Talk:Hilary Rosen/Archive 1

Warning to reader in Germany
This bias advertorial for Ms Rosen is written by Rosen and SDknickerbocker so must contain appropriate permanent warning messages for readers in European Union in according with this judgement and Directive. 91.49.40.172 (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the two links. My edits are my own so I do not think the cases apply to me. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is interesting when the talk page is longer than the article. 14:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Most talk pages are longer than the article, because it's where the content of the article is discussed on an ongoing basis. If you think the page should have auto-archiving turned on I can help with that.
 * As for the "permanent warning", there is consensus that "disclaimers" of this sort should not be displayed in articles, although with the changes in German law it is being actively discussed. If you're interested you can see and participate in the discussion at Template talk:Disclosed paid. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If there is a local policy which prevents clear, bold and prominent disclosure to EU readers that this article is almost entirely written by Rosen herself, then this article should be immediately deleted under the WMF terms of usage. Please see if local laws require disclosure of sponsorship of an edit in the article text itself, and putting such a message in the article text violated community rules (as it likely does in most projects), then such edits would be prohibited source. There are no changes of German law, however, there were court judgments of our courts which gave rulings under existing law / EU directives. Under EU law it is not material if the covert advertising of the employer is placed directly into the article by employee of Rosen or indirectly through a volunteer of Wikipedia. In either case all covert advertising must be prominently and boldly disclosed in close proximity to the advertising promotion and not on some user or talk page. So please comply with German local law before publishing in EU / Germany where I am reading Wikipedia's Rosen's advertising without any warnings at all. I have also posted at the discussion page you linked. 04:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate;
See WMF terms of usage for prohibited content - With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate;

The infobox image in this article is a deceptively false promotional Adobe Photoshop manipulated image clearly supplied to Wikipedia by SDknickerbocker / Rosen herself through Beutler Ink employee User:Inkian_Jason. In effect it means that 2 employees of Beutler Ink have pushed Rosen's deceptive promotional content (covert advertising) into this page in a coordinated way in breach of Wikipedia policy.

This article's photoshopped picture supplied by Rosen is clearly very different from what Rosen actually looks like in non-photoshopped images, including in 2016. Sample images of Hilary Rosen for comparison


 * http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/120412011319-exp-point-brownstein-rosen-00002001-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg
 * https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl-og/OgTag-image/7da83063-a297-411f-8f2b-1f931a2e1442large.jpeg
 * http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/02/Rosen-218-Thumbnail.jpg
 * https://simonstudio.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/hilaryrosen1.jpg
 * http://www.fathersmanifesto.net/HilaryRosen.jpg

As a German resident of EU I suggest this deceptive covert advertising infobox image should be removed immediately by a Wikipedia administrator to comply with my applicable law. 91.49.40.172 (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:PAID versus Paid disclosure template. clarifications
The Wikipedia policy WP:PAID itself states that Paid editing is further regulated by a community guideline, Conflict of interest.

An integral part of these conflict guidelines which have community consensus is In 2012 the Munich Oberlandesgericht court ruled that if a company or its agents edit Wikipedia with the aim of influencing customers, the edits constitute covert advertising, and as such are a violation of European fair-trading law. The ruling stated that readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation

So how do Wikipedia administrators respect your own policy and community consensus by allowing such covert advertising without disclosure to deceive European Union residents and by removing the warnings I had place to protect Europeans ? Factually, the moment the Wikipedia advertorials enter EU territory it automatically comes under our local law and I am entitled to remove it / warn against it under WMF's Terms of Usage.

The present community consensus in guidelines in terms of the court judgments is that by even placing these draft edits anywhere on Wikipedia it instantly constitutes covert advertising in Europe and a violation of European law.

I also remind you that Wikimedia Foundation servers racks are co-located in Europe in Netherlands. esams EvoSwitch in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, knams : Kennisnet in Amsterdam, the Netherlands source. So EU law is directly applicable anyway. 91.49.40.172 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

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


 * Careful.  By all sources I read, Rosen is still at SKDK.  As has been explained in the past, reliable sources still characterize her as a lobbyist.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's one source in the article that accuses her of still being a lobbyist. I'm fine with mentioning that source, since we attribute the opinion to its authors. That's different from using their claim as an unattributed fact, especially in the lede. I believe that calling her a lobbyist when she denies it is risking a WP:BLP violation. Please revert. MilesMoney (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Google shows that there are lots of RSes that still refer to subject as a "lobbyist".  On the other side, do we even have a RS saying the subject actually denies lobbying?  --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Rosen herself denies it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bbb23#Hilary_Rosen_is_not_a_.22Lobbyist.22. MilesMoney (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the subject of the article denies it and pointed out that she is not listed in a database of registered lobbyists. Obviously if the subject of an article takes issue with information presented that should have our attention per WP:BLP, but the subject of a biography does not get veto authority over sourced article content, and we should reflect the best information available from reliable, secondary sources. That said, if this has not already been at WP:BLP/N I think it is a good candidate; the more experienced eyes on this the better. VQuakr (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To echo VQ, a talk page post isn't a RS. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC) (That said, I've made a few edits to make sure we're not using the term 'lobbyist' in an unnecessarily prominent way HectorMoffet (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC))

