Talk:Scott Rasmussen

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

Untitled old thread[edit]

The article reads like it's in first person and has personal tidbits. Did he write it himself?

Given that any information that casts Scott in a bad light is rapidly removed, I'm guessing this is his own {{autobiography}}.

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

Perhaps it's not an issue of poor light, but rather an issue of poor sourcing? Wikipedia is a website designed for information gathering. It is not designed for you, or anyone else, to spread their views. 'First Person Account' Is not a suitable source. Many other first person accounts dispute your 'facts'.Lepre 19:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Lepre[reply]

Taken from the Wikipediea:Biographies of Living Persons Page: Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.Lepre 19:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The omission of all material that is derogatory is a bizarre way of defining biography or recording history. There is persistent activity on this page in which any information that does not show the subject in a uniformly positive light is removed. This makes the entire article a worthless {{Fansite}}. The TriCity News and The Asbury Park Press are NOT "obscure newspapers". In fact, The Asbury Park Press is the local paper of record.

The issue wasn't the controversy, nor the Asbury Park Press as a source. The fact that one source was, 'First Person Witness' was an issue. The fact that the controversy wasn't expressed correctly was an issue. It wasn't a unilateral decision as previously alleged and the previous Wiki articles referred off hand to 'many residents' Last I counted, five flags were up. I agree that the issue may merit attention on Scott's page, but the issue has more to do with the OGCMA than with he himself. If someone wants to read up on Ocean Grove's position, they can on the Ocean Grove page. If someone wants to read about the founder of ESPN, or Scott the Public Opinion Pollster they don't need an article three times as long on a civil rights issue than on his other achievements. It is certainly not more significant a part of his life. Also, please sign your posts so I know who I'm talking to. Whether it's the same person, or a variety of people. Lepre 04:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just counted about twenty flags, within a short walk around the main street area. I think it is reasonable to to characterize this as "many." The triCity News article, the reference to which was deleted, clearly states that, according to board member and long-time OG resident Jack Green, this decision was not made with full board consultation and this was the source of the comment.

Furthermore, I think that since Scott is president of the OGCMA, this issue is clearly part of his biography --- which is not just about his work as a pollster or TV executive. Obviously, in evaluating a pollster's work, any sensible researcher would take account of the other aspects of their work and life. Scott himself has stated that the results of a poll depend on how the questions are framed (again, citing the triCity News), so clearly everything he does in public, and OGCMA is in public, is relevant to his biography. On what basis do you decided that these issues are not to be published here, and only his "achievements" are suitable for his biography. When accounts differ, a good historian would quote all accounts and allow the reader to make their own judgement, not delete the ones that they disagree with on the grounds that they are subjective. This doesn't sound like peer reviewed research to me. You come accross as subjective, not the independent unbiased encyclopedist you claim to be. Who is Lepre, anyway?

Clear Bias[edit]

Where it is claimed that Rasmussen was one of the most accurate polling firms in 2000 and 2004, what is the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.32.225 (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry attitude toward gays[edit]

The ministry's attitude towards gays MIGHT warrant a one sentence mention with a source. Instead, it takes half of this entry. I believe this to be messy and in clear violation of NPOV. Agree? Disagree? CorpITGuy (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Activities[edit]

I have edited the religious activities section. I'm not sure whether the Camp Meeting's performance is relative to his notoriety, but if we're going to include it, we might as well make it a complete and NPOV summary of his leadership.Nurambar (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it was a bit of a coatrack before, athough secondary sources would be better to cite than the OGCMA, a primary source.  JGHowes  talk 18:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordie Howe[edit]

I've removed this from the middle of the ESPN section, as a) I don't see the relevance to that particular section, and b) I'm not sure it's notable anyway.

