Talk:Dane Rauschenberg/Archive 2

Enough with the edit-warring
I have protected the article for a week due to edit-warring. Please use this time to discuss on this talk page what you want the article to and not to say. If when the block expires, edit-warring recommences, blocking may be considered, particularly if you have made no effort to engage your fellow editors on the talk page in the intervening time. Please note I may well have protected the page on The Wrong Version - if so, I am sorry, but I won't change it. Neıl ☎  16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion from 207.91.86.2
Picking up on Neıl invitation, I suggest that the post-block article contain the following elements:

Lead

 * Only the birth year.
 * Described as a middle of the pack long distance runner with the two refs to the Pittsburgh and Washington papers. No need to use either the word "amateur" or "professional" because they are meaningless in this context.
 * Keep it short and leave out the charity controversy.

Biography

 * Statement of education and fact that he does not practice as a lawyer. I don't know if he ever passed a bar exam, so it may not be accurate to call him a lawyer.
 * A short statement about his running x marathons and that he works as a race organizer in Utah.
 * No awards should be listed unless they can be documented by independent secondary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.91.86.2 (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Running Resume

 * It is the same in both versions - we can keep it.

52 Marathon Project

 * Should accurately reflect the sequence of events that a charity was only added several months into the planning.
 * Should accurate reflect his statements about no "monetary" donations, but reflect his in-kind support of "race entry fee waivers, free meals from a local restaurant, free running shoes, free shuttle rides to and from the airport, and a free website.
 * Should accurately reflect when the project ended and that only $32K was raised at that time. You may also add a sentence that an additional $x was collected since.
 * Reflect that Rauchenberg solicited speaking engagements and contributed to "tell your story" blogs.
 * Footnotes should be accurate and not contain the boosterism quotes.
 * A brief comparison to the other projects that went on in 2006, "The project had to compete for public attention with similar efforts also conducted in 2006 where two people ran a marathon distance on 50 consecutive days in 50 different states, and a third person ran 51 marathons in the 50 different states and the District of Columbia."

Alansohn's suggestion
The pattern of abuse of Wikipedia and defamation of the article's subject is truly despicable. That User:Racepacket can continue this hypocritical charade of sockpuppetry is appalling. That said, I will address the structure of the article, and why the article should stay largely as is.

Lead

 * Rauschenberg's claim to notability is based on his 52-marathon accomplishment.
 * He is an amateur runner (a statement that is properly sourced without contradiction), which enhances the accomplishment and needs to be included.
 * I disagree, because he is making his living from running. The problem is that the lead creates the dicotomy of "professional-guy-who-runs-52-marathons" vs. "amateur-guy-who-runs-52-marathons" -- a distinction without significance because nobody runs 52 marathons as a profession.  Rauchenberg characterized Engle as a professional because he sells health supplements to earn a living while he races.  How is that different from Rauchenberg organizing races and giving motivational speeches to earn a living while he races? 207.91.86.2 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have already disagreed. You have made the rather idiotic analogy that you "could probably come up with a 1959 newspaper article calling Cassius Clay an amateur boxer, but that would not justify a 2008 Wikipedia article claiming that he was an amateur his entire life". The source provided states he's an amateur. He does not make his money by being paid to run. Again, all you have to do is find a source that states that he is a professional and I will back off. Until then all we have is your unsupported demands. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because Rauschenberg erroneously characterized Engle as a professional doesn't mean that we should include the same error in Wikipedia in characterizing Rauschenberg. He's not a professional runner.  No one pays him to run races, and he's certainly not getting prize money.  While he may be a professional race director and a professional motivational speaker and both of these are related to his running, that doesn't make him a professional runner.  That said, I still think we should leave out professional/amateur status, because iit doesn't really add anything useful to the article.CruiserBob (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The characterization as a "middle of the pack" runner is false and misleading if it is the only description included (as User:Racepacket has been trying to impose on the article), but with the other material it may be appropriate if worded properly.
 * I have not been able to find any edits by that user in the article, so I don't follow you, but "middle of the pack" is a fair characterization of the Pittsburgh and Washington newspaper articles cited in the footnotes. What do you want instead "mediocre"?207.91.86.2 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are either completely and totally disingenuous or an out-and-out-liar, though clinical schizophrenia might also explain your insistence that you are actually two different people who share the same obsession with one -- and only one -- person, Dane Raushenberg. You may want to read Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket which confirmed that you are User:Racepacket. Your alter ago User:Xcstar was permanently blocked, but for reasons that are utterly unreasonable, you have been allowed to edit. As to your demands that he be characterized as "middle of the pack", I think it is a poor description unless balanced by all of the other descriptions of him as a runner. To only characterize him as "middle of the pack" is false, misleading and characteristic of your pattern of defamation and abuse. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The charitable component was directly relevant to the 52-marathon goal and mentioned extensively in almost all media references, and is directly relevant in the lead. The claim that there is a "charity controversy" is completely false, defamatory and typical of the biased POV User:Racepacket has tried to maliciously insert in the article.
 * Again, I can't find the edit to which you refer. Could you cite to a diff? The charity component was added months into the project. It did not start out as a fundraiser. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you are User:Racepacket, User:Xcstar and User:Runreston; Read Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket an dSuspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd) if you have any confusion. The subject here is mentioning the charitable component in the lead. It does not relate to when it was added. That it did not start as a fundraiser is irrelevant in this portion of the article. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Biography

 * Details regarding his educational background belong in here.
 * NPR source describes him as a patent lawyer, which belongs in this paragraph.
 * This shows that the NPR transcript is just an off-the-cuff remark rather than fact-checked journalism. There is no record of Rauchenberg ever being admitted to the bar. At the very most, it would be correct to say that he was at one time a licensing agent.  Even the versions of this article written by Rauchenberg himself (of which there are many) do not describe him as a "lawyer."  Whenever anyone introduced him as a lawyer, he was careful to correct them. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The NPR item is a reliable and verifiable source. If in your professional opinion as a lawyer you believe that "Patent lawyer" is wrong and that "licensing agent" is more correct, provide a reliable and verifiable source to confirm it and you've got the change. Other than that, your word on this matter is as worthless than any other original research, (if not even more worthless, based on your track record). Alansohn (talk)
 * New career as race organizer / motivational speaker belongs here.
 * That is a biographical fact. Because it is not relevant to his notabilty, it does not belong in the lead. 207.91.86.2 (talk)
 * As his new career is direclty related to his 52-marathon accomplishment, it does belong in the lead. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 2
 * Details regarding his background as a runner are relevant to describing the steps that led up to his taking on the 52-marathon challenge.
 * I think that people have already observed that you are free to rewrite his biography to include something on this. However, using the strange paragraph written by Rauchenberg does not make sense and is confusing to the reader. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't give a crap who you claim wrote any part of this article, nor should anybody else. If you can challenge the material or the sources provided you might have an argument here. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Running Resume

 * A rare point of agreement.

