Talk:Dave Camp

External link to critical blog

The link to the critical site should be allowed under external links for the following reasons:

1. There is no clear standard or template for these pages. Some pages have links to critical sites.
2. The reason "wikipedia is not a directory for blogs" is insufficient. According to wiki rules, Wikipedia is not a directory at all, yet there are still external links.
3. In researching the rules on Wikipedia, no reference to blogs was found, other than "wikipedia is not a blog."
4. The site in question has been clearly identified as a critical site not paid for by any party or candidate. There is no attempt to deceive or compromise the neutrality of the content of this page.

Please produce the relevant wiki rule, or a sufficient reason as to why the site should not be included. If we have this information we will not add the link again.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truth team (talk • contribs) 13:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Several Dave Camps

Quote: "So between a jazz musician, a murderer, and a congressperson, all called 'Dave Camp', I have a lot of pressure to be evil." - GNOME's Dave Camp

So I came here to see who the jazz musician, murderer and congressperson were, but only the congressperson has a page. Surely jazz musicians and murderers, if not GNOME developers, are at least somewhat noteworthy? Maybe someone would like to take a look into this? 212.202.199.190 (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Article title should be "Dave Camp"

The name by which he is enrolled in Congress is Dave Camp. The article should be titled Dave Camp and the David Lee Camp article should redirect to the Dave Camp article (or to the "Dave Camp (politician)" article).

(If we leave the article this way, then we will have to change Jimmy Carter's article to "James Earl Carter" and Bill Bradley's article to "William Warren Bradley".)

72.82.164.40 (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

---

David Lee Camp → Dave Camp — Per WP:NCP, article titles should not include middle names, unless it is the most common form used in reliable sources, which it is not. He is enrolled in Congress as Dave and most reliable sources name him as Dave, therefore the article title should be Dave. Theking17825 16:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support per style guidelines Bakkster Man (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support as that is the name he goes by in official circles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support- Since 'Dave Camp' redirects here, currently default primary topic, and is the form used by the individual. Dru of Id (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aharon Friedman

Be careful not to give WP:UNDUE weight to the Aharon Friedman scandal, particularly as it relates to 'recentism'. Be sure that the amount of time spent talking about the topic is proportional to how important it is to the representative overall. Bear in mind this is not a news article, it is an encyclopedia article, and should be relevant years from now. Also note that there is a 'social media campaign' intending to put pressure on Mr. Camp over this issue, but Wikipedia is not the place to place that pressure. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Dave Camp, not Aharon Friedman. The recent addition violates WP:COAT and WP:UNDUE and should be removed. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 18:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Which recent addition? The three sentence summary, or the long 'expose'? Bakkster Man (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just speaking to the multiple paragraph version for now. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 18:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Dave Camp's connection to Aharon Friedman, and his refusal to address the issue has been widely reported. The growing number of reports about Camp's connection to this scandal includes some by major news outlets such as Fox News, The Huffington Post, and Politico among others too numerous to list here. To neglect mention of this criticism would constitute less than a full account of Camp's experience as an elected official.--82.81.63.45 (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree on the 'widely reported' claim. There is relatively little coverage in the mainstream media. Aside from a few articles, the bulk has been social media, Jewish media, and political blogs (Huffington Post in particular). HuffPo and Politico are not 'major news outlets', Washington Post, New York Times, CBS News are. The NYT article we have cited here isn't even linked on their page as being 'about' Dave Camp. Both the NYT and Fox News seem to have just a single article on the topic. Washington Post seems to only have an entry in their religious blog, and Camp is mentioned just once.

I'm not saying it won't blow up bigger or that this shouldn't be discussed, but I think we need to be careful to give this due weight in the Dave Camp article. Put another way, how much information is needed to fully cover Camp's public actions, and how can we accurately reflect how important an action was with how much exposition we spend on it? Is it our encyclopedic goal to spend more or less time on this incident in relation to the rest of his tenure?

Perhaps the List of federal political scandals in the United States page is a better place for this topic? Even then, I doubt at this point it is notable enough to be there, it just doesn't have the widespread outrage or coverage to be worth noting. Unless this explodes in popularity, I doubt the average person would remember it within a few months (assuming they have even heard about it today). Bakkster Man (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the alleged requirement that criticisms leveled must be those which the "average person would remember." Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge, and includes more information than the "average person would remember." That said, this criticism of Camp has been widely reported. The issue has appeared in more than just one or two articles; rather it has appeared in multiple articles in major new outlets like Fox, the New York Times and Politico, in addition to articles in widely read Jewish press like The Forward and the New York Jewish Week, which have readership in the hundreds of thousands. This does not even include the outrage in the bloggosphere and in other less read publications. This is more than a mere blip, it is a significant issue. --82.81.63.45 (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from the policy WP:UNDUE.

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

I'm willing to let you prove me wrong. Show me widespread, mainstream coverage. Politico, HuffPo, and the Jewish press are not mainstream. A single article by each of the mainstream sources means these media outlets did not deem the topic worthy of continuing coverage. The fact that they usually only mention Camp once should further indicate that this incident has very little notability with regards to Dave Camp. It doesn't matter if it's true, but whether it is truly worthy of coverage in the article.

