Talk:Stephanie Studebaker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ohio Portal Stephanie Studebaker is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Mug Shot

• The presence of an image of any type is not necessary for a bio article of this type. The use of a mug shot, however applicable, can easily be deemed an attack on character. There would be no problem in linking to an external copy of the image (one is even included in the links I just added), but prominent placement is inappropriate. Disparging content that does not further understanding of a living subject is inappropriate per WP:LIVING. Kershner 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • For further clarity, the use of a mug shot is not representative of the figure in question and the photo is not relevant in furthering understanding of the dispute. Kershner 20:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I share your concerns. Unfortunately she became notable due to her arrest and subsequent withdrawl from the campaign (I personally never heard of her prior to the incident). We therefore have to keep the photo which made her notable. If you have personal photos of Studebaker, I urge you to upload them to Wikipedia.

Her story is very sad. I wish her all the best. --Asbl 02:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• • The purpose of Wikipedia is not to air the dirty laundry of people's lives. The specific details of the fight, marks on arms, ages of children, etc are an invasion of privacy and clearly violate Wikipedia policies. Persuant to WP:LIVING "Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy". I have removed all content that is not encyclopedic. Kershner 13:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." 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."
  • Regarding the image, Federal mug shots are public domain, non-federal mug shots are not. See the discussion at [1]. Persuant to copyright policies on wikipedia I am removing the image until permission is granted by the police department or Ohio laws are cited resolving this issue. Kershner 13:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a borderline case on the copyright of the image, so I'll let it go for now (but I will research it, and if I find evidence to the contrary, it will go right back up). I reject everything else you are saying. Everything that was written in the article is already public information taken from public sources. Once she decided to run for office (even if it was a long shot) she gave up a certain right to privacy. I will therefore bring back all the well referenced information.
As far as all charges have been dropped, although I am sure it's correct, your private communications with the campaign manager consitutes Original Research. Becasue I believe it is probably correct, I will not remove it, but we do have to tag it with {{fact}}. --Asbl 14:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content Dispute

Persuant to WP:DR, I have removed the most inappropriate and unencyclopedic statements. Specifically the inflammatory word 'erupted'; the ages of the children; and the specific details of threats and minor injuries. I would like to request a truce during which time I can seek consensus from a wider audience per Wikipedia:Third opinion. Thank you for your patience and I appreciate your point of view. Kershner 15:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion - Dispute Resolution

I am seeking additional opinions regarding whether it is appropriate to include the specific details of primarily private domestic dispute in Wikipedia. As poorly outlined above, my primary argument is that not all details of short-term newsworthy events are encyclopedic, especially when those details have the potential to cause harm. I am seeking to prevent inclusion of three types of details for this domestic dispute.

• 1. The ages of the children (do no harm includes non-combatants in this incident); saying 'young' is sufficient
• 2. The specific details of minor injuries (scratches, bruises); saying 'minor injuries' is sufficient
• 3. The disputed details of the incident (who pushed whom, who scratched whom, who said what, who threatened this)

It is encyclopedic to state that a congressional candidate's campaign was ended due to a domestic dispute. It is not encyclopedic to air the private details of the incident. Those details can be referenced without causing harm. Kershner 15:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hi there; I followed the link from third opinion. It appears that your first two points have been addressed and are now reflected in the article; please correct me if I'm assuming incorrectly. I'd like to address your third point. The article right now contains what I consider relevant details of the dispute only. It is relevant to note that the dispute was about the amount of time Ms. Studebaker was spending on her campaign and that the dispute, therefore, is the reason that she abandoned her campaign. Perhaps the bit about the father in law's involvement could be removed as purely unnecessary, but I believe that everything else is as concise as possible and is fairly important to the readers' understanding of the situation. The section about the domestic dispute is also worded in a very neutral way (words like "claimed" are always good to see; that way we know no editors are taking sides and changing the article to reflect their opinions). I'd love to hear your input (and others' input) on this! Srose (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Srose , for taking the time to review the article. I must admit that I have found the story to be very tragic. I tried my best to give only relevant information and be as neutral as possible (an easy task, since I do not know either of the Studebakers, there is no reason for me to take sides). I spent a lot of time googling in order to find additonal information about her, so that there will be more than just the incident to reflect on her life. It's too bad her campaign web site was completely taken down, as I am sure there was probably good information there that could have been incorporated into her article. --Asbl 18:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm glad that you are pleased with my outside opinion. I hope the user who requested this opinion, Kershner, is as happy with it - I think I'll leave a message on his/her talk page to request input so that we can settle this. :) Happy editing! Srose (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)