One marathon per week in 2006

 * The title should accurately reflect the goal; calling it a "52 Marathon Project" misleads as to the nature of the endeavor.
 * As worded, the text already states that the charitable recipient was selected after the project was conceived, but before the first marathon in the sequence was run.
 * The only deadline in the project was related to running 52 marathons. User:Racepacket has repeatedly removed references to the total amount raised and inserted the amount raised as of December 2006. While it is of little relevance how much was raised as of December 31, 2006, the total amount raised is directly relevant, and any updated amounts should continue to be reflected.
 * I can't find the edit which you have reference. If you could provide the diff, it would be helpful.  The consensus version has the sentence, "The 52nd and final race was run on December 30, 2006, with at least $32,000 raised by that time.[1]" with a reference to the Sciullo newspaper story.  The story had only the $32K figure, which was the correct amount as of December 30, 2006.  The use of any other amount in a sentence using the Sciullo story as its reference is bad scholarship. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is this BS from that your sockpuppet version is the "consensus version"? As stated above, you have repeatedly demanded that the only amount that can appear is the amount raised as of December 31, 2006, as if that date marks some sort of deadline. The only deadline that occured on or around that date relates to running marathons. You have repeatedly removed references to the total amount raised in a revolting example of bad faith, and repeatedly claimed that the charity was somehow shortchanged, did not make enough money to satisfy your expectations ans that there is some sort of "charity controversy" which is knowingly false. These allegationsa re false and defamatory. A sockpuppet complaining about "bad scholarship" is a classic. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus version separates the Sciullo December 30 sentence from the total funds raised, which is stated at Ref #24. Please read the consensus version before you criticize it. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that word (consensus). But it's clear from Neıl  ☎ 's perception of a need for intervention that there never has been a 'consensus' version of the article.  That's what Neıl  ☎  is trying to create.  Choosing a version you like and calling it a consensus version doesn't make it a consensus version.CruiserBob (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Given false and defamatory statements added repeatedly to the article that make the malicious claim that an inadequate amount of money was raised, the statement from the fundraising target is directly relevant.


