Jump to content

Talk:Fred Rogers/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Needs to be removed.

I think the following should be removed since there is no source- By contrast, Fred Rogers found Eddie Murphy's parody of his show on Saturday Night Live, "Mister Robinson's Neighborhood," amusing and affectionate, which was also initially broadcast at a time of night when his own child audience was not likely to see it.[citation needed]. There is no source for this. It needs to go. I'm going to remove it. If anyone can find a source they can put it back in.--BeckiGreen (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Does not need to be removed

I do not think it should be removed because there is no source. Yes there is no source, but non-contentious, plausible statements about non-living persons can remain for a fairly long time while a source is found (and with the statement remaining, tagged as citation-needed, there's a better chance of someone finding a source). I am going to put it back. If after way more than the two weeks this statement has been tagged, no one finds a source, then someone can take it back out. EEng (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous reference to PBS

A prior version of this article said that Mister Rogers' Neighborhood was developed in 1968 by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). This is wrong for multiple reasons. First of all, PBS did not exist in 1968. Second of all, PBS was not the distributor of Mister Rogers Neighborhood. The distributor was Eastern Educational Television Network, Inc. in Boston, which is now dba American Public Television. Also, PBS did not develop the show. It was developed first in Canada, and then, starting in 1968, it was developed by WQED in Pittsburgh. WingedEarth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Presbyterian Church

I'm confused about the "Presbyterian Church" references. As a lifelong member of the PC, I can assure you that there was no PCUSA in 1963 when Mr. Rogers was ordained. The Wikipedia page confirms that it was formed in 1983. However, even the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and pts.edu/history page refer to PC(USA) from 1959 - mistakenly IMO. Not sure what to do, if anything. Just thought I would put it out there and see if anyone responds.

Silicon retina (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

What specific place(s) in the article do you see a problem? Rivertorch (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Rogers was indeed an ordained minister in the PCUSA at the time of his death. The two PCUSA references currently in the "Death, awards, and memorials" sections attest that he was a member of the Pittsburgh Presbytery when he died. On the other hand, Silicon retina is correct that Rogers' ordination far predates the 1982 foundation of the PCUSA. I infer that Rogers was ordained in one of the PCUSA's predecessor denominations, probably the UPCUSA, but I haven't found a source to confirm that.

After someone recently added an inaccurate mention of Rogers to the WP page of the PCA, I decided to make the references to his church on this page more specific, rather than using a generic "Presbyterian". I think I have done it in a way that improves clarity and is true to the facts, but I would welcome any suggestions. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, regarding Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, be advised that the mainline Northern Presbyterian body was called the PCUSA, with a slight difference in what it stands for, until 1958. It was then the UPCUSA only from 1958 through 1982. The foundation of PTS seems to coincide with the founding of the UPCUSA, so the identification of one of the predecessors with the (old) PCUSA seems accurate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

From Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

The name of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America was abbreviated PCUSA. The two denominations (PCUSA and UPCNA) merged in 1958, forming the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA). In 1983 the UPCUSA merged with the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) to form the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which is abbreviated PC(USA) or PCUSA.

Thanks for inquiring,

Melissa Logan
Director of Communications
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
616 North Highland Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15206

Silicon retina (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you say...?

This is part of everday lexicon because of Fred Rogers. I would like to see a section on the influence he had on American culture... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.95.90.253 (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

See Also

Why does this section link to Dr Spock? As far as I can tell the two had no connection other than their work both involved children, which could be said about hundreds of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.97.63 (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Other works (Page is locked)

On his album "It's You I Like", jazz saxophonist John Ellis http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/John_Ellis_(saxophonist) recorded 6 of Fred's compositions including "Let's Think Of Something To Do" (aka "Let's Think Of Something To Do While We're Waiting"). http://www.crisscrossjazz.com/album/1347.html 198.147.225.36 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Electric Company connection

Some episodes of the 70's PBS series The Electric Company list Fred Rogers in the credits as a behind the scenes crew member. Was this Mister Rogers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.17.141 (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr Rogers

Under early work third paragraph it reads ~In 1954, he began working at WQED, a Pittsburgh public television station, as a puppeteer on a local children's show The Children's Corner. For the next seven years, he worked with host Josie Carey in unscripted live TV, developing many of the puppets, characters, and music used in his later work, such as King Friday XIII, and Curious X the Owl.~

then in paragraph 5 it reads ~During these eight years, he would leave the WQED studios during... ~


It seems one paragraph is saying he worked there 7 years and the other is saying 8.

May 22, 2014 38.126.85.38 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Teresita Dominoski

Good catch. Other problem is that his time at WQED, according to the page, was 1954-1963 which is actually nine years. Since none of the sentences are cited, I'm not sure what is correct.Ckruschke (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
I flagged the "seven years" and deleted the "eight years" per Rogers' official bio. Ckruschke (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014

The link for Reference #31 (for section Advocacy>PBS Funding) is broken.

A possible replacement that would be more stable is: http://exhibit.fredrogerscenter.org/advocacy-for-children/videos/view/969/

Thank you! Mpljnbbwm (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Mz7 (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Frederick?

Is there any definite proof that his first name is Frederick? All the sources I found have pretty much said that "Fred" isn't short for anything. Fiffy032 (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Extended content

Not a Navy Seal

Fred Rodgers was not a Navy Seal or a Marine Corps Sniper or an Army Ranger. He was not an Officer in WW2 or any other war. He does not have the Navy Cross or the Medal of Honor.He never Swam the English Channel.These and many other rumors about Fred Rodgers were created by college students who must of had too much time on their hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:A500:2A1:E002:6CD5:A4C8:2D41 (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Rogers' Childhood

Some things from Mr. Rogers' life:

Mr. Rogers was described by an NPR, Fresh Air Program interviewer as a sickly child. He agreed and related having had Scarlet Fever, a serious illness during the time of Mr. Rogers' childhood, before penicillin was widely used. He mentions this in the interview link below and states that his experience with illness and being an only child until his sister was adopted while Fred was a teenager ("Lady Elaine" from the "Land of Make Believe" is named for his sister), may have been why these subjects came up in "Mr. Rogers neighborhood". He wrote a book titled "Going to the Doctor", that is also mentioned in the interview linked below.

Other things, like the influence of his grandfather, Fred McFeely, his mother's father, nicknamed "Ding Dong", are important to the understanding of his caring for children. Mr. McFeely, the "speedy delivery" character is named after Mr. Rogers' grandfather. "Ding Dong" refers to the song "Ding Dong Dell", a song his grandfather shared with his family. "Ding Dong Dell" is an English rhyme first mentioned in 1580. see: Wikipedia "Ding Dong Bell"

There are many other details of his life that I will share, if this post gets a positive response.

Thanks

Here is a link to an interview with Mr. Rogers that mentions the facts I'm posting, from Fresh Air, from December, 2003 http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=1576077&m=1576078

Benvhoff (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Peabody Award

I was looking at the awards section, which says Rogers won a Peabody Award in 1987. He did not; he won in 1992. I cannot edit this page for some reason, so I'm leaving a note in hopes someone else will correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.191.234 (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor above is correct. The given source for a Peabody Award in 1987 is a dead link, and the Peabody Award webpages themselves support a date of 1992 for Rogers's personal award [1]. In addition, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood won a Peabody in 1968[2]. Please change the section Fred Rogers#Awards and honors to give the correct date for his personal Peabody Award, and optionally to mention the earlier award for his program.

As an additional point of discussion, I note that this page was indefinitely semi-protected more than three years ago, on September 6, 2012[3]. That version contained the date error, as anyone can verify for themselves. While I'm certain there was "persistent vandalism", the cost of semiprotection was a longstanding error that couldn't be casually repaired. Removal of semiprotection on this article should be seriously considered. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Inomyabcs (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2015

The "C" in curious should be lower case. As it stands, it reads that the Owl's name is Curious X.

"In 1954, he began working at WQED, a Pittsburgh public television station, as a puppeteer on a local children's show The Children's Corner. For the next seven years,[citation needed] he worked with host Josie Carey in unscripted live TV, developing many of the puppets, characters, and music used in his later work, such as King Friday XIII, and Curious X the Owl."

