Talk:Naomi Robson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion[edit]

Mediaa tell me where you get your information that Naomi Robson is the producer of Today Tonight? Neil Mooney is always quoted as the National Producer of the show.

Apart from that, I still question the need for it to be on her wikipedia page. If there was a complaint about 7News having "abysmal reporting standards" (as you so objectively put in) would we go about putting it on all 7News reporters/presenters/producers wiki pages?

Although I definately think a mention could be made about her upcoming appearance at the court case, thus I left in this time, of course with the 'after' part unbolded as it doesn't fit in with the required neutral tone sought after here at wikipedia.

Slj 11:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I should have said "presenter" for the east coast but let's not get pedantic. The article on Robson speaks in glowing terms - there is clearly another side. She has decided to be involved in a program that attracts over one third of all ABA judgements against a television station. In the television trade it is known as the trashiest programme in Australia and Robson is not admired or even liked - you don't have to look far to find evidence supporting this statement. Check out: http://forum.australian-media.com.au/index.php?showtopic=533

Her court case is a classic case in point the Magistrate sent a notice to Today Tonight in Melbourne warning them not to cover the story. Robson would have seen that letter but went ahead with the story anyway.

I am surprised to hear that 7News reporter and presenters have enough sbstance to appear on Wikipedia - I thought there were minimum standards for individuals to be listed here. Clearly most of them, including Robson, do not meet them.

Personally I hope she lands up in the clanger - it's about time someone brought her to heel.

[Mediaa]

is this her real blog?[edit]

I have recently been reading this blog: http://ivegotkarmatoburn.blogspot.com/

which has Naomi's photo as the owner of the blog - any insight as to whether it is really her writing?

Thanks

I did a Google Image Search for Naomi Robson. The first result was a larger, uncropped version of the picture used in the blog. Given that, I'd say this person just did as I did and picked that picture for their profile. DynaBlast 16:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Court Case[edit]

I removed the information about the court case. My reasoning behind this was that it was simply a copy of Media Watch's transcript (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1473150.htm) and added POV to the article. None of the other articles on journalists named in the court case had this mentioned on their WP articles, so it appears someone tried to find whatever material possible to try and make Naomi look bad. This is supported by the ridiculous link encouraging people to look up Naomi Robson in the Magistrate's Court list (which yields no results).

If someone wants to add in this information once more in a tasteful way, here's a source to get you started: [1] To my knowledge, the court case concluded with the people involved having to give an apology. DynaBlast 23:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Autocue Reader[edit]

Really? ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 12:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, she makes it up as she goes along.--143.92.1.33 06:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this woman need an article dedicated to her?

She is a former host of a tabloid current affairs program.

Can't this be deleted?

POV Problems[edit]

The "Controversy" section reads like tabloid journalism. I've tried to tone it down a bit, but it need more work to get neutral POV. RJ4 (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the following from the WP:DR guidelines :-

"When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral."

"Always explain your changes in the edit summary to help other editors understand the reasoning behind them. If an edit is potentially contentious, explain why you made the change and how it improves the article. If your reasoning is complex, add a section to the talk page of the article to explain it and refer to that section in the edit summary. If your edit gets reverted, you can discuss the reversion with other editors on the talk page."

RJ4 (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth/controversial stuff[edit]

Hi, My name is Max Markson and I am Naomi Robson's manager. I am trying to correct her date of birth which is 31 August 1963 and also remove the libelous material on this BLPMaxmarkson (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Maxmarkson[reply]

Hi. I knew Naomi briefly in the early 1980s when she was a fine arts student. I was invited to one of her birthdays around then. I'm sure she was born in 1963. (Drpanacea (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Are you officially denying, on behalf of your client, the accuracy of all the content that you have deleted ? RJ4 (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THat is correct RJ4.If you'd like to speak to Naomi directly to go through all the deleted material line by line i am happy to put you directly in contact with her? Maxmarkson (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Maxmarkson[reply]

Thanks for the offer Max, but that would constitute "original research", which is frowned upon by Wikipedia. For my 2 cents worth, I think the entire section could be replaced with a summary along the lines of :
"During her long tenure as host of Today Tonight, rival news organisations ran many stories critical of Robson on points ranging from her hair and wardrobe, to people she met socially, but continued ratings performance meant that she retained the post for a decade."
I don't have access to a list of Seven's current affairs hosts, but I am fairly confident that a ten year run in prime time is a rather unusual accomplishment. However, it is important to retain the references to the original media reports, as this is just a summary.
RJ4 (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max: If you believe the references in the 'Controversy' section are libellous, you should take it up with the people who wrote and broadcast the ostensibly libellous material, and the publications and television networks they appeared in and on. You can't remove legitimate references from a Wikipedia article simply because you don't like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.137.76.75 (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the deleted controversy section. While there are parts of this section that should be rewritten, there are sources to back up the instances and the section should not be completely removed. FYI, the edits on this page have come under some media scrutiny here and here. Gobonobo T C 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard the audio of that is allegedly of Naomi Robson swearing. Does she or Max deny it is not her? If so then state that unequivocally and put the honesty of that statement to the test.

