Talk:Jake Rush

Untitled section
References 13-18 circularly refer to the false blogger post referenced in 3 and 4. The poorly sourced information located in the LARP section is in violation of wikipedia rules. Admin help is requested, for three times the false or misleading text was removed per policy and the author reverted the edits. This is an article regarding a political candidate in a current federal election. The false allegations are serious and badly misleading. There is a current professional effort to smear this candidate. ErrorJar (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the unreliable/polemic blog sources, which fail sourcing requirements. The reliably-sourced discussion of incidents by mainstream media, on the other hand, is a matter for discussion and consensus. The Miami New Times and Gainesville Sun are presumptively-reliable secondary sources with editorial controls in place. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that we can realistically keep this off the article given the level of coverage in reliable sources about the issue. For better or worse it's become part of the subject's public image. I agree with the removal of the iffy sources and perhaps it can be worded differently and given less weight, but outright deletion of the material would be inappropriate, since our "job" is to report what those reliable independent sources say about the topics we cover. It's disingenuous to claim that the subject's political opponents are somehow wholly responsible for the level of coverage that we see here. That said, if there are further concerns, we are here to listen and help as much we can. (this did not require an administrator's assistance per se, but I've replied to the request nonetheless) § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems to consider the LARP thing deserves its own section, but I disagree. And there's no need to mention what 12 characters or whatever he played as, etc. As this is obviously negative information about the subject, we should strive to reduce its weight, not increase it, while at the same time conveying the information in an appropriate manner. Maybe a threat at WP:BLP/N would be in order. Thoughts? § FreeRangeFrog  croak 00:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right; I do disagree. Every article sourced (besides perhaps 3) mentions the LARP-ing, and it's why Rush is nationally known. Its not "negative" information; it's information. --Kbabej (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * He might be known for that, but it doesn't mean we have to play along. We mention it, but we don't make 1/3rd of the biography about that, nor do we give it more weight than it needs to. Please read WP:UNDUE. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Kbabej, you say its not "negative" information, but the implication could be. The subject is running as a conservative from a conservative party, but in his spare time he runs around dressed up and acting like a vampire? As always, I really appreciate FreeRangeFrog's measure approach to dealing with "material" and situations like this, thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm of the same mindset as FreeRangeFrog. There is more content about Rush's interest in role playing than about his political and professional life. Say that I run for office and choose to mountain bike a lot in my free time, does that warrant being included in an encyclopedic article about me? If so it shouldn't dominate the article.  Tiptoety  talk 05:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, I think this "material" deserves small mention, if at all, that said, to play devil's advocate Tiptoety, to answer your question, it depends. What if your "mountain biking" is widely covered by the press because you do it at charity events and want to pass legislation creating more biking paths and you had been in an accident that caused you to lose a leg, so now you advocate for people with disabilities, yadda, yadda, yadda. Then a SMALL mention MIGHT be warranted. It all depends. Is it noteworthy, relevant, covered by RS? That seems to be the criteria for what "material" gets included in bios. Not easy to say the least. --Malerooster (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with FRF - it doesn't seem WP:UNDUE to mention it given the reliable sources, but to give it its own section in such a short biography is unnecessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * has actually moved it to the personal section, which kinda makes more sense (the placement in the career section was I guess a way to reflect the fact that it has undoubtedly affected his career). I think that's a good compromise, and I do agree that there should be some mention of it given the level of coverage in the context of the political race he's involved in, but I rarely argue for keeping negative information on a bio, so whatever the consensus is I'm good. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with moving it out of its own section. I would support trimming it down even more. Tiptoety  talk 02:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been moved out of its own section, and its down to a few lines. It's been compacted enough in consideration with how much coverage it's gotten. --Kbabej (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

LARPing website stuff
I've restored the Gainesville Sun article - it is a mainstream newspaper and presumptively reliable source, and it addresses an apparently-notable issue relating to his past and his candidacy. I don't feel like it's undue weight but this should probably be discussed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)