Scott Rasmussen has said that “nothing in my professional career will ever equal the thrill” of serving as Master of Ceremonies for hockey great Gordie Howe’s 50th birthday celebration. Howe was Rasmussen’s childhood idol. [1]

Rojomoke (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://scottrasmussen.net/About.php]

What goes here, vs. what goes there[edit]

I have moved all of the information in the sub-headings "2000-2007" and "2008-2010" to the Rasmussen Reports company page. I believe it makes more sense for this information, which is specifically about polling done by Rasmussen Reports, to be housed on the Rasmussen Reports page rather than on Scott Rasmussen's personal page. It seems to be the pages have been treated interchangeably over time, but it would be smart to move to a system where company/polling specific information finds a home on the Rasmussen Reports page, and information pertaining to Scott Rasmussen the individual is placed on the Scott Rasmussen page. Thoughts on this? Unless there are objections, I will plan to remove the aforementioned sections from Scott Rasmussen's page in the next couple of days. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent tag[edit]

Someone has recently added a tag that says "The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" above the section in this article titled "public opinion polling." It would be helpful is that editor would discuss this issue on the talk page. I would like to try to improve this article, but I don't know specifically what this editor is objecting to. I have read Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems and it says "When adding a tag, keep in mind that other people who might be interested in fixing the problem (or who might dispute the tag) might not immediately see the same problems you do. Even if the problem seems obvious, it's useful to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issue, and suggesting an approach to fixing it if you know how." Also, "Especially in the case of a tag such as

, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Tucsontammy (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Grove, NJ/Religious activities[edit]

Per the closure of the associated BLPN discussion determining that inclusion of the material is inappropriate under Wikipedia policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Discussion is also at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Scott Rasmussen. Roccodrift (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two paragraphs of text titled "Religious activities" were recently added (or re-added, it looks like) to the article. I belief this material violates WP:UNDUE. Is it sufficiently notable to warrant two paragraphs of text here? Here are a couple of issues I see:

