Talk:Kelcy Warren/Archive 1

BLP guidelines

Three times removed controversy associated with Dakota Access Pipeline. This is a BLP and should adhere to guidelines on BLP. The controversy is with the pipeline and has a page for not only the pipeline, but the protest associated with it. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

My edits to this page

In regard to property pwned, I put the two Texas properties together in the same line, and the Honduras island at the end. I also changed "located near" to just "near" as that's obvious. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Controversy, BLP guidelines, and reversed edits

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

---

Two of those Dakota Access edits were mine. Mr. Warren's ownership of Dakota access is of far greater social and historical importance than his ownership of Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) which is extensively discussed. The vast majority of people have never heard of ETP, whereas Dakota Access LLC has current and lasting importance. Similarly, the controversy regarding his financial relationships and the approval of pipeline projects are both historically important and well and objectively documented. Per The Guardian UK article, the controversy is indeed with Kelcy Warren the individual, and no one is disputing the federal disclosures. Per BLP guidelines, the edits were neutral, verifiable, and provides necessary balance to he article. Currently, Kelcy Warren's entry reads more like a love letter, with discussion of the value of his home and the ranking of his wealth, than a BLP. This isn't about politics or righting wrongs, as you suggest, it's about objective documentation of a historically significant individual. Rsiemens (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)RSiemens

Both edits [1] [2] were placed into a section with a heading of “controversy.” Per WP:CRITS, this should be avoided. Per WP:BLPSTYLE, both edits gave disproportionate space to a particular viewpoint on him related to the pipeline. Here is why.

The first edit starts, “Warren's company, Energy Transfer Partners, owns Dakota Access LLC, which is currently embroiled in a dispute with a number of Native American tribes in Iowa and the Dakotas who oppose the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.” This sentence speaks completely about the company. It then says Donald Trump owns stock in the company which raises a conflict of interest. Again, nothing about Warren. It attempts to paint a picture to draw the subject into being the center of a controversy which he is not simply for being the CEO or owner of the company. Also, you use the term "embroiled." Can you tell me where you got that from as it isn't in the reference? It was used by another editor on another page so maybe you got it from there?

The second edit says “Warren has been criticized for financial linkages between the Trump administration and decisions regarding the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline project.” That is NOT what the reference says. It lists his financial contributions which are already talked about on the page. Again, it tries to paint a picture when you say “warren has been criticized” when in fact the reference doesn’t criticize him or make mention of the word. This is WP:OR and is one of the core content policies on Wikipedia, especially relating to WP:BLP.

Finally, he is going to be mentioned in many publications relating to the company. He is the CEO after all. I compare this to Mark Zuckerberg and his relationship with Facebook and Oculus VR. He was in court testifying on a $4billion lawsuit that accuses the company of stealing technology. Despite that, including it in his personal page would be irresponsible. There is a mention of it on the Oculus VR page where he testified. There are pages for the pipeline and pipeline protests at this time and putting additional information here about it is only done in a way to disparage him. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, CNMall41. I'm fine with the exception you take to the first edit version; and if the word "controversy" bothers you, I suggest we change the section heading of "2016 US Presidential campaign contributions" to "Politics" or "Political Engagement" and expand the discussion there.

First, I apologize for the lack of good faith in my initial comment above and on your talk page. Seeing an editor with only a few edits coming to Wikipedia and entering negative information jumped out at me as someone trying to use Wikipedia for advocacy. Your response stats otherwise so sorry for the tone. The word "controversy" doesn't bother me. In fact, I hope the pipeline doesn't go through. The issue here is that Wikipedia has guidelines and policies to deal with instances such as this. As far as the name change, what are you proposing exactly? I'd love to discuss further. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Including information about Dakota Access and a fuller account of his political contributions is not about disparagement, nor is it "controversial" in that these contributions and relationships aren't disputed by any party, including Mr. Warren. I kept the discussion as succinct as possible-- two sentences. Given the reporting on the subject, the use of the term "criticized" is accurate, though perhaps it merits further citation. However, the term "scrutinized" would also be accurate and would allow the reader to decide if the articles are critical. If you feel this needs further citation, there is The Texas Tribune article (https://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/22/questions-surround-billionaires-role-perry-campaig/), and the duet of NY Times articles on wealthy donors (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/wealthy-families-presidential-candidates.html#donors-list) and (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?_r=0), as well as pieces in the Associated Press and Reuters that investigate his political donations. But to list all of those would indeed be disproportionate.

