Talk:Fred Rogers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Longest-running show on PBS?

Sesame Street has been running 1969-present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.235.10 (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Various early discussion

Some other parodies:

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

Colorblind

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

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

I've read that he was slighty color blind and could not see the color blue.

Mister Rogers Satire

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

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

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

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

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

Date of the Peabody Award

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

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

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

Fred Phelps (as compared to Rogers)

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

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

Yes, it is.

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

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

NiftyDude 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

NiftyDude 15:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the section referencing the actions of Fred Phelp's group is being continuously deleted.

Mr. Rogers is on TV for over 30 years, and the actions on one day of his life (well one day of his death) souldn't be included. Beside it was a POV anyway, Freds. Charles 07:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who did it, but I really like the compromise someone made, removing the specific details of Phelps' organization. The facts are there, they just don't promote an irrelevent group. Good job. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Is he a reverend

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

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

Navy SEAL? Marine? Sniper? -- NOT!

See also: Talk:Fred Rogers § Controversial past

This is Totally True. The following is a lie created by the government to to conceal the identity of Fred "Ace" Rogers. The deadliest killer ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.253.214 (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The rumor that he was a Navy SEAL may not be entirely inaccurate. It was said that he always wore a long sleeve shirt all the time so that he could cover up his tattoos he gained back in the day, so as not to frighten children and so on. But again, this can be neither confirmed or denied, but who among us has ever seen proof of Rogers exposing his arms on TV or in pictures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.14.114 (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

is it possible to comfirm the validity of those claims in urbanlegends.about.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.162.218 (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2007

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

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

is it possible to comfirm the validity of those claims in urbanlegends.about.com?~

The website posted doesnt say he wasnt in combat, it just says he didn have a violent criminal past...

He was a US Navy Seal with at least 25 CK's to his name of course many " TRUTHFUL " websites would state other wise to indicate he was just a pleasent peaceful man who never did anything " wrong " to the public. The goverment will always state what they want you to believe in websites that you trust. Such as scopes and urban legends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DOC TATUM (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Its a funny view but search "Mister Rogers Censored" on youtube and eventually you'll see him in a bathing suit without a shirt!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.43.189 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

SO, coudl we add the snopes link or mentont that he was NOT a sniper/miltary servicemember despite rumors to the contrary? Kairos (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose that. You'll notice that there's no Richard Gere#Gerbil-related allegations section, for example. Per policy, Wikipedia does not publicize hoaxes, rumors, or gossip about people who were born in the last 115 years, and in the grand scheme of things, virtually none of those hoaxes will prove to be notable anyway. There are cases in which hoaxes pertaining to historical figures have been compiled into articles (see, e.g., Legends of Catherine II of Russia) but this is the exception rather than the rule. Perhaps the hottest flashpoint in this debate right now is in the Lady Gaga article. The article makes no mention of the rumors of Lady Gaga being a hermaphrodite/intersex individual, and a glance at the talk page shows a number of editors being quite indignant about that fact, with one even saying "Dare I suspect that either zealous fans or PR agents are hindering objectivity on Wikipedia yet again?". —Bill Price (nyb) 08:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Spurious text

Was this text

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

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

Mr. Rogers' heritage

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

Controversial past

See also: Talk:Fred Rogers § Navy SEAL? Marine? Sniper? -- NOT!

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

Not a sniper, never in military. http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/mrrogers.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.81.155 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Video Link

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

Age of audience

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

Length of testimony

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

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

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

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

The video is available at http://youtube.com/watch?v=a41lJIhW7fA, with a total length of 6:50 (which includes Rogers being introduced to the committee). So six minutes is about right. And it's a moving speech to hear, by the way. — Loadmaster 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Heinz quote

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

Cancer Deaths Category

Categories

"An article should usually not be in both a category and its subcategory… except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category, e.g. Ohio is in both Category:U.S. states and Category:Ohio." In the case of cancer, 'Cancer deaths' and 'Death from stomach cancer'.

