Talk:Mister Rogers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Mister Rogers is part of WikiProject Pittsburgh, which is building a comprehensive guide to the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania metropolitan area and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join, or discuss the project.Editors are currently needed to tag Pittsburgh-related articles with {{pghproj}}.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mister Rogers article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

PLEASE BE SURE TO SIGN ALL TALK PAGE COMMENTS.

[edit] Various early discussion

Some other parodies:

Saturday Night Live's first parody that I am aware of was a brief sketch where Dan Akaroyd played the title character in "Dr Jeckyl and Mister Rogers"
One radio parody (circa early 1980's) involved a neighbor accusing Mr Rogers of inappropriately touching his son, and beating Mr Rogers up.
Another radio parody (same time frame) had Bill Murray playing a Jazz musician whom Mr Rogers is interviewing. The sketch ends with Mr Rogers announcing it was time to visit "the Magic Kingdom". "Man, that's too early for me," responds the musician.

One fact of Fred Roger's life that stuck in my mind was something I read a year ago in the Wall Street Journal. At one point Rogers had his car (a second-hand station wagon) stolen. When the thieves found out who the car belonged to, they promptly returned it with their apologies.

Feel free to add any or all of the above to the main article. --llywrch—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.134.136.2 (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2003 (UTC)

Is there a source (like a newspaper http link) to the stolen car story? It sounds too much like an urban legend. -- Anon, 11 Jul 2005—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.94.94.105 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I recall seeing an episode of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood that had remote footage of Fred going swimming in a pool wearing nothing more than boardshorts and goggles, clearly without tattoos of any kind. IMO this could have been done to directly refute the "tattooed sniper" rumor. -- knoodelhed 07:43, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wasn't there some controversy about him talking about death on the show? None is mentioned in the article, but I seem to remember hearing about that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.10.241.61 (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

When Murphy met Rogers, he embraced him and respectfully pronounced him "the real Mister Rogers".

So did Murphy say that, or did Rogers? Unclear. Also, source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.89.187.90 (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colorblind

I've read in a couple places that Mr. Rogers was blind. Can anyone find any factual evidence for this? -- Annonymous—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.148.184.164 (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you mean colorblind, I don't know. If you mean totally blind, not unless it was just prior to his death. I saw him walking by himself down the streets of Winter Park a couple years before he passed away, so he was not blind at that time.The Dark 17:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mister Rogers Satire

"One radio parody (circa early 1980's) involved a neighbor accusing Mr Rogers of inappropriately touching his son, and beating Mr Rogers up."

That would be "National Lampoon: That's not funny, that's Sick."

And there was also a good bit from "Robin Williams: Wow. Reality. What a Concept."

"Let's put Mister Hamster in the microwave, okay? He knows where he's going! BOOP! Pop goes the weasel. That was severe radiaiton. Can you say that? Severe radiation? Nice try, you little sh*ts. The reason I did that, boys and girls, is because The Universe is entropy."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NiftyDude (talk • contribs) 21:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

I didn't know how to sign my name when I originally posted this. Thanks! NiftyDude 23:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of the Peabody Award

Is it possible that the Peabody Award was given in 1993 rather than 1983? If the award was given in 1993, that would make it 25 years after the commencement of the "Neighborhood", as the unofficial "citation" for the award suggests.

Actually, here is a link that indicates the award was presented in 1992:

http://www.peabody.uga.edu/archives/search.asp—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.136.66.218 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Phelps (as compared to Rogers)

(See also "Amcbride (Fred Phelps, again)" and "Protesters at the memorial (aka Fred Phelps, part 3)", below.)

Given the scope of the rest of the article, is it really appropriate to devote so much space to the actions of a few extremists at Mr. Rogers' funeral?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.6.201 (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is.

The way the community came together in the face of crazy hate is a tribute to The Rev. Fred Rogers and to those he has touched. It also stands as a stark contrast to Fred Phelps and his minions.

I think that "Phelps vs Rogers" instructs by contrast.

NiftyDude 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

On later edit: I also think the Mister Rogers article as a whole could use some expanding as well.

