Talk:Dae Gak

message: I was a member of the Indianapolis Zen Center governing board when allegations of impropriety were made by another member of the Center.  I knew the individual that came forward and the agony this person went through in deciding to come forward.  Because of this episode, I left the Center. Torin93 --Torin93 (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to cast doubt on your allegations - but heresay is not an acceptable source for an encyclopedia and does not meet wikipedia standards, especially for biographies of living persons. Without reputable published sources, the information does not belong on the wikipedia page. --Jikaku (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be - but this doesn't meet wiki policy for inclusion. At best, it approaches original scholarship - which also isn't allowed. Unless you have published source material, this can't be included. --Jikaku (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  If you check the actual References for the citation, rather than the notes - you'll see that the discipline taken against his license is public and verifiable. Since the article does not go into detail about the disciplinary action, and only states what is made immediately available by the State Board in Kentucky - I see nothing controversial here. Jikaku (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  untitled 

message: This is a general request for comment on whether the disciplinary action against Dae Gak's license to practice psychology by the State of Kentucky is relevant to the biographical article about Dae Gak. The action by the state is well-sourced, and his standing as a practicing psychologist is raised elsewhere in the article.
Jikaku (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: * documentation has been ordered from the state of kentucky. When it arrives it will be reviewed, and if relevant, made publicly available and added to the article. Jikaku (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

text: @ Spt51: "in Kwam Um School of Zen where hundreds of teachers were produced." your bias is showing darling. Transmitted teachers in that lineage number no more than two dozen. But nice passive aggressive dig, anyway. It's true: Dae Gak is not (yet?) as (in)famous as your teacher.Tao2911 (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at this site http://www.kwanumzen.org/ and see all the links to groups around the world. Is this this your teacher by the way? Maybe you are able to decide if he is notable? You said that you have been practicing Zen for twenty years, right? You must have a discerning eye to decide this. Your attacks, false accusations of many editors here in Wiki would not inspire anyone take "your path of Zen". I do not have Zen teacher, and practice nothing, sorry.Spt51 (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant Information 

message: I don't know whether Dae Gak was forced out of Kwan Um or not due to misbehavior, as this profile read. But I do know that page 106 in "Zen Master Who?" that was cited as the source for this line says absolutely nothing about it, only that he received transmission and started his own school. Removed until we have an acceptable source (which by the way is not a state website recording some litigation. We can't include such info unless it is interpreted for us by a secondary or tertiary source. otherwise, that's original RS.)Tao2911 (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source discrepancy 

message: Contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced or unsourced must be removed immediately. This applies to talk pages as well. All of the material on this talk page should, therefore, be removed. In fact, it should have been removed long ago. On the one hand this is a no-brainer, because all of these discussions on this page pertain to material that has been repeatedly removed from the main article precisely because it violates wikipedia's BLP policies. But since this is a rather drastic step (to remove all of the current content from this page), I will wait for one week and see if there is any discussion. But please do not use such a discussion to post yet more material of the same sort. 
It should also be noted that this is not simply a matter of specific policies about material concerning living persons. All content on wikipedia is supposed to be from a neutral point of view and properly sourced.
Durruti36 (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Durruti's stance. As I've stated before, basically what has to happen is some valid tertiary source (ideally a news source of some kind) has to report on this, providing us with a neutral report on what happened. And general discussions about abuse in Zen or elsewhere are really not pertinent, or acceptable here. Reinserting his material until a new source is provided is simply edit warring, and may  result in an IP block.Tao2911 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

text: for the fourth time, FIND A SOURCE. Your saying so is NOT how things happen here! READ EDITING GUIDELINES. And it is completely unacceptable to 'out' editors names here. It is cause to get you quickly banned.Tao2911 (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of material that violates wikipedia's BLP policies 