Michael David 14:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my interpretation of that paragraph suggests that 'Mister Rogers' should only be in 'Deaths from stomach cancer'. The exception above goes on to say that 'if an article exists, and then a category is created on the same subject as the article, it should not cause the article to be removed from any of its categories.'

We are not talking about the category 'Mister Rogers', so I do not believe it applies here. In the example of Ohio, I interpreted the above as saying that it's okay for an article about Ohio to be in the category 'Ohio' while also being a member of 'related categories', like U.S. states. Skybunny 15:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

To me Categories are there to help make researching a subject easier; they generate lists I can work from. I don't want to have to call up a zillion separate lists to, for example, find all persons who died from cancer. (As morbid as this sounds, someone's got to do it).

Please help me to understand what problems it presents to place both Categories in the same Article.

Michael David 15:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder, honestly, if this question is best asked in Wikipedia:Categories, where the people who discuss this more frequently can talk about the philosophical reasons they want it the way they want it. All I could really think to do here was provide a best guess as to what I believe the policy says; I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter either way. Skybunny 17:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the article is kind of confusing. In the article it says he died from throat cancer but it's in the stomach cancer category. Dividebyzero 12:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Showdown

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

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

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

Not in the least bit relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.7.183 (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed-71.241.84.195 (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Amcbride (Fred Phelps, again)

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

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

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

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

Black brother

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

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

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

Tattoos

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

No, that is "flase". --Jnelson09 02:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC) http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/mrrogers.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.81.155 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Debunked rumors and sourcing

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

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

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

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

Vegetarian?

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

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

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

as well as this quote from the New York Times obituary

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

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

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

This link also confirms it. I've added the category back in. --Brad Beattie (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really in doubt of this, but is there a source where Rogers identifies himself as a vegetarian? IronCrow 01:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Apparently a Rogers' friend (Tim Madigan) quoted Rogers' as saying that he doesn't eat "anything that had a mother." Here's an excerpt from the author's site: http://www.timmadigan.com/proud/excerpt.htm sæ (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a referenced note about his vegetarianism to the personal section, which was looking a bit anemic to begin with. For good measure, I included the other aspects of his personality that Aconbere cited above. Also, the idea that he served in the armed forces is a myth. -Lciaccio (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Could we maybe get that sentence moved or reworded? Its current placement seems a bit akward.LtCrumpet (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply not true. I and many other pittsburgh locals saw him drink many times in the decade before he died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.147.129.169 (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

George

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

Formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article, vs article on show

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

Changes to article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- - - - -

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

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

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

- - - - -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If, ultimately, you are committed to "conced[ing] nothing" and "disagree[ing] with me ...regardless", that is, regardless of the dictates of reason, please just tell me so straight out, now, and quit the discussion. -- Lonewolf BC 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If, ultimately, you are committed to "conced[ing] nothing" and "disagree[ing] with me ...regardless", that is, regardless of the dictates of reason, please just tell me so straight out, now, and quit the discussion. -- Lonewolf BC 02:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

---

In the below, CG revives:

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

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

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

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

I know I am late (by almost a year), but I do believe that this should be added to the article. After reading it, I noticed that Phelps wasn't in the article. It was widely known that he hated Rogers, infact... it is even relevant in the fact that there was a protest at a memorial. IronCrow 01:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Way to go guys, fighting on the Mr Rogers page. :-D --79.140.211.113 (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A different question about protests (Phelps)

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

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

This Mr Phelps protest may be mentioned in the Fred Phelps article but not on Fred Rogers's article as Mr Phelps's protest had no lasting mark or influence on Mr. Rogers's legacy. His protest was ignored or not even noticed by the general public. Don't think we need to dignify Mr Phelps's ineffectual protest.Azn Clayjar 14:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, I completely agree that the protest should be included. Something doesn't have to "impact" the person, but it did happen, and although people ignored it, it does not mean it never happened. IronCrow 01:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive of American Television Interview

Many important facts are mentioned in this interview. Complete interview is viewable using http://video.google.com. There are 9 parts to the interview. Each is ~28 minutes of Fred Rogers talking about himself. Search for "Archive American Television Interview Fred Rogers". Anyone looking for things to add to main article will find lots to consider here.