In particular, do you remember the tribute to Mister Rogers they aired on PBS, that included his two meetings with the boy in a wheelchair?

If someone wants to research and include that, it would be awesome.

NiftyDude 15:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is he a reverend

Supposedly he didn't actually go to a seminary.What is the source of his title as Reverend?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.162.171 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

He was ordained as a Presbyterian minister after attending seminary as a part-time student while working (which is quite common). He was never a churched pastor, but he was ordained.The Dark 17:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navy SEAL? Marine? Sniper? -- NOT!

(See also "Controversial past", below.)

I seem to recall hearing a rumor that he was a Navy SEAL at one point. Does anyone know if this is true or not? --- GECrom—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.174.0.10 (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Not true: http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/mrrogers.asp -- MisterHand 19:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have heard that he was a marine sniper in Korea and Vietanam—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.99.108.2 (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Rumor? -I heard that Mr. Rogers was in the Marines (in a sniper unit). Is this true? -Northridge—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.249.32.231 (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

According to urbanlegends.about.com, this is completely false. As is the rumor about him Navy SEALS. I'm removing this from the Trivia section.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SmartSped (talk • contribs) 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Layout

The layout of this article is pretty bad. Is that because of Wikipedia itself? I notice lots of articles that have problems once pictures are added. -- Mikeblas 15:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spurious text

Was this text

[3] Church group to protest Pitt, by Michelle Scott, March 18, 2003 The Pitt News

intended to be a reference? Maybe it can be moved to a new "References" section in the article and linked correctly. -- Mikeblas 15:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Rogers' heritage

Mr. Rogers was Welsh-American, right?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.3.45 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial past

(See also "Navy SEAL? Marine? Sniper? -- NOT!", above.)

Does anyone have a legitimate source for this information? There are many urban legends about Mr. Rogers, none of which are true. He was NOT a sniper, nor did he ever serve in the military. I can find no other biographical information to support the paragraph below, so I have removed it from the main article until it can be verrified. "Depressed about the cancellation of the short-lived "MisteRogers," Rogers started becoming addicted to prostitutes. They introduced him to a variety of drugs, and Rogers spent this period on a downward spiral of Cocaine, LSD, and ecstacy. Rogers was arrested in April, 1964 for trying to rob a liquo store with a dildo which he hid in his jacket, hoping it would look like a gun. He went through a heavy year of rehabiliatation, where Rogers gained inspiration from Islam. He was finally released at the end of 1965, a new man."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.156.148 (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video Link

There is a video of him giving the presentation to Pastore at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sd7TcVH670. I'm not sure how to link that in a certain section, so do with it what you please. NeilDespres 08:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of audience

1-3 years old? Where are you getting this from? It seems to me his show was at least geared towards children who had learned how to talk. I have removed the offending sentence.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.115.113.69 (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length of testimony

The article says he gave about 15 minutes of testimony to Congress in 1969, but video only shows about 6.5 minutes. Is part edited out, or is the article mistaken? --Allen 03:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I originally wrote that section. I think I got the fifteen-minute figure from [1], which says,

But the highlight of the hearing appears to have been Rogers' fifteen-minute testimony....

But [2] says six minutes, and I'm not sure which is correct. Wmahan . 04:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heinz quote

Who placed the Teresa Heinz quote in the "Speeches, Honors, and Memberships" section? It is completely out of place. If no one objects, I'm going to move it to somewhere else in the article. Kyhiking 04:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cancer Deaths Category

[edit] Ultimate Showdown

Should the article mention that he wins the Ultimate showdown of Ultimate destiny? --192.25.22.11 12:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No. What some flash animator did long after his death isn't remotely relevant to him. Even among the cultural references, it doesn't come close to (for example) the parodies by Eddie Murphy or Cheech and Chong. Fan-1967 13:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, it was a major internet culture movement. At Ultimate showdown of Ultimate destiny, it says it has been viewed over 7.7 million times on newgrounds alone (let alone other video media sites). On Chuck Norris's Wiki, Ultimate showdown is made reference to and he ends up 'dieing' in it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.234.154.34 (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amcbride (Fred Phelps, again)

(See also "Fred Phelps (as compared to Rogers)", above, and "Protesters at the memorial (aka Fred Phelps, part 3)", below.)

