This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The link to the critical site should be allowed under external links for the following reasons:
1. There is no clear standard or template for these pages. Some pages have links to critical sites.
2. The reason "wikipedia is not a directory for blogs" is insufficient. According to wiki rules, Wikipedia is not a directory at all, yet there are still external links.
3. In researching the rules on Wikipedia, no reference to blogs was found, other than "wikipedia is not a blog."
4. The site in question has been clearly identified as a critical site not paid for by any party or candidate. There is no attempt to deceive or compromise the neutrality of the content of this page.
Please produce the relevant wiki rule, or a sufficient reason as to why the site should not be included. If we have this information we will not add the link again.
Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truth team ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
Quote: "So between a jazz musician, a murderer, and a congressperson, all called 'Dave Camp', I have a lot of pressure to be evil." - GNOME's Dave Camp [1]
So I came here to see who the jazz musician, murderer and congressperson were, but only the congressperson has a page. Surely jazz musicians and murderers, if not GNOME developers, are at least somewhat noteworthy? Maybe someone would like to take a look into this? 212.202.199.190 ( talk) 13:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The name by which he is enrolled in Congress is Dave Camp. The article should be titled Dave Camp and the David Lee Camp article should redirect to the Dave Camp article (or to the "Dave Camp (politician)" article).
(If we leave the article this way, then we will have to change Jimmy Carter's article to "James Earl Carter" and Bill Bradley's article to "William Warren Bradley".)
72.82.164.40 ( talk) 05:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
David Lee Camp → Dave Camp — Per WP:NCP, article titles should not include middle names, unless it is the most common form used in reliable sources, which it is not. He is enrolled in Congress as Dave and most reliable sources name him as Dave, therefore the article title should be Dave. Theking 17825 16:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Be careful not to give WP:UNDUE weight to the Aharon Friedman scandal, particularly as it relates to 'recentism'. Be sure that the amount of time spent talking about the topic is proportional to how important it is to the representative overall. Bear in mind this is not a news article, it is an encyclopedia article, and should be relevant years from now. Also note that there is a 'social media campaign' intending to put pressure on Mr. Camp over this issue, but Wikipedia is not the place to place that pressure. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Dave Camp's connection to Aharon Friedman, and his refusal to address the issue has been widely reported. The growing number of reports about Camp's connection to this scandal includes some by major news outlets such as
Fox News,
The Huffington Post, and
Politico among others too numerous to list here. To neglect mention of this criticism would constitute less than a full account of Camp's experience as an elected official.--
82.81.63.45 (
talk)
16:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
For the sake of getting more eyes on this topic, I am requesting comment from other editors. At issue is whether a religious dispute of an otherwise non-notable congressional staffer and the congressman's response to it is worthy of inclusion in the criticism section of the congressman's entry. If so, how much of the article should be spent discussing it? Beyond that, is primarily non-mainstream media attention justification for inclusion in an article? Is this topic attempting to use the Dave Camp article as a coatrack? Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
To add another article to the growing list, here is one from the hill. So there is continuing coverage in the Jewish press, which is read by hundreds of thousands of readers, and there is headline coverage (if not yet continuing) coverage in mainstream press read by millions, including Fox News, Washington Post, the New York Times. Dave Camp's name appears in the headline of these articles, or is otherwise the main subject of these articles. The news has had continuing coverage in political and Jewish press, and this has spilled into the mainstream press. This criticism merits at least passing mention on Dave Camp's page.-- 192.114.91.245 ( talk) 09:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm responding to a request for comment - I have no prior involvement with this article, and am not familiar with the specific issue, other than what I am reading in the sources appended to the article over the last bunch of edits. I have a few comments beyond the question, which I hope will help here.
I hope this is helpful. Tvoz/ talk 01:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
← Yes, I've removed the section as it is currently written based on the discussion above and the lack of support for its inclusion in March when it was first raised. While obviously there is a connection between Friedman and Camp, it has not be shown that this matter has had any effect on Camp's career or his life, and those are the criteria we use for inclusion in his biography. I would suggest to the editor who finds this matter to be compelling for inclusion in the encyclopedia that he or she write a separate stand-alone article about Aharon Friedman, and source it well, and see if passes our notability guidelines - it very well might. Then a link here to that article might be appropriate. But at this point, I don't see how we can shoehorn it into this piece. And while I personally still think that Friedman's actions are reprehensible, that doesn't mean they are appropriate to add here - unless there is more to the story regarding Camp that I've missed. Tvoz/ talk 23:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The link to the critical site should be allowed under external links for the following reasons:
1. There is no clear standard or template for these pages. Some pages have links to critical sites.
2. The reason "wikipedia is not a directory for blogs" is insufficient. According to wiki rules, Wikipedia is not a directory at all, yet there are still external links.