24.183.40.95 (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor Talk! 08:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected Edit Request for spelling.

There is a typo in the second paragraph of the lead to this article: "Fred Rogers became an icon of Amrican children's entertainment and education." - This should be "Fred Rogers became an icon of American children's entertainment and education." Since I am not autoconfirmed yet, I am unable to make this correction myself. Your help would be welcomed. Thank you! Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Done /wiae /tlk 23:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Typo under paragraph Mister Roger's Neighborhood

At the end of the first paragraph subtitled Mr. Roger's Neighborhood (next to the picture of his red sweater), there is a typo. Where it says "8% of U.S households tuned into the show", it should rather say "tuned-in to the show".97.80.216.232 (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fred Rogers. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit to "Death and Memorials" section

The article says that "His death was such a significant event in Pittsburgh that the entire front page of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published the next day devoted its coverage to him." and then gives this link as a citation.

But that citation (copy of front page of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on the day in question) clearly shows that at least three other news articles appeared on the front page alongside news of Fred Rogers' death. 163.251.239.2 (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 163.251.239.2 (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2016

Please delete 'McFeely' from his name. Thank you. 43.249.71.66 (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as that was his name see the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette obit - currently ref 6 - Arjayay (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference 16

The link for this reference is down, but I've found this one

https://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&id=I7B1BwAAQBAJ&q=%22I+don%27t+want+to+eat+anything+that+has+a+mother.%22#v=snippet&q=%22I%20don%27t%20want%20to%20eat%20anything%20that%20has%20a%20mother.%22&f=false

Folisophe (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2016

Under the PBS Funding section, it lists that citation is needed. There is actually footage of his testimony before the US Senate available on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXEuEUQIP3Q

Lordmaim (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Dane2007 talk 20:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Fred Rogers. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Episode Count Discrepancy

With the recent news coverage due to the Twitch live-streaming fundraiser I noticed several sources saying it is streaming every episode of Mister Rogers, "all 886 of them" (e.g. Polygon) but this Wikipedia article on Fred Rogers says there were 895 episodes. Mister Rogers' Neighborhood doesn't directly mention the total number of episodes aside from a new section about the live-stream which says 886. Why this discrepancy? What happened with the other 9 episodes?CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Minor typo found...

There is an "a" missing in the last sentence of the second paragraph. I would fix it, but the article is locked. Andrewxy (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Andrewxy - The last sentence in the 2nd paragraph of the lede? I just read it and there is nothing missing. Can you paste your edit so I can see what you are talking about? Ckruschke (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fred Rogers. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Minor typo in article?

Under Fred Rogers photograph, it lists his Occupation, and under Occupation, it states he was a "Compser". I believe they mean to say "Composer". Since article is locked, can this be corrected?

I stumbled into the text of his commencement address at Dartmouth, his alma mater, in 2002 -- I was thinking of adding it as an external link. And/or mentioning it in a single sentence as one of his "awards/honors" and then linking to it as substantiating evidence. Any thoughts/reactions? Here's the address. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2018

In the right hand side bar Fred Rogers wife's first name is incorrectly listed at Sara instead of Joanne 23.30.168.234 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Her given name was indeed Sara, but the sources indicate she was commonly known as Joanne. If I can think of a clever way to edit the article body to say so in an elegant manner, I will also make that change. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Fred Rogers Movie

Please add information regarding the upcoming fall production of the Fred Rogers biopic "You are My Friend", starting Tom Hanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:b066:b4f4:91a7:a026:b788:2d81 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


What about moving the biopic "You are My Friend" alongside the recently released Bootleg Universe short "Mr. Rogers: War Hero" into a new section along the lines of "References in other media"? Bart-16 (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Cut long quote in "Emmys for programming"

I don't think the long quote about Rogers's acceptance of the lifetime achievement Emmy merits the space it takes up in this article. Its nasty tone toward the other entertainers at the awards show seems jarringly out of keeping with the subject of the article (saying more about Esquire's Tom Junod than about Rogers), and it's not accurate -- the video of the acceptance shows that Rogers said more than just "May God be with you" at the end of the 10-second silence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.49.191 (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Fish names

I work for The Fred Rogers Company -- his fish did not originally have the names Fennel and Frieda. They never had names. Can you please remove that sentence? Thank you! Cmcculloch (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)3/26/18

✅ Removed it! Wow, that unsourced bit was left up for a long time.--The lorax (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.235.219.194 (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2018

This page has been vandalized. On the right hand side where Fred Rogers biological information is provided in a box, it says "Born: Fred McFeely Rogers." Obviously his middle name is not "McFeely." Please remove that. Osita1979 (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done You might be surprised to hear this was in fact his middle name. Please note the references listed below in the article that supports this. Msw1002 (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2018

Under Awards and Honors. Also in 1992, he was initiated as an honorary member of Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia Fraternity, the national fraternity for men of music. The correct date is May 31, 1987. Not the year 1992. Bdhall (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Cited source agrees.  Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Fred Rogers was ever divorced!

It seems to indicated in the box when he married his wife, but that he "was divorced in 2003"! Actually, he died in 2003, and I believe that he was still married to her at the time of his death, so it should indicate that the marriage went on "until his death in 2003" His widow has appeared on many talk shows recently to promote the new movie about him.Spiritruth (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The infobox does not state that he was divorced at all, "(m. 1952; d. 2003)" the D stands for died. Greyjoy talk 06:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Categories

Do we need "American Singers" when we also have "American Male Singers"? Rklawton (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

In my (personal) opinion, I'd say yes. If someone is just looking for singers from America, as opposed to singers by their sex, this category serves that purpose. It's a more general category, but should be alongside the American Male Singers entry too. Dane|Geld 21:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
That seems to go against WP:SUBCAT: Apart from certain exceptions... an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Old Friends...New Friends - Talk:Fred Rogers

The following information may be useful under the "Other television work" section: Following the initial success of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood, Fred Rogers created another program entitled Old Friends…New Friends. The show involved Rogers asking a prominent figure about how he or she found purpose in life, and included guests ranging from baseball player Willie Stargell to acting coach Lee Strasberg. PBS released Old Friends…New Friends in 1978, and the program lasted for twenty episodes.

The paragraph was written in my own words for use on the Fred Rogers Wikipedia page. The information came from the following source: Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).“Old Friends...New Friends.” THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHIVE - All Things Mister Rogers, © The Fred Rogers Company, www.neighborhoodarchive.com/ofnf/.

Kamran E. Mian (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Kamran E. Mian

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  Talk 09:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I watched Won't You Be My Neighbor? (film) yesterday. I came to this wikipedia page to learn more about the show "Old Friends New Friends." I feel that this discussion is well written and would be a good addition the "Other television work" section. The documentary could be used as second citation to have a more reliable, third party citation about the show "Old Friends ... New Friends."JeremiahJohnson (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

No visible means of support?

