Talk:Susan Roesgen/Archive 1

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


This page seems to be getting a bit of vandalism over the Tea Party Controversy. May need to be restricted if it continues. OK for now, though. --Andrew (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the tone conveyed seems to be of someone fuming mad, dare I say bordering on NPOV? As long as there are references though... (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw this website today,, just by Google-ing "Fire Susan Roesgen." Should it be mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate per WP:BLP and not encyclopedic; also POV. Ms Roesgen is largely known for a few incidents of questionable reporting. A web site dedicated to her firing does not improve the article or advance notable information. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the Tea party section is bad and there's plenty of references. So as long as its well verified it's good. --AirLiner (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
While the Tea Party section itself may not be 'bad', it is presently 75% of the article content, and that is inappropriate for any article (WP:WEIGHT), and downright forbidden in BLPs. Roesgen is largely known for her reporting in dozens of high-profile situations, not for her "questionable reporting." Although this present article would have the casual reader believe otherwise. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Links to videos should not be removed

An Obama supporter is removing all the text and links about the Tea Party incident. The supporter is claiming that the links of unedited video during and after the interview are unreliable. I don't know what you call reliable information if unedited video doesn't fit that category. The text being removed is this: " During the Tea Party protest on Tax Day April 15, 2009, Roesgen stated that some people might find a protester's sign showing President Barack Obama dressed as Hitler offensive.[1] This was in contrast to a 2006 report where she highlighted a protester wearing a Bush mask with a Hitler mustache and devil horns and described him as "a Bush look-alike."[2] While interviewing a father attending a Tea Party in Chicago (holding his 2 year old son in his arms), Roesgen cut the citizen off while he was responding to a question inquiring as to why he was attending the event. "Because I hear a President say he believed in what Lincoln stood for, Lincoln's primary thing was he believed people had the right to liberty and they had the right to..." at which point Roesgen cut the man off. Roesgen began to immediately question the man as to what his point had to do with taxes, as comments and shouts from the man himself and the crowd grew angry for not letting him finish his statement.[3] She went on further to state that the state of Illinois would receive $50 billion from the federal government as a result of the recent Stimulus Bill. Video of this incident circulated on the internet as well as the Fox News Channel. As soon as she went off the air, she was confronted by protesters about her coverage. [4]During the segment she also stated that the anti-tax Tea Parties are anti-government, anti-CNN and "highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network, Fox."[5]. She stated that CNN coverage of the protest was, "not really family viewing."[3]" 23:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)~

HAHA that "Obama supporter" is none other than Gamaliel himself. Guess he was the one tasked to sanitize this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See our rules at WP:BLP. Read them and let me know if you have any questions. These sources are not appropriate according to Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice that Gamaliel is an Obama supporter. Also notice that the jokes by John Stewart are not considered unreliable sources by Gamaliel 00:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) If you

Who I may or may not support is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy is what governs here and it prohibits the use of fringe blogs and youtube as sources for a biographical article about a living person. You are welcome to read the policies here and here and here. Please do so before you edit the article again. Gamaliel (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the Fargo Flood section, it is clearly sourced to a mainstream publication, the New Orleans Times-Picayune. If you think that section shouldn't be here, you are welcome to make a case for its removal and delete it. I don't care much. BLP doesn't come into play regarding mere differences of opinion, only with egregious violations of NPOV and BLP and RS. Gamaliel (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, I've added back the detail and the various videos. I have used strictly reliable sources, such as American Spectator, Mediabistro/TVNewser, Real Clear Politics and the National Review. All four sources, including their political comment are used extensively on wikipedia on both current events and living people. (Even though Gamaliel removed the links to some of these sources before) Lokifer (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The American Spectator unacceptable, and we should probably avoid using a partisan commentary site like National Review for factual citations. (Using them for a comment on the controversy, fine.) There are plenty of acceptable sources which meet WP:RS criteria on this matter, I'm sure. Youtube is gone now, thank you, but the unacceptable tone and level of detail remains. The tone and characterization of her actions fails the NPOV requirement and the level of detail takes us into undue weight territory given how short the article is. Gamaliel (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, why on earth do you keep removing the link to 2009 Tea Party protests? Gamaliel (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is an explanation in detail of my last edit. I removed every factual statement that wasn't attributed to a mainstream factual source (as opposed to commentaries). I removed any statement that characterized her actions in anyway (as opposed to straight factual description). I preserved the commentary sources that were acceptable and used them as sources of commentary as opposed to using them as sources of fact. I think it is at an acceptable length now and might even be lengthened a bit, but only using factual sources and not commentaries. Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some disagreement as to what is NPOV and what isn't, and it doesn't seem fair for Gamaliel to be the sole arbiter. In my own opinion the edits he repeatedly removes are generally NPOV. In those edits, I see description of a controversy without a side being taken. Since there seems to be an impasse between Gamaliel and those who are making reasonable and neutral edits to the page, particularly regarding the acceptability of the news clips referenced, which illustrate facts that those of Gamaliel's political persuasion find inconvenient, it seems that Gamaliel's interpretation of the policies may be just as suspect as he claims the edits he removes. If professional news media clips used as sources are being removed by Gamaliel even though nobody else seems to have a problem with them, shouldn't this be appealed to someone with some kind of authority here, rather than having this ongoing edit war? Censorship on the basis of defending an individual's POV isn't good, and I've seen it at wikipedia before. (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You Tube links are generally not acceptable as they are considered unreliable. See here. This is standard and uncontroversial practice here. You are welcome to use the websites of those media organizations to cite the material you wish to include. You can take this matter up at the BLP noticeboard, but you'll hear the same thing from them. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
"In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution." I think a modicum of common sense indicates that the intent here is to protect against doctored videos being used when they have been edited to convey a message that is false. A media clip from CNN or some other news outlet found on youtube seems to fit within the exception quoted above quite nicely. The undeniable facts that keep getting removed, along with the news clips that prove them, are allowed according to the rules you yourself reference, if they are done so "cautiously", which to me means that the person using them should make every effort to ensure they're not bogus.

As far as taking this up with the powers that be, I'm not savvy enough with wikipedia to know how to contact them, or even make a quality edit to a wikipedia page, though I've experimented. I'm putting this out there and hoping the ones trying to put the facts into this wikipedia page, like Lokifer, will take this up with decision makers and get a final decision so we can stop the censorship of inconvenient truth and unfashionable political dissent.

Otherwise we should all just write wikipedia off as a partisan site. (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be "savvy", all you have to do is follow the link I provided and post there. If you do, they will tell you the same thing I told you. In regards to you tube, what efforts have you made to insure the links are not bogus? Why can't you simply find reliable news sources instead of using a problematic and unreliable web site? Gamaliel (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the only "reliable news source" that was witness to the exchange--CNN--threw the footage into the Bermuda triangle and slams any attempt at publicizing the incident (even w/ 3p live recording, posted in YouTube) with a DMCA takedown notice. DUH. The quotes match the original feed which match the YouTube-posted clips which match 3p recording of the encounter. Hence, it's reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there all, added back in the context about the "not for family viewing" bit. I kept asking myself - what doe she mean, "not for family viewing?" Quoting Lincoln and holding your two-year old is hardly an example of that. Then I saw the video and before Rosegen interview the father, she was interviewing a man holding the "Hitler" placard previously referred to. It appears she was referring to that and several other "offensive" (in her view, I presume) placards.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You still missed the real reason she described the scene as "not for family viewing". In the background, you can hear people yelling obscenities, like "shut up, bitch", "damn CNN" and just seconds after she signs off her report, the gentleman holding the child unleashes a string of obscenities including the "F-bomb" at her. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I watched it live and the interview is online. The feed was cut off before anyone started chanting "Liberal Bias" or before one person yelled slut. On Youtube you can find the extended video/audio segments where she goes around and attempts to further lecture the people she's interviewing and chanting starts up, one person in the background yells slut but is drowned out by the chanting. None of that footage aired live. I have not found any video of the father with the child saying f--k to her.
She conducted herself unprofessionally and lost control of the situation by allowing her personal opinions to cloud her tone and demeanor. This should be mentioned. In my personal opinion and i wish i could find an official Wikipedia Approved Source(TM) with a quote stating so. But Wikipedia is what it is.
She came there assuming everyone there was part of some political right-wing "group." She asked one woman what "group" she was part of. Either that is how the media truly sees the public or that is how they themselves operate. Roesgen has had a number of professional highlights in her career, well executed interviews, calm and balanced reports and pointed but respectful questions. The Tea Party fiasco was a low point and needs to be featured as such. (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I also watched it live, and have seen videos of the event from 3 additional sources, besides CNN. I have a few disagreements with your opinions. 1) The CNN feed wasn't "cut off", the segment closed with a normal hand-off back to the studio. 2) The oscenities shouted in the background during the live report were censored and not broadcast. 3) There are no additional extended segments from CNN on YouTube, but there is some footage from other attendees on YouTube. 4) You'll have to point me to the videos of her lecturing people. I've only seen the ones where she is interviewing people. Perhaps they were pulled? 5) Some have said she acted unprofessionally, while others have applauded her for asking the tough questions and pressing for meaningful answers. I'm sure some folks would prefer she just walk around the event like a living microphone-stand, and not ask any questions, much as the media did during the run-up to the Iraq war. You can't please everyone. Oh, and the woman Roesgen asked about group affiliations, turns out she is a conservative activist that had blogged about what she was going to do at the event the whole week before. She and Roesgen had a productive conversation, if I recall, once she dropped her usual talking points. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
She took great offense when someone called Obama a fascist. However, three years earlier, she joked when someone compared Bush to Hitler. link Grundle2600 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Did you watch the video or just accept the spin? Joked? How so? Anyways, it's clearly OR to link the two events.Jimintheatl (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It's just weird. Is it really that irrelevant that one of the protesters was holding a sign that depicted Obama as Hitler? Many protesters did the same to Bush and it's surely noted elsewhere in Wikipedia. So what's the big deal?--Happysomeone (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


