Talk:Dane Rauschenberg

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

Dane may be at it again[edit]

A series of IP edits from a Qwest IP address near Denver are adding "puffing" to this page, just like the original SPA contributions which dominated this page for its first year. This is just a reminder that the subject of a Wikipedia article should not edit the article. This is not Facebook or Myspace. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Sorry if I am not doing this right but I don't know how to add a discussion point. But isn't Dane in Salt Lake City? the address of this "puffing" being near Denver proves nothing at all with regard to this being Dane adding something to his page. 98.220.253.177 (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The location of the ISP is not indicative of the location of the user. The point is that the subject of this article created a SPA which exclusively edited this article for almost a year. Early graphics added to the article referenced a "book proposal." and the copyright tag indicated the source was either Dane or his brother. Neither Dane, his brother, nor his long-sufferring mother and aunt (who were drafted into the 2006 Drake Well Marathon) should be editing this article. Dane left his Salt Lake City job after three months, so his locations are unknown and may be shifting. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(75.169.94.227 (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC))"The location of the ISP is not indicative of the location of the user."[reply]

Chuck Engle was running to raise awareness and money St. Jude's. Here is a series of links: (1) http://www.marathonmaniacs.com/TeamDolphin/PAULBUNYANMARATHON2006.htm (2)http://www.somdnews.com/stories/031706/indytop203312_32185.shtml (3)http://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=SVNKLzIwMDYvMDgvMzEjQXIwMTUwMQ==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom

It is indisputable that this article was originally drafted by Mr. Rauschenberg. Due to his effect on others, the article has become a comprise between those wishing to build him up and those wishing to bring him down with a couple legitimate wiki editors trying to sort things out. Unfortunately, the end result is an article that isn't very good and contains numerous irrelevant details. Onto the point at hand concerning Mr. Engle. Engle did almost the exact same thing as Rauschenberg in 2006 (Engle ran in 51 marathons over 48 of the 52 weeks of the year). The only real difference is that Engle ran his marathons about 40 minutes faster than Rauschenberg. (link: http://www.chuckengle.com/Results/2006Results.cfm). As Rauschenberg thrives on making himself feel special, he attempts to avoid mention of Engle whenever possible (as their 2006 accomplishments are virtually identical). Either way, Engle clearly was supporting St. Jude's and should not be excluded from this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pats2001 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the changes made by the subject of the article. The links provided clearly establish that Mr. Engle was supporting St. Jude's Hospital.

Additionally, the link provided clearly establishes when the subject decided to raise money for L'Arche. Here is the direct quote he made from that link: In ADDITION, as I stated before, but apparently you felt no need to read, helping the charity was a cause that came along AFTER the planning to run 52 in 52 started. Only then did I realize publicity was needed to not only raise money but awareness for a group of individuals that may not receive the attention they so richly deserve.

Personally, I think all this material is completely irrelevant to anything that was done by the subject, but as it was the consensus reached by the group I will not remove it from the article. However, if the information is going to be in the article it should be accurate.

(75.169.94.227 (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)) Still always cute how this person still feels the "subject of the article" is making changes. Almost as amazing as how Pats2001 somehow seems to know the thought process of Rauschenberg.[reply]

As for a statement of the charity coming along after the planning began there is no statement as to when this "after" was. All sources point to L'Arche becoming the main focus of Fiddy2 WELL before the enetire event's running began.

As for Mr. Engle's charitable efforts, read the quotes. He was unaffiliated with St. Jude's and no sums whatsoever were ever reported by Engle, St. Jude's or anyone affiliated with either. Simply because he says he was raising money doesn't mean he was. Why does Engle's word have more weight than anyone else's. If Rauschenberg said something like this you would say it needs 87 secondary sources. {End of comment by (75.169.94.227 (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC))}[reply]

  • There is no Wikipedia entry for Engle, because in my opinion, neither Engle nor Rauschenberg meet the criteria of WP:ATH, "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." Yet, Rauschenberg ignored this and used an SPA to create two articles about himself and "Fiddy2". We don't know the nature of Rauschenberg's affiliation with the Mobile, Alabama chapter of L'Arche. We do know that the chapter has its "Run4Free Program" which gives away air fare and entry fees based on how much money you raise for it. We can't judge whether Engle was "more pure" in his charitable motives than Rauschenberg, we can just state the fact that there were at least four projects involving running a marathon distance 50 or more times during 2006. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presque Isle[edit]

The following is the Presque Isle discussion from before the mediation. It is being reproduced here to enlighten the editor (75.169.94.227 (talk)) who is trying to restart this issue:

Runnerguy has asked whether we should continue to designate Presque Isle as a "non-competitive" event. My concern is that if you don't include the word non-competitive, people will assume that it was a competitive ultramarathon race. As for 84 miles being noteworthy, there are no records maintained for 12-hour races. Official records are maintained for 1-hour track runs and 24-hour track runs. By way of comparison, the US record for 24-hours was set in 1999 by Mark Godale who ran 261,454 metres (162 mi). [1] So assuming that a national-class runner would run much more than half that distance in 12 hours, Mr. Rauschenberg's performance would not set a record. The article probably should not mention the event at all, but certainly not twice. Xcstar (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem again is that no one is claiming that Rauschenberg holds any records, is unique, better or faster than any other individual. The Wikipedia standard is notability, and the ample evidence from multiple sources is that he is notable. That the event is non-competitive is irrelevant; he participated in the event, ran 84 miles and there is reliable documentation for the fact. Alansohn (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree that there is reliable documentation for the 84 miles, and I am trying to verify the claim. This is not like the NYRR's 24-hour run or the Ft. Meade 24-hour run where there are officials counting your laps. The new footnote is an effort to capture the casual, non-competitive nature of the event. The 2007 edition did use transponder timing, but I have made inquiries as to how the laps were recorded in 2003. Xcstar (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can live with the Alansohn (talk) current edit until we get contrary evidence on the 84-mile issue. Thanks, Xcstar (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is implausible that a person with a marathon PR of 3:29 could cover 3.2 times that distance in only 3.4 the amount of time. I am waiting to hear back. Xcstar (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is essential for the accuracy of the article to state that the Presque Isle event was non-competitive, if the event is to be mentioned. I personally think that the event is not notable. Xcstar (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Presque Isle event does not meet Wikipedia standards and should not be included at all. 1) It is not a notable event, because it is not an athletic competition. For example, there is a non-competitive Avon 3-Day Walk for Breast Cancer - we should not report that someone walked the longest distance or had the fastest time at that event -- the purpose of the event in fighting cancer not racing other runners. Presque Isle purpose is to test yourself and to promote fitness, not to compete against others. 2) Even if it were a competitive event, Rauschenberg's performance is not notable for a 30-year old male runner. For example, the winning 12 hour performance at the 2007 Palic event was 102 miles. [2] Many notable individuals that are the subject of Wikipedia articles are recreational runners, but Wikipedia does not include all of their running performance data just as it does not report on their biometric data. See, WP:INFO. I will wait 24-hours, and if there are no objections grounded in Wikipedia policy, I will delete the Presque Isle reference entirely. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

