Talk:Hilary Rosen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This article seems a bit POV. Surely the RIAA had some key victories under Rosen's tenure, especially on the legislative front. Does someone want to rephrase the article?

I don't think it's POV at all:

  • However, some record industry sources indicated that many music industry executives were unhappy with Rosen's nearly complete failure to eliminate Internet trafficking in copyrighted audio files.

This is objectively true. The RIAA succeded in shutting down Napster. That's it. That has been their only key success to date in halting the spread of mp3 sharing online.

There are hundreds of thousands of people who first learned of mp3 file sharing through the publicity surrounding the Napster case. Today, there are literally dozens and dozens of different services and programs one can use to easily and effectively trade mp3's online, as opposed to the Napster era, when there was one, and the pre-Napster era, when one had to go through a long and convoluted process involving private FTP servers or IRC to get mp3's. If anything, their vociferous battle against Napster only served to publicize the fact that one can download mp3's of copyrighted music online.

  • ... Rosen's hardline approach to Internet music sharing has alienated many music consumers, and even some popular artists from the RIAA's position on intellectual property rights.

Also objectively true. There are, in fact, hundreds of thousands of music consumers who hate Rosen's guts for what she's trying to do. Read slashdot, or search on Google, or wait a few days for the RIAA's website to get hacked again. As for artists, google for the positions of The Offspring or Tori Amos or Limp Bizkit or Eddie Vedder or Alanis Morissette (among others) on the subject of copyrighted mp3 sharing online.


Unfortunately, you have selected only those facts which support your argument. Allow me to point out the following developments since Hillary Rosen took over:

  • The legal landscape in which peer-to-peer file services are now operating is very shaky in the United States and other Western countries such as Canada and the UK.
  • Napster has been shut down, which you point out.
  • The DMCA has been passed and used, which has had a demonstrable chilling effect on research into copy-protection circumvention.
  • The United States Supreme Court, in its January 15 2003 decision in Eldred vs. Ashcroft, has upheld the CTEA (copyright term extension act), thanks largely to extensive lobbying by the RIAA.
  • The popular Audiogalaxy peer-to-peer music sharing service has been largely shut down. Now only sponsored music appears.
  • Several new anti-pirating technologies have been developed and are being deployed, including new CD copy protection techniques that have already hit the shelves. Microsoft itself has recently unveiled a new copy protection format for CD-ROMs.

The list goes on and on...

Chadloder 01:01 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Everything you said is true but irrelevant; you have not pointed out a single phrase in the article that is not objectively true, or that is in any way POV. These points are certainly worth mentioning within the context of Rosen's tenure as head of the RIAA, however

The de facto, NPOV reality of the situation is that mp3 sharing continues unabated on the Internet, in spite of any and all laws that have been passed, and in spite of all the actions Rosen took.

Sure, they got laws passed, and Audiogalaxy got shut down. So what? Kazaa is more popular than Napster ever was (before the RIAA stepped in and put them on the front page of every newspaper, anyway), and many, many people still download mp3's.

Rosen's mandate from the RIAA was to eliminate mp3 swapping online, and at that she has failed. Read the linked Washington Post article, or search on and check out the tons of other articles. They all reference unnamed music industry sources who indicate that Rosen's resignation is due to A) her failure to stop mp3 swapping, and B) her hardball tactics, which have undeinably made lots and lots of people very mad at the RIAA.


Nonsense. I read the WP article before posting, obviously. It doesn't say anything about her, as you put it, "Nearly complete failure". That's a very POV statement, it's not justified. If you think it's justified, then you'll have to argue your case better -- I provided references and examples showing why your statement is incorrect and unjustified. You told me to read the article (which says nothing of the kind) and look for news sources on Google? Wikipedia is not Time magazine. It's not Slashdot either. Sorry, I'm removing your statement and replacing it with something more balanced (and informative).Chadloder 01:34 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

See? I think my version is MUCH better. :) Chadloder 02:07 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I like your version better, too, but not because of any POV issues. What you wrote is longer and more detailed. You include several points that I overlooked which needed to be included. I realize this is an encyclopedia and not a news magazine. Encyclopedias record history (among other things), and this is a historic development in the context of the Internet. As unfortunately none of us know Rosen personally or work for the RIAA (as far as I know), we are forced to rely on media coverage of events to create the article

There are a couple of points which I've edited, however:

  • Industry adoption of new digital copyright protection technologies - for the most part, the music industry has not adopted any copyright protection technologies, except for a few test cases. 99.99% of new CD's sold are still not copyright protected, and the few pilot releases that were protected were flops, because people found that they couldn't play them on car CD players or personal computers. Almost nobody uses the DRM enabled media types, because there are competing formats that are just as good and not DRM crippled. And in any event, this shouldn't be in a "legal victories" section, as it is a private internal industry decision and not a legal action.
  • "nearly complete failure" is quite accurate and NPOV. She was trying to stop mp3 sharing. Mp3 sharing is currently more popular than it ever was. She did shut down a few services, including one major one, but every time she did, 10 others sprung up to take the place of the closed down one. In a historical sense, this constitutes, objectively, "nearly complete failure" to achieve that goal, any way you look at it.
  • Her resignation was not purely due to personal issues, despite the official spin, as has been reported in almost every article on her resignation. That industry pressure to resign objectively existed is indisputable; not recording that fact would be POV.