Considering the cultural giant Rogers was Phelps doesn't merit mention on Rogers page anymore than a fly that once landed on Fred. 132.241.246.111 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In general, I feel the same way about Rogers and Phelps as it sounds like you do. There's so much more that can (and I hope will) be added to this article about Rogers's life, and even about his memorial service, that I feel like one line about Phelps (and the counter-demonstrators) won't ultimately give the incident undue attention. That said, though, you seem to feel more strongly about the issue than I do, so I'll revert myself pending others giving their opinions here. --Allen 04:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the Phelps mention should stay. It was a pretty notable event, and that the man's funeral was nice amidst hatred is pretty telling about the man. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black brother

I remember, or perhaps misremember, him talking about an older black kid that lived with his parents. I don't think they adopted him but Rogers said he considered him his older brother and this older brother later grew up to be an instructor of black pilots at tuskegee. I think I even put it in this article once. --Gbleem 05:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I found at least one source. [3]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gbleem (talk • contribs) 05:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

Hey, good inclusion, guys. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tattoos

I heard Mister Rogers has tattoos. Is that ture?--MP123 04:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debunked rumors and sourcing

Chris, I'm not sure what your concern is about the snopes.com citation. I agree with your edit summary that we need citations for truthful statements about untrue things, but how does the snopes.com article not meet that criterion? It doesn't just repeat the rumors, it carefully debunks them, and it lists its own sources. --Allen 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My fault, I missed the citation somehow. I was going to sit down this evening and look for citations, and snopes was my first stop. I apologize. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem; thanks. --Allen 21:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the fact that rogers was colorblind from the urban legends section since this was confirmed by Rogers himself in the piece in Esquire.

[edit] Vegetarian?

I'm removing the category vegetarian until there is a citation in the article. I also removed teetotaler. Don't all marine snipers put back a beer now and then? --Gbleem 12:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be numerous results from a quick google search suggesting that he was.

http://www.salon.com/people/bc/1999/08/10/rogers/index1.html

as well as this quote from the New York Times obituary

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/28/obituaries/28ROGE.html?ei=5070&en=94a80d269e97d3e5&ex=1161144000&pagewanted=all&position=top (registration required)

"Mr. Rogers was a vegetarian and a dedicated lap swimmer. He did not smoke or drink. He never carried more than about 150 pounds on his six-foot frame, and his good health permitted him to continue taping shows." - DANIEL LEWIS - NYT

--Aconbere 21:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George

Can anyone find a last name for George? --Gbleem 12:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

I have to say I really dislike the new formatting, and I'd like to change it back. I don't see the benefit of making so many new, one-paragraph sections, and the labeling a section "Trivia" drops the quality of the article a notch or two. I'd like to submit this article for review, but it feels like this was a step in the wrong direction. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to take out some of the smaller sections, Chris, but it needed to be reformatted - it was, chronologically and narrative-wise, a bit fuzzy before. NickBurns 15:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

PS, Chris, I disagree with your comment about "trivia". Having a trivia section in an article of a person does not "drop the quality". Whether it's labeled "trivia" or "miscellaneous", there will be a section like that for nearly every biographical article. I think this "urban legend" piece is worth mentioning, but it is obviously trivial information. NickBurns 15:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I just know that when submitting articles for reviews, one of the first thing that is usually mentioned as needing to be removed is the trivia section. I do like the flow of the article more now that you have removed the section heads. It makes more sense. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks. The part of the article I really don't like (but didn't remove) is that there is a big section on the show itself - which I think belongs in the article about the show.