75.169.94.227 (talk) is very confused about reliable sources that can be used in Wikipedia articles WP:SOURCES and about notability WP:N.

As explained in Vanity press, anyone can pay to have his book published and to have that book listed on the publisher's website. The fact that a book exists and is listed on a website, does not allow it to be "plugged" in a Wikipedia article. Some people have observed that the SPA created this article about the same time as the "book proposal" and attempted to include the mockup of the cover art. See, WP:SPAM. If you follow the link you see that the "publisher" has only two books in print, one by Rauschenberg and one by a second author. It has two more titles planned, both by the second author. R's book is not listed on amazon.com. In contrast, Dean Karnazes' book about his 50 marathons in 2006 has numerous sources, and his publisher has many books in print including from best-sellling authors David Baldacci and Michael Connelly.66.173.140.100 (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate questions: Is he notable and should the book be listed? A self-published book would not establish notability. However, Rauschenberg's notability is established by multiple reliable and verifiable sources independent of the subject. With his notability established, material about a book he wrote, as long as it is supported by appropriate sources, is encyclopedic. Alansohn (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PT Cruiser[edit]

I skimmed through Talk and didn't see discussion, so I apologize if I'm on old ground. I had clicked on the link for the PT cruiser challenge and it just links to the results, there's no description of the event. I can't for the life of me find any reference to it that was something that would have been self-reported (i.e., an award announcement about dane or blog post). For the claim that all three were completed within 24 hours to be true, in my mind, the marathon would have to be finished within 24 hours of the start of the first event. This strikes me as unlikely scheduling, which is why I searched for confirmation, ultimately without success. Curious to see if anyone else can have more luck than me. Regardless of verifiability, I think there's a second issue with notability. The result doesn't strike me as any more notable than any of the 500+ victories that happen every weekend across the country. It was a fairly uncompetitive race between a small number of people that received no press, promotion, or documentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoestoreface (talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are correct. A google search on "PT Cruiser Challenge" does not show an on-going event. The times and the fact that only 59 people competed, as well as the lack of secondary (non-local) sources are problems with including this event. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More context is needed, so I have added it. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link that shows the PT Cruiser Challenge was completed on at least three separate occassions. http://www.doitsports.com/results/page.tcl?id=3001

The mere fact that a "small number of people" ran the race says nothing about the competitiveness of the race whatsoever. In fact, it could just as easily be said that it was highly competitive as so few were able to accomplish the feat of a 15k, 5k and a marathon in a days' time. It is unfotunate the race no longer exists to fit the criteria that seems to be needed by some of the Dane bashers, but the fact of the matter remains that many races of note no longer exist or no longer hold sway the way they once did (e.g., The Yonkers Marathon used to be the the unoffocial US Marathon Championship race but as recently as last yar oly had 107 finishers).Contributions/24.199.196.180 (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion needed[edit]

Folks, it would help if we used this discussion page to air any editorial differences. I am having trouble understanding where the various editors are coming from and what their concerns are. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would also help if people editing this page would explain what relationship, if any they have to Dane Rauschenberg. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I think that Mr. Rauschenberg is editing this page using IP addresses. Please read WP:COI which prohibits Mr. Rauschenberg or his friends and family from editing this page. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The edit [3] appears to be written by the subject of the article. I have reviewed the cited sources, and these details to not appear there. It is clear that several months went by in the planning without any charity. The charity was added later, and we don't have a source for how long Rauschenberg negotiated with L'Arche. So, I am removing the change. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As much as you want me to be the subject of the article, I simply am not. If you can write under the guise of nothing but an IP address than there is no reason why I cannot as well.

How is it clear that months went "several months went by in the planning without any charity."? You are once again reading into the quoted information as you always have - with a slanted view point. Rauschenberg's own FAQ answers the question directly but for some reason you wish to ignore that. So, I am changing back to the correct version. 75.169.58.50 (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Actually, I decided to run 52 marathons first and when I decided that I also wanted to do something for other people added L'Arche Mobile as the beneficiary of the endeavor a few months into the planning." [4] 66.173.140.100 (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FAQ is unclear and may have dressed up the sequence of events to look better in retrospect. The other sources are more reliable. Also, there is no evidence that he is "working for a race company." As noted by 158.59.27.249, Please read WP:COI which prohibits Mr. Rauschenberg or his friends and family from editing this page. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you feel the FAQ may have been altered to make it look better continues to show your monomaniacal obsession with disparaging Rauschenberg. The other sources which you feel are "more reliable" support the FAQ. In fact,I recall that a coolrunning posting by Rauschenberg himself is one of those "more reliable sources". Why is that posting, on a forum, any more reliable than a FAQ made by Rauschenberg?! And why does it matter so much to you that "several months went by in the planning" other than to just simply be difficult and edit anything that anyone puts on this page which may be positive about Rauschenberg. From putting down the 84 mile effort in a race as "non-competitive" to adding other runners efforts to show Rauschenberg's effort was not too special, but then removing evidence that, hey, maybe it was special (the 5 hour average for Rick Worley's marathon effort, which puts Rauschenbergs effort into perspective - the same reasoning you give for including the other runner's efforts, which are no where near the same) to continually making references to rules of conduct for wikipedia which you yourself flaunt by using a home IP address, then your work IP address and then sockpuppets to make changes and then agree with them, it is maddening how unbelievably nonlucid you are.