  • This information has no source: "The Camp Meeting founded the town of Ocean Grove, New Jersey, in 1869 and maintains a Christian seaside resort community. He continues to serve on the Board of Trustees and as an usher at Sunday services in the Ocean Grove Great Auditorium."
  • The New York Times article that is cited barely mentions Rasmussen. The one mention of Rasmussen is this sentence: "Mr. Bishop said he was trying to broker a deal with Scott Rasmussen, the association’s president." It seems like WP:COATRACK to include this article, which is not primarily about Rasmussen.
  • Another source in the section is from the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. That's certainly a legitimate source, but coverage in news outlets would better show that this incident is notable (did multiple reliable sources find this incident notable enough to cover extensively?). The final source in this section is from "LifeSiteNews" which seems suspect to me--it looks openly Christian and conservative in worldview.
  • So, we're left with two paragraphs in a bio article with one right-wing source, one legal document, and one NYT article that mentions Rasmussen in passing. To warrant including this information, we need more. This is one event from several years ago, and it does appear to violate WP:UNDUE. I'm removing the content in question, and am open to more discussion about this here on the talk page. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of additional sources do you think would be helpful here? MilesMoney (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable secondary sources that are articles primarily about Scott Rasmussen's involvement with this issue. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking the list above, I'm guessing that the general information about Ocean Grove is straight out of their web site, which would be reliable for this under WP:ABOUTSELF. Still, we need an actual link, not just my guess.
Speaking of links, the Maine Ahead one is broken and needs to be replaced with http://archive.is/yEoYt. It does confirm his association with Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.
So does the New York Times link, but it also explains the situation with gays and the Camp Association. I don't see it as a coatrack because he's in charge of the group, so the story is about his decisions.
We do have to be careful with the legal document, since it's a primary source. However, it's an ideal way to support a quote of Scott explaining how his church saw marriage.
I don't see any problem with the LifeSiteNews article. A partisan source can be quite reliable, and this one is a fine example of that. It neutrally describes a court ruling, and there's nothing in the text that suggests bias.
Given all this, bringing up the civil union controversy that he was central to is not undue. We can quibble about how much space to allocate it, and perhaps over improving references, but what we have now is worth keeping until we can make it better.
The obvious source for improvement is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Grove_Camp_Meeting_Association#Civil_union_controversy, which tells the story from the general point of view instead of Scott's. MilesMoney (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rasmussen isn't even mentioned in the long description you link to above. How central could he be? In this sense, yes, it's WP:COATRACK to document a Methodist Church dispute on a minor character's bio. It looks like Rasmussen was a member of a local church that was required to carry out Methodist policy. Safehaven86 (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being a member of the church wouldn't be a significant role. Instead, Scott was the president of the Meeting Association during the time of this incident. That's significant enough that you can't reasonably claim UNDUE, so I'm going to have to insist that you restore that section. MilesMoney (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, the section at hand is poorly sourced, with the sources not being primarily about Rasmussen or his involvement. Two paragraphs is excessive. It's clearly a stretch to present the information in a way that makes Rasmussen look like the primary force in this incident, (an incident which is well-documented elsewhere on Wikipedia and in reliable sources without a single mention of Rasmussen). Given that this is a WP:BLP, we need to err on the side of caution, and I will not reintroduce multiple paragraphs of poorly sourced contentious material into this article. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that you mention it, he is. There are a dozen alternatives that he chose not to take, all of which would have defused this crisis. BLP doesn't mean absolving individuals of guilt for their actions. MilesMoney (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is the primary mover--in your opinion. We have zero sources verifying this. You, not a reliable source, have labeled this a "crisis." Now you have ascribed guilt to Rasmussen. How would you know he is guilty, and for what? The only way we would know is a reliable source that said so. A WP:BLP isn't the place to insert your opinion or air your grievances. Making more of the sources than what they say is not neutral and implies an agenda. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guilt is not for us to decide, which is why you can't unilaterally decide to pardon him for being President when this event occurred. We just get to report what reliable sources say. We don't get to remove what they say under false pretenses. You were not speaking the truth when you characterized him as "a member of a local church". He was, in fact, president of the Association. That little error -- I must assume you didn't intentionally lie -- shredded your credibility on this issue. MilesMoney (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redacting my last comment: the court case does reference Rasmussen, give a quote from him, and say he denied a permit and discontinued use of permits (second of two court cases, the cited case looks like it was dismissed). I will work on creating a revised entry, with better sourcing, for article. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tightened it up a bit, but it otherwise looks about right. MilesMoney (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I just made a few final copyedits. I looked extensively for additional sources, but came up empty. The current sources seem to be all there is, but they are enough to support what's currently in the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added back the sentence that tells how the story ended. It seemed incomplete without it. MilesMoney (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re. the last sentence, I can't find any media mentions/other sources besides the court doc. That, combined with the fact that the investigation was dropped, makes me wonder about the notability of including it. Thoughts? Safehaven86 (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have any trouble finding coverage, but I took the time to actually read it and I'm not sure anymore that the sentence I restored is accurate. I think it's best that we leave it out for now. At the moment, the article is missing the whole section because Rocco is editing against consensus, but this is just noise that'll go away after he's indeffed for socking. MilesMoney (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, MilesMoney insists you supported that last sentence :( at [1] to explain whaty he isnsists he has consensus on his side. Chees. Collect (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There appears no reason whatsoever why the subsequent item about lesbians filing a complaint which was dismissed has any relevance in the BLP, nor does it appear it has more than a "consensus of one" to add all the material relating to an organisation and not directly to Rasmussen proper under WP:BLP. Claims must be directly related to the subject of the BLP The edit summary in a revert claiming a consensus for that material being included is false. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a consensus to add all but that last sentence. I'm ok with that. MilesMoney (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no such consensus. As Safehaven described, that material is pure coatrack and massively undue. It shouldn't be in the article and it was disruptive to re-insert it [2] once the BRD cycle had reached "D". Roccodrift (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim is false. There was some disagreement about that last sentence, but it was settled when I withdrew support for it. At this point, Safehaven and I are agreed on what the article should look like. You have your own opinion, but it's not supported by policy, so it doesn't really matter. MilesMoney (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the two of you are the only editors on the article? Interesting claim, that. Collect (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to try to influence the consensus by correctly citing policy and sources. Dragging your feet is not influential, though. MilesMoney (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not one who asserted that they singularly established consensus - I suggest that instead of wailing about my posts that you seek to convince editors why your preferred edits should be made. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to launch an SPI claiming that Safehaven and I are the same person? If not, then rethink your argument. Better yet, put aside the personal attacks and see I you can come up with any basis in policy for objecting to the consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Where in hell do you get that sort of idea? I raised a lot of material and filed it appropriately on the proper noticeboard. This is not the proper page in which to attack me for doing what is right and proper and following all the policies and guidelines thereon. If you wish to assert consensus, then work at getting it -- "consensus by assertion" is not really Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has become repetitive and counterproductive. I've explained what you need to do if you want to argue against the consensus. You are free to do it or not, but if not, then don't expect to influence anyone. Good luck with that. MilesMoney (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:MONGO, who has not participated in this discussion, just whitewashed the article while claiming to speak for the entire web site. Perhaps MONGO is Jimbo? Citation needed!