message: Editor Durruti completely dumped the ENTIRE talk page - this is completely unacceptable. While I agree that the anonymous user active of late is completely off the rails and breaking any number of wikipedia guidelines, that is not an invitation to wipe out the entire history here, and it does give credence to that editor's assertion that Durruti too is biased, and apparently in favor of a whitewash. There are some problematic statements from anonymous user, that could be specifically removed here from talk, and might even be cause to have user blocked temporarily if Durruti wants to get admin's involved. However, that is another process. Simply wiping clean the entire talk page is not the right solution.Tao2911 (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These allegations are not "unsourced" - they have a source, the records of the Kentucky psychological board statements and action. While these are not sufficient to use for such controversial material in the article proper, they are completely valid for discussion here, as demonstrated by plenty of balanced, neutral, level discussion, the few partisans notwithstanding. I have NEVER seen talk pages wiped in the manner you wished to do so (except in cases when editors who did so were blocked for vandalism and edit warring). If every talk page that contained contentious argument was blanked, there would hardly be a talk page left, or a reason for them to exist in the first place. Leave the record for future editors to refer to, so these arguments aren't simply revisited ad nauseum. Oh, btw, it wasn't a full week, and I was not checking the page for a few days. When I checked, I reversed it. Consider this the disagreement you were looking for. I will appeal for admin assistance and a potential user block if you blank talk again. But why bother? The article does not contain the information you so seem to fear. It is clear that there are some serious allegations surrounding Genthner/Dae Gak - but until such time as there is a solid tertiary source, I don't see how this material can find a place in the entry.Tao2911 (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The same policies apply equally to talk pages and to main articles when it comes to material about living persons. "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." That is from the main article on BLP policies, specifically under Section 4., which is very helpfully titled  Where BLP does and does not apply. I do not see any ambiguity or anything that is even slightly difficult to understand in that statement. Any material that violates BLP polices does not belong anywhere on wikipedia. --Durruti36 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: your point is taken. Please take mine. Removing the entire talk page is not the solution. Allegations are not totally unsubstantiated. It's been a valid discussion to have. I removed one clearly offensive comment by another editor who outed you. Beyond that, talk pages can be a record, not just of issues, but of how those issues have been approached and by whom. They are extremely valuable. Blanket censorship is NOT in the guidelines you keep quoting. And again, allegations of misconduct by Genthner is NOT in dispute - he lost his license over it for a period of time. This is a fact. Should it be a part of any thorough biography of the guy? Absolutely. Do we have a valid, neutral, third party source at this time? No. Until we do, the issue rests. Do I agree with you that we should therefore wipe out all mention that this fact exists, in order to burnish his image? Absolutely not.Tao2911 (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * This is in response to Tao2911 from Durruti36: In a section of the BLP policy page that specifically addresses talk pages and other "non-article space", it clearly says that "Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion." (see:  BLP: Talk) I honestly don't see any way to remove these "questionable claims" from this talk page and still leave anything in place that is in any way coherent. If you want to try to do that, then that would be fine with me. But there is also the issue of whether or not there is some looser definition for "proper sourcing" on the talk page as opposed to the main article. As far as I know there is no difference between the two. If material is judged unsuitable for the main article due to being improperly sourced (or not sourced at all) then it has no place on the talk page either, at least not once the issues involved have been discussed, as they have here at some length already. People claiming to have seen or have access to supposedly existing sources is not proper sourcing, obviously. The bottom line is that as things currently stand, this talk page serves as a repository of material that is simply and clearly forbidden by wikipedia policy, and that same policy requires that the material be removed immediately and without discussion. --Durruti36 (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: last time to make the same point (6 or 8 times now?): the claims aren't questionable. He was sanctioned for sexual misconduct - we have proof here, a secondary source, which for most things is fine. We simply don't have an article-worthy source for such contentious material, ie a NPOV tertiary source which is preferred in such instances. The talk page record will keep this debate from reoccurring, which it likely will otherwise. I don't care to make links for you, but please maybe review guidelines about "whitewashing", your seeming intent.Tao2911 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

text: "We also know that he was run out of Kwan Um for similar reasons." This is exactly the kind of statement that is not helpful here, and that Durruti is correct in questioning. We don't know this at all. Unless you've scared up a source for this (which you never have to this point), I suggest you strike it, or Durruti36 will be justified in calling it out as a violation of guidelines.Tao2911 (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do Not Remove Entire Talk History! 