 * The above remark is the essence of the problem. Alansohn keeps on reverting and vandalizing the consensus version because of some past slights.  Focus on the current version.  Encyclopedias in general, including Wikipedia, should not be used for self-promotion or for trumpting fund raising causes.  See the discussion under 14.2 Boosterism above.207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted to (not from) the consensus version. The crux of the problem is an abusive case of sockpuppetry by User:Racepacket and his puppet alter ego User:207.91.86.2 insisting that this is something other than a personal battle with Dane Rauschenberg. You not only made the arfument at Articles for deletion/Dane Rauschenberg that "This article about a runner is not notable and may be self promotion." and you even voted no less than three separate times using different IDs to make this case, which was soundly rejected and led to your conviction at Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket. If you still believe that this article constitutes self-promotion in violation of Wikipedia policy, it's about time that you followed through with a second AfD. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As in-kind support is commonly offered, it should only be mentioned if it is immediately relevant and supported by reliable sources. The blog sources used to support some of the alleged contributions are unreliable and do not support the claims made. Details regarding other efforts to promote the fundraising effort (speaking engagements, blogs, "tell your story" entries, etc.) are already present in teh consensus version of the article.
 * Rauchenberg created a great deal of confusion by telling interviewers that he had sponsorship while he told other interviews he did not get monetary donations. The consensus version covers this with the sentences, "In mid-2005, Rauschenberg sought financial assistance for the project and obtained sponsorship in the form of race entry fee waivers, free meals from a local restaurant, free running shoes, free shuttle rides to and from the airport, and a free website.[11][12] Despite many requests, Rauschenberg reports that he did not obtain monetary donations to offset Fiddy2's costs, and estimated that total travel expenses related to the effort would be $20,000.[13]" 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your multi-sockpuppet version includes not a single reliable or verifiable source. It seems that you insist on beleiving that sponsorship meens cash payemnts when your laundry list includes items worth no more than a few dozen dollars a pop. If you can find reliable and verifiable sources to support your allegations, please include them; Without these sources your claims are just bad faith synthesis. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus version cites both the Washington Post and Rauchenberg's own statements on the coolrunning.com message board. See Refs #11 and 12. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As there was no Pre-planned marathon on Christmas weekend, the details regarding teh formation of the Drake Well Marathon are relevant here.
 * There was another marathon that weekend, so Wikipedia cannot state that Rauchenberg's Drake Well event was the only one. However, you are accepting Rachenberg's strained frame of reference.  We have three marathoners who emphasized "runs in 50 different states" -- two traveled around to the 50 states in 50 consecutive days, and the third did 50+DC in the weekends.  Instead of accepting the logistical challenge of 50 different states, Rauchenberg offers the unique challenge of Christmas weekend, which he solves by imposing on his mother and aunt to conduct an event at his hometown high school track.  If this were a made-for-TV movie about the Christmas weekend marathon, it would be a situation comedy rather than a drama. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added sources to support the claim that no other marathon had existed, including from Sports Illustrated. Other events appear to have been pushed off to that weekend but you have offered no source, reliable or otherwsie, to support your bitching and moaning about "imposing on his mother and aunt to conduct an event at his hometown high school track". What other people did is completely and utterly irrelevant, no matter how many times you try to push your personal bias and grudge against Rauschenberg. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All Rauchenberg did was run around a high school track repeatedly on Christmas weekend to claim a "win" over his hand-picked competitors.  His mother and aunt got stuck implementing the Drake Well Marathon, which is all the more reason to leave it out of the article. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All Rauschenberg did was set up a sanctioned marathon when none existed, so that the 52nd could be completed; These facts are backed up by reliable and verifiable sources. Your fantasy that this was a burden imposed on others is worthless POV and personal bias of the type that keeps on clouding whatever little judgment you have regarding this article. Find a source that supports your baseless claim or stop pushing your own personal distorted version.Alansohn (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it was "Aunt Monica." Rauchenberg spared Wikipedia the details, but posted a lengthly account here I think it is best to leave the whole Drake Well Marathon affair out of the article. It is no more relevant than any of the other 51 marathons, and the logistical challenges associated with each. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. It provides helpful documentation of the fact that there was no marathon scheduled for Christmas weekend, despite your repeated claims to the contrary. Many people run marathons; very few people run 52 marthons, one per weekend; fewer people set up their own sanctioned marathons to complete their one-marathon-per-weekend-for-a-year goal. While your personal bias agianst Rauschenberg leads you to minimize the notability of the event, the media has decided that the fact that he needed to create the Drake Well Marathon and did so is notable, and that source is provided in the article. These details make this one marathon different from all the other 51. Kudos to Aunt Monica, Dane's mom and Coach Henderson for their contributions in making the Drake Well Marathin happen, but the only part of the story that bears mentioning is the one backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no claim that Rauschenberg's accomplishment was unique, set a record, was the fastest, or any to any other comparable endeavor. The see also entry to Competing in a series of marathons covers the topic. The claim that there was this effort had to "compete for public attention with similar efforts" is pure POV and an unacceptable synthesis and has no place here.
 * Unlike Rauchenberg, we should avoid characterizing one set as better than the other, but we can place the Rauchenberg enterprise in the context of what else was going on in terms of 50+ marathon projects that year. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The see also provides more than ample context. Comparing Rauschenberg's accomplishments to others is complete original research in violation of Wikipedia policy, not that you have not ignored many other policies in this one article. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Noone except you wishes to compare Rauschenberg's accomplishments to the other 50+ marathon projects that year. The context should state that this was one of several, not that one was better than the other. It comes directly out of Rauschenberg's own words, "but for some reason 2006 seemed to be the year where the press finally started paying attention With Dean Karnazes and Sam Thompson doing their 50 states in 50 days" 207.91.86.2 (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For months you have been trying to deprecate Rauschenberg by inserting all sorts of details "proving" that Rauschenberg was not notable because other people have run more marathons, run them faster, run them in different states, ran them backwards, etc., including a bad faith merge request demanding that this article be eliminated and that Rauschenberg deserves no more than a mention among multiple marathon runners. If you want to list Rauschenberg's accomplishment under Marathon, and create an implied comparison there, go ahead with my warmest wishes. The fact that others have undertaken projects that you have decided bear some relation to Rauschenberg's is your own personal synthesis and belongs nowehere in this article. The see also covers your latest temper-tantrum demands. Alansohn (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Awards are all appropriately sourced.
 * The key distinction is primary source vs. secondary source. I can provide a primary source that Alansohn won a penmanship award in 4th grade.  However, no reliable secondary source, with suitable fact-checking, has reported that award, so it does not belong in Wikipedia. If you have a secondary source, an award can go in.  (We need to avoid the problem that Rauchenberg attempted to lure us into when he added to the article that he was nominated for RRCA Runner of the Year.  As stated in WP:BLP, "biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If I had an article that deemed me notable as a fourth grade penmapship champion, my award would be completely relevant. In this article, about these accomplishments, these awards are relevant, notable and reliably sourced. As stated in WP:BLP, "biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." I have no connection to the subject and wouldn't know him if I saw him; You know the article's subject, have stated that you feel he has threatened (or might threaten) you and have repeatedly pushed some sort of grudge against him here in this article in a rather disturning fashion. How you can call you or your edits "neutral" is baffling. Your involvement here is in complete violation of Wikipedia conflict of interest policy. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the above paragraph, but it sounds like a serious matter that should be taken up with Wikipedia management. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Footnotes all contain the information necessary to document the claims made in the article, especially in the face of efforts by User:Racepacket and associated sockpuppets to insert false and defamatory information.

Especially in light of the previous pattern of abuse of Wikipedia process and refusal to respect consensus, this may well be a step in the right direction by User:Racepacket. However, all legitimate editors should be leery of the previously documented abuse, and any proposals need to be viewed in the light of the unfortunate monomaniacal obsession with this one article and the hateful and derogatory claims made in the hundreds of prior edits made to this article by User:Racepacket. Alansohn (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion from CruiserBob
I've been taking a bit of a wikibreak, so I missed the recent round of edit-warring. This is probably a good time to put in another viewpoint on what the article should look like.

Lead

 * I don't think either 'amateur' or 'middle-of-the-pack' belong here. Pulling a paper encyclopedia off the shelf, none of the several runners whose biographies I looked at listed amateur/professional status.  With regard to Alansohn's comment that his amateur status enhances the accomplishment, the purpose of the article is to be encyclopedic, not to either puff up or tamp down the accomplishment.  Middle-of-the-pack is not a term I'd expect to see in an encyclopedia in any case - I could see mention later in the article that (this is off the cuff and it certainly isn't how it should be worded) he is not an elite runner & his marathon times aren't particularly noteworthy.
 * His notability is due to the fact that he ran 52 marathons in a year to raise money for a charity - he wouldn't have gotten much press at all if he'd just been doing it for the sake of doing it (note, for example, the various other runners whose names have been mentioned as running 52 marathons in a year as part of the various AFDs in connection with this topic - as a runner, I hadn't heard of them or their feats while they were happening, but I heard about Rauschenberg). So the info about the charity certainly should be included along with the 52 marathons.
 * Isn't this further evidence of the amount of energy he put into self-promotion, including the creation of two separate Wikipedia articles about himself? 207.91.86.2 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this a further example of self-promotion along the lines of the idiotic claim that a picture of Rauschenberg in an article in The Washington Post was part of a test to get further promotional pieces published about hime in the future. These delusionary interpretations of the article don't belong here or anywhere. If you can't find a reliable and verifiable source to support the continued claim of self-promotion -- the same justification you used in nominating the article for deletion -- you can't use it in the article, as it is your own original "research", nor would it be proper to impose your bizarre conclusion of "self-promotion" as a justification for modifying the article in any way. Alansohn (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to get started on his trying to sell the "book rights" to fiddy2? [[Image:Fiddy2Bookcover.jpg]] (catchy file name) I am sure he plans an entire chapter on your fine efforts. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so he's self-promoting - so what? He wanted to raise a bunch of money for a charity - in order to do so, you've got to self-promote, because if he just says to himself "Dane, I'm gonna run 52 marathons in 2006 and give all the money I raise doing it to L'Arche" then L'Arche isn't going to get a dime, because no one's going to notice that Dane's run 52 marathons.CruiserBob (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * His current activities as a race director and motivational speaker, while not particularly notable, seem appropriate to include, since it's an article about a living person - otherwise, someone reading the article is left wondering 'OK, he ran 52 marathons in 2006 - it doesn't say anything else - did he die in 2007 or something?'
 * Basically, I think the lead looks good, with the exception of the word amateur.