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


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


 * "Democratic lobbyist and consultant Hilary Rosen"
 * http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/02/13/Wash-Post-Hires-Democrat-Activist-Lobbyist-for-Editorial-Pages "Washington Post Hires Lobbyist Hilary Rosen"
 * "American lobbyist and Democratic pundit"
 * "lobbyist Hillary Rosen"
 * These are all from 2013 sources.  RSes agree-- she's a lobbyist. ---HectorMoffet (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to offer a third opinion regarding some BLP concerns in this article. As far as I can tell, multiple sources refer to the subject as a lobbyist. Denials on a Wikipedia user's talk page by an anonymous user claiming to be her do not factor into this at all. We require reliable, published sources as has already been stated. Absent evidence to the contrary, there is no BLP violation here. - MrX 15:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hector asked me to comment here. I think we can assume that the account Hilaryrosen belongs to the subject, but if that becomes a signficant issue, it could be corroborated through WP:OTRS. But for the purpose of this discussion, it strikes me as largely irrelevant. How the article is worded should comply with normal policies and guidelines for articles and for BLP articles in particular. For example, if a person is an actor but hasn't acted in a few years, we don't say he was an actor in the lead. The body of the article can elaborate on what he did and when he did it, but unless he officially retires from acting and that is supported by reliable sources, he "is" an actor. Hilary may prefer that the article be crafted differently, but her preferences in this area don't trump our content rules. It might be different if this were some sort of privacy/sensitivity issue, and we could omit something from the article that isn't important but the subject objects to (e.g., WP:BLPPRIVACY), but the characterization of her as a lobbyist doesn't fall into that category. This has been an ongoing problem with the article and with her, and, as you can see, has been discussed before. To her credit, she did not attempt to change the article but came to my talk page. She should really be coming here but she probably got more attention there. I'm glad the discussion is now here because that's, of course, where it belongs. Unless something has changed since the last time this was discussed - I haven't look at the issue - then we should not honor her request. If she has reliable sources for making changes to the body to flesh out her noteworthy activities, those should be considered.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "lobbyist" has a very specific legal meaning. Lobbyists are required to register, and Rosen is not registered as a lobbyist, so if we say (in WP's voice) that she is lobbying or is an unregistered lobbyist, we are guilty of defamation. That's precisely what WP:BLP does not allow, so we must not ever do this.
 * What it does allow is for us to repeat the claims of reliable sources as attributed opinions, not as WP-endorsed facts. This includes section headings. MilesMoney (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here, I looked this up:
 * Does a lobbyist have to be registered?
 * Since 1995, the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) has required individuals who are paid for lobbying at the federal level to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. Lobbying firms, self-employed lobbyists and organizations employing lobbyists must file regular reports of lobbying activity.
 * If we call her an unpaid lobbyist, we are accusing her of a crime, which violates WP:BLPCRIME. MilesMoney (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a bizarre misinterpretation of policy.--MONGO 16:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are the three best sources for making this claim: FYI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * April 2012, The Nation which calls her: “a Democratic lobbyist”. (The Telegraph book review is interesting, but only infers it. Perhaps the book is more explicit.
 * Michelle's To-Do List, Newsweek, November 19, 2012, | Michele Cottle: “top Democratic lobbyist Hilary Rosen”.
 * New York Times, November 15, 2013 writes: “Hilary Rosen, a longtime Democratic lobbyist”
 * You're confusing two things. One is whether she is known for having historically been a lobbyist. She is. The other is whether she is currently a lobbyist. She is not. If she were, then she'd be violating the law, and if we want to claim that in WP's voice, we need a conviction, not just an accusation. In any case, this is already being discussed on WP:BLPN, so let's not repeat ourselves. MilesMoney (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. These are all recent descriptions regarding her current activities of last 18 odd months; one is three weeks old. None say "former". If she's such a hotshot publicist, she should be able to get her denials she currently is a lobbyist in the papers and thus get it in this article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to be any clearer. Identifying her as a lobbyist is not the same thing as saying she is currently lobbying. She is best known as a lobbyist, but that aspect of her career is over. If you believe otherwise, call the police and inform on her. MilesMoney (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In addition to the best source Carol found, I really want to focus us on JQInternational which listed her as an honoree less than a month ago. This is a  source 100% friendly to Rosen, Rosen poses for pictures with the award, and the official bio describes her as.. "American lobbyist", and even quotes The Nation story about "unregistered lobbying firm".
 * Rosen has been the victim of cyber harassment since her RIAA days, and I get a distinct feeling that we're being trolled here, and someone at 4chan or EncyclopediaDramatic is laughing their hineys off.
 * Are we really buying the story that there's a PR expert who can't even get highly-friendly sources to get the facts right? A PR expert who doesn't know how to print a denial, demand a retraction, or give us at least one RS?    No way.
 * Not that it matters, of course. We follow the reliable sources, not "sources" we find on wikipedia talk pages. HectorMoffet (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * First, you do realize JQInternational is not WP:RS for third parties since it is an advocacy group. (Exceptions might be if she published a blog with factoids about herself or did an interview there.)
 * What I don't understand is where you want to use this? In the lead?
 * Probably after "Rosen left the Brunswick Group, joining the PR firm SKDKnickerbocker in 2010.[12]" where you can say something like "The Nation has described her as an effective lobbyist, even though she isn't registered as one. (Nation ref). And other sources still describe Rosen as a lobbyist."(2 other refs). The other sources really aren't strong enough to support the debate or much more.
 * Whether or not to put "though some still consider her a lobbyist" in the lead is something I won't bother to debate, if that's what you want to do. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 23:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't suggest inclusion of JQInternational, I just used it to illustrate, here on talk, just how widespread it is to characterize the subject as a lobbyist, to the extent that even friendly/promotional source from Nov 2013 describe her as a lobbyist.
 * The sources you dug up are undoubtedly the ones to be used in the article itself. ---HectorMoffet (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPN on this
Just noticed and commented on this at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. FYI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have left a brief notice here about this. MilesMoney (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)