Talk:Greg Orman

Photo request for subject of article (infobox)

Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --198.86.76.75 (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC) (If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself)

• Why should the whole page be deleted? Greg Orman is about to be a US senator198.86.76.75 (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is a well sourced article on a notable individual.[2][3][4][5][6][7] -- It discusses his background, political contributions, along with his involvement with Rajat Gupta, now a convicted felon. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Undue coverage about Rajat Gupta

Why do we have an entire section on his (not especially strong) association with one person? That seems like WP:UNDUE. The information about Gupta is supported by three reliable sources, but only one of them is significantly about Orman. IMO a sentence or two is OK, but not a whole section. In particular I think we should delete the second paragraph, about money donated to him, because it is sourced only to opensecrets.org; it does not appear to have been considered significant enough for mention by regular news sources. Also because it seems undue to focus on donations from one person or family when he has received donations from hundreds. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Have a look here[8] to learn more about it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the issue doesn't deserve a whole section, and should instead have a sentence or two in either the political or business section. However, that may change if coverage of the issue intensifies and/or if Orman himself is implicated in wrongdoing. Orser67 (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, for now it is not a big enough public issue to deserve the treatment we are giving it here. If things change, fine, but that's crystal ball stuff. I see it has been trimmed a little; I will trim it further, to what is actually being reported by Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I moved it to the Business section. The Bloomberg article was a dead link and I couldn't even find it using Wayback, so I replaced it with a more recent article. I left out the contribution stuff which was sourced only to Open Secrets. We can only use news sources for that kind of information; sourcing it to Open Secrets amounts to Original Research. --MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Even now the wording is WP:POV. It should be reworded.Casprings (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You think so? What we have now is pretty much based on Independent Sources - and on what Orman himself says about their friendship. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. From a semi-neutral point of view (I don't live in Kansas) this detail seems politically charged, the news articles seem like attacks. If talking about this relationship is a very important part of who Greg Orman is it should be explained why at the beginning. Otherwise I think it should be removed. Asperous (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed that material in its entirety, per WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE. Reading the sources, this should be either left out completely or trinmed and edited to conform with the sources. This is a blatant attempt to discredit Gorman based on a friendship that predates Gupta's indictment. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not restore the material per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems a little silly to pretend the relationship doesn't exist when it's been documented by The Kansas City Star, CNN, US News, Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance, Reuters, and others.CFredkin (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The relationship exists and no one pretends otherwise. But it does not belong in the article; a friendship is not a notable aspect to be reported here. This is basically an attempt at guilt by association that belongs in oppo research and not in an encyclopedia, per all the policies you already know better than me. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@NazariyKaminski: Please discuss your rationale for including this material and engage here per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That policy applies to a whole article being removed by an admin. That is not the case here. The consensus is keep the information. You have the minority position here and you are using a policy that does not apply. Your wikilawyering will not work.--NK (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. It applies fully to any material and well as deleted articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

They own(ed) a business together, that is more than just friends. Your citation of BLP has no basis. Arzel (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So what? Why is that encyclopedic? Because his friend was convicted? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You claimed they were just friends. The owned a business together, why do you want to whitewash that out? Because his business partner was convicted? Arzel (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Why don't your read a little bit about this and argue your case? I am not here to discuss things with you on the basis of ignorance. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

“I have a very, very small investment that still is consistent with that. And when my financial reports come out, I think you’ll see that it’s an under $50,000 investment,” Orman said. “So it’s a very small, very modest (investment), but again I’m someone who believes in forgiveness and redemption. I’m not someone who when a friend makes a mistake I just throw them away.” [ http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article2141489.html#storylink=cpy]