Biography
&

Running Resume

 * These two should be the same section - his running resume is part of his biography. Since there's nothing running-related after 2006, ending the section with details of his 52-marathon project would provide a good transition to the next section.
 * Education & previous employment (i.e. patent lawyer) should come first in the section, followed by the running info, since that way it'll read pretty much chronologically.

One marathon per week in 2006

 * The first paragraph is a good intro to the topic.
 * What kinds or how much support he got with regard to travel, entry fees, meals, etc. is pretty much irrelevant to the article, unless he was using donations to fund his races, whereas the money-raising goal and the totals that he raised certainly are. I disagree with 207.91.86.2 that the total as of his last race is the amount that should be listed, unless he had a self-imposed deadline as to when the money had to be raised by - the number listed should be the total amount that the project raised.
 * It's certainly reasonable and appropriate to talk about his promotion efforts - if he hadn't done any promotion, he wouldn't have raised any money, so the promotion was an integral part of his project.
 * While the awards listed are documented & verifiable, I don't think they're particularly relevant. The Washington Running Club award was from his local club.  Regardless of the size/significance of his local club, it's still a local award to someone whose notability is more than local.  It's not like an article about a university physicist who has authored a significant book in the field is going to mention "Dr. Soandso was awarded the Classroom Professor of the Year award by the University of Umptyscrunch."   The website one is less clear-cut.  While it's technically national coverage, as a runner, I wouldn't consider it a particularly notable site - if he were profiled in Runner's World as one of the 20 outstanding marathoners, that would be another story.
 * I agree with Alansohn that the "compete for public attention with similar efforts" line is POV, unless there is a source which attributes fundraising problems to that cause.

Really, there's been an awful lot of time & energy wasted on this article - if the folks who are complaining about how much coverage Rauschenberg gets in Wikipedia compared to other 'more notable' runners had put half as much effort into adding to other articles, we'd be a lot better off (and I could have spent the last twenty minutes working on something else) CruiserBob (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions from Another Editor
Two points: (1) I had edited the article to remove the name and chapter of the charity. There is no reason to drag its good name into it. It is not relevant to the article. (2) I would also leave out the two awards. Good luck, Neil. 158.59.91.249 (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * With regard to your point (1) - the name of the charity is relevant to the article. A reader will look at an article that says "Dane ran 52 marathons in a year to raise money for charity" and doesn't mention the charity and wonder "What charity was he raising money for."  The point of Wikipedia is that it's an encyclopedia, and the answer to questions you would expect on a subject should be in the article - and I certainly expect that people reading the article would want to know what charity he was raising money for. CruiserBob (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus?
I think there is consensus that this article should be removed. Dane is another Dean K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.240.180 (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As there are two suggestions above, I'll try and go through both over the next day or two and see if I can come up with a draft both parties might be happy with, as there are many areas of agreement and some of the other differences appear to be little more than semantic. 207.91.86.2, Alan, are you both happy for me to do so? Once there's have a draft up, we can thrash out the details, and I'm happy to moderate, as it were. Neıl ☎  08:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - I've reformatted the sectioning above to make it easier to compare and contrast the two suggestions. Neıl ☎  08:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Neil. I hope my comments above help. I would try to remove the puffing and stuff that makes the article read like a solicitation for further donations to that particular charity. I appreciate the time you are taking. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth waiting on this one. Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (3rd) is already in the works and the latest actions of User:Racepacket and his sockpuppet 207.91.86.2 have added ample evidence that User:158.59.27.249 and User:158.59.91.249 -- both of whom share Racepacket's singularly disturbing obsession with Dane Rauschenberg and only Dane Rauschenberg -- are also sockpuppets. I am still formatting the evidence of overlapping edits on other subjects, and expect to have the report filed and listed by tomorrow. Given the clear results of Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket and Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd), this third strike will have User:Racepacket facing a long (if not permanent) block. As such, I welcome your efforts to find an alternative version that User:Racepacket will finally find acceptable, but it looks unlikely that he will be around for long to discuss the issue. Also consider that there are other editors with genuine track records of productive editing who have edited this article and should also be heard from; That I am the only editor who has dealt with these sockpuppets in the recent past does not limit the pool of editors to two. Alansohn (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As you can see from the above, it time to move on the concerns expressed at Requests_for_comment/Alansohn 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone and everyone reading this article is invited to read Requests_for_comment/Alansohn and add their comments. I would also suggest reviewing User:Racepacket's singular obsession with Rauschenberg at Special:Contributions/Xcstar, Special:Contributions/Runreston, Special:Contributions/158.59.27.249, Special:Contributions/158.59.91.249 and Special:Contributions/207.91.86.2, just to get a flavor of the level of abuse and disruption caused by User:Racepacket. The pattern of hundreds upon hundreds of edits devoted solely to one article is clear evidence of a rather disturbing obsession with Dane Rauschenberg. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Neil, we await your fusion draft. Looking over all of this discussion page from the top, it is clear that whatever animosity or anger that may have slipped in is provoked by and directed toward Alansohn and not Rauchenberg himself. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Neil, I too look forward to your draft. Anything that will unload the burden imposed on me, you and all of Wikipedia in dealing with this malicious individual, User:Racepacket and his family of sockpuppets, who has taken every step possible step to disrupt this article and violate Wikipedia policy, will be greatly appreciated. This shameless pattern of abuse of Wikipedia policy needs to be ended once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As noted in Requests_for_comment/Alansohn, he certainly has the need to get in the last word, doesn't he? 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
Thank you to all above who contributed to the discussion. I have tried my best to create a version that takes the best of all the above suggestions, which you can see at Talk:Dane Rauschenberg/proposal. Honestly, I could see very little other than semantic differences between the versions. One was perhaps a little more critical than the other, but they both had their good and bad points. I have attempted to strike a balance. Note the following:


 * 1) The birth date ought to be included in a biographical article of a public figure, if it can be referenced.
 * 2) I have merged the various bits of biographical information (basically, everything not about running) into a section.
 * 3) Per most other articles about non-professional athletes, the word amateur isn't included in the introduction.
 * 4) As he ran to raise money for charity, it seems reasonable to include detail of the charity he ran for.  I tried to tone down the promotional tone.
 * 5) Both articles had differing sets of references.  I have tried to merge the two.

The proposal version is not for editing - it is derivative of the original version and changes made to the proposal version would not be reflected in the history of the actual article (a violation of GFDL - all edits to Wikipedia must be attributed to the original editor, via the article history). I have protected it - I have also extended the protection on the article for an extra couple of days to make sure we get a consensus here rather than lapse back into edit warring. I would like to see opinions from 207.91.86.2 and Alansohn at the least (as the two disputing parties), but all other thoughts are welcome. If people indicate they are broadly happy, we can move the proposal into mainspace, and undo the protection. I do not want anyone to indicate you are happy, and then promptly resume edit-warring; please don't do that - thus far nobody has been blocked or in danger of being blocked, and I would like to keep it that way. Further grumping about what may or may not have been done/said with a previous account or on an RFC will also be unwelcome - let's try and focus discussion on this article alone, please?

Also, thank you all for bearing with me - I would have liked to have finished the proposal a few days ago, but I had a hectic weekend. Neıl ☎  18:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Response of 207.91.86.2
Neıl, I am most appreciative of the time that you have given to mediating this editorial dispute, and I believe the proposal makes major strides toward something everyone can live with. May I share the following concerns which may merit your further consideration?
 * I too, appreciate the time and effort invested. The presence of an administrator combined with the clear prospect of User:Racepacket being blocked for further sockpuppetry, seems to have resulted in an exceedingly rare bit of rationality on Racepacket's part, including the removal of previous demands of describing him exclusively as a "middle of the pack runner", of using the Washington Post as a trial balloon for his publicity efforts and of there being a "charity controversy". There are still many behavioral problems here, but this mood change is greatly appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead

 * I thought that Wikipedia birthdate policy was to just use the year, unless it is someone with a published birth date. (We have an unusual case here because Rauschenberg posted his own birth date.)
 * No reason exists to exclude the date. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that the statements about L'Arche Mobile and the total raised is repeated in both the lead and in the 52 marathon section.
 * I'm not sure what the "concern" is, as many statements will be repeated in the elad and later on. As long as it appears in one or the other, I have no objection. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think the quotes in the footnotes are a bit much. For example, the quoted sentence, "Rauschenberg became the first person to run one marathon every weekend in 2006." is misleading out of context.  Richard Worley ran a marathon every weekend for 159 weekends from 1997 to 2000, so the selective quotes leave much to be explained to the reader.
 * The quotes support the claims made and clarify *what* statements are being referenced in the quotes. Given the article's past history (and Racepacket's past problems) with challenging clear statements in article, these quotes should remain. That they are not used in some other articles is irrelevant; the style preference should not be arbitrarily changed. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggested substitute lead would be:"Dane Rauschenberg (born 1976) is an American long-distance runner who ran 52 marathons, one every weekend, throughout 2006. He attempted to raise $52,000 to benefit the Mobile, Alabama chapter of L'Arche Internationale, as part of an effort he called 'Fiddy2, with at least $43,000 raised to date."
 * This proposed change is so utterly different from the previous crap Racepacket has inserted here that I will go along with it, despite minor quibbles. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent - I would suggest we can consider the lead ✅. Neıl ☎  22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Running 52 Marathons
"The 52nd and final race was run on December 30, 2006, with $32,000 raised at that time." This is an accurate summary of the Sciullo article which reported the $32K figure and did not report the $43K figure. Alansohn does not believe that Rauchenberg's stated goal was to collect $52K during 2006. However, he made many statements that his goal was to collect an average of $1K per week during 2006, hence the total raised during 2006 is relevant and should be included if the $43K is included.
 * I would move this sentence from the lead to the 52-marathon section:
 * I do believe that Rauscenberg aimed to raise $52,000. I do not believe that Rauschenberg set a deadline of December 31, 2006 to receive every penny of this money, mainly because no source exists to support the claim. After all of the crap by Racepacket claiming that there was a "charity controversy" and deleting references to the total amount collected, this version is a major step forward. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The source already quoted in the article (Aryanpur, Arianne. "Top This Resolution: A Marathon a Week - Area Lawyer's Quest Includes Fundraising.", The Washington Post, January 8, 2006) states "Rauschenberg's quest, which he dubbed Fiddy2, begins today. He plans to travel all over the country, including to Alaska and Hawaii, to run in 52 marathons. His goal is to finish the 26.2 miles each time in under four hours.... As he runs, Rauschenberg is raising money for L'Arche Mobile, which helps people with mental disabilities.... He hopes to raise $52,000." Neither this article, nor any other I have seen, makes a case that the $52,000 will be collected at an average rate of $1,000 per week or that every penny of the $52,000 will be collected before year-end 2006. While there is a source for the $32,000 near year-end, there seems to be no relevance to including this information, other than in the context of a "charity controversy". Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you include the Mobile chapter of L'Arche in the lead, leave it out of this section. However, I would vote to put it here and leave it out of the lead.  I would not repeat the $52K goal, just use it once in the article.
 * No objection, as long as it is in one place or the other. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest deleting the sentence, "The local organization noted that they were 'grateful that Dane is willing to share [L'Arche's mission] with others' as part of his marathon effort.[3][16]" because every charity states that it is grateful someone is donating or raising funds. Again, we all want to avoid having the article read like a fund-raising brochure.  Imagine how the Rockefeller family articles would read if we include a quote from each beneficiary expressing gratitude.
 * Racepacket has made repeated claims that the charity was disappointed by the poor results and that this created some controversy. An appropriate rebuttal needs to exist to respond to that libel. L'Arche only seems to have publicly thanked one person, a bit less than the Rockefeller family, a comparison that only adds weight to its inclusion. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest deleting the quote from ref #16.
 * There is none. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the time you viewed it, it had become ref #15 due to some rearranging. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that an award should be supported by a secondary source if it is to be included in a Wikipedia biography. Every subject of an article has won a 4th grade penmanship award or a Cub Scout achievement badge.  We don't include such items because they are have not been found to be sufficiently worthy to be noted by a secondary source. "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article."  Here we have two websites Ref #27 and #28, not written by Rauchenberg, as the source of the two awards.  We cannot use them.
 * The sources are reliable and are specifically relevant to the subject and his accomplishments. These were not awards for unrelated accomplishments (about penmanship awards for a runner) or for recognition that occurred in the distant past (anything that happened in fourth grade). They are specifically related to and in recognition of the achievements that make Rauschenberg notable. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