message: In re: psychologist Robert W. Genthner: the Fall 2000 Psychology Board News published by the State of Kentucky Board of Psychological Examiners, Volume 3, Issue 2, states (heading of article "Robert W. Genthner, Ph.D. June 2000 Settlement Agreement): "The Board alleged that Dr. Genthner, a Kentucky licensed psychologist, exploited two of his clients by sexual touching, had sexual contact with these, failed to create and maintain written psychological records of the therapy of the two clients, and divulged confidential information about one of his patients.  Genthner denied these charges.  The Board and Dr. Genthner agreed: 1) to a one year active suspension of his license to practice psychology as of June 2000 2) to have his license placed on probation with weekly supervision of his entire practice of psychology for a period of two(2) years after the one(1) year suspension; and 3) to pay the amount of $2,742.50 for investigative costs to the Board." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concerninggenthner (talk • contribs) 04:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an unimpeachable source citation. Therefore, per many other previous discussions and agreement among various editors to include this information if the appropriate source was found and clearly presented here, I included it, cited according to the above material. It should be clear from my previous comments and activity here that I am completely neutral - I do not have any bias either way. For instance, we do not have a source stating why he left Kwan Um, therefore any accusations about that are merely rumor or inference (though admittedly 2000 was quite a year for him.) But we know that he was suspended, etc. This is clearly significant biographical information, arguably considerably more important that some of the more slight material in the rest of his bio here.Tao2911 (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 'fraid I have to generally agree with that assessment. There are a few editors who have weigh in in favor of including this material if we have a clear source. Durruti saying that the source doesn't support the cited claim is a basically ridiculous - paying for costs IS a fine. Of course Genthner said he didn't do anything wrong - as in any court case in which the defendent is found GUILTY, the licensing board DISAGREED, TOOK AWAY HIS LICENSE for a year, AND PUT HIM ON PROBATION AFTER IT WAS REINSTATED. Durruti is totally off base, and out of gas.Tao2911 (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

text: well there ya go. Signed sealed and delivered. We have two solid sources, including the classic tertiary newspaper mention. I added them, and mention that Genthner denied wrongdoing. And allegations are "alleged" until a finding is reached after an investigation - which one was, not in Genthner's favor. We're done here. Durruti, please don't edit war.Tao2911 (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  License suspension 