I did not know that an article having a trivia section would be an issue in review. I learned something new! NickBurns 17:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The wholesale reformatting done recently doesn't seem to have added much value in my opinion. The sections are are all chopped up. Kyhiking 02:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Kyhiking, much of what Chris posted about above was undone. I'm not sure what the remaining issue is - as it was before, it was kind of a run-on book report. I suppose writing style is subjective and varies by person, in any case. NickBurns 08:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article, vs article on show

I'd like to see some of the information about the show in THIS article be removed and put into the article on the show itself. It's all good information, and I realize that the show was a big part of his life, and therefore deserves an overview in the article about Fred, but I think I'd put a paragraph, perhaps two, of the info listed here into the show article - plus all of the information about the characters for which he was a puppeteer. This article should be more about the man himself, y'know what I mean? My humble suggestion, in any case. NickBurns 21:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to article

I made the change I suggested above - minor deletions to this article regarding the actual show, and I didn't wipe them out completely, I just moved them to the article about the show itself.

I put a whole lot of bits and pieces of info in that I gleaned from Pittsburgh Magazine and their April 2003 issue that was a memorial for Fred Rogers. I find that citing magazines never seems to format correctly in articles when I try to do it, but if anyone needs the citation info, all the bits I put in, plus the "Legacy" section, all came from pages 54 and 55. NickBurns 02:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protesters at the memorial (aka Fred Phelps, part 3)

(See also "Fred Phelps (as compared to Rogers)" and "Amcbride (Fred Phelps, again)", above.)

The Phelpsites and counter-demonstrators outside the memorial are not worth mentioning. Phelps is a whack-job whose basis for having a grudge against Rogers is utterly ridiculous. For crying out loud, Phelps also accuses Bill O'Reilly of being gay-friendly! In fact, he seems ready make that accusation against any public figure who does not toe his "God hates fags" line. Thus Phelps' condemnation of Rogers says much about Phelps, but nought about Rogers -- and ditto the tiny, reasonless protest of the Phelpsites, outsite Rogers' memorial. The counter-protesters, though greater in number, likewise don't point to anything that matters about Rogers. They were there because their enemies, the Phelpsites, were there. They were there to go another round. Naturally, the local newspapers had to mention such a circus (more like a side-show, sans circus, considering how slight it was), in their coverage of the memorial, because that is what the news media does, but the thing was no more than a curiousity, and is not encyclopedic in relation Rogers. Therefore that passage should go. I'm scarcely the first to say so, and have to wonder why such material remains in the article, considering that only two editors have written in favour of its keeping. -- Lonewolf BC 06:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there were protests outside the memorial, which made national headlines is worth mentioning. Additionally, the protesters sang songs from the show, so that makes it even more relevent. Just because it's unpleasant doesn't mean it should be ignored or forgotten. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No straw-manning, please. I have in to way suggested that "...because it's unpleasant...it should be ignored or forgotten". I am saying that, for reasons having nought to do with "unpleasantness", it is does not belong in the Wikipedia article on Rogers. As for making national headlines (did it really?), newspapers print all kinds of things that make a brief sensation, but have no lasting importance. Therefore having gotten into the papers does not signify. -- Lonewolf BC 10:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Given the circumstances, it is neither surprising nor telling that the counter-protesters sang songs from the show. The causus belli between protesters and counter-protesters was the irrational accusations and protest against Rogers. So of course, the counter-protesters would "show support for Rogers" by singing his songs. But the whole circus was not important in relation to Rogers himself. -- Lonewolf BC 10:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I never said you suggested that, and I find your accusation to be offensive. There was a debate outside the man's memorial over the nature of the man's life and work. I find that relevent. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What I am arguing, in part, is that the protest-and-counter-protest was between a minute minority's plainly bogus view of Fred Rogers' life and work, and those committed to opposing that minute minority's views (in this case its views on Rogers, in particular, but that is essentially incidental). The "debate" thus had but tenuous connection with Rogers' actual life and work.

As to your taking offense, there is no cause for such unpleasantness here: When you don't respond another's actual argument, but respond as if that person had made some different and markedly weaker argument -- in this case, as if I'd argued that the material should be taken out on the basis of its unpleasantness -- it is only natural for anyone to interpret that as straw-manning. In fact, it is straw-manning, even if unintended as such. However, I take your word for it that it was not deliberate straw-manning.

As a corrective, please respond to the points I have actually raised. Thus far you have not even begun to address them.

Cordially, Lonewolf BC 18:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

- - - - -

N.B.: The first sentence in the following comment by ChrisGriswold is a later appendage, as shown by the date-added tag within the copy of its beginning, just below.