I think some of the stuff on this page would be better on the RIAA page. Here, we could add more stuff about Hilary Rosen, e.g. what she did before becoming hewad of RIAA. -- Cabalamat 16:39, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Agree, I was just about to comment after discovering the lengthy new content on IP issues. That information now constitutes over half the article which is supposed to be about Hilary Rosen. It's inappropriate in this context. Autiger 17:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bias (POV)[edit]

I've added a POV tag. I think this article is biased against the RIAA and against Hilary.

There are phrases like "Nonetheless, while RIAA was the enforcement arm of the industry" and "Despite the RIAA's aggressive tactics", and so on (emotive language).

Please Cite sources, such as for "Many say that despite Rosen's public loyalty to the industry, ....". Who are they?

Finally, there may be validity issues, with phrases like "DRM enabled media formats ... proved similarly unpopular with consumers" - how about Apple's iTunes? --H2g2bob 14:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

because most of the consumers are mindless teens. - anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro-RIAA bias[edit]

Wow. This is article profoundly biased in favor of the RIAA. It appears that Hilary Rosen herself, or someone using her name, has had quite a hand in its composition. Is there anything that can be done about this apparent conflict of interest? Avalyn (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Help on what to do can be found here: WP:CONFLICT. I have not checked User:Avalyn's contributions, but at first it would be a good idea to see what she has added/removed. It could be essentially harmless and fall well within WP:NPOV, but if that is not the case the earlier link includes instructions on how to approach this issue. (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


What has this person done which is notable? This article appears to be a self-serving resume' Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

C'mon! You came here because you saw her name in the news and wanted to know something about her (as did I). Just because you aren't impressed by her doesn't mean her page isn't notable and ought to be marked for deletion. I found it useful (and have no dog in the fight).Alaraxis (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The article has been around for almost a decade with no complaints. Suddenly, people are complaining about the existence of the article because Rosen is currently in the news? What the hell? john k (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


This wiki was useful. I learned she used to work with the RIAA. This makes her opinions worthless, so her comments about Ann Romney should be ignored. Even Obama denounced her comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbaizen (talkcontribs) 23:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignored? You mean not written about? If that's what you meant, the fact the POTUS commented shows its worth for inclusion. - Xcal68 (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Watch for promotion[edit]

This is an article about a "political communications" expert that appears to have been heavily edited in the style of political communications. There's ample evidence to support the conclusion that the subject or her partners have been a primary author of this article. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


54,000 hits today, vs 4,000 for Ann Romney Redhanker (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

LGBT activist?[edit]

While Rosen had a very brief tenure with HRC, she's not known as an LGBT activist-- though admittedly, she is a "lobbyist who herself is LBGT" if that makes sense. Her professional life has focused on industry lobbying or Democratic party politics, not LGBT rights. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The label doesn't fit. - Xcal68 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Appropriateness of Ann Romney comments questioned?[edit]