As for the race company, that is what Ragnar is, the job which Rauschenberg moved to Utah for. He wasn't a "race promoter" as you continually try to edit. What the hell is a race promoter anyway. Regardless of what Rauschenberg does now, there is ample evidence that Rauschenberg moved to UT in 2008 to begin working for Ragnar.

You argue the most inane things which I can see i am not the only one on here who has had trouble understanding WHY you feel those small particular points are important. You would argue that water is not wet simply so someone would have to make a more reliable source posting proving that ye,s water is indeed, wet. And I don't think that Rauschenberg's family or friends would need to edit that posting.

Speaking of the latter, you, the purveyor of all things reliable and proof, have absolutely no proof whatsoever that Rauschenberg's familiar or friends make any edits. Do you need to be an unabashedly Rauschenberg-hater in order to make edits? Tell us what exactly did Rauschenberg do to upset you so? And in the meantime, while you work out that angst, why not leave the page alone where it correctly is? all you have done is created one of the longest editing wars ever over a runner who probably does not care one lick about wikipeida. Now I have no "proof" about that other than the fact I met him at one of his speeches and asked him if he knew he had a wikipedia page and he laughed and said "Dear God. I can only imagine what they are saying about me!"75.169.94.36 (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Now I have no "proof" about that other than the fact I met him at one of his speeches and asked him if he knew he had a wikipedia page and he laughed and said "Dear God. I can only imagine what they are saying about me!"

Not that it's directly relevant to the editing of the page, but your comment provides insight into why this war is ongoing. Knowing Dane and having watched the debate over this page from the beginning, I can absolutely guarantee that Dane was the original author and a primary editor of the page. The original article was all about his parents and upbringing and was packed with details that no one else would have even known. Dane's accomplishments notwithstanding, he's a guy who wrote his own wikipedia page and then pretended to not have even seen it. That blend of self promotion and arrogance gets under people's skin, and Dane developed some critics among those of us that had front row seats for the press barrage and self congratulations that started as soon as he began running the marathons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.138 (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to 75.169.94.36: First, please note that either Dane or his brother Gregg [5] created User:Fiddy2 to create and edit this article as if it were a personal Facebook page, contrary to WP:COI. Second, we all agree that DR worked hard to promote fiddy2. The fact is that he solicited speaking engagements, and they did not come his way unsolicited. So I don't understand why 75.169.94.36 would want to remove that key fact. Third, I don't know if DR ever actually became an employee of Ragnar. He has blog postings in late 2007 saying that he was in Utah and some later posting saying Ragnar was lining up speaking engagements for him, but there is nothing saying that he went on the payroll there as an employee. All of his activities since spring 2008 have been as a solo race promoter, not as a "company." In response to your concerns, I have deleted Utah from the sentence -- there is no reason to tarnish Ragnar's reputation. Finally, if we can't get agreement on an issue (like when did the charity component get added), let's stick to the results of the mediation. Thanks. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sat silent for quite sometime but now I need to jump in here. 1. How can you say that "and they did not come his way unsolicited." How do you know how speaking engagements came to Rauschenberg? Are you omnipotent (which your posts seem to show you think you are as you make lots of statements without the proof you seem to require from everyone else on here) or have talked to ever Race Director Rauschenberg ran with? 2. Exactly what proof would be needed to show Rauschenberg was employed by Ragnar. You can see here: http://www.performancefootwear.net/runningclub.html That at one point Rauschenberg was the contact for a certain race for Ragnar. IS that not enough proof? 3. And in my own reading, it seems quite clear Rauschenberg came across the idea to run 52 Marathons and then approached L'Arche when he was in the planning stages of doing so. What idea has an exact moment of genesis? Don't most ideas hatch over time? Does it matter when L'Arche was added? It is rather irrelevant except to make it sound as if L'Arche came on board after the entire task was under way which would be against most of the things actually written about Rauschenberg throughout the year. 4. Finally, how do we know that Rauschenberg created this page? We don't. If I had to guess, I am assuming he would be quite happy with it never existing. It is hardly a great promoter of anything Rauschenberg has done. 70.192.118.79 (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am sure that user Fiddy2 that created this page, created the now deleted Fiddy2 page, knew intimate details of Dane's life such as his 800m time, his amateur boxing record, his rugby "career", that he clerked for some random judge, that he broke his collar bone 3 times, that he tore his quadriceps muscle, that he was single, etc. was some other dude.