(He refers there to the venture with Gupta, Exemplar Wealth Management, a bookkeeping company in which Orman invested $50K. Not really "a business partner" as you claim). As I said, not notable, neither encyclopedic, just fodder from opo researchers trying the old tried and true guilt by association. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a business partner to me. You certainly are trying to deflect this issue. You claiming it is not notable does not change the fact that there are a lot of reliable sources talking about it. You arguments are not based on WP policy. Arzel (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree that it's not notable. It's a guilt by association tactic not suitable for a BLP. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No one has stated that Orman is "guilty" of anything. We are simply adding in information about a notable person, Orman, who once had a notable business partner. No one is claiming that he is guilty of anything. We are stating, and it fully supported by reliable sources, that Orman was once a business partner with a clearly notable person, Gupta. This is all notable information and is covered by tons of reliable sources and is part of the 2014 election camapaign. Why does any one want to whitewash those facts out of the article?--NK (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And you want to me to assume good faith, right? Well, with that approach you are taking you are making it impossible. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you should maintain good faith because I did not say anything about you. I said, I don't know why "anyone" would want to whitewash the article of the material. Material that is currently being discussed in an ongoing political campaign. The only question is how it is presented, not whether it is going to be presented. That's the only issue. The information is notable.--NK (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not even aware of how transparently wrong your position is. If you consider removal of that material a "whitewash", then that is because you consider that material damming. But both of which are baseless. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The material is part of a discussion during the campaign. It is being discussed in the current campaign. It is notable. Nothing in this article "damns" him as you say. It is factual and we quote him extensively--giving his side of the story.--NK (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made some edits to correct what I saw as blatant disregard for WP:BLP, but I am still concerned about some of the sources used. I will research this further before commenting. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Orman business relation and friendship predates Gupta;s indictment, and we need to reflect that in the text. Edited accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@NazariyKaminski: As you asked me to AGF, please tell me what is the difference between these two versions? Both have the same content. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Version 1

Orman has professional and personal ties to former Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta, and served as his designated representative on the board of New Silk Route, a private equity fund, from April 2013 until March 2014. When Gupta was convicted of insider trading in 2012, Orman said that "He is a friend of mine, he made a huge mistake, and he's paying the price for it. It shocked me like it shocked a lot of people when it came out that he was charged with those things."

Version 2

Orman has professional and personal ties to former Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta, who was convicted of insider trading in 2012. Orman served as his designated representative on the board of New Silk Route, a private equity fund, from April 2013 until March 2014. Orman said that "He is a friend of mine, he made a huge mistake, and he's paying the price for it. It shocked me like it shocked a lot of people when it came out that he was charged with those things."

References

@NazariyKaminski:: I am still awaiting for your answer. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

They do have the exact same content. The Version 2, which I tend to support, points out in the first sentence that Gupta was convicted on insider trading. It is one of the reasons that the whole topic is notable. It is not the only reason it is notable. But once again, the edit that made did not condemn Orman in anyway. Orman's side of the story is still completely part of the topic and there are only three sentences for the whole topic, which is, of course, not undue. It is difficult to argue that the topic should not be part of the article because Orman himself emphasizes, in other articles, how important Gupta is to him and how he feels that it would be wrong for him to throw Gupta under the bus just because Gupta has gotten into legal trouble. In Version 2, I tie together Gupta's intro to his insider trading conviction because the whole quote from Orman, one third of the paragraph, is dedicated to Gupta's conviction. It also difficult to argue to eliminate the paragraph because it has become a significant issue in the current U.S. Senate campaign. From a chronology point of view, Gupta was convicted in 2012, Orman served on the board in 2013/2014, and the U.S. Senate campaign discussion of their relationship is obviously 2014. The conviction was clearly first--which is the way that it is portrayed in Version 2.--NK (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. If Gupta was never indicted, we would still have that material there as it is related to his business career, as these disclosures are a legal obligation for candidates. The version you reverted, is superior in its NPOV as Gorman friendship and business relation predates the indictment. Note that I am no longer arguing for removal of the content, as I found some other reliable sources that describe this. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, the oppo team has been playing that card quite well: The Roberts team has aggressively fed and promoted media stories about Orman’s ties to Gupta, who began his two-year prison term in June.[9]. We should not be their echo chamber. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I restored the two reliable sources that you removed from the article. The Wichita Eagle and The Topeka Capital-Journal are reliable sources and they have been covering the U.S. Senate campaign. You removed them and incorrectly claimed that they are unreliable sources. That is just not factual.--NK (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think they are superfluous, but I can live with that. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Born and raised

I was puzzled when a new edit changed his hometown from Stanley, Kansas (a place so small it doesn't have a Wikipedia article???) to Mankato, Minnesota. The new source did go into more detail, and I have added more information from that source to clarify. BTW George Will claims Orman was president of Boys Nation in high school.[10] I haven't seen that claim anywhere else and am not inclined to include it just on Will's say-so. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've semiprotected due to some worrying edits by IPs. Let's have all edits responsible please. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Caucus