External References

 * I would delete, because the race no longer wishes to maintain the referenced page, and it was initiated by Rauchenberg and does not represent independent journalism: "*Little Rock Marathon Tribute to Rock Star Dane, from Internet Archive backup taken on December 10, 2006"
 * The link is available and is relevant to the subject. That the race no longer maintains the page means nothing if it can be accessed in an alternative manner. See WP:SELFPUB for details on such sources. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for the suggestions. Updates made to the proposal as detailed:

Lead - birth year only now (not a big deal), L'Arche Mobile expunged from lead (now just says "for charity" to avoid repetition), quotes removed (agree they are superfluous - they aren't typically used if you can just click the URL to see them yourself - using a quote in a citation is really more if a book is being cited, or a translation from another language)

Running 52 marathons - move makes sense, and done. L'Arche Mobile remains (as it is now not in the lead as per above). Sentence about gratitude - agreed, unnecessary, removed. Quote removed. Awards are staying for now, I think they add something.

External refs - fine; it doesn't add much that isn't in other links anyway, so removed.

Still would like to see some other people's views. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  12:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your continued efforts. There is still a long quote in Ref #15 that could be removed.  Also, please consider stating the $32K collected as of Dec. 30 in the sentence which you moved from the lead.  Otherwise, the amount collected could be moved to the end of the "Rauschenberg aimed to raise $52,000 and selected the Mobile, Alabama chapter of L'Arche as the recipient of his effort." sentence. Thanks, again. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The references seem to say $43k was collected by Dec 30th, and that figure's in the article, in the "Running 52 marathons in 2006" section. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  09:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl, with all due respect, please re-read the references on that sentence. Only $32K was collected by the end of 2006, and the $43K amount dates to late 2007, with very little collected after the second article. Please see my two recommended changes below. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm very concerned about the issue of raising "only $32K" being more POV pushing. Even with a reliable source, there is still no significance to the amount raised as of December 31, 2006. If he didn't run 52 marathons by that date he failed in his goal; If money was raised after that date, there is absolutely no issue. Calling it "only $32K" seems to be an attempt to minimize the amount and the accomplishment. Alansohn (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Alansohn left the above comment without actual reading the two proposals for the sentence -- neither used the phrase "only $32K". Both proposals are based on the consensus draft which uses the Sciullo article as the basis for the date of the last race and the amount raised by that date.  Adding the 2007 Scranton article as a footnote and adding the $43K figure to what would otherwise be a simple sentence confuses the reader.  For example, it confused Neil regarding the amount raised by the end of 2006. Noone is trying to knock Rauchenberg on his fundraising total -- I am not advocating a wikitable comparing his amount to that of Chuck Engle, Sam Thompson and Dean Karnazes. I would be fine with leaving all amounts out of the article, but if the $43K is included, the $32K should be as well. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The concern I have is the bias behind the insertion of the $32,000 raised as of the end of 2006. No source says "only $32K" was raised; The only person who seems to include the word "only" and is User:Racepacket and associated sockpuppets, who has attempted to push his personal bias that raising "only" $32,000 represents some sort of degiciency or shortchanging on Rauschenberg's part. The total amount raised is the only number that has any significance whatsoever. The inclusion of the end-of-2006 figure is far more likely to confuse readers and adds nothing to the article. Alansohn (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been other responses, especially from User:CruiserBob. There is no need to negotiate exclusively with a sockpuppet. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alan, I meant after my proposal - I note you have now responded, thank you, but at the time the IP was the only respondee. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Update on proposal
There are by my count four remaining issues where Alansohn and 207.91.86.2 differ - the inclusion of quotes, the inclusion of a webarchive link, the mention of awards, and L'Arche Mobile's being grateful for the donation. I think we have a consensus on the Lead section, and on where L'Arche is and is not mentioned, which is progress - thank you both.


 * I am inclined to do the following:
 * 1) Leave the quotes out (they can all be accessed by clicking on the links)
 * 2) Include the webarchive link (using internet archive is acceptable for dead links - lots of websites periodically expunge old pages, it doesn't necessarily mean they no longer agree with the content)
 * 3) Include the two awards (they are referenced, and we can let the reader determine how important or not important they are)
 * 4) Leave out L'Arche Mobile's gratitude - I took a look at a number of other articles where people had done something for charity, and couldn't find any article that saw it necessary to mention the charity was grateful. I would leave this out.  I also think having this in the article to counteract "Racepacket's libel" is not a great reason for inclusion.