Quote: 

"Rogers returned to Pittsburgh in the 1960s and attended the Sixth Presbyterian Church, in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood.[21] Rogers had an apartment in New York City and a summer home on Nantucket Island in Massachusetts.[19][22]"

At least three homes and no job? Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:1149:5686:CAC8:DAB6 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Possible issue

@The lorax: There may be a possible copyvio issue with this article, namely with the first paragraph of the lead, the first paragraph of the Early and personal life section, the Works section, and the Death and memorials section of this article as compared to this website. Facts from sources are normally attributed and rewritten in the editor's own words. I thought I'd give the heads up here before it is reviewed for GA. —Prhartcom♥ 12:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Prhartcom:, thanks for flagging this. I'll try to fix all of this and also add a reference to Old Friends, New Friends.--The lorax (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fred Rogers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 17:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


I so glad this article is up for GAN! This is exactly in my wheelhouse, and Mr. Rogers is so admirable and deserving of a high-quality WP article. More than happy to review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry this has taken me so long to start. I will start late today (10/29 UTC). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Guys, I'm inclined to quickfail this article, sorry to say. It doesn't fulfill enough of the GA criteria. Instead of quickfailing it, though, I'll take the time to explain my reasoning, since this is an important article and should be improved as much as possible.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The prose is adequate enough for a GA, except in the following ways:
  • Inconsistency in spelling "Rogers'" vs. Rogers's". Please pick one way and stick with it throughout the article, unless you directly quote a source that uses a particular spelling. (I suggest "Rogers'" because that's how "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" spells it.)
  • One-sentence or overly-short paragraphs. Well-written WP articles tend to have longer paragraphs.
  • Flow and transitions. Again, the way this article currently flows is adequate for GA, but it reads like a bunch of information was added, much like a list. Transitions are very weak; the short paragraphs add to the weakness.
  1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    A WP article lead is supposed to summarize its content; this one does not. For example, it contains information not in the "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" segment. It also should summarize the important parts of each section.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    The same issue stated above on this talk page, in the "Possible issue" section. For example, the fourth paragraph in the "Death and memorials" seems like it was cut-and-pasted directly from the source. That makes me suspect that there are similar issues in other places in this article.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    I suggest that you read and use the WP policy WP:SS for the section about "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood." It should be a summary of the main article about the show. Currently, I think there's too much detail in this article about it, and it focuses on just a few aspects of it, like its structure. This section is also a good example of weak transitions and the grouping of unconnected information and trivia.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    I think that this article can tend to be over-flattering of its subject. It uses peacock terms at times reads like a fluff piece. For example, in the "Early life" section: "James was a very successful businessman".
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    I'm giving this criteria a "yes", but as of this review, editors were still working on some major improvements of this article.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    I potentially have issue with one image: the John Laidacker Oakland mural. While I admit that images have never been my expertise as a WP editor, I'm not sure that it's fair use.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This article, in its current condition, isn't ready to be passed to GA-status. It still needs a lot of work, which needs to be done before the new movie about Mr. Rogers is released, because I'd bet that millions of people will come here to learn about him. I'm willing to lend a hand however I can. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, going to take another stab at this. I changed some photos around, and just need to change the prose.The lorax (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Guys, I've spent some time working on this article; at first, I thought that improving the prose would be enough, but after working on only a little over a paragraph, I've come to the conclusion that this article needs much more than that. The biggest weakness with this article is how it utilizes sources. For example, many of the sources simply didn't support the statements they were supposed to support. You can't make the sources say what you want them to say, which seems to be what's happened; it seems that editors made statements and then slapped sources on them. That's unacceptable, even for a GA. In addition, there's lots of information from the sources that should be included in the article; for example, there should be more information about Rogers' family, especially his grandfather's influence on him. Rogers came from a wealthy, prominent family, and that's missing from the article. Finally, the prose is problematic, as discussed above in this review.

Here's what I propose: I will take this article on, and bring it up to at least GA quality, but working with what's already here. This article should be a FA, but that will require much more research. Since that would make me a major contributor, I should step down as a reviewer and resubmit it to GAC when it's ready. Then we can talk about improving it further. You'll notice that my edit summaries are more descriptive, something I'd like to continue so that the other editors involved can see what I do and why. In the meantime, I'd like to go ahead and fail this article as a GA, something I always hate doing but which is necessary in this case.

I'll wait for response from this article's current editors, and then move forward. This article, as I state above, needs to be at least a GA before the big movie comes out in Oct. 2019. That's plenty of time, and I'd like to commit to helping make that happen. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That sounds fair, which sources don't specifically match the text? I can help you as well. Please let me know!The lorax (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I'll go do that now, and get the article pulled out of the queue. My edit summaries point out the problems with the sources, and I added the need citation template to unsupported claims. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Correction Required Under Early Work

The following sentence needs correction: "Rogers brought his friend and understudy Ernie Coombs from Mister Rogers' Neighborhood to Misterogers as a puppeteer and voice actor." Mister Rogers' Neighborhood wouldn't exist until 1968. Coomb's worked with Roger's on The Children's Corner prior to the move to Canada. The Ernie Coombs page actually relays this information correctly. 184.64.102.148 (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging! I fixed this.--The lorax (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

More info on Death section

I am very satisfied and happy that this article is a GA nominee because who else but the great Mr. Rogers deserves one! One thing I remember from the doc Won't You Be My Neighbor? is that Mrs. Joanne Rogers said in the doc that Rogers fell in a coma before passing away. Also before his death, Rogers asked his wife if he was a sheep or a goat, an obvious biblical reference. Should this be added to the death section? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you provide an online reference for that? MaynardClark (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

GA review

@The lorax: and @MaynardClark: I fully intend on reviewing this article, I really do. But I notice that you guys are still making substantial edits/improvements. So should I wait until you're done? I'm okay with that, since I'm sure you don't want me to review an unprepared article and perhaps fail it, and then you'd have to wait several months for it to come up in the queue. Let me know; I'll do whatever you need. Please make sure, though, the next time you nominate an article for GA that it's prepared beforehand. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Figureskatingfan:, perhaps we should get a week extension to make some tweaks before having you review it. Some other users had made some suggestions above and I want to make sure I fully address any lingering concerns. Is that okay? Thanks so much for giving us some extra time! --The lorax (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm good with that. I also had concerns about the possible copyvio/plagiarism issue cited above. Best of luck; let me know when you're ready. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that the ONLY thing that I did was to comment that Joanne Byrd Rogers still lives in Pittsburgh and is actively riding out the memory of her husband by advancing his work, wishes, and values in the institutional communities that work for the long-term interests of children and youth. I was distracted on another project that obliquely linked my research to this site. MaynardClark (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Guys, I've noticed from the contribution history that things have died down a bit. Did you want me to review for GA now? If so, this coming week looks busy for me, so I may not get to it until the end of the week, perhaps heading into December. Just let me know, please. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Picture

Just wanted to voice my support for the recent change of the lead image. The black and white photo of Mister Rogers putting on his coat captures him and his personality perfectly and is, to me, much better than the other picture. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 23:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Snopes

From Snopes: Was Mr. Rogers Bisexual?

"The fact that Rogers is being celebrated as a 'bisexual icon' on the basis of a single, isolated remark ought to give us pause. He never publicly identified himself as bisexual, (and, for all we know, might object to being so labeled if he were still alive). What’s more, a survey of other biographical materials on Rogers yields no corroborative evidence." --Guy Macon (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hm. They don't end on that note though, they end with this: "He once confided to a friend that he had found both men and women attractive, but there’s no evidence he ever acted on the former. Is it valid under those circumstances to say he was “bisexual”? There’s no simple, true-or-false answer to that question. In any case, Mr. Rogers is no longer here to own or disown the label." In short, they neither debunk nor confirm it. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Yup. This article should not claim that "Fred Rogers was not bisexual" or claim that "Fred Rogers was bisexual". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Is the “orange man bad” segment really necessary?

The random Trump commentary isn’t needed in the article. How is what his wife thinks about what a dead mans possibile political leaning may be over a decade after his death relevant to Rogers himself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:8A (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's good to contextualize the "lifelong republican" statement in some way: on its own it paints a certain picture that may not be accurate. But, yeah, perhaps it would be better to do so with stuff he actually said or did, and like everyone I'm kind of sick of Trump making his way into every single conversation about every single thing. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree and believe this reference should be removed. While contextualizing the subject's political views is fine, a speculating comment made by someone else (even his wife) after his death, concerning modern political events, is unnecessary and detracts from the flow and purpose of the article. Actually, it brings down the overall quality of the article. FCGreg (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Also agree the Trump material should be removed. Trump was elected 13 years after Roger's passing. It just isn't relevant to the article. Springee (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think WP:WEIGHT allows us to make an issue of the party he belongs to when by all accounts he was apolitical. The fact that is is sourced to someone trying to recruit him as a spokesman for republicanism long after his death is the final nail in the coffin. I am removing it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Mister Rogers' Neighborhood section

As per my commitment to help improve this article during its recent failed GAC, I've done some substantial improvements to the prose and have done my best to do better job at utilizing sources more effectively. Everything I've done so far I've tried to record in more descriptive edit summaries. Now that I've gotten to this section, I have some issues to discuss with those interested in this article.