This is an encyclopedia and should read like and encyclopedia article, which means the article should be substantially changed. The current article is an embarrassment to Dane. A real article would be: "Dane Rauschenberg (born 1976) is an American amateur long distance runner who ran 52 marathons in 52 weeks in 2006 while raising over $40,000 for L'Arch in Mobile Alabama." To the extent anything he has done has been notable that is it. All this stuff about running marathons in X time in 2001 or 2004 and finishing in X plac3, that he had travel expenses during Fiddy2, that he sent out press releases, got free meals, etc is just nonsense. What Dane did in 2006 was impressive and quite generous -- that can't be argued. Those are the things that are notable and were reported in mainstream media outlets. The rest of the stuff? Who cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pats2001 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pats2001, you need to realize that Wikipedia's notability criteria are for the purpose of determining whether an article should exist, not the content of the article. What you wrote that the real article should be is a great opening paragraph. Then, in the rest of the article, it should list biographical information of the sort that you'd find in a typical encyclopedia article. Open up a paper encyclopedia & look at the article on Franklin D. Roosevelt - does it say where he went to college? It's not like going to college is notable, but it's biographic information of the sort that someone who is interested in finding out about FDR would want to have. Sure, Dane isn't FDR, but the advantage of Wikipedia is that there aren't the space constraints of a paper encyclopedia - you can write a full-sized article about anybody you think is noteworthy enough to include. CruiserBob (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The reason why we believe that User:Fiddy2 was DR and/or Gregg Rauschenberg is that because he said so in a legally binding statements here and here. (The second link takes you to a page where DR claimed to have taken a photograph of himself while running the Buffalo Marathon.)
  2. DR did not give a talk at all 52 marathons. The race directors that I have questioned about it did confirm that he solicited them for a speaking opportunity along with a fee waiver. DR is not listed on the Ragnar Relay website as a part of its staff, and whatever relationship he had with Ragnar was very brief, assuming that there was one. The mediation shifted through a lot of this, so let us not reopen it now.
  3. I agree that the entire debate over the article has wasted valuable resources, which is a good reason for WP:COI (prohibition on writing about yourself) and WP:ATH (only cover "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.") But if we have to have an article, let's make sure that it is not an autobiographical fawning over a middle of the pack runner. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability comes before wp:athlete. The coverage of the subject in reliable sources establishes notability, thus making his not meeting wp:athlete a non-issue --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear that Notability comes before wp:athlete. For example, a lot of professors get local media coverage and web coverage. However, if a professor can't meet WP:PROF, it will be deleted, unless the person is know for some other, non-professorial reason. The same should apply for wp:athlete. Otherwise, every middle of the pack runner can submit a paragraph to a "tell your story" blog on a marathon website and then claim to meet WP:N for his own self-written Wikipedia article. At a time when another person had already run marathons on 159 consecutive weekends and two other people were running 50 marathons on 50 consecutive days, the fiddy2 project was not that remarkable. Fiddy2 did not gain "hard news" coverage, but rather coverage that was tongue in cheek or was ancillary to the coverage of the particular marathon. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- I have a lot of trouble with notability. I don't get it to be honest. He ran 52 marathons in a year. Big deal. Does anyone really think that's notable? At least two people did 50 marathons in 50 days the exact same year. The claims that it was the fastest ever is bogus. One, it can't be verified. Two, it's not an established competition that anyone else does. Chuck Engle ran the same number of marathons substantially faster, but that doesn't count because he didn't do them all on a sunday? I don't get it. BTW, I'm pretty sure that the guy who wrote "I sat silent for awhile" is actually Dane, which is really really funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.138 (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. Articles are not created solely for someone who has run the most marathons, the fastest marathons, the highest marathons or the longest marathons. Superlatives are a wonderful claim of notability, but to establish notability, the gold standard is coverage in sources and Rauschenberg meets that standard with flying colors. As WP:N states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." If you truly believe that Rauschenberg does not meet this standard despite articles and items about him and his running efforts in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Washington Post, National Public Radio and Sports Illustrated, the place to go is WP:AFD, but please note that you will have to use your real Username. This IP address has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges and it looks like we have another sockpuppet. Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Chuck Engle got significant press coverage while he was running the same number of marathons substantially faster, write an article about him, 'cause he's notable. All the folks who are waving the notability flag around about this article really need to give it up. There was an AfD discussion about this article - it was determined that Rauschenberg meets notability criteria. Maybe in 2015 Wikipedia folks will decide that he's not notable any more. But without an AfD that decides he's not notable, bringing up notability is a great way to convince me that you don't understand Wikipedia well enough that I should bother paying attention to your arguments. CruiserBob (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--- I can promise you that I am not a sockpuppet. You have absolutely no basis for the accusation other than that there are people who agree with me. Blocks on this IP address have nothing to do with me or with edits to this site or even to sites that are vaguely related. Finally, all I did was express my opinion on the talk page. I've never vandalized or made gratuitous edits to this page and, I'm fairly certain, that no one else has from this IP address either. If you don't like my opinion, I quite frankly don't care, but please don't accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a sockpuppet. I'm not terribly swayed by the news coverage. The Sports Illustrated coverage incidenatally wasn't exalting the achievement so much as it was questioning why anyone would commit to achieving it. The other articles were, like this page, self-authored. I recognize that it's still coverage and has persuaded you that it satisfies notability, but I disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.138 (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on both actions and the history of the IP, I have added the address to the latest sockpuppet investigation that revolves around this article and I will get around to formally notifying you as soon as possible on your talk page to provide you with an opportunity to offer your explanations where it might help prevent a block. I don't know what sources you're referring to, but the article in The Washington Post before he started the 52 marathons and the article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette when he was about to finish the sequence, can hardly be said to be "self-authored" as you claim, and that's just two sources on either end of many others. Notability is based on coverage in reliable and verifiable sources and these articles are undeniably in-depth independent coverage of Rauschenberg. Even if you deem the Sports Illustrated piece about him as being "questioning why anyone would commit to achieving" 52 marathons in 52 weeks, the piece is about Rauschenberg. I'm sure that there are many other runners whose accomplishments are somehow superior to Rauschenberg's who don't have articles. While that may be unfortunate, that has nothing to do with Rauschenberg. I don't know Rauschenberg, I've never heard of him in any other context, I have no reason to write favorably about him or to trash him. If you can read notability policy and honestly believe that Rauschenberg does not meet the standard, please use a real Username and put this article up for deletion rather than try to dump on the guy. Alansohn (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Alansohn misses the point, the suggestion in his last sentence presupposes that DR will not make unpleasant contact with the person nominating the article for deletion off-Wikipedia. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N states, "announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." The Washington Post, Sports Illustrated and other coverage of Dane fall into that category. Most of it was a human interest tangent to coverage of the local marathon, either as a pre-write or post-race story. None of the active editors in Wikiproject Running bothered to start an article about DR. If DR had not violated WP:COI this article would not be here. At best, DR should get a sentence in the Marathon article along with the other multiple marathon efforts per WP:BLP1E.  66.173.140.100 (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's check all running-related articles and make sure it was started by an editor from the running project! --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole anti-Rauschenburg charade by User:Racepacket has descended from pathetic to disgusting. A claim that opening an AfD on this article "presupposes that DR will not make unpleasant contact with the person nominating the article for deletion off-Wikipedia" is the kind of baseless slander that belongs nowhere, let alone on Wikipedia. Sadly, the claim that the defamation using sockpuppets is justified based on threats of physical violence has been made previously by Racepacket and his gaggle of socks. If Rauschenberg is monitoring this article, he would be hard-pressed not to see that the effort to actively defame him is coming from the same person who claims to be unwilling to nominate the article for deletion, but is the same person who nominated the article for deletion in the first place and then fraudulently voted multiple times using at least three different sockpuppets. A second nomination would not be necessary to incur the wrath of Rauschenberg. The claim that these sources are not the independent and in-depth coverage of the subject (remember, you earlier claimed that Rauschenberg had written all of these articles himself) required to establish notability and that his notability is based on a single event is clearly in conflict with any reading of the relevant policies. Racepacket, if you want the article deleted and you actually believe that the article does not satisfy the notability criteria, just submit your second nomination for deletion of this article and convince the Wikipedia masses that the article should be deleted and be done with this game. Alansohn (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is hard to tell whether Dane is attempting to escalate or de-escalate this dispute with his June 8, 2009 blog post, "I tried to get back into boxing last summer [2008] but after just one workout where I too quickly tried to stat hitting the heavy bag, I was left with some serious aches and pains that made me swear it off for a while . I know the reason: I had simply come back too fat and too hard. But by the time I had healed I was back into my running routine. No more boxing that summer. Too bad. I have a mean hook." He also posted a picture of what he claims is himself in a boxing ring. The guy is very difficult to read, but certainly loves to write about himself. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any individual is more than entitled to write anything they want on their blog. I fail to see any evidence of any dispute -- other than an imagined one -- based on his discussion of his boxing and his physical condition. Your claim that there is a threat of violence against anyone who starts an AfD is baseless and defamatory. If you want to have the article deleted, use your real Username, start the AfD and convince the masses that the multiple reliable and verifiable in-depth sources directly about the subject in major independent does not meet the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he wrote "too fat" and meant it, then it is a promising de-escalation. If this was one of his many typographical errors and he actually meant "too fast", then it may be an escalation (like the word "stat" instead of "start".) Rather than try to understand DR, we should focus on point is that there has been a successful mediation, and we should all live with it. Adding promotions for vanity press books, future races or other non-encyclopedic content is not helping the process. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Who is[edit]