Korn song ? Is this pertinent or even worth a blurb?

Another legacy he received (not from Pittsburgh Magazine) was a song by popular Nu-Metal band, KoRn. The song was named 'Mr. Rogers' and was included on Life is Peachy. It is about how the singer, Jonathan Davis, was influenced by Mr Rogers to be nice to others, and be polite, but in the end, it made him susceptible to being teased.

Is it even relevant that a 'nu-metal' band that hasn't released a single album without a Parental Advisory wrote a song about him? Can we remove this please? Thanks. Sbrawner 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill it. Trivia can almost always be removed.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Urban Legend Section Gone?

Who deleted this and why was there no discussion of it? I thought it seemed important to speak of this in the article, myself. SmartSped 02:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just found it. A vandal IP removed a bunch of info that they apparently found disrespectful. I will re-add it now. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would think that it should be replaced since it is informational fact for some people who need that sort of information. Wikifriendawesome 12:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not all "urban legend" trivia needs to be included in the article. Anyone can start a rumor. — ERcheck (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in the case of his "military service" and tattoos, they are prevalent enough to become a part of his image-as-legend status. (Witness: Ultimate Showdown (of Ultimate Destiny)). For that reason, it is important that we have some truth to counteract those particular rumours. --Snicker^|¥°^€| 14:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fred Rogers and Yo Yo Ma.jpg

Image:Fred Rogers and Yo Yo Ma.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mister Rogers and Big Bird.jpg

Image:Mister Rogers and Big Bird.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

internationally acclaimed Mister Rogers' Neighbourhood

While this show was clearly very highly regarded in the USA, isn't 'internationally acclaimed' stretching things just a bit? Was it actually shown in any other countries? It was certainly never shown on UK television Mighty Antar 02:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My thought exactly! I found a reference to the guy's name on another website (OK, I admit it, it was Ultimate Showdown (of Ultimate Destiny)) and was curious to know who this "Mister Rogers" was. I can assure you that he and his TV show is completely unknown in the UK. I do remember noticing references to the "Won't You Be My Neighbor?" thing in a couple of Hollywood movies, but until now it was not a cultural reference that I had understood. International doesn't just mean everywhere in the US! Unless someone can give some evidence for his internationally acclaimation, I think those words should be removed. Meowy 01:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "international" either really, but it has definitly been shown in Canada. There are also Spanish translations of it, so it has probably been aired in Central or South America (maybe for spanish-speaking Americans, or the translations may not have been official). I'm not entirely sure, but I think there is also a French translation, but don't hold me to that. It was aired on PBS, which is in the United States and some of Canada. Still, that doesn't mean it was in other networks. So I guess "international" is either a bit misleading or just used loosely. IronCrow 01:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist protest

An anonymous editor is attempting to insert a reference to the Westboro Baptist Church's protest at Rogers's funeral. I oppose inserting that info as it is simply not notable nor worth mentioning. --ElKevbo 05:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning because it did get media attention, as did the westboro church, as my link to a wiki article proves. If you have such a problem with what I added, change the article on Targets of Westboro Baptist Church. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.169.154.186 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with ElKevbo that this fact is unworthy of mention, in relation to Fred Rogers. Phelps and WBC are whack-jobs, and their reasonless accusations against sundry persons are of no importance or significance in relation to those they accuse. It is worthy of mention in relation to Phelps and to WBC that they made accusations against Rogers, but that warrants inclusion in articles on Phelps, WBC, and "Targets of [WBC]" -- though I have some doubt that "Targets" is needed as a separate article -- not in the article on Rogers. Ephemeral media attention does not, by itself, oblige us to include information in an article. There is always editorial judgement to exercise, as to whether the bit is of any lasting importance in relation to the topic. In this case, it is not. -- Lonewolf BC 09:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Interview

