Talk:Rick Santelli

Degree in what?

I think its suspicious how it notes he has a Bachelors of Science - but doesn't say in what. If this isn't an economics degree, and this guy is giving economics commentary, I think this is relevent information. I'd like to see what degree this guy has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.21.125 (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm sure many of the things in the last paragraph are true, but it is clearly not written in NPOV. If there are no objections I will soon delete it. Lewallen (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do delete it. It's partisan political motivation is plain. Pechmerle (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please delete it. I just finished adding a new section to promote consensus and avoid high handed editing prior to seeing this "NPOV" section.

It could conceivably be drastically shortened to a simple mention of the basic premise and perhaps balancing material could be found but I'm not unhappy with the idea of outright deletion. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I was curious who he was

In my view, Wikipedia should have everything a person could conceivably want to look up (with the natural caveats about defamation), ie. everything. I'm happy that Wikipedia was able to answer my question. downtown_dan_seattle (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed, etc

I removed the excerpt parts, as I think enough of the video's/discussion of what Rick said are floating around, it's not entirely required to reproduce it (or even parts of it). The video link is a better representation, in my own opinion.

Also, removed the fancruft as it seems the article is shorter and less "intricate", if you will. 67.186.185.34 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Playboy.com theories need rewriting and shortening

The ever expanding conspiracy theory with a Playboy.com article as the source needs to be cut down to size. The additions to the article are beginning to sound like original research (WP:OR) and is verging on a lack balance (WP:NPOV). -- Rydra Wong (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Using the term "conspiracy theory" betrays your agenda. It's not OR to cite an article which itself is OR. How would you improve the edit/article?Jimintheatl (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the article could be improved by adding more sources, as there is a lot of coverage breaking on this right now....I think one or two of the Libertarian/Republican activists named in the article have publicly responded. Yasha Levine also published an first-hand account of a tea party rally in chicago [1] dsol (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

sourcing

Please stick to statements supported by the cited sources. The politico article does not say that "Gibbs was clearly upset" or that the administration had previously threatened anyone. If that is to go in the article, it needs a source. On the other hand, the playboy article is a valid source, and it has itself been covered in a number of other sources, such the NYT [2]. For more information please see WP:V and WP:RS dsol (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not reinserted the material from the playboy article, because I think it was poorly written and unbalanced. But at some point it should go back in, it is now getting a lot of national press attention and clearly passes WP:N, specifically "substantial coverage in reliable sources" dsol (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see evidence of the "substantial coverage in reliable sources" but let's be honest about the quality of the addition citing playboy.com as the source. "Suggested that Santelli's rant was not spontaneous"; "inferring that the rant was engineered"; and last but not least the ridiculous attempt to somehow tie Santelli to Koch Industries and the John Birch Society. Can you say weasel words and innuendo - sure, I knew you could. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree the section was poorly worded, so I haven't put it back in as I haven't had time to do a proper rewrite. We can certainly mentioned the playboy article without using at as a source, as it's mentioned in the NYT piece. dsol (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you could mention the blog posting that playboy.com has now opted to delete without comment [3], but I'm not sure I see the point. Aside from other blog postings about the ensuing dustup and retraction of the post, all mainstream journalistic sources that point to the original post will be resting on a dead link. Note that the original playboy.com piece was itself a blog post and not considered a reputable source by Wikipedia standards. If you can find more reputable sources that suggest (without referencing the original blog post) Santelli's rant was staged then I will be happy to hear about them and will actively assist in their inclusion in the article. Absent such a reputable source, you and I and other interested editors will hopefully have further discussions and achieve a workable consensus. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The now deleted playboy.com blog posting was used to perform a hatchet job/personal smear on the character of Rick Santelli over and above its now rather questionable veracity regarding the spontaneity of Santelli's rant. No matter what one feels about Mr Santelli's politics or knowledge of economic theory, the sort of highly personal attack that attempts to impugn someone's character by vaguely associating them with particular corporations or political groups in the absence of any real evidence should have no place on Wikipedia. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we are mostly on the same page but I don't see any reason why we should pretend the blog post never happened. If the NYT and other sources cover it, it's relevant. Acknowledging that there was a blog post, as NYT did, is not the same as repeating unsubstantiated rumors it contained or endorsing its opinions. Obviously to the extent the blog post was a hatchet job, we should not repeat its specific claims here however. dsol (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of comments from an outsider

• The lede does not mention what makes Santelli notable.

As I believe the so called rant is what has made Santelli notable, it should be mentioned in the lede.

• Why the overuse of the word "rant"?

I know that the Rosenthal source uses the word and claims that Santelli self-described it as such (this article doesn't mention that fact, by the way); but, it seems that the rest of the article might benefit from a thesaurus. Rant is a little bit POV and more neutral terms could be used when the self-described point is not being made.WTucker (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Playboy.com has apparently pulled the reported "evidence" of conspiracy

This article [4] from New York Magazine goes into some depth regarding the article and authors of the Playboy.com conspiracy theory that Santelli's CNBC rant was scripted. Unless more definitive information arises that suggests the rant actually was staged, placing any mention of this in the Santelli wiki article is inappropriate. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's quite appropriate, because both other national press such as NYT, as well as Santelli himself have adressed it. Our job as editors is not to adress whether the rant was stage, but rather to accurately summarize what secondary sources have said. Please read WP:N dsol (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reorganized/Reworded

I changed the page around a bit. Rewording mostly, since it was largely a cut/paste job from other places. Some things I took out, because you can find minute details in the ref's, obviously ...

Fixed some refs, added two new ones.

Finally, put in a bunch of internal links.Curious brain (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

An Inclusionist

I don't see a reason for taking my bit out. I am actually pro Santelli on this one. Jon Stewart, just this week, invited a journalist with no capacity to comment about the market to talk about the market. Earlier I was under the impression that Santelli apologized for his conduct because of the faulty content of this article. So anyone who changed the word from apologized to calrified: thank you.

I took the part about Jon Stewart out because the act of Stewart inviting a guest on his show (regardless of whether they show up or not) is, in a general sense, not very notable. That is not to say that the topic (the financial problems as a whole) is not notable, just that Santelli appearing or not appearing on the Daily Show does not seem (to me) to be important.

Obviously, it's my own opinion. Specifically, I'm "reading into" the Notability "clause", in particular the last section about not being a complete exposition.Curious brain (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:N reads in part, "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not regulate the content of articles ... ." I agree that Curious brain's point would preclude a separate article on the disputed content. Nonetheless, I do think that Jon Stewart has such a large viewership, and his piece in question contains numerous obviously well-researched examples of CNBC's self-contradictions (thereby mocking Rick Santelli's claims), that the disputed content is relevant to the article. Therefore, I am restoring the disputed content pending further discussion. Thanks. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 00:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

While I stand by my original hypothesis of the content not being particularly notable (that's subjective, obviously), I'm not dead set against it, either. That out of the way, I'm going to copy edit the addition (grammar, etc) and maybe reword it for "flow". If no complaints are made against my modifications, I'll assume we can agree on it.Curious brain (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the reverted content - here is my train of thought on the edit:

- Originally, I had Allen Stanford and Stanford Financial thrown in there. After thinking about it, though, it just seemed a little arbitrary (why not include John Thain, etc etc?)

- CNBC was already linked earlier in the article, seemed repetitive (no idea the guidelines on this, so I could quite easily be wrong)

- The archives of thedailyshow.com seem to go back a month or so (give or take a few days), so its conceivable that the ref will be broken after that amount of time elapses.

- [edit] Added 'criticism' section; it seemed to make sense. If it seems a bit much for two sentences or so, axe it.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that.Curious brain (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) How widely has this "material" been reported by other 3rd parties? Maybe include at the Stewart show article if at all. Tom 04:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:weight reads in part, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Deletion of reliably sourced and prominant content with the comment "rm non notable trivia" seems to violate the undue weight rule, giving too little weight to all the heavy criticism Santelli has received from outside the White House. Jon Stewart's criticism is but one of many, but to include them all would err on the opposite side, giving too much weight to the criticism. Including this one example in the article, an example which is exceptionally well researched, seems to strike a fair balance. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 09:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably also worth noting that according to the NYT link I posted above, it was actually CNBC rather than Santelli himself who cancelled the interview. dsol (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Article corrected. Thanks. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 13:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I apperciate this dissuction. on the notablitiy clause: How is it Encyclopedic to have a bit about How many daughters, Rick Santelli has and where they live??? I watch CNBC and regualrly I might add but the general public on average does not. And isn't Rick Santelli "Notalble" becasue of the socalled "rant". thank you for all the folk who helped with this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.93.153.171 (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur on inclusion. Stewart's calling out CNBC was in itself perhaps not notable, but it did prompt considerable discussion in the wider media about the financial network's too cozt relationship with the businesses it is supposedly covering.Jimintheatl (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe add to the Stewart page if at all. --Tom 12:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be the only editor taking this positionJimintheatl (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I don't favor inclusion (but if consensus is to leave it in, then oh well). Specifically, it seems to me that if any criticism is to be raised about collusion between CNBC and the corporations it covers, or the quality (or lack thereof) of its business predictions, it should be in the CNBC article. Which only leaves the fact that Santelli did or didn't appear on the Daily Show, or that Stewart accused him of cheap populism, neither of which is very notable (I mean, think of how many things Stewart has said about people).

In regards to the Huffington Post that Jimintheatl added, in my opinion that is better used for a criticism of CNBC as a whole, since Santelli is only mentioned once in the entire article proper (that is discounting tags, etc).Curious brain (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article in dispute

This article appears to have been whitewashed of all non-White House criticism of Santelli's live rant on CNBC. This article has also been the subject of edit warring over whether or not to include such non-White House criticism. Because of this impasse, I have added an NPOV tag until we can reach a consensus.

My personal opinion is that the non-White House criticism should be included, as I have stated in the above section of this talk page. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 02:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I almost added the tag a few minutes ago, I just wasn't sure. As an attempt at a compromise, I was thinking of starting a 'Criticism' section in the CNBC article, then we can transclude some of it or link to it. I'll wait for comments before I actually do that, though.Curious brain (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article's history, it wasn't even created until just after Santelli's rant on CNBC. Therefore, the rant was the tipping point which made him notable enough even to have an article in the first place. As to a "Criticism" section heading, there used to be one, but it was a major heading (same as Background, Career and Personal). I deleted it, but would not be opposed to a minor heading of that name. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 02:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Oops. I misread which article the "Criticism" section was proposed for. I have no problem with that proposal, either. Nonetheless, Santelli personally has drawn much criticism from outside of the White House, so I think at least one sentence is merited in this article. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 02:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I do agree (after considering some more the 'undue weight' reasoning you brought up previously) that non-White House criticism leveled at Santelli should appear in some fashion or another (presumably, a few sentences or some form of transclusion). I've poked around a little bit and found some ref's that are recent and some that date back to the dot-com era. Before I throw it up on CNBC, I figured I'd sandbox it so any issues can be resolved without cluttering up the real article. I'll probably start that in a day or so, after others have had more time to comment.Curious brain (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As time goes by and comment on Santelli/CNBC continues (NPR, Meredith Viera's show, CNBC itself, etc), I think Notability is further demonstrated. As Arthut pointed out, Santelli's "rant" made him notable; Stewart's reaction to it, and, more importantly, the subsequent reaction to Stewart, confirm notability.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think anybody will be talking about this two weeks from now yet alone 2 months from now? If folks truely believe that his "rant" is why he is notable, then they should have his bio put up for deletion. More than 1/2 the article "covers" this "event" as it currently stands? Anyways, --Tom 13:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Tom, I don't want to risk putting words in your mouth or anything like that, so I'm wondering if the compromise as proposed (pending any modification you or others might make) is acceptable to you? If not, what would be (deletion, etc)?Curious brain (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got a rough copy at my sandbox. I'll probably finish it up and post it at CNBC in a day or so, to give time for any comments or what not.Curious brain (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. It looks good to me, well-referenced and concise. BTW, it seems that Tom isn't much interested in your question...Jimintheatl (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Curious brain, for your work on the CNBC article. As for this article, it appears we are still at an impasse. There is continued edit warring, for example [5] with a "see talk" explanation not backed up with any new talk. This pattern seems to continue one that is already visible at User talk:Threeafterthree. Everyone, please remember WP:3RR. Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 15:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on this article and not editors. Also, the sandbox version looks like it belongs in the Stewart article or cnbc articles if at all, ect. I am sorry, where is the "compromise" version for this article? TIA Tom 15:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I was planning on putting what's at my sandbox (after a little more work) into the CNBC article (similar to what you just mentioned), then linking to it/transcluding some of it - that is the compromise version being referred to. Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated; otherwise, I'm going to assume we can all agree and we can put this issue to rest.Curious brain (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

linking to it? transcluding some of it? anything more specific? Tom 17:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

After muxing with it a bit, transclusion seems a bad idea. So, to your question about specifics, I'm going to just do this: finish the criticism section on CNBC and put it into that article - any links or what not I'll leave to other people. My original objection to the content was that it was not "Santelli" specific (it was about CNBC as a whole) - I've solved the problem I had. If you have any further objections, I leave that to you.Curious brain (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)
In addition to all the previously cited non-White House criticism of Santelli's rant, here is a quotation from Jim Cramer of Santelli's own CNBC network, "I dislike what [Santelli] said. I thought that it was bad. ... I didn't understand it. ... [People suffering foreclosure are] not losers, they're fighters." For your easy reference, that quote starts at minute 2:00 of the first clip (part 1). To me, it's a no-brainer that this article must include at least one sentence out of the abundant non-White House criticism. Lacking such, this article remains unbalanced. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 18:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Are the talking heads still beating this drum? Even they have moved on quicker than anybody here ever predicted. Very predictable. Maybe we should add a whole section of praise to add some balance?(just kidding) Anyways, Tom 18:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag which I had placed, and I added one line about the continued criticism. I hope this is an acceptable compromise. Otherwise the tag will have to be added back. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 18:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess add the tag back. Can we at least use a source from say a main stream newspaper and not a blog or comedy tv show ect? Could you post the link here and then let others comment about its relevance and noteworthyness. Are we going to then need a rebuttal to said criticism? Hoefully in 6 months we can AFD this page and move on? Anyways, Tom 22:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it's disheartening, but no one who is serious about politics and the media can dispute the uncomfortable fact that a comedy show has done more incisive commentary on the financial mess(and much else) than Jon Stewart. Watch his interview with Jim Cramer and there is little question about which is dealing with the financial debacle/meltdown in a more serious manner(which is horrifying, given that Stewart is a comic).Jimintheatl (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I actually have never watched Stewart except for clips from other shows. He looks really funny in those clips but whatever. 03:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)ps and Crammer is not a comic? Tom 03:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Lack of detail on controversy

I just saw this article for the first time and I'm stunned. In the version that I just saw, there is almost nothing on the massive controversy that has surrounded his "tea party" remarks. I don't know if this neutrality controversy has been resolved but I do not believe that an article with such a small amount of text on that controversy can be considered neutral. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your support is sorely needed and quite welcome. Each of us editors has but two eyes and limited hours to monitor it. Please keep watching this article for signs of edit warring and/or tendentious removal of content that clearly belongs here. Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 19:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

JonnyB256, I think you missed the latest memo. This actually isn't/wasn't a massive controversy. It has recently been downgraded from rant to minor rant. In 6 months, look for this article to AFDed. Cheers, --Tom 20:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Maybe we should just put this up for WP:3O or WP:RFC?Curious brain (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would forget 3O since there are already more than two folks here. RFC is not a bad idea. Maybe revist the BLP board as well. I hate to see this section blow up any larger but that is probably where this is headed, too bad, but just 2 cents. --Tom 20:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that as Arthur Smart suggested, this article simply needs more eyes. An RFC or third opinion or both may not be a bad idea. JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Tom has been duly warned not to remove the content again. Another such revert and I will file a report to have him blocked. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 20:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the citation about Cramer's criticism have to come from a blog? --Tom 21:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's just a convenient source for the video of the cable show in question. I have found a hulu version, but you have to wait for all the goofy preliminaries to finish before it gets into the meat of the show. The citation I used bypasses all that. Ideally, a show transcript would be a perfect citation. If you can find it, please re-cite. Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 21:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Recentism Tag