Can we have a few sources that aren't from right wing organizations? I mean, they are designed and paid to put out negative comments about anything against their ideology. I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm simply saying they are not an unbiased source, and it would be nicer to have someone a little calmer on the subject be cited.-- (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As the criticism is from conservative sources, it may address your concern to simply identify them as such.Jimintheatl (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


This article seems to be suffering from recentism, by giving undue weight to recent events. Ms. Roesgen has been a reporter for CNN for four years, and won an Emmy and an AP award; however, perhaps two-thirds of this article is devoted to events that occurred in April 2009. That's pretty seriously imbalanced. In order to comply with the requirements of the biographies of living persons policy, either the recent controversy section should be cut down, or the rest of the article expanded to compensate. Robofish (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This is pathetic

I find it utterly absurd how one user has added non-sense to completely slant the article in favor of Roesgen and against the crowd. The controversy is about her incredibly unprofessional behavior towards one of the protesters and yet a bunch of irrelevancies has been added. I cannot help but find it hilarious how the crowd is mentioned as "the noisy crowd" and yet nothing negative is written about her. It is quite sad. The Red Peacock (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the video of her "incredibly unprofessional behavior" toward the protesters. I have only seen the one where she questions the guy carrying the "Obama dressed as Hitler" sign calling him a fascist, and the best reasoning he can come up with is "because he is," and then moves on to question another guy amid people shouting obscenities at her and CNN, while another protester (wearing a white hat and carrying a Don't Tread on Me flag) keeps interrupting them and pushin the guy away. Darn those "irrelevancies" from reliable sources that keep getting in the way of smearing your media target of the day. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You are obviously brain dead if you really think she was professional. I guess rudely interrupting a protester while he's speaking is quite professional isn't it? The Red Peacock (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, you are going to have to show me what video you are looking at, as the one I've seen doesn't show her to be unprofessional at all. I will agree with you, however, that rudely interrupting a protester while he is speaking is unprofessional, but I don't think he was worried about that -- it sounded like he was just trying to get him away from the cameras. "Sir, sir, sir, sir, sir, sir I need to speak with you over here..." Very unprofessional, but sometimes protest organizers need to be a little forthright with their atendees that go off message, I guess. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Red Peacock - You are correct to think something is amiss. Xeno apparently only saw that portion of the interview in which Susan actively argues with the insane man holding the hitler picture (as if that alone wasn't unprofessional). Apparently he didn't catch her arguing fervently with the suburban dad (discussed at length in the article) on behalf of Obama. And, perhaps most importantly, he clearly didn’t catch how Susan treated individuals who accused Bush of being Hitler just several years ago.[[1]] Obviously I don’t intend for that video to go up in the article, but I include it to demonstrate that Xeno’s Hitler-related argument is, to be charitable, a laughing matter. By the way, RedPeacock. If you ever want something REALLY entertaining to do, I would suggest going to the Keith Olbermann article and looking at the now-infamous “criticism” section in the talk page. A few conservatives were able to play on the Olbermann-worshipers’ intense devotion to him by getting them to go to such great depths to prevent inclusion into the article that it is not possible to read it without wondering if it’s all just a big joke. Seriously – it’s really long but well worth the read. I think a book could be written about it, perhaps as part of a larger effort to study why people are so biased on Wikipedia and – more importantly – why they can’t just be open about it.Jm131284 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
To correct your misconception, Jm, the video I saw showed the man with the "Obama is a Fascist" sign, and also showed the crowd begin to shout "U.S.A" before that, when Roesgen began to speak (seen that before at too many jingoistic conventions), and it also showed the interview with a man holding a child who launched into a speech rather than answer a question posed to him. I didn't see her arguing with either of them; just routine question & answer interviews, with the notable distinction that neither of them answered her questions. I looked at the clip you posted, and I fail to see how it "demonstrates that Xeno’s Hitler-related argument is, to be charitable, a laughing matter." Perhaps you would care to explain in more, and clearer detail? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the Insane Guy's Is Not Worthy Enough To Devote the Entire First Paragraph To Him

As outlined in my comments immediately above, Susan also argued with a man accusing Obama of being a fascist. Xeno attempted to devote the entire first paragraph to the little exchange she had with him - trying especially hard to make him, and hence the others, appear as dumb as possible. For instance, Xeno only included his statement "because he is," when in actually the (concededly insane and dumb) man said "because he is . . . all of the politicians need 1 term limits . . . the pirates are in Washington." But I will adopt the wikipedia assumptions that everyone always says they comply with but really don't and go ahead and just assume Xeno acted in good faith. It must have just been a small mistake. To the extent that her exchange with the first guy - and particularly, any "clipping" of his statements - would be relevant, I would argue (and I could find support) that it would be relevant to the extent of showing the disparity of treatment with which Susan has shown liberals depicting Republican presidents as Hitler and conservatives depicting Democrat presidents as liberals. I can't do it right this second, but in exactly 24 hours I will be able to devote all of my energies to ridding this article of its POV-pushing, laughable structureJm131284 (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote in question takes up a very small part of the paragraph as it is now. Other than your personal point of view that it depicts protestors unfairly, why do you object to including that short quote but not object to the much longer quote by the (much more rationale) man. Because of the "Obama/Hitler" sign and the exchange, it is notably mentioned in all of the reliable sources that describe the incident (which also, incidentally mention that the crowd was noisy and she had to raise her voice). Personally, I think this gets to the much larger issue that the entire incident isn't really significant enough to go into the biography (in six months nobody will remember or care) but if we're going to describe it, we should describe it accurately and let the readers make up their own minds. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, I never introduced the "Obama is a Fascist" gentleman to this article. Nor have I ever clipped anything he said from this article. If anything, I added comments of his. If you'd like to transcribe their whole conversation into the article, be my guest. But as other editors have pointed out, this one Tea Party report already takes up a great portion of this BLP, against WP:WEIGHT. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by The Red Peacock

  • You've reinserted this sentence, A Fox News spokesperson remarked that "Judging by their lack of ratings, everyone seems to be anti-CNN" into this Biography of a Living Person. It was removed because it doesn't add anything to the article, and it is from an unnamed individual that isn't even named as a source. If you'd like to introduce commentary about CNN, perhaps you should do it in the CNN article. This article is about Roesgen.
  • You have also inserted the following content from a blog, National Review contributor Mark Hemingway wrote, "I have never seen a reporter enter the fray and act personally offended by the many, many examples of outrageous behavior at a protest. There's little to be gained by it, and it's simply not professional." This is interesting reading about what Mark Hemingway has and hasn't seen in his days, but all he says about Roesgen is that if she were to do this, it would be unprofessional. We already have a conservative trying to call her unprofessional in the first paragraph, and this addition adds nothing.
  • I also noticed that you seem to be burying anything positive about Roesgen several paragraphs down, after all the criticism. Maybe it's a matter of style, but I think equal weight throughout the section is preferable.

I'd like to know what your thoughts are in more detail on these edits. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You've proven to be nothing more than a hypocrite. You remove the Fox News spokesman, but kept the CNN spokesman quote. Then you remove a National Review criticism saying that is a blog, but then add a blog from the Daily Kos.

As far as burying positive things in the back of the paragraph, just about everyone has refered to this interview in a negative light. The Red Peacock (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC) [2][3][4][5][6][7]