Don't know if this is new content or something you already have but at the end of this podcast there is a short interview with Fred Rogers from 1969. The whole is a podcast by Doctorow with a range of other unrelated topics covered. http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/searchengine_20070906_3236.mp3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucychili (talk • contribs) 02:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Time of diagnosis

The article had a line saying that Rogers was diagnosed with cancer in 2000. Not true. This article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette states that he was diagnosed in December 2002, which is about a year after the end of his show. 128.2.246.133 16:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"False rumors" should be deleted

This section is pointless, as the rumors are NOT widely circulated, and are not part of ANY canon of who Fred Rogers was. People researching Rogers for whatever reason are not served by such a gossipy, unencyclopedic section. K. Scott Bailey 13:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, I looked up this article in response to such a false rumor. 158.104.166.189 17:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the false rumors section is valid, for these rumors are widely regarded as fact with virtually anybody I talk to who is familiar with Fred Rogers. My father, a Phd and a master at trivia, told the whole family at Christmas dinner tonight about Mister Rogers "being covered in tatoos that he got while being a Navy Seal, and that's why he wore long sleeves." mbtrap
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.237.238 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 26 December 2007

The simple solution is to {{fact}} tag them, which may seem ironic, since you'd be tagging things we're acknowledging aren't true, but the purpose would be to force verification that these are indeed widely circulated by pointing out a source that discusses them. Torc2 (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No need for tagging; the Snopes webpage is already given as a reference. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Snopes is a reliable source for the argument that these are "widely circulated." It also doesn't support that this is encyclopedic content. Torc2 (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that most people here think the false rumors section should stay. Why was it deleted yesterday? LtCrumpet (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should have been deleted. It's not really encyclopedic content. - Charleca (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And, it's back. We'll wait to hear the reasoning. - Dudesleeper Talk 19:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to delete it again, but somebody beat me to it. I think general consensus is that it doesn't belong. Torc2 (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The editor reverted his removal of the section, so it's still there. - Dudesleeper Talk 19:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The "False rumors" section covers a noteworthy oddity about Rogers, and is sourced to the Snopes webpage about them. The section is long-standing content of this article. No consensus has been gained for its removal -- among commenters and editors since this talk-page section began, 4 have shown support for keeping the section and 4 have shown support for deleting it. (Where Wikidudeman stands is unclear, given that he deleted but then promptly restored the section.) Accordingly, I am putting the section back for now. Please do not delete it again without first gaining consensus for that. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

what is this:

"Jack Shackington

Image:Meitsi.jpg

Mr. Rogers reaks havoc on New York City.

Birth name Frederick McFeely Rogers Born March 20, 1928(1928-03-20) Latrobe, Pennsylvania, Flag of the United States United States

Died January 32, 1948 (aged 368)

Mianus, Minnesota Flag of the United States United States "

The italicized seems absurd and should probably be revised and/or removed

66.215.219.14 19:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Jason Lillard

I think I found some more vandalism, Under Personal life the last entry sentence reads. "He operated an underground fighting ring that also functioned as an importer of young Chinese children to be sold as male prostitutes."

I'm not familiar enough with, Wikipedia editing, the article, nor Mr. Rogers to see if there is any other. I also don't feel comfortable enough editing to remove.