MONGO, please explain while this section should be removed. In your explanation, you will need to deal with the fact that it's reliably sourced, that it's specifically about Scott's actions, and that a pair of editors worked together on a compromise that was mutually satisfactory. You will need to find better reason than Collect and Rocco opposing.

Please be very convincing. I will make my decision based on how well you hold up your end. MilesMoney (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all focus on policy. Rather than tossing around broad policies like "BLP" as a rational for including/not including info, let's dive down into specific sub--sections of policies and clearly articulate our interpretations of policy as applied to this article. It seems we have some controversial material here. We 'll never reach stability & consensus if we don't thoroughly examine the proposed content and sourcing through the lens of specific policy. We each need to detail and reconcile our interpretations of policy and move forward. Are y'all up for an emotion-free, non-ideological, thorough and neutral examination of content through WP policy? I think we can do it! Safehaven86 (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Safehaven, I'm just going to point out that MONGO's only response has been to threaten to get me blocked as the sock of MostHated-BannedUser or whatever. MONGO is not part of this discussion. MilesMoney (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Safehaven, to the best of my understanding, we are agreed on restoring the Ocean Grove section, minus that confused last sentence that I was wrong to restore. There have been complaints about this material, but nothing that references policy, so nothing that ultimately matters. I'm going to restore it now. MilesMoney (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV isn't policy? That's a new one. The material has been removed by no less than three editors, Miles, and two of us have explained why it was removed (with policy-based arguments, I'll add) here in Talk. Roccodrift (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised that I've opened a discussion regarding this at BLP/N. Roccodrift (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to this comment the text can stay in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think that, with three editors whitewashing this section, they'd have at least one good reason. Doesn't seem to be the case, though. MilesMoney (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to AGF, Miles. Accusing others of "whitewashing" isn't very collegial and is likely to be seen as a personal attack. Also, I've stated the policy basis for removing the material, so stop pretending otherwise. By the way, WP:CONSENSUS is policy, too, and you're ignoring that as well. Let's wait until BLP/N has weighed-in, after which we should have a more defined consensus one way or the other. Roccodrift (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a vote. The fact that the two or three of you really, really don't want this section in doesn't mean much of anything in itself. If it were a BLP or RS violation, that would be something. If it weren't directly connected to Scott, that would be something. If there were something, that would be something. So far, there's nothing. Ultimately, a content discussion has to be based on something more than unexplained preference in order to be productive. Moreover, if you insist on taking impersonal content discussions personally, then you're the one who lacks the collegial spirit. If you want to collaborate, start by explaining yourself persuasively. MilesMoney (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is also at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Scott Rasmussen. MilesMoney (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After learning the BLP policy states that court documents aren't appropriate for establishing claims about a living person, I believe inclusion of the previously agreed upon content is undue. If my assessment is accurate, the content in question features only one source (NY Times), which mentions Rasmussen in relation to this event. It does so in one sentence which simply notes his role as president. I don't believe we have any other sources that mention Rasmussen in relation to this incident. If that is accurate, inclusion of this material, based on the dearth of secondary sources, is undue. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That turns out not to be the case. If you look at BLPN, you'll see that other reliable sources mention him, usually with a paraphrase or quote. MilesMoney (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring specifically to the version we 'd settled on. NY Times was the only source we were using, besides the court docs, that ties Rasmussen to the incident. And all it establishes is that he was president of the group. As for other sources that have been mentioned, I'm not finding Scott. For example, you've mentioned this article twice, but I'm not finding Scott's name in it: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/judge_rules_monmouth_church_gr.html. This incident obviously happened and is well-documented, but Scott's involvement in it is not. That's my issue here. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on BLPN, that article is suitable for summarizing how the case ended. In contrast, http://blog.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/2007/09/gays_welcome_if_they_know_thei.html is suitable for painting a positive picture of his involvement. A more neutral picture comes from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/24weeknj.html?pagewanted=print, as well as http://www.gaypasg.org/gaypasg/PressClippings/2007/May/Ocean%20Grove%20site%20fights%20performing%20same-sex%20marriages.htm.
According to policy, only a single reliable source is necessary to avoid WP:OR, and we have much more than that. MilesMoney (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This WP:FILIBUSTER isn't working, Miles. Roccodrift (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you agree that all of these sources are reliable? Good to know! MilesMoney (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grow up -- this is not the place for playground "retorts" when you are basically alone on your side of the argument - and it is clear that you have now posted 29 times on this talk page -- without convincing anyone of anything. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a personal attack. Redact it. MilesMoney (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"Independent"[edit]

