Talk:Steve Paikin
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jewish background/ upbringing edit
why was his Jewish upbring kept so secret? when he would tell about how much money he makes http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/steve-paikin-the-journalist-who-likes-everybody/article554275/ "Though a touch exasperating, Mr. Paikin's zeal certainly helps to justify his salary – $279,259 last year. Since TVO is partly funded by the province, Mr. Paikin's six-figure salary must be publicly disclosed. When the Ontario Sunshine Law was passed in 1996, he was memorably singled out as the only journalist on the list. Back then, he was earning $132,500.
“I think I've revealed more personal information than any journalist in the country,” Mr. Paikin quips without skipping a beat." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/steve-paikin-the-journalist-who-likes-everybody/article554275/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbwoy (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think he keeps it secret, considering he has contributed to a book about an Israeli leader. The format of the show seems to be about focusing on the issues, and him being Jewish is not important. He's usually pretty sparse on details about his personal life. ( SailingOn (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC) )
Temporary Edit Lock Until Present Situation Is Resolved? edit
Is it possible? It keeps getting edited constantly, and I think it would be good to just leave it alone for a few weeks or until more is known. ( SailingOn (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC) )
Edit: Just saw that Ivanvector already did that. Ignore this. I'm not sure if I should delete stuff off a talk page. ( SailingOn (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC) )
- I enabled pending changes review for one month. Anyone will be able to edit the page but all edits will be held from publication until they are reviewed by a pending changes reviewer. I thought that would be a better solution than basic edit protection here, since I'm confident there will be people interested in updating the page in the next little while. As for removing stuff from a talk page, yes please do if it violates WP:BLP. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, if you want to read up more on what should and should not be removed, take a look at WP:BLPREMOVE. If you're not sure it's best not to revert but to report the issue to administrators at WP:AN or request review at WP:BLPN. There's at least one administrator watching this page already, so no need to get too carried away if you're not comfortable removing things yourself. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector Thanks for the insightful information, I usually try to avoid editing people unless it's minor mistakes etc. Does this apply to other topics as well? Additionally, I was talking about my comment specifically. Should I remove this whole thread from the talk page since you already managed to make a change I neglected to notice, rendering it irrelevant? I'm thinking of just leaving it on here so people can see WHY not to change it for now. Asking for future reference though. Cheers, ( SailingOn (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC) )
- No, I don't think you should remove anything from this page (the talk page). The policy I linked to applies to all information about living persons (as well as those who have very recently died) and that scope is usually interpreted very strictly. It doesn't say not to include negative information, only that if we are going to include information about living persons then it must be done properly, with proper balance and with very reliable sources. This protection isn't meant to prevent anyone from adding information on what's going on right now, just that it needs to be done right. I don't necessarily agree with Nixon Now about it being too recent, that's not a good reason on its own to exclude something, but things like this do tend to overload an article (see WP:RECENTISM) whereas taking a conservative approach and discussing proposed additions helps to keep articles balanced. Some of this has already been hashed out at Sarah Thomson (publisher).
- As for reverting your edit, the text you added in a hidden comment made a statement about Paikin's accuser which wasn't appropriate, so I removed it. That's all. Don't be afraid to edit, but do ask questions if you're not sure. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector Thanks for the insightful information, I usually try to avoid editing people unless it's minor mistakes etc. Does this apply to other topics as well? Additionally, I was talking about my comment specifically. Should I remove this whole thread from the talk page since you already managed to make a change I neglected to notice, rendering it irrelevant? I'm thinking of just leaving it on here so people can see WHY not to change it for now. Asking for future reference though. Cheers, ( SailingOn (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC) )