I'll request just once that you refrain from making personal attacks, and unsubstantiated ones at that, thank you. Also, thank you for discussing your edits here. The statement by the FNC spokesperson was removed, as stated above, because it doesn't add to the article, and would be more appropriate in a CNN article. This is still the case, and pointing out that a CNN spokesperson is also quoted (about Roesgen, specifically, mind you) does not change this fact. The National Review blog entry was removed, as stated above, because it was a repeat of an opinion that the interview was unprofessional, and adds nothing new to the article (in addition, there is a second Nat'l Review opinion still there). Please do not misrepresent the reason for those deletions as "because it's from a spokesperson," or "because it's from a blog" when the real reasons are clearly stated above.
As for burying positive content at the bottom of the section, are you justifying that based on your opinion and original research claiming "just about everyone has refered to this interview in a negative light?" Thank you for the links to blogs that show six people didn't like the way Roesgen interviewed the protesters. I'm sure you can find more, just as I can find more that show hundreds of people referring to her interview in a positive light — but in none of those "sources" does it say "just about everyone" thinks one way or another. Both opinions are now represented in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Peacock, have you seen this John King discussion about media coverage of the tea parties? His guests were media people from across the ideological spectrum, and they commented on the Roesgen interview. There is a transcript here. As you would expect, there were critical comments suggesting she "debated" and was dismissive, and "stepped over the line", but conversely, they also said when you have someone throwing firebombs on live television, "you cannot just let that go unchallenged," and, "your responsibility as a journalist [...] is to challenge that and draw that person out." The article presently devotes half of it's content (against WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP rules) to describing that one newcast of Roesgen's, and various third-party opinions about it. There should be a single, concise paragraph about it, and probably nothing more. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The Fox News spokesman was responding to Roesgen and not CNN, I imagine in a fashion mocking her claim that the event was "Anti-CNN". Also the evidence I provided was from newspapers, I highly doubt you could find much support for her. And please I could care less about a CNN round table, of course they are going to defend her. The Red Peacock (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Imagination is a wonderful thing, but unfortunately it doesn't qualify as a reliable source when writing up WP:BLPs. I've looked at the source, and it doesn't specify to whom the comment was directed. Common sense tells us the comment was related to Roesgen's comments (but we still can't do the WP:OR), of course, but the fact remains that it doesn't add anything to the Roesgen article, and would be more suited to the CNN article if anything. For every person you can quote that is critical of Roesgen, I can quote one in defense or even praise of her. The differences follow, as you would expect, typical ideological differences. Conservatives and tea party promoters describe the identical situation differently than Roesgen's supporters do. Was she angry, or did she handle herself well despite the loud crowd and hurled insults? Did she interrupt the interviewees and refuse to let them speak, or was it another protester (see white-hat, yellow-flag guy) that interrupted and actually shut down the interview? Did she unprofessionally debate the protestors, or did she finally grow some balls and ask the hard questions for a change instead of just letting people spew BS unchallenged? Did she yell at protestors, or did she raise her voice just enough to be heard over the din of the crowd? All of these are easily answered by just watching an unedited video of the event, but amazingly, some people see what they want to see when they have their ideological goggles on. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is she "debating" at ALL?? THAT is what's unprofessional. She's a reporter. She's not there to put her opinion into the story, or as she did, thrust herself into the story.
THAT is what's unprofessional.
Simplemines (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
She never debated; never put her opinion or herself into the story; and remained quite calm and professional despite being in a noisy and hostile environment, as noted above. Which event were you referring to? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Calm? Read this from the San Francisco Chronicle

Covering a protest in Chicago, veteran reporter Susan Roesgen lost her cool. She interviewed a man protesting high taxes and government debt with his 2-year-old and began to argue with him: "Do you realize that you're eligible for a $400 credit?" Roesgen asked him. And: "Did you know that the state of Lincoln gets $50 billion out of the stimulus (package pushed by President Obama)?" It was as if Roesgen thought she was White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.[8]

Xeno, I would strongly advise you to start finding some reliable sources for your claims that she was "quite calm", or better yet, anything you have said at the talk page. Your entire argument is based on your opinion of watching the video. I have provided a bunch of reliable sources that all show her interview was poorly conducted. Your dismissal of them as blogs is absurd, as they're coming straight form newspapers. It is quite obvious your owning the article to push a POV based on your original research.The Red Peacock (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

TRP, I don't need reliable sources for my opinions. My opinions aren't going into the article. The article doesn't state she remained quite calm. After viewing videos from 4 different sources taken at that protest, I will repeat that in my opinion, she remained quite calm despite the noisy and hostile environment. You may view the videos and come to a different conclusion, but your opinions aren't going into the article either. Yes, she was criticised as unprofessional, and also praised for asking the tough questions — and the article reflects that. All the other opinions of her interview (angry, calm, combative, biased, brave, argumentative, probing, challenging, insulting, etc.) are subjective, and have no place in a BLP. And no, I don't "own" any articles. If you think I own this one, then, please, accept it as my gift to you. It is now yours. I'll just edit it, and nothing more. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
That is an OpEd. Hardly worthy of the RS designation for contentious material about a living person, see WP:BLP and WP:RS. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This OpEd is prefectly reliable. The author of that article is a professional journalist and the Chronicle is not claiming no responsibility for the opinion. Why should Xeno's opinion trump that of journalist? The Red Peacock (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record she is a columnist, not a reporter. There is a big distinction between those 2 types of journalists. She gets paid for her opinions, not for her reporting. The heart of RS is that the information is fact-checked by an editor and the Chronicle would stand by the comments - that is not the case here. I agree though that the OpEd is perfectly reliable, but it is only perfectly reliable for what this particular columnists thinks. So it could be used in that way, but it would have to be clearly stated that this was her opinion on the incident. Furthermore we would need a reasoning why this particular opinion is relevant and notable see WP:N. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by Evans1982

I have reverted edits made to the article in violation of WP:BLP policy. The edits are inaccurate, controversial and consist of WP:OR and personal commentary. Interjecting personal observations, such as saying she is "angry" when she isn't, or interrupts, when she doesn't, is not allowable. A single report that CNN will not be renewing her contract does not translate into "she was fired"; nor does it specify her contract is up in 2009. These are WP:OR conclusions not supported by the sources, and are intended to demonize the subject of the article. Piling on several similar criticisms, in violation of Undue Weight, does not contribute to the article, and is also only intended to demonize the subject. Stripping direct quotes of certain words to change their tone is also against Wikipedia policy. These edits will continue to be reverted, as per WP:BLP. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Contract not renewed at CNN?

Just a heads-up--Media Bistro is reporting that CNN will not be renewing Roesgen's contract: Susan Roesgen Out at CNN I won't update the article until/unless I can find this reported in an "older-media" source, but just thought I'd post a note here. Anyone seen this reported elsewhere? -- Narsil (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's been in the article for a couple days now. No details as of yet, just that one report. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Her defenders keep removing reference to it, along with further cited discussion of her comments. I expect this will lead to an edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it's been in the article since it was first introduced. You may need to read again, more carefully. I've checked every diff since it was first added to the article, and it is in every single version since then. Perhaps the same source of your confusion is also causing you to confuse defenders of Wikipedia policy with defenders of Roesgen? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can claim to be 'defending Wikipedia policy', but all you are doing is policing the article to ensure it fits your desired angle. I have referred this to a third party; I came to this page to offer a way to peaceably settle any differences. You and TharsHammer simply keep block-undoing revisions to the page, making false claims about 'uncited sources', 'improper sources' and 'violating BPL'. If you have a problem with something being stated twice, remove the less-informative occurrence and note your reason for doing so. If you have a specific complaint about added/removed content, discuss it. It is your behavior that makes your actions suspect, not a failing on my part. This is a community, not your personal fiefdom. 03:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
The problem with your edits has already been described on your talk page. And in the edit summaries. And here on this talk page. For instance, you can not add content sourced to unknown YouTube videos. You can not add your own personal opinions to articles. Inserting adjectives such as "combative", etc. are WP:OR and have no place in WP:BLPs. These are just a few of the problems. These edits will be reverted on sight, as instructed by BLP policy. There is no "third opinion" about this, the policy is clear. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability, references and fluff as the article matures and celebrity status of subject recedes.

I have removed unreferenced, non-notable and unsupported lists of things the reporter reported on. Wikipedia is not a travel diary or CV. (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I reverted the edit while browsing vandalism in Huggle. If I was in error, I apologize to and the other editors on this article. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
With regards to the removal of information because it "isn't notable", I do not agree with that as an applicable reason. The fact that a person was born in 1932 isn't notable either, yet we include dates of birth in biographies routinely. Information indicating that a person was born in Tinbucket, Ohio, or happens to be married, isn't notable either, yet we include such information. It is the subject of the article that must be notable, not every word of information contained in the article. You could make an argument to remove the information based on notability if it were defamatory or contentious; you could possibly make that argument if the article was already overly long and required trimming. Neither applies in this case, and I don't see that we are in danger of running out of pixels. Being sent on location of major news stories as a reporting correspondent is actually a pretty big deal among the news-heads, if I recall, as a sort of status symbol.
I do see that the article has been recently active due to a news report she did that ruffled the feathers of some conservatives, but stripping away all other activities of this reporter except that one 3 minute event results in highlighting that event — whether intentionally or unintentionally. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm unaware of any recent news, "conservative" or otherwise. Do you have a link? My edits: [9] are neutral and reflect no point of view. (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
You have misunderstood. To clarify, I said the article has been recently active (since April 15) due to a news report she did that ruffled the feathers of some conservatives, but stripping away all other activities of this reporter except that one 3 minute event results in highlighting that event — whether intentionally or unintentionally. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Removed non-notable mention of her reporting on Petersen case. Wiki is not a diary - please establish the notability of a reporter reporting.

Correct, Wikipedia is not a diary, and neither is the Roesgen article. Adding content about her larger assignments while at CNN has nothing to do with diaries. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Removed section heading and returned sentence to the CNN paragraph as it belongs to her CNN relationship. No notability of any kind has been suggested to her career relationship with Katrina.

Non-notable, so delete it from the article; Non-notable, so leave it in the article. Interesting. Just an FYI, all of these assignments "belong to her CNN relationship." Xenophrenic (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jenna Six

I removed unsupported Jenna Six claim. Wiki credits the following for breaking the story: Jenna Times, Town Talk, Chicago Tribune, Left Turn, BBC, AP, MTV, CSM, NYT and others - not Roesgen.

I'll also add that CNN's Seth Callebs appears to be the one who broke crucial interviews related to the story: [10] (As already mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia...) (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No idea who "Seth Callebs" (sic) is, but he was nowhere near Jenna (sic) when the above mentioned events were unfolding. Roesgen was in Jena as early as July 1, 2007, and doing exclusive interviews with the parents of some of those involved. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Removed list of things that happened to Jackson and non-notable attachment of Roesgens name as the Reporter who along with hundreds of others reported the event.

Already addressed above, along with the rest of the assignments you are attempting to purge. Just out of curiosity, exactly which Wikipedia policy are you citing to justify these massive deletions? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Enough with the teabaggers who pop up every few days, we should try to have the article semi-protected again. Remember folks, this is a BLP. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
As pointed out above and referenced, My edits: [11] are neutral and reflect no point of view. Your attack is without merit and recklessly uncivil. (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Your deletions have been reverted by several editors, all of whom have used this talk page, yet your edit summary says, "Please use Talk to achieve consensus." I think you misunderstand. You say there is nothing notable about a "reporter reporting", and then you edit in her reporting on Katrina into the first CNN paragraph -- all while missing the point that informative content that is notable to one reader may not be notable to another. The key point can be found at WP:NOTABILITY:
These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles.
And by the way, TharsHammar never attacked you; he was expressing frustration with anonymous teabaggers that frequent this article with disruptive editing. If you aren't one, then he wasn't talking to you. If you are one, then consider yourself notified that you frustrate him; no attack was made. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
We were talking about your removal of content based on your personal opinion that said content was not notable. Other editors have disagreed with your action. Why are you trying to steer this into a discussion about "point of view" and "neutrality"? You have yet to address your notability reasoning as justification for large deletions. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
[Comment removed][...and moved here for continuation]

This isn't the place to "call out" particular editors and launch attacks against them. If anyone has a problem with another editor, deal with it while keeping a civil tongue or request assistance from an administrator or through dispute resolution. This applies to everyone, not just the person whose comment I removed. Gamaliel (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in principle we should comment on the content, not the contributor, my comment was in relation to the teabaggers who show up every few days and attack this WP:BLP. The article really should be indef semi-protected again, and one of the places to discuss such an issue is on the talk page of the article in question. It did happen once before [12]. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 22:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Marriage Status

I notice her marriage status has been presented as both married and unmarried, but I haven't seen a reliable source indicating either. Does anyone know of a source? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Susan Roesgen is an Emmy award winning American reporter.

Nope. Never happened. [13] [personal comments removed]. (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You've already been warned about making such personal comments. Keep you comments related to content, please. Gamaliel (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Note that your link is to a search of primetime Emmys only, leaving out daytime Emmys, technical awards, etc. Her CNN bio notes the Emmy. Perhaps you should turn the heat down a bit before you make another false accusation. Gamaliel (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How about the name of this "documentary" wiki claims she won an Emmy for? Her CNN bio makes no specific claim that she won an Emmy. (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How about an apology for your unfounded accusations? How about finding the information yourself? Gamaliel (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing to find. Only Wikipedia makes the claim. (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Any hints as to which award? Daytime? Technical? We already know it's not for a standard Emmy, how many others are there? Do we a category? A year? Title of work? Which channel? Do any of them write a press release? Surely somewhere, somehow, someplace, mention is made of this "Emmy" we speak of here. (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Her CNN Bio does indeed reference the Emmy Award, as does her Alma Mater's newspaper before that, and the National Gepgraphic News as far back as 2001, long before her Wikipedia article existed. So you are incorrect in claiming "only Wikipedia makes the claim". If you are looking for additional details on the award, I'd suggest looking pre-2001, but most of that information is unfortunately not yet available in online databases. Most of the above applies to the Louisiana Associated Press Award (mentioned below), as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Those are all self-reported from the same source - Roesgen. All are written using nearly identical wordings - the Emmy claim has merely evolved over time from an outright statement of fact in 2001 -"Roesgen is the recipient of an Emmy award for her documentary on the theft of artifacts from New Orleans historic cemeteries" to a vague, non-specific claim of involvement "Her reporting experience also includes live broadcasts of rocket launches at Cape Canaveral, an Emmy-award winning documentary on thefts in New Orleans historic cemeteries".
Unsupported and contested first-hand, vague, non-specific, unverifiable claims have no place in an Encyclopedia. (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
A claim to have won an Emmy Award REQUIRES a reliable source. Nothing could be easier to verify. Vague, self-serving claims on a self-written bio don't cut it on a subject like an award. (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing in any of those sources that preface the information with, "According to Susan Roesgen...". Your conclusion that the content is false or unreliable, based upon your unsupported assumption that the information is "self-written" sounds like a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The fact that the citations include news and journalistic sources would imply a certain level of fact-checking and integrity, would it not? Is there information you have found that contradicts the awards content that prompts you to question it with such single-minded (according to the edit histories of your IP accounts) purpose? If so, please share it; or is there another motivation? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
CNN did not plagiarize the prose from NG - it was written from the same hand, as all Bio's are. The Emmy awards don't exist in a vacuum, the reason we can't verify it is because it doesn't exist. There was no Emmy for Roesgen, the article is incorrect. We have only Roesgen making the claim and no verifiable - secondary, neutral, reliable source to support it. It never happened. That's why the Emmy's Official List doesn't list her as having the award either. Because she didn't get one. (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
So the Emmy's don't list her as an official winner ... because, why? Was she a secret winner? The only Emmy winner without a trail? (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The Emmys do list her, which is evident once you know the difference between the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and International Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, and their different methods of categorization. Her awards are already reliably sourced in the article. My previous unanswered questions remain. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If she's listed by the Emmys, please provide a link to the list if it is online, or if it is not online, please provide a source in the article. No sense in prolonging this if we can clear it up instantly. Thanks. 21:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are lists of Emmy Winners:

Roesgen's name is not to be found on any of them. Nor is it supported by any secondary source. We don't even know which year, channel or title of show. It never happened, that's why the details don't exist and nothing corroborates it. (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There are many, many Emmy categories that are not on these WP lists. My ex's father has a mantelpiece full of technical Emmys, but if we follow your logic, those Emmys I saw never existed because he's not listed on Wikipedia or the Emmy website. There's no compelling reason here to dispute CNN or National Geographic. Gamaliel (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
All Emmy's are listed. Somewhere. This one should not have been mentioned until a reliable neutral source was produced. It is the proper way. (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[personal attack/rant removed]

Agreed. Her awards weren't mentioned until they were cited to reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

FOUND IT --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

...and it's already in the article. Nice of you folks to mention it here. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. The content was already reliably sourced, so the addition of yet another source (only primary, at that) didn't seem like reason enough to trumpet its addition here. Thanks for the effort, and my apologies that it was duplicated. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Susan Roesgen won a Louisiana Associated Press Award for her reporting in Israel

Which Award? What Story? Employer/Affiliation? When?

Ummm, no supporting evidence for this one either. Nothing. Any guesses as to when? How about where? How about a single neutral reference? (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried google? Gamaliel (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I have. No success, but then its not incumbent on me to prove a negative. Content should be supported with neutral references. (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor's job includes finding such references. Why not pitch in and help? Gamaliel (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
So the unsupported and vague claim stays until it's proven? (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
No, and your comment has nothing to do with what I just said. So how about pitching in to help find references? Gamaliel (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I did look - that's why this section was created. After an extensive search I could find no such thing. No mention of it exists anywhere. No category, no year, no story title, I can't even find the name of any newspaper or station she was at when supposedly given the award. No AP press release - no record or mention of it at all. No award anywhere - except of course, here. (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
How could you not find with your "extensive search" what Xenophrenic and I found instantly with a cursory google search? I don't think you should throw around accusations directed at other users just because they can't find sources you can't seem to locate. Gamaliel (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Please share your reference for the award. (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

To the editor that removed the [citation needed] Tag. Where is this cited? Which Award? What Story? Employer/Affiliation? When? (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It is cited in one of the footnotes at the end of that sentence. I checked myself before I removed the tag. Gamaliel (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It's incumbent upon you to support the claim you've entered into the encyclopedia. The "three" ref's you point to are all variations of her self-written biography - one in an Alumni newsletter, another in her self-bio at CNN and the third her self-bio at NG.
Please answer as to - Which Award? What Story? Employer/Affiliation? When? - (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The claim is supported by the reference. If you wish more detailed information, please assist us in researching the subject of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
As you have no reliable citation as to, "Which Award? What Story? Employer/Affiliation? When?" and are requesting assistance I will leave the un-cited info in the article but return the cite tag to the vague, unsupported claim. (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
As the award is clearly supported by the reference, I will remove the tag again. I will replace it with a more relevant tag. Gamaliel (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
On what basis do you claim that "the award is clearly supported by the reference"? Please support your contention. I see no viable ref, only a unsupported vague claim. (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The reference says "Roesgen is the recipient of...a Louisiana Associated Press Award for her reporting in Israel." Nothing vague about that. Do you want to know more? I do to. But that's not the same thing as the facts being unsupported by the reference. Everyone's time is better spent looking for sources than fighting about it here. Gamaliel (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
We do not ignore unsupported claims. Nothing has been referenced to even support the existence of any such award. Nor has any date, affiliation, title of work or any other even beginnings of proper citation. (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You continue to talk as if the source does not exist. It clearly does and is at the end of the paragraph. If you are not satisfied, find another one, but please stop wasting our time with this nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
"Which Award? What Story? Employer/Affiliation? When? What exactly is, in your words, "wasting our time with this nonsense." When did properly supporting an edit become such an intolerable burden that you feel it "nonsense" to respond? (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It has become clear that certain actions taken by you have unfortunately placed an intolerable burden upon the other editors working on this article and it is hoped that you will cease such activities and learn to adhere to the norms of Wikipedia editing which encourage civility and goodwill towards all. Good day, sir. Gamaliel (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Louisiana AP Award revisited

I find the IP's question reasonable, even if the style of asking it is somewhat repetitive.

Let's look at what the article now says:

She also won a Louisiana Associated Press Award for her reporting in Israel.<ref>[ CNN] Reporter Profile</ref><ref>[ University of Montana] Winter, 2005 ''Collegian''</ref><ref name=ngeo>[ National Geographic News] July, 2001</ref>

And now let's look at those sources. CNN and U Montana pages: no mention of this award (no appearance of the string "Louisiana" that my browser can see). So we're down to a single source.

Next question: Does this award even exist? I tried Googling for it minus Roesgen. The results are underwhelming. People do mention it, but usually (exclusively?) in LinkedIn and similar self-promotional stuff. (Incidentally, the same search with "AP" instead of "Associated Press" brings not a single hit.) Doing the same search at Google News brings a grand total of zero (0) hits. So I suspect that even if Roesgen got the award, it's not one worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article.

Of course, it's imaginable that the name has got garbled in some other way. Maybe she genuinely got the genuinely notable "AP Louisiana Prize" or whatever: I lack the patience to search for all of the possibilities. -- Hoary (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Always nice to speak to a reasonable editor for a change here. For what it's worth, I searched some newspaper databases for this and found nothing on Roesgen's specific award, but the award does appear to exist and I found articles about other winners. I suspect Roesgen's award is older than the coverage of the newspaper databases. Other than NYT and very few newspapers, even the most extensive database coverage will only go back to the mid to late 90s at best. Gamaliel (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
And it's always pleasant to infer that people think I'm reasonable; but, uh, let's cut short the small talk and get straight to the nitty gritty. First, am I right in saying that two of the three "sources" aren't actually sources? (I don't say that they never were, but they don't seem to be now.) If I'm right, then I suggest that you zap those two footnotes. -- Hoary (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Read them again, and you're right. I suspect they were end of the paragraph footnotes from an earlier version. I could have sworn I've read multiple sources mentioning that award, but this crap has been going on for so long I couldn't tell you where and when. Gamaliel (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The other two footnotes apply to the Emmy award as shown 2 weeks ago. They have become misplaced in all the edit warring. It's possible that the AP award was for something minor; we just don't know. It doesn't have to be taken out. However, I wonder how much it adds for a reader given the lack of details. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:PRESERVE, something believed likely to be verifiable (such as Roesgen's AP award) should be kept but tagged. Also, per WP:RS, assertions by Wikipedia must be supported by reliable secondary sources; thus, perhaps the most informative tag to be fixed in this case would be "Failed verification."
Lacking such verification, if the assertion is to remain, WP practice (via proscriptive guidelines, not merely a description of the "practice of contributors") is to make sure that not-yet-reliably-supported info remains tagged -- in my opinion. No? ↜Just M E here , now 10:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bush = Hitler-Satan / Obama ≠ Fascist

Added ref for Roesgen reaction to Hitler iconography being different depending on Party of the President. Prose could be worked on, but the criticism appears to have been central to the controversy. (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's two things wrong with this. One is that you are sticking in an accusation of hypocrisy in the middle of a factual paragraph. The other is that you are using two very dubious sources, a student newspaper and a fringe partisan group. If you want to accuse her of hypocrisy, find a reliable source, a mainstream columnist who does so, and then add it to the other criticism. Since this is a WP:BLP and must be held to the highest standard, I'm going to remove the offending material until you have a reliable source for it. Gamaliel (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If you feel the prose needs to be moved, do so. There is absolutely nothing in the least wrong with the citing of an award winning newspaper continuously in print since 1872. It's a newspaper[14], and is just as reputable as the The Harvard Crimson or any other top flight University newspaper - it meets all standards for reliability in presence, oversight, etc... (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
As conclusive evidence of the reliability of the newspaper I'll quote Wikipedia, "Several staff members of The Daily Reveille have been recognized for individual journalism awards including Hearst Awards, SPJ awards and Louisiana Press Association awards." Members of the paper have been awarded the same apparent award we claim Roesgen as having earned. (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You've made no comment regarding the other issues raised. Gamaliel (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If you feel the mention needs to be rewritten or moved to another section, please do so. (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the pedigree of the newspaper, the idea of equating student commentary with professional, reliable sources is absurd, and that student's opinion shouldn't be dropped in the middle of a factual paragraph. Gamaliel (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal opinions about the newspaper's senior commentator[15] are beyond our remit. (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no personal opinion about Daniel Lumetta. I have a general opinion that the op-ed writings of students are not encyclopedic. Gamaliel (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We've already had a pile-on of criticisms and praise back when the Chicago event was fresh, and it has been consolidated back down to almost compliant (with WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP) size since then. The article presently reflects that she has been criticized. As for the Satan/Hitler/Bush/Money-man costumed guy from 2006, your opinion piece from the 22-year old states only this:

Many asked where Roesgen’s outrage was when a leftist protestor in 2006 compared former President George W. Bush to Hitler and Satan. Comparisons of short-lived right-wing protestors and constant hysterical left-wing protestors quickly sprouted up across the Internet as a result of Roesgen’s coverage.

The content you added to the article doesn't reflect those two sentences, and frankly, I don't see anything in those two sentences that would improve this BLP. (And no, I'm not even going to address the MRC citation; unreliable as a source.) Roesgen, if I recall, asked the Chicago protester why he was calling Obama a fascist, noting that it was offensive. The Satan/Hitler/Bush/Money-man costumed guy didn't call anyone a fascist, nor was he even interviewed, if I'm recalling the right event. I understand you are trying to inject the taint of hypocrisy into the article by "contrasting" Roesgen's response to listening to Obama being called a fascist with her response to viewing a man wearing a Satan/Hitler/Bush/Money-man costume. Maybe she sees "fascism" as more offensive - who's to say? Not us. All that aside, your content entry says Roesgen "stated" something she didn't, and draws "contrasts" not reflected in the source. The 22-year old simply noted that people questioned where Roesgen's "outrage" was 4 years ago, and we don't need to air that rhetorical question here in a BLP. The irony is, had she expressed "outrage" at that costume, I'm sure someone would have criticized her for being "confrontational and unprofessional". Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Your point, "that people questioned where Roesgen's "outrage" was 4 years ago", is critical to our encyclopedic understanding of the incident. The fact that Google has over 200,000 hits on the term "Roesgen Hitler"[16] is not in itself a viable reference. It is however indicative of the criticism that has been directed at Roesgen. The newspaper describes the turmoil, it observes and records. It is precisely what we look for - a reliable source that supports and references the moment. (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You misread. That people feigned concern about an event almost 4 years after it happened, just because it was politically expedient to do so, is not "my point". That came from your 22-year old student. How, exactly, does it help our "encyclopedic understanding" of the 2006 event? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Google searches are never used to establish the notability of a subject or incident. Like "online polls" they're meaningless for determining how widespread something is within the larger society. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

These two new "sources" don't make the case either. One is from a youtube clip on the page of a fringe group (doubly inappropriate!) and the other is a clip of the CNN coverage on MMFA's website, which has nothing to do with the 2006 allegations. Gamaliel (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Xeno has completely removed and is now apparently trying to argue that Roesgen never "stated that some people might find a protester's sign showing President Barack Obama dressed as Hitler offensive." Here's the transcript using the referenced source in the article:

  • ROESGEN: Wait. Why do you say he's a fascist? He's the president of the United States.
  • UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is a fascist.
  • ROESGEN: Do you realize how offensive that is?
  • UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he's a fascist.
  • ROESGEN: Why?
  • UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because he is.
  • ROESGEN: In what way can you say that?
  • ROESGEN: Why be so hard on the president of the United States, though, with such an offensive message?

I will agree that she doesn't say "some people".It is her that finds it offensive, point blank she irrefutably states, "Do you realize how offensive that is?" I will change the prose accordingly. (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, you misread. Roesgen asked the protester if he realized calling Obama a fascist was offensive. She said nothing about how Obama dresses, or about mass-murderers. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not really hypocrisy on her part than institutional bias and hypocrisy in all news media. I mean, according to FOX News, liberals hate the president—even in a time of war, they shove their values down your throat, they're against free speech, and they love to play the victim, and they're mainstream. Sceptre (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an Encyclopedia - it's intended to be a neutral compendium of facts. Your reference links to a comedy show, it has nothing to do with the subject of this article nor with her ill-famed notability. (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
It's good that you picked up on that. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
You misread the source (for the 4th time now, but who's counting). You introduced content that claims "Roesgen stated that she found the description of Obama as a fascist offensive", which she never did. She asked questions. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
How is saying "Do you realize how offensive that is?" not equivalent to implying that it is offensive? Are you okay? (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, making illogical arguments - actually, your statement was an illogical sentence, not just an illogical argument - only stifles constructive argument on Wikipedia. All I can conclude is that that must be your goal. (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
We should, at all times, report what the subject of the article says and not report inferences or extrapolations based on what the subject of the article says. There's absolutely no reason you can't simply do the former in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Your wildly inaccurate conclusion perfectly demonstrates how easy it is to miss the simple meaning of a sentence when you are busy manufacturing implied meanings instead. I made no argument, illogical or otherwise; I merely stated a fact. If you really want me to instruct you in the difference between asking, stating and implying, and why Wikipedia editors should care, you just let me know. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Funny that you mention the distinction between "asking" and "stating." In courts of law, a witness' testimony that another asked the witness a question may be considered hearsay even though a statement must be an "assertion" to constitute hearsay. The rationale is that the question implies an assertion. For instance, if a witness testifies that another asked him "Why is John Doe so bruised?" it is hearsay because it is equivalent to an assertion that John Doe was bruised. This is just basic logic, but I think it has become eminently clear from these articles that logic has no place on Wikipedia. [Special:Contributions/|]] (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the example. If I may ask you a question based on your example: If I were to read the transcript of that court session, generated by the court-reporter, would it say the witness was told by another party that John Doe was bruised? Or would it say the witness says he was asked by another party, "Why is John Doe so bruised?" While the attorneys and judge can argue what was asserted in the exchange between the two witnesses, the court-reporter must not do so. Nor should Wikipedia editors when building an article. We stick as close to the reliable sources as possible, and let the readers extrapolate the logical assertions on their own. Even when, as sometimes happens, the unstated logical conclusion is painfully obvious. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Your hypothetical is inapposite. In this case, the article says neither that Susan found the statements offensive nor asked the question “Do you realize how offensive that is?” By not including the latter, you're not even "let[ting] the readers extrapolate the logical assertions on their own." But to answer your question, the record would reflect the witness' testifying about the question and the Judge's agreement with an objecting attorney that the question was hearsay because it was equivalent to an assertion that John Doe was bruised. Would you like to submit an alternative argument? (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, since I completely agree with you about how Wikipedia editors should act as "court-reporters," I am going to include Susan's question "Do you realize how offensive that is?" in the article - unaltered, of course, with no commentary so that the reader may "extrapolate the logical assertions on their own." Thank you! (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Good edit. Well supported, logical, concise and eminently reasonable. (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

An alternative argument? No, but I will take a stab at building on the fine argument with which we are presently working. My hypothetical is apposite, within the constraints of the analogy we have set up: Wikipedia editors as court reporters; witnesses, evidence and attorneys as reliable sources; and the readers as the jury. You are correct that the article does not say that Roesgen found the statements offensive, and also does not transcribe the whole dialog. However, you omit the fact that the full transcript of the exchange is cited at that point. Exhibit 3A - the convenience store security video tape, if you will. Therefore, your postulate that we are "not even letting the readers" draw their own conclusions falls flat. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, since we are in agreement that the readers should be allowed to extrapolate the logical assertions on their own, I think it prudent that we avoid leading or steering them by only presenting them with certain cherry-picked segments of the transcript. As such, I'll remove them from the article. Do you have any suggestions as to how we can make the full transcript more accessible to the casual reader? In-line citations seem to get lost in the prose. Maybe a Wikiquote link? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I reluctantly agree with here. Xeno essentially agrees with 65&etc. that the task is to report the exchange that took place as it happened but not commentate on the implications of each person's statements, i.e., allow the reader to draw their own inferences. Xeno's contention is that the quoted question need not be included because the full transcript is available to the reader; however, someone could just as easily say that other quotes in this article need not be introduced if the source in which they appear has already been cited. I do not believe this is a persuasive argument. Regardless, everyone agrees that quotes should be introduced without commentary; this is precisely what 65&etc did. My opinion on the matter would be drastically different if the subject of Roesgen's question - the man who labeled President Obama a fascist - had not been mentioned already in the article. Since he is, I think it is appropriate to include the question - particularly given that Roesgen's dialogue with the other person listed in the previous sentence was included.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Please, Iadmitmy, don't misrepresent my contention. My preference is to have the content convey that Roesgen interviewed some people at a protest, which was then criticised, defended, or otherwise commented upon - and direct the reader to the full transcript for the verbal exchange. I never said, "that the quoted question need not be included because the full transcript is available to the reader", so you have misread. My point was that incorrectly claimed that we weren't giving the reader all the info, when in reality the whole transcript was provided. My suggestion is to remove all portions of the transcript from the article.'s last edit was to select just one of Roesgen's many questions, and slip it into the article. I removed it while discussion continues. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I hope I did not offend you by attempting to understand your position. That was not my purpose. I agree with you that 65&etc. was incorrect in stating that the reader wasn’t given all the info. However, I agree with 65&etc. that the question should nevertheless be included. There are exactly two protestors specifically referred to in the paragraph – the one who called President Obama a fascist and the one that praised Abraham Lincoln. Roesgen’s dialogue with the one praising Abraham Lincoln was included, including her questions to him. I think this is good: it gives context to the events that transpired and allows the reader to come to their own conclusions regarding whether this was truly “controversial.” Similarly, because the man calling President Obama a fascist is referred to in the paragraph, it is beneficial to include her dialogue with him, including her questions. Maybe the solution is to also include his response to the question (“I think he’s a fascist,” and [to Roesgen’s Question “Why?”] “Because he is”). Thoughts? Also, I’m sure you already know this, but the question 65&etc. inserted is not at all controversial (who WOULDN’T ask that question?) so I don’t understand what the big fuss is about by including it.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
All good points. (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The fuss was not about including a quoted question from Roesgen. The fuss was about including just one of her many questions, and not the others, and not the responses. Cherry-picking. As I stated before, my preference is to remove all quoted dialog between reporter and protestors, and direct the reader to the full transcript. The alternative would be to include every single word of the transcript in the article, which isn't really feasible. Selectively choosing just some questions and some answers from the transcript for inclusion in the article does not appear to be an option, as that will inevitably leave part of the story untold. So what is your preference? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Xeno, I understand your position, as I think everyone else here does. It has not carried the day. There is no general right to filibuster on Wikipedia. Thus, unless you want to submit this to arbitration or something, it is over.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I find it strange that a user as new as you are would know what aboration is.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 01:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Surely you are kidding. It was one of the first things I read about! I was informed that my username may be "offensive" (see my user talk page) and clicked on the "dispute resolution process" link and saw the info about arbitration.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I doubt he was kidding. It is a reasonable concern, since you appear to have misinterpreted WP:Consensus as well. "Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action." I asked you what your preferred solution was in my previous post, and you ignored it; you instead implemented an edit that indicates you wish to perpetuate the problem rather than resolve it. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly clear that I chose neither. You do not have the authority to say "Available to you are choices X and Y, pick one." I pick neither.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
If an editor disagrees with your edit, then your going to need consensus, with you have none of. Simple.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 02:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, you chose to perpetuate the problem - that's what I said above. (And no-go on your red herring about me telling you to choose between two choices; I did no such thing. I explained why just inserting cherry-picked quotes is a problem, and asked you to suggest a solution.) I'll repeat my request for your input; more voices = better solutions. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Xeno - I reverted it to the way you had it. Your suggestion basically conforms to what I argued. Roesgen's question to the protestor + his response. It is up to the reader to interpret.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion, for those still following along (quoted from above): My preference is to have the content convey that Roesgen interviewed some people at a protest, which was then criticised, defended, or otherwise commented upon - and direct the reader to the full transcript for the verbal exchange. Adding in just cherry-picked quotes from the full context transcript was your suggestion. See my proposal section below. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

CNN Frank Sesno Transcript clearly shows him critical of Roesgen as having "Stepped over the line" and "debating him, which is a problem"

I've corrected the Sesno section. Sesno never "defended Roesgen for not letting statements go unchallenged." He criticized Roesgen - he defended the principle that reporters in general should challenge. Sesno is critical and clearly agrees that Roesgen may have "stepped over the line".

Again (5th time), you have misinterpreted the source, and even misquoted it. It is Cox that clearly thinks Roesgen stepped over the line by debating a protestor. Sesno, on the otherhand, thinks debating him is a problem, but insists when someone is tossing serious words around like facism, it's the journalist's responsibility to challenge it. You entered the following text about Sesno into the article: he thought she "may have stepped over the line". That exact quote does not appear anywhere in the transcript, and the meaning conveyed by that fake quote is a little different than what he actually said (see below). Here is what Sesno "thought":
Words like "fascist" are very serious words. And your responsibility as a journalist, it seems to me, to be out there, is to challenge that and draw that person out. It doesn't mean getting into a debating contest with him. And maybe she stepped over the line with that, but that's an important thing to call people out on. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • KURTZ: Did Susan Roesgen come off as biased there?
  • CARPENTER: Well, there's a number of problems with this.

The first part that I think is problematic -- I mean, you can go to any one of these protests, you're going to find a guy like that, no matter who the president, whether it's Bush -- I mean, went I went to antiwar things there was -- you had on sticks (ph) and things that I can't repeat here that were commonly said. That clip got picked up widely in conservative circles, not because of the interview she did with the guy calling Obama a fascist, but with the confrontation that she got involved with, with the man holding a toddler. He said things that we can't air because he got so angry. And she was throwing Obama talking points at him, saying, why don't you know what the president's essentially going to do for you?

  • KURTZ: She was debating him.
  • SESNO: She was debating him, which is a problem. On the other hand -- and I've been there, OK? You're on live television, you have somebody who's throwing, you know, firebombs at the camera, and you cannot just let that go unchallenged.

Words like "fascist" are very serious words. And your responsibility as a journalist, it seems to me, to be out there, is to challenge that and draw that person out. It doesn't mean getting into a debating contest with him. And maybe she stepped over the line with that, but that's an important thing to call people out on.