This removed some material on the basis that the source is partisan. It turns out that partisan sources can be reliable, and that the issue has also come up in other reliable sources, like http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31047.html and http://www.salon.com/2010/07/12/rasmussen_national_review/. MilesMoney (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, partisan sources can be helpful, especially when the info in them is corroborated by additional non-partisan sources. The MMA source looks like an attack piece. The Politico and Salon pieces don't have the same content as MMA's piece, and therefore don't corroborate it. Anyway, I added more info in this section to try to address recent controversy. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think your changes are an improvement; the more sources, the better. However, I'm not sure why you added the POV tag. MilesMoney (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the tag because it looks like in recent days the paragraph at hand has been removed and re-added a number of times. Since there's an open discussion on the issue now, I added the tag as a placeholder until we've reached consensus on the talk page. Me (or someone else) can remove the tag when this discussion is closed, and the paragraph is no longer being added or removed every couple of days. With that, I welcome more comments, especially from anyone who has added/removed the paragraph about MMA in recent days. If we get it all on the table now, the content should be more stable in the future. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What MMfA thinks about Rasmussen is hardly notable. They lost any and all credibility when they stated that their purpose was to destroy Fox News. Arzel (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed the fact that there are additional sources now. MilesMoney (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, did you really just remove this in violation of BRD?! MilesMoney (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Politico source I added does not corroborate the MMA claims, as I noted above. The Politico source verifies new material I added today. I've looked online and MMA's complaints about Rasmussen are not repeated elsewhere, as far as I can tell. So the question is, is the MMA source noteworthy/relevant enough to include? Safehaven86 (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The argument against including this is that MMfA is just some partisan news source. The counterargument is that a partisan news source from the other side gave it coverage: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/tea-partyMad-as-HellRasmussenSchoen/2010/09/21/id/371008 MilesMoney (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think my edit comment is sufficient, but if Arzel would like additional explanation, they're free to request it here. MilesMoney (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that you assert Politico has a pro-right wing bias of some sort? In a BLP, the rule is to use the strongest reliable source, and I think Politico likely outweighs MMfA unless you can show it is particularly biased here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed section on lesbian incident[edit]

Per the closure of the associated BLPN discussion determining that inclusion of the material is inappropriate under Wikipedia policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Discussion is also at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Scott Rasmussen. Roccodrift (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Safehaven86 asked me to post a proposal here, which makes sense since WP:BLPN is only for ruling on the BLP aspect, and I believe we've settled that.