Some comments in the above section questions whether the "pro-DR" editor is really DR. According to DR's blog, he travels between Utah and Pennsylvania on his race promotion efforts. Here is the Whois breakdown of the pro-DR IP addresses:

75.169.94.36 Salt Lake City Utah
198.36.194.3 Qwest - CONCOURSE COMMUNICATIONS
70.192.118.79 West Linn, Oregon
143.231.249.138 US House of Representatives
75.169.58.50 Sandy, Utah
75.169.89.100
198.202.202.21 Denver International Airport
12.105.229.198 San Diego, CA - a day after Dane ran a marathon there
98.204.129.159 Arlington, VA (Comcast) in April 2008

This all but one are consistent with someone loggin in at the airports and traveling around Utah and race sites, like DR has done.

Isn't the fundamental problem that DR could not participate in the mediation because of WP:COI, but instead of living with the mediator's article, he has been picking away at the outcome ever since starting with [6] days after the mediation closed. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was a mediation and everyone had a chance to participate. Everyone please learn to live with the results, and stop using downtime at the airport terminal hotspot to seek to slant the article. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like I am one of the Pro-Dr people according to 66.173.140.100. How West Linn, Oregon, the H of R or Arlington go along with the proposed travel schedule from UT to PA is beyond my comprehension. In fact, how a San Diego IP address edited the page TWO DAYS after Rauschenberg was running a marathon there can be tied to Rauschenberg is pretty tenuous at best. San Diego has 3,000,000 people. Rauschenberg both spoke and signed books at the marathon expo. Isn't there a much greater chance that someone residing in San Diego made "pro-DR" edits two days after Rauschenberg was there rather than Rauschenberg making them himself? Yes there is but facts and logic do not seem to come into play with your editing. Unfortunately for you, I am not Rauschenberg but that won't make you stop from doing your best to defame him.

FYI, Rauschenberg has spoken in this area often too and we have a population over a million in the valley. But keep believing he is the one trying to keep you from changing the article how you seem fit. It is actually cute how obsessed with Rauschenberg you are. I think he should be the one worried about how YOUR behavior might be around HIM if the two of you should meet. 75.169.94.36 (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually the time difference between the San Diego marathon and the post is only a day -- Wikipedia works off of London, England time zone, which is 8 hours later than San Diego time. The 98.204.129.159 edits are from a time frame where he was promoting two small races in Herndon, VA and Washington, DC. It is now clear that 143.231.249.138 is not DR.
The set of edits have an on-going theme: the claim that DR did this for charity as his primary motive, when he only converted it into charity fundraiser after months of pestering his business contacts, friends and running club for non-charity financial support. After establishing a relationship with the Mobile AL Chapter of his charity which offered a Run4Free Program, he would never answer why he wanted donors to make donations to that chapter rather than the local chapter of the same charity. Since the mediation, the set of edits tried to add "plugs" for his new book and for his forthcoming race. Likewise, since 2007, his website and blog shifted emphasis from raising funds for the charity to selling copies of his book, promoting his race, and seeking speaking engagements. The set of edits in question have similarly shifted, but retain the common trait of placing DR in the most favorable light, avoiding the charity question, and avoiding mention that other runners have done the consecutive marathon feat in a manner that perhaps overshadows his achievement. I am glad to hear that he has made new friends in the valley, as fiddy2 burned some bridges for him in DC.

{The following comment was inserted by 75.169.89.100 in the middle of the comment inserted by 66.173.140.100|talk]]) 12:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC):}