  • COX: Well, she did step over the line on that. And also, what's unfortunate about that clip is she didn't ask him and challenge him about the definition of fascism.
  • SESNO: That's right.
  • COX: But she actually just sort of said, no, he's not.
  • SESNO: That's right.
  • COX: Whereas asking him for the definition, asking for, well, why do you think he's a fascist and sort of trying to get -- you know, because that is a perspective, that maybe it was more than just one or two people. I have to say, at the D.C. protest, the word "fascism" got thrown around a lot.
  • CARPENTER: Well, at any big protest you're going to get against a president -- I mean, we saw it against Bush. So why would you interview that guy?
  • KURTZ: But then in her closing remarks, Susan Roesgen sounded dismissive to me of the whole protest.
  • SESNO: That's right.
  • KURTZ: And it was just because of the right-wing network Fox and so forth. (Edit: This last line added by Xenophrenic from the transcript for completeness.) (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

While Roesgen's interview has been criticized as confrontational, Sesno also makes it clear that it was her responsibility to challenge the interviewee, albeit without debating him. Introducing statements that Sesno "thought" this or that, when he doesn't explicitly say so, is WP:OR. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Sesno never "defended Roesgen for not letting statements go unchallenged." He criticized Roesgen - he defended the principle that reporters in general should challenge. Sesno states that Roesgen may have "stepped over the line", criticizes her for "debating him, which is a problem" and finds her to be "dismissive of the whole protest". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Not really. And you are misquoting him yet again. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits in violation of WP:BLP, WP:3RR, WP:COATRACK and consensus

Many of the recent edits have been flatly reverted, by several editors, for a variety of reasons. That is your indication that those edits are contested, and should therefore be discussed before the edits are repeated. Rather than edit war, we should try to achieve consensus here on what should or should not be added to this biography, and in what manner. The recent spate of edits appear to fall into two catagories.

(1) Repetitious insertion of opinion after opinion of people expressing their disapproval of, with their variety of adjectives, Roesgens confrontational 3 minute interview.

Repeating the concerns discussed above: It is unnecessary to pile on a multitude of praise and criticisms from a variety of sources when they don't add anything new to the biography. The article already conveys that these opinions exist, without the need to inflate the section with numerous repetitions. The catalog of opinions from both sides was narrowed down to a single representative sample of each back in May. A case has yet to be made for turning that section into a bloated opinion showcase. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(2) Insertion of content trying to "contrast" Roesgen's 3-minute report from the Chicago protest with a 2006 1-minute report from another protest.

Besides the obvious violations of using YouTube videos, MRC and other non-WP:RS as sources, content that says "Roesgen stated that she...", or "she highlighted...", or "This was in contrast to..." are misleading, or outright false. Beyond that, can someone explain to me what, exactly, you are trying to introduce here - and just how it improves the biography? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You have again, with this revert, introduced into this WP:BLP a quotation that does not exist; a claim that a statement was made when it was not; citations to sources that Wikipedia deems unreliable and insufficient; and attempted to coatrack several similar criticisms without explanation here. Once again, please cease. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This behavior is completely unacceptable. If this continues, blocks and page locks may be used to prevent further infractions of Wikipedia policies. Note that this applies to all editors, and uncivil behavior or 3RR breaking by one editor does not justify the same behavior from another. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


She is controversial, but is she notable? The only item of note appears to be her coverage of a protest and this is probably covered exhaustively elsewhere. Maybe this should just merge to the CNN article or a some suitable sub article of it. Jmcnamera (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You could always propose a deletion of the article, or a merge. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, while you are allowed your opinion as to what content in an article is notable or not, your opinion is not grounds for deleting it. Especially when those deletions are contested by other editors. It is the subject of the article that must be notable, not every single boring fact contained in that article. Please discuss before making such deletions in the future. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The same can be said for your reinsertions of including non-notable items that makes this appear to be a vanity page. Jmcnamera (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it really can't. What is non-notable to you may be notable to others. Being married isn't notable, nor even very interesting, but if it is a sourced fact about the subject of the article, it goes in. Doing an on-location report from the Giza pyramids, or from the path of a hurricane, or getting an exclusive interview with the parents of a Jena Six victim may not be notable to you, but if it is a sourced fact about the subject of the article, it goes in. The only "vanity" issues Wikipedia is concerned with are those dealing with conflict of interest. You still have not cited an applicable Wikipedia policy to support your edits. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with JMC. Notability through verifiable reliable, third-party, published sources is required. The article is largely a regurgitation, and at times outright plagiarized copy, of three nearly identical self-written bios. One from CNN, one from NG, and one from an Alumni newsletter. It lacks any secondary sourcing, let alone third party reliable sourcing for the inclusion of such trivial items as her presence with 6,500 other reporters at Michael Jackson's funeral or routine coverage of a local investigation like Petersen. The prose doesn't even attempt so much as a stab at notability - just lists it as if notability were self-evident, like a walk on the moon. It's largely a vanity page, a plagiarized re-write of the self-written bio. (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Note that notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. In other words, every single thing mentioned in the article does not have to itself be notable. Roesgen's coverage of Michael Jackson wouldn't merit an article under those guidelines, but they don't prohibit discussing it here. As far as what to mention here, we should be guided my secondary sources of course, but I don't think the lack of them should prohibit any mention of her coverage of a particular story. You are right, her coverage of those individual stories is trivial in the sense of WP notability guidelines, but this article is devoted entirely to Roesgen and it is absurd to suggest that we shouldn't devote any coverage to the specifics of her work. Gamaliel (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree that it is trivial and lacks notability. It is un-encyclopedic and absurd to list as an item of note stories that a reporter has reported. It adds undue weight and infers an importance which does not exist. (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the undue weight policy. Adding a few sentences about stories she covered at CNN is not undue weight. Undue weight would be letting the tea party section be the only thing mentioned about her career at CNN. Gamaliel (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we fluff out this article to reduce the percentage of words used to describe the notable event? (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a couple of sentences detailing notable stories covered by a person whose notability is for covering stories is fluff, and the undue weight policy requires that this article not be primarily about the tea party, otherwise we should just merge it with the tea party article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The policy on undue weight is clear, "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." That the notability of a subject is derived from a prominent and widely remarked upon incident is more the rule than the exception for many articles. We do not fluff out and bury the notability beneath stilted prose that implies a significance where none exist. Lists of activities or a diary of events are not our place, this is not Facebook. (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the policy on undue weight is clear on viewpoints. The subject has had a Wikipedia biographical article for four years before her 3-minute interview in Chicago, and she'll still have an article four years hence. We don't remove, shrink and rearrange content in an effort to make the article appear to have sprung into existence on April 15th, 2009. A person never loses their notability, by the way. So you needn't worry about the article becoming so filled with boring facts (awards she has won; news stories she has covered; places where she has worked) that her notability gets buried, and her article gets deleted. Won't happen. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Biographical facts are not "viewpoints". The subject has had a long career as a reporter, and inserting information about that career is not "undue weight", it is standard procedure on Wikipedia. The policy is very clear, however, regarding the type of article you appear to advocate, an an article that is solely or mostly about her tea party report is prohibited under policy. Gamaliel (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Few things are as intolerable as unfounded allegations. Impugning another's motives is close. As you seem bent on discussing things other than content and have yet to support your vague accusations and implied malignment of your fellow editors good faith efforts to improve this article - I've opened a section below here where you can explain your concerns more thoroughly. Please support your contention. (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll respond to you when you return to reality. Gamaliel (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You've attacked, belittled, reverted, ignored and in a striking example of Wikipedia Administrator abuse - used your administrative powers here in a content dispute against other editors engaging you in discussion. Reality? Abuse of power in furtherance of your displayed political bias is a violation of Wiki policy, and more importantly, principle. (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If you have a genuine complaint, you are welcome to make it at the relevant noticeboard. Gamaliel (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference Clarification Request - Un-linked New Orleans Times-Picayune ref's not found in papers Archive

Can someone help out with these:

  • "Roesgen on the radio - The former WDSU news anchor now heard as NPR reporter and WWNO deejay", New Orleans Times-Picayune, April 28, 2003
  • "N.O. Press Club honors journalists' work", New Orleans Times-Picayune, July 2, 2006
  • "Press club honors writing, photography", New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 21, 2005
  • "Members of local media honored for work in 2003", New Orleans Times-Picayune, July 17, 2004

I am unable to find them in the online Archive for the New Orleans Times-Picayune. (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

They are available in the Lexis/Nexis and America's Newspapers databases, which I used to find those stories. Gamaliel (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This says she was scheduled as a keynote speaker, with some heavyweights. What the heck is "The Public Affairs Research Council (PAR)"? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding sources, there appears to be a few misconceptions floating around:
(1) All biographical info in existence must be from a "self-written bio" from Roesgen. Incorrect (sounds like make-believe, too). Also, irrelevant; CNN, a WP:RS, stands behind all content on its site unless specifically disclaimed - including the bios of its staff.
(2) Sourced content must include every conceivable detail, otherwise it doesn't belong in the article. Incorrect. If a reliable source says she owns two cars, then that can go in to the article. Knowing the make, model, color, dates purchased and where they were purchased can go in, too, but isn't required before noting that she owns two cars. Same with awards.
(3) Just because reliably sourced accurate content "sounds like an ad", in an editor's opinion, that is not license to delete it. Try suggesting an alternative way of wording the content that is more to your personal preference.
(4) Holding an opinion that an article should be deleted because the subject is not notable enough does not mean you should try to delete it sentence by sentence. Please use WP:DPR. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
(5) Others, besides Sesno, went to bat for Roesgen in one way or another, including Ana Marie Cox during a conversation with Maddow (when she recanted her criticism that Roesgen should have tried to get the protester to explain his remarks - Roesgen actually did), or Jed Lewison, Political Communications and Media spec (when he wondered if more reporters would step up like Roesgen did, and if they don't, they deserve to fail), or the most eloquent spokesperson for CNN that simply said she "called it like she saw it." Just because the conservative echo chamber was far noisier than usual that week doesn't mean no other opinions existed. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to Chicago section