User:Tiller54 has twice deleted Nate Silver's projection that there's a 75% probability that Orman will caucus with the Democrats (if elected). The first time, the deletion was buried in this edit. The second time, it was deleted with a comment to the effect that it's not relevant because it doesn't align with Orman's personal statements. I didn't originally add the projection from Silver, but this doesn't seem like a valid reason for deletion. This bio arguably relies far too much on statements from Orman's campaign web site. If the goal here is just to purge his bio of any info that might detract from his ability to get elected, then we should just mirror his campaign web site and be done with it.CFredkin (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Silver and 538 are a pretty good authority on campaign polling. That being said, with articles on subjects currently running for office or reelection, we aim to avoid dominating the page with details of the election. Issues of outside predictions of how he would caucus would perhaps be better suited in the general article on the race. But it isn't completely unreasonable to include here either. An issue, however, may be that including the Silver view sort of implies a general sense of Orman's likelihood to caucus that, while cited, is not the overall consensus of general reporting and punditry, which seems to be more limited to the general "depending on which caucus is in the majority" variety. But, regardless, this section should probably be moved under the 2014 election rather than political views.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Silver's prediction of who he might caucus with was fair enough back here when he hadn't said anything about what he'd do if he had the tiebreaking vote. Now we've had two separate articles laying out his position, Silver's month-old prediction isn't relevant any more. Tiller54 (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tiller. In a paragraph predicting what he will do if elected, it seems like the focus should be on what he says he would do. The Silver prediction was helpful when Orman himself was not saying anything about how he would caucus; it was the only information we had on the subject. Now that Orman has made some fairly definite statements, we don't need (and should not include) somebody's earlier reading of the tea-leaves. I don't agree with Yaksar that the information should be moved to the election page; it is far more relevant here. And to CFredkin, I agree that we should use independent sources in preference to primary sources in most cases. But in the case of "what he will do if elected," the primary source is the perfect source. He himself knows far more about what his intentions are, than some outside pollster taking a guess. That guess was appropriate when Orman had said nothing on the subject; now that Orman has said what he intends to do, the outside guess is no longer relevant or valid. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Religious persuasion

The wiki entry of Roberts, and essentially every other sitting Senator and Senate candidate, has some indication of religious affiliation. Why has no one included Orman's religious persuasion on this page? It seems just as relevant to his biography as the fact that his father opened a furniture store, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermilioncliffs (talk • contribs) 15:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question. I just did some online searching and could find nothing about his religious affiliation. It looks like he has never said what his religious affiliation is, and nobody has ever asked. I'll keep looking, but for now that's why we have nothing on this subject: it's because nobody has anything. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have looked on countless sites, and there is no indication whatsoever that Greg Orman has ever been affiliated with any religious organization. Posting that on the site is relevant, if it is the case. Of course, he may belong somewhere but simply has never stated it privately or publicly. It seems that posting "not affiliated" is unjustified, but simply placing nothing, given that all senators and senate candidates all report their religion or lack of affiliation, does not seem palatable either. In any event, if he is elected, he will inevitably have to report something. Placing "unaffiliated" now may at least prompt someone who does know to make the correction, thereby providing meaningful information. Without saying anything, there has so far been no dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermilioncliffs (talk • contribs) 04:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"Most interesting man"

User:CFredkin, I object to your removing the quote from NBC News saying that Orman could be "the most interesting man i politics" come November. It comes from a national news source, and in a way it is a rebuttal to the recent attempt to delete this article on the claim that the subject was non-notable. Furthermore, the item was well sourced; it's ironic that your other edit at the same time was to "restore sourced material" which was a comment from a state party chairman - a much less reliable or important source than NBC News. I think we should "restore the sourced material" in this case as well, but let's talk about it here rather than get into an edit war. What is your rationale for saying that a comment from a reliable source about this person's potential significance is "puffery"? --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