  • "Pestering"? Again your omniscience viewpoint shows through again. You seem to be the only one who claims to know specifics about Rauschenberg but clearly cloud your own judgment. You have convinced yourself that Rauschenberg "converted" his efforts into a charitable one after "months" of non-charity financial support (which you seem to feel there is no need to prove). Even your own quotes from Rauschenberg that you fall back onto say that L'Arche was added a few months into the planning. It doesn't say that Rauschenberg hadn't concentrated his efforts on this charity prior to officially adding it. It is hardly unreasonable to believe that contact was made, a decision had to pass through channels to work together and then it was made official. Your assertion that Rauschenberg ran under the Run4Free Program has absolutely no merit other than the fact that you think he did so. As for why he would not want them to make donations to any charity (which again has no proof or backing up), I am guessing because he was raising money for the L'Arche in Mobile, Alabama. Not the L'Arche chapter in DC. And why the one in Mobile? Because that was the group he came in contact with while planning the 52 Marathons as they put on their own marathon in Mobile. All this information is very easy to find in a variety of places, many of which you reference and then ignore or read however you like.
Response: Please cite to any place where DR has addressed this point in an interview, blog, etc. The big claim that DR made was that he was making this big sacrifice and undertaking a "unique" project for charity, and sought publicity and funding on that basis. However, he stated that he added fundrasing months after he started planning the project. He then went to his friends with a French-sounding charity "L'Arche Mobile" without explaining that it was the Mobile AL chapter of a charity that also had local chapters, and DR asked that they help raise funds (for example having his girlfriend volunteer to do beauty salon work and having his running club put on a fundraising race.) Even after adopting the charity, he continued to ask unsuccessfully for assistance in offseting his travel expenses, etc. I suspect that DR did not research what other runners had done or were doing before he announced his "unique" goal, and that he later had to spin when asked about the others. All of this compares with someone like Terry Fox who was clearly motivated by charity. We don't know the full story about the relationship between DR and the Mobile AL chapter or what DR received for pledging to raise funds for that specific chapter. We do know that Run4Free has an option to fund travel to the Cayman Islands, and that DR travelled to the Cayman Islands to run one of the 52 marathon. So, was DR being a humanitarian or being a paid spokesperson? Was fiddy2 trying to publicize disabled kids or to publicize DR? Fiddy2 lacks the transparency normally required of charitable solicitations, and we can't get the data. For us, this means that we should keep the article neutral on these points. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for self-published, your continued efforts to denigrate everything Rauschenberg does are really bordering on laughable. Absolutely it is seen that the publisher of Rauschenberg's books is hardly Random House or Penguin Books but does that mean it is self-published? Not at all. It is simply published by a smaller publisher.
Response: There is a spectrum between the largest publishing house and pure vanity press houses. Both large and small publishing houses still vet books and hire professional editors to go through and fact check and copy edit them. Did that happen to DR's book? Legitimate publishing houses have sales and advertising budgets and do not have to create WP:COI Wikipedia articles to publicize their books. DR's book is the second book ever published by this particular house, and in these key aspects DR's book is on the self-published end of the spectrum. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So in 2007, after the year of fund raising was over, his blog shifted emphasis away from his fund-raising efforts? Even if that is 100% true, so? It is HIS BLOG! And the edits have usually only been done to try to counter the negative slant you continually put on Rauschenberg and the sanctimonious manner with which you act (e.g., I am going to delete the Drake Well Marathon references because I think they need to go).
Response: DR's goal was to raise $52,000 "during 2006." The purpose of the fiddy2 website and his other publicity efforts was purportedly to get the public's attention for that goal. Some have offered that as an excuse for the WP:COI violation in creating this Wikipedia article. I don't buy it. I suspect the article was created to bolster his book proposal, which at the time was being shopped to legitimate publishers. Now two years later, the quest for reaching $52K has gone the way of OJ's quest to find his ex-wife's killer. The book landed with a publisher that can't get it on Amazaon.com. And so we get IP edits seeking to "plug" the book and DR's new venture. The "plugs" were removed for WP:COI and WP:SPAM concerns. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the Drake wWll Marathon, you ask what makes it more special than Dean Karnazes and his crew organizing 40 plus marathons. Well, you both answered your question and forgot crucial points at the same time. First of all, while running the other 52 marathons, and working full-time, Rauschenberg had to actually get a course certified and get other runners to run it and direct the Drake Well Marathon. He did not, unlike Dean K, have a crew (even though you again need to mention his "suffering" mother or some other ridiculous adjective that I am not wasting my time to go and find as a crew). He also did not have the luxury of running on already designed courses made by the RDs of those races. Hardly that difficult to follow a race course which has already been predesigned now is it? (At least in the framework of "designing" courses).
Response: You raise a valid point about the Dean K article, and I have tried to clean that one up as well. It is also suffering from a SPA who edited it by lifting portions of Dean K's website and removed coverage of his lawsuit. Objectively, Dean K spent years lining up sponsorship funding for his 50/50/50 project so he had more resources than fiddy2. Fiddy2 was outspent both on public relations and on race day logistics. Each had a designated charity. In 2006, they competed to capture the public's attention and resources. That does not mean that DR was wrong in following fiddy2 through to completion or in using the DWM as a fundraiser. (Dean K also required the people that ran the marathon each day with him to donate to his charity.) However, the consequence for us here is to use editorial judgment to give the general public an objective encyclopedia giving the appropriate amount of coverage to topics. The two sentences currently in the article are verifiable and objective. I happen to believe they detract from a discussion of Fiddy2 as an athletic achievement, but I can see how others might have the opposite view, and I have no strong views on it. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to have the consecutive marathon feat of others placed in there, you cannot deign to remove the time in which those marathons were run. Sorry but it can't be both ways. If on one hand you are going to call Rauschenberg a middle of the pack runner (which he may have been in 1978 but sure as hell is not in 2006 when he ran the 52 marathons) then you most assuredly cannot leave out the 5 and 6 hour finish times of Rick Worley that you felt the need to include.
And as for making friends in the valley, I never mentioned anything about that. Simply making statements about the truth when you seem to be adding your own opinions about thought processes of others as if you were in their minds when they were made. Your god complex is a little disconcerting and unfortunately has taken over what should simply be an article about merits and facts into constantly needing to defend claims you have made. Unfortunately many of us have gotten sucked into it when Your claims should simply be dismissed and deleted as biased and baseless. I man, come on! to take a blog that talks about cross-training and take a quote from it to try and say Rauschenberg will harm someone who tries to change his wikipedia page?! Are you utterly daft?!
I simply think that every edit made by you and your sockpuppets should simply be undone without conversation. It is clear that you can't think properly when Rauschenberg is concerned (did he steal your girlfriend or something?) and a discussion turns into nothing but debating what your interpretation of something which is crystal clear.75.169.89.100 (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Take a deep breath and remember that under WP:COI neither DR nor members of his immediate family should edit this article. That is true about creating articles, and it is true about editing articles. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{end of insert, back to end of earlier 66.173.140.100 12:27 comment}