Original Title: Ann Romney section is massively overblown and reeks of WP:RECENTISM The fact that this ginned up fake "controversy" gets so much emphasis in the article is absurd. (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it was once a fake controversy, but once the President of the United States weighs in, it's an important story. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The controversy absolutely received enough attention from people in high places to warrant inclusion. I believe it has just enough emphasis and trimming anymore would remove the context. - Xcal68 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree the section on Ann Romney is being blown way out of proportion as it primarily reeks of sensationalism and is a non controversy that has been falsely turned into one. This wasn't a national disaster or anything of epic proportions warranting an entire section (1/3 of the whole page)dedicated to it on Rosen's wikipedia page. On that account, we would be no different than any other tabloid. The section should be greatly reduced, if not omitted altogether. Wikiepdia is not and cannot be in the business of playing party politics and contribution to sensationalism on its encyclopedic pages. This is about facts and since Wikipedia is not a news outlet, not everything a person does which made the headlines needs to be expanded on to such extent.
This is a new spike and wikipedia is not the place for it. As the section on recentism states:
"Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in:
Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.
Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.
The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus."
If during this election year Wikipedia goes in this direction, then every comment made by anyone has to be included, which I am sure all would agree goes agasint the very notion of eiditing without a long-term, historical, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention. CarrieBee (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Dominating a week of US Political News, getting both presidential candidates and both spouses to weigh in? How much more historical could you get? --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
That is not historical. That is current news events; a news spike, which is clearly not what a Wikipedia article should be. Whether this is historic will be told in time. If next year or in 6 months the issue is still talked about then yes, but right now inserting in there as part of an individual's wikipedia biography - something we dont even have a conclusion to since it has not even been a factor in the outcome of the election and it is doubtful it will spoken of again - violates WP: Recentism. As mentioned above, we cannot just make any piece of news the president or the community utters something about historic including it in an encyclopedic WP article. This section is clearly inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention, resulting in an "article overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens". And we need consensus to keep it, not to remove it. You cant just put in any kind of information and then wait for consensus to remove it. CarrieBee (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree that this looks like Recentism. This was a notable (in the general sense) event, so it should be mentioned, but the substance of the issue could probably be covered in a couple paragraphs. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree that recent events are always less polished and thus more verbose-- brevity takes time. I'm glad there's a consensus on overall inclusion inclusion. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's some objection, I will pare down the material. It's too much about one incident. I'll wait a bit before doing so to see if anyone else wants to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No objection from me. Although I'd say that while trimming/polishing the Romney-comment section is an improvement, the easiest way to improve undo weight issues is to flesh out the earlier bio. Life Pre-RIAA and Life Post-RIAA/Pre-RomneyComment both deserve expansion. In general, help is most welcome. :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I still object that this comment, like a myriad of comments made on news stations all day, every day - especially during election time - is of no historic significance requiring a separate section. This wasnt a career defining moment for Rosen (like Napster) or one that has long term policy implications. As mentioned before, whether this is going to be historic cannot be established a prior but has to be established later. The entire section is huge; we even have Bill Maher and his comments. Maher is an entertainer and comedian and his views on the issue are neither historic nor politically relevant. And again, this violated WP: Recentism. I am not sure why that is being disregarded. The rules are pretty clear on that so this section shouldnt even be here. CarrieBee (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted your removal of the material. Please be patient to make sure we have a consensus before we edit the material. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry now we need consensus to make any edits on this article? And does consensus outweigh or override WP editing policy in terms of Recentism? How is what entertainers say and citing edit wars among various people of no historic or political significance historic, newsworthy or historically relevant? And what if we dont reach a consensus? Can i go ahead and just insert any kind of cited information in there and let it linger until the majority either agrees or disagrees with me? This section, as it cureently stands, reads more like Entertainment Weekly or someone's blog rather than an encyclopedic entry. I dont think we should have to wait for consensus to remove information in direct violation of WP:Recentism. Including her comments in there is one thing, adding all the irrelevant frosting and getting into the tabloid-like detail is another. CarrieBee (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
As pointed out at ANI, the problem is not with recentism but with weight ("Allegations of recentism should prompt consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight."), which is why it needs to be pared back, but there is no harm in leaving it for a bit longer to make sure that no other editor objects. The material does not violate WP:BLP as it is accurate and well-sourced, just too much of it. By the way, Recentism is an essay, not a guideline or a policy. As such, it has little binding effect on editors, although it can be persuasive and is often cited.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, feeling a bit pushed here, I've dramatically reduced the amount of material on the Romney story. I've also moved it out of its own subsection for less prominence.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you've done a great job with getting it to just about the right size. I probably would have liked to see a couple other high profile quotes (ex: Obama), but I can live with its current state. - Xcal68 (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I was about to undo CarrieBee's removal of well sourced, relevant material, but Bbb23 beat me to it. I feel the current state of the Romney section is just about perfect, in terms of size and content. Removal of anything else really needs to be discussed first, at this point, IMO. - Xcal68 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone has managed to chop out all context of the April 11 CNN quote then turn it into this interpretation:

On April 11, 2012, during an appearance on CNN, Rosen criticized Ann Romney, Mitt Romney's wife, for "never work[ing] a day in her life."