FourX11gd (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, it sounds pretty real to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.153.162 (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Trivia tags

There were trivia tags on two sections — the "Speeches...." section and the "Facts" section. The "Speeches..." section is a common section in biographies, in which honors/awards are included — which is a non-random, legitimate section of information for a biography. I removed the trivia tag from the Speeches section. I've left it in the Facts section. I think they are interesting "facts"; I have no objections to it remaining as it is currently crafted. However, I do think that it has the potential to become a random collection of non-notable information. — ERcheck (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Facts and Figures section is really formatted like a trivia section. Everything there that's worthwhile should be rolled into the main section, and the section should be deleted. Torc2 (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to work through them now. I'm deleting the bullets as I find the same fact elsewhete in the article, and I'll continue to integrate the rest when I have time. -Lciaccio (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Salary

I'd be interested in seeing information on the type of salary Mr. Rogers earned. I don't doubt he cared deeply in what he did but stating he got into TV because he hated it makes me question what he did with all of the money he earned from it. Did he make millions? Did he use that millions for more than his own family? Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

personal life

This article has very little on his personal life. We should add information if it can be properly sourced--T1980 (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09310/1011221-53.stm#ixzz0W7O7POMn. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record: Here is the infringement. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Winner of the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny?

Perhaps it should me noted that in the flash video/song,The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny, Mr Rogers is the overall victor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.100.169 (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No. It's unrelated to Rogers' life and work and is entirely non-notable. It's not the place of Wikipedia to promote minor Internet memes—we are an encyclopedia. —Notyourbroom (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

However, "his" victory has entered main stream culture to some extent, and the Ultimate Showdown has it's own Wikipedia page. Also, many other icons that have been memed have it o their Wikipedia page. I think this reference should be entered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.61.10 (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the references is linking to rape porn

1. 6, "^ Kid in Us" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.186.13 (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked on this, and the link currently just returns a plain-text page with the words "Temporary unavailable." at the top. Perhaps something was attacked/hacked. —Bill Price^{(notyourbroom)} 14:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(14 days later) The IP editor was right; I stumbled across the issue while fixing references. The situation's fixed completely now. —Bill Price^{(notyourbroom)} 03:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul of references

I did my best to clean up the references of this article over the course of these edits. I repaired as many dead links as possible and tried to find alternate sources when I couldn't repair a dead link. I didn't address any of the "citation needed" issues.—Bill Price^{(notyourbroom)} 03:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Car theft

The following note about Rogers' stolen car was removed by User:NeilN on 15 May 2008. On the edit, he listed the reason for the edit as "rm unsourced statement", which is silly, because it was clearly sourced:

In February 1990, Rogers' car was stolen while he was taking care of his grandson. The thief apparently realized who the car belonged to after seeing papers and props Rogers had left in the car. The car was returned to Rogers, who found it sitting in front of his home about a day later. The only thing missing from the car was Rogers' director's chair. Rogers' car at the time was an Oldsmobile sedan.

Now, there might have been reason for removing it. Perhaps it was too rambling, maybe not in the right place in the article, or possibly even no notable. But it was and is sourced. I just added it back in, but condensed and in a more relavent place in the article. It's not perfect, but I think it's an improvement over what it had been, and it's definitely an improvement over not mentioning it. This is something that has been in this article since almost the beginning, and it's a powerful demonstration of Rogers' personal celebrity. See Talk:Fred Rogers#Various early discussion. --Drkslvr (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Accidental omission of edit summary

For this edit, please accept the following (considerably expanded) summary/rationale:

"sic" is appropriate here because the title of that program is similar to the title of Rogers' other main television program while also being prescriptively incorrect. A well-meaning but ignorant editor might try to "fix" it. "sic" does not mean "incorrect"; it means "thus", as in, "This is exactly accurate; I have not revised or edited it in my capacity as a transcriber; it was thus in the original source." —Bill Price (nyb) 15:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

SNL tribute

Would the mention of the tribute SNL did of him the Saturday after his death be appropriate, and can anyone source it? It was not intended to be funny, didn't deride, and was genuinely touching, esp. to fans of both. 75.203.168.239 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Trivia section

I'm trying to get rid of this section by removing issues that are clearly trivial, uncited, cited to dead links, or already covered in other parts of the article.