You are correct in that it is not controversial which is why seeing a section heading of controversy is not something that should be used. What you are stating, and the references you provide, talk about donations which are already documented on the page so I am unsure of what you are proposing here. The terms "scrutinized" and "criticized" are something we can surmise from reading various articles, but that is not what the articles say. Even the references you provide above do not use the terminology and simply talk about the donations, which again, are already talked about in the page. To put a label on the reporting is WP:OR which we cannot do.

You use Mark Zuckerberg's wiki entry as your guide. Zuckerberg's page, however, has a section entitled "Legal Controversies." The use of the term-- and the balanced examination of these issues-- are appropriate on BLPs. Facebook is a far more recognizable company than Oculus VR, so it's logical that Facebook is discussed (at length) on Mr. Zuckerberg's page. Likewise, Dakota Access is a far more recognizable company than Energy Transfer Partners. Rsiemens (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Rsiemens

Your logic is flawless, except you are mixing the two subjects. Zuckerberg does have a legal controversy section which is appropriate. These are all legal controversies that he is personally named in and they are well documented in reliable sources both in the U.S. and internationally. Some were even part of The Social Network. These are legal controversies that have been given extensive coverage, they are weighted appropriately according to Wikipedia guidelines, and they state what is documented as opposed to any summation. Warren is different in that the edits you made were your conclusion from the sources and not what they actually said, amounting to WP:OR. This is how I look at it - The pipeline is controversial, but the CEO of a company whose subsidiary owns a stake in (keep in mind they are not the only owners here) the pipeline is not inherently controversial simply for owning or being the CEO of that company. If there are specific edits you propose, I would love to discuss further. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Controversy is not limited to DAPL

As more of a reader than editor of Wikipedia (my edits are mostly limited to punctuation and spelling), may I say that I think the article as it stands does a disservice to readers by omitting the controversies around the subject?

Kelcy Warren is not merely a private individual with a business interest in a controversial project. He is a public official, serving (as the article briefly notes) since November 2015 on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission. Because of what his critics see as potential conflict of interest, his appointment was and remains directly controversial, not only as a reflection of the DAPL fight, but because of his business interests in existing and proposed pipeline projects in Texas.

If Wikipedia can't provide fair coverage of the controversy associated with a public official, then can it ever cover any controversy at all?

I hope y'all who understand the BLP rules can find a good-faith solution other than just omitting the controversy. Thanks. Pzriddle (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I removed the larger heading but left your title so that we can include this all in the same discussion. The "controversies around the subject" are mentioned in other places in Wikipedia, for instance here. You state correctly when you say "around the subject" as they are around him, but not about him. Again, he is not inherently controversial because he gave money to a politician. Even the sources are drawing an inference, but not reporting it as a controversy. Being a "public official" (which coincidentally was added to the page just a few days days ago) doesn't put you in a special category on Wikipedia regarding guidelines for biographies. In fact, Alan Grayson is a great example and even though he is a public official, negative information surrounding him is weighted appropriately. So what is "his" controversy that you want to add and what is the source that states so - and please see above so you can see the arguments that have already been made and we don't have to rehash them? Everything already being proposed is WP:OR and therefore cannot be used. No one is "just omitting the controversy" as you state as that would also be against policy/guidelines - even if this were his controversy, it would need to be weighted appropriately. Again, it needs to be his controversy before adding it would be appropriate and then it would need to be written in accordance with the previous guidelines and policies cited.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi CNMall41, Thanks again for continuing the discussion-- sorry for my slow response.

What I propose is this: The intro reads: Kelcy Lee Warren (born November 9, 1955)[2] is an American businessman, the chairman and chief executive officer of Energy Transfer Partners which owns Dakota Access, LLC, Sunoco, and Southern Union Company.

I am not sure why we would be adding what companies his company owns. This is already listed in the company page. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Let’s change the heading, “2016 US Presidential Campaign Contributions,” to “Political Activity.” This would be in keeping with other section headings for major donors on this topic-- I’m using Dan Wilks as my guide.