message: The sources that have been provided do not actually document what is stated in the main article concerning the Board of Psychology. All that the sources document is that allegations were made and a settlement reached. There was no finding of fault, at least not according to the sources provided. In fact, there was no conclusion reached on any of the allegations. The current wording should be changed to reflect what is actually documented in the sources provided. This should be done by Tao2911 or one of the others involved in the supposed "consensus" behind it. If the wording is not changed in that way then the edit must simply be removed because it is not verifiable, and therefore does not belong on wikipedia, and especially not in an article about a living person. Just stick to the facts and don't make extrapolations. --Durruti36 (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply disagree with your interpretation of these facts and events. The good thing is, we don't have to agree on interpretation. We can simply and neutrally say what the sources say, which is how the entry reads ("In 2000, Genthner's psychology license was suspended for one year due to sexual misconduct and violating patient confidentiality; he was fined, and was under supervised probation for a year after his license was reinstated. He denied any wrongdoing"). This statement couldn't be drier, or more neutral. You clearly are demonstrating one desire and one desire only - to whitewash this article. We have two sources, secondary and tertiary. This is significant biographical material, well-sourced. You have no valid grounds to remove it.Tao2911 (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The statement that Dae Gak's license was suspended "due to sexual misconduct" is clearly unsubstantiated by the documentation at hand. All the documentation states is that allegations were made. The Board reached no conclusion, at least none that have been documented, about any allegations. Therefore the suspension could not possibly be "due" to something that the Board made no decision on. Any material added to the article that is not backed up by proper sources must be removed immediately. No matter how many times this happens, the removal of such unsourced statements does not constitute edit warring. --Durruti36 (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Nothing is documented other than (1) allegations, and (2) the terms of an agreement between the subject of this article and the Board of Psychology. --Durruti36 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  In what world were *any* allegations "eventually dropped"? The State of Kentucky Board of Psychology alleged that Genthner "exploited two of his clients by sexual touching, had sexual contact with these, failed to create and maintain written psychological records of the therapy of the two clients, and divulged confidential information about one of his patients." Yes, Genthner denied these charges - however he still agreed to: 1) to a one year active suspension of his license to practice psychology, 2) to have his license placed on probation with weekly supervision of his entire practice of psychology for a period of two(2) years after the one(1) year suspension; and 3) to pay a fine in the amount of $2,742.50 for investigative costs to the Board. Jikaku (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "dropping" of charges or allegations is a straightforward concept. The Board terminated its consideration of all allegations without finding any fault or wrongdoing. Thus the allegations were dropped, meaning that they are no longer under consideration, and have not been for well over a decade, and without any finding against the person who was the target of the allegations. The current wording that Jikaku has inserted clearly implies otherwise, and Jikaku's comments in this talk section clearly show an intention to interpret the events in a way that goes far beyond what is in the sources provided. Such interpretations, whether they reflect positively or negatively on the subject, are completely out of bounds. Only verifiable information can be included in the article (or, for that matter, in any article on any subject in wikipedia). The only verifiable information is that allegations were made but that all consideration of these allegations was dropped, and that a voluntary agreement was entered into between the subject and the Board. And as I said before, I believe that listing all of these charges is overkill, given the fact that they were all dropped. The fact that the specific allegations are listed in the reference section is more than sufficient, and might also be considered overly prejudicial against the subject. The bottom line is this: any insinuation of guilt based on voluntary agreement entered into by the subject of this article is a violation of the most basic principles of wikipedia as well as of specific policies with respect to material concerning living persons. Therefore all such insinuations must be removed immediately. --Durruti36 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

text: The key word here is "presumably". That says it all. --Durruti36 (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: that says nothing, about a statement that has no bearing on the entry.Tao2911 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources must actually substantiate what is written in main article 

message: If an editor wants to make a claim concerning POV, some basis for this accusation must be given. Wholsesale removal of multiple edits on the basis of blanket claims (MADE IN ALL CAPS) of NPOV are not conducive to constructive discussion. --Durruti36 (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Durruti, when I have a spare hour or three, it looks like we might be headed to arbitration, or further admin action. You are edit warring, with transparent bias for Genthner. Now you are adding commercial mentions for books that have yet to be published? How can you sleep, dude?Tao2911 (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: as for your points - where does it say the allegations were "dropped"? Neither source says that to my recollection - which is appropriate, because that wouldn't make any sense. If the charges were dropped, why would he be suspended, then on probation, and charged fees for the investigation and proceedings? All of those aspects in any legal proceeding mean guilt! They are the result of being found guilty. You don't get any punishment when you are innocent, ie charges are dropped! What planet are you living on? Clearly one in which you greatly admire and wish to prop up Mr. Genthner. You are welcome to do that - elsewhere.Tao2911 (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