That's original research opinion not provided in the source, and not even an accurate interpretation: It's obvious from the transcript that Rosen was criticizing Mitt Romney for repeatedly bringing up what his wife says, when his wife "never worked a day in her life". Also, after that in the article comes "the statement was broadly condemned", as if it there was nothing else to the statement except that sentence. This is why accurate text does not reduce controversial statements to half-sentence sound bites, and why I quoted most of the paragraph in my original edit and clarified what was being criticized. Is there any reason the full quote shouldn't be re-added? I'm having trouble accepting the position that it's OK to quote the middle of a paragraph out of context—the problem being self-evident in that an editor has already explicitly taken it for granted how it was meant, and got it wrong—yet that it's somehow undue weight to quote the surrounding sentences to make the interpretation pretty much self-evident. (Bbb23 also mentioned that "there is no harm in leaving it for a bit longer to make sure that no other editor objects.") --Closeapple (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand your points and I'm sympathetic. However, I really don't want to add back the entire quote. Nonetheless, I've reworded the opening sentence to communicate more accurately what Rosen was saying (but keeping in the sound bite - after all, that's what received the most press) and added a source that makes it clear that's what Rosen was saying. Although you may not be 100% satisfied with the way it is now, I hope the rewording resolves the gist of your complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I want to thank Bbb23 for taking his stab at this and I recognize clear good faith. My personal instinct is that the pendulum has swung a tad too far and we may have excluded information that might here.
  • Closeapple points out -- We've removed the full context of the comment. If we restore the full context of the comment, it could improve the article.
  • My feeling is that: If the President of the US makes an on-the-record statement about you, that's a huge event. Doubly huge for lobbyist's bio. If we restore the President's statement in some form, readers will
  • Hillary Rosen was not a 'household name' in the US before this event. Now she is. I don't feel like this article conveys the scale of the "media frenzy" over her. One way we could convey this fact is by mentioning a sampling of prominent individuals, but there are other ways to do that that would also work.
Just my two cents. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm good with some context returning, but we need to be really careful not to let this section get out of control. It started to, and now it's down to a pretty good size. - Xcal68 (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for rewording my sentence - better.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent vandalism/deletions[edit]

Somebody had removed the entire section without consensus. Please establish a consensus before making such controversial deletions. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There has been a second occurrence from the same user, See ongoing discussion at ANI. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


User:Hilaryrosen made significant changes to "her" article. I've reverted them because of her obvious conflict and because the changes were too extensive. I've left a message on her Talk page to raise whatever changes she wants to make here first.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing datum[edit]

The current article really doesn't convey the "scale" of the media frenzy that occurred over the Rosen/Romney remarks. The incident was again mentioned just recently in the correspondent's dinner, showing that was not a flash-in-the-pan.

Reading the current version, I wouldn't get a sense that American media went nuts over this story for a while. While I debate the wisdom of the decision to devote so much attention to such a small thing, it was a big enough deal that the Pres., VP, 1stLady, and now the correspondent's dinner speech. We need to convey this wasn't "just" a twitter fight, it got major media focus. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because the media goes nuts doesn't mean we have to.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Characterization as a lobbyist[edit]

While there's no doubt she was a lobbyist at one time, I don't think she should be defined as a lobbyist at this moment. She last registered as a lobbyist in 2005 ([1]) when she was working for the Human Rights Campaign. She hasn't worked for a lobbying firm since that time. The Brunswick Group has registered some lobbying activity, but not during the time Rosen was there ([2]).

She currently works for a public relations firm. That firm disputes that it lobbies, and characterizations of it "lobbying" have not been based on the legal definition.([3])

The section on the page "Lobbyist at the White House" describes visits when Rosen was not lobbying, and the headline should be changed for clarity. Furthermore the article about the healthcare meetings (citation 20) refers to two meetings, one with lobbyists which Rosen was not present, and one with Dem operatives to go over messaging, which Rosen was present for.

Her lobbying career is dealt with further down the page (the RIAA section), but I don't see how she can be defined as currently a lobbyist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a few preliminary comments. First, I don't see why we have to report only registered lobbying. Second, I don't see why the "legal definition" of lobbyist, whatever that is, is relevant to the article. Third, even assuming she doesn't currently lobby doesn't mean that we can't characterize her as a lobbyist. If one holds an office and no longer holds that office, we can't say they hold the office, but if one has a certain occupation or engages in certain activities, the fact that the person isn't doing it at the moment, doesn't mean we can't say it. Perhaps we should clarify it in the body, but see my other points. What matters is what reliable sources describe her as. Nonetheless, we do have to draw a line somewhere. If the sources don't report her as lobbying in many years, regardless of whether it's legal or registered, then I agree we should change the article, because 7 years is too long.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I think registered lobbying does matter. When someone attempts to define someone's career as a lobbyist (as they are here) you are referring to a very specific practice that requires registration with the government. Since she hasn't registered in 7 years, I'm not sure she should still be identified as a lobbyist. Where is this reliable source that says she's lobbying currently? Is the federal lobbying registry not reliable? One of your sources ( the AP article about healthcare meetings at the White House) doesn't describe her as a lobbyist and places her in a different meeting than the other lobbyists, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Registration as a lobbyist doesn't really matter if multiple sources identify a group/someone as a lobbyist. It would only be worth noting that the person/group doesn't consider themselves as a lobbyist, while at the same time identifying them as sources do. - Xcal68 (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I haven't seen any sources definitively define her as being a lobbyist currently. Nevertheless, the entire section "Lobbyist at the White House" implies that she was there representing corporate or client interests, and there is no evidence to support that. In stories about those visits, she isn't identified as a lobbyist or conducting business on behalf of paying clients. Wouldn't a reporter want to define her as a lobbyist when covering her visits? In fact one visit described on this page is wholly inaccurate, as it says she was present for a meeting that the source says she wasn't present for. If that's your basis for lobbying, it doesn't seem to hold up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I adressed a basis either way. I only adressed your contention that registration matters. It doesn't. - Xcal68 (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Why doesn't registration matter? You keep pointing to other evidence, but the evidence I've seen that describes her currently points to something other than lobbying. Its just your opinion that registration doesn't matter. No one is disputing that she has lobbied, the only two questions I have are 1) why is she still being identified primarily as a lobbyist when she hasn't lobbied in 7 years? and 2) why is there a whole section describing her recent visits to the White House as lobbying visits when there's no evidence that she was lobbying while there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Its just your opinion that registration doesn't matter. No, it's not my opinion. It's how Wikipedia works. Truth doesn't matter. What is reported does. - Xcal68 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Reliable sources routinely describe her actions as informal lobbying or other verbiage. Lobbying in a manner that does not require registration is still lobbying. In particular, just providing access is a form of influence trading. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