 * Whether by coincidence or by design, this would have 2 of the remaining 4 points of contention fit to Alansohn's preferred version, and 2 to 207.91.86.2's preferred version. Thoughts on the latest version of the proposal, please?  (Talk:Dane Rauschenberg/proposal). <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Other than the removal of the word "amateur" form the lead and the rearranging of paragraphs, the current proposal is so much closer to the current (and my preferred) version that I cannot figure out why User:Racepacket devoted several hundred edits, almost six months of wasted time, at least a half-dozen sockpuppets, two blocks and a near permanent ban to get to this point. I have a few complaints, including the unjustifiable removal of quotations from references (this feature is built into the reference templates for exactly this purpose and its arbitrary removal based on preference is contrary to policy), which I can live with, as virtually every source and link remains from my preferred version of the article. As stated earlier, the text that reads "The Fiddy2 project had to compete for public attention with similar efforts also conducted in 2006, where two people ran a marathon distance on 50 consecutive days in 50 different states, and a third person ran 51 marathons in the 50 different states and the District of Columbia." is an unacceptable synthesis. All the sources do is support the fact that other people also ran marathons that same year, information available via the see also. There was a war in Iraq that competed for attention, the St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series and Mel Gibson was arrested for drunk driving; All of those events competed far more aggressively for public attention with Rauschenberg's efforts. The world is big enough to accommodate hundreds of people who might have performed similar efforts. Absent a source describing some sort of attention battle between these other runners and Rauschenberg, this portion of the paragraph violates WP:OR and more importantly WP:SYNTH. It looks like the impending likelihood of a rather long block for a third conviction on sockpuppetry has had its desired effect in pushing User:Racepacket to finally end the demands to describe Rauschenberg as a middle of the pack publicity seeker who accepted undisclosed compensation, shortchanged a charity and forced his Aunt Monica to create a marathon for him when there were other supposed events already planned for the same Christmas weekend. Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alan, thank you for agreeing to live with the quotations being removed - it's a minor point but it helps us get closer to a resolution. I've taken another look at the "competing for public attention" sentence.  I think you are right in that it doesn't add much, and as there's no actualy source anywhere on such a media competition, it's WP:SYNTH - synthesizing unrelated sources to form your own conclusion. I would appreciate if you could constrain your comments to the content rather than asides about impending blocks, though. Thanks for the positive input. How is it looking now? <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  09:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that Neil may have misread the Sciullo article, which clearly reports $32K. I would suggest the following two changes to the 52-marathon section:
 * 1) At the end of the first paragraph add a new sentence: "As of 2008, at least $43,000 was raised towards that goal. "
 * 2) Change the last sentence of the last paragraph to: "The 52nd and final race was run on December 30, 2006, with $32,000 raised at that time. " The only citation for the sentence should be the Sciullo article. Thanks. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If "the compete for public attention" paragraph is synthesis, how about "Fiddy2 was one of at least four charity fundraising projects in 2006 that involved a runner running 50 or more marathons during that year.  "  It is a simple factual assertion that removes the implication that Fiddy2 was plowing new ground. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Neil - you're doing a great job of building consensus - thanks for your effort. As far as your 'four remaining issues' I think you're right about 1, 2 & 4 - my only disagreement is with 'let the reader decide how important or not important they are' since including them gives the reader the impression that an editor has decided that they're important enough to merit inclusion.  I'm on the fence about including the marathonguide.com award, but still think that a local award (like Washington Running Club's Runner of the Year) just doesn't have enough significance to put in the article.
 * I think that if the article is going to mention a dollar amount in the lead paragraph, it should be the amount raised, since as editors we have the benefit of hindsight - it seems to me that the most important bit of information when raising money for a charity is how much money was raised. The converse of 'Wikepedia isn't a crystal ball' is that Wikipedia knows whether other people's crystal balls turned out to be working or not - rather than saying what his goal was, it makes more sense for the second sentence to say "He raised $43,000 (or whatever the current total is) for charity, as part of an effort he called "Fiddy2.""  The interim total (as of the end of 2006), while a fact worthy of noting, is far less important than the total.  Then in the paragraph about Fiddy2, we can provide more detail, stating (as it already does) "His goal was to raise $52K" and then mentioning that as of the end of 2006, he had raised $32K.  One other thing before I go - on the Fiddy2 website, it mentions that Rauschenberg was included in the 2007 edition of Ripley's Believe it or Not.  I don't have the time to verify this claim, but if it's true, I think it would be worth mentioning in the article.   CruiserBob (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

April 14 Proposal
I have made a few changes, thanks all for the suggestions. Please take a look - I really think we're almost there. The Ripley's thing would indeed be worth including if verified. If anyone has access to a copy and could confirm the title/ISBN of the book, and that Rauschenberg is indeed in there, then it definitely should go in. Perhaps even a quote. No need to buy it, just find it in a book score or library and scribble it down. If I lived in the US, I'd do it myself - I've never seen the Ripley's books for sale in bookstores here in the UK. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  12:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Again, thank you Neil for your hard work. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I continue to believe that the two awards do not meet the criteria for inclusion, because they are not supported by secondary sources. Marathonguide.com is just 4 people trying to build a readship by generating some content, and Rauchenberg's inclusion on their list does not represent independent journalism nor a well-recognized merit based awards system. I agree with CruiserBob regarding the Co-male runner of the year award.
 * The paragraph on the origins of fiddy2 is still a bit muddled. May I possibly suggest:"Rauschenberg decided to run a marathon each weekend throughout 2006, titling the 52-marathon effort 'Fiddy2' in April 2005. Two months into his planning, Rauschenberg decided to add a charity fundraising component, setting a $52,000 goal, and selected the Mobile, Alabama chapter of L'Arche as the recipient of his effort."  I personally do not think we need to drag the First Light Marathon or the Mobile chapter into this.  A reader will ask why a man who lives in Washington DC with friends and family in Pennsylvania would seek to benefit the Mobile chapter of a charity instead of the Washington or Pennsylvania chapter.  Although it probably worked against his fundraising, I don't want to get into the whole relationship with the First Light Marathon in the article.
 * Ref #15 needs a template parameter fix.
 * I had thought that we were going to drop the Little Rock reference rather than use archive.org.
 * The First Light Marathon benefits L'Arche Mobile and it was the source for his decision to select this charity as the beneficiary of his efforts. I'm not sure how explaining the genesis of his actions is not relevant. Including these details will answer the questions "why L'Arche Mobile, why not some better-known charity, and why Mobile of all places?" Alansohn (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 207, the reference does not really back up this idea that the fundraising component was added after he began his planning.  I have reordered the paragraph to read better without changing what it says, I hope - take a look. Alansohn made a good argument for retaining the Little Rock reference, and I don't see what harm retaining it adds.  Ref#15 now fixed.  As far as the awards go, I couldn't find anything that suggested Washington Running Club (let alone its awards) were notable, so have removed that one, but found something that suggested marathinguide.com was notable, so have referenced that. Thoughts on latest version, please? <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The has the following quote from Rauchenberg: "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."  This coincides with everyone's recollections: that Rauchenberg discussed his project with local runners and potential supporters for months before deciding to add a charitable component.  The goerie cite is not proposed to support the proposition that it was a few months after starting the project that Rauchenberg decided to add a charity.  See discussion above.  The race organizer of the First Light Marathon is the leader of the Mobile chapter.  I agree with Alansohn that he was the source of the idea to convert Fiddy2 into a charity fundraiser and suggested the Mobile chapter as the beneficiary.  This is a part of the larger First Light Marathon "Run4Free" program, which offers a number of benefits (such as entry fee waivers, free air travel, and Carribean cruises) to people to raise specified amounts.  Please reconsider my suggested paragraph above, because your formulation has the timing wrong.  In April 2005, DR undertook Fiddy2 and started to research possible marathons and sponsors.  In July or August 2005, he interacted with the First Light Marathon and started to consider adding a fund raising component.  On Jan 15, 2006, he ran the First Light Marathon.  The current paragraph has the charity component being added after 1/15/06.  Again, I am shy about reopening the entire First Light Marathon controversy with Alansohn.
 * The fact that a columnist praises Marathonguide.com generally and its statistical report on marathons, does not establish that the Marathonguide.com's award to or ranking of DR is notable. When the Academy Awards are announced, the press covers them, and they are the acknowledged arbiter of excellence in motion pictures.  If some blog or website were to publish a list of the top ten Wikipedia editors, and no secondary source covers that award, then the award is just the opinion of the four-person staff of the website or blog, and not the acknowledged arbiter of excellence in the field.
 * Similarly, Ripley's Believe It or Not is viewed by many as a catalog of the odd and flake-y, so it would not be considered to be an award. I would leave Ripley's out. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