The current version of this section is problematic in a few ways. First, it needs more of what I've done thus far, improving the prose and how the sources are used. Second, it currently reads like a collection of trivia about the show. In order to do this section justice, the best thing to do is what I've done with other children TV articles. For example, for Sesame Street, I worked on the main article of each section, and then summarized it in the parent article. For example, I created History of Sesame Street, and then went back to the parent article and summarized it, much like creating a lead for the break-out article, as per WP:SS. I'd like to eventually work on the MRN article, but don't have the time or inclination to tackle it at this time, especially since we have a time crunch for this article (the Tom Hanks movie) to reach at least GA status.

This is my proposal: I will work on improving the content about the general history of MRN, but remove the trivia-like section (the items in the bullet list). That will probably decrease this article's length, but it will also improve its consistency and flow. If I do that, I'll use a sandbox so other editors can view it before it's published in article space. What does everyone think about that? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, Christine! Hopefully the photos I added look okay as well. Let me know!The lorax (talk)
Yes, I saw that you had added images, but I didn't check them. Will do that as well. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Report: It took WAAAY longer than I anticipated (I felt it was necessary to read the King bio, I have other WP irons to fry, and I have RL stuff going on), but I've finally completed drafting this section. I've put it in my sandbox; all interested parties, please see here: User:Figureskatingfan/sandbox. As I state above, I chose not to go about it in my normal way. Perhaps when I have the time and inclination to do a literature review on the program, it'll be more of a summary of the MRN article. For now, I included what I and the literature I've consulted thus far consider the most important things about the program: its history, its format, and a little about its impact. It's by no means comprehensive, but adequate enough, for a GA-quality article. Please provide feedback here on this talk page. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

No response after over a week, so I'm taking that as assent. Therefore, I'm replacing the current content in this section with my rendition. I'll leave the images as is, of course. I believe that the section will be substantially improved. After that, I plan on continuing to improve the rest of the article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks good, Christine! Great work.The lorax (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2019

Add to external links section:

"Mr Rogers and MAGA Hats" KRAMTalks Special Episode Mbentley12 (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:ELNO —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Other television work and legacy

I think that this subsection needs to be restructured. Here are my suggestions:

  • Separate the content about Rogers' legacy into another section and move it below to either near or as an addition to the Awards and Honors section.
  • Add a Filmography subsection; that way, we won't have to depend upon sources and this section can be more comprehensive.
  • Remove the content about Eddie Murphy and SNL, since I included it in the Mister Rogers' Neighborhood section. Although I may move it to the new Legacy section, depending upon how it works out.

Let me know what you guys think; again, I'll take silence as assent after seven days. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan, I agree; heading says "...and legacy" but teasing out the content that's about his legacy as opposed to other tv work isn't simple for the reader. Your plan sounds good. Schazjmd (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Schazjmd. I think that I'll go ahead and add a Filmography section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Whew, finally finished! Feedback, please. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan - Thanks for separating your edits into logical chunks. It made review easier that way. I think the changes are good. Thanks for taking the time. FCGreg (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
FCGreg, thanks for the kind words. My next task is to create a Bibliography section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Sexuality

On about the 15th page of chapter 13 of Maxwell King's biography on Fred Rogers, it suggests that Fred Rogers may have been bisexual. "In conversation with one of his friends, the openly gay Dr. William Hirsch, Fred Rogers himself concluded that if sexuality was measured on a scale of one to ten: 'Well, you know, I must be right smack in the middle. Because I have found women attractive, and I have found men attractive.'31". Which is most likely a reference to the human Sexuality Scale. The kinsey scale being the most similar concept of such, even though the kinsey scale ranges 0 to 6, instead of 1 to 10, with equal amounts of heterosexuality and homosexuality for those who identify with the middle number of 3. Therefore, it would make sense that this could be taken as a confession of Roger's bisexuality, of which is categorized by attraction to men and women, heterosexuality and homosexuality in a sense, whether that be in equal amounts or not.

And although sexuality may not seem significant to some, it is important that lgbtq be acknowledged through history and important figures so that misconceptions and prejudices may be disproved. To prove that the lgbtq community are part of history and have had influence, and that they not a product of the modern age or chemicals or trends.

Bloopple (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC) Daphne Rios (3/6/19)

At best that is speculation and it seems Rogers would have been more precise if he was referencing the Kingsey scale. Hardyplants (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC).
I was adding that quote to the article right as you were posting this. :) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 06:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that mentioning Rogers' sexuality, other than his decades-long marriage to a woman, belongs in this article. Fred Rogers was a straight man, and he lived his life that way. King states that Rogers' views on homosexuality evolved through the years. He hired and was close to François Clemmons, who played Officer Clemmons in the Neighborhood, but he told Clemmons to remain closeted because he thought it would look bad for the program. Despite this, Rogers accepted and supported Clemmons. I do think, though, that what belongs in this article is a discussion about how Rogers contradicted traditional concepts of masculinity, supported by King and other reliable sources. For example, there's an article in a book of essays about Rogers' influence on American culture, Revisiting Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, that discusses this topic. As you can see, I've been working on improving this article, so when I get to the section about Rogers' influence, I will include it. I'm all right with leaving the recent edits stand until then. It's slow going because I'm carefully doing some research and have other things I'm doing, both here and IRL. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Figureskatingfan because the ref does not say he was bisexual, in the interview it seems he was just sympathizing with his gay friend and interviewer, and there is no other ref that indicates that he was anything other than a faithful heterosexual male. Extraordinary claims need more evidence and just cause misleading speculation which is what the following added material is = "leading some readers to describe Rogers as bisexual.[88]" Hardyplants (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your hard work on the Mr. Rogers article, Christine. :) I agree that discussion about his non-traditional masculinity would be a great addition. I disagree that discussion of his sexuality should be removed. Rogers' sexuality quote 1. is verifiable (it's from a well regarded biography, and the book's bibliography indicates that it comes directly from an audio recording) 2. has received a decent amount of attention and 3. takes up a very small portion of a large article. I'll add that not only does King's book devote time to questions about Rogers' sexuality, the recent documentary Won't You Be My Neighbor? does too. (The doc does not discuss the quote but does include some brief discussion about rumors that Rogers' was gay.) The fact that Rogers was apparently in a devoted and faithful heterosexual relationship for the majority of his life does not mean that he "was a straight man". There are many people who are in long term, monogamous heterosexual relationships who identify as bisexual and consider this an important part of who they are. Take a look at Wiki's article on bisexual erasure if you haven't:

Bisexual erasure or bisexual invisibility is the tendency to ignore, remove, falsify, or reexplain evidence of bisexuality in history, academia, the news media, and other primary sources. In its most extreme form, bisexual erasure can include the belief that bisexuality does not exist.

WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 06:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
But hes does not identify as "bisexual" or that this was even "an important part of who" he was. Hardyplants (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
It's impossible to say how important or unimportant his sexuality was to him. In any case, while I added the direct quote from Rogers, I did not add the line describing him specifically as "bisexual". I don't have strong feelings about whether that specific word should be used or not. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 06:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The quote from Rogers about his experience of attraction is appropriate to include, as a short statement by him about himself verified and given weight by that biographer and subsequent news coverage. Whether or not to include a few additional words to the effect that some have connected this to bisexuality depends on how much weight that is given in reliable sources. Right now, I'm only seeing it covered in a few media sources (PinkNews, Out, and Pride.com, not to mention various non-usable sites like Hornet), so I'm not sure if it's worth including or not. In a BLP, I think it would not be included; Rogers died in 2003 and so BLP does not apply, but I think it might still be reasonable to remove the text for now. If the interpretation of Rogers as possibly bisexual gets picked up by more sources, especially other biographies of him, that would much more clearly establish it as inclusion-worthy. -sche (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
There were rumors about Rogers' sexuality his entire career because he defied traditional concepts of masculinity. He was who he was and many people couldn't wrap their heads around it. I agree that we need to wait for more sources. Both the documentary and King addresses the rumors, but they never indicate that Rogers wasn't heterosexual. The two sources you cite aren't enough to support the claim, and other than parodies and conjectures, there hasn't been enough attention. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Christine: so there are two things on the table, here. One is this Rogers quote: I must be right smack in the middle. Because I have found women attractive, and I have found men attractive. The other is this line: leading some readers to describe Rogers as bisexual. Am I understanding you correctly that you are arguing that both lines should be removed? For the reasons sche outlined, I agree that the "bisexual" line might be a little dicey, although I think you could make an argument for it. But the Rogers quote strikes me as both factually solid and notable. It would be nice, of course, if we could find independent verification of the Rogers quote, or more quotes from Rogers along similar lines. But as is I don't see much reason to doubt the quote's veracity and the article also treats it with an abundance of caution: currently it doesn't directly say Fred Rogers said... but instead According to one biographer, Fred Rogers said... To say the quote is not worthy of inclusion is, I think, to subject this topic to an excessive burden of proof (or should I say bi-dun of proof, hoho). WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that a satisfactory compromise, for now, is to retain the According to one biographer... and remove the bisexual line. I say for now because more research needs to be done, which is my intention as I improve the entire article. As you can see from its recent GAC, this article is a hot mess and needs a lot of work, which I've been slowly doing. And gay humor, har-har, is the best kind, doncha know. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I've removed the "bisexual" line. (But if anyone feels it should be retained I urge them to join the discussion.) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Nice. And I removed the second source, since it no longer supports the quote. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Factfindingmission has removed the short paragraph about Rogers' sexuality, saying that it's double hearsay. Let's dive into this and examine it thoroughly...

The source is the New York Times bestseller The Good Neighbor: The Life and Work of Fred Rogers by Maxwell King, published by Abrams Books. It bills itself as the first full-length biography of Fred Rogers and it says it is Based on original interviews, oral histories, and archival documents. Here's the quote in question from the book:

In a conversation with one one of his friends, the openly gay Dr. William Hirsch, Fred Rogers himself concluded that if sexuality was measured on a scale of one to ten: "Well, you know, I must be right smack in the middle. Because I have found women attractive, and I have found men attractive."31

Here's what the book's footnote says:

31. Hirsch, William. Personal Interview. 7 November 2011. Audio.

(Elsewhere, the book describes Hirsch as a close family friend of the Rogers'.)

Well, Factfindingmission, I want to thank you for making me reexamine this because I think I did misinterpret the source the first time around. I assumed that the "personal interview" was a taped conversation between Hirsch and Rogers. However, now, I think it's more likely is that the book is quoting a taped interview between Hirsch and the biographer. Therefore, it's true that this is a bit of a "he said that he said that he said" situation...

I'll point out, though, that "hearsay" is a courtroom concept and I don't think it applies to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability does not talk about "hearsay" or "double hearsay". In the end the book is a reliable source and what its said about Rogers' sexuality has received a decent amount of interest (see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.)

I would still lean towards including the paragraph, as long as its rewritten to remove the implication that its a direct quote from Rogers. Here's a new draft:

Rogers' friend William Hirsch told biographer Maxwell King that Rogers said he was "smack in the middle" of the sexuality scale and found both men and women attractive.

But what does everyone else think? Should the paragraph about Rogers' sexuality stay or go? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks WanderingWanda, for the thoughtful explanation and the acknowledgement that the original paragraph seemed to be a misrepresentation of the actual sources. I agree that hearsay isn't a WP guideline, but nevertheless I don't see what value is gained by saying that "Rogers' friend told an author that Rogers said..." If there's going to be a discussion of what Rogers actually said, then the source should be a quote directly attributable to him, not a quote that Rogers' friend told an author that he remembers Rogers saying many years before. Factfindingmission (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to get some additional perspectives on this so I've added a note to WikiProject LGBT and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Fred_Rogers'_sexuality) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree with the removal. If there are issues with wording it can be fixed, but - not only is heresay not a Wikipedia concept, but we often prefer WP:SECONDARY sources. A close friend of Rogers saying he said X, coupled with substantial coverage that indicates that this claim is taken seriously and is WP:DUE, is more than sufficient to justify inclusion in some form. --Aquillion (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

For reference I'll copy the responses on the RS noticeboard (in retrospect I shouldn't have split the discussion like this, sorry):

Extended content
It should be attributed to the source, the book.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems clearly usable as a source, though there's room for people to debate WP:DUE weight. (I think the coverage demonstrates this, but it can at least be debated. I don't think there's an WP:RS argument at all.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Matters such as "sexuality" which are based on conjecture and opinions of a single person are, in fact, weak to begin with. As such, use in Wikipedia articles is imp[roper to begin with, as otherwise huge numbers of people would be labelled "bisexual" buy Wikipedia which is actually an affront to the LGBTQ community to begin with. It is labeling of people' which is one major issue, so unless there is self-identification, we avoid it. The nook neither states nor even implies how Rogers viewed himself. Collect (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, I don't think the paragraph is indulging in "conjecture" or "opinion" or even "labeling". It's not saying "one source thought that maybe Rogers seemed bisexual" but "one source said that Fred Rogers said this". The question is, should it be included given that it's a bit of a "he said that he said that he said" situation. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why sexuality would be treated any differently in that regard, but FWIW the source quotes Rogers, meaning that this does establish self-identification (insofar as it can be established after death, ie. via a secondary source.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The problem is, the source doesn’t quote Roger’s... the source quotes Hirsch (who claims to be quoting Rogers). It isn’t a clear cut self-identification. At a minimum, we need to attribute the identification to Hirsch. Blueboar (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Collect and Blueboar; not appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that when an unverified allegation is reported, that its veracity be explained, otherwise it's just gossip. It might be true, it might not be true, and the reader has no way of knowing without independent research. TFD (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not an allegation. (Oxford Dictionary: A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof. Being bisexual is neither wrong nor illegal.) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It meets RS with attribution, but I'm not convinced it belongs in the article (nor can the article say "bisexual"). In what context, exactly and fully, is the book bringing this information up, and what is this part of the biography about? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    I share the same concerns, specifically if it deserves mention in an encyclopedia article about Rogers. --Ronz (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This should absolutely not be in the article. To state or hint that someone is/was bisexual, on the sole basis of something that someone else claimed he said, when he apparently never said anything like that on any other occasion, and when his alleged comment can be variously interpreted, and when all of his public actions were those of a monogamous, heterosexual, married man - that violates our policy about biographies and sexuality. This could fairly be called gossip. We only make an assertion or implication about a person's sexual preference if the person himself/herself has identified as such. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I found this discussion based on the noticeboard discussion above. I would say that this is UNDUE content. The source is reliable for the claim that Roger's friend claims Rogers to have said "___". However, for this to be included in the article I think we would need to show that more sources have focused on this topic. By that I don't mean sources have discussed the claim in the book, rather independent sources have backed the basic claim or there has been some sort of wide spread debate/discussion about the topic. Springee (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The opening edit of this section justifies the inclusion by stating that it's important to show LBGTQ contribution etc. Sorry, that is deep into WP:ADVOCACY. Springee (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A note that someone on Reddit claims they emailed the author about the quote, and they say the author said that it is from an interview with Hirsch and is not a direct quote from Rogers.