I did some light cleanup but the article is still a bit off. It seems weirdly one-sided, without even a pro forma response from Rosen's camp. MilesMoney (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Careful. By all sources I read, Rosen is still at SKDK. As has been explained in the past, reliable sources still characterize her as a lobbyist. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
There's one source in the article that accuses her of still being a lobbyist. I'm fine with mentioning that source, since we attribute the opinion to its authors. That's different from using their claim as an unattributed fact, especially in the lede. I believe that calling her a lobbyist when she denies it is risking a WP:BLP violation. Please revert. MilesMoney (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Google shows that there are lots of RSes that still refer to subject as a "lobbyist". On the other side, do we even have a RS saying the subject actually denies lobbying? --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Rosen herself denies it: MilesMoney (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, the subject of the article denies it and pointed out that she is not listed in a database of registered lobbyists. Obviously if the subject of an article takes issue with information presented that should have our attention per WP:BLP, but the subject of a biography does not get veto authority over sourced article content, and we should reflect the best information available from reliable, secondary sources. That said, if this has not already been at WP:BLP/N I think it is a good candidate; the more experienced eyes on this the better. VQuakr (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
To echo VQ, a talk page post isn't a RS. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC) (That said, I've made a few edits to make sure we're not using the term 'lobbyist' in an unnecessarily prominent way HectorMoffet (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC))

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The talk page links to reliable sources and shows that she is not literally a lobbyist. Rather, some are of the opinion that she unofficially acts as one. We should definitely include this opinion, suitably attributed, but it would be a huge WP:BLP violation for us to call her a lobbying currently in WP's voice. If you disagree, I suggest that you escalate to dispute resolution. MilesMoney (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This issue was independently discussed on an admin's talk page, and three out of four opinions concur with what VQ and others have said-- The Nation is a Reliable Source, but we don't have any RSes denying the term lobbyist. More in a second --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
2013 sources for Lobbyist
These are all from 2013 sources. RSes agree-- she's a lobbyist. ---HectorMoffet (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to offer a third opinion regarding some BLP concerns in this article. As far as I can tell, multiple sources refer to the subject as a lobbyist. Denials on a Wikipedia user's talk page by an anonymous user claiming to be her do not factor into this at all. We require reliable, published sources as has already been stated. Absent evidence to the contrary, there is no BLP violation here. - MrX 15:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hector asked me to comment here. I think we can assume that the account Hilaryrosen belongs to the subject, but if that becomes a signficant issue, it could be corroborated through WP:OTRS. But for the purpose of this discussion, it strikes me as largely irrelevant. How the article is worded should comply with normal policies and guidelines for articles and for BLP articles in particular. For example, if a person is an actor but hasn't acted in a few years, we don't say he was an actor in the lead. The body of the article can elaborate on what he did and when he did it, but unless he officially retires from acting and that is supported by reliable sources, he "is" an actor. Hilary may prefer that the article be crafted differently, but her preferences in this area don't trump our content rules. It might be different if this were some sort of privacy/sensitivity issue, and we could omit something from the article that isn't important but the subject objects to (e.g., WP:BLPPRIVACY), but the characterization of her as a lobbyist doesn't fall into that category. This has been an ongoing problem with the article and with her, and, as you can see, has been discussed before. To her credit, she did not attempt to change the article but came to my talk page. She should really be coming here but she probably got more attention there. I'm glad the discussion is now here because that's, of course, where it belongs. Unless something has changed since the last time this was discussed - I haven't look at the issue - then we should not honor her request. If she has reliable sources for making changes to the body to flesh out her noteworthy activities, those should be considered.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that "lobbyist" has a very specific legal meaning. Lobbyists are required to register, and Rosen is not registered as a lobbyist, so if we say (in WP's voice) that she is lobbying or is an unregistered lobbyist, we are guilty of defamation. That's precisely what WP:BLP does not allow, so we must not ever do this.
What it does allow is for us to repeat the claims of reliable sources as attributed opinions, not as WP-endorsed facts. This includes section headings. MilesMoney (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Here, I looked this up:
Does a lobbyist have to be registered?
Since 1995, the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) has required individuals who are paid for lobbying at the federal level to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. Lobbying firms, self-employed lobbyists and organizations employing lobbyists must file regular reports of lobbying activity.
If we call her an unpaid lobbyist, we are accusing her of a crime, which violates WP:BLPCRIME. MilesMoney (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
That is a bizarre misinterpretation of policy.--MONGO 16:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here are the three best sources for making this claim:

FYI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing two things. One is whether she is known for having historically been a lobbyist. She is. The other is whether she is currently a lobbyist. She is not. If she were, then she'd be violating the law, and if we want to claim that in WP's voice, we need a conviction, not just an accusation. In any case, this is already being discussed on WP:BLPN, so let's not repeat ourselves. MilesMoney (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
You are wrong. These are all recent descriptions regarding her current activities of last 18 odd months; one is three weeks old. None say "former". If she's such a hotshot publicist, she should be able to get her denials she currently is a lobbyist in the papers and thus get it in this article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how to be any clearer. Identifying her as a lobbyist is not the same thing as saying she is currently lobbying. She is best known as a lobbyist, but that aspect of her career is over. If you believe otherwise, call the police and inform on her. MilesMoney (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the best source Carol found, I really want to focus us on JQInternational which listed her as an honoree less than a month ago. This is a source 100% friendly to Rosen, Rosen poses for pictures with the award, and the official bio describes her as.. "American lobbyist", and even quotes The Nation story about "unregistered lobbying firm".
Rosen has been the victim of cyber harassment since her RIAA days, and I get a distinct feeling that we're being trolled here, and someone at 4chan or EncyclopediaDramatic is laughing their hineys off.
Are we really buying the story that there's a PR expert who can't even get highly-friendly sources to get the facts right? A PR expert who doesn't know how to print a denial, demand a retraction, or give us at least one RS? No way.
Not that it matters, of course. We follow the reliable sources, not "sources" we find on wikipedia talk pages. HectorMoffet (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
First, you do realize JQInternational is not WP:RS for third parties since it is an advocacy group. (Exceptions might be if she published a blog with factoids about herself or did an interview there.)
What I don't understand is where you want to use this? In the lead?
Probably after "Rosen left the Brunswick Group, joining the PR firm SKDKnickerbocker in 2010.[12]" where you can say something like "The Nation has described her as an effective lobbyist, even though she isn't registered as one. (Nation ref). And other sources still describe Rosen as a lobbyist."(2 other refs). The other sources really aren't strong enough to support the debate or much more.
Whether or not to put "though some still consider her a lobbyist" in the lead is something I won't bother to debate, if that's what you want to do. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I didn't suggest inclusion of JQInternational, I just used it to illustrate, here on talk, just how widespread it is to characterize the subject as a lobbyist, to the extent that even friendly/promotional source from Nov 2013 describe her as a lobbyist.
The sources you dug up are undoubtedly the ones to be used in the article itself. ---HectorMoffet (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPN on this[edit]

Just noticed and commented on this at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Hilary_Rosen. FYI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have left a brief notice here about this. MilesMoney (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A proposed update to this article, and why[edit]

Hello, all. Over the last few months, I've been working on a proposed new draft for this article to expand on information about Hilary Rosen's life and career, and address some issues in the current article. Before I go into detail here, first a disclosure: I am working on behalf of Ms. Rosen through her firm SKDKnickerbocker as part of my work at Beutler Ink. As always, I will not edit this article directly and am seeking others' input and assistance in making the changes if they are reasonable.

My goals in preparing a new draft are to bring it up-to-date, improve sourcing, address some content gaps, ensure details included are given due weight and add a new infobox image. As some of my suggested changes involve shifting information between sections and establishing new section headings, I've placed a full draft into my user space—Hilary Rosen (new proposed draft)—to make it easier for editors to see the whole picture. (In this diff one can see all the changes proposed vs. the current article version.) As an overview, the key issues that I've addressed in the full article draft include:

  • In the current version of the article, the Registered lobbyist for the recording industry section is almost entirely unsourced. I've provided citations for information and added more detail on this role.
  • The mention of BP consulting is currently given undue weight, as little reporting about Rosen's actual consulting work exists. Most sources concern her parting ways with Huffington Post when she joined the Brunswick Group (which was working for BP at the time).
  • Likewise, Rosen's comments about Ann Romney are also given more space within the article than is surely necessary. While criticism received for the comments should be noted, it was a short-lived media story in the 2012 election. The Kimmel quote is especially unnecessary as is there being a whole separate section heading just for this one event.
  • There is some discussion within the article (and on this discussion page) about whether or not Rosen is a lobbyist, based on critical press coverage. Even the exacting section title Registered lobbyist... is some indication of the past disagreement. After four years' time, I think there is enough distance to reconsider this section. Here's how I've approached it:
    • As being a lobbyist has a specific legal connotation, for clarity, I've noted within the draft when and for whom Rosen acted as a lobbyist.
    • I've kept the criticism of Rosen and her firm as "unofficial" lobbyists, placing this into context and removing the allegation from the section heading.
  • Finally, little to no information is included about her work for LGBT causes and recognition, so I have added some details from third-party sourcing.