From my perspective, the better comparison would be this edit, which was subsequently removed with the edit comment: A statement from a Heavily POV opinion post by one author is not proper for inclusion in this section. Actually I don't believe there is any policy which states that neutrally worded statements from POV sources should not be included in BLP's. But since the active editors of this article seem to have an agenda of removing any content that might be construed as potentially negative to Orman, I've held off disputing the edit for the time-being. However, when I compare the statement from Jay Cost with this one, I can see absolutely no reason for excluding Cost's but keeping NBC's. In fact I would argue that the first part of the statement from Cost is fact, not opinion. The second part (re the impracticality of switching parties every few months) may be opinion, but it's pretty plausible opinion. Whereas the statement from NBC is pure subjective puffery. CFredkin (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin, you and I watchlist some of the same articles, so I have often seen your edits and comments. I have gotten the impression that you believe editing articles about politicians is some kind of contest, between editors who want the article to say good things and editors who want the article to say bad things. But this is the first time I have seen you say it so explicitly. I really have to object to that attitude. It's not Wikipedian and I don't think it is true. Personally I have no dog in this hunt; I don't live in Kansas. My approach here is and always has been to keep the article neutral and balanced. That's why I started watchlisting it; I could see that there were partisan impulses at work here. Now since you didn't answer my question (you just compared one edit with another in tit-for-tat fashion), I ask again: What is your rationale for deleting a comment from a reliable, major, national source about the person's potential significance? Isn't one of the things an article has to do, is to demonstrate that the subject is significant/notable? --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeking a neutral article and I think it's reasonable to expect a level playing field in that regard. A statement of fact which provides a counterpoint to Orman's statement and which is from a source that is widely regarded as reliable for statements of fact is removed because the source is "POV". At the same time, a puff statement regarding Orman being "interesting" is added with the argument that it helps indicate the notability of the article for those who might want to delete it. Similarly a two sentence statement from someone who might not be an ardent supporter of Orman is considered "undue", while at the same time the article is chock full of self-serving statements from Orman (many of them from his campaign web site for pete's sake). Some of his statements in the article make up entire paragraphs of multiple sentences. In fact, I'm not aware of any bio on the project with a comparable number statements from the subject given the size of the article. I don't personally feel that strongly about any of these statements, but I think it's reasonable to expect that policies and standards be applied consistently (at least in the same article). And right now that's not happening here.CFredkin (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the puff statement from NBC. I've also restored the statement from Jay Cost, which is reliably sourced. Finally I've removed quotes from Orman's campaign web site. If the statements are significant, they'll be mentioned in a reliable secondary source. To that end, I've added content from a reliable secondary source on his stance on Illegal Immigration.CFredkin (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition to being from a completely negative opinion piece, the cost quote isn't even accurate or relevant. That Orman said he may switch down the line, an act that has been done by numerous senators and is anything but implausible, is unrelated to cost's claim that switching every few months would be difficult. It would be like someone noting on the page for. It's rarely wise to trumpet the points from a POV hit piece as though they are undoubtably important facts.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The article currently includes the following statement: He said in October 2014 that if, after caucusing with one party for four or five months he finds that "they're engaged in the same old partisan politics", he would "absolutely" consider caucusing with the other party to give them the majority instead. Given this statement, Cost's statement regarding the costs associated with switching parties and the implausibility of doing so after 4 or 5 months is definitely relevant. It's also neutrally worded.CFredkin (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Kansas Democratic Party Chairwoman

And regarding the statement from the Kansas Democratic Party Chairwoman, this edit is a great example of what I'm referring to above. Parsing her statement to include one sentence, but remove the second supposedly because of WP:undue is utterly ridiculous. If that's the case, then let's limit all statements of opinions (including those from Orman) to one sentence for the same reason.CFredkin (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing ridiculous about it as it's a clear violation of weight. Having someone from a party that Orman doesn't belong to begin a section about his political views is questionable to begin with. The editor who originally added this material here[11] has displayed a pervasive anti-Orman POV and cherry-picked the source to inflict damage. While we're at it we might as well throw in what the Kansas Republican Party Chairwoman professes. // Nonsense // ---- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't begin the section. I think that issue can be addressed by moving it after Orman's own statements.CFredkin (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

About the comments from the party chairwoman: I agree that we should include her citation of specific points on which he agrees with her party's platform. But I think her off-the-cuff response to "can you think of any way in which they differ?" should not be included. The article in fact goes on to spell out ways in which they do differ, including his emphasis on the deficit and his agreeing with Paul Ryan on some things. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, when she is specifically referring to points where they differ I can think of no reason we shouldn't include those if we are including the others. In terms of the not recalling issue, I think the problem there is that it makes it sound like we are saying "this is the only point where they differ" which as you note is obviously not true from the text and other sources, rather than "a subject unaffiliated with the campaign was unable to come up with another answer on the spot for a question she was not prepared for".--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Pleas stay close to the sources

