Talk:Suzen Johnson

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OTRS complaint

(discussion moved/refactored from User talk:AnonEMouse and User talk:Bastique, as it should be useful to future editors of the article)

We received a pretty heated complaint at OTRS about this article, from an individual extremely close to the subject. I read the article, and it was pretty overwhelmingly brutal to Suzen Johnson. Personally, I believe that all the pertinant information was already there. The remainder is pretty non-notable, and fairly tabloidish. I did revert it, not because of the quality of your contribution, because you clearly put a lot of work into it.

Please understand that I have no personal interest in this article at all. We are just volunteers answering correspondence for the Wikipedia Foundation.

Try to go easier on Mrs. Johnson if you are going continue to contribute to the article. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to work with you to "go easier on Mrs. Johnson". From looking at your diff we have the following general changes:

1. "a former flight attendant and businesswoman" - presumably that's all right to put back?
2. health clubs, fees, bankruptcy, cleared by atty gen - that's all from the New Standard article. I can see how that implies fraud, but, frankly, the article I'm getting it from accuses them of fraud outright, in multiple places, with quotes from victims. And the source is not a tabloid, but a normal local paper. If that makes the difference to leaving it in at all, I can rephrase it to imply they were just unsuccessful in business; would that be sufficient?
3. The affair story is sort of all of a piece, that I'm finding it difficult what to take out. The fact that someone set up Gifford with videotape for money is rather central to the story; this wasn't a love affair, by anyone's story: neither the Globe's nor Gifford's nor Johnson's. The only question is who did the setup. I could take out the part where she sued to say it wasn't her idea and the Globe set her up, but then that is taking out what story she has; would you like that?
4. You left in the Playboy bit, just cut down some of the details. If it's important I can keep it at that, and not add back the details; would you like that?
5. You left in where she lives, but took out that it is still with her husband, which, frankly, implies the reverse, considering the affair. I imagine that in no way "makes it hard on her", and should be put back. Would you like me to leave out that this is the county of the Globe's publisher?

AnonEMouse 23:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I only reverted to pre your most recent edit. Put back in the less controversial information and we'll work on the other stuff a bit more slowly. *sigh* ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 23:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason I'm pushing a bit is that the article is up for AFD, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suzen_Johnson, and if you look, 10 minutes after your reversion, which took out 4 of 5 references, it got a Delete comment that, well, there weren't enough references; which, if the article was left in that state, I would actually agree with. :-) Can you use your mystic powers to give me/us a few days to work on the article without the risk of it being deleted altogether? Then I promise to renominate it for deletion to give everyone a fair chance to vote it away. AnonEMouse 23:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Have no fear about that delete nom...not going to happen. I've heard of her before this started, and that's worthwhile enough for me to argue against it. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 02:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Updated, including many citations from her own site, that hopefully she won't be objecting to. Please take a look and see if it reads less like "an indictment". BTW, you still haven't weighed in on the AFD, and I wouldn't say it's a sure thing that I don't need to worry about, it's pretty evenly split right now. AnonEMouse 16:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I still think the article goes overboard to push the point that Suzen Johnson is an undesirable human being. Please be patient and I will try to get my specific remarks later. I want to stress that without a clear consensus (and even 4-3 in favor of deletion is not a clear consensus) the article will be kept. Had there been any risk of deletion or the slightest chance that this article would be removed, I would have "rushed". As it is, the vote is 2-3 against deletion. It's not likely to disappear anytime soon. Bastique 18:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

Allow me to first say that I think you've done a great job on the article.

You are free to take or leave any suggestions I may offer. However, I believe the article still feels tabloidy with certain content.

1. Remove any reference to Suzen Johnson's website, and any quotes derived from there. Firstly, it is not considered a reliable news source, and you're getting them from webarchive, not the site itself, which has long been removed. If it hasn't appeared in a valid news or reference source, it probably isn't worthy for consideration. Bastique ▼
2. I debated this one: Leave off the information about the Suzenjohnson.com website altogether. I'm sure this and the previous change probably don't "help" her profile, however--they certainly don't degrade the quality of the article. Bastique ▼
3. The 1999 suit against the Globe is mentioned, however, there is nothing about the outcome. Please do a some research and determine whether the suit was won, lost or whether a deal was made, and include that in the article. (for example: Johnson sued the Globe successfully...) Bastique ▼

I made some style changes, that don't change the content but change the tone a little bit. (attempt at humor: Later today, I'm going to drive 12 miles to Boca Raton and see if the Globe has any positions available. I bet I could write for them!) ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 12:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed comments. I'm afraid your change from "best known as Frank Gifford's mistress." to "...Frank Gifford's mistress during the Spring of 1997", is implying that she wasn't his mistress before, which is not necessarily the case. She claimed she knew him for 4 years [1], meeting him in 1993 as a stewardess, and I never found any reference as to when the affair started.

I'm reluctant to remove the references to susanjohnson.com, given the way the WP seems to react to criticism from "individual[s] extremely close to the subject". The other sources are, as you have noted, less than friendly to Mrs. J. If I remove these, I am afraid that another such letter will result in (1) the article being cut to ribbons on the "be nicer to Mrs. J" grounds, and then (2) deleted entirely on the "there's nothing left but ribbons" grounds. I feel the links to Mrs. J's own words are the only things preventing that.

I understand why Mrs. J might not be considered the most reliable source (CNN cites the Globe calling her a pathological liar), which is why I refrained from citing her site for anything liable to be controversial. I used it to cite info about her husband and that she lived a week in the hotel room, which it was the best source for, and neither of which I expect to be debated by anyone.

However, your addition of the words "Unknown to either Johnson or Gifford" in regards to the cameras, is controversial, and only backed by her site, and the lawsuit she filed. It was a major point in her lawsuit, so suspect the Globe may have contested it; I specifically cited it as a claim, not a fact: "... she sued the publisher of The Globe, claiming that ... the paper had wired their hotel room without telling her". Unfortunately I have not been able to find information about how the lawsuit progressed; I have looked.

A few questions:

• AmIAnnoying.com has a screenshot of her site. Would that be useful as a reference?
• A Howard Stern fan site recounts her appearance on that show in 2000, giving details on the relationship (more about the 4 years) and the lawsuit (still no conclusion, though). Useful reference?

AnonEMouse 21:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Mistress

Marriam-Webster defines mistress as "a woman other than his wife with whom a married man has a continuing sexual relationship." Marriam-Webster defines affair as "a romantic or passionate attachment typically of limited duration."

She had an affair with Gifford. She was not his mistress. She flatters herself in the title of her website.

Nick Beeson (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

1999 lawsuit

What happened with that?

Also, in the suit it was mentioned that the relationship was ‘platonic’. What was said in the 2001 website, and was it different to that? If changed was any explanation offered? More detail needed. 24.4.136.172 (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)