This seems okay. We need to keep in mind that the section should not be used as a sounding board to list all political contributions. We need to ensure that we have reliable secondary sources for the contributions. I went ahead and changed the heading.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I went to change it but went with "political contributions" as the word "activity" could mean anything involving politics. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The text in this section may be harder to agree on. Several articles about Warren use the term, “donate” which is neutral. But the NY Times more often uses negative phrases like “torrent” of cash, “pitched,” and “throwing” money to describe contributions. The Texas Tribune says Warren “ploughed” cash into campaigns, “galloping through legal minefields” to make large donations, and that candidates were “exploiting squishy” regulations in accepting his money. CBS news and others have pointed out that Trump had stock in Warren’s companies (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trumps-stock-in-dakota-access-oil-pipeline-raises-concerns/), and that Warren donated $68,000 to the RNC when Trump became the candidate in addition to the donations currently mentioned on Warren’s wiki page. The headline is “Donald Trump’s Stock in Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Raises Concerns.” The article also points out that Rick Perry serves on the board of ETP. These are all pretty negative. The Guardian UK article I reference states that "Trump... is linked to Dakota Access" through his investments in ETP and Warren's contributions.

You are correct is saying that "donate" is a neutral word which is what needs to be used. The terms "pitched", "torrent", and "throwing" are weasel words and despite being used by the source still lends undue weight and is subjective. Also, you keep bringing up Donald Trump and then mentioned Rick Perry - which subsequently someone added to the Energy Transfer company page today - which needs to be addressed with them respectively (You also stated Rick Perry "serves" on the board of ETP. However, he does not according to the reference. The edit to ETP today says that he serves on the board (present tense)). The sources show that Warren has donated to these campaigns. What the politicians have done - or what has been inferred - is not his action. It has also been covered here Dakota Access Pipeline#Political ties which is where it belongs, not in this biography simply because he is the CEO of the company.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

In the pursuit of fairness and balance we could write a thousand word essay on the tangled web, but we both want to keep it succinct. I propose: “Warren has been scrutinized for financial linkages between the Trump administration and decisions regarding the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline project. According to federal disclosure forms filed in May 2016, President Donald Trump held between $15,000 and $50,000 in stock in Energy Transfer Partners, raising conflict of interest concerns over decisions regarding the pipeline.” We’d reference the NY Times, Texas Tribune, Guardian UK, and CBS news (the story we re-posted from Reuters, so we could use them instead). If you have another word for “scrutinized” I’m open. Rsiemens (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Rsiemens

We could write an entire article on the subject, but it wouldn't be notable nor would it be neutral. It would be WP:OR which has been stated multiple times. If you can please take a look at the link as I do not believe you grasp the concept of original research. We cannot create something we infer from sources. Again, can you provide a reference that says "he" was "scrutinized" for the donations? I have looked at what you provided and conducted my own search to no avail. Also keep WP:WEIGHT in mind on this.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello CNMall41. I’ve been intentionally not editing this page in order to engage in our discussion, but I’m concerned we’re reaching an impasse and your reasoning is beginning to feel circular. You write that all of the information needs to be factual and verifiable, but when I provide citation, you write that it seems like unnecessary information. An example of this is including Dakota Access as one of Warren’s companies. Earlier, I justified this inclusion on the basis that Dakota Access is more high profile-- and arguable more historically important-- than ETP.

I suggested using “Political Activity” as a heading because it has precedent on BLPs, and you felt it was too broad, allowing for any political information to be included. But there is no reason to exclude relevant, factual, verifiable information on his political activity, and my very limited revisions fit all of those criteria.

I pointed out that “donate” is a neutral term but reliable sources chose to use more critical/negative terms to describe Warren’s financial/political relationships; rather than use their charged language, I proposed “scrutinized” which has no inherent negative connotation but underscores a level of concern that is clearly evidenced in the volume and depth of analysis. You’ve objected to the use of “scrutinized” because the word doesn’t ‘literally’ appear in the articles, but don’t want to use the words that do literally appear-- pitched, torrent, or throwing, claiming bias. In this reasoning, words that do appear in source material are biased and the words that don't appear are forbidden. However, the WP:OR does not state that language must be constrained to the exact terminology of the source, but rather that authors can’t draw a “new analysis” of their own-- and that the source must be “reliable.” The intent of the WP:OR is not to confine articles to a regurgitation of previous sources-- that would make Wikipedia unreadable. Your request for a source that specifically uses the term “scrutinized” is inappropriate unless the term itself is biased or goes beyond the intent of the source. When multiple journalists from established newspapers research and write articles on Warren’s political contributions and related activities, it’s reasonable to assert that these contributions/activities have been “examined carefully and critically” which is Webster’s definition of “scrutinize.”