I have removed a bunch of content that was not supported by the sources provided. The sources read "he won't say", "would not specify", or "doesn’t have enough information to say yes or no", and that does not mean he "declined". If you find a source that shows that he was asked and he declined, please provide it, alternatively stay close to the sources instead of editorializing for "effect". - Cwobeel (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

After the revert by an editor of my removal, I have simply adjusted the wording to reflect the source. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The source says that Orman "won't say....". As in, "he's been asked, and won't answer". That's entirely different than "Orman hasn't said", which implies that the question hasn't come up.CFredkin (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The text now reflects the sources, so we are good. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Campaign finance

This new paragraph is an interesting juxtaposition of supporting campaign finance reform and receiving contributions from the very rich.

Orman has stated that he supports campaign finance reform with by proposing expansion of campaign finance disclosure rules and contribution restrictions. Orman accepted campaign contributions from several billionaire such as Peter Ackerman, John Burbank, Michael Bloomberg and George Soros's son Jonathan Soros.

Although it doesn't say that Orman is a hypocrite, putting those two facts next to each other implies it. I think it should be removed, per WP:SYNTH. Thundermaker (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Completely removing reliably source, notable information from an article is unacceptable except in the most extreme situation. If you would like to edit the paragraph to make it closer to what you believe it should be then that is acceptable, but simply removing the information that seems inconvenient is not an option. In the Politico article the authors there point out that Orman is a supporter of campaign finance reform--may be that's where an edit should begin.--NK (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The second sentence should be removed. We don't list the names of individual donors in article about politicians. Such a list invariably involves cherry-picking, either by the Wikipedia editor or (as in this case) by the source. It also violates WP:UNDUE. Also, I agree with Thundermaker that justaposing these two sentences implies a connection between them, which is a violation of WP:SYNTH. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both users Thundermaker and MelanieN regarding the SYNTH violation and it's clearly not a neutral presentation. I will update the article accordingly. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The Politico article did make a direct connection between the two facts. The first fact is that he says he supports campaign finance reform and the second fact that Politico tied to it is the fact that he has taken huge amounts of money from billionaires. The paragraph might need work to be presented in a NPOV manner but the facts are a stubborn things. I would add the third fact is that a reliable source, Politico, tied the first two facts together, not I. The paragraph needs to be edited to make that more clear. These facts are notable, and supported by reliable sources. Now as for Thundermaker's original comment, I never used the word "hypocrite", but Sen. Roberts, Orman's opponent, did use the exact word, "hypocrite" when Roberts commented on Orman's push for campaign finance reform. That would fact number four. Now can that fact be presented in a NPOV manner, I don't know. But it was not said by this editor and it was said by a participant in the campaign and it was reported by reliable source. But just whitewashing the whole topic is not acceptable.--NK (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

NK, I respect your opinion, but it does not appear to have gained consensus. The main issues operating here are things like WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. We don't include in an article everything that any reliable source ever said; there has to be editorial judgment as to what is important enough to include and what is not. The names of individual donors to politicians are virtually never included. The exception would be when MULTIPLE reliable sources make it an important issue in the campaign. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

When the candidate is actively saying they are not a Democrat yet is recieving a lot of money from Democrats/Liberals it becomes pretty notable. Arzel (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whoa! Reading the Politico article again, that source does not support the allegation being made here, that "Orman accepted campaign contributions" from these people. In fact the contributions were made to a PAC which is supporting Orman. By law that PAC is independent of Orman. He doesn't accept or reject contributions to the PAC, and couldn't control who contributes to it even if he wanted to. So this sentence has to go; it is not only unsupported by the source, it is factually false. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN. Taking money from billionaires and enthusiastically supporting campaign finance reform are in no way mutually exclusive positions. The amount of money being used to buy electoral seats is disgraceful. That Orman is playing by the current rules, but advocating for rules that better protect the public interest, isn't at all contradictory. His opponent is getting dough from the country's biggest opponents of campaign finance reform, the Kochs. Rejecting contributions from PACs is rare, and those few who have taken such a position, such as Russ Feingold, have paid a steep price for their integrity. In addition, Orman is obviously quite centrist in his political positions, so characterizing his beliefs by referring to presumed beliefs of some of his supporters, is a real stretch. Given all that, I also wonder if the separate headings for each separate position he has or has not taken isn't unusual and excessive?. Activist (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In order to cover Politico's observation correctly, we would have to attribute it as notable opinion of those authors at Politico. I would also include the direct quote "dramatic twist", because the article stopped well short of an accusation of hypocrisy. If the consensus is to leave out the billionaire statement and include only his political position, let's move it to the Political Positions section. Thundermaker (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with moving it to political positions. The very fact that it wasn't put there to begin with, argues that this was a POV addition rather than purely factual. And in case anyone didn't understand what I said above: Orman DID NOT "take money from billionaires". He can personally "reject contributions from PACs", but he can't tell a PAC to reject contributions from anyone. He has no control over a PAC. The fact that billionaires are contributing to an independent fund supporting him says nothing about his own choices. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I moved it to "political positions". --MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Pay-to-play allegation?

