BLP whose references have been taken out, but still exist in its history. What to do? Bearian (talk)

• John Podesta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The section added to this page under the heading Supporting Progressive Catholicism all relates to a single 4-sentence email that Podesta wrote in 2012, released via Wikileaks recently. The article has been improved since its original posting. It still contains two very slanted "attack quotes" that make assertions in no way supported by the email. The relevant portion of Podesta’s 2012 email in its entirety said: "We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be from the bottom up."

The quote from Eternal Word Television Network anchor Raymond Arroyo claims “It makes it seem like you're creating organizations to change the core beliefs of the church,” he said. “For someone to come and say, 'I have a political organization to change your church to complete my political agenda or advance my agenda', I don't know how anybody could embrace that.” This is not only an unsubstantiated assertion but is at odds with Podesta's email itself, which nowhere mentions changing the "core beliefs of the church" not a" political organization," nor a political agenda. The other quote, from Anne Hendershott, says the email vindicated the position of "orthodox Catholic writers including myself" who oppose the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United, which she called "fake Catholic groups."[43] By this, she seems to mean that they don't adhere to the same view of Catholic doctrine that she does. Catholics for the Common Good was created by Catholics, is run by Catholics, and is made up of Catholics which makes it a Catholic group. See its website, which notes that it was the number 1 quoted Catholic organization during Pope Francis's visit to the US. Judging from Catholics United's Wikipedia page, it too appears to be a genuine Catholic organization, albeit one that disagrees with Professor Hendershott. Neither of these disparaging, unsupported quotes belong in Wikipedia. I deleted them for that reason, but they have been restored, and I received a warning that I was vandalizing Wikipedia and would be denied further editing privileges if I persisted.

This 4-sentence email receives more space than Podesta's 8 years, several of them as Chief of Staff, during the Wm J. Clinton Administration, and his eight years founding and leading the Center for American Progress combined. I defer to more experienced editors to decide whether his email, though seized on by a political campaign to support a claim that the other campaign is anti-Catholic, justifies any space at all in a Wikipedia biography of someone who, whether one likes him or not, has been involved in so many noteworthy events.

One further suggestion: The article currently cites, as its source for information about the email, a Washington Post article that also contained inaccuracies. Like many of the citations that other editors have now wisely deleted from the article, that seems intentional.Why not cite instead directly to the Wikileaks page: https://wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/6293 I would make the change myself, but given the threatening response to my last edit, it seems better to make the change here.

Thanks!Thewholetruthisbest (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this part of the article is over-weighted. Coretheapple (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thewholetruthisbest and I just spoke on IRC about this issue, and I thought I'd chime in briefly. I don't think the section is biased, as it merely quotes others. I think quotes representing other points of view could be found and added, or these quotes could be removed as needed. I think the number of sources discussing this aspect of Podesta's public life justify the amount of "page inches" it has received, especially since his name is now a household name primarily due to the Wikileaks releases. In all, I think this is a tempest in a teapot and shouldn't rise to the level of "libel", especially not from Wikipedia's perspective. But someone should maybe alert the legal teams for the two cited sources that someone is on the warpath... --MarkTraceur (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the entire section for now until there's consensus as I believe it violates WP:BLP (biography of a living person). The emails haven't been authenticated. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and according to WP:RSBREAKING, all breaking news stories are primary sources. All of these stories came out within a day or two of the wikileak and it's hardly been covered by reputable sources since then, making all of the available sources primary, which is inappropriate for contentious statements in a BLP (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). Please do not revert without consensus as that would violate WP:BLPREMOVE. —PermStrump(talk) 19:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy, MOS page or the like that allows for lists of living people to be unreferenced? I notice that a lot of pages under Category:Lists of expatriate association football players are either lightly or completely unreferenced. Hack (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hack: Please see WP:LISTVERIFY. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor seems to have recently gone through the article, changing every instance (even in refs) of the subject's name from "Storm Keating" to "Sharyn Uechtritz". They haven't provided explanation or sourcing. Would it be possible for someone to roll back the changes? Doing it by hand is very difficult because I'm having trouble telling what should be kept and what shouldn't due to the multiple conflicting edits they've made. Thanks. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been sufficiently reverted — several people have helped — and I've semiprotected for a week. Please check if it looks all right to you, Rasimmons. I left Sharyn Uechtritz as "birth name" in the infobox, since the article's first reference appears to support it. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Bishonen. It looks great, and good call on leaving the birth name—it does seem to be correct. I gave the offending IP a level 2 disruptive editing warning, myself. Thanks for your help. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intro section of Kyle Schwarber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contains vandalism re: Joe Buck love and marriage

Fixed. -Roxy the dog™ bark 14:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Teti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

this man was removed from the special forces assoc.. for lying about his past — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billmach (talk • contribs) 22:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billmach (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article was a bit of a mess, I've done some cleanup but it could use more eyes as people have repeatedly tried to add questionable material. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Heilman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lots of edits by a handful of IPs to this page recently. It being a BLP, I would appreciate additional eyes to make sure none of these edits violate BLP (or any other) policy. I think one of them did (I have since reverted the edit, in which an IP described Heilman as "controversial"). Everymorning (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a BLP violation as such but this crap is pretty insanely petty. Extra eyes on the page would not hurt. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was massively undue[3] and most of it was easy to fix (the usual complaints refs get from fans when their team loses, much of it unsourced).[4] However I would like some advice on this source,[5] which is used to cite Stark has received criticism throughout his career, and was elected as the worst referee of the first half of the 2010–11 Bundesliga by the players.. Is 'Kicker online' a reliable source? Does the source support the statement? It won't let me open it in google translate, but it seems to be a poll run by the website. Finally and probably most importantly, even if the above is acceptable given that this is a BLP and in particular looking at the WP:BALASP policy, should this still be mentioned in this way? Stark is a top referee (he refereed in the 2010 world cup) and having such strong criticism without balancing it with positives that must exist for someone to reach this level to me seems to violate WP:undue. AIRcorn (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A person is violating BLPs by using sources such as mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/, allmusic.com, for listing people who are influenced by the concerning figure. These websites are not reliable sources, they can be edited by just anybody, thus violation of WP:BLP. Excelse (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]