I'm placing the trivial bits here. They may add up to something else later. Such as, apparently, Rogers was widely sought as a commencement speaker. --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• In May 1992, Rogers gave the commencement speech at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, an hour outside of Pittsburgh, PA.
• On May 11, 1996, Rogers gave the commencement speech at North Carolina State University.
• On May 8, 1999, Rogers gave the commencement address at Westminster Choir College. In particular, he told the graduating musicians about his early career as a composer. At this time he was bestowed the honorary degree Doctor of Humanities.
• In May 1999, Rogers gave the commencement address at Marist College.
• On May 6, 2000, Rogers gave the commencement address at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia.
• In May 2001, Rogers was given an Honorary Doctor of Letters and delivered the commencement address at Middlebury College.
• In May 2001, Rogers delivered the commencement address at Marquette University.
• In 2002, Rogers gave the commencement address at Dartmouth College, his alma mater.

Correct reference to PBS

The article references the "Public Broadcasting System" which is a misnomer. The correct name of PBS is the "Public Broadcasting Service". This is a commmon confusion since CBS originally stood for the Columbia Broadcasting System. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveJessBoise (talk • contribs) 22:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You should change it to make it accurate. --Moni3 (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Testimony to the Supreme Court

The lead to the article says that Rogers testified to the Supreme Court in the Sony/Betamax timeshifting case. I think that little part should be re-written to be more precise. Ordinarily a party would not testify to the Supreme Court because the Court would be hearing the case on appeal. Likely, he testified to a United States District Court and that testimony became part of the record on appeal.Balonkey (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Acceptance Speech description not accurate

The article quoted does not accurately describe the situation, the very end, his looking up from his watch and saying "May God be with you" is most definitely false (he said that but only after a minute or two of other stuff between).. Most definitely modified for dramatic effect by an author that never knew the internetz would post both his work and the video for anyone to see. The very moving speech should be quoted here, but perhaps more accurately. Here's the youtube video of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upm9LnuCBUM

Cs302b (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Davidsass, 10 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I'm not sure how this work, but I think the video of the acceptance speech of the Lifetime Achievement Award should be posted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upm9LnuCBUM is the link. Thank you. Davidsass (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. It's in the official Emmys channel, so it's not likely that a copyright claim will have it removed any time soon and the article already discusses his speech. Done. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

sure! let's all pretend he didn't win the Ultimate Showdown. That's not important. Deathsculler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

Peabody Award

http://www.peabody.uga.edu/winners/search_results.php?f=sf&keywords=Fred+Rogers&submit=Go&all=1

this is the correct information about Fred Rogers' peabody awards. He won two different awards: 1992 and 1968. The current information indicates he only won one in 1987. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.3.117 (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mistake in cleaning vandalism

I just wanted to declare that this edit was a mistake. I had meant to revert this line of edits, but somehow made a mistake. Other users made ad-hoc attempts to "spot clean" the article, but I've now finished the cleaning by reverting to the last good version. —Bill Price (nyb) 23:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting information

Multiple parts of the page state that Mr. Rogers was a Marine sniper, but the final section claims this to be false. Considering the Vietnam War was going on in his show's early years, the final section is certainly more credible than the rest of the page. Anybody capable of fixing this and willing to do it? 70.225.69.123 (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct broadcast date of "Fred Rogers: America's Favorite Neighbor"

Here is a piece on Muppet Central Forum that mentions the TV biography special "Fred Rogers: America's Favorite Neighbor":

http://www.muppetcentral.com/forum/threads/remembering-fred-rogers.5491/page-7

It seems that the original air date of the special was May 2003. Is this correct? Was the New Year's Day 2004 airing a rebroadcast?