207 - you seem to be getting wrapped around the axle about the word 'notable'. In Wikipedia terms, people are notable or not. Whether a fact is notable or not is irrelevant - what's important is whether or not a fact is worth including as something which would be relevant, interesting, or useful to an encyclopedia reader. The fact that a columnist praises Marathonguide.com makes a good prima facie case that the site is a respected source of information in the running community - so seeing the referenced article indicates to me that the award should be included. Similarly, although Ripley's may be viewed as a catalog of the odd and flaky, getting listed in it is certainly significant, and is certainly relevant, interesting or useful to an encyclopedia reader. CruiserBob (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Rauchenberg negotiated to add a charitable component a few months later. While searching for events, Rauschenberg contacted the Legg Mason First Light Marathon, which was conducted a particular charity. He negotiated to add that charity as the project's charitable beneficiary and pledge to raise $52,000, ($1,000 for each week of the project) in exchange for other assistance to fiddy2. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Neil - I think it's great, with one (teeny tiny) exception. On what must by at least my fourth time reading it, I finally noticed that in the Running paragraph, the first word should be "Rauschenberg's".
 * One columnist seeking to recap one article posted on marathonguide.com does not validate marathonguide.com's "2nd Annual MarathonGuide.com Outstanding USA Marathoners of the Year - 2006". By way of analogy, WP:PROF specifies, "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them."  So, if an award or honor has to be notable for it to go into an article about an academic, it is just as logical that the award should be notable for a running article.  There are groups in Washington DC and nationally which honor a Runner of the Year, or assemble a hall of fame.  An article posted on marathonguide.com listing a number of people using the vague criteria, does not mean that the award is "well respected."  There are no secondary sources discussing the awards.
 * 207 - did you even read what I wrote on 17 April about the word 'notable'?. WP:PROF and WP:N are guidelines for whether or not a PERSON should have a Wikipedia article about him.  They don't give any guidance on what awards to include or not include in the article if the person is deemed notable enough to have an article.  For an explanation, see N - the criteria for inclusion is verifiability and biographical relevance - if you can go to marathonguide.com's website & see it, it's verifiable - you don't need a secondary source to verify that an organization has issued an award if you can go to that organization's website and see it.  If I'm putting in an article that Person X got a Nobel Prize, I'm going to cite the Nobel website as a source, not the Washington Post.  You suggested that the award shouldn't be included because marathonguide.com is "just 4 people trying to build a readship by generating some content" - Neil found an article that indicated that not only have they managed to build readership, but that they have earned credibility in the running community.  What more do you want?  How much coverage do you think running awards get?  Can you find a running award (not a race result) that has gotten other coverage?  CruiserBob (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We have not come to terms with how to handle the whole question of why a few months into the planning of Fiddy2, Rauchenberg decided to make an arrangement with the Mobile chapter of L'Arche. The following was in the last consensus version:
 * I think we're starting to head backwards. We have discussed that the charity he chose is relevant to readers, and that it would be useful to explain how and why he came to choose this particular cause. The rewording proposed seems to be trying to dance around the subject. We have the sources to support the proposed text, there is a strong case for relevance, let's include the details. WP:PROF would be a relevant standard if he were a college professor. As a runner, CruiserBob has made a strong case for inclusion of the award cited. Alansohn (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No longer a race organizer
Apparently, Dane Rauschenberg has left his job in Utah and is hunting for a new position. Shouldn't we update the page. It appears to be protected. 158.59.91.249 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As well it should, given the massive sockpuppetry attacks the article has endured for quite some time. Any change to the article regarding his employment would require reliable and verifiable sources, and reach consensus for inclusion in the article. Alansohn (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was unprotected, but was protected due to an anomaly. The original protection, between 1 April and 21 April was for edit warring, and the protection expired but on 18 May a protected page Talk:Dane Rauschenberg/proposal was merged into this one in a history merge for GFDL.  However I agree it cannot be updated with this information at present, as reliable sources would be needed (although that applies to any information being added to articles, particularly biographical information).  As for the sockpuppetry attacks, the sockpuppet was using a static IP, which could be blocked if necessary, and new sockpuppets would be easy to identify. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 12:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)