This item had been given an entire subsection of its own, with much more detail than necessary or appropriate, per WP:UNDUE. I have trimmed it and removed the subheading. If anyone has a problem with the way I did it, let's discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed that stuff completely. We should not use Wikipedia to promote allegations made by opponents during a campaign. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't whitewash an article just because there is an election. They allegations were made by The Weekly Standard, not by Roberts.--NK (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This material is simply not biographical. Also, there is the policy of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which you are ignoring. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no BLP issue here. As for the second sentence about the line of credit, I think it is necessary to explain the first. --MelanieN (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an "allegation" of something improper made by two right-wing outlets. Nothing there besides campaign oppo fodder. The Daily Caller is not an RS for that kind of speculation. Hence, that material is UNDUE. You may disagree with me, but that does not mean that you should remove the UNDUE tag while we are discussing this. I kindly ask you to restore it so that it may attract additional editors to the discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Posted report at Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Greg Orman - Cwobeel (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Cwobeel -- this material should not be included, as it is irrelevant. But if consensus disagrees with me and the debt is included, an explanation from either Orman or Carter should also be. The attempted compromise paragraph comes across as a one-sided accusation. Thundermaker (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I just searched Google News and found that in the days since this report was published, the story has not been picked up by ANY other news outlets; the only reports are still the Weekly Standard and the Daily Caller. Thus, I now feel that the item is NOT significant and be left out of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I see that it has been removed already. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sybil Niccum

Greg Orman and Sybil Niccum did not move from Florida together in 2007. They were not married until September 2013. This fact seems relevant and is missing. The factual error should also be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermilioncliffs (talk • contribs) 04:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Original research

Reverted this edit [12]], per WP:NOR. Find a source that reports that "In 2000's Orman contributed mostly to Democrats" and you can restore that content. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

NazariyKaminski restored that content with an edit summary of "Fixed the attempt to whitewash the article of notable, reliably sourced information about Orman." The material violates WP:NOR as it is a synthesis of a list published by Open Secrets [13]. If that is something significant or notable as he claims, it should have appeared in secondary sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC).

Open Secrets .org is a secondary source. The primary source would be the Federal Election Commission. The premise of that statement is incorrect.--NK (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Open Secrets is publishing a list, and you are creating a synthesis of that material. That is a violation of WP:NOR. Find a reliable secondary source that makes these claims and then you can add the material. Not only it is a violation of NOR, it is also a violation of WP:UNDUE, as if this was notable, it would have been reported in multiple sources - Cwobeel (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the source states the following: "He said he voted for Obama in 2008, and public records show that in the middle of that decade he made donations mostly to Democrats, including Obama and Sen. Al ­Franken (Minn.)." Based on that, I think if the content referenced the "mid 2000's", it would conform to the source.CFredkin (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Consulting the records of campaign contributions is a perfectly valid source for verifying information. However, using the records to compile a list of names not referred to in outside sources would be an OR violation.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