Thus far the only noticeable revision to Kelcy Warren’s page has been changing the heading from 2016 Political Campaign Contributions to Political Donations. If we’re unable to reach a compromise-- and I feel I have made several concessions to do so-- we should involve a Third Opinion. Rsiemens (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)RSiemens

• User:CNMall41 is correct here. The coverage already in the article is sufficient, and drawing inferences beyond what the sources state would definitely be WP:UNDUE. Readers who are interested enough in the subject to end up here will know enough about the topic that they won't need inferences, positive or negative, spoon fed to them. However, I would change the header back to "Political activity"; that is a very common header, and contributions are one type of political activity. Again, readers are smart enough to figure out what is going on from the context and the content under the header. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I changed the heading to activity from contributions. My concern is that it invites WP:SPA accounts to believe that they should enter any and all political activity into the page. My fear is that much of it will be WP:UNDUE but I guess we can cross that bridge if we ever get there. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, I do see the term "activities" mentioned on a few others in addition to the example previously provided by Rsiemens so it does make sense to change it. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:BD2412, Thanks for weighing in. Since you’ve dipped your toe into the discussion, I’d appreciate it if you dove all the way in. I’m suggesting three edit’s to the BLP.

1. “Kelcy Lee Warren (born November 9, 1955)[2] is an American businessman, the chairman and chief executive officer of Energy Transfer Partners, Dakota Access, LLC, and Sunoco.”

Warren’s ownership of these companies is clearly documented, and though ETP is the parent, Dakota Access and Sunoco are the companies people will recognize and are therefore meaningful to readers.

2. Under the heading of “Political Activity:” Warren donated $6 million to Governor Rick Perry's presidential campaign.[15] He also donated $103,000 to (President-Elect) Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.[16] According to federal disclosure forms filed in May 2016, President Donald Trump held between $15,000 and $50,000 in stock in Warren’s company, Energy Transfer Partners. These financial ties have raised conflict of interest concerns regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The phrase “raises concern” is the language from the CBSnews article I referenced earlier and therefore not inferred. “Financial ties” is language from the Guardian article already cited. As founder, CEO, and chairmen of Energy Transfer Partners and its subsidiaries, I would say Warren is at the center of these financial ties and whatever controversy arises from them. We would, of course, cite the CBS and Guardian as appropriate documentation. Rsiemens (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)RSiemens

• The "raises concern" phrasing you refer to is directed at Trump, not at this BLP subject; Trump owned stock in a company, not in the person, Kelcy Warren, so adding this here would be misplaced. Whatever mention of controversy arising from Trump stock ownership would belong in the article on the company in which stock is owned, not on the page of any individual. Since it appears that the stock was sold before any action was taken with it, that is itself a non-issue at this point. We must also take care to avoid the appearance of WP:RECENTISM. We are writing an encyclopedia that people should be able to look at a hundred years from now and see what about article subjects is of enduring importance. We could easily wait a few years to revisit this question and see if something arises that is actually of enough historical importance to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. There is no urgency for this article to contain this specific inference right now. bd2412 T 20:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:BD2412, Let's keep it simple, then, and go with my first recommended change: “Kelcy Lee Warren (born November 9, 1955)[2] is an American businessman, the chairman and chief executive officer of Energy Transfer Partners, Dakota Access LLC, and Sunoco.” Does that work? Rsiemens (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)RSiemens

When exactly did he become CEO of Sunoco or Dakota Access LLC? Looking for a source now but unable to find one. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Rsiemens, it is entirely possible for one company to own another with both companies having different CEO's and loci of control. On a BLP, we maintain the SQ absent reliable sources directly addressing the BLP subject. bd2412 T 12:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

According to the State of Delaware, the company was established in 2014. Also listed on Coretera.com and Bloomberg. And they also appear in ETP's annual report for the first time that year. Mr. Warren is consistently referred to as the CEO of the company building the pipeline, though the articles generally say he is the CEO of ETP which owns DA. (And as I'm sure you know Dakota Access doesn't have a company website). Presentations to the South Dakota PUC on behalf of DA are branded with Energy Transfer Partners' info (here). On the PBS News Hour Warren himself depicts ETP as the company building the pipeline, which is consistent with the PUC presentation. Considering that Mr. Warren is presented as the CEO behind the pipeline, perhaps this discussion is more appropriate for the "Career" section of the BLP. (I'm referring to the discussion of Warren's role as the builder of the Dakota Access Pipeline-- not a discussion of his political activity.)