In 2007, in his capacity as president of OGCMA, Rasmussen denied the request of a local lesbian couple to hold a civil union ceremony on a boardwalk pavilion owned by OGCMA because it would conflict with the religious beliefs of the United Methodist Church. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights, which ruled that OGCMA had discriminated against them. As a consequence, OCGMA decided to stop renting the pavilion out for weddings.

I think that, strictly speaking, we only need two citations for this, but would be willing to add more:

If you have any specific suggestions, or just general disapproval, please ensure that they are explained in terms of our sources and policies, not personal feelings. In both cases, be prepared to explain with specific quotes instead of general terms. MilesMoney (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This text misrepresents the cited sources. Neither source states that Rasmussen denied the application. The New York Times source does not even report Rasmussen's role in the case as an established fact, only as an accusation. Describing it as "a high-quality source that makes it quite clear that Rasmussen played a primary role" is a deliberate falsification. The second source does not even mention Rasmussen. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "incident" is fully discussed in the article about the association: Ocean_Grove_Camp_Meeting_Association#Civil_union_controversy. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. It also goes into more detail than the 2 or 3 sentences that are due in this article and it doesn't focus at all on Rasmussen. We should probably link to it, though. MilesMoney (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Personal life" section mentions his association with the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. At a minimum, that should be wikilinked. The reader can learn all about the Association in the article about the Association. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should also be linked. However, two or three sentences about Scott's role in this incident are quite reasonable. MilesMoney (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having now looked at all the sources you provide they very much limit his role. The Times says "told the couple that while the association ..." He seems to do nothing more than convey a message. In another source, it says he will ask the trustees. No evidence is given that he has a decision-making role. This story is about the "association" and belongs in that article. Even in that article, which has 8 paragraphs, Rasmussen doesn't appear in the controversy although several other people are part of the story. If the editors of that article don't find Rasmussen's role notable, let's move on. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any reliable sourcing confirming your theory that president is a ceremonial position with no power, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, it looks like Scott made the decision to refuse permission. Just for contrast, if I were him, I wouldn't have done that. I would have fought to allow the ceremony, and if I lost, I would have resigned in protest rather than publicly support a policy that constitutes illegal discrimination. MilesMoney (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you would or wouldn't have done is utterly irrelevant to article content. Per NOTFORUM, commentary like that doesn't belong on an article talk page. "It looks like" is not justification for including content in an article that otherwise fails WP:RS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's as much WP:OR as Jason's unsupported theory about presidency being ceremonial. What we do know is that our reliable sources think that Rasmussen's role was significant enough to quote and paraphrase him. After all, he was president of the organization and publicly spoke for it. That's why the incident is relevant to him.
Now, if you have any objections that are somehow based on policy, I'd love to hear them. If all you can add is more WP:IDHT, then your participation is counterproductive. MilesMoney (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source you provided says "Hoffman said association President Scott Rasmussen has been speaking daily about the controversy to the association's board of trustees, some of whom live in other parts of the state. He said he did not know if the board was planning to meet to discuss the situation."[3] Thus, all we know is that Rasmussen talks to the trustees and tells the press what the association policies are. We know nothing more. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This quote just increases his involvement with the incident.
Keep in mind that, in the two or three sentences above, we don't say anything particularly offensive. Nobody said it's his policy or that he knowingly broke the law. In fact, the court even specified that there appeared to be no intent. We're not accusing him of anything, just recording his central role in this incident. MilesMoney (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What "central role"? There has been no reliable sources presented saying he played a "central role". Just an ambiguous accusation paraphrased in the Times piece, reported by the Times as accusation rather than fact. The only WP:OR here is your synthesis from a few vague comments, never adequately sourced, declaring Rasmussen the primary decisionmaker both as to the specific case and the underlying policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reasonable reading of WP:OR in which closely paraphrasing a New York Times article counts as "original research". You do not seem to understand the policy that you bring up. MilesMoney (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT article does not state as fact that he played a "central role" in the event, and removing a key limitation from its text is not a close paraphrase. Your synthesis from a vague accusation is a BLP violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It gives him a central role as spokesman. You seem confused about policy, though. It's entirely fine for us, in discussing what belongs in the article, to evaluate whether he played a central role. It's another thing to say in the article that he did. In act, I don't include that phrase in the proposed material. As for this discussion, it cannot violate BLP just for considering the centrality of his role.
See, when arguments completely get facts or policy wrong, I have trouble finding them persuasive. MilesMoney (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the WP:FILIBUSTER continues. At this point, Miles desired edit has been opposed in discussion to one degree or another by 12 editors, including Collect, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Jason from nyc, Malerooster, Mangoe, MONGO, NorthBySouthBaranof, Roccodrift (myself), Safehaven86, Tarc, Thargor Orlando, and Two kinds of pork. The content itself has been removed from the article by 5 different editors, including Collect, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, MONGO, Roccodrift (myself), and Safehaven86. He is supported by a single editor, QuackGuru. WP:JUSTDROPIT comes to mind. Roccodrift (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By some weird coincidence, these are exactly the same editors who lobbied on WP:ANI to get me site-blocked. It's not as if they're stalking me here to stonewall this discussion, right? I mean, with so many editors, you'd think that even one of them would have a plausible argument. And yet... MilesMoney (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that more than a dozen editors are sufficiently sick and tired of your disruptive editing is hardly evidence that we are wrong. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If only these weren't the same editors who formed a lynch mob against me on ANI, maybe you'd have a point. If only they could come up with a single legitimate argument, maybe you'd have a point. As it stands, you do not. Hell, MONGO just opened up yet another ANI against me. If you hurry, maybe you can join him in voting for my indef before it gets closed. MilesMoney (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rewrite of lesbian incident section[edit]

