Talk:Margot Roosevelt

Movies That Blow Smoke
On another page, an editor wrote that this article is "her most famous piece". Do we have any sources to establish that? I assume she's written hundreds, if not thousands of articles over her long career in journalism. Picking out one for mention might be a cherry-picking issue unless there are independent sources to show that one is more noteworthy than the rest.  Will Beback   talk    21:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * She also wrote for Time Movies That Blow Smoke exposing many movies featuring smoking including Talladega Nights and Pirates of the Caribbean 2.
 * Movies That Blow Smoke Time Magazine  5 Dec 2006


 * I just did a Google search. ["Movies That Blow Smoke"] gets "About 249 results". Another article she wrote, which I happened to see while doing another search, gets far more. ["Los Angeles is still the nation’s smoggiest city"] gets "About 3,340 results". So I'd again ask why we're picking out the "Blowing Smoke" article for special attention.   Will Beback    talk    21:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase about LA does not only hit her article. The one about "movies that blow smoke" pretty much all hit her Time piece. So the "3,340 results" is a bit of an irrelevancy - it has no application to Ms. Roosevelt.   "Movies that blow smoke" is, in fact, the one which seems to have the most hits directly related to her.     The article was a stub, and adding material was essential if it were to survive any AfD as far as I could tell.  Collect (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)   The smog search adding "Margot Roosevelt" gets all of 45 Google hits.  Again - the movie article appears to be the one which is most noted. Collect (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't presented any evidence to support your assertion.
 * ["Los Angeles is still the nation’s smoggiest city" roosevelt] gets "About 73 results.
 * ["Movies That Blow Smoke" roosevelt] gets "4 results".
 * That's an even greater difference. Could you please correct your remark at the other talk page?  Will Beback    talk    00:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I used "margot roosevelt" not just "roosevelt".  45 hits. You are right about the "movies that blow smoke" - I did not include the "roosevelt."  Looking at the list, however, shows that the Roosevelt article was the basis for many of the hits.   Many of the sites linking to it elided her name (or misspelt it).   It was, however, the only article I found in searching with which her name was substantially connected. Collect (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have proof for your assertion then please add it. Otherwise please delete or correct it.   Will Beback    talk    00:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? I stated that it was the one I found.  How in Hell can I "prove" that it was the one I found?   Is your post meant to actually be taken seriously?      I made a statement as to what I found.  You can believe it or not, but it is the d-d truth that I found that article.    Can you accept that when a person says they found an article, that they actually found it?  Or do you routinely ask such an outre question? Collect (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your assertion at the RFC that the "Smoking" article is her most famous piece.   Will Beback    talk    19:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was the one which I found a significant number of people referring to. I suppose "most famous" is totally subjective - I just find that if a number of people refer to one piece and not to others that the odds are that they regard the piece as more noteworthy than the others.   Your mileage apparently vaires, and I should have chosen one which no one has ever referred to. Collect (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "A significant number of people have referred to her article on..." would be accurate based on your research. "Most famous" is much harder to assert, since it requires comparisons to every other article she's written.   Will Beback    talk    20:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that there is a name change here which will confuse things: she was known as "Margot Hornblower" for most of her career, until mid-2000. (I'm guessing she reverted to her maiden name after divorce, though I can't find a source for that.) Rd232 talk 22:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles written by journalists should not be included in their bios unless there is clear, reliably sourced demonstration of the overwhelming significance of that article in the context of their overall career. I've deleted it, since such a demonstration seems unlikely to be forthcoming in this case (though I'm happy to discuss any evidence that might be presented if anyone wants to pursue it). Rd232 talk 22:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that just a bunch of recycled press releases? Even if it is her most famous piece of writing, it doesn't seem very nice to include it in the article. Nevard (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Debut
She was introduced to society in 1968 at the 33rd Christmas Cotillion at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York. -New York Times, 21 Dec 1968, 74 Debutantes Introduced to Society At 33d Christmas Cotillion and Ball Moved out of article, as its significance isn't obvious; it seems contextless and probably undue. At any rate, some evidence needs to be provided that going to a posh party is significant enough to mention in her bio. After all, we're talking about 1968 not 1868. Rd232 talk 22:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * RS source. Non-contentious fact. New York Times.     Seems obvious that it is properly in the article. Collect (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How many other biographies include this kind of information?   Will Beback    talk    23:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This was a stub until.l I added sourced material. Once it is in, and is non-contentious, I ask you go to BLP/N if you feel it is somehow "demeaning" that she came from a notable family and married a notable person.   Many articles on WP, in fact, make a great deal more about relatives than this one does. Collect (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Attending a cotillion is a very backhanded way of discussing the family. What material did you ad on her notable yet red-linked husband? Again, what other article includes attendance at a party as a biographical detail?   Will Beback    talk    23:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're interested in including this specific point which this section is about, you should respond to the actual points made here. Otherwise, just drop it. Rd232 talk 23:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Without the sources I found, the article said nothing about her in particular at all. I used the New York Times (which is not exactly a tabloid) for non-contentious facts about her. Yet somehow which WP policy does this violate? Collect (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "the article said nothing about her in particular at all" - really. What's this then? Rd232 talk 23:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "married a notable person"? Possibly, though he doesn't have a WP entry (he's presumably a descent of the Ralph Hornblower mentioned at Hornblower & Weeks). Rd232 talk 23:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * [ec] Relevance. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If we found an article which says she was in a non-fatal traffic accident wouldn't include that. Going to parties and having car accidents are typical activities. Again, can you point to any other short biography in which this is mentioned?   Will Beback    talk    23:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Great-Granddaughter of TR and EKR (not added to article) (notable). Duaghter of Barmine (notable). Seems that we could add a lot more about family here in line with most other articles. And the NYT is not precisely "trivia" here.  Collect (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No one here is objecting to adding a little material on her family. It's the party which seems too irrelevant to mention. Are you saying that everything found in reliable sources should be added to articles?   Will Beback    talk    00:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC, you found it important in a BLP to say a person "could" be sentenced to up to 55 years in jail. As it turned out, the evildoer got 30 months.   Do you feel your "reliable source" (a press release cited in newspapers) was really proper in the BLP?     I am consistent - non-contentious stuff is fine.  Contentious and "maybes" are not.   Our positions about Biographies of Living Persons differ. Collect (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

More than one hundred WP articles refer to the female subject of a biography as a "debutante", and another fifty or so refer to the subject's wife as being one (also it appears to be a term for "rookie" in cricket, but no sense in counting those). Seems that it is considered "relevant" in a great many WP articles. Took a while to count though. Collect (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For example?   Will Beback    talk    00:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is code for saying she is an elitist. Her status as a debutante does not rise to the level of relevance in such a short article.  TFD (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

- ::Over a hundred. Arenlt you getting tired of this? In sequence from WP search: Rose_Dugdale, Ginevra_King, Caroline_Lind, Anne_Dunhill, Brenda_Frazier, Abigail_Folger, Margaret_Campbell,_Duchess_of_Argyll, Oona_O%27Neill, Marshall_Chapman, Edith_Cummings, Helen_Taft_Manning, Louise_E._du_Pont_Crowninshield, Judy_Huxtable, Joan_Henry, Noreen_Branson, Helen_Oakley_Dance etc. etc. etc. etc. Including at least one noted journalist, in case you failed to notice. And a Communist. "Code for "elitest"? Nope.  I trust this answers your yet anouther request for research? Collect (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the examples given, that they were debutantes seems to have some relevance because they are people who were socialites or rebelled against privileged backgrounds. It is something their biographers have found relevant.  In this case you went digging through a social column from 1968.
 * I didn't look at all of them, but those I looked at were socialites, not journalists. I agree with Four Deuces - Roosevelt's debut is irrelevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Noreen Branson a socialite??? Really???  Helen Oakley Dance not a journalist? Really???   Joan Henry a socialite? Seems she wrote novels, plays and movies.    Judy Huxtable actress and author.    Edith Cummings noted golfer.   I am not sure you looked at any  of them. Collect (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Most appear to have had debuts before WWII; here, we're talking about a party in 1968. You're also ignoring that what BBb23 said was "socialites or rebelled against privileged backgrounds. ", in other words, some demonstrable significance. Rd232 talk 12:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Most material in any BLP is "irrelevant" what counts is - it is contentious? Nope. Is it fully sourced? Yep. As far as saying "socialites or anti-socialites" is absurd - especially since at least one journalist is included who was neither.  As for "digging" I regard using the New York Times as a normal source on Wikipedia.   Care to guess how many times it is used as a source? Collect (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Those examples show that it's sometimes appropriate, as when someone is most famous for their debut or are named "debutante of the year". The New York Times also gives a great deal of detail about the subject's wedding, but that doesn't mean that it isn't trivia for this article.   Will Beback    talk    03:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it's considered polite to notify other editors if when making a noticeboard posting.   Will Beback    talk    03:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I had noted it appeared to be a matter for RSN. TFD finds every edit I make without any problems.    Collect (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we need to stalk your edits in order to keep up on the relevant discussions? I hope not. That's why it's courteous to notify other editors. Anyway, back to the topic.   Will Beback    talk    10:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has long passed the point of being extremely ludicrous. I'm sure that effort put into the article could have expanded it quite a bit. Rd232 talk 12:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can not find evidence that Margot got a degree from Harvard before it went co-ed -- I suspect she graduated from Radcliffe (seven sisters group). Can you find any source on it? Collect (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)  Found .  She married before graduation as far as this appears,  thus the degree likly should follow the part about her marriage.  Collect (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Dates
Per MoS: ''Edit warring over optional styles (such as 14 February and February 14) is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.''    IIRC, I was the first to add any dates at all to the article. In February 2006, the Committee ruled, "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike."  'Nuff said. Collect (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * First, you don't need italics. Second, a stub hardly qualifies for any kind of past stability. Third, the dates you add are sloppy because they don't even spell out the month, and in one instance you added the day of the week for pete's sake. Finally, I don't know about other editors, but I prefer to use American date style for Americans and British date style for nationalities that use them. I have no preference otherwise. Give me a break. This isn't a contest. I was just trying to tidy up.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Read the MoS. And the ArbCom decision.  If you do not like either, rewrite them.  The first editor to add any dates to your stub was me.   Read the MoS again.  Three times even.    And note that Wikipedia uses what you call "British date style" -- which is the dominant date style internationally.   Then reread editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style . And tell me what grammatical system makes that rule unclear.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If I had any sense, which apparently I don't, I wouldn't respond to this. I'm sure we both have better things to do. Anyway, as long as you're quoting stuff at me, WP:STRONGNAT states: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month."


 * There is no edit war, so your quote from MOS doesn't really apply. Plus, the fact that you happened to be the first to add a date to the stub (it's not my stub) hardly justifies the application of MOS, either. Nor, as I said, did I edit it to my "preferred" style (I don't have one on Wikipedia) or "for the sole purpose", etc.


 * This is my last response on this issue. As long as others don't care, change the date format to hieroglyphics.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Rewrite the MoS then.   Thanks and I ask you specifically to revert to the date system used by the editor who added the dates.   Collect (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr. Collect: You know none of us, by ourselves, can rewrite either of those documents. You're also leaving out a key point: sufficient passage of time can constitute "consensus". The cool thing about Wikipedia is that the rules are not quite so hard-and-fast as you're representing (see WP:Five Pillars--the last one).


 * I don't think I agree with your assertion that you created the article and you made the dates a certain way so you get to say what happens to them. Perhaps I'm misreading something but it sounds a lot like you are attempting to assert ownership over the entries. If an editor makes a change to improve an article and you don't agree with it, you're supposed to discuss it in a civil manner on the article's Talk page. You're not supposed to pull out a bat and whack everyone in the head; that's not nice and--if I remember my Dale Carnegie--it's not the best way to win friends and influence people.


 * And, per your own excerpt, above, Wikipedia does not use any preferred style; that's the whole point. Personally, I like things to be accurate and readable, but if you need to have a rule to work with, check the MOS §15.11.2 Strong national ties to a topic (which was also mentioned above). Last time I checked, Margot was American; if anything, I'd use the American versions, just like I'd use British conventions in an article about Winston Churchill. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The stub lacked dates, hence had no ability to provide a guideline as to which should be used. US usage, in fact, is moving towards the YYYY-MM-DD system which I used in computer programs in the 60s.    Margot spent a great deal of her life in France, as it appears, so I am unsure she really would care.  And policies may be amended by anyone - it is getting the changes to stick which is what requires consensus.   I may have been ticklish since the first edit after the stub article was expanded by me was to ... make a wrong wikilink.  And the edit summary saying the cites were "fixed" appeared to imply that they had been wrong in some manner.   Collect (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I created the article and wrote most of the content, and being British happily accepted the DMY date style which Collect introduced (my first refs were undated). I prefer DMY aesthetically because I think it's easier to scan dates when the date/year numbers are separated by the month word. But with the subject here being American I'm happy to accept talkpage consensus for MDY if such it be. I think the real objection is to changing date style without pressing reason and without prior consensus; but it's really not that big a deal. Rd232 talk 22:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's not a really big deal--there are far bigger fish to fry. One thing, though, that I'd do if I were King for a Day is unify the date format. What day is 02/08/03? Depends on where you are and to whom you're talking. Sheesh. The British (or is it European?) convention of abbreviating the month (Feb, Jun, etc.) is so much better. But, the best, (as mentioned above) is the ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD), which comes in only one format and it sorts properly, out of the box. But I'm just a computer geek and I certainly ain't King... &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 01:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Today (more or less) is 16 Apr 2011. Not capable of being easily misinterpreted.   If you are the Swiss postoffice,  16 IV 2011.  Collect (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither of which sort as nicely, though, as do 2011-04-15, 2009-12-18, 1997-02-28, etc., is all I'm sayin'. Or, if you can use only numbers. But, all-in-all, no biggie. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 03:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, sorting Roman numerals is easy as long as the field is well-defined.  Heck, I done been with computers now for over a half century now, and my dad started in WW II (one of those guys). Collect (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's pretty cool to meet a fellow old-timer in the field! When I wax nostalgic and talk about how different things are from the days of Autocoder, IBM BAL, FORTRAN and COBOL, many of my colleagues just roll their eyes...
 * I was talking, though, about ease of use, not possibility of completion. Unusual number sets can certainly be sorted, but that's not the point. The point is that ISO-format dates sort naturally with standard collating sequences. For example, name a bunch of files with Roman numerals (or MM-DD-YY) and put 'em into a Unix, Windows or Linux directory. The order in which the list is displayed will not be the same as creation sequence. The same files with YYYY-MM-DD names will sort into date order--naturally--with no programming required. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I dun said that. BTW, "COBOL" is ~programming.   I had to use FAP.    Keypunch machines.   Accounting machines  (which ate cards on a regular basis).     And the old FlexoWriter.   Did I out old-fogy everyone? <g>.   I wrote a full accounting program on the OSI personal computer using what later became the ISO standard (circa 1978).  Collect (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Son
Appears to be Samuel Roosevelt Hornblower, Harvard '02. Wrote for Crimson, and covered in, of all places, imdb at. appears RS enough - and he might get an article at some point for his "60 Minutes" work (incuding the Duke Lacrosse case). Collect (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

air pollution
Why are editors fighting over whether to link "air pollution"/"air pollution"? What's the dispute?  Will Beback   talk    12:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Add wikilink to air pollution as it has a contentious debatable definition, it went to the United States Supreme Court for example. 108.73.113.64 (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Pretty simple. Air pollution is a common term and shouldn't be wikilinked per WP:OVERLINK ("Avoid linking plain English words."). The link is not helpful to understanding the Roosevelt article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Common does not mean commonly understood, hence having a wp article. 108.73.113.45 (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a small point not worth fighting over.   Will Beback    talk    22:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your comment is too cryptic for me. If you mean that if a word or term has an article, we can link to it, that is clearly wrong as there would be no necessity then for WP:OVERLINK. If you mean something else, please explain.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * to Will: Maybe so, but we all know small points are often fought over here. In any event, saying it's not worth fighting over doesn't resolve the issue. However, I have a proposal. You decide, Will. If you think it should be wikilinked, I'll let it alone. If you think not, then I guess the IP either can let it go or continue to argue (s/he didn't agree to this proposal after all).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I delegate the responsibility to you. Flip a coin. Heads it's linked, tails it's unlinked. Then let's move on to more significant problems.    Will Beback    talk    23:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL. You mean there are problems more significant than this one? I refuse to flip a coin. The IP would never accept my word as to the result of the toss. The IP a little while ago readded the wikilink, and I reverted. However, in the spirit of something-or-other, if the IP readds it, I will not revert. I will now go back to the clearly less weighty issues confronting Wikipedia. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Margot Roosevelt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101211175005/http://www.thefutureoflife.com:80/speakers/roosevelt.htm to http://www.thefutureoflife.com/speakers/roosevelt.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 00:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margot Roosevelt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20141224205310/http://search.time.com/results.html?Ntt=Margot+Hornblower&x=0&y=0 to http://search.time.com/results.html?Ntt=Margot+Hornblower&x=0&y=0
 * Added tag to http://search.time.com/results.html?Ntt=%22Margot+Roosevelt%22&x=0&y=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

