This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Let's develop a consensus about if Bostelman's remarks about furries are notable. I contend that, as these remarks are (or appear to be?) the most widely-noted thing that Bostelman has ever done, and if Bostelman is considered a notable person, these remarks certainly belong in the article. I'll be building a case to contextualize them to demonstrate their notability, but I welcome others' input as I do this. Jno.skinner (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jno.skinner: I would welcome an opportunity for you to illuminate how this event is notable. I will note that not all remarks made by a notable person ought to belong in an article. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the notability guideline does not address content within an article (this is mentioned in the notability policy as WP:NNC). Instead, this is covered mostly under the NPOV policy. In particular, under due and undue weight (WP:WEIGHT) and balance (WP:BALASP). Both of these are part of the NPOV policy, and the aspect of the policy that I see as most relevant is the balance section, which reads: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news.". Here, the question of Bostelman's adoption of a conspiracy theory could be included in a balanced article as it is a significant proportion of all Bostelman treatment in reliable, published sources (as Jno.Skinner notes). On the other hand, it is recent news, and thus it should be treated delicately.
To me, your (PerpetuityGrat) mention of event notability suggests you are arguing that Botelman's claim should not have its own article (WP:NEVENT). While I think that NEVENT (and all notability guidelines) is misused and that wikipedia should be more inclusive based on GNG and take a less restrictive interpretation of subject area notability guidelines, these clearly aren't applicable here. I apologize for noting the wrong guideline rather than the correct policy in my edit summary.
TL:DR - it seems to me that inclusion is supported by wikipedia policies (and guidelines) and would improve the article. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My only response here is WP:ONUS. Not all verifiable content ought to be included. I don't see how speaking under false pretenses about furries—without significant consequence—belongs in an encyclopedia article. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia article, that was Botelman's doing. As Jno.Skinner notes, this is the action for which Bostelman has received the most attention. I would be happy to expand the article to include Botelman's positions on a variety of topics (I'd use clippings from newspapers.com, I did a quick search earlier to help me think about Jno.Skinner's claim that this was the most widely reported action Bostelman had taken). But in my opinion the best way to do so consistent with BALASP would be to include the conspiracy theory. That would be a compromise, would you be comfortable with it? Smmurphy(Talk) 01:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it was Botelamn's doing, but that doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Regardless, the article should be expanded : committee assignments, basic biographical information, etc. Though I still maintain that the inclusion of the whole furry thing... would be undue and disproportionate in its significance. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected--it does appear that the story developed overnight and since he has apologized for his remarks amidst backlash. Probably ought to include. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