I am glad to hear that you are now assuming good faith. [CG appended the preceding bit at 22:45, 2/Dec/06. – LW, ed.] Your opinion that...

The tag was place by me so that the order of my responses would make better sense. I originally inserted it, in substantially the same form, 01:43, 3/Dec/06. Strenuous objections to it by Chris, beginning 20:15, 4/Dec/06, have made needful its taking out into this separate explanation. -- Lonewolf BC 02:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

- - - - -

I am glad to hear that you are now assuming good faith. Your opinion that the Phelps people's beliefs are bogus is nothing more than POV. I did respond to your actual argument: You said the protest was not relevent, and I said it was. Despite this, you focused on my follow-up comment about how it should be kept despite its unpleasantness, an issue that I believe was raised in the past about this section. (I assumed, based on your remarks and organizational edits on this talk page, you had followed the history of the section carefully.) I never claimed it was your argument, which I had already dealt with. Your accusation of "straw-manning", unquestioned, might weaken my arguments by calling into question the way that I am proceeding in the discussion. Please read what I have written more carefully; you will find that I have, in fact, already responded to your points. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"Your opinion ... nothing more than POV.": You're suggesting that the Phelpsites' views about Rogers are not bogus? If so, have you any evidence? However, an opinion used as a basis for reasoning what belongs in an article or not -- which is a matter of opinion, by nature, up to a point -- is not the same thing as "POV" within an article. That the latter is forbidden in Wikipedia thus does not invalidate my reasoned opinion that the Phelps stuff does not belong in the article at all. (Indeed, I hold that its inclusion is pushing a point-of-view.)

"I did respond to your actual argument: You said the protest was not relevent, and I said it was.": In the words from the famous Monty Python sketch, "This is not an argument; this is merely a contradiction. An argument is a carefully constructed series of statements intended to prove a point." I made an argument for why the stuff is not relevant to Rogers (or, to be exact, is too slightly relevant to him to belong in an encyclopedia article on him). You have yet to address that argument in a reasoned way.

"Despite this, you focused on my follow-up comment about how it should be kept despite its unpleasantness...": Well, that was ~~the only thing~~ one of the things^* in your post resembling an attempt to make a case. I've already covered this. Enough! ^*(On re-edit: The other two were "headlines" and "songs", with both of which I also dealt in my reply to you. -- LW, 06/Dec/03/17:50(UTC))

"...an issue that I believe was raised in the past about this section. (I assumed ... you had followed the history of the section carefully.)":You assumed rightly, but keep in mind that you are now addressing me, not any other who has objected to the same material in the past. I do not necessarily endorse their reasoning, just because I concur with its conclusion. (On re-edit: As the record plainly shows, though, thus far no one has argued for exclusion of such matter on grounds of unpleasantness. All calls for its exclusion have been on grounds of relative insignificance. -- LW, 06/Dec/03/17:50(UTC))

"I never claimed it was your argument,...": Implicitly you did, whether you meant to or not. See my last post. Please drop it; it does not matter, anyway.

"...which I had already dealt with.": For the last time, no you had not. You merely contradicted my argument's conclusion.

"Your accusation of "straw-manning" ... way that I am proceeding in the discussion.": Not really. Granted, straw-manning tends to give the appearance of having nothing better to offer, but in this case the straw-manning scarcely needed me to point it out. I accept that you did not intend it that way; that is the way it reads, nevertheless. I asked you not to straw-man any more simply because I don't want to deal with that kind of baloney, not so as to make you look bad.

