User talk:Wiwa

Steven Page

Hello,

I'm wondering what part of wikipedia's privacy guidelines the paragraph you removed violated. The document cited is a public record, posted on a public news website, and the statement provides the most primary source of what he's accused of. So long as the paragraph clearly states that the it is Ford's statement as a source, and her allegations of what happened, I'm not sure what the problem is. I'm not looking to start a fight or anything, I'm just curious what your opinion is about why it should go. You can reply here, I'll check back. Thanks. 99.225.73.152 (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring specifically to the privacy guideline in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

I thought the paragraph in question was tabloid-like in quality, referring to private information about the subject which was not central to the issue being discussed and, frankly, none of people's business. -Wiwa (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. I believe the policy is designed to protect people from tabloid claims IE: with no sources. In this case there is a very official document (a sworn statement) from a participant and witness to the alleged offence that Page is undeniably charged with. I think the policy is more designed to protect against things like "Bono has been seen dating Madonna behind her husband's back" with no source or a tabloid-like unreliable source. I think in a section regarding his arrest, a statement that comes specifically from the prosecution's court documents ought to be a fair source with regard to the charge, but I respect your opinion. With your permission, I'd like the copy this discussion to the article's talk page for others to give input on? Let me know. Thanks.99.225.73.152 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. In general, I agree with you; however in this case, the paragraph I removed is of little consequence to Page's drug arrest, and seems to be included precisely because it is a sensational detail. Furthermore, despite the fact that it is on the public record, it is still just one person's view of events. Given that it is (a) of such personal nature, (b) not essential to the narrative, and (c) based on one uncorroborated statement, I think it should be left out. Keep in mind that this was the one section of the article that was sourced not from the media, but from a police report; in most jurisdictions, personally identifying information like this could not be included in published police reports due to privacy laws. -Wiwa (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm going to move this to the talk page and reply there. Peace. 99.225.73.152 (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]