As far as I can tell, Robert Owens is the CEO of Sunoco (though it is owned by ETP), so I guess that should come off. Rsiemens (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Rsiemens

None of those sources identify Warren as CEO of Dakota Access. His name doesn't even appear on the State of Delaware, Cortera, of Bloomberg pages. I just don't see the sources adding up to what you assert here. bd2412 T 12:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This is absolutely the definition of WP:OR. As stated, we cannot assume facts, especially when it comes to biographies of living people. A perfect example is how you assumed he was the CEO of Sunoco when in fact he is not. This is exactly why Wikipedia does not allow original research. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi CNMall41 and BD2412, you're following a bit behind. My post above was to point out that Dakota Access LLP was founded in 2014 but that Warren is not listed as the CEO (no one is listed so he may or may not be). Warren is consistently referred to as the CEO behind the company building the pipeline, and Dakota Access is consistently referred to as the company building the pipeline; but both PUC documents and in an interview Warren refers to ETP as the builder of the pipeline. I was attempting to explore the subject and answer your questions-- not advocate for my suggested changes. I apologize if I wasn't clear. I am, honestly, trying to advance the discussion in a way that produces a fuller and more balanced entry for Mr. Warren. Based on facts we DO know about the BLP, I don't believe the current page is complete or balanced. It does not include significant accomplishments that Mr. Warren himself discusses publicly, namely his role in building one of the most recognizable pipelines in the country. This is a multi-faceted accomplishment: it includes the founding of a company, the promotion of pipeline development through support of political candidates, legal challenges and triumphs, environmental disputes, etc. Even if Warren himself did not personally establish the company, contribute to politicians, and appear on television and in newspaper articles discussing the pipeline, I would say it merits mentions on his BLP. But he did personally do those things, whether you support them or not. So the question is how can we make a more complete and more balanced entry using the established facts? --Rsiemens (Rsiemens) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.227.100.78 (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean by "following a bit behind", but it seems that we are going in circles now. To be clear: if the sources do not specifically draw the inferences that you suggest, then adding them to the article is WP:OR. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an investigative journalism enterprise that discovers connections that reliable sources have not reported. At this point, it is clear that weeks of discussion have yielded no consensus to implement the proposed changes, so I would respectfully ask that you step back from this discussion for a time. Otherwise, you'll be entering WP:Drop the stick territory. If there is something else worth saying here that can be supported by reliable sources, other editors will come along and figure it out. That's how Wikipedia works. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Forté, good friend. I believe we’re actually getting somewhere; by clarifying what doesn’t belong, we’re narrowing what can be discussed and where it fits best. Mr. Warren’s role in the building pipelines is clearly best described in the career section. There are many ways to factually describe this role, BD2412 / CNMall41; I propose:

“In 2016, Mr. Warren became the subject of protest and media attention for his support of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline being built by Dakota Access LLC, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners.” 11 12 13. Out of respect for those concerned about balance, it’s the bare minimum.

Also, let’s cut the line about his financial ranking and net worth in his Personal Life section. His net worth is already stated below his image, and his ranking can change in “real time” on Forbes. Currently, he shares the Forbes #150 ranking with Walter Scott Jr. who doesn’t include this info on his Wiki page, and Reid Hoffman and Diane Hendricks who do; but Hoffman’s numbers contradict each other in the article and neither of their profiles list their correct net worth today. Seems like a good example of Recentism. (I do wish Wikipedia wouldn’t make up words, though; not the best practice for an encyclopedia.) 108.53.72.163 (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)RSiemens RSiemens