"Please read ... already responded to your points.": For the very last time, no you have not. Please concentrate on doing so henceforth. -- Lonewolf BC 01:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I also want to further emphasize that the memorial's tranquility despite the protests outside, as well as the use of his songs as a weapon against hatred are part of the man's legacy. Furthermore, in addition to no longer accusing me of "strawmanning", please stop using the word as if it were a verb.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The quality of the memorial was, truly, a testament to Rogers. The protest and counter-protest outside, not so. Confrontationalism was just not his way. The use of the songs by the counter-protesters, I have already disposed of. I will add that your use of "weapon" in their connection is eloquent of just how unrepresentative of Rogers and his legacy that whole geek-show was. With regard to the opening remark you have appended to the former portion of your response, I never accused you of bad faith. I just asked you not to straw-man any more. Straw-manning is not necessarily an act of bad faith, just of bad argument. Finally, if you object to the verb forms "straw-manning" and "straw-man", my best advice is that you give me no further occasion to use them -- but they are, in truth, commonplace usages and (perhaps more to the point) entirely comprehensible ones. -- Lonewolf BC 02:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know you never accused me of acting in bad faith. I was just saying that I was glad to see you announce you were beginning to act in good faith, a central tenet of Wikipedia. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(The just-above "microtopic revival" comment is answered a little way down the page (in a new sub-section, alike to but next after the new sub-section beginning just below) for the sake of keeping the page more nearly in timewise order. -- Lonewolf BC 02:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

Could someone let me know when Lonewolf BC stops patronizing and drops the semantics? I'll gladly continue to discuss this at that point, but until then, I have no interest in doing so. I've stated my case, and you've dismissed it as less than an argument, which is insulting. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to take it that you concede the point, then. As for your charges of "patronizing" and "semantics", not only are they false, but even if they were true they should be no reasonable cause for you to break off this discussion. I make no apologies for analysing your responses; that they come off as wanting is no fault of mine. If you intend to abandon this discussion, you may not rightly foist the blame for that onto me. If, instead, you carry on with this discussion, please concentrate on trying to address my points, and otherwise trying to make a reasoned case in support of your contention. -- Lonewolf BC 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I can break off discussion with you for whatever reason I choose; however, it would really be appropriate for you to begin to discuss the issue rather than me and my ability to argue. I'll concede nothing. If you still really feel that I have not addressed you arguments, please list them simply so that I may address them one by one. I will not comb through your thick blocks of prose to extract what arguments there are amidst the discussion of my reasoning skills. Regardless, I still disagree with you, and your job really is to convince me, not to bludgeon me with your arguments.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to quit, quit. If you want to discuss this then address my points, and otherwise stick to the point (without going off about how I've offended you somehow, or any other such personal stuff, or any other irrelevancy).

Yes, you can quit any time, and state whatever "reason" for doing so that you wish. That shan't make your "reason" true, though, nor a valid reason for quitting. (For instance, you could quit for the "reason" that you refuse to argue with a man over seven feet tall.)

I've not been discussing "your ability to argue". I have been making my case, and refuting yours -- your arguments, such as they've been, not your ability to argue. (I have also tried to stamp out the various spot-fires of personal offense and other non sequitur that you've been sparking up. I begin to think that this last has been unwise of me, as it has only made for great clouds of smoke, as they carry on smouldering despite my best efforts.)

I'm not going to repeat myself. Just read my posts; everything is there. Feel free to ask, if you have specific questions about what any of it means, but I have written it most clearly. And again, don't confuse refutation of your arguments and disposal of your non sequiturs with personal criticism of your reasoning skills or anything else about you. "It's not about you."

You seem to think that it is up to me somehow to convince you of something with which you disagree, without making the case which demonstrates that you are in error ("bludgeon[ing you] with [my] arguments", as you put it). That is not the reasonable way to proceed, which is to reason, and let the better reason prevail, or perhaps reach some reasoned compromise. Just how do you suppose I should convince you, if not through reason?

If, ultimately, you are committed to "conced[ing] nothing" and "disagree[ing] with me ...regardless", that is, regardless of the dictates of reason, please just tell me so straight out, now, and quit the discussion. -- Lonewolf BC 23:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what consensus is, or how such discussions are supposed to take place on Wikipedia. I do disagree with you, and it is your burden to change my mind. Otherwise, the passage stays. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I do! Consensus is when the view of one person of a disagreeing pair, prevails over the view of the other person, through the pure obstinacy of the first person, and despite the reasoned case presented by the second person, showing how the view of the first person is wrong, which case the first person simply ignores. ... No, wait. That's wrong, isn't it.