Anyway, it looks like the consensus is not to include the sexuality paragraph at this time. I will bow to the consensus but I would like to gently ask folks to try and be reflective when talking about sexuality. The idea that Rogers may have been bisexual is a claim, not an allegation (a word with negative connotations.) And someone being bisexual in no way precludes them entering into a long-term, monogamous, or heterosexual relationship. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 08:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A note that since this discussion took place, Snopes published an article about this. No new information, but perhaps additional evidence of notability: https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/04/10/mr-rogers-sexuality/ WanderingWanda (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Advocacy section

Everyone, I think that we should remove this section. I cite the WP policy WP:UNDUE to support my position. There's too much emphasis on just two topics, when Rogers was an advocate for much more--civil, LGBTQ, and disability rights, his vegetarianism, freedom of religion, etc. If we remove it, the content can be summarized in other places; for example, his testimony in 1969 before Congress can go in the Mister Rogers Neighborhood subsection, and the VCR info can go in the Personal life section. What do you think? I will, as I've done with other suggestions, wait two weeks from today (14 July), and if there's consensus, I'll make the removal. Also, I'll take no discussion as assent. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Christine (Figureskatingfan) - I agree with your sentiments here. Unless this section was going to be significantly enhanced, it should probably go away and have its content merged elsewhere. As it stands, there is either a problem with WP:UNDUE (to your point), or it seems fragmented and diminishes the other work he did in his life. FCGreg (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Done, just now. Thanks User:FCGreg, for your input. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2019

Fred Rogers was initiated as an honorary member of the national fraternity, Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia. He was bestowed the honor at the Xi Psi chapter in 1987 located at Westminster College in New Wilmington, PA. His full first name was Frederick not just Fred

This information can be confirmed by the National Fraternity office and cited https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0736872/trivia https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Sinfonians Eselgas (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Eselgas, this [4] is a better source than the ones you mention above, so I'll add it to the "Awards and honors" chart. IMBD isn't a reliable source, as per [[5]] and you should never use Wikipedia as a source, as per WP:CIRC. I've been doing a lot of reading about Mr. Rogers in the past several months, and I haven't found any source that supports that his "full first name" was Frederick. Not even his main biographer, Maxwell King, states it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 Already done Masum Reza📞 22:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

All done for now

Guys, it's done! Well, for now, anyway. At the very least, I think that it's ready to be re-submitted for GAC. Thanks to everyone who helped. It'd be nice if it were ready for FAC, but there's too much that needs to be done, including more research about The Neighborhood. We reached the goal of having it ready for GAC before the Tom Hanks movie came out. I was a little disappointed that it wasn't ready after the movie's trailer came out earlier this month, but as a friend pointed out, Mr. Rogers would be very proud of me (of us all!) and tell me that I'm wonderful. Fortunately, there wasn't that much traffic here, anyway. I've been inspired learning about him, and pondering his positive, uplifting messages and example. I'm going to go ahead and submit it to GAC, since the queue is notoriously long. If it languishes there too far into the fall, I'll ask someone to review it for us, since the traffic here will increase when the movie comes out in Nov. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Christine (Figureskatingfan) - Thanks for all your work on improving this article. I know you spent much time on it! We'll see how things go with GAC review. FCGreg (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2019

In the 'Early life' section - first sentence:

Please change: Rogers was born on March 20, 1928 in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, 450 miles (720 km) southeast of Pittsburgh

to

Rogers was born on March 20, 1928 in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, 45 miles (72 km) southeast of Pittsburgh

because the distance is incorrect.

JimAGeorge (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Jim JimAGeorge (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done, more like 40 miles, and "outside of" was enough to get the point without getting overly fussy about if it's east or southeast. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Further restructuring

It's been slow-going, mostly due to other things I'm tackling on WP and real-life stuff, but I think that I've made some good headway with this article. It's been difficult and challenging, and there will be much more left to do to further improvements, but I think we're well on our way to making it ready to re-submit to GAC. I'm thinking about doing some more restructuring, so I thought that I'd record it here and see what folks think. Currently, the "Awards and honors" is a collection of trivia, so I'd like to rewrite it, place in the "Legacy" section (after renaming it "Influence"). This would make it more consistent with other bios. I'd also like to break up the new "Influence" section into two subsections: "Legacy" and "Awards", and strengthen the sources in the current "Honorary degrees" section, and place that in a level 4 heading, again to emulate other bios. (I can see a list being created, "List of honors received by Fred Rogers", similar to List of honors received by Maya Angelou.) What does everyone think? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Christine (Figureskatingfan) - These sound like good ideas. I like the restructure to an "Influence" section with subsections, and cleaning up the references sounds like a good plan. I count these all as improvements. Thanks for putting in the valuable time on this. FCGreg (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Eddie891 I was waiting to see how big the section would be, and now that it's finished and I can see it, I agree with RHaworth. I don't think that it's necessary, or that the content warrants creating such an article. So I think the information should remain here in this article, at least for now and until more content is found. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2019

Greetings. In the Fred Rogers#Honorary degrees section, the reference provided for Dartmouth College currently includes a misspelled item, specifically location=Hartford, Conneticut. Please change this to use the correct spelling location=Hartford, Connecticut. Thanks. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2019

change "Children's Hour" to "Children's Corner" -- no new source is needed as the page already refers to the Children's Corner most of the time, there are just a few places where it was accidentally called the Children's Hour. 216.200.165.11 (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2019

In the 2nd paragraph of the lead, there is a sentence that reads: "In 1968 he returned to Pittsburgh to produce Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, which ran for almost 900 episodes, until 2001." I don't think Mr. Rogers returned to Pittsburgh in 1968. In the "History" section of the article for the Mister Rogers' Neighborhood show, it says he moved the show to Pittsburgh in 1966: "In 1966, Rogers acquired the rights to his program from the CBC and moved the show to WQED in Pittsburgh..." 69.166.121.25 (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think page 13 of this document indicates that he moved to Pittsburgh in 1965. 69.166.121.25 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Philroc (c) 19:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fred Rogers/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lizzy150 (talk · contribs) 19:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Figureskatingfan:

I was looking through the media and drama GA nominations and thought this article would be interesting! I believe you were meant to review this at one point but you decided to become editor instead. Here are my comments after a first read..

Yes, I was doing the same and was excited to see it, since children's TV is my wheelhouse on WP. Then I unfortunately had to fail it, but promised to edit it, since the movie with Tom Hanks was due to come out and I thought Rogers' bio should be at least a GA because you know it's gonna get a lot of traffic. So your timing is perfect, Lizzy! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Lead
  • "He was known as the creator, composer, producer, head writer, showrunner, and host of the preschool television series Mister Rogers' Neighborhood (1968–2001)" — I'd be inclined to rephrase that as: "He was known as the creator, showrunner and host of the preschool television series Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, which ran for thirty-three years, 1968 to 2001." I think the term "showrunner" encompasses the producer and writing part. Also, stating 33 years makes it sound like an achievement. What do you think?
  • "The program was marked by its slow pace and its host's calm manner." — does that need to be stated here? Seems a bit too early to me.
Great ideas, thanks. Made the above changes.
  • I think the second paragraph is too detailed. Details about the TV program can be described later, focus on what Rogers did. Therefore, try to refine the second paragraph like so:

Born in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh, Rogers earned a bachelor's degree in music from Rollins College in 1951. He began his television career in 1951, working for NBC in New York. He returned to Pittsburgh in 1953 to work for children's programming at NET (later PBS) television station WQED. After graduating from Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, he became a Presbyterian minister in 1963 and attended the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Child Development. Shortly afterwards, he began working alongside child psychologist Margaret McFarland for three decades. He also helped develop children's shows, The Children's Corner (1955) and Misterogers (1963). In 1968, he created Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, which ran for thirty-three years. The program was critically acclaimed for focusing on children’s emotional and physical concerns, such as death, sibling rivalry, school enrollment and divorce.