BD2412, until recently, we were engaged in a discussion about edits to this page. I made a suggestion which you have not responded to; after two weeks I went ahead and implemented it. You have reverted my edits without discussion here, which seems inappropriate. Since I do not know the reasons behind your objection, I am going to revert the page back to my last version. If you see inaccuracies or imbalance in my edits, please do point them out so we can discuss. Obviously, I and others (like Pzriddle) feel the Dakota Access information is important to include on Mr. Warren's page. As for the deletion of Mr. Warren's Forbes ranking and net worth from his Personal Life section, I did so for several reasons: First, his net worth is already listed below his picture; second, inclusion of the Forbes ranking is inconsistent across BLPs at Warren's level; third, Forbes attempts to track rank continuously, which means his rank will likely change more frequently than the year listed in his BLP; and fourth, Forbes' methodology for the evaluation of wealth is both secretive, and considered to be inaccurate by the IRS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsiemens (talk • contribs) 08:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Presentation of net worth

An editor has proposed to include the following under "Personal life":

As of September 2016, he is the 1067th richest person in the world, and the 372nd richest in the United States, with an estimated wealth of $4.2 billion.<ref name="forbes">{{cite web| url=http://www.forbes.com/profile/kelcy-warren |title=The World's Billionaires, Real Time Ranking, Kelcy Warren | website=forbes.com | accessdate=2016-09-09}}</ref>

It seems redundant to me, as we already list his net wealth in the infobox, and I do not think ranking 1067th in some capacity (or 372nd in some subset of that capacity) is particularly notable. Do we include this sort of information for, e.g., the 1050th wealthiest person in the world, or the 365th wealthiest person in the U.S.? bd2412 T 14:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This specific request for content I will defer to you on. I am not sure I am seeing the point for either addition or removal of the content. Content aside, my issue with everything is that a WP:SPA is attempting to introduce content that is WP:OR or WP:UNDUE. Despite informing them of the policy they show a lack of understanding of the guidelines evidenced by the discussion above, and are now engaging in an WP:EDITWAR with an experienced administrator which is WP:DISRUPT in my opinion. I would simply ask that any edits made be done according to WP:BLP policy. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. His net worth is in the infobox, and I've added billionaire to the lead. Those rankings add little of value to our readers (and are constantly changing), unless perhaps the person concerned is in the top few in their country or top ten or so worldwide. Edwardx (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe I am the un-named "WP:SPA" referred to above. While I haven't edited many pages, my previous additions have been on completely unrelated topics-- so I don't think I quite fit the "single purpose account" definition. CNMall41, you're throwing around a lot of accusations as opinions. bd2412 moved our conversation to my personal Talk page and you can read my response to WP:OR, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:BRD there. I'd rather not slide off topic from the proposed edit, however, as I think we are nearing consensus on removing the sentence regarding the Forbes ranking and net worth from the Personal Life section. Rather combine topics under this discussion-- I'll start a new discussion regarding Mr. Warren becoming the focus of protests regarding the Dakota Access pipeline. Rsiemens (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Content removed per clear consensus. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Media attention

Mr. Warren has been the subject of media attention and protest for his self-identified role as the CEO behind the Dakota Access pipeline construction. While it is difficult to discuss this subject without raising controversy, the fact that he has spoken to the press in support of the pipeline construction and been targeted for protests has been clearly and objectively documented. I'm proposing the following addition to the Career section:

“In 2016, Mr. Warren became the subject of protest and media attention for his support of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline being built by Dakota Access LLC, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners.” 11 12

There's certainly more that can be said, but more detail might make it harder to reach a consensus. Rsiemens (Talk)23:14, 5 March 2017

I would oppose the addition. Not sure what else there is to say here that hasn’t already been said previously. However, I will try once again to address the WP:UNDUE issue. You want to include information about his work with the company, particularly his work with the pipeline. This has already been addressed in the appropriate pages here and a standalone article related to the protest here.

If you like, we could use the references you provided and change it to this…”In 2016, Mr. Warren became the subject of protest and media attention for his support of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline where protestors have hurled rocks and burning logs in violent confrontations with police.”

Do you see the point here? It is undue weight. Also, we would need to add in anything where he is talked about in the media in reference to any company project. This would include mergers, acquisitions, etc. There is a lot of press that talks about his leadership role in getting these done. If we add anything that talks about him associated with the pipeline, we are going to have more content about the company than about him and this is a biography.