--72.129.158.144 (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Books

Amazon lists 37 titles [4] and some of them seem quite well known so it was a bit of an omission not to even mention them in the article. Started a section. Lots more to do! Andrewa (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 January 2012

The article incorrectly states that Mr. Rogers "testified to the U.S. Supreme Court on time shifting." This is incorrect, because the Supreme Court does not hear live testimony from witnesses. Instead, the Supreme Court's opinion discussed the testimony that Mr. Rogers had presented before the trial court in the case. The Supreme Court's opinion is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=464&invol=417#t27 208.66.24.83 (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

"...his trademark sweaters was acquired" shouldn't this be "...were acquired"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.166.206 (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read the whole phrase, it says "one of his trademark sweaters was acquired". The "one of" makes it singular, so this grammar is correct. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Reference to fredrogers.org

There is a link to "Fred Rogers' Company" that points to fredrogers.org, which site appears to be the victim of cybersquatting. Remove? Replace? Mark Durst (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to http://www.fci.org/; apparently, Family Communications has renamed itself The Fred Rogers Company? —Bill Price (nyb) 01:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Military involvement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This page is not a forum for general discussion or questions about Fred Rogers. The article and cited sources make it clear that Rogers never served in the military; however, I passed this gentleman's request on to Family Communications, since he seems to have been unsatisfied with the proof given in the article. —Bill Price (nyb) 03:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

---

The accomplishments and all that Mr. Rodgers has done not just for children but for all of humanity are astonishing. I have always admired his incredible character. I saw a Johnny Carson show where Lee Marvin spoke very highly of Mr. Rodgers and described him as the bravest man he has ever known. It was on that show where he stated Mr. Rogers heroics during WWII. I am an Executive Dirctor of an adoption agency and have used his life's example in several devotions I have done through the years. There is nothing that will change my opinion of this great man. When I mentioned things in talks that I give to people I am always concerned about their accuracy. Can you tell me if there is any truth that Mr. Rodgers served in WWII and was given commendations for heroic efforts to save his platoon.

I can be reached at [redacted] or by phone [redacted]

Sincerly Joseph D. Sica MS Executive Director Adoption by Shepherd Care — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.164.34 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Capitalization and punctuation

There are some changes I would like to make to the page to improve writing mechanics, but I don't want to have to create a new account and wait four days ... I will have forgotten by then.

"Music" as in "Music degree" should not be capitalized; it is not a proper noun. One might capitalize "Department of Music," but there's no good reason to capitalize "Music" itself.

With regard to "Misterogers," it's my recollection that it was spelled like that in TV listings for years, if not for his entire career. And, where it says "Misterogers, [sic]", the comma should come *after* the "[sic]", not before it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.173.118 (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

EEng has taken care of this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 June 2012

"... as his mother would play the piano and himself began playing at five" should be "... as his mother would play the piano and he himself began playing at five" 108.218.180.225 (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 June 2012

In the first paragraph under the headings Television career and Early Work this quote: "I went into television because I hated it so, and I thought there was some way of using this fabulous instrument to be of nurture to those who would watch and listen."[13]

should be changed to:

"I got into television because I hated it so, and I thought there's some way of using this fabulous instrument to nurture those who would watch and listen."[13]

I went to the source material and found the quote in the article cited because I suspected the quote on Wikipedia was incorrect. It is. Here is the correct quote, cut and pasted:

“I got into television because I hated it so,” Rogers told CNN. “And I thought there’s some way of using this fabulous instrument to nurture those who would watch and listen.”

99.249.18.156 (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Good catch. Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone add this

Julie of Love Boat gets off Cocaine thanks to Mr. Rodgers 108.193.98.26 (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Not important to his biography, but may be of use in other actor's biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Phrasing

I would suggest changing the sentence "Related claims that Rogers had a number of military tattoos are also entirely false." to "Related claims that Rogers had a number of military tattoos are also without merit." --Wally moot (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I never understand why people want to squeeze so many words into so little information. I've replaced grotesquely bloated "False rumors" section with the statement Despite recurring rumors he never served in the military. EEng (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Early Work