text: One: where do SOURCES say "no fault was found", or use the word voluntary? Second: if, and only if, sources cited say this, please explain why if no fault was found why he was fined, suspended, and probation-ed.Tao2911 (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  One: where do the sources say "fault was found"? Tao2911, you have explicitly stated that it is your intention to give the impression that the subject was guilty of the allegations. No such finding of fault is anywhere in the sources. Since you and others have gone out of your way to over-interpret the documented facts, it is necessary to counter-act the misinterpretation that you and others have intentionally and repeatedly engaged in, and this requires emphasizing the absence of anything in the sources that states that Dr. Genthner was in fact guilty of any of things that were alleged against him. Therefore it is essential that the article state that "no fault was found" or something to this effect. Two: Providing an explanation for the agreement reached between Dr. Genthner and the Board goes beyond what is in the sources. By making this argument, Tao2911, you are exposing the fact that you are imposing your own interpretation, which is something that wikipedia editors are not supposed to do. The fact that you ask for my interpretation reinforces the fact that I have refrained from providing any such interpretation, which is what wikipedia editors are supposed to do. Three: The phrase "voluntarily agreed" should be redundant in the English language. But you and others have made it clear that you do not accept either the common, vernacular meaning of the word "agree" or the more formal meaning that it takes on in a formal investigation. In either case, "to agree" always means that the parties involved give their assent, and that this assent is freely given, that is, "voluntary". Any "agreement" that is entered into involuntarily is no agreement at all, and if the "agreement" had any legal standing, that legal standing would be seriously called into question if the agreement was not voluntary on the part of all those involved. In fact, if a party to any kind of agreement can show that assent was not given voluntarily, the agreement would in all likelihood be rendered null and void. --Durruti36 (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Tao2911 has repeatedly claimed that it is wildly inaccurate to describe the settlement agreement as "voluntary". In fact her comments on this talk page make it clear exactly why it is absolutely necessary to explicitly state that it was "voluntary", even though under normal circumstances this would be redundant. Both Tao2911 and Jikaku have repeatedly attempted to insert material into this article with the explicitly stated intention of portraying the subject of the article as guilty of actions that he was never found guilty of, and they have also repeatedly attempted to portray the voluntary agreement as an official disciplinary action by the Board against the subject. The article must now counter-act these false impressions, while still sticking to the facts. I am open to alternative wordings so long as they are consistent with the documented facts. --Durruti36 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: stop saying this - my edits show complete neutrality. I believe that the fact that he was suspended for sexual misconduct happens to mean that he was "guilty" of something, or he wouldn't have been suspended. But I just use the sources in the entry, who don't in fact use the word guilty. Nor, as I've said six times now, use the words "voluntary" or any of the other weasel words you keep inserting, along with promo material and other edits that violate standards for BLP, NPOV and basic tone. Tao2911 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Tao2911: "I believe that the fact that he was suspended for sexual misconduct happens to mean that he was 'guilty' of something". As far as your beliefs go, you have a perfect right to them. But what is it that you believe he is guilty of, and where are your sources documenting his guilt? You are only providing more evidence of (1) the POV nature of your editing on this article, and (2) the necessity of emphasizing the voluntary nature of a settlement, which under normal circumstances can be left as implicit, but in this case requires explicit emphasis because of your repeated (and admitted) attempts to misuse wikipedia to promote your own personal interpretation.--Durruti36 (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: we can go around and around on this, but I will repeat the same stupid point that should be obvious anyway - neither "guilt" nor "voluntary" are used in the sources. I don't want either one in the entry. I added "alleged" to placate you, because it is in the source. I'm still waiting for that "thank you." Everything you say above, for the fourth or eighth time, is pure conjecture, with a clear bias, and it doesn't actually make sense. Genthner agreed to a settlement of a suspension, fine, and probation. By your definition, everyone who goes to jail does so "voluntarily" if they happen to follow their sentence. But it makes no dif. if the words aren't in the source, they don't don't go in the entry.Tao2911 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations of POV must have some basis, other than simple disagreement. 