All of this is not relevant to the task at hand, which is to keep the article objective and verifiable. The set of edits in question are working against that objective.66.173.140.100 (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Some of the IP editors listed in "Who is Who is" have questioned what are relable sources. WP:RS was not drafted with the goal of protecting Wikipedia users from a determined individual that seeks to boot-strap himself into celebrity. However, there are several helpful points there including "Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." The Washington Post is more reliable than Rauschenberg's blog, unless that first-person statement is an "admission against interest." However, not all published sources are in fact legitimate secondary sources. For example, for a while the article quoted a story that was published in the local Arlington throw-away advertising publication that was written by one of Dane's close friends as a free opinion columnist instead of as a paid independent journalist. We need to watch out for bad sources in situations when someone is trying to document his own fame. The mediation did a good job of shifting through a lot of the bad stuff. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:RS perhaps hundreds of times. I know that the Washington Post, National Public Radio, Sports Illustrated and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are just some of the reliable and verifiable sources that provided in-depth, independent coverage of Rauschenberg from before the start of his first race to the conclusion of his 52nd. Your claims about the veracity of article in these sources is just that: your claims. Declarations against interest may address issues with hearsay in a court of law, which is great for an attorney. Wikipedia:Blogs as sources is clear that we can't use a blog "as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material", and the material quoted is from the subject. This material is also covered under WP:SELFPUB. Unless you're planning to sue Rauschenberg in court, the WP:RS claims don't stand. Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with User:Alansohn about reliable sources, but we disagree on how to apply them. A hard news story by a professional journalist on NPR is a reliable source, but an off-the-cuff remark by an NPR announcer during transition cross-talk is not. We wasted a lot of time shifting through the stuff that DR has thrown into his Wikipedia autobiography, and I think we've narrowed down what is credible. I believe his blog posting that the charity component was added several months after he started his project, even though DR skated past that fact in his FAQ and in some interviews. He has never explained the terms of his relationship with the Mobile AL chapter of his charity, and none of the journalists set out to investigate that question. A lot of the articles write about DR are local publications seeking to include human interest points into the pre-marathon or post-marathon feature story about the local marathon. Again, they do not represent in-depth independent coverage, but instead merely repeat what DR told them about a rather odd project. Since DR did not volunteer the fact that others were doing the same thing faster, or for more consecutive weekend or on 50 consecutive days, they didn't bother to make the news judgments that professional journalist usually perform. After reading through all of the stuff, a pattern emerges regarding what was credible and what was DR's spin. The fact that User:Alansohn has had to read through WP:RS hundreds of times shows that these problems can arise in a large number of Wikipedia articles. It is just more difficult in the case where someone wrote his own Wikipedia autobiography. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that I have had to read through WP:RS hundreds of times is because I know exactly what it means, but there are editors who repeatedly misrepresent what it says and I have to do my best to try to see how anyone could have possibly read WP:RS to mean what they insist it does, almost always unsuccessfully, as is the case here. There is a special noticeboard where those with a legitimate concern (or even a very sharp axe to grind with the subject of the article) can ask the experts if a particular source is reliable. While everything I have ever read or seen on Wikipedia tells me that the sources here are reliable, you and all of your friends are free to ask this question on reliable sources, or start another AfD for that matter). Other than that, you are wasting your time here with the claim that these sources in major newspapers, magazines and on national radio are unreliable. Alansohn (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Event[edit]

I have a proposal for ending this. Rauschenberg is only known for the fiddy2 project and has not done anything notable since. How about following the Wikipedia policy of incorporating him into the Marathon article and not have a separate free-standing article that is causing so much aggrevation? 158.59.27.249 (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you still believe that Rauschenberg is not notable, end this game and start a second AfD. You can make all the claims you want about BLP1E and how he's not notable and how he will beat up people who start AfDs and see if there is a community consensus that supports your argument for deletion. If you are unwilling to do that, why bother with repeated claims of non-notability if you are unwilling to use the real username and start the process, as was done before. Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than Mr. Alansohn, is there anyone who thinks that there is something notable here other than a person running 52 marathons in 2006 (a year when two people ran 50 marathons in 50 consecutive days)? 158.59.27.249 (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point on Notability here. WP:NOTE is criteria for whether a topic merits an article, not for the content of the article. More than once, it has been shown that Rauschenberg's fiddy2 project generated press coverage about Rauschenberg required to meet the criteria for notability. If you prune all the non-fiddy2 stuff from the article, then it's not an encyclopedia article about Rauschenberg, it's a stub about fiddy2. Then someone will add in material about Rauschenberg to fill in the article. Also, your parenthetical comment is irrelevant to the rest of your question. If those events generated enough press coverage to make them notable, they should have articles too. If they didn't, their existence isn't relevant to coverage of Rauschenberg's project. CruiserBob (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dane's 2006 Drake Well Marathon[edit]

Some of the comments above question whether we have too many details in the article. The one area where the article could clearly cut back is the discussion of the marathon run on his home town high school track that he organized for less than two dozen people in 2006. Dean Karnazes and his crew organized about 40 marathons in different states in 2006, yet that is besides the point of his 50/50 project. Whether DR's mother, aunt, or hometown friends put on a marathon for 20 people is completely unencyclopedic and should be deleted. Unless someone can explain why this belongs in the article and is consistent with Wikipedia policy, I will delete it. Contributions/66.173.140.100 (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information is encyclopedic, and was covered by multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Do not delete it without consensus to do so. Alansohn (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am asking for consensus, because someone above suggested there was too much detail in the current article. Let's hear from more people whether it is appropriate to single out the Drake Well Marathon. I think it detracts from the article and trivializes the athletic achievement being discussed, but Alansohn wants it kept in for some unstated reason. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask for consensus. But you're unlikely to get it. While there have been a couple of suggestions that there might be too much detail, I think I've addressed that point adequately in my earlier response to Pats2001 - too much detail would be including his favorite foods and his dog's name. Including information about a race he organized in order to allow him to complete his goal is a relevant detail. That Dean Karnazes was involved in organizing marathons while he was doing his 50/50 project is irrelevant to Dean's 50/50 project, because those marathons would have existed (and he probably would have been involved in their organization) whether he was doing his 50/50 project or not. Dane came up with Drake Well because he needed a marathon that weekend - if not for Dane's Fiddy2 project, the Drake Well Marathon wouldn't have existed. CruiserBob (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CruiserBob, you are missing the time sequence here. The mediation result included a brief, two-sentence mention of the Drake Well Marathon. Months later, someone added a paragraph "plugging" both Dane's new book and a new summertime marathon that he is promoting which happens to also be called "the Drake Well Marathon." That paragraph was deleted twice. Now a legitimate question arises whether leaving the name "Drake Well Marathon" in the article somehow gives free publicity or credibility to Rauschenberg's new commercial effort. As a compromise, how about changing "Rauschenberg organized the Drake Well Marathon on his hometown's ..." to read "Rauschenberg organized a marathon on his hometown's ..." The name of the marathon is completely irrelevant to the article. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a legitimate question, but the answer is whether or not Rauschenberg gains free publicity or credibility is irrelevant. The name of the race was appropriate before Rauschenberg's new commercial effort began. It continues to be appropriate unless something happens that somehow causes the name of the race to be a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Incidental publicity and credibility is not a violation of Wikipedia policies. For example, if Steve Jobs starts a new company, the name of the company is going to be included in the Steve Jobs article, because it's relevant content, even though Jobs gets a bit of free publicity from it. In the case of this article, if we don't include the name of the race Rauschenberg organized, someone reading the article is very likely to say "He organized a marathon. What marathon was it?" It is our goal as editors to make sure the article answers any obvious questions - this is an obvious unanswered question if we cut the name of the race. CruiserBob (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection[edit]

