the material into the body of the article though. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite happy for the Tony Mokbel incident to be moved out of the criticism section, as it at least has some serious content.  However, the rest does not actually amount to anything.  It is not a question of meanness, it is a question of substance. Did any of those issues result in anyone being sacked or reprimanded, or being brought before a court or a regulatory body or a police investigation ?  Was there even a large dip in the ratings as a result ?  If you can point to some result that came from this sniping then I am quite happy to listen.  Furthermore, I believe we do have to judge whether the coverage we give items is fair or unfair.RJ4 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these things appear to have influenced Robson's decision to leave. Are you an Australian? I only ask here because this was all played out in front of all Australians in the most public fashion possible. If anything it is relevant as it shows how the media can turn on each other, not to mention the amount of disgust for the program she appeared on. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would need to see a reference to support the claim that these things influenced her decision to leave.  Yes, I am Australian.  I agree it is a good example of the media turning on each other.  I am NOT arguing for total removal, that was User:Maxmarkson who wanted that.  I am just not happy with the overall weight that it is being given to it.  See also WP:CHERRY.  Let me draw a parallel - both John Howard and Kevin Rudd have repeatedly been compared with the cartoon character "Mr Sheen" by various media commentators, but the information is not appropriate to their articles in Wikipedia, regardless of how entertaining the comments may be. RJ4 (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I agree that we can do better, but unlike John Howard and Kevin Rudd, Naomi Robson's notoriety is, unfortunately for her, been created by all these incidents. I don't think we need a controversy section though, we should really be incorporating this into the main article body. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Spreading the disputed material throughout the article won't stop it from being disputed.  I think it is preferable to have it in a section of its own, until the dispute is resolved, rather than contaminate the rest of the article.  However, I am quite happy to move the Tony Mokbel material, as that has more gravitas than the rest of the section.  RJ4 (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV section 

message: One of the significant articles written about the Mokbel informant was by the Herald Sun court reporter, the original link is  unfortunately the content has been removed.  You can see a fully copy of it at the web forum  (and several other forums).  The article includes details such as, she went out with him for several months and the QC in the trial discussed evidence of here being supplied with cocaine.  How is this best handled, is it acceptable to link to a forum copy in this instance.  The current link is to a blog discussing the article and isn't very good.
Lod (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I was duped, news article 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: did a skit called "the naomi show" last week about a dating/relationship advice show.  gal gadot as a bleached blonde with big sexy glasses -- looked more like sally jesse raphael or sarah pailin than any robson pix which google up (yank here who didn't heretofore know robson).  between the "show" name and subject matter, tho, i figure it just MUST be her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jZc0vLEIWI  
can someone familiar with robson pls confirm this is indeed a spoof of her? 209.172.23.19 (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  saturday night live (US) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Naomi Robson. 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/20110605061122/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=144268 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=144268
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100204093527/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/1006605/naomi-robson-in-wikipedia-edit-war to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/1006605/naomi-robson-in-wikipedia-edit-war
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) 01:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified