Talk:Hilary Rosen/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Untitled

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

--kwertii

---

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

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

The list goes on and on...

Chadloder 01:01 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

--kwertii

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

-kwertii

---

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

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

Bias (POV)

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

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

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

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

because most of the consumers are mindless teens. - anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.226.37 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject class rating

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

Pro-RIAA bias

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

Help on what to do can be found here: WP:CONFLICT. I have not checked User:Avalyn's contributions, but at first it would be a good idea to see what she has added/removed. It could be essentially harmless and fall well within WP:NPOV, but if that is not the case the earlier link includes instructions on how to approach this issue. 212.10.79.146 (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability

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

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

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

IMO

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

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

Watch for promotion

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

Traffic

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

LGBT activist?

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

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

Appropriateness of Ann Romney comments questioned?

Original Title: Ann Romney section is massively overblown and reeks of WP:RECENTISM The fact that this ginned up fake "controversy" gets so much emphasis in the article is absurd. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it was once a fake controversy, but once the President of the United States weighs in, it's an important story. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The controversy absolutely received enough attention from people in high places to warrant inclusion. I believe it has just enough emphasis and trimming anymore would remove the context. - Xcal68 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree the section on Ann Romney is being blown way out of proportion as it primarily reeks of sensationalism and is a non controversy that has been falsely turned into one. This wasn't a national disaster or anything of epic proportions warranting an entire section (1/3 of the whole page)dedicated to it on Rosen's wikipedia page. On that account, we would be no different than any other tabloid. The section should be greatly reduced, if not omitted altogether. Wikiepdia is not and cannot be in the business of playing party politics and contribution to sensationalism on its encyclopedic pages. This is about facts and since Wikipedia is not a news outlet, not everything a person does which made the headlines needs to be expanded on to such extent.

This is a new spike and wikipedia is not the place for it. As the section on recentism states:

"Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in:

Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.

Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.

The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus."

If during this election year Wikipedia goes in this direction, then every comment made by anyone has to be included, which I am sure all would agree goes agasint the very notion of eiditing without a long-term, historical, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention. CarrieBee (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dominating a week of US Political News, getting both presidential candidates and both spouses to weigh in? How much more historical could you get? --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That is not historical. That is current news events; a news spike, which is clearly not what a Wikipedia article should be. Whether this is historic will be told in time. If next year or in 6 months the issue is still talked about then yes, but right now inserting in there as part of an individual's wikipedia biography - something we dont even have a conclusion to since it has not even been a factor in the outcome of the election and it is doubtful it will spoken of again - violates WP: Recentism. As mentioned above, we cannot just make any piece of news the president or the community utters something about historic including it in an encyclopedic WP article. This section is clearly inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention, resulting in an "article overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens". And we need consensus to keep it, not to remove it. You cant just put in any kind of information and then wait for consensus to remove it. CarrieBee (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this looks like Recentism. This was a notable (in the general sense) event, so it should be mentioned, but the substance of the issue could probably be covered in a couple paragraphs. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree that recent events are always less polished and thus more verbose-- brevity takes time. I'm glad there's a consensus on overall inclusion inclusion. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

No objection from me. Although I'd say that while trimming/polishing the Romney-comment section is an improvement, the easiest way to improve undo weight issues is to flesh out the earlier bio. Life Pre-RIAA and Life Post-RIAA/Pre-RomneyComment both deserve expansion. In general, help is most welcome. :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I still object that this comment, like a myriad of comments made on news stations all day, every day - especially during election time - is of no historic significance requiring a separate section. This wasnt a career defining moment for Rosen (like Napster) or one that has long term policy implications. As mentioned before, whether this is going to be historic cannot be established a prior but has to be established later. The entire section is huge; we even have Bill Maher and his comments. Maher is an entertainer and comedian and his views on the issue are neither historic nor politically relevant. And again, this violated WP: Recentism. I am not sure why that is being disregarded. The rules are pretty clear on that so this section shouldnt even be here. CarrieBee (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted your removal of the material. Please be patient to make sure we have a consensus before we edit the material. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry now we need consensus to make any edits on this article? And does consensus outweigh or override WP editing policy in terms of Recentism? How is what entertainers say and citing edit wars among various people of no historic or political significance historic, newsworthy or historically relevant? And what if we dont reach a consensus? Can i go ahead and just insert any kind of cited information in there and let it linger until the majority either agrees or disagrees with me? This section, as it cureently stands, reads more like Entertainment Weekly or someone's blog rather than an encyclopedic entry. I dont think we should have to wait for consensus to remove information in direct violation of WP:Recentism. Including her comments in there is one thing, adding all the irrelevant frosting and getting into the tabloid-like detail is another. CarrieBee (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out at ANI, the problem is not with recentism but with weight ("Allegations of recentism should prompt consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight."), which is why it needs to be pared back, but there is no harm in leaving it for a bit longer to make sure that no other editor objects. The material does not violate WP:BLP as it is accurate and well-sourced, just too much of it. By the way, Recentism is an essay, not a guideline or a policy. As such, it has little binding effect on editors, although it can be persuasive and is often cited.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand your points and I'm sympathetic. However, I really don't want to add back the entire quote. Nonetheless, I've reworded the opening sentence to communicate more accurately what Rosen was saying (but keeping in the sound bite - after all, that's what received the most press) and added a source that makes it clear that's what Rosen was saying. Although you may not be 100% satisfied with the way it is now, I hope the rewording resolves the gist of your complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to thank Bbb23 for taking his stab at this and I recognize clear good faith. My personal instinct is that the pendulum has swung a tad too far and we may have excluded information that might here.

• Closeapple points out -- We've removed the full context of the comment. If we restore the full context of the comment, it could improve the article.
• My feeling is that: If the President of the US makes an on-the-record statement about you, that's a huge event. Doubly huge for lobbyist's bio. If we restore the President's statement in some form, readers will
• Hillary Rosen was not a 'household name' in the US before this event. Now she is. I don't feel like this article conveys the scale of the "media frenzy" over her. One way we could convey this fact is by mentioning a sampling of prominent individuals, but there are other ways to do that that would also work.

Just my two cents. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm good with some context returning, but we need to be really careful not to let this section get out of control. It started to, and now it's down to a pretty good size. - Xcal68 (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for rewording my sentence - better.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent vandalism/deletions

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

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

Conflict

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

Missing datum

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

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

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

Characterization as a lobbyist

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

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

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

Her lobbying career is dealt with further down the page (the RIAA section), but I don't see how she can be defined as currently a lobbyist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.31.116 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a few preliminary comments. First, I don't see why we have to report only registered lobbying. Second, I don't see why the "legal definition" of lobbyist, whatever that is, is relevant to the article. Third, even assuming she doesn't currently lobby doesn't mean that we can't characterize her as a lobbyist. If one holds an office and no longer holds that office, we can't say they hold the office, but if one has a certain occupation or engages in certain activities, the fact that the person isn't doing it at the moment, doesn't mean we can't say it. Perhaps we should clarify it in the body, but see my other points. What matters is what reliable sources describe her as. Nonetheless, we do have to draw a line somewhere. If the sources don't report her as lobbying in many years, regardless of whether it's legal or registered, then I agree we should change the article, because 7 years is too long.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think registered lobbying does matter. When someone attempts to define someone's career as a lobbyist (as they are here) you are referring to a very specific practice that requires registration with the government. Since she hasn't registered in 7 years, I'm not sure she should still be identified as a lobbyist. Where is this reliable source that says she's lobbying currently? Is the federal lobbying registry not reliable? One of your sources ( the AP article about healthcare meetings at the White House) doesn't describe her as a lobbyist and places her in a different meeting than the other lobbyists, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.31.116 (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Registration as a lobbyist doesn't really matter if multiple sources identify a group/someone as a lobbyist. It would only be worth noting that the person/group doesn't consider themselves as a lobbyist, while at the same time identifying them as sources do. - Xcal68 (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources definitively define her as being a lobbyist currently. Nevertheless, the entire section "Lobbyist at the White House" implies that she was there representing corporate or client interests, and there is no evidence to support that. In stories about those visits, she isn't identified as a lobbyist or conducting business on behalf of paying clients. Wouldn't a reporter want to define her as a lobbyist when covering her visits? In fact one visit described on this page is wholly inaccurate, as it says she was present for a meeting that the source says she wasn't present for. If that's your basis for lobbying, it doesn't seem to hold up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.31.116 (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I adressed a basis either way. I only adressed your contention that registration matters. It doesn't. - Xcal68 (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't registration matter? You keep pointing to other evidence, but the evidence I've seen that describes her currently points to something other than lobbying. Its just your opinion that registration doesn't matter. No one is disputing that she has lobbied, the only two questions I have are 1) why is she still being identified primarily as a lobbyist when she hasn't lobbied in 7 years? and 2) why is there a whole section describing her recent visits to the White House as lobbying visits when there's no evidence that she was lobbying while there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.31.116 (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Its just your opinion that registration doesn't matter. No, it's not my opinion. It's how Wikipedia works. Truth doesn't matter. What is reported does. - Xcal68 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources routinely describe her actions as informal lobbying or other verbiage. Lobbying in a manner that does not require registration is still lobbying. In particular, just providing access is a form of influence trading. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)