Talk:Steve Breedlove

Section on "Mishandling of Investigation"
The section on "Mishandling of Investigation" added by User:Anglicanhistory562 and restored by User:2001:8003:281C:E701:9519:4FFE:5E31:D4C8 has several problems. These need to be addressed on the talk page before being restored to article mainspace.First, the content is not contextualized. It does not explain why this incident is, as User:2001:8003:281C:E701:9519:4FFE:5E31:D4C8 says, "the most public and consequential of his ministry career." It simply launches into a summary of this single incident that is as long as the rest of the article. This is why the undue weight tag has been added. The burden on the editor adding this material is to document why it is so important and to ensure it is balanced appropriately. Per WP:BALASPS, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news." Second, the section relies almost entirely on primary sources. The only appropriate reliable source appears to be the Religion News Service article. The other sources (the Grand River Solutions report, the treasurer's report of the Diocese of Christ our Hope and the Youtube video of the DCH synod meeting) are primary sources and the section in question constitutes original research, also in violation of WP policy. For biographies of living persons, WP policy is to "Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people." Third, the section is not written in WP style (see MOS:LISTBULLET). Finally, the article floats allegations against a priest in Breedlove's diocese, by name, who is himself non-notable, and care should be taken not to introduce unsourced allegations against non-notable third parties.  It does appear that this can be contextualized, streamlined, and properly sourced with reliable secondary sources. This needs to be worked out with other editors on the Talk page for this article. Until then, material that violates WP:BLP must be immediately removed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)