Of course, I realize that a substantial change from one version of an article to another is probably too much to do all at once. A sturdier consensus is probably arrived at through a section-by-section consideration, and I will do just that beginning in the sub-section below this one. That said, if you find anything in my draft that strikes you as an obvious improvement over the current version, please feel free to make such changes. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Early life and education[edit]

See above for my COI declaration, pledge to make no direct edits, and overall perspective on the current state of this article. I'd like to suggest beginning with something simple, like Early life and education. In the current article, this section is two short sentences, one of which is unsourced. In the version of this section in my draft, there is more information included, all of which is RS-sourced. Below this you'll find the text as it would appear after making the change, followed by the markup itself:

If you agree this is an improvement, I hope you'll consider making the change and marking this request as complete. Of course I'm also willing to answer any questions as needed. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I've made this edit. Neutralitytalk 11:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much, I appreciate it. (I've now marked the request as complete.) This is only the first of several updates I'd like to propose, as explained in my first note on the page, so I'll be back in a day or two with a concise explanation of the next section I have in mind. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


The next sections following Early life and career are Registered lobbyist for the recording industry and its sub-section Departure from the RIAA. These are, in my estimation, clunkily-named, under-sourced, and not terribly informative. Improving on this requires thinking a bit about the rest of the article, which currently has several top-level headings related to her various career roles. The best outcome eventually would be collecting these under a top-level heading called Career (as can be seen in my proposed draft) and the first sub-heading should simply be called Recording Industry Association of America. To start on that, I'd like to propose replacing the existing two sections with the two you can find in the collapsed boxes below. Benefits of making this update include:

  • Adding a short paragraph about her early career, including some information not now in the current entry at all;
  • Adding citations to verify information, since at present the second, third and fourth paragraphs are entirely unsourced;
  • Clarifying when in fact she was a registered lobbyist, as this was only the case during the latter part of her tenure;
  • Removing two arbitrary quotes from Rosen in the current version that aren't especially encyclopedic;
  • Removing the details about her former partner (Birch) and their children, which is more appropriate to the Personal life section, and already exists there in part;
  • Removing the unnecessary sub-heading about her departure, so now it's all one section.

Overall, I believe the draft I present below is more informative, appropriately detailed, neutral, and addresses both the successes and challenges she had during her time with the organization. You can find my specific proposal here:

(Note: In the above reflist and markup, you will see that the references "Wired", "Holson2001", and "Politico" are not defined. However, they are already defined in the current article, so the reference information will display correctly if the above markup is added as shown.)

Thanks for your consideration, and if you think this is an improvement I hope you'll consider moving it into the article. If you have any questions or concerns, I'm available to discuss. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the suggested edit is an improvement, so I am making the edit. As always, I take full responsibility for any edits I make, no matter who suggested them. Disclosure: I have absolutely no connection with Hilary Rosen, the RIAA, or an related persons or organizations. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and consideration, Guy. I've marked this request closed, and I will have a next one to post very soon. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Other career roles[edit]

Following the updated Early life and Career sections I'd like to propose an update to Communications consultant and pundit and its sub-sections Consultant to British Petroleum (BP), Cable news pundit, and Consultant and alleged lobbyist. Currently, the section's first sentence is about her early career, which is addressed earlier in the article. Then her work at Brunswick Group and SKDKnickerbocker is briefly mentioned, followed by a 2-sentence subsection dedicated to BP. I believe this information would best be served by moving it into new sub-sections under the Career heading, condensed to two sub-headings: Media roles and Communications consultant, as can be seen in my full draft and below. The new version retains mentions of critical coverage, such as her Ann Romney comments and debated lobbying activity, but in a less sensational manner than exists now. It also provides information about her work with SKDKnickerbocker, which does not currently exist. I've eliminated the In popular culture subsection which is, in my opinion, unnecessary and given undue weight. I'm holding out some information for a sub-section on her LGBT advocacy work, which will come next. Here's what I propose for the first section:

And then immediately following it should be:

(Note: In the above reflist and markup, you will see a few references that are undefined. However, they are already defined in the current article, so the reference information will display correctly if the above markup is added as shown.)

