Talk:John Podesta/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about John Podesta. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Removed section to talk

I have removed the following section:

Interests

Podesta is an avid marathon runner and a fan of the television series The X-Files and The West Wing.

Not entirely sure that this sort of personal trivia belongs in his article in chief, not unless he is famous within fandom or competes in high levels of amateur athletics. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

He has stood forward strongly advocating disclosure of the government's UFO-related archives. Perhaps his X-files interest can be tied in with that. __meco (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How is This Guy a Liberal?

How is this politician considered a liberal? Is it by association? Then the word "liberal" needs to be redefined or dropped in its entirety from use. It truly has no meaning or poignancy. Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit to Birth Date

I work at the Center for American Progress and have been asked by John Podesta to correct his birthdate in this article. I am editing the incorrect date (Jan 15, 1949) with the correct date (January 8, 1949) Drdigipol (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Alan Rosenblatt (drdigipol)

Citation for birth date

I have added a citation for the birth date that I changed yesterday. Drdigipol (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Alan Rosenblatt (drdigipol)

Request help for formatting birthday reference code...TY

Removal of sourced text by ZuluKooi without consensus

Rditor @ZuluKooi, whose sole edits are almost identical deletions of large amounts of sourced text from the John Podesta and Wyss articles, citing "editorializing". However this is what Wikipedia says about "editorializing": The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly... What matters is that articles should be well-written and consistent with the core content policies — Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources; see the section on quotations in the main Manual of Style. I submit there is nothing deficient or contrary to MOS, BLP, etc in the text to merit its removal. Any constructive and objective opinions will be appreciated. Quis separabit? 03:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The material seems well sourced. I see no reason to remove. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Last Paragraph of Recent years

So it has been mentioned in other areas of the talk page that this last paragraph has been deleted in chunks citing editorializing, but since it is sourced that is not allowed. I agree the article is sourced and its content has value in the larger article, but the passage is not neutral. For example:
§ Remove the quotes around consultant. The quotes imply that the title was a euphemism for something that was not political consulting. There is no reason to believe he was not acting as a political consultant.
§ Change "prevent energy exploration" to something without the word energy exploration. Energy exploration is a spin term invented by Frank Luntz.
§ I doubt we need to mention Hansjörg Wyss has donated to CAP multiple times in the same paragraph.
§ Maybe the part about lack of a waiver could be put in a specific "controversies" section.

Normally I would just make the edits because it seems pretty cut and dry, BUT since this has been an issue I'd like to defer to the talk page.

User:Mpen320 (talk) (signature added 26 June 2015 6:18 at request of Quis separabit?

·······I agree. The sources may be accurate, but the paragraph is:
→Conspiratorial in tone (and strikingly different in this regard from the rest of the article)
→Far too long and detailed compared to the article as a whole
→Reads like an attempt at an investigative news story rather than an encyclopedia record
→Implies connections in a way that exceeds the limits of the author function of a piece like this
I don't feel comfortable editing it myself, for the same reason cited by prev. editor, but think the page should be flagged at the very least

What the hell is this unsigned nonsense? Another left wing inquisition? Quis separabit? 12:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize in my haste I left my remark unsigned. I added a signature to it. I am confused how this is a "left wing inquisition" as all that I have proposed is to change the tone to a more straight forward tone, change energy exploration to something less politicized and to create an explicit controversies section. Is there a reason you object to this other than John Podesta's political orientation? Signed, User:Mpen320 (talk)

Photo

I know that he's not a fashion model, but surely we can find a photo that makes him look somewhat less like an extraterrestrial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Leaks

Perhaps the article should mention the recent leaks from Podesta's e-mails? Unsure how to intergrate. --192.75.211.200 (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Self-described Catholic

Religious affiliation and corresponding sources added.IBestEditor (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

See below for thread continuing this colloquy

The Podesta email leak material should have a proper place

The "main" is no main (when redirecting to the list of several other Wikileaks) - It's simply list with a short description of information published by Wikileaks. The "Main" bulk should be either in the main WP Podesta article or then a new separately created "Podesta email leak". Hiding the bulk of the material among a list of a huge pile of unrelated Wikileaks could be interpreted as purposely done... IBestEditor (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As there is no proper main article for "Podesta email leak", only a long list of unrelated Wikileaks, I will remove the link from the heading that indicates that it redirects to "Podesta email leak" main page, which it does not! The main page for now for the "Podesta email leak" is the John Podesta article. When it grows to big a separate article should be considered. IBestEditor (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Now when there is a separate Podesta email leak page, unneeded trimming of material with good verified sources should not be done IBestEditor (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Biographies are written with due weight on each aspect of people's lives; given the brevity of this biography, multiple paragraphs about the Catholic groups issue are unwarranted. It puts undue weight on what is only a small part of his life. We say what he said, we say that some people disagree or object to what he said, and we leave it there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

due weight is not the issue here. Material that is relevant and well sourced will be added until it is considered that a critical amount has been reached and will be transferred to a separate article. The issue at hand is massive and extensive and has great ramifications on internal US political and religious relations. IBestEditor (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Due weight is an established Wikipedia policy, so it is, by definition, an issue here. All articles must comply with the NPOV policy, of which due weight and balancing aspects of content are parts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Info on these emails and the Catholic groups are mentioned in the articles Bob Schaffer, Sandy Newman, and John Podesta. However, this are more pertinent to the articles Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. Repeating this information in the biographical articles violates due weight. ^Falling_Gravity 17:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

"Support Progressive Cahtolicism" section being discussed in BLP Noticeboard Section.

{{BLP noticeboard}} I removed the section until there's consensus because I believes it's a violation of WP:BLP. I'll say more on the noticeboard. Do not revert without consensus per WP:BLPREMOVE, 3-revert rule does not apply here. —PermStrump(talk) 19:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Reason for reversion

I have largely reverted this edit by User:IBestEditor, and I will explain the reasons here.

First, it is based entirely upon two sources which are not generally acceptable for claims of fact about a living person — an opinion blog post of the Catholic League, which is a conservative advocacy group; and an opinion blog post on First Things, which is useful only to support the opinion of the author. Further, it inserts the weasel words "self identifies" in the description of his religion, which attempts to cast doubts or aspersions upon his adherence to that faith, which is entirely unacceptable. It also inserts significant discussion of his professional life (political and social advocacy) into the "Personal life" section of his biography, which is inappropriate organizationally. I look forward to discussing how we move forward with reliably-sourced material about the article subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully to @NorthBySouthBaranof, I basically agree with @IBestEditor's stance. Religion is normally included in articles on this encyclopaedia only when that religion has a defining impact on the subject's life -- does anyone refer to Kato Kaelin or Adrianne Curry or R. Crumb as being Catholic? Nothing in Podesta's life indicates any degree of affiliation or adherence to the Catholic church. His current attempts to, in the words of critics, create "phony" Catholic political groups supporting the Democratic Party's positions on social and financial policies, should be, provided they are validly sourced, included. Casting aspersions on long standing groups like the Catholic League is childish. Quis separabit? 17:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, opinion-editorial posts are not reliable sources for factual claims in biographies, particularly negative or contentious claims. They are reliable only for the opinion of the source publishing them, as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. We can use a Catholic League source to say "The Catholic League believes XYZ," we cannot use a Catholic League source to say "XYZ is true." Extensive discussion of his political or social support for various causes does not belong in a section entitled "Personal life."

