Talk:Susan Roesgen

Discussion

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... 79.152.165.242 (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw this website today, firesusan.com, just by Google-ing "Fire Susan Roesgen." Should it be mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.112.201 (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. 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." 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. 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. 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.". She stated that CNN coverage of the protest was, "not really family viewing."" 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 71.178.101.125 (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}}}#top|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. 216.116.87.110 (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. 216.116.87.110 (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 96.231.80.68 (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)

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)

Sources

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.--71.126.193.137 (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)

Recentism

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 and^Pieces 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 and^Pieces 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 204.2.209.2 (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 204.2.209.2 (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.99.141.246.39 (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 99.141.246.39 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.99.141.246.39 (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Petersen:

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)

• Katrina:

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...)99.141.246.39 (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)

• Jackson:

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 and^Pieces 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.99.141.246.39 (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)

Bullshit. You don't attack the only person you're having a discussion with and ask for the article to be locked and then defend it by saying, 'well, if your not one - then he's not talking to you'.

The accusation is the attack and nothing I've said or done here, nor in my recent edit history at the Republican congressman's article referenced above indicates any bias. I notice however that the home page of one of the two editors standing sentry over his pet article has dozens of claims of profound liberal bias proudly festooned across the page like a Volvo in Vermont on it's way to the Northeast Kingdom. One usually finds such committed and messianic people to be deeply wedded to their cause and saturated to the bone with inflexible bias - whether on the left, right or third way.

False unsubstantiated accusations, blatant bias, article "ownership" and the complete lack of any effort to defend the inclusion of drivel, garbage and fluff into the encyclopedia is ridiculous and nothing more has been done by the "guards" has done than revert, attack and ignore.99.141.246.39 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)