"...I think it is appropriate to include the question - particularly given that Roesgen's dialogue with the other person listed in the previous sentence was included. Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You make a valid point about treating both parts of the interview equally (why include parts of one interview, but not the other?), but I disagree with your solution. The content as it is written now is already problematic because it contains "cherry-picked" quotes from the transcript, and adding in just one more quote won't fix the problem. We can't insert the whole transcript into a WP:BLP, but if we leave any of it out, then part of the story gets minimized. What about the parts that make one protester sound like a babbling 6-year-old about to hold his breath until he turns blue, "...he's a fascist. The pirates... He is a fascist. I think he's a fascist. Because he is. Because he is. He's a fascist"? Or the parts that make Roesgen sound like she was rushing or interrupting the protesters she was interviewing, "Wait. Let me finish speaking. Let me finish my point." Or the telling transition parts from Kyra, " can obviously see the tensions rising there, and both sides, conservative and liberal -- that side much more conservative there with the protests.", etc. I propose we solve the problem by wording the section something along these lines:

Roesgen drew significant criticism for her coverage of the April 15, 2009, Tea Party protest in Chicago. She interviewed protestors including one calling US President Barack Obama a fascist and carrying sign depicting him as Adolf Hitler, and another that praised Abraham Lincoln. Speaking over the noisy crowd, she concluded the report by saying the tenor of the event was anti-government and anti-CNN since it was promoted by Fox.[6][7][8][9] See transcript of the report here: (insert link to transcript, wikiquote or separate article)
Some in the media described the interview as confrontational and unprofessional, citing Roesgen's interruption of those being interviewed by challenging them with questions.[10] New York Times media and culture columnist David Carr wrote, "she could not have been more contemptuous of the people she was interviewing".[11] Others, like George Washington University professor of media, Frank Sesno, defended Roesgen for not letting statements go unchallenged.[12] A CNN spokesperson said, "She was doing her job, and called it like she saw it." Roesgen has not commented publicly on the situation.[13][8]

In the above example, the out-of-context quotes from the transcript have been removed, to be replaced by a link to the transcript. I did change "criticism" to "significant criticism", and made it the very first words of this section, because that is really what this section is about. I also added "unprofessional"; noted her interjection of questions; and preserved a paraphrase of her "anti-CNN, promoted by Fox" slap. I still think this section is over-weight for her biography, but it is difficult to make it any more concise. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see this proposal before I re-added the sentence. I support the proposal.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm waiting for comments from some of the other recent editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Good. Let me know how that goes.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
An unregistered editor that apparently isn't following this conversation keeps inserting edits, claiming they were forgotten. I'll assume that means he approves, too. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of edit warring over individual excerpts from the transcript, we should look to secondary sources for guidance. What did they quote? Which elements did they highlight as important? Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It already has a half-dozen secondary sources cited, with a lot more available, but the vast majority are opinion pieces. You won't find a lot about the incident outside the usual opinion sources. Most of the critical opinion pieces jump on the "anti-CNN because it's highly promoted by Fox" stuff, because, true or not, that moves the report from news coverage to commentary. The other criticisms vary greatly, and there are a lot - because everyone has an opinion. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The protest was noisy & nasty

An unregistered editor apparently doesn't want this acknowledged in the article. TV Newser has already been recognized as an acceptable source; some blogs are RS, if they have oversight. Strange that this editor leaves in other content sourced to TV Newser (like the "CNN didn't renew her contract" stuff), but complains that it isn't good enough here. From several other sources already in the article, take your pick:

  • "And since I can't really hear..." -- Roesgen, CNN transcript
  • "All right. I know Susan Roesgen is having a hard time hearing me..." -- Phillips, CNN transcript
  • "...she heard shouts from the crowd including "Damn CNN" and "Shut up, bitch." -- TV Newser
  • "He said things that we can't air because he got so angry..." -- Carpenter, CNN transcript

CNN censored out the profanity, and they used standard unidirectional mics and proximity filters so you could hear Roesgen instead of the noise. For those interested, here is what it sounded like unfiltered (note, I am not suggesting this as a source): Video Xenophrenic (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The only source above that specifically refers to obscenities is TVNewser, which is a blog. Blogs are generally not reliable sources. Therefore, they are generally not to be used(WP: RSE). TVNewser’s claim that “sources close to the situation” reported that obscenities were levied at Roesgen is particularly suspicious in light of the fact that not a single other publication specifically claimed that “obscenities” were levied. As to your claim that I don’t want this acknowledged in the article, your statement not only assumes bad faith (please see WP: GF), but is also totally incorrect. All I care about, and all any Wikipedian should care about, is that statements are properly sourced. If the obscenities are as well known as you say they are, you should easily be able to find reliable sources backing that claim. (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
TV Newser is a blog about journalism by professional journalists, so I think that is exactly the kind of source we need here. Gamaliel (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I am gonna agree with the anon here. TVNewser may be about journalism but there is nothing stating that it is written by professional journalists or that it is written according to journalistic standards of integrity, the continuing existence of the latter being ironically called into question by this very article. Surely you can find another non-blog source for the statement re the alleged obscenities, can't you? If the blog is written by professional journalists, which as of yet there is no proof that it is, wouldn't it have been reported by non-blog sources written know, journalists? Please do a little homework here and gather some sources. I already looked and can't find any. But prove me wrongIadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Found almost immediately on the blog's about page:

TVNewser has been named one of the most influential blogs in television by the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Upon graduating from Towson, Stelter took a job with The New York Times in July, 2007. That month TVNewser's new editorial team was brought on board: editor Chris Ariens, a 15-year TV news producer and manager and contributors Gail Shister, one of the foremost Television reporters in the country and Alissa Krinsky a Chicago-based former news reporter and anchor. A few months later, former Fox News Channel production assistant and NBC page Steve Krakauer joined us as our associate editor. Steve moved on in June, 2009 and in July we welcomed Kevin Allocca as our new editor.

This more than makes the case that they are professional journalists. Gamaliel (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
No. It does not. You need to find a reliable source for the obscenities comment. Since youre adept at navigating around the internet, this should not be very hard. Please do a little homework and find a reliable nonblog source. I have looked and could not find anything re the alleged obscenities. It is our duty as Wikipedia editors to do a little research every now and then to dig up sources.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it the company's blog? That would be a reliable source for the company's page.Abce2|TalkSign 00:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
No need to get snippy just because I invalidated your objections. Please keep it civil. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The essay at WP:RSE noted above says blogs by professionals in their field can be used, not the other way around. The fact that you remove some content ("obscenities") cited to that source, yet leave in negative content ("contract not renewed") cited to that very same source is ... telling. Perhaps you should take it up on the RS noticeboard and get wider input. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There are all sorts of telling things hereabouts, including, I think, sockpuppetry gone wild. (Indeed, I think I have recently been having a discussion with one of the socks.) But let's put these aside and instead consider a single point:

on the blog's about page: / "TVNewser has been named one of the most influential blogs in television by the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. [...]" / "This more than makes the case that they are professional journalists." / "No. It does not."

No it does not. Well, maybe it does: they do indeed make the case that they are professional journalists, but they don't do it convincingly. We need the direct, unfiltered word of the WSJ or NYT (or similar) for this.

If we go to the "about" page, we do find links. The WSJ write-up is trivial but the NYT article is substantial. Trouble is, it's at rather than at

But here it is at

I've read it. I've understood it. I now believe the claims made above for TVnewser. -- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

PS the conversation I mentioned took place here. -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Peacock phrase in lede

I removed "award winning" from the lede. (Eg IMO to say a movie is "award winning" in the lede of an article about the movie would shade toward Wikipedia's expression of an opinion about the movie's merits. Better would be to avoid Wikipedia's seeming to go out of its way to label such a movie as generically "award winning" but instead to specify what awards it has received, shifting our role from seeming to endorse opinions to a role of simply sharing proven facts.....) ↜Just M E here , now 10:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Are the Golden Raspberry Awards an "award" per WP?
Here's the lede for Steinbeck: "John Ernst Steinbeck, Jr.[2][3] (February 27, 1902 – December 20, 1968) was an American writer. He wrote the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Grapes of Wrath, published in 1939...."
I think the specificity of this style is better than were WP to merely say "Steinbeck was an award-winning author."
I suggest that if the reporting that a journalist has received an award for is itself notable, then the reporting and the fact that it was deemed meritorious by a specific award belongs in a lede. Is the reporting by Roesgen that received the awards of enough notability to be included specifically in the lede, along with the mention of the Emmys and/or AP awards? (The same info could find a place within a "credits" field in the journalist infobox as well.) ↜Just M E here , now 11:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry investigation

Hi, coming in as an uninvolved administrator requesting assistance. While dealing with disruption on some Troubles (Britain/Ireland)-related articles, we noticed a disruptive anonymous editor who continually changed IP addresses, usually in the 99.1xx range. This user appears to work in a controversial area, accumulate warnings and blocks, and then switches to another controversial area. One of the areas was here, at the Susan Roesgen article, so I'm posting a notice here. If anyone can help identify any other IPs or accounts of this user, we would appreciate your assistance at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles. --Elonka 15:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)