message: Editors should avoid making inflammatory accusations. Phrases like "weasel words" and "insane" have no place here. --Durruti36 (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I said it was "insane making". Keep it together. And you are using "weasel words", as I have explained here. That is not inflammatory language. And you are edit warring. Let's get some admin help in here on this. I'll appeal for it when I have the time.Tao2911 (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already contacted one Admin who has previously intervened on this article, posted several requests for help on the BLP noticeboard, and made one request for protection. FYI. Calling another editor's contributions "weasel words" is beyond the pale. And claiming that another editor is making you insane is obviously inflammatory. You admit that your edits reflect your own interpretation, which goes beyond what is documented. I will continue to remove all such POV edits. If you want to suggest alternative wording that makes it clear that you are no longer campaigning to give the appearance of guilt when there is no documentation of guilt, then I will carefully consider what you have to say. --Durruti36 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

text: "Phrases such as these present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "weasel words" by Wikipedia contributors. They can pad out sentences without adding any useful information and may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." Exactly what I contend your word choices in numbers of instances are doing - but especially using "voluntary" and "no fault found" etc, which are nowhere to be found in the sources.Tao2911 (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please avoid using inflammatory language 

message: So Durruti36 is clearly a big Dae Gak/Genthner supporter and fan. Another editor says that he is in fact a senior student and heir, according to the name self-revealed on his page here. I don't really care about that, only that his activity here is clearly biased, he is engaging in an edit war, and persistently inserting highly biased material. I removed uses of the title "Dr." as puffery, and not in keeping with BLP guidelines. He inserted minor academic essays from 35-40 years ago, that in a short, generally poorly sourced article did not fit, and are not in keeping with an encyclopedic entry, especially not of this length - and constituted another transparent act of puffery. And then there is the most obvious example of trying to weasel up the sex abuse/suspension bit, now that he can't remove it altogether anymore due to two solid sources (history documents this pattern clearly). So, other editors here, please weigh in here for the admins who should be soon descending upon the page. Everyone here seems to have a bias; I've been accused by both sides of having the opposite, which I find amusing. As I've said, I just happen to know enough about Zen to care, not enough about this guy to have an opinion in any direction.Tao2911 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As Tao2911 will readily attest, we certainly don't always agree - but this is one instance where I agree completely, and it's easy to, since this is pretty straight forward. I don't know what else to add to Tao's explanation above - I think the current Tao2911's NPOV edit is the most accurate, and honestly, the language is even a little less strong than could be warranted by the sources that are available. Given what we know of Durruti36's connection to the article subject matter, and how it directly benefits him to have a more "favorable" article, I don't see how he can even pretend at a "neutral point of view" here. My vote's with Tao2911's edits. Jikaku (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puffery 

message: A section of the Wikipedia policies is copied below:
"Public figures
 
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.  
Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times and other newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources."
1) The information is published in a reliable newspaper source, the Lexington Herald Leader (a tertiary source), as well as a newsletter published by the State of Kentucky Board of Psychological Examiners (a secondary source).
2)  The information is relevant as long as the information about the psychology license appears on the page and as long as other information about the subject's past has been included in the biography.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concerninggenthner (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very clear. Thanks for taking the time to even more clearly explain. I didn't need convincing of course, and clearly a couple of editors here won't be convinced by any reasonable argument, but it's good to have it spelled out anyway.Tao2911 (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What belongs in the biography of a public figure 

message: So I've filed a report that will hopefully get Deeplyconcerninggenthner indefinitely blocked. I suspect he's a sock of Recordstraight1234, who is a likely sock of Durruti36, who just happened to go quiet here after being flagged for edit warring himself. How coincidental! They all happen to remove the same passage, of which we are all too aware. I'll take another 20 minutes I guess and try to file a sock inquiry. Sigh.Tao2911 (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the sock investigation. Three ID's are confirmed socks (deeplyconcerninggenthner, recordstraight1234, and brightdoju - all now blocked indefinitely); Durrutti36 isn't one of them, though meatpuppets are considered possible.Tao2911 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War - Suspected Socks 

message: As is clear from this Talk Page, Genther's behaviour has been discussed before. One more removal, and I'll put a notice on ANI. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just second this emotion. Clearly the editor in question has a stated POV, and removed sourced material, long fought over and settled. Thanks JJ for spotting this and reversing the whitewash.Tao2911 (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of controversial material

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dae Gak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091231061231/http://www.mansfieldzen.com/id6.html to http://www.mansfieldzen.com/id6.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified