Talk:Bergen County Executive

RFC on biographic information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article contain biographical details of people who do not meet WP:POLITICIAN notability standards? --Rusf10 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• No-This article was clearly created in response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James J. Tedesco III. If the article is indeed about the position itself as claimed, then it should not contain mini-biographies of people who do not pass WP:POLITICIAN. As per the current AfD discussion, there appears to be a clear consensus to keep the article. However, it also seems that even among the keep votes that this article should not include biographical details. Since some editors refuse to accept that consensus, I have opened a second discussion on this here in hopes of resolving this issue. I will now ping ALL editors that participated in the AfD @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Djflem, SportingFlyer, Semmendinger, Bearcat, Alansohn, Prince of Thieves, E.M.Gregory, FloridaArmy, Bearcat, and Mangoe:--Rusf10 (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Mispresentative RFC. The assumption is about why the article is created is WRONG. The assumption about consensus in the AFD about what material is keep is WRONG.Djflem (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Given the AFD result, discussing him here seems like the logical next step. I see no good reason to not mention the current office holder. If there's too much weight, that can be addressed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, of course We bundle smaller biographies together. We do it for musicians in bands and we do it for political offices. We do it for fictional characters in movies and in books. I count over 100 lists of short biographies of fictional characters bundled together from the Star Wars Universe to the Marvel Universe and the DC Universe. Every major book has a list of characters with their mini biography as do the major movies and television shows. And of course consensus is not determined until a non involved person tallies the consensus and makes an official declaration and closes the AFD --RAN (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Fictional characters? That's a horrible comparison. We actually have different standards for real people, see WP:BLP--Rusf10 (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Once again, please, please, please do not just point your finger to the bible and tell me the answer is in there, quote and give the chapter and verse please. --RAN (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. My own view is that only limited biographical data directly related to the article topic should be included. But that should already be clear from my recent edits. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Notes

I know it seems odd since we're talking about an elected politician, but WP:NPF should apply: these politicians may technically be public figures, but are not notable outside of the fact they are local politicians. I think the best outcome for this debate would be to move the information into a table format and to remove any information that isn't directly about anyone's role as Bergen County Executive, which isn't really a "yes or no" answer. SportingFlyer talk 02:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd support that, but what I was actually trying to suggest here is something between "include everything" and just having a list/table.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. Entirely routine way of dealing with individuals who sufficiently notable to support an article, but who filled a an office or were a sufficiently important part of a group, family or other topic that is bluelinked that they should be mentioned. (for example, we recently redirected Levi Sanders to United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2018.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, but it depends on the relation to the topic. Does the biographical content include information not pertinent to the topic? Because that info shouldn't be included. If the topic is county executive, we can include all relevant information about that person's bio in the role/lead-up to that position. So, I agree there are some things in the bios which should be omitted if they don't already have their own page. In this case, the entire second paragraph under Tedesco is not very relevant to this page, and therefore I don't understand its inclusion. The individuals with similar histories are also biographical, but these people already meet GNG so its inclusion is appropriate. Since Tedesco doesn't have his own page and hasn't established notability alone, we can only include information about his 100% relevant to this topic. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes The article is about the position *AND* the individuals who have served in the position. This article, and the articles for Atlantic County Executive were created to provide an overview about the position, addressing the concerns raised about individual articles. Rusf10 created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey to delete the article, which was closed as "The result was keep. article appears to meet notability requirements". Rusf10 wasn't satisfied and brought this to DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 March 6 which was closed as "Endorse. Overwhelming consensus here that the AfD close was correct." Now Rusf10 has started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bergen County Executive, where the overwhelming consensus is to keep the article; the vote "Keep Very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Verty strange nom." (see here), best summarizes the consensus. Now the WP:BATTLEGROUND has been extended to the article, where the WP:BLUDGEONing continues. It's time to stop the warring and accept community consensus that articles like Atlantic County Executive, Essex County Executive and this one, Bergen County Executive, provide details both about the position *AND* the individuals who have held the position, nor has Rusf10 offered any explanation for the utterly illogical conclusion that only those county executives who meet WP:NPOL can be listed in this and other such articles and other county executives cannot be mentioned. Alansohn (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Semmendinger puts it very well. Any valid information directly to the article ought to be included, even if it's biographical. Rusf10's position is not really in agreement with mine, since I don't see the point in removing all such information, although I would like to prune it a bit. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prince of Thieves:- my position has been misrepresented by those above. I support the edit you made to the article and what To editor Semmendinger: is saying isn't that far off.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Depends what's being talked about. Some of the comments above seem to be based on the erroneous conclusion that the alternative to what's done here is for the person's name to not even be mentioned in the article at all, which is obviously not the case. What the article should not contain is a full-on biography of each past or present executive, comprising all of the content that used to be present in a full standalone BLP — merging all of the biographies into a giant omnibus biographical dictionary, but leaving them otherwise unchanged from the BLP that failed notability standards in the first place, is not an acceptable bypass around getting a person past NPOL as an individual. If a person doesn't qualify to have a standalone biography, then they don't qualify to keep the equivalent to a full standalone biography just because you've pasted all of the same content into another article that's titled differently — any more than it would be appropriate for me, despite not passing any Wikipedia inclusion guideline, to have a full biography of me pasted into an article about my hometown, my employer or the building I happen to live in.
  But it's a false dichotomy to suggest that it's either that or nothing at all — the article should certainly contain their names, and potentially a bit of content that's specifically about their time on the board itself. But it's not appropriate for the article to delve into biographical background about where they went to high school, their parents' or spouses' or children's names, or their past career backgrounds outside of their work on the board itself, because that's absolutely, unequivocally not what an article like this is for. If a person doesn't qualify to keep a full standalone BLP, then you don't get to force Wikipedia to keep all of the exact same BLP content just by rename the page so that it isn't titled with a person's name, if the content is still about a person or people who failed NPOL as standalone article topics.
  Levi Sanders redirects to the election article, yes, and his name is present in the appropriate context in the election article — but the election article does not contain all of the biographical content about him that used to be in the attempt to give him a standalone BLP: it just mentions his name, and a very brief statement about him, in the appropriate list of candidates without delving into all of the biographical background that failed BLP requirements as a standalone article. So he's not a reason why we should let all of the BLP content here stand without some pruning for what's relevant, because he doesn't have a full-on BLP embedded inside the election article either. Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you please quote the passage of WP:BLP that forbids it. --RAN (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment- Let me clarify my position because others have taken it upon themselves to misrepresent what I am saying. It should have been clear from the edit I made, what I support. I've accepted that we are going to have this page. Now, there has to be an effort to make it conform to policy. No one (including myself) is saying that the names of these people cannot be mentioned at all. The view Bearcat expressed above is actually much closer to what I am suggesting. Write about what these people did as county executive. What high school they went to, how many kids they have, their hobbies, what union they belonged to, etc is irrelevant to the position of Bergen County Executive and has no place here.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You keep talking about this imaginary policy, you have not produced a direct quote from it yet. --RAN (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely. This may be because an article writer has given more text to the background of their topic rather than the topic itself. It also may have been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects. The nominal subject is treated as if it were an empty coat-rack and is obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant, undue or biased material there.

Prince of Thieves (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what it is, but knowing Mr. Norton, he is going to say "that's not a policy, its a essay". The guideline is actually WP:POLITICIAN. The community already determined that James Tedesco doesn't meet the requirements, so that doesn't mean we just transfer the content from one article to another.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Please do not waste our time by pointing to WP:POLITICIAN and not quoting the Wikirule you are referring to, it is just silly at this point. Please read WP:Silly and WP:Biblethumping, it is all in there. --RAN (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Trouble is that no part of the 'N' type policies restrict that, per WP:NNC. This far more a matter of due weight and relevant content. That is a highly complex area of policy, and WP:COAT was written to summarize the content policies for that reason. Prince of Thieves (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Depends per Bearcat. Obviously information related to the office and accomplishments should be included because the topic is the office. However, biographical information such as high school attended, spouse, children, etc, should be excluded. The latter type of information is UNDUE in a non-biographical article since the biographical information is not directly related to the article subject. It also looks like the biographical information is being included as a way to skirt notability guidelines so that the content can be kept somewhere. But if the content doesn't meet notability guidelines or (and that's the inclusive or) isn't directly relevant to the article topic, it doesn't belong in the article (because then it's a COATRACK to include UNDUE information). Ca2james (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, quite possibly. The difficulty here is that the wording of the RfC calls upon the respondents to make a blanket rejection of admitting content on any person who fails to meet the criteria of one particular notability guideline. That was just never going to happen and the RfC OP, being opposed to the content in question, would have been better off by framing the question in terms of whether the specific biographical material on Tedesco should be omitted. But in responding to the actual inquiry, here's the obvious answer: there is no rule which establishes that someone who is not notable enough to warrant their own article can never be covered with regard to their biographical details, in any article. Nor is there even a presumption that any details pertaining to them should not be covered if they fail GNG or NWHATEVER. Now, that doesn't mean I don't have WP:COATRACK concerns here--or WP:WEIGHT concerns regardless of the motivations of adding content to Tedesco's section (or whoever's). With specific regard to Tedesco's section, I think nearly all of that second paragraph could probably go. It's not particularly germane to the article's subject matter, is incredibly in-the-weeds and trivial minutiae, and even has a whiff of hagiography to it. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have included what I believe the summary should look like. Further cleanup is definitely necessary, but the biographical information related to the elections is in the collapsible box below: SportingFlyer talk 06:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