In 2007, in his capacity as president of OGCMA, Rasmussen informed a local lesbian couple that they cannot hold a civil union ceremony on a boardwalk pavilion owned by OGCMA because "while the association allows its facilities to be used for both religious and secular activities, it would not permit them to be used for civil union ceremonies."[1][4] A complaint was filed with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights.[1][5] It was concluded that OGCMA "discriminated against a lesbian couple by denying their application to hold a civil union ceremony at its boardwalk pavilion."[6]

FYI, the text is verified. So editors must not claim it is OR. This text represents the cited sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except the source doesn't say "Rasmussen denied the request". All it says is that he "told the couple...", followed by the explanation. That's OR, plain and simple. You're misstating what the NYT story actually says. This has been explained to you multiple times, why can't you grasp it? Your next argument is that Rasmussen must have "denied" the request, because we have sources showing he was in charge. But that's SYNTH, and we can't do that either. With no less than 12 editors opposed to this abuse of sources, the entire matter is a dead letter. Continuing to push this failed argument is a WP:FILIBUSTER. Roccodrift (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In plain English, if I tell you I won't let you use my pavilion, I'm denying your request. It's a perfectly accurate summary, and you have crossed the line into WP:TE. MilesMoney (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a slight change to the text. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slight copy-edit by me. MilesMoney (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

References

  1. ^ a b Schwebber, Nate (6-24-2007). "The Week in New Jersey". New York Times. Retrieved 19 December 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Another "personal" issue[edit]