"An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true."

Again, this seems to be a minority complaint, one barely notable as is for the 3 sentences it gets. I'm sure I can find many other minority complaints, but which more directly reflect on Camp rather than his staffers, but they are still minor in the overall picture. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of getting more eyes on this topic, I am requesting comment from other editors. At issue is whether a religious dispute of an otherwise non-notable congressional staffer and the congressman's response to it is worthy of inclusion in the criticism section of the congressman's entry. If so, how much of the article should be spent discussing it? Beyond that, is primarily non-mainstream media attention justification for inclusion in an article? Is this topic attempting to use the Dave Camp article as a coatrack? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To add another article to the growing list, here is one from the hill. So there is continuing coverage in the Jewish press, which is read by hundreds of thousands of readers, and there is headline coverage (if not yet continuing) coverage in mainstream press read by millions, including Fox News, Washington Post, the New York Times. Dave Camp's name appears in the headline of these articles, or is otherwise the main subject of these articles. The news has had continuing coverage in political and Jewish press, and this has spilled into the mainstream press. This criticism merits at least passing mention on Dave Camp's page.--192.114.91.245 (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with passing coverage on this article, the same kind of coverage the mainstream media is giving it. If they start providing continuing coverage, then I will reevaluate. I wouldn't say Dave Camp is the main subject of the articles, though. Friedman is the main subject, Camp is just the reason Friedman's case has any notability beyond the affected communities. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm responding to a request for comment - I have no prior involvement with this article, and am not familiar with the specific issue, other than what I am reading in the sources appended to the article over the last bunch of edits. I have a few comments beyond the question, which I hope will help here.

1. First, I think the "Controversies" subsection is inappropriate and should be removed - in general controversies and criticisms should be worked into the text at appropriate places, if included at all.
2. The statement "Camp has been accused of being a rubber stamp for various entities." is meaningless to the reader - that can't stand as written, even with citations. What entities? By whom? If included at all, that should be moved up to the first paragraph of "Tenure", and it should be spelled out a bit, something along the lines of 'Camp has been accused of being a "rubber stamp" for Wall Street interests and other conservative causes.' or whatever it is you want to say, but not the vague "various entities".
3. While I understand why folks want to include something about Friedman, the specifics of his marriage, divorce, and religious divorce or lack of same, you have to demonstrate a real connection of these issues to Dave Camp beyond the fact that Friedman works for him. So if Friedman's personal situation affects his work - for example, if the House Ethics committee were to decide to investigate this, as Rabbi Herzfeld requested (see The Hill), there would likely be more sources discussing this and Camp would presumably have more substantive statements of support or lack of support, than "it's gossip". And if he, Camp, were drawn into this matter, it could possibly belong here - but only if it is really notable for his life. But at this point it seems to me to be at most a developing story, with not enough relevant to Camp to make it notable for Camp's article. Let's remember that this is a biography of Camp - his life and career - and not an article about his staff, unless things involving his staff have an effect on Camp's tenure as Representative, or he takes a stand on the issues, or has to testify, etc. Now, I'd say none of it really belongs in this article. But, I say again that I am only going by the sources I saw mentioned here, and I would encourage editors to do some research and see if there is actually more material available regarding its connection to Camp.
4. I do think this is an interesting story that might have a place in the encyclopedia, but I just don't see - at the present moment - a compelling argument for including it in this particular article. (Just for the record, my personal opinion about the subject, as opposed to its appropriateness here, is that based on what I've read Friedman is dead wrong, and all pressure should be brought on him to abandon his unacceptable stance regarding his former wife. But I don't think this is the place to do it.)

I hope this is helpful.Tvoz/talk 01:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tvoz. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Uninvolved editor, through RfC page: Tvoz' points are well taken and well stated. At present, the "rubber stamp" is the only part of this discussion still active in the article-- the Controversy section having been deleted. Criticism and controversies are appropriate, but the Friedman and "rubber stamp" discussions are ill-fit, here.--cregil (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Section re-added [1], with the same issues, especially undue weight. I've contacted the editor, and may seek further input at the BLP noticeboard, especially if this has the whiff of a slow long-term edit war. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

← Yes, I've removed the section as it is currently written based on the discussion above and the lack of support for its inclusion in March when it was first raised. While obviously there is a connection between Friedman and Camp, it has not be shown that this matter has had any effect on Camp's career or his life, and those are the criteria we use for inclusion in his biography. I would suggest to the editor who finds this matter to be compelling for inclusion in the encyclopedia that he or she write a separate stand-alone article about Aharon Friedman, and source it well, and see if passes our notability guidelines - it very well might. Then a link here to that article might be appropriate. But at this point, I don't see how we can shoehorn it into this piece. And while I personally still think that Friedman's actions are reprehensible, that doesn't mean they are appropriate to add here - unless there is more to the story regarding Camp that I've missed. Tvoz/talk 23:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)