UNDUE

Regarding this material: Greg_Orman#Contributions

NazariyKaminski continues to add a litany of attacks by Orman's opponent on the election. There is an issue here of WP:UNDUE, that this editor is not discussing. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, what he has contributed as an individual is not biographical information. That section needs to go in its entirety, and maybe moved to the United States Senate election in Kansas, 2014 article, as it is 100% related to the campaign. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no one edit or sentence in that section that is not supported by reliable sources. Also, they are not "attacks". They statements of fact. Now, you might not like having these facts in Orman's article, but it is notable information. Also, the names of the candidates that he gave to in previous elections does not have anything to do with the 2014 Senate election. This information is about Orman and who he is so it belongs in the main article. It should not be moved to the U.S. Senate article because these campaign donations have nothing to do with the 2014 U.S. Senate election and we should not whitewash information out of an article just because it is inconvenient.--NK (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it does not belong in the election section, but actually it does not belong in the article at all in its current form per WP:UNDUE. All we need to say is that he gave to democrats and republicans, if at all. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And we definitively not to use Roberts as a source for claims, as this is a bio and not a political pamphlet acting as an echo chamber for a political opponent's attack. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We did not use Roberts as a source. Roberts was quoted by the Kansas City Star and Roll Call. Also, it is a fact, without question, that Orman gave money to Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, that fact has been established by another secondary reliable source, OpenSecrets.org. And to state that he gave some money to democrats and he gave some money to republicans would be a mischaracterization of the situation and you know it. He claims to be independent, but he has given over $56,000 to Dems and $8,000 or so to Reps. This is not a small difference. He also attempted to run for office as a Democrat in 2008. He gave money to Obama, but he did not give money to Romney. There are over 20 articles from reliable sources that point out that he gave money to candidates in the past (and politics is why he is notable in the first place) and vast majority of the money went to Democrats or the Democratic Party. It is notable and to present it as if they distribution of cash is equal is not presenting the material in a NPOV manner. We can't whitewash facts just because we don't like facts. It is a fact that he is a politician and who he gave money to is a NOTABLE piece of information. The fact that he gave way more money to the Democrats is notable--especially in light of the fact that his whole campaign is based upon how he claims to be over politics and independent. We cannot allow the whitewash of the article.--NK (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Per your comment, it is obvious that you want to paint Orman as a "Democrat" and that you want to link him to Reid and Obama, as the Roberts campaign has tried to do all along. But that is not what biographical articles are for: Wikipedia is not a political pamphlet. Check any other politician article and show me where are we reporting on personal contributions made as private citizens. I am not opposed in inserting a short mention on his private donations, but not to the extent that you have, per WP:UNDUE. Also note that you are not respecting WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, and you should. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not our job to be sure that a subject is being fairly covered by sources based on our own views. We aren't the reporters. It is our job to accurately and neutrally reflect what reliable sources indicate is significant. Going into the campaign donation records to highlight a view that you feel is important but which third party sources have not specifically used as evidence of the point is unacceptable OR.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. OR has been addressed, but WP:UNDUE has not. I have moved some of the pertinent content to the campaign section, and summarized the contributions issue in a short sentence on the "Background" section. Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, we will need consensus to include the long version. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@NazariyKaminski: - Can you please engage in a discussion? You know where editors end up when breaching 3RR. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this content dispute, but I really don't have much an opinion either way. I don't necessarily think it's a problem to list the politicians that Orman has donated to, as long as it's kept short, neutral and factual. I guess I more or less agree with Yaksar.

Edit warring is not going to accomplish anything. Perhaps the disputants could try to reach a compromise? Meanwhile, whatever version of this content existed before the current dispute should remain in the article until a consensus is reached.- MrX 22:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with inclusion. It is reliably sourced. I do have a problem with Cwobeel claiming WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, there is nothing that would meet that criteria. I suggest he explain why he thinks it applies. Arzel (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Working towards consensus

According to The Washington Post, Orman made donations mostly to Democrats, including Democratic Senator Al Franken and President Barack Obama. According to his opponent, Pat Roberts, he has also given to Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid and former Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Dave Helling, in the Kansas City Star, has said "Orman has given to other candidates, mostly Democrats" which includes Democratic Congressional candidates Dennis Moore, Nancy Boyd, and Kay Barnes. Politico has reported that Orman gave to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2008.

In 2010, Orman donated to Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown, Republican U.S. Representative Todd Akin and the National Republican Congressional Committee. According to The Hill, Orman has contributed "much more to Democrats" than to Republicans.