As far as discussing your conduct, this is not something that should be done. However, we are beyond discussing content at this point and your conduct has become directly related to the content. You have decided to edit war with an experienced administrator who has the ability to block people for doing so. You also continue to assert the same point over and over that it has reached ad nauseam. The content has been discussed, closed, and then reopened by you asserting the same points. At this point, it falls within WP:STICK and is more of disruption than discussion.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Per CNMall41, there is already an established consensus against adding material regarding the proposed subject matter. This is an article on a person, not a corporation. I see nothing in the proffered edit that changes that fact. bd2412 T 01:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

CNMall41 I would agree-- that would appear WP:UNDUE to me as well. But I would be agreeing with your opinion that it’s unbalanced, not a fact that it is unbalanced. I’m sure members of the Sioux nation would find my suggested edit “undue” because it understates the importance of the issue; and members of the white upper middle class would be more likely to find it undue for over-emphasizing that aspect of his career. Those are perspectives; in reality, there is the fact that all of those things you mentioned happened-- and more. Omission can create fiction just as easily as falsehoods. My disagreement with your approach, however, is that it doesn’t work if applied uniformly. Why mention that Warren is the CEO of Energy Transfer Partners when it's already mentioned on ETP’s page? Why not simply state he’s married, has a child, and is on the Forbes list? We include ETP on his page because it’s an important part of his biography, irregardless of whether it appears elsewhere in Wikipedia. His work on the Dakota Access Pipeline is also an important part of his life. One could argue that it’s not important, but Wikipedia itself begs to differ. His music label doesn’t merit a page yet it’s mentioned; his hometown has just a handful of paragraphs; ETP has even fewer. In Wikipedia’s world these are comparatively unimportant items-- yet they appear in his biography. I’m not arguing for their exclusion; I’m arguing for balance. And I’m not advocating for discussing the controversy around the pipeline. But when I read his biography, I want to know that one of his major life works-- an act that involved presidents and nations-- was the construction of that pipeline. If my approach to describing his involvement is ham-handed, I challenge you to tackle the task. Because for so many readers-- Native Americans, minorities, environmentalists, social activities, conservationists-- this description falls short. Rsiemens (Talk)01:07, 9 March 2017

By that reasoning, if there is a McDonald's where some pipeline workers like eat, you could mention this in the article on McDonald's because it would not be "undue" to the people affected. You could justify adding mention of the Dakota Access Pipeline to any article with some tertiary relationship to it, because of the importance of the pipeline to people who are concerned about it. However, this is not Pipelinepedia. Those who oppose the pipeline will find the controversy itself thoroughly covered in the article on the pipeline, which is where readers are likely to go to learn about it. This article, on the other hand, is a BLP, which means that must stick to the letter of reliable sources. Where is the reliable source identifying the CEO of Dakota Access, LLC? Surely it has one. Where is there a reliable source as to this BLP subject that "one of his major life works" is construction of the pipeline? bd2412 T 12:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:CNMall41, Most lines of reasoning will fall apart when pushed to the extreme. Using the McDonald’s line of reasoning to invalidate the inclusion of the DAP construction would, syllogistically, also invalidate the inclusion of ETP if that were the only criteria for inclusion. The better question is really whether his role as the “CEO behind the Dakota Access Pipeline” is sufficiently a fact and of some historical significance. Most our BLP pages are based on reports from reliable journalism-- strong secondary sources, rather than primary sources. How do we know he was born in Gladewater? We cite boardroominsiders.com, not his birth certificate or the hospital on record. Is he the current CEO of ETP? Investing.businessnessweek.com tells us so-- not ETP’s annual report. No, we don’t have sufficient evidence that Warren is the CEO of Dakota Access, LLC-- that identity is surprisingly difficult to come by. But numerous reliable sources (including those already on his page) cite him as the CEO responsible for building the pipeline. And Warren has represented himself as such in a number of articles, including a live PBS [3] interview where Warren accepted his introduction as the “CEO of the company that owns and is building the (Dakota Access) pipeline.” Which isn’t surprising, since ETP created and attached their name to documents [4] submitted to Iowa’s Public Utility Commission[5]. I’d call these primary sources to support any statement that references or suggests he is the CEO behind the pipeline. Is it “one of his major life works?” Let’s scale that statement back to “significant life works” which is a more appropriate bar for inclusion on a Wikipedia page. Two presidents have both commented on and carried out executive actions in relation to his pipeline; hundreds of people have protested for months; countless articles have been written; millions of dollars have been spent and are expected to raised in earnings; thousands of jobs affected. On a Wiki page that highlights Warren’s ownership of a pair of drumsticks signed by the Eagles, is this really a discussion? (I personally like that tidbit of info-- it gives Warren a more human quality). Rsiemens (Talk)01:41, 10 March 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.227.100.78 (talk)