The first two paragraphs need a serious rewrite: The statement, "Fred Rogers had a life-changing moment when he first saw television in his parents' home" is overwrought and undocumented. The statement, "He entered seminary after college; but, after his first experience as a viewer, he wanted to explore the potential of the medium" is chronologically inaccurate. There was a substantial gap between completion of his college degree and his attendance at seminary. During that time, he had already established a career in television. He wasn't ordained until 12 years after receiving his undergraduate degree. The statement, "He thus applied for a job at NBC in New York City in 1951 and was hired because of his music degree" postulates a connection with statements from the first paragraph which are themselves suspect. In any event, there is no evidence for this connection. The assertion that "he was hired because of his musical degree" is undocumented and suspect. JamesLSilver (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The life-changing moment is described by Rogers himself in Esquire. As for the rest, if you check the sources you'll see that the article's presentation of the timeline is confusing but not wrong. (The only thing I don't see direct support for in the sources is the idea that his music degree led to his hiring, though it's reasonable given his early assignments were Hit Parade and so on -- I've tagged this .) Just at the moment the spirit doesn't move me to try a rewrite, but since you're so excited by this why don't you give it a try? You'll need to go over the Esquire and Salon sources first. EEng (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

More Light Presbyterian Church

Under "Early Work," the second to last paragraph in that section reads, "After returning to Pittsburgh, Rogers attended and participated in activities at the Sixth Presbyterian church in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood of Pittsburgh, a More Light congregation which he attended until his death."

Sixth Presbyterian didn't become a More Light Presbyterian Church until 2003, the year of Fred Rogers' death. So, the information above, left as is, could be misleading. On the other hand, the pastor at Sixth, who was pastor during Fred Rogers' entire time there, in many ways led to that eventual stance of the church (i.e., becoming a part of the More Light network).

So, the paragraph as it is leaves ambiguous as to when the church Fred Rogers attended for 30+ years became a More Light church, and perhaps even implies that it had been for a long time. But again, Mr. Rogers' pastor for 30+ years was no "conservative" when it came to the issues More Light churches champion, viz., recognizing gay unions, gay ordinations, etc.

In the end, because Sixth was not a More Light congregation during Mr. Rogers' time there (making an irrelevant bit of information)—regardless of Mr. Rogers' or his pastor's views—it probably should be excised from the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisdonato (talk • contribs) 00:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My best read is that The congregation's board voted 17-1 in favor in the cite (here:) refers to the church self-designating as More Light about the mid-90s, though the source's presentation of the timeline isn't a model of clarity. Or am I reading it wrong?

Having said that, I'm not sure it matters. That source is about the church and its pastor, and mentions Rogers only in passing, and More Light only in passing. It seems to me it's WP:SYNTH to pull out this one detail about the church and place it here in the article on Rogers, with the clear implication that the former says something about the latter. I'm removing the More Light detail but leaving the church attendance detail.

Oh, um, wait. The source has this hypertechnical (to me, anyway) detail re clergy ~< presbytery, laity ~< congregation which I think is the reason someone made the text read attended and participated in activities. I don't think this is necessary and made it just attended -- those interested in apostolic succession and whathaveyou can read the source and infer whatever it is they need to infer. Protestentism is really very confusing.

I welcome other views of course, especially if they can help me figure out what I'm talking about -- I've lost track.

EEng (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That scratches the itch, I think. You summarized it well here: " It seems to me it's WP:SYNTH to pull out this one detail about the church and place it here in the article on Rogers, with the clear implication that the former says something about the latter." That was my concern too. --Chrisdonato (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you concur with what I've done but for the record, whoever it was that scratched your itch it wasn't me. I'll thank you to keep your sick derma-erotic fantasies to yourself, pervert. EEng (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I really hope the reply by EEng was a joke, if not it was very rude and totally uncalled for.--BeckiGreen (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I really hope the inquiry by BeckiGreen wondering whether my reply was a joke, was a joke, if not I'm going to have to start adding emoticons to even the most obviously facetious comments in obviously friendly interactions, for the benefit of the humor-impaired. EEng (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I found the "derma-erotic" part rather inspired and the "pervert" part a bit over the top. Then again, I'm abby, and I rarely use emoticons either. Rivertorch (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)