References

• Above I've posted the Contributions section in its entirety. I personally find its size to violate UNDUE. Let's give our 2 cents and see if we can agree on some sort of compromise. Also, the way it is written is very POV; it says 1) Orman made donations mostly to Democrats then 2) Orman has given to other candidates, mostly Democrats then 3) Orman has contributed "much more to Democrats" than to Republicans. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is written in a strange manner. However, that format that you outlined was in response to Cwobeel eliminating the whole section and stating that it should not be in the article. The information about what politicians he gave money to is notable and it is supported by reliable sources. It just becomes a manner of how it is presented. The real problem with the section is that it is choppy and needs to be evened out. It could be simply two sentences where it states Orman gave to these Democrats here (and then provide a list) and another sentence that states Orman gave to these Republicans here (and once again give a list). The section does not violate BLP. The section is based upon reliable sources. The section is not overly long. The section is notable. The only real objection is the format that it is presented. It is a fact that Orman gave to Obama, Franken, Reid, Clinton, Moore, Boyd, and Barnes. This is a fact and that information is notable. That list of politicians that this particular politician gave money is supported by reliable sources. It could be trimmed down to a simple list and that list would solve Somedifferentstuff's concerns. But the information is notable, relevant, and supported by reliable sources. There is nothing undue about providing a list of famous politicians (Reid, Clinton, Obama, et al) who received money from the subject politician (Orman)--especially when the subject politician claims is that he is non-partisan and independent. The second paragraph could be shortened also by creating a sentence that says, "Orman gave to these Republicans and then provide a list that is supported by reliable sources. There is no need for the quote from The Hill. That last Hill quote creates the poorly written presentation to which Somedifferentstuff refers. It is POV to eliminate the fact that Orman gave to Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton. So if we can work on the wording then we will have a compromise, but just eliminating the whole section or simply saying he gave some to Dems and then he gave some to Reps would be POV because the giving was not equal and the timeframes are not equal either. The current version is clearly POV because the current version refuses to name anyone to whom Orman gave money.--NK (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. All we need is a short sentence that describes the fact that in the mid 2000's Orman gave money to Democrats and Republican candidates. Orman has made donations to both Democrats and Republican candidates, with public records showing that in the mid 2000’s he made donations mostly to Democrats. The sources are there to be consulted by readers to find out to whom and how much money was donated. Anything else is aviolation of WP:UNDUE in this article. I would not oppose including the details, names, amounts and dates in the United States Senate election in Kansas, 2014 where it belongs. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

His statements of independence are a primary aspect of his political career. It is certainly not undue weight to discuss aspect which he is using to promote his political career. You don't get to hide his past simply because it is inconvenient to his current political self-promotion. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but neither we need to use Orman's bio to make the political point his opponents have tried to make throughout the campaign (if you watched their last debate, his opponent mentioned Reid 48 times. No, I am not kidding). That is why my proposed text currently in the article says what it does: That he gave donations to Democrats and Republican candidates, and mostly to the former. That is enough. If we start adding names, dates, and amounts of donations it will be UNDUE, and without dates and amounts it will be not NPOV. Get it? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to have amounts and dates that information is superfluous. But we do have to names. There is no reason to whitewash the article of who Orman has supported in the past especially when there are several reliable sources cited in the article that point out that he claims to be independent and they point out that he has given more money to Democrats than Republicans. The reliable sources point this fact out, sources such as Washington Post, Kansas City Star, Wichita Eagle, and the Topeka Capital-Journal. He gave money to Harry Reid and because Roberts used Harry Reid's name 20 times in the debate you want to eliminate Harry Reid's name from the article. It is a fact that Orman gave money to Reid, just like he gave money to Obama, Clinton, Franken, Moore, Boyd, and Barnes--all Democrats. That information is notable and supported by reliable sources. To leave it out would be a POV presentation of the facts.--NK (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You have made your point clear, and the lynchpin is this: "We don't need to have amounts and dates that information is superfluous. But we do have to names." - That is a major roadblock for a compromise, because by omitting dates you are taking these donations out of context, and by omitting amounts you are doing the same. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We can put in a few dates. We don't need dates specific dates for each person. Just enough to provide the context that you are looking for. By the way, just refusing to compromise is not an option to keeping notable, reliably sourced information presented in NPOV manner from the article. For example, Orman did give money to Harry Reid. That is a notable fact which is supported by two reliable sources (Roll Call and I believe KC Star) and by OpenSecrets.org. No editor has proposed that Reid be mention 10 times like Roberts stated. Also, we don't have to mention Roberts in this context at all. Just like DSSC, Obama, Clinton, Franken, Moore, Boyd, and Barnes, we need to mention to whom he gave money. It defines who he is. On the other hand we need to note that he gave to Brown, Akin, and RSSC and provide some some bit of info on timeframe so it does not grow too large again. But several reliable sources have pointed out that he gave more money to Democrats than Republicans and this notable fact needs to be mentioned or it is POV edit.--NK (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)