  • This may be a temporary fix, but the problem is that Dane and Gregg Rauschenberg have been treating this article as if it were their personal facebook page. That is disgusting and should not be tolerated. Their immature actions reflect very poorly on L'Arche and Ragnar, and the more that they try to buff up the Rauschenberg image, the deeper they dig their hole. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary because you obviously only wish to try and denigrate Rauschenberg with the edits which are obviously without merit and personal. You have absolutely no proof to say that either Dane, or his "brother" Gregg are doing any of this editing. Pretty ridiculous really. A quick google search of Rauschenberg shows he is quite notable and probably doesn't need wikipedia to "buff up" his image.24.252.159.82 (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above comment was made from an IP address located within a 100 mile radius of Rauschenberg's home town of Titusville PA at a time that he was reportedly in the area. Dane and/or Gregg Rauschenberg did most of the editing to create this article as indicated by their disclaimer of copyright on logos and photos they uploaded to Wikipedia while they were using a shared, single purpose sign-ons instead of IP address editing. According to the theories discussed above, they created the Wikipedia article to "buff up" their book proposal in early 2007, which was ultimately rejected by established, reputable publishing houses. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur. It is certain that Rauschenberg was in Titusville PA on August 9, so it is very odd that an IP address in the western Pennsylvania/eastern Ohio area would leave a comment here on August 10, just as an IP address in San Diego would leave a comment here on the day after Rauschenberg ran the San Diego Marathon. While it is admirable that Rauschenberg travels around the country to go to various races, that should not be used as a ruse to create the impression that there is nation-wide support for his efforts to taint Wikipedia with self-promotion. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

Recently there has been a sharp, unmistakable rise of controversy surrounding Dane's unverified claims of solo running the 2010 American Odyssey Relay. No matter what you think about the guy, he has not addressed the controversy or provided further evidence to support his claims, so I believe the a Controversy section is justified. I have added one. 12.170.58.26 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing attention to content cited by a self published source. It has been removed, and will be continued to do so until it is verified by a reliable source. See the guidelines on biography of living persons. --CutOffTies (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems particularly ironic when the removed content resided on an encyclopedia entry of a man who's biggest claim to fame is a self-published book. The cheating controversy is a very real thing, and Dane is getting lambasted on all sides by several prominent members of the running community. Should that not be chronicled? Can the content be re-added without the inclusion of the blog or spreadsheet?
Or, if not, can his entire Wiki page be deleted (citing WP:SELFPUB), seeing as his self-published book is unduly self-serving? 12.170.58.26 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based on an extensive number of reliable and verifiable sources from newspapers and other independent publications about the article's subject. Negative claims, such as the ones you have been trying to add, require strong independent sourcing from reliable and verifiable sources, in full compliance with Wikipedia policy. Any such material reinserted to the article without the required reliable sourcing will be removed. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protected[edit]

Remove section Dane Rauschenberg#CIA Employment, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. This is a contentious claim and it is not properly sourced. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT remove section Dane Rauschenberg#CIA Employment. The only contentious aspect is that Rauschenberg probably did not work for the CIA in the capacity described in the broadcast report. What is not in question is that Rasucenberg made the claim, had it broadcast and is most likely very embarrassed about it. Look at the history of the talk page and this article. There is much contention about the validity of Rauschenberg's running projects since they were not certified by any ultra-marathon organization or independently verified. Yet this page lives on based on references to self-published books, promotional material and unverified claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.156.228.95 (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published material is acceptable in some instances, see WP:SELFPUB. OTOH, contentious material such as this one, is not acceptable per WP:BLP unless impeccably sourced. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reference has the broadcast date, the station the program and a link to the archive. Can't get too much impeccably sourced than that. Here's an example of a link that isn't. News Channel 8. That's the only description for one of Rauschenberg's references. Just because you do not agree with the nature content, don't try and hide it. It sounds like you are a Dane Rauschenberg fan, and if so, more power to you. But Mr. Rauschenberg has claimed to be something he isn't, and that speaks directly to his credibility. The CIA Employment section needs to stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.156.228.155 (talk • contribs)

We are usually strict when dealing with sourcing in BLPs. If this can be reliably sourced and shown to satisfy WP:BLP then perhaps it can go back in. But as Cwobeel says, the onus is on the person adding content to find a suitable source for it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is far from "done". The source is valid, properly referenced, neutral and even backed up by Mr. Rauschenberg's Wikipedia:SELFPUB books. The only possible way that information makes it into that broadcast is for Mr. Rauschenberg to have said and written about it. Should we remove references to Brian Williams because he regrets saying them?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.156.228.155 (talk • contribs)
The difference is that we have sources other than Williams that describe them, and thus attesting for its notability. In our case here, we have zero sources that discuss it. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero sources" - now you are in the world of Wikipedia:Vandalism. The link to Rasuchenberg claiming to be a CIA officer was from a reputable broadcast source, an air date, and a link to the archive. He said it. You are obviously not neutral. Please refrain from Wikipedia:Vandalism on talk pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.156.228.119 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dane Rauschenberg. 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) 01:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dane_Rauschenberg&oldid=1209976246"