Thanks again for your consideration. If reviewers think this is an improvement of the current content, I hope you'll move it into the article, and of course I am happy to discuss and questions or concerns. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Just implemented these edits, which look like an overall improvement to me. A reference error is appearing, though. The reference named "advocate" is showing up as undefined. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@Champaign Supernova: Thank you for your assistance. The reference error is my mistake. The source is actually defined in the proposed draft's LGBT advocacy and other roles section, and I failed to realize that it would be undefined here, with Media roles posted before LGBT advocacy. After you made the update, it seems a bot tried to rescue the orphaned reference, but did so incorrectly. The markup for the "Advocate" source should be: <ref name="Advocate">{{cite journal|title=Out100: The Activists Who Shaped 2013|journal=[[The Advocate]]|date=November 13, 2013|url=|accessdate=May 10, 2016|publisher=[[Here Media]]|issn=0001-8996}}</ref> Apologies—would you mind making that update?
Alternatively, if you are feeling particularly generous, this could be solved by reverting the bot and then implementing the LGBT advocacy and other roles and Personal life sections in their entirety. Copying over the entire LGBT advocacy section would take care of defining the "Advocate" reference, but the bot would still need to be reverted for it to work properly.
If you're game, a brief explainer on these sections: LGBT advocacy and other roles expands on her work as an LGBT advocate, her roles with the Human Rights Campaign, and involvement in LGBT legislation, as well as other roles that are more on the periphery of her career. The proposed Personal life section expands on her relationship with Birch, her residence, and her involvement in politics. I've provided text renderings and markup below:
This would then be followed by:
If you prefer to go the simple route (or if you're busy with other things), I'd be happy to create a new section heading with a separate "Edit request" tag for help from another reviewing editor. Either way, thanks for your consideration, and for assisting with the Media roles edit request. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@Champaign Supernova: Thanks again for your assistance. I will go ahead and submit a new edit request with slightly altered markup in the LGBT advocacy and other roles section to accommodate the updated inline citation. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

LGBT advocacy and other roles and Personal life[edit]

I am back with another request to expand and update the article, based on this proposed draft. The LGBT advocacy and other roles section expands on her work as an LGBT advocate, her roles with the Human Rights Campaign, and involvement in LGBT legislation, as well as other roles that are more on the periphery of her career. This is all new information, not previously included in her Wikipedia biography, and highly relevant to her public career. The proposed Personal life section expands on her relationship with Birch, her residence, and her involvement in politics. I've provided text renderings and markup below:

This should be immediately followed by:

For anyone who may be following along, this markup is the same proposed in the section immediately above this one, but without the "Advocate" reference definition since the source is now defined in the article's Communications consultant section. Thanks for your consideration, and I'm happy to address any questions or concerns. I will be traveling from August 26 to September 5 so if you have questions, I will take them up on my return. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Last request for this article[edit]

I'm back with a final request to update the article, based on this proposed draft. Following implementation of the above edit requests, it seems appropriate to now update the article's infobox and lead. I propose the following, which includes an updated image for the infobox, courtesy of SKDKnickerbocker:

You'll notice the draft also proposes the "See also" link to List of George Washington University people and some additional categories. I've collapse markup for the categories below, for easier copying and pasting:

Extended content

[[Category:1958 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:American communications businesspeople]]
[[Category:American lobbyists]]
[[Category:American political activists]]
[[Category:American political consultants]]
[[Category:American political writers]]
[[Category:American television reporters and correspondents]]
[[Category:American women chief executives]]
[[Category:Businesspeople from New Jersey]]
[[Category:Businesspeople from Washington, D.C.]]
[[Category:CNBC people]]
[[Category:CNN people]]
[[Category:Communications consultants]]
[[Category:Democrats (United States)]]
[[Category:George Washington University School of Business alumni]]
[[Category:LGBT people from New Jersey]]
[[Category:LGBT people from Washington, D.C.]]
[[Category:LGBT rights activists from the United States]]
[[Category:MSNBC people]]
[[Category:People from West Orange, New Jersey]]
[[Category:Recording Industry Association of America]]
[[Category:The Huffington Post writers and columnists]]
[[Category:The Washington Post people]]
[[Category:Writers from New Jersey]]
[[Category:Writers from Washington, D.C.]]

Is there an editor who is willing to implement the proposed infobox, lead, see also section, and categories? I am more than happy to answer any questions or respond to any concerns. Thanks for your consideration. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added the suggested categories. I have not yet reviewed the other parts of the requested edit. I'll leave that for another editor (or circle back to it later). Neutralitytalk 21:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the categories, Neutrality. Since you have opened up the possibility of another editor completing the requested edit, I am here pinging Guy Macon and Champaign Supernova, who have both also responded to requests here, to take a look. The edits proposed above are my final suggestions for this entry. Please let me know if you have any questions at all. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@WWB Too: I am reviewing your last request. Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. If you have any questions along the way, let me know. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
All done here! Thanks very much to everyone who reviewed a draft and helped us get here. I think this article is a much better resource now, and I'm glad this worked out so well. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)