Moreover, your argument is self-refuting — you claim Podesta's Catholicism should not be included because it doesn't make an impact on his life, then proceed to attack him for "creating 'phony' Catholic political groups." Which is it — does it have no impact on his life, or is he a horrible person for working to support progressive Catholic groups? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Whoa. This is not CNN. I never said "he [is] a horrible person" but neither do I believe "[he is] working to support progressive Catholic groups" for any reasons other than political ones. I stand by my comments. He is a political tool (see Hansjörg Wyss). Quis separabit? 18:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of irrelevant and poorly-sourced material to this article. First, this isn't an article about everything ever sent in an e-mail to John Podesta. Secondly, it's solely-sourced to a propaganda arm of the Russian government, which is not an appropriate reliable source for these purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Its actually quite simple. There is an intrinsic connection to be made between Podestas personal beliefs, activities and and his politics and political stratagems. The same would apply if this would be a segment on Hillary Clinton her considerable personal activism inside methodism and it’s connection to her politics. The before mention is not the case, but with Pedestal it is. Take just for example Jimmy Carter, how his political style and rhetoric is connected to his religious background or Kirk Douglas, Muhammad Ali...it's never-ending. This so simple and basic Wikipedia bio which everyone should understand. There is no problem with the sources, but if we want to add more about Podestas catholicism -(http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2004/10/08/october-8-2004-catholic-voters/13536/) go ahead ps the history and huge importance of religious values/political ideology and it's impact on politics is just...huge and to deny and not include it...is just??.... IBestEditor (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Like I already stated due weight is not the issue here. More importantly wikipedia is WP:COMPREHENSIVE and is WP:NOTCENSORED. The material is relevant and will be added/restated until it is considered that a critical amount has been reached and will be transferred to a separate article. IBestEditor (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC) NB WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY!

Due weight is completely the issue, and you need to gain consensus for your proposed additions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Be informed that the policies WP:PROMOTION i.e. advocacy of any sort must be avoided and neutral point of view WP:NPOV must be upheld. From a European, a more depassionate view, it is very disheartening to see that advocacy and censorship is taking a firmer grip on editors from Northern America and intertwined current affairs. I will venture to guess User:NorthBySouthBaranof has strong views on the 2016 US presidential elections. Remember, Wikipedia is not political war zone, it is inclusive. Due Weight is not a concern, but WP:COMPREHENSIVE, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is. Pleap keep in mind that NorthBySouthBaranof was the one to go against consensus for his vast removal of well sourced, clarifying and relevant material. It is especially important when current affairs and politics are discussed. that on should be careful of WP:NOTCENSORED and have a more WP:COMPREHENSIVE view. IBestEditor (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove protection

This page needs to be updated and sections like controversies added. OMEGAUNIT (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Has he appeared anywhere since election night?

I am unaware of any sightings, if so. Robby Mook seems to have disappeared from the radar. Important operatives/figures in a U.S. presidential campaign not being heard from after an election they worked toward, is this rare? What might it mean? Do such important figures owe us, the public, anything after such a political contest in which they played such a large part? Reflections, explanations, expressions of acceptance, calming words, apologies? Word on how they are doing, adjusting, facing the future? --Artaxerxes 18:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2016

This edit request to John Podesta has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Podesta and the Clinton campaign did not confirm or deny the authenticity of the emails,[31][32] 'along with a security firm that has tracked the hacking tools used,[33] have stated that the Russian government is behind the leaks

The same article in source 33, Motherboard wrote: “None of this new data constitutes a smoking gun that can clearly frame Russia as the culprit behind the almost unprecedented hacking campaign that has hit the DNC and several other targets somewhat connected to the U.S. presidential campaign.” Wavesss111 (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This first sentence is unclear. In my reading the sentence can be reduced to: They did not confirm or deny it (Podesta and the Clinton campaign did not confirm or deny the authenticity of the emails) along with Y have stated that B" (along with a security firm that has tracked the hacking tools used, have stated that the Russian government is behind the leaks). The first clause is simple past tense and makes sense. The second clause is past perfect tense and says a security firm stated the Russian government is the source of the leaks. On their own they are unrelated. they need a main topic around which they can be supporting sentences:

Some controversy exists regarding the emails as the Podesta and the Clinton campaign did not confirm or deny the authenticity of the emails,[31][32] and a security firm has stated that the Russian government is behind the leaks [33].

114.160.5.72 (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The United States Intelligence Community

The United States "Intelligence Community" is neither. ---Dagme (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Podesta. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)