Wrong.  I don't care about the Opus Dei stuff.  I don't care if it is in or if it is not, as long as it is presented in a NPOV manner.  I have not attempted to edit Opus Dei stuff.  If I did take it out, it was merely by accident.  And IF I did that then I apologize. I have attempted to be careful in specifically NOT removing that Opus Dei info because you have expressed a belief that it should be there. That position is totally consistent with my belief that we put in more and let the reader decide if it is important.  There is another editor who seems not to want it in and you are assuming that it is I.  It isn't.  Now, back to the bigger picture.  You don't want certain information in the article.  I say put it all in, even the statistics about him missing half of the votes in for one month in January 2007, even though it may not meet the requirements of notability because of the very, very, very short time period covered.  It is you that is attempting to remove large sections of information just based upon your own personal opinion that it should not be there.  Let the reader decide, not you.  If a reader does not believe Brownback when he states that he was once a broadcaster then give him/her that option.  Don't make that decision for the reader.  I'm putting the quote back in because it is sourced and it is relevant and it is notable because he has made a claim that he once was a broadcaster.  It is NOT up to you to decide that he wasn'tunless you can provide sourced, third-party reliable sources to back up your opinion.  Your personal opinion is not relevant.  It is just POV pushing.