REVISIONS TO Margot Roosevelt page.
Hello, I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's editing process, but since I saw you did some edits on the page about me, (Margot Roosevelt), I would like to ask you for a few more. 1) first sentence: Margot Roosevelt (Margot Hornblower) is an American journalist who covers (CUT the) economic and business news for the Orange County Register and the Southern California News Group. (REASON FOR THE EDIT, THE REGISTER WAS BROUGHT BY SCNG IN APRIL 2016, AND EVER SINCE, MY STORIES HAVE RUN IN ALL LL NEWSPAPERS OF SCNG) (HERE IS THE LINKTO MY STORIES : https://www.ocregister.com/author/margot-roosevelt/) 2) please remove the second sentence on my page which is this <<She is a great-granddaughter of President Theodore Roosevelt.[1]>> I have been a journalist for 40 plus years. I am not trying to hide who my great grandfather was, but it should not be the second sentence in a profile of a person who has covered Congress, been a foreign correspondent and has had a rich and long career for top media outlets. In fact it is pretty insulting. One's great grandfather has nothing to do with one's accomplishments. Also since you already say in the next secion-- second paragraph (under Early Life) that my grandfather was Theodore Roosevelt's son, could you please remove that second sentence in the first paragraph intro? It is redundant with the info in the second paragraph (Early Life). 3) As a grammatical edit, I suggest removing the words "ATTENDED AND" which are redundant in this sentence (if i was educated at a school, i obviously also attended it: <<She attended and was educated at the Lycée Français de New York.[5] and the Ecole Francaise Internationale in Washington, D.C. 4) The time line is all mixed up on the Career part of this profile. You have me working at the Washington Post, Time and the LA Times in both the first and third paragraphs. I would suggest a clearer timeline as follows:

<<<Roosevelt's first newspaper job was at the Charlottesville Daily Progress in Virginia.[8] She THEN JOINED THE WASHINGTON POST AS a staff correspondent for 13 years, during which time she was chief environmental correspondent for three years, congressional correspondent in Washington, D.C. for three years, and New York bureau chief for four years. THIS IS THE CORRECT CHRONOLOGY) SHE also reported from several Latin American countries, including Argentina, where she covered the Falklands war. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1982/05/14/bizarre-salvaging-incident-was-fuse-in-falklands-war/900d43b6-9dcf-49ab-9e23-6c654449cdba/?utm_term=.cc179011cae2

Roosevelt joined Time magazine in 1987, reporting from Time's Paris bureau from 1988 to 1994, on politics, culture and breaking news across Europe and occasionally in Africa and Asia.

In 1994, she moved to Los Angeles as National Correspondent for Time[9],where she covered breaking news and wrote features from more than a dozen U.S. states, along with occasional reports from Mexico and Canada.

In 2007, Roosevelt joined the Los Angeles Times as an environmental reporter covering Climate change and air pollution, at a time when California was taking the lead in regulating carbon emissions. She covered global climate negotiations in Copenhagen http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/16/local/la-me-climate-california16-2009dec16 and Cancun. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/04/local/la-me-climate-islands-20101204

Roosevelt was a 2010 National Center for Atmospheric Research Journalism Fellow[10] and 2010 Climate Media Fellow of the Earth Journalism Network.[11] In 2011, she received the award for "Distinguished Science Journalism in The Atmospheric and Related Sciences" from the American Meteorological Society.[12]

In January 2012, Roosevelt joined Reuters to cover the 2012 Presidential election. https://www.reuters.com/journalists/margot-roosevelt

Since December 2012, Roosevelt has covered BUSINESS news and the (CUT THIS BECAUSE I COVERED ALL CALIF Southern) California economy for the Orange County Register. https://www.ocregister.com/author/margot-roosevelt/ AND THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NEWS GROUP (SCNG BOUGHT THE REGISTER IN APRIL 2016 AND SINCE THEN ALL MY STORIES HAVE RUN IN THE 11 NEWSPAPERS WHICH ARE PART OF THE SCNG CHAIN) THIS FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE ELIMINATED SINCE I HAVE GIVEN YOU A REVISED CHRONOLOGY ABOVE. THANK YOU. BEGIN CUT [13] Before that, she wrote for The Washington Post, then for Time magazine, for the Los Angeles Times from 2007 to 2011[14] and for Reuters on the 2012 Presidential election. Besides the economy, her fields have included foreign affairs, US Congress, and the environment, including climate change and air pollution.[14] She is a fellow of the University of Southern California's Los Angeles Institute for the Humanities.[7] END CUTS SINCERELY, MARGOT ROOSEVELT Mroosevelt (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Reply to edit request 25-SEP-2018
Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes for information on each request.  Spintendo   08:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)