Similarly for the other allegations, unequivocally deny the accuracy of truth of the statements and be prepared to defend those assertions. Otherwise this is censureship of valid public discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergal1958 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, Naomi's date of birth is as per reference 2, the stat of california birth records.. 31 Aug 1963, not as in the IMDB database . Please can someone change it in both places ? thanks Max Markson Maxmarkson (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Max. California birth records sound a lot more notable to me than IMDB (which is notorious for getting its facts wrong, and usually looked on with great suspicion by Wikipedians), so I've changed that. I've also changed the ref to show the search results (only one Naomi Robson born in the date range specified, in 1963) rather than the blank search form - "Go search for it yourself" wasn't really a reference. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Robson's father was doing Postdoctoral research at the California Institute of Technology during 1962-64, which coincides with a 1963 DOB. (Source: http://www.asap.unimelb.edu.au/bsparcs/biogs/P003792b.htm) (smjwalsh (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Temporary block[edit]

I've blocked the article for new and unregistered editors for 1 day. Max, be aware that when removing sourced content you should have a good reason. Please editors from all side go through why they think a specific section should be kept/removed on this Talk page. Slac speak up! 03:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war mentioned in the news[edit]

Naomi Robson in Wikipedia edit war --60.242.159.224 (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys made it on Conservapedia as well today. I just had to see for myself if it was true. 65.90.138.150 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section added to striesand effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobMattson (talk • contribs) 01:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think that somebody in the Media and entertainment industries would have learned about that by now. In the unlikely event someone becomes famous, that should be one's first question to a prospective agent - "Do you know what the Striesand Effect is?" Second question - "Do you know how to best avoid invoking it?" If they either say no or waffle in response to either question, remove them from your consideration immediately. Churba (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag[edit]

It seems the edits of both User:Maxmarkson and User:Marksonsparks have been mostly reverted. Who is the major contributor with a close connection to the subject? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Markson is Naomi Robson's manager. -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His edits have been mostly reverted, therefore he is no longer a "major contributor", unless he has edited with accounts other than the two I mentioned. Is someone claiming that he edited before 21 January 2010? If not, I don't see the point in the COI tag. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I get what you mean, sorry. And yes, I agree with you, I don't see any other evidence of COI -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV section[edit]

What exactly is the issue with the controversy section? How is this considered a problem in terms of neutrality? The only thing I think we need to do is to incorporate the material into the body of the article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NOTSCANDAL Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering. Much of the material in the 'Controversy' section is just sniping from rival media organisations. It is being given far too much weight, since it is light weight froth more appropriate to tabloid journalism than to an encyclopedia.
See also : Wikipedia:Coatrack#"But_it's_true!"
RJ4 (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have to disagree. All of the things that are in the controversy section were widely reported by not just narrow-sheets like the Daily Telegraph, but by such august institutions as The Sydney Morning Herald. Sure, a lot of it is mean and unfair, but we can't really hold a view on the meanness of the whole debacle as this goes against our position of neutrality. I do think we could incorporate the material into the body of the article though. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite happy for the Tony Mokbel incident to be moved out of the criticism section, as it at least has some serious content. However, the rest does not actually amount to anything. It is not a question of meanness, it is a question of substance. Did any of those issues result in anyone being sacked or reprimanded, or being brought before a court or a regulatory body or a police investigation ? Was there even a large dip in the ratings as a result ? If you can point to some result that came from this sniping then I am quite happy to listen. Furthermore, I believe we do have to judge whether the coverage we give items is fair or unfair.RJ4 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of these things appear to have influenced Robson's decision to leave. Are you an Australian? I only ask here because this was all played out in front of all Australians in the most public fashion possible. If anything it is relevant as it shows how the media can turn on each other, not to mention the amount of disgust for the program she appeared on. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would need to see a reference to support the claim that these things influenced her decision to leave. Yes, I am Australian. I agree it is a good example of the media turning on each other. I am NOT arguing for total removal, that was User:Maxmarkson who wanted that. I am just not happy with the overall weight that it is being given to it. See also WP:CHERRY. Let me draw a parallel - both John Howard and Kevin Rudd have repeatedly been compared with the cartoon character "Mr Sheen" by various media commentators, but the information is not appropriate to their articles in Wikipedia, regardless of how entertaining the comments may be. RJ4 (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I agree that we can do better, but unlike John Howard and Kevin Rudd, Naomi Robson's notoriety is, unfortunately for her, been created by all these incidents. I don't think we need a controversy section though, we should really be incorporating this into the main article body. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spreading the disputed material throughout the article won't stop it from being disputed. I think it is preferable to have it in a section of its own, until the dispute is resolved, rather than contaminate the rest of the article. However, I am quite happy to move the Tony Mokbel material, as that has more gravitas than the rest of the section. RJ4 (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I was duped, news article[edit]

One of the significant articles written about the Mokbel informant was by the Herald Sun court reporter, the original link is [2] unfortunately the content has been removed. You can see a fully copy of it at the web forum [3] (and several other forums). The article includes details such as, she went out with him for several months and the QC in the trial discussed evidence of here being supplied with cocaine. How is this best handled, is it acceptable to link to a forum copy in this instance. The current link is to a blog discussing the article and isn't very good. Lod (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've set the forum up as an archived version of the original article. I think this is the best solution. It's still a forum link unfortunately but it's a clear copy/paste of the original and it's clear that it's a copy and the original is not available. Lod (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

saturday night live (US)[edit]

did a skit called "the naomi show" last week about a dating/relationship advice show. gal gadot as a bleached blonde with big sexy glasses -- looked more like sally jesse raphael or sarah pailin than any robson pix which google up (yank here who didn't heretofore know robson). between the "show" name and subject matter, tho, i figure it just MUST be her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jZc0vLEIWI

can someone familiar with robson pls confirm this is indeed a spoof of her? 209.172.23.19 (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Naomi Robson. 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:

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) 01:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naomi_Robson&oldid=1210081696"