So you agree that it is WP:UNDUE ("I would agree-- that would appear WP:UNDUE to me as well"), yet still want to include it. At this point, you are bordering on WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Up to this point I have tried to WP:AGF, but now I highly recommend you WP:DROPTHESTICK.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

CNMall41, I agreed that your example would be undue-- because it raises further issues about the protests that are not balanced-- not that my suggested edit is undue. Am I advocating for a more complete and better balanced BLP? Absolutely. Is my suggested edit adequately sourced? Yes. Is it undue to present Warren as the CEO responsible for building the pipeline? Warren doesn't seem to think so-- he presents himself that way. The NY Times doesn't think so. PBS doesn't think so. All I can do is cite reliable sources. Is it of historical significance? BD2421 asked that question and I presented an argument that outlines the political, social, and economic relevance but haven't heard a rebuttal.

And my apologies, my paragraph above that starts with "most lines of reasoning" was meant to be addressed to User:bd2421-- since it addresses his McDonald's example. Rsiemens (Talk)00:33, 12 March 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.227.100.78 (talk)

Let me reiterate that this is a BLP, so unless there is a source identifying Warren as CEO of Dakota Access LLC, we cannot assert that he is the CEO of Dakota Access LLC. In fact, our own article on the pipeline states that Dakota Access LLC is "a fully owned subsidiary of Bakken Holdings Company, LLC which is a joint venture of Energy Transfer Partners LP (60%) and Sunoco Logistic Partners LP (40%)", which "owns 75% of the pipeline, while Phillips 66 owns a 25% stake". This adds up to ETP itself not even having a controlling share in the pipeline. Are we having this same discussion about the CEO's of the Sunoco subsidiary, and of Phillips 66? bd2412 T 14:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello BD2412, I’m not proposing that we identify Kelcy Warren as the CEO of Dakota Access LLC. I’m proposing this:

“In 2016, Mr. Warren became the subject of protest and media attention for his support of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline being built by Dakota Access LLC, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners.” 11 12

This is how he is associated with the pipeline in the articles, and I believe we still consider these two journals to be valid sources. I don't think it's necessary to drill down any further, especially since Warren answers to this description of his role publicly (in the PBS article).

This is the entirety of the edit I am proposing regarding the Dakota Access pipeline construction.

Here on the Talk page, however, I’d note that according to Sunoco Partners LP’s 2016 annual report[6], they are 99.9 percent owned by ETP (page 113). ETP is described as the "controlling owner," with the "ability to control us" in case we didn't understand what a controlling owner can do. The remaining 0.1 percent is owned by Energy Transfer Equity, of which Kelcy is the Director and Chairman of the Board. According to ETP's annual report[7], Bakken Holdings is, in fact, itself a subsidiary of ETP (page 237). So it isn’t surprising that Warren is identified as the CEO behind the construction. Rsiemens (Talk)23:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.227.100.78 (talk)

It seems that what you have established here is the need to find a source stating that this individual (not the company for which he works) is the "controlling owner" with the "ability to control" Dakota Access LLC. bd2412 T 12:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I may have muddied the conversation by referring to the ownership issue. My proposed edit (below) doesn't refer to his role as an owner or CEO, but more narrowly to the article's discussion of Warren's media attention for support of his company's work:

“In 2016, Mr. Warren became the subject of protest and media attention for his support of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline being built by Dakota Access LLC, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners.” 11 12 Rsiemens (Talk) 108.227.100.78 (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)RSiemens

There hasn't been a response either positive or negative to my proposed change. Should I edit per WP:BRD or will folks be displeased? TalkRsiemens (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)RSiemens

Are you proposing to reinstate material for which your bold edit has already been reverted, and a discussion has led to a consensus against inclusion as WP:UNDUE, and therefore a WP:BLP violation, as with the above? bd2412 T 11:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)