3. In researching the rules on Wikipedia, no reference to blogs was found, other than "wikipedia is not a blog."
4. The site in question has been clearly identified as a critical site not paid for by any party or candidate. There is no attempt to deceive or compromise the neutrality of the content of this page.
Please produce the relevant wiki rule, or a sufficient reason as to why the site should not be included. If we have this information we will not add the link again.
Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truth team ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
Quote: "So between a jazz musician, a murderer, and a congressperson, all called 'Dave Camp', I have a lot of pressure to be evil." - GNOME's Dave Camp [1]
So I came here to see who the jazz musician, murderer and congressperson were, but only the congressperson has a page. Surely jazz musicians and murderers, if not GNOME developers, are at least somewhat noteworthy? Maybe someone would like to take a look into this? 212.202.199.190 ( talk) 13:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The name by which he is enrolled in Congress is Dave Camp. The article should be titled Dave Camp and the David Lee Camp article should redirect to the Dave Camp article (or to the "Dave Camp (politician)" article).
(If we leave the article this way, then we will have to change Jimmy Carter's article to "James Earl Carter" and Bill Bradley's article to "William Warren Bradley".)
72.82.164.40 ( talk) 05:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
David Lee Camp → Dave Camp — Per WP:NCP, article titles should not include middle names, unless it is the most common form used in reliable sources, which it is not. He is enrolled in Congress as Dave and most reliable sources name him as Dave, therefore the article title should be Dave. Theking 17825 16:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Be careful not to give WP:UNDUE weight to the Aharon Friedman scandal, particularly as it relates to 'recentism'. Be sure that the amount of time spent talking about the topic is proportional to how important it is to the representative overall. Bear in mind this is not a news article, it is an encyclopedia article, and should be relevant years from now. Also note that there is a 'social media campaign' intending to put pressure on Mr. Camp over this issue, but Wikipedia is not the place to place that pressure. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Dave Camp's connection to Aharon Friedman, and his refusal to address the issue has been widely reported. The growing number of reports about Camp's connection to this scandal includes some by major news outlets such as
Fox News,
The Huffington Post, and
Politico among others too numerous to list here. To neglect mention of this criticism would constitute less than a full account of Camp's experience as an elected official.--
82.81.63.45 (
talk)
16:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
For the sake of getting more eyes on this topic, I am requesting comment from other editors. At issue is whether a religious dispute of an otherwise non-notable congressional staffer and the congressman's response to it is worthy of inclusion in the criticism section of the congressman's entry. If so, how much of the article should be spent discussing it? Beyond that, is primarily non-mainstream media attention justification for inclusion in an article? Is this topic attempting to use the Dave Camp article as a coatrack? Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
To add another article to the growing list, here is one from the hill. So there is continuing coverage in the Jewish press, which is read by hundreds of thousands of readers, and there is headline coverage (if not yet continuing) coverage in mainstream press read by millions, including Fox News, Washington Post, the New York Times. Dave Camp's name appears in the headline of these articles, or is otherwise the main subject of these articles. The news has had continuing coverage in political and Jewish press, and this has spilled into the mainstream press. This criticism merits at least passing mention on Dave Camp's page.-- 192.114.91.245 ( talk) 09:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm responding to a request for comment - I have no prior involvement with this article, and am not familiar with the specific issue, other than what I am reading in the sources appended to the article over the last bunch of edits. I have a few comments beyond the question, which I hope will help here.
I hope this is helpful. Tvoz/ talk 01:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
← Yes, I've removed the section as it is currently written based on the discussion above and the lack of support for its inclusion in March when it was first raised. While obviously there is a connection between Friedman and Camp, it has not be shown that this matter has had any effect on Camp's career or his life, and those are the criteria we use for inclusion in his biography. I would suggest to the editor who finds this matter to be compelling for inclusion in the encyclopedia that he or she write a separate stand-alone article about Aharon Friedman, and source it well, and see if passes our notability guidelines - it very well might. Then a link here to that article might be appropriate. But at this point, I don't see how we can shoehorn it into this piece. And while I personally still think that Friedman's actions are reprehensible, that doesn't mean they are appropriate to add here - unless there is more to the story regarding Camp that I've missed. Tvoz/ talk 23:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)