Tom added a "recentism" tag to the article. Since then, he has been blocked (along with Jimintheatl) for 48 hours for violating WP:3RR at Sean Hannity. Though I personally disagree with the "recentism" tag, out of fairness to the blocked editors, I am very hesitant to alter that specific tag or even alter the article in general for the duration of their blocks. Other opinions on the "recentism" tag? Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 15:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the tag. The only reason he merits an article is because of recent events. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed recentism tag. Given that the afd on Jon Stewart's 2009 controversy with CNBC is over, I think it's fair to say any more material (not directly related to Santelli) will wind up in that article. At some point, we might be able to just transclude a small portion of that article with a {{main|xyz}} tag or something.Curious brain (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. How much was Santelli "involved" with Jon Stewart and Cramer controvesey? Can you provide sources for this? TIA Tom 16:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm confident that if you read some of the sources in this article itself, or did a minimal amount of research, you would be able to ascertain that Santelli was involved in the controversy - that being said, obviously the burden of proof is on the person who is trying to make the point. However, I'm tired of debating whether a small chunk of text should or should not exist in this article, so I'm leaving this article to others.Curious brain (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, I am trying to figure out what the "deal" is here but it isn't easy. If folks could post links which they feel are relevant, that would help alot I believe and I would have no problem adding them myself if they are truly relevant and are not undue weight. Also, how can folks say this isn't a "current" event deal? Anyways, I have to run for awhile, but maybe we could try to get other uninvolved editors to help improve this article. Thanks, Tom 17:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I just read this. Now it needs to be added with some explaination. Tom 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This disaster of an article

Is the point of this article to prove that Wikipedia Review was right all along? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.175.193 (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than ripping us, why not try to improve the article with specific items that need to be addressed, either added or removed. I am all ears and would like imput but your tone has already indicated a POV problem. Tom 17:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of Santelli "rant" section

I guess I will try to enlist some help to rewrite this section in a NPOV and non undue weight fashion. Can we at least leave the blogs out of this for now? Hopefully a rewrite can be posted here soon and commented on. Also, per Curious Brain, maybe a small section of the Stewart controvesy section that relates directly to Santelli would suffice. There is no need to have a see also to that article under the section title, but rather maybe wiki link it inside the text. Anyways, hopefully this can be worked on a resolved. Tom 02:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that the citation from http://www.eschatonblog.com was readded with the edit summary that this isn't a blog? Hopefully we can do better than this but I guess well see. Tom 03:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have left comments on two user's talk page asking for help. Hopefully we can use the talk page to craft a section that most editors can live with and then move on. Anyways, --Tom 16:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the eschaton link. I also tweked some of the other language. I removed the bold from The Daily Show link. I think it's fair at this point for half of his article to be about the rant, as that's really what got him noticed nationwide, and what he's best known for, by far. Any other issues with my edit? Let's discuss. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ali'i - Nice job on the recent edit; this looks like a sensible and positive change that most editors will be able to support. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked wording to better represent the main quote cited. Scholarly research has shown that there were discussions about a new American Tea Party that preceded the "Rant," but there is a general consensus the the Rant "ignited" the Tea Party as a significant populist mass movement.--Chip.berlet (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

DOB

I do not believe the correct year of birth and age are listed. I graduated from High School with Rick in 1974, and I was born in 1956. I do not believe he could possibly be 3 years older than I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarknader (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rick Santelli/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I don't agree with Santelli, but I don't think his general living area is important to his bio, and may be used by people who don't agree with him. But I don't think that the 'Playboy' stuff should be removed. It's too 'public' anyway.

Last edited at 05:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 04:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)