I'm not too worried that your idea of "how...discussions [to settle editorial disagreements] are supposed to take place on Wikipedia" is correct, whereas said idea seems to be that an editor can block any given change to an article simply by refusing to agree to it, while ignoring the reasons presented for it and effectively refusing to discuss it. (In another sense, I'm not too worried if your take on settling editorial disagreements turns out to be right, either.)

If, ultimately, you are committed to "conced[ing] nothing" and "disagree[ing] with me ...regardless", that is, regardless of the dictates of reason, please just tell me so straight out, now, and quit the discussion. -- Lonewolf BC 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I refuse to agree; I simply disagree with you currently. You have done nothing to change that. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your present position of, "Oh yeah? Well I still don't agree!" amounts to the very refusal that you deny giving. I won't repeat myself; all that is needful, pending some new and to-the-point input from you, is already there, for anyone to see. The ball is in your court.

It seems to me you're doing quite a bit of repeating yourself. Don't edit my comments. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't change one word of your comments, as you well know. Just for the record (i.e. for anyone else bothering to read all this): I did move one "after-the-fact" comment, on a "cold" microtopic, from a ways back up the section to the page-bottom (as-was), for the sake of not buggering up the timewise order of the page. I carefully brought along the needful context and made enough back-reference to make accurately plain to any reader what it is about -- in fact, more readily so than before, because unrelated clutter was not brought along. I also inserted a small "date added" tag after a sentence that you appended to the beginning of one of your comments, a little later. I did so because my response makes more sense in light of that bit's late addition. The tag is clearly delimited from, and labeled as not part of your own comment, and affects your meaning not an iota. It merely helps to make clear why the appendage is not treated until my follow-up response. Again, I have not changed your comments themselves in the slightest.

By the by, bothering me about this on my talk page, besides, was needless. Saying, as you did there, that I had "edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar", and writing as though the "someone" was other than yourself was misleading (to any third party reading the comment). Leaving "vandalism warning" as the edit-summary was not only misleading but downright uncivil and a rather gross violation of "assume good faith". By no stretch of the imagination have I vandalised your comments -- or anything else.

As for repeating myself or not, the "won't repeat" refers to my arguments, of course. That is, I won't re-iterate them, because they are already clearly set out, at length, up at and near the section-top. One much briefer and more, at the moment, more immediate thing that I will repeat, as much as I think meet, is this:

In the below, CG revives:

"I am glad to hear that you are now assuming good faith." (CG, 22:45, 2/Dec/06)
"I never accused you of bad faith. I just asked you not to straw-man any more. Straw-manning is not necessarily an act of bad faith, just of bad argument." (LW, 02:07, 3/Dec/06)

(Explanatory note, above, by Lonewolf BC 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC).)

Baloney. Whenever anyone says to another, "I am glad...that you are now [whatever]," that has the effect as saying that the "you" was not doing the "whatever", formerly. And now, besides having accused me of having failed to assume good faith on your part, you even more overtly accuse me of having failed to act in good faith, myself (else how could I be "beginning to act in good faith"?). No, I was announcing nothing of the kind, and was acting in good faith the whole time, and am yet. I never even said anything that gave reasonable cause to suppose I was announcing some change of attitute. I just said that I accepted your word that your straw-manning was merely careless. Assume good faith yourself; assuming that is an important principle here. And keep a civil tongue in your head (or civil fingers on your hands, as the expression might better be put, for this setting). Or don't, and see if I care. This is about the last I shall say upon such extraneous matters. -- Lonewolf BC 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A different question about protests (Phelps)

What criteria should be used for determining if the Phelps information should be in the article? I think this question should be answered before we discuss whether the Phelps protest meets any particular set of criteria for inclusion. --Gbleem 08:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no criteria that I know of. It comes down to editorial decision consensus. I feel the memorial is an important item to mention; to leave out the protest is to obscure the nature of the event. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/s/Talk%7EMister_Rogers_1b7e.html"

Categories: Arts and entertainment work group articles | Unassessed biography (arts and entertainment) articles | Unknown-priority biography (arts and entertainment) articles | Unassessed biography articles | WikiProject Pittsburgh