Talk:Jeffrey Rosen (legal academic)

Heritage

Is he of Jewish heritage? Badagnani (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sonia Sotomayer controversy

I think this section is newsworthy and notable. It's attracted what is esentially his most significant claim to notability. Without it, quite frankly, he's not notable. If it is kept out, we'll have to send this to WP:AFD, because there is not much left. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"His most significant claim to notability"? Rosen has been one of America's most important legal commentators for more than a decade. A single post on the TNR website is fodder for partisan attacks, not a factor for his "notability." I've rewritten the section to keep the facts, and avoid the non-neutral smear. lessig (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputes?

Someone placed tags on this page saying that there were disputes about POV and neutrality. I was directed to the talk page, but no dispute appears here. Does anyone have a problem with the text as written, and , if so, what is it? Coemgenus 01:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Before I edited it, the original stub had one source, was lacking any evidence of notability, and was something of a puff-piece for Rosen, a conservative dime-for-the-dozen law professor and commentator. I only learned of him from a dispute about Judge Sonia Sotomayor in "the blogosphere" and, as usual, looked up his Wikipedia article. There was a short paragraph about the Sonia Sotomayor controversy, but poorly written, without context and without any citations. To be frank, I could not find any reliable sources, so I used the pro- and anti-Rosen blogs and fixed up the language a bit. If anyone can find any such source of better quality, go ahead. Another user removed the entire section, without any attempt to re-write it or find better sources. Rosen is, in my mind, only notable as a blogger, and thus the only sources publicly available are blogs. What remains of the stub fails to assert or prove notability. But for this controversy, Rosen is just not notable as a professor or writer. With the material removed, the stub is now too slanted in favor of the subject, without any encylopedic content. What is left is fluffy spam. Unless the controversy is included, the subject is unencyclopedic and non-notable, and thus ought to be deleted. I've written or edited lots of articles about people for whom I don't care. Notable people are often controversial. But if the controversy is not included merely because the sources are unreliable, then there is nothing left that ought to remain at all. So I tagged the article. I'd support deletion if something is not added in about the controversy. Bearian (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

After reading some of his recent writing, I think he is notable. I do think this article is still slanted. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The article may portray him in a favorable light, but I can assure you that he is not conservative -- is that the blogosphere impression of him now? When I started this article, he was known as a center-left professor and author. I agree that the Sotomayor part of the article was poorly written and can be improved. Coemgenus 11:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeffrey Rosen. 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://web.archive.org/web/20100216175734/http://www.brookings.edu/experts/rosenj.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/experts/rosenj.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)