The text says that "In 2010, the Rasmussen's home was completely destroyed by a fire." This is supported by a blog post. The picture shows a not-especially-large structure that is exceedingly unlikely to be the primary residence of a person of his stature; also, Googling the address shows that it has been rebuilt, as does a second post from the same blog. I also note that neither blog post identifies the owner as this Scott Rasmussen. These two hits and our article are the sole documentation of this I could find. I would suggest that this event is not appropriate material for the article. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And on what basis do you know a "person of his stature" would not have a modest home (though I find it hard to claim size from a photo having seen quite expensive homes which do not make for great photos as being mansions)? BTW, Warren Buffett has a "modest home". Perhaps better sourcing is needed -- but you appear to "know" stuff which is WP:OR. Collect (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[7] shows a 2251 sq. ft. home selling for $765,000 in 2004 ... which is not exactly slum level. This is not RS for the article, but does show that the likelihood of it not being cheap is high, and the fact that the owners are Scott and Laura Rasmussen, that the subject of this article has a wife Laura, and lives in the same town, makes the odds pretty good here. Sure better sourcing would be nice, but the size is reasonable for the person. Collect (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, I don't know how familiar you are with beach real estate. These prices are pretty much routine up and down the Jersey shore for this sort of detached house, a very large portion of which are rentals. But at any rate, what we have here is a local interest blogger on a public figure as the sole source stating that the house they lived in burned down. You would think it would be more substantial news. Mangoe (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, real estate is about 600k-1M on Ocean Pathway. It is prime real estate in Ocean Grove. Ocean Pathway is actually a block-wide park that leads from the historic Great Auditorium to the ocean front. Houses on both sides of the park, generally historic Victorians, can see the ocean and Great Auditorium as well as facing the park. Except for direct water front property, this is as good as it gets in Ocean Grove. I question the use of a "blog source" and wonder if we should be implicitly giving the address of a pubic figure. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it's reasonable to suppose that a man of Rasmussen's stature might own several "modest" homes like the one that burned. Some might be bigger and fancier than others. I see nothing in this source to indicate the house that burned was the only house he owned. Roccodrift (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support removing it for the reasons listed above: namely, poor sourcing, as well as a privacy concern. Additionally, I don't think inclusion is adding to the article. It seems like a piece of trivia, and pretty irrelevant in the scheme of things (unless it had been arson or something like that, but that doesn't appear to be the case). FWIW, I think I'm the one who originally added this after hearing a reference on the news. Now it seems like it doesn't hold up.Safehaven86 (talk)
  • Actually, the source refers to "Camp Meeting Association president Scott Rasmussen," which I believe clearly refers to the article subject. Whether the source is more of a blog or an online-only news outlet is a closer question, but it has an editor, a small staff, and apparently supports itself with local advertising rather than feeds from google, etc, push it narrowly into the news outlet category. But this is a random fact without any useful context. In a more comprehensive account of hus personal life it might be useful, but I don't see any place for it standing alone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what caught my eye in the first place: it is just this odd factoid that connects to nothing else. And then when I started researching it I find more or less passing references in a story about a fire destroying another building, and nowhere else. I don't really want to be the person pushing the story that Rasmussen's home burned down and then find out months later that the fellow who writes this blog made an obvious but understandable mistake. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


All of the above appears to indicate that the claim is likely properly sourced, but of tangential trivia for which a local consensus here can decide whether it belongs od not in the BLP. When in doubt, I !vote that we not have such trivia here as it elucidates nothing whatsoever about the subject of the BLP. Others? Collect (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree! Jason from nyc (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - date formats[edit]

In order to remove this article from Category:CS1 errors: dates, could someone please change all of the references that contain dates in mm-dd-yyyy format to an acceptable date format per MOS:DATEFORMAT? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Sorry, but Cabal regulations forbid me from fulfilling any edit request that would take more than 30 minutes and that would involve editing lots of fiddly little numbers. ;) If you put the corrected article code in a sandbox somewhere, I'll copy it over for you - just ping me or reactivate the {{editrequest}} template when you're done. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and there is no Cabal. Did I say Cabal? Nope, no I didn't. Because there isn't one. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - could you please copy Draft:Scott Rasmussen to Scott Rasmussen? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I commented out {{pp-dispute|small=yes}} on the first line of Draft:Scott Rasmussen, so please remove the comment tags when moving it to Scott Rasmussen. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Done. Thanks for the fixes. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank YOU! I'll now request the deletion of the draft page. GoingBatty (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Scott Rasmussen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scott Rasmussen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Scott Rasmussen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Rasmussen&oldid=1209972892"