1987–1991 William D. McDowell (January 3, 1927 – April 13, 2007) served one term. McDowell had earlier served on board of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission. McDowell, who at the time was County Sheriff, faced Democrat Matthew Feldman, a five-term member of the New Jersey Senate and former Senate President in the race. McDowell was endorsed by Doris Mahalick, Feldman's rival for the Democratic nomination. McDowell beat Feldman by a margin of nearly 20,000, capturing 112,619 votes (55% of ballots cast) to 92,649 (45%) for Feldman. 1991–2003 Republican William "Pat" Schuber served 12 years - three consecutive terms - as the County Executive. 2003–2011 Democrat Dennis McNerney served two terms as County Executive from 2003 to 2011. He took office in January 2003 after defeating Republican and former state senator Henry P. McNamara. McNerney was reelected to a second term of office as County Executive in 2006, defeating former Freeholder Todd Caliguire. In his February 2008 State of the County address, McNerney called for Bergen County municipalities with populations less than 10,000 to merge, saying "The surest way to significantly lower homeowners' property taxes is to merge small towns and reduce administrative overhead." Half of Bergen County's 70 municipalities have fewer than 10,000 residents each. 2011–2015 Kathleen A. Donovan is an Republican who served one term as County Executive. Donovan ran for County Executive in 2010 and was swept into office with her three Freeholder running mates, in an election in which perceived corruption by the Democratic incumbents, rising spending and taxes were the major issues. Donovan won with 52.9% of the vote (117,104), while McNerney received 47.1% (104,366). 2015–present James Tedesco III was elected to the Bergen County Board of Chosen Freeholders on November 5, 2013 and took office in January 2014. After winning the Democratic nomination, Tedesco challenged incumbent county executive Kathleen Donovan. in an election in which the major issues were the county budget, consolidation of the county police and sheriff, and issues regarding lawsuits filed between the different branches of government. Tedesco won with 54.2% of the vote (107,958), ahead of Donovan with 45.8% (91,299), in a race in which Tedesco's campaign spending nearly $1 million, outspending Donovan by a 2-1 margin. His first day in office, Tedesco approved an arrangement merging the Bergen County Police Department and the Bergen County Sheriff's Office. The deal went through following the approval of the freeholders. In 2017, Tedesco signed an executive order raising the minimum wage for county employees to $15 per hour. References

That's maybe a little more pruning than I would have done, but that basically looks in the vein of what I would consider appropriate. It certainly has a more neutral encyclopedic tone, with less of the superfluous details that sometimes felt like they were trying to breach on a compelling narrative. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The other thing to remember is that four out of the five board members have separate articles and some pruned information may already be there (although I don't think McNerney would pass an AfD). SportingFlyer talk 05:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes to RFC. As mentioned above: Appears to be no rule which establishes that someone who is potentially not notable enough to warrant their own article can never be covered with regard to their biographical details in any article. Nor is there even a presumption that any details pertaining to them should not be covered if they fail GNG or NWHATEVER. If there is, this would be the place to produce it.Djflem (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not the argument, though: the problem, as you well know, is that the current article was created as an end-around since the Tedesco article didn't pass AfD status. I still would prefer a table listing, though. SportingFlyer talk 05:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

What facts are you using to come to that conclusion? How exactly do know the reasons the editor who created the article did so? Has that person told you or just repeating an the same wrong assumption of the nominator? I don't see the "problem", as you describe it. Please see Wikipedia:PROSE, which is preferred.Djflem (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The last paragraph of WP:AVOIDSPLIT may also be of interest. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• In principle Yes but if the question were "Is the current volume of personal biog info appropriate?", the answer would be a resounding No. Strictly personal info (school, education etc) should be limited to a sentence or two for each person, plus info relating directly to the holding of the office. Pincrete (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - I agree with Bearcat. I would suggest something like List of colonial governors of New Jersey (which seems to have some problems) or something else from Wikipedia:Featured lists#Politics and government. So I'd expect to see dates of office, dates of life, and a few bullet points of key decisions made. Biographical detail might also include other political positions and key business involvement. School, family, etc seems extra - and in some cases will likely be discoverable by following references. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Note, this is a Yes to the question asked, but is actually a no in that I don't think the kind of detail I currently see at the article makes sense. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• List of colonial governors links all the entries to full biographies where people can find the dates of birth and children. The question here is what to do with minibiographies in which there is no full biography to link to. The situation is more similar to television season summaries in which there is no full article on the full episode. --RAN (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

That's because colonial governors pass WP:POLITICIAN unlike the people in this article. It is not necessary to provide their date of birth and children anywhere because they are not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Instead of the made-up stuff above, one can better refer to Wikipedia:PROSE and WP:AVOIDSPLIT, the latter of which says: If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. It is not uncommon for editors to suggest that articles nominated for deletion instead be merged into a parent article. Note that notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. (bold text mine).Djflem (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Made-up stuff?? With the exception of you and two other people here, there is a unanimous consensus to limit the biographic details in the article. Do you really think all of us got together and made this stuff up? Merging content into an article does not necessarily mean that every detail of the original article gets kept. When you have a long article, you do something called a selective merge, meaning that some but not all of the content is kept. see also Wikipedia:Merge what?--Rusf10 (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

What happened to the WP:POLITICIAN argument? Or is the goalpost being moved? It's clearly stated: "Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." I do not find the claim made above: "It is not necessary to provide their date of birth and children anywhere because they are not notable." anywhere in Wikipedia guidelines. Can you point where one can find it?Djflem (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

In other words, the nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William D. McDowell was incorrect and that Wikipedia:BEFORE should have prevailed as the guiding factor and Wikipedia:Merge would have been more appropriate?Djflem (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was redirect, the same result YOU voted for. Nobody including you even suggested a merge.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

But the question wasn't about the result, it was about the nomination and why Wikipedia:BEFORE and Wikipedia:Merge were ignored.Djflem (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

For the fact that the result was redirect, there was nothing wrong with the nomination. If you felt it should have been merge, why didn't you argue for it at the AfD?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it except that the nominator ignored Wikipedia:BEFORE and Wikipedia:Merge and chose to make an AFD nomination.Djflem (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

An AfD where the outcome was redirect, the same outcome you voted for. You got what you wanted. You can't get the result you wanted and still complain about the AfD. The result of the AfD was redirect, accept it and move on. I did a WP:BEFORE search and there was not enough to support notability and judging by the consensus in that AfD, most people agree with me about that. And nobody including you even suggested a merge. So get your facts straight and stop complaining.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The facts are clear: The check was inadequate. (as is pointed out at the nomination itself). The article itself and Help:What links here showed Bergen County Executive and removed any doubt there were alternatives to deletion, making the AFD nom a poor one.Djflem (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the outcome of the AfD, then take it to WP:DRV. Otherwise, stop complaining and making false accusations.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem with the outcome; the nomination was bad. Bye.Djflem (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

But WP:WEIGHT and numerous other content policies do circumscribe what material is appropriate to encyclopedic coverage of a topic within a given article. You are quite correct to point out the distinction between notability guidelines and other inclusion criteria but, with respect, I think you are reading that little bit of quoted policy out of context and making leaps as to its implications that are not part of community consensus. To be specific, WP:Summary style exists to detail how articles should be divided; it does not play a role in determining whether content is appropriate for inclusion at all. The section you quoted is important, but it stands only to indicate that a previous AfD is not a per se bar against coverage of a topic in another article. It does not in itself greenlight any content, nor suggest a presumption that content removed in an AfD should be preserved somewhere else. I must tell you that it will be a very hard sell to convince a majority of editors looking at this issue that expansive biographical details are appropriate to this particular article. Or at least, it will be difficult to gain consensus for biographical details which are not directly related to the subjects' political life or public government service--or at least related professional topics. I think most editors are likely to agree that the family life of office holders is not appropriate for an article of this nature, nor indeed WP:DUE for inclusion anywhere on the project. Previous non-governmental careers, volunteering, and boosterism that are not in themselves the subject of expansive coverage in reliable sources are also likely to be a tough sell. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree. The wholesale removal, based on non-existent "rules", as attempted by one editor is inappropriate. Background information about an office-holder should be included about persons who have held the position. A comprehensive overview of the person who has been/is executive is valid, useful, encyclopedic material for those would seek it on Wikipedia. Elements include e.g., date/place birth, date/place of death, origins, residence within constituency, qualifications (education/experience), previous/post political positions/appointments, electoral history, notable family-members in politics, notable actions in offices, crimes/convictions. Subsequently, I have trimmed one section and adjusted another.Djflem (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Your proposal smacks of scope creep, though. There are a lot of county-level positions notable enough for a Wikipedia article on this site, but the majority of people in those positions are not notable. I'm not even sure date of death/birth are relevant in this article. SportingFlyer talk 04:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, it seems to me that most of the topics Djflem enumerated there are details that are reasonably relevant enough to the article topic to at least possibly warrant inclusion. I hear what you are saying about the multiplicity of positions of this nature here, but those concerns arise mostly from the permissiveness of our notability policies; we needn't necessarily have so many articles for offices at this level, but we do--and once we have said articles, few of which are going to come even close to butting up against the upper limits of WP:Summary style, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a (highly constrained) discussion of those office holders which have managed to get at least superficial coverage in reliable sources. It's all a highly circumstance specific analysis; in this case, I don't find the bios WP:UNDUE in principle, though clearly they need to be substantially scaled back in a manner consistent with discussions above. But those determinations need to be made as a matter of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, not hand-wringing about WP:OTHERSTUFF. Unless, that is, you feel that you have a concrete policy WP:PROPOSAL for a uniform approach to all such articles. Because barring that, what we have to work with are WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:ONUS, which (partially by design) are rather open-ended tests which require local editors to make common sense calls about the scope of detail, through consensus. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list."Djflem (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Notability guidelines are not the right inclusion policies to look to regarding permissible content within an article (though they do share some language). However, consider WP:ONUS: not all content that is verifiable is appropriate for inclusion, and there is in fact a presumption (rebuttable only through a successful effort at securing local consensus) that disputed content is not appropriate. And that's one of the few cases where policy explicitly endorses a conservative (as opposed to inclusionist) approach in a given context--which goes to show just how cautious the community is about bloat. I don't agree with labeling this 'scope creep', because we've never had per se rules about exact tests that can be applied without complication across all articles. But I do believe the community has limits in mind. In fact, as far as this volunteer is concerned, we could do with a tightening in many areas. But political office articles are not the first area that comes to mind when I think of topics that are particularly amenable to WP:TRIVA abuses. I think the scope of relevant biographical details you set out above in response to my post is a reasonable middle ground--give or take an item or three. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Snow yes. This is squarely addressed by BLP policy, which says: "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources," etc. etc. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Another quixotic Wikipedia oxymoron written like a Zen kōan. How do you determine if a person is "not well known"? If I knew about them, I wouldn't be looking in Wikipedia to find out about them, I would already know about them. "Only material relevant to the person's notability", so we trim the filmography on actor's pages to only blockbuster movies? Do we cut out when and where they were born? Being born in a particular year and location does not make you notable. --RAN (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand the rant, but it's a way of protecting someone's privacy while still allowing us to write an article about them. SportingFlyer talk 04:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

But fortunately that's not a problem since clearly protecting someone's privacy not at issue here. There isn't, and has never been, any information about personal or private life in the article (as some have incorrectly suggested to promote their POV); all info is in the realm of public life.Djflem (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Djflem (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't like that little piece of policy either, but it seems to me that it is (if ill-advised) still perfectly workable and self-consistent in its own terms. First off, there are plenty of reasons why one would need to reference a Wikipedia article regarding someone they already know a fair bit about. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of BLP article hits fall into that category. So the policy language is neither an oxymoron or an existential mystery. Personally I think that if someone is already covered in secondary sources, it is not for us to play arbiter about what should or should not be in the public sphere; we should behave as the tertiary source that we are and cover those details which have attained a certain degree of weight in sources. This is just one example of where I feel like the small minority of editors who work on BLP policy pages have managed to push an extreme position that does not jive with the rest of the project's editorial standards and which undermines the project's core objectives. But again, the policy language is neither vague nor unintelligible and it is policy. So you can criticize it as failing to live up to your standard of rationality all day here, but you'll only be spinning your wheels in doing so. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Individuals who have been the Bergen County Executive, like all poliitcians, are public figures. Wikipedia should provide background information and context about the political office-holder in an article that is about the office and the persons who have held the position, as is done here.Djflem (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't necessarily disagree, though I will point out that we don't a "public figure" policy for determining whether content is appropriate for inclusion. Whether we are considering if a given individual passes muster for their own article (WP:notability guidelines) or if content is appropriate for inclusion elsewhere (WP:WEIGHT, WP:PROPORTION, WP:ONUS, WP:WWIN), ect.) we predicate our editorial decisions on analysis of the corpus of reliable sources, not an idiosyncratic analysis of the person's station in society. It's technically possible to have a person be a public figure and still not qualify for significant coverage anywhere on the encyclopedia. It's just that, as a practical matter, that almost never happens. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

That comment was about the information being exclusively in the public sphere. (Btw, we do consider if someone if a public figure or a private person and that influences the inclusion of content, because like in the real world, which Wikipedia reflects, there are different standards, particularly for politicians.) None the material in the article has anything to do with any of the persons' private life (despite a cheesy smattering of misrepresentations to suggest so). The cheap insinuation that this article was written to circumvent BLP is just that, cheap, since it doesn't. As made clear above and agreed, WP:notability for stand-alone articles and inclusion is not the same and not really a factor here. Neither is POL, NPOL, GNG: Those arguments have been exhausted. The article does muster Wikipedia:Verifiability, and before anyone tries to suggest so, it is not indiscriminate: there are tons of other verifiable information NOT included in the article. The references are there to support what IS in the article. Why is coverage of the public life of a politician in an article about a political office AND the persons who have held the office not appropriate, other than Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT (which I'm not inferring Snow Rise is saying)? Djflem (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• No as written far to much information, there should be a summary of each holder with information related to the time in office, the fact they were a boy scout at 13 (example only to make a point) is not relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Why? (btw the way, bad example)Djflem (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes (Summoned by bot) per bearcat L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name of Office

From talkpage: You moved this back to capped Executive with comment "proper title". I'm not sure what you're saying or thinking. The sources, including the most official ones, don't cap the job title "county executive"; and see MOS:JOBTITLE. Taking the first few Google hits: the official county page on it says "the county executive handles the day-to-day operations...". This article is titled "Jim Tedesco to seek reelection as Bergen County executive". This one has "running for re-election as executive of Bergen County". This one shows the correct place to use caps, in "County Executive James Tedesco III", and also not, in "to win the executive post in 2014". This one has "to run for county executive". Nobody uses this as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

To address claim, among the nobodies:

• Bergen County Official website
• NYTimes 1985
• This article cited above is titled small, but in body/caption repeats Bergen County Executive

That first one has Executive capped only in a section heading, so doesn't suggest that they would treat it as a proper name. The NYTimes link does consistently capitalize "County Executive" in that 1985 article. They don't seem to be very consistent about capping it in other articles (not even for articles on the Bergen County executive); actually, they clearly lean toward lowercase executive. Anyway, in en.wp, we have a style that says not to; see MOS:JOBTITLES. And the third one follows the advice of MOS:JOBTITLES, capping it when it's a title on a name, and not otherwise; let's do that. I can start a Requested Move discussion if you still disagree. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You can ignore the official source that clearly uses the job title and point to inconsistencies in other publications, but that will only highlight inconsistencies in other publications that you've brought up. I would suggest that you leave the discussion here to allow others to respond first before opening up another elsewhere.Djflem (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, if the article is about the office, then MOS:JOBTITLES says we can cap it. When "the" in front of it, it says not; but I don't see a great fix that's likely to make everyone happy. Maybe I'll think up an alternative lead structure... Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

As is consistent with Wikipedia:Consensus re leads: ie, President of the United States, Governor of Kentucky, Mayor of Chicago for political office titles, unless you want to open up that can of worms.Djflem (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Consensus

Have reverted against Wikipedia:Consensus to keep key information. NOT Wikipedia:Coatrack articles: there is no doubt that the article is about the Bergen County Executive and the people who served in the role.Djflem (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Djflem: You need to accept the consensus, the discussion above was closed by an uninvolved admin who assessed the consensus and part of that was the article is a coatrack. You can't just ignore the consensus because you obviously don't like it, see WP:ICANTHEARYOU--Rusf10 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Elaborate what your talking about, specifically citing which part of the policy you are referring to.Djflem (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring to the entire whole two paragraphs of ICANTHEARYOU. I don't know how to make it any clearer to you. Accept the consensus that we're not going to have extensive biographical details here and move on.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Accept the fact that you are citing something and ARE REQUIRED TO back it up. Explain how this article is a Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. You have NOY done that. Cite specific policy from Wikipedia:Coatrack articles if you are going to use that for your random editing. If you can't, move on.Djflem (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Djflem: Are you really that ignorant? We had an RFC on this issue, the result of which is "Closing this discussion as per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure. The consensus is yes. the article should contain biographical details of people who do not have their own articles. However there is also a clear consensus that key information only should be included, not full-scale biographies. The reference to WP:COATRACK is relevant here". I didn't write that, an uninvolved admin did (who in my opinion made an accurate assessment of the consensus. If you think think user:Fish and karate got the consensus wrong (highly unlikely), take it up with him.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

In other words you can't cite a any specific part of Wikipedia:Coatrack articles? What is your justifcation for removing the parts that you have, which is highly subective and for which there no consensus? If you're going to cite a policy then YOU, yes YOU, are required to explain which part of it you are referring to. You have not done that. If you cannot, move on.00:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Djflem:, please see your talk page. Fish Karate 10:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Clear case of Wikipedia:VAGUEWAVE.Djflem (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hidden link to WIkidata entries

Hidden links were not banned by the very RFC on this topic. The guideline allows for "providing information to assist other editors in preventing a common mistake" which would be creating a duplicate entry in Wikidata if an article on that person is created/recreated, or if this person gets confused with a person of a similar name in another link in another article. --RAN (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, we're not concerned here about "mistakes" on other projects. The guideline is clearly about mistakes being made in the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Bergen County Executive → Bergen County executive – Per WP:JOBTITLE, position names are not proper names except when connected to names of individuals; see examples there. Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This is an interesting dilemma, but I believe that County Executive includes a title rather than only a position and that both of these words should remain capitalized. By extension, the title should then remain "Bergen County Executive". Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I know quite a few news outlets that would downcase the c and the e. And some academic publishers too. It's not a clear-cut case, but our style guide does say to favour downcasing unless caps are overwhelmingly used out there. So my vote is to downcase, but I wouldn't be upset if the request failed. Tony (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Postscript: I support now that the "c" is capped. And Dflem, your proposition would lead to no end of capping in English. And do we really want to fuss about with "the executive of Bergen County" vs "Bergen County Executive"? Too much ad-hoc boosterism, I say. Tony (talk) 07:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No fuss. It is an official public office title, which in the English language are all capped. See:http://www.nydailynews.com/content-studio/bergen-coutnty-article-1.3241408. Djflem (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose as complete misreading of cited policy, which states it should be capitalized when it is "formal title for a specific entity" and "is addressed as a title or position in and of itself", AND poor grammar: The "the" (in opening sentence) preceding the official name (a proper noun) is capitalized because it is the first word of the sentence and as such is always capitalized in English. . Consistent with all Wikipedia articles such as:

The President of the United States is the head of state and head of government of the United States of America.

The Mayor of Chicago is the chief executive of Chicago, Illinois,

The Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is the head of the executive branch of government in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the head of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Hence:

The County Executive of Bergen County, New Jersey, United States is the chief officer of the county's executive branch. Djflem (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the correct use of WP:JOBTITLE and capitalization can gleened here:

The Chief Justice of the United States is the chief judge of the Supreme Court of the United States.

If looking to correct a potential problem you may wish to see Chief Justice, but not here, where there isn't one. Djflem (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose on this one. Our articles on unique titles/positions/offices as such should be capitalized (President of the United States); articles on generic titles should not, except for the first letter since WP uses sentence case titles (Chief executive officer); any job title can be capitalized when connected directly to an individual's name (Secretary of State Mike Pompeo) but need not be when generic (the store's assistant manager Jenny Davis); it is lower-cased when not directly connected to a name (Trump is a very unusual president); use lowercase when plural (several successive lord mayors of Manchester) even when we'd capitalize the singular usage in the title of an article about the position (Lord Mayor of Manchester, but List of lord mayors of Manchester).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:36, 11 May 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.