Also great. I followed most of your suggestion, except that I changed the line about McFarland to demonstrate that Rogers began working with her while at Pittsburgh. I also added a comma after the word "enrollment" because I'm a believer in the Oxford comma. ;)
  • "Rogers died on February 27, 2003, of stomach cancer." — perhaps rephrase it to: "Rogers died of stomach cancer on February 27, 2003."
  • "40 honorary degrees" — replace '40' with 'forty'. We should express this figure as words
According to MOS:SPELL09, both ways of representing numbers over 10 are acceptable. I believe in following the recommendations of my reviewers, so I'll change it to your style. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Early life
  • "11 years old" — replace '11' with 'eleven'
Changed as per above. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Early work
  • "named for WQED's station manager" and "named for Rogers' wife" — do you mean "named after"?
Yes, of course. Changed.
  • "He acquired the rights to Misterogers in 1967 and returned to Pittsburgh with his wife, his two young sons, and the sets he developed at the CBC, despite a his potentially promising career with the CBC and no job prospects in Pittsburgh" — the words in bold could be removed to simplify this sentence
Followed this suggestion. My understanding was that unlike TV networks in the U.S., most networks in other countries use the "the" article in front of their titles. CBC's WP article follows this convention, although it's not consistent, but CBC's webpage does not. I wasn't able to find anything definitive, so I followed your suggestion and CBC's own practice.
  • "(Coombs remained in Toronto, creating the long-running children's program Mr. Dressup, which ran from 1967 to 1996.)" — I don't think brackets are needed here
Removed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Mister Rogers' Neighborhood
  • "picked up and aired nationally by" — I think it's enough to say "broadcast by" because you already used the word "nationally" in the sentence before
  • "The program also "incorporated most of the highly imaginative elements that later became famous"[41] on the program" — no need for "on the program" at the end
Addressed above two comments.
  • " 200 songs and 13 operas" — change to "two-hundred songs and thirteen operas"
Okay, but again as per MOS:SPELL09, "two hundred" shouldn't be hyphenated.
  • The rest of this section was fine. There's a few minor changes that I would make, but I'm not going to list them all here. I might make the changes myself.
Please, feel free and knock yerself out, as they say. ;) I believe that sometimes it's easier and would take less time for reviewers to simply make the changes themselves. The challenging part about this section, for me, is that I didn't follow my normal practice for this kind of article. When I edited Sesame Street, I worked on (and sometimes created) articles about each aspect of the show, and then returned to the main article and summarized the content in different sections, as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Section_templates_and_summary_style suggests. I would've liked to do that here—work on Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, and then return here and summarize it—but I realized that it would take a lot of research, and I chose not to do it at this time because I thought it was more important to get this article to at least GA-quality before the movie came out in November 2019. I also had other things on my plate both WP-wise and in my RL. Perhaps I'll do it at another time, so that this article could be improved to successfully pass a FAC. I suspect that's why this section doesn't feel right to you, although I believe it's enough for this article to be promoted to a GA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Personal life
  • The last paragraph about interviews and speeches, sounds like it could also fit in the career section above. You could rename "Other television work" to "Other work and appearances" or something similar, and move the paragraph there. I think that last paragraph could be integrated elsewhere. What do you think?
After thinking this a little while, I wonder this might be the place where the old "Advocacy" section would go; see [6] and scroll down. I'd improve the content and update the sources, of course. I mean, people will think that it's important enough to include. I'm not sure, though, that the VCR content belongs, since I don't think it's important, although it was a court appearance that the Supreme Court considered. What do you think? In the meantime, I cut-and-paste the interview information here and renamed the section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a few minor changes here too, that I'd make
Death and memorials
  • "put off treatment" — change to "delayed treatment"
  • In the first paragraph, you state, "He died less than two months later.." and then "He died one month before..". Try to rephrase it as: "He died less than two months later... one month shy of his 75th birthday"
  • "section to his death" — change to "on his death"
  • "Rogers' death was widely covered" — "widely lamented" might be more appropriate as the media were mourning him
  • "Most U.S. metropolitan newspapers ran his obituary on their front page, and some dedicated entire sections to coverage of his death." — really? Might need to put source 96 and any others here
  • "the Post-Gazette reported that the ratings for their coverage were three times higher than their normal ratings." — Might need to put source 96 and any others here
All comments addressed. The last two comments seem redundant and WP:OVERREF, but okay. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Legacy
  • "became the top-grossing biographical documentary ever produced, was the highest-grossing documentary in five years" — what's the difference between top-grossing and highest-grossing? Is there any need for the second part?
The difference is that the documentary was the top-grossing bio doc made and that it made the most money out of any doc in five years. I wanted to vary the language, but I could say something like, "became the highest-grossing biographical documentary ever produced, was the highest-grossing documentary in five years"
  • The first quote box, although it's a quote from Rogers, probably needs to be sourced
Done.
  • Could you possibly move the second quote box to another section as two quotes in a row makes the page look clunky?
I don't see where else it would fit content-wise. I put the quotes in the same box; does that help it look less clunky? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Remaining sections
  • Could you possibly re-arrange the images next to the Awards table, so that they are above or below it? People on smaller screens will see a squished table otherwise.
Images moved.
  • In the section Art pieces, the second sentence is quite long. Could we break it up?
Yes, done.
  • In the Television section, did you consider a table? This is how television work is usually presented in Wiki articles.
Year Title Role Notes
1955 The Children's Corner ... ...
1964 The Butternut Square ... ...
Ugh, I hate tables. ;) But done anyway.

I have no other major concerns. I think some of the quotes from King could be paraphrased and integrated into the text rather than taking his direct quotes. Overall, the article appears to be stable, neutral, well-researched and illustrated with images. Thanks, Lizzy (talk 19:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your feedback about the King quotes. I do agree, however, that this article tends to depend too heavily upon King and if we were to bring it to FAC, we'd have to include more sources to better fulfill the comprehensiveness criteria. We need more research to bring this article to the next level, but I think its current version fits the GA criteria nicely. @Lizzy150: thanks so much for the review; it's muchly appreciated. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Figureskatingfan: thank you for swiftly making the changes. The article is in much better shape (funnily enough, another user has made some copy edits reverting what I suggested!) It's okay if you have different opinions to my points! As for the Advocacy section, you could create a level-3 section for it and put it after "Other work and appearances" (bear in mind the chapter is called "Television career" and might need renaming to just "Career" if you do). But I agree his Advocacy can fit somewhere there. The VCR stuff isn't that important to me, but no harm in mentioning it as it's related to advocacy. Feel free to ask me later though, whatever you do.

I've done a quick check of the sources and this appears fine. Thank you (and the other editors!) for working on this article. Without further delay, I'm promoting this to GA status. I hope Tom Hanks is good in the movie! Lizzy (talk 22:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lizzy150: Thanks for the review and the pass. It's unfortunate that this article isn't at a higher point, but I think it's adequate and {har-har) good enough. I'll go ahead and make your above suggestions. Have you seen the trailers yet? Hanks looks exceptional; I'm looking forward to seeing the movie. I have a feeling our world needs its message. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The quote in the Career: Other Work and Appearances section is the quote "In many speeches, including the ones he made accepting a Lifetime Achievement Emmy in 1997,[78] for his induction into the Television Hall of Fame in 1999,[80] and his final commencement speech at Dartmouth College in 2002, he instructed his audiences to remain silent and think for 10 seconds about someone who had a good influence on them.[81]" This is incorrect. He requested "one minute". This is supported in citation 81 and videos of the commencement at Dartmouth that are available on YouTube.Shingshing2 (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Shingshing2

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

(
)
Fred Rogers testifies before a US Senate Subcommittee chaired by John Pastore
  • ... that Fred Rogers' 1969 testimony (video shown) has resurfaced in 2012 and 2017 to counter calls for defunding PBS and other similar non-profit arts-related organizations?
  • Reviewed: Doux commerce
  • Comment: There are two paragraphs in the article related to this hook. See § Other work and appearances and more particularly § Legacy.
  • Special Date Request: November 22, 2019, to coincide with bio film on Rogers. Request made at WT:DYK

Improved to Good Article status by Figureskatingfan (talk). Nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) at 06:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC).

