Talk:Nir Rosen

PBS NewsHour Debate
The transcript of the March 1, 2008 debate between Nir Rosen and Fred Kagan about the Bush administration's so-called "surge" (of which Kagan was the chief architect) is well worth reading. Rosen outlines a realistic assessment of what is happening in Iraq while Kagan is so invested in administration propaganda that he claims that sectarian cleansing in Baghdad is a "myth" and even tries to deny that Iraq is under U.S. occupation. I would leave the Michael Yon critique of the debate, because it says something about how invested Mr. Yon is in the propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmwarnick (talk • contribs) 20:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * that's right he's one of the most objective reporters


 * "Objective" is usually the most subjective claim one can make, since it invariably means "agrees with ones own personal bigotry and prejudices". If you are going to make such claims about the article subject, at least don't be a total coward. Have the courage to sign your statements.Dogface (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Rosen's background
He has Iranian/Israeli Jewish heritage on one side http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:35qO5XFiu3sJ:jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com/2006/11/education-of-nir-rosen.html+nir+rosen&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us&client=firefox-a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.161.132 (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nir is of mixed heritage. Nir's father is Iranian, originally a Mahboubian, his grandfather changed his name to Rosen while working in Germany. His Mother's heritage is from Belarus. He was born and raised in Manhattan, NYC and being an avowed atheist does not practice any religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.136.194 (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone just added that he's jewish, but gave no source. On his amazon page, one of the reader-reviewers claims he's an arab muslim. Any ideas? I haven't read his book and know nothing about him beyond the few articles I've perused... Dsol 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

An article by Rosen I found on Google makes it fairly clear that he is from an Israeli family and spent a considerable amount of time there as a child. I have no idea why that reviewer said that, Nir Rosen is pretty obviously a Hebrew name. Rafaelgr 23:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Whether of Israeli or arab origin... seems like a very objective individual with a very even handed approach in reporting or commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.63.85 (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He is definitely Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.201.139 (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly he mentioned once that he's the son of an Iranian Jew and an Iraqi Muslim mother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.75.8 (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lara Logan controversy
Does this warrant inclusion in the article? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 23:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes128.12.221.87 (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you can find a reliable source for the reaction. His twitter account is probably sourceable for the quote itself, but the reaction is different. Be aware of BLP issues, they apply even to guys like this. (He's more famous for his behavior during an embed in Afghanistan with the Taliban, but again that will require appropriate sourcing.) 24.99.60.48 (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We should perhaps semi lock this page. I have a feeling that in a couple hours there's going to be a lot of people checking it, some of them meaning to troll it or insert their opinion on the controversy. Westrim (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Rosen eclipsed the whole of his earlier accomplishments" is obviously not neutral and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.251.43.16 (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the first paragraph after the introduction should not begin with "Rosen is best known for the comment he posted on his Twitter account ridiculing journalist Lara Logan," both because there is thorough coverage of the episode in its own section, and because it is obviously an attempt to insert bias into his bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.133.153 (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK people, this guy is a moron, but bear in mind WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, please make suggestions here for inclusion of this content Tentontunic (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What is there to talk about? Why are you, Tentontunic, deleting factual accounts from which all POV content has been extracted- repeatedly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megarian1973 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, I agree the guy is a moron, however as this is a blp such contentious material really ought to be discussed on the talk page first. Tentontunic (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please explain what is POV about the content? Justify your interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megarian1973 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Tentontunic: do please explain your criteria for NPOV. Your criteria seem to be even stricter than that of the AP. Just because certain facts and factual accounts reveal a manifestly vicious character, e.g., Rosen, does not mean the facts and accounts are vitiated with POV. Again, do please explain for I don't think you understand what POV means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megarian1973 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Look to my last edit on the article, that is NPOV Tentontunic (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic: I want you to explain your criteria. As I said, the associated press story looks far more similar to my account than to yours. And do address my assertions about fact and factual accounts, please, given above. Otherwise stop arbitrarily undoing the hard work others have put into creating an entry. I've been deleting POV and vandalism from the entry since yesterday and you come along and delete the entire posting without justifying your claim that it's POV. If you can't explain yourself, be courteous and desist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megarian1973 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but no, there are ways to write in a NPOV manner. Yours is not the way. I have already reported myself for a 3r violation and shall no doubt be blocked soon. I shall not respond here again. Tentontunic (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Then why did you insist on people coming to the talk page if you're not going to talk? You can't just assert that something is or isn't such and such-- you have to give reasons, explain yourself. If you can't, then you have no reasonable basis for making edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megarian1973 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I assumed I would be blocked for edit warring. I am now going to bed and can only hope another editor shall try for a NPOV on this. Tentontunic (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nir Rosen has sincerely and repeatedly apologized, why have his tweets and apologies been removed from the controversy post? It is clearly exhibiting a point of view to only include quotes which reflect ill upon him but not those that reflect his true perspective and views. Either remove all quotes and paraphrase or include his apology. He has appeared on numerous television and print interviews today alone apologizing. I know of no other journalist or public figure who has apologized this much for a few tasteless comments made in jest on twitter. He is clearly regretful and this page should reflect that, not be a venue for someone to libel him.
 * That all sounds fine to me. My only problem with previous versions of his apologies was that they were distorted.

Working on it... there seems to be a lot being read into tweets, and that data is being quoted as fact, so I tried to point out that such statements are interpretations. Ronabop (talk)

The previous versions of his apologies were his exact words which are on his twitter site. References were provided to both his twitter site, the huffington post which reposted his twitter site as well as fishbowlDC where he had an interview. He has written much and said many things yet this article seems to criticize him at every opportunity and portray only comments which are derogatory. Now that it is locked, people are using this as a venue to libel him. That's ridiculous and not what wikipedia is about. Either unlock it or provide a fair and balanced perspective on Nir that includes his apologies and expression of his beliefs.

Blockquote
I'm not sure if the quote in the lead belongs there at all, but in any case, can someone indent it please? -- 92.225.78.48 (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean this one: "(CAN WE TAKE THE WORD 'JEWISH' OUT? ALMOST ALL JEWS WOULD RENOUNCE ANY CONNECTION, HOWEVER TENUOUS, TO THIS PERSON.)" This needs to be deleted ASAP. Black Max (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Black Max

Harper's
He wrote one article for Harper's magazine almost six years ago: http://harpers.org/subjects/NirRosen. It is not accurate to say he "regularly contributes" to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.54.28 (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Quiltingbuddy, 17 February 2011
"extensivly" should be spelled "extensively"

Quiltingbuddy (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The controversy section
First let me point out the obvious: this is a biography of a living person. Because of this all editors should be erring on the side of caution. When in doubt, leave it out. Secondly we need to reexamine the "controversy" section. In order to meet both WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE we need to ensure that this section is not simply a compiling of contemporary statements by the subject that some might consider to be brash. There's needs to be actual evidence of controversy over the content and it has to be presented in a contextually appropriate "big picture" sort of way. My recommendation is to eliminate the section and to include the resigning of of his position(s) with a brief explanations of why and a robust set of footnotes and external links. Suggestions? TomPointTwo (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this section should be eliminated. It is being used as a venue for people who have never read his work and have no idea of his background to libel him by depicting one side of the story. It should either include the complete story including his extensive apology and regret or nothing at all. In a distinguished 8 year career risking his life defending victims of abuse and war, Rosen made half a dozen wreckless and insensitive tweets. He has spent every hour since trying to retract, apologize and clarify his views. To characterize him completely based on those a few lines considering the entire body of his work and career is both wrong and a disservice to the victims he has given voice to throughout his career.

I don't think the section can or should simply be eliminated; this was a major incident in his career, and can't just be left out. The fairness of his treatment vis-a-vis the rest of his career does not come into the equation of include/don't include if we're working under NPOV. For precedent, one can view the entry on Al Campanis, who also had a long career eclipsed by one unfortunate statement. Given that the entry as it stands today contains a mention of his apology and a link to the HuffPost article with more information, this may be as close as we can get to balancing both sides. Tagryn (talk) 25 April 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 01:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC).

Is there an appropriate way, within the scope of WP rules, to highlight the fact that Rosen has demonstrably made very anti-Israel statements, and continues to do so on his Twitter feed to this day? 99.163.42.132 (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Neutralitynow, 17 February 2011
Please restore this 31-month-old paragraph to the end of the lede section:

From 2005 to 2008, Rosen was a fellow at the New America Foundation. In September 2007, he was the C.V. Starr Distinguished Visitor at The American Academy in Berlin. On April 2, 2008, Rosen testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee at their hearings on political prospects in Iraq after the surge.

Please remove this unsourced, inaccurate addition from the third sentence of the first paragraph of the lede section:

He is a fellow at the New America Foundation …

Neutralitynow (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Tentontunic (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please replace this inaccurate third sentence of the first paragraph of the lede section:

From 2005 to 2008, Rosen was a fellow at the New America Foundation. until his resignation in the wake of his controversial statements on Lara Logan's sexual assault. with:

From 2008 to 2011, Rosen was a fellow at the Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law, until his resignation in the wake of his controversial statements on Lara Logan's sexual assault.

Please restore this 31-month-old paragraph to its previous place as the fourth paragraph of the lede section:

From 2005 to 2008, Rosen was a fellow at the New America Foundation. In September 2007, he was the C.V. Starr Distinguished Visitor at The American Academy in Berlin. On April 2, 2008, Rosen testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee at their hearings on political prospects in Iraq after the surge.

Neutralitynow (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Atlantic.
Since when are Op-eds a reliable source for facts in a BLP? Tentontunic (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I should also point out, no-were in that source does the article author mention "Controversy" Tentontunic (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * They can be, sometimes. If the writer is an authority on the subject or the piece is cited to reflect the position of the author then it's not a big deal. This is Goldberg's wheelhouse and he's not really a controverisal figure, I don't see an inherent partisan bias issue. Furthermore, none of the statements sourced to the Atlantic piece seem to be in dispute. They're all acknowledged or cited by other sources and don't seem to be denied by Rosen. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Atlantic article is not an op-ed. Truthsort (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not in the technical sense because of the magazine format but it's a de facto opinion piece which, I'm assuming, was Tentontunic's ultimate point. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that was the point, plus of course the source does not actually say that what it is reporting is controversial Tentontunic (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight
The section on the twitter controversy is now over a hundred words longer than the section devoted to his entire career. That section also mentions the controversy, about as much time on it as it does on his widely-reviewed book. This is, of course, inappropriate due to WP policies and guidelines and we should make an effort to either reduce this section or expand the article so the section is of appropriate weight. Gamaliel (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My two cents: Nir Rosen is notable mostly for the Twitter controversy.  I never heard of him before reading what he said about Lara Logan and Anderson Cooper.  As is often the case, people become famous, after long careers, because of one incident, good or bad.  Example:  Chesley Sullenberger, pilot of US Airways Flight 1549.  Who in the general public had heard of Sully before this?  But he has a total of 40 years of flying experience.  The section about the "Miracle on the Hudson" is longer than the bio of his early life and career, military and commercial.  I think it's the same in this case with Nir Rosen:  that he is now more notable than before because of the Twitter controversy, and as such this section will be longer, but at the same time not enough to sprout its own article.  Make sense?  --Magmagirl (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your argument, but it doesn't apply in this case. Neither of us had heard of Rosen before this, but that doesn't mean he wasn't notable.  A quick database search will reveal dozens of reference work listings and book reviews that predate this controversy, not to mention those major fellowships.  It's clear that his career and notability were well established before this. Otherwise no one would care what he said on twitter. Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, don't misunderstand me -- I didn't say he wasn't notable. The original article (created in 2006 as a stub) would have been deleted otherwise. I'm just saying he was not heard of by the majority of Wikipedians (Wikizens?  Wikivillians?  :-D) before this controversy. --Magmagirl (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misunderstanding, I seem to have conflated what you said with some other arguments I've heard before. Gamaliel (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Imo the twitter coverage is undue and a recent attempt to post the subjects apology was immediately reverted, I actually support that last edit - the coverage in the lede is also undue at present. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The content in the lede has been removed as undue and I fully support that edit. Wiki editors have the dubious ability to make a person notability as regards his whole carer focus on a single titillation. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The bulk of the information doesn't belong in the lead but it's obviously worthy of inclusion with a sentence in the lead and it's own section. It's been noted by a wide range of reliable sources and was a substantial personal turning point for him. It ended a prestigious fellowship and garnered him name recognition in places he didn't have before. So while the actual twitter posts may be of debatable importance in understanding the man himself the fall out is a clearly notable biographical point from both a cultural and professional perspective. Let's be honest: half the hits on this article are looking for information on exactly this incident. So let's figure out exactly how much detail we want in the section, how we should phrase the snippet in the lead and how much peripheral analysis of the incident from RS we want to include. Then, when we've come to a consensus, we can make then changes, cut out the back and forth edits and all move on. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In regards to the lead, I have no problem with including it in the lead as long as the lead accurately summarizes his entire career and isn't just "Nir Rosen is a reporter who did some crazy shit in 2011." In regards to the section on the incident, it is too long and out of proportion to the rest of the article.  The section should be trimmed or the rest of the article should be expanded or (preferably) both.  Time constraints have prevented me from entering this section with gardening tools, but it will be weeded eventually as this article must conform to WP:UNDUE. Gamaliel (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I figured a mention in the lead centered on the controversial reaction and his resignation of the fellowship would suffice to let people know they're in the right place if that's the incident which brought them here. As for the dedicated section my preference was for a simple and brief synopsis of his comments and the resulting backlash/apology with the tangible results mentioned. I don't think a blow-by-blow, timestamped, TMZ style disaster porn entry is constructive or appropriate. There are already reliable sources which have done this and I figure an external link along with inline citations will be enough for those who are looking for that sort of unencyclopedic but still relavent content. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have known about him since the Iraq war began; leading war correspondent for the New York Times and other major papers . walk victor falktalk 21:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what bearing that has on the discussion. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone upthread said "notable only for twitter controversy" or something like that. walk victor falktalk 01:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of content by User:Off2riorob
User:Off2riorob expunged all mention of the sexual nature of Lara Logan's assault in Egypt, citing "trim unconfirmed sexual assault" and "trim" in his edit summaries. In light of the fact that CBS itself confirmed that Logan "suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/15/60minutes/main20032070.shtml), I've restored the content and included a reference to the report.—Biosketch (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My initial, cursory impression was he was removing the sexual assault element in relation to the Cooper which could be construed as incorrectly indicating that Cooper's assault was also sexual in nature. Looking over it again I think your changes are correct and should stand pending a more detailed explanation by Off2riorob. Good catch. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Israeli-American
There are no sources that indicate Rosen is an Israeli citizen. Israeli sources mention that he has "Israeli roots" (Channel 2 News) and that he is "the son of Israel emigrants" (Globes), but nothing about him being Israeli.—Biosketch (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that he was of Christian Lebanese decent which could still make him an Arab-Israeli, there are over a million living in Israel from all over, mainly Palestine. EIther way it should stay out until we can find a source. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a few sources, one written by himself stating he has an Israeli grandmother and has Israeli roots(http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles/NirRosen.htm)(national/archive/2011/02/the-creepiest-thing-nir-rosen-ever-said/71398/) the 2nd link proves his Jewish roots therefore he can not be of Christian Lebanese decent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarletpoet (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * None of the links above actually work, and the link in the article doesn't even mention Nir Rosen. There is therefore no active source that substantiates the claim that he has/has had family in Israel. Whether he is Israeli and/or Jewish or neither is none of my concern, but please consider that this article deals with a journalist who works in conflict zones in the Middle East, including with militant Islamist groups. Any claim that he has an Israeli family connection needs to be EXTREMELY well documented, since that could presumably get him killed in the wrong situation.


 * Now, it's of course perfectly obvious that whatever his family history is, he doesn't support Israel, and is in fact strongly pro-Palestinian. But there's always the chance that someone doesn't care to find that out, so let's be a little responsible here. 76.28.173.107 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Section about school and family
Only one user, user:Spacepotato wants to ad a section about Rosen primary school and where his aunt lives... It doesn't seem very interesting to most of us... but let's talk about it here, instead of indulging into the edit war which took place between Spacepotato and IP!

Remi Mathis (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've followed this article in the past few days, and would like to echo Remi's comment, especially in light of the previous section ("Israeli-American") on this talk page: the modifications that are being disputed seem to concentrate on showing a link between Nir Rosen and Judaism. The existence of sources is important, but most important is whether this information belongs to the article -- and whether it could be hurtful for the subject o the article. In particular, I doubt that having "close family connections in Israel" by itself is encyclopedic (or the article should explain why it is important -- I can't remember other biographies in which we mentioned family ties to some countries in this way). Schutz (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not include it? It's useful to have more information on Rosen's family and ethnocultural background as it helps to understand how Rosen came to his current ideological position.  The editors removing the information gave no justification for that. Spacepotato (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)