@Coffeeandcrumbs: @Figureskatingfan: The article is terrific; however, DYK requires that filmographies, published works, and discographies be sourced. — Maile (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I was able to source the filmography, but the source I got the published works and discography is on WP's blacklist. If that's a deal-breaker, I understand. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Imdb is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. @Coffeeandcrumbs: are you able to help out on this? — Maile (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I am working on this. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66:,  Done. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Review by Maile
QPQ
  • QPQ provided and not used on any other nomination
Eligibility
  • Achieved Good Article status on November 12, 2019
Sourcing
  • Extensively sourced, well-formatted
Hook
  • Hook is 155 characters, sourced exactly as nominator has linked above
Images
  • Video used in the nomination is a Commons Featured Picture, and in the Public Domain as a product of the United States Senate
  • The image of the Fred Rogers statue located near Heinz Field on the North Shore in Pittsburgh was uploaded on Wikipedia as Fair Use Rationale in 2009, specifically for the Fred Rogers article.
  • The image of Rogers receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award is in the Public Domain as a product of the US Government
  • All other images in the article are uploaded on Commons and licensed
Copyvio check
  • Earwig tool shows nothing of concern; "violations possible" are either common phrases, or sourced quotations within the article
  • Spot check also looks good

Nomination passes - — Maile (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

"Tatyana Vedeneyeva" should either be the US-standard "Tatyana Vedeneeva" for Cyrillic reconstruction, or "Tatyana Vedyenyeyeva" for approximate pronunciation. The current translation is confusing enough that I had go and look at the Cyrillc. If I were editing, I would use the more readable standard form. 100.6.75.199 (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2019

In the 2008 "Sweater Day" section correct "over the word" to "over the world" 8.21.129.12 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done GMGtalk 20:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2019

Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia fraternity is incorrectly described in this article. It is a college fraternity for men who value music, not a fraternity for men working in the music industry. 205.146.48.2 (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2019

Please add a missing space in the name of the award that Rogers was given in 2002 that is listed in the Fred Rogers#Awards and honors section. Please change "[[Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service|Commonwealth Award]]" to "[[Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service|Common Wealth Award]]". There should be a space between "Common" and "Wealth". See Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for more information. -- 96.64.134.61 (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done: please see Special:Diff/927537012. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 02:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request

I think his Republican political affiliation is relevant enough to be in infobox, he has spoken about his political beliefs on wars, poverty, funding of PBS, and politicians. Rogers even testified infant of the United States Senate.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request on November 26

I think his Republican political affiliation is relevant enough to be in infobox, he has spoken about his political beliefs on wars, poverty, funding of PBS, and politicians. Rogers even testified in front of the United States Senate.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe that I solved this dilemma: if we should put Rogers' political affiliation in the article. I found a reliable source, the L.A. Times, which quotes Joanne Rogers' summary of her late husband's political leanings. See, all we have to do is wait and a source like this pops up, for any information, especially now that the Tom Hanks movie is out. I disagree that it should be in the infobox, though, for the reasons expressed before--that Roger wasn't a politician, so it's unnecessary to place in the infobox here. Remember that this is not a place to put everything that Rogers ever said or believed in, see WP:IINFO. So this request has been filled, at least partially. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2019

Honorary degree for Fred Rogers should include Univ. of Indianapolis (formerly Indiana Central College). 2600:1700:F750:1C30:D486:90CE:6A8B:CF5 (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

In the section entitled "Death & Memorials," change "Sixth Presbyterian Church in Latrobe" to "Sixth Presbyterian Church in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood of Pittsburgh." I worked as a Sunday School aide there when he was a parishioner and saw him in the services several times. Mutskie (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Done, the source we are citing says "Sixth Presbyterian Church in Squirrel Hill". The source also mentions that Rogers was raised in Latrobe Presbyterian Church. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

math?

"Rogers retired from producing the Neighborhood in 2001, at the age of 73, although reruns continued to air."

how, then, did he die in 2003 at the age of 74? Gisforgirard (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2020

98.114.3.196 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Doctor of Letters, Middlebury College, 2001

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020

2601:80:C202:4520:615B:841:857C:2CA1 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Breaking news about Fred

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2020

Fred Rogers also received an Honorary Doctor of Letters dégrée from Middlebury College in May 2001, when he was their commencement speaker. A simple google search will confirm this. 98.114.3.196 (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make; please make a precise request. Also please provide reliable sources to verify any additions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I added the degree that you've mentioned. Thanks for bringing this up! Next time, add the specific URL. FunnyMath (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Who is "King" that is referred too all through the page?

Who is "King" that is referred too all through the page? Only his last name is used and the only sources are books with only his last name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.108.132.83 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"King" is Maxwell King, Rogers' biographer, so identified in the second paragraph of the main text. However I do not find a proper citation in the references. I'll see what I can do. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I found it. The "King" biography and two other books are listed at the very bottom under "Works cited". -- MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we keep the Oxford comma?

I made this edit where I added an Oxford comma. The justification is given in the edit summary. This was later reverted, along with the removal of the Oxford comma in the first sentence in the lead. I would like to get a consensus on whether we should keep the Oxford comma or not. I believe that it should be kept as other parts of the article use the Oxford comma as well, even with the recent revert. The GA Review explicitly states the nominator's preference for including the Oxford comma. MOS:OXFORD states that editors may omit or include the Oxford comma as long as it is used consistently in the article. FunnyMath (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I was the GA nominator who prefers the Oxford comma. I understand there are those who feel strongly one way or the other, but I don't care enough to make it a thing, although Weird Al agrees with me. (See his "Word Crimes" video on YouTube.) But you're right; it needs to be consistent one way or the other, so editors need to respect what's already here or at least start a discussion on the talk page. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I have no strong preference for inclusion or omission either; consistency is good enough. I normally omit the Oxford comma in my own writings. I would still prefer keeping the Oxford comma as it would be easier to fill in the missing commas to establish consistency rather than undoing every Oxford comma. Second, I believe the GA Review sufficiently establishes the standard for inclusion rather than omission, which should be respected. FunnyMath (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Teapot tempest. Since Wikipedia doesn't have a firm rule, I don't think you'll get, or should expect, a consensus on something like this on a page such a Fred Rogers. This isn't the History of Western Civilization. Rather you might communicate and work it out with the reverter - that usually is the best. Ckruschke (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke
I am willing to discuss with the reverter and I encourage them to talk with me. They could have communicated via this talk page, my talk page, or even through the edit summary of the revert. None of these venues were used. Because of this, an open discussion is a better alternative. This gives editors a chance to argue in support of the removal of the Oxford comma on behalf of the reverter.
The term "[t]eapot tempest" underestimates the severity of this issue. Given that the reverter undid my edit twice, even after I gave my justification, it follows that the Oxford comma is a major issue, at least for the reverter.
Secondly, the subject of the article has high notability and there exists an abundance of reliable sources about him, making it very likely that the article will become a featured article at some point. According to WP:GVF, a featured article must follow "the entire Manual of Style". Given that the article uses the Oxford comma inconsistently, it fails MOS:OXFORD. Thus the article would not pass featured article review.
Lastly, MOS:VAR states the following: "Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style, or gives no specific guidance. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that 'When either of two styles are [sic] acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.'" This, along with the lack of justification for removing the Oxford comma against the GA nominator's preference, implies that the revert is unwarranted. I am willing to change my belief if the reverter or other editors provide a compelling argument for removing the Oxford comma. FunnyMath (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry it's taken a while to get back to you. I think you can go for it if you want to and I just wanted to make sure everything to be consistent within the article. But I have to admit I hadn't read the article in detail so I didn't know that was the style choice. Alex (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. I am glad that we came to an agreement that we should keep the commas. I will add them back in. FunnyMath (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead Change: Nickname/Alias Inclusion

Hello, all! I’m unsure if this has been discussed previously, however, in reviewing this article, I noticed the nickname/alias Mister Rogers is not included in the lead. This seems strange to me, as he is colloquially known as Mister Rogers, rather than Fred Rogers.

It’s my understanding this article is up for GA Review, and I believe MOS:LEADALT (“When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph.”) and MOS:NICKCRUFT (“Common nicknames, aliases, and variants are usually given in boldface in the lead, especially if they redirect to the article...”) support my position.

Given this, I propose the lead first sentence should include the more common alias, i.e. “Fred McFeely Rogers (March 20, 1928 – February 27, 2003), commonly known simply as Mister Rogers, was an American television personality…” However, given the nature of such a high-profile article, I wanted to obtain some feedback and consensus prior to making this revision.

Thanks!  :) —thirsty (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Encyclopedia Britannica mentions the nickname "Mister Rogers". See [7]. According to WP:TERTIARY, reliable tertiary sources can be used to evaluate due weight. Thus I think the alias should be included in the lead. It is already in the infobox, but it is unsourced. I will add the Britannica source to the infobox. FunnyMath (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that "an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored". On second thought, I think adding the nickname is an uncontroversial edit. I will add it myself. I will mention this talk page section in the edit summary to encourage anyone who disagrees with the edit to discuss here, seeing as you have not gotten any response for over two weeks. FunnyMath (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Rogers/Archive_2&oldid=1136739421"