Ron Ritzman wrote:
Come to think about it even a normally "neutral" fact might have some
POV and OR issues. Let's take "date of birth" for example...
There is an article about a notable model named "Carmen Roe".
Carmen Roe claims to be 19 years old.
Somebody digs up a copy of her birth certificate that shows that she is 26 and updates her Wikipedia entry.
If such was done, it would be using "original research" to show that she "lied about her age". The article now violates both OR and NPOV. It would be the same as if somebody found a copy of her medical records that says she is HIV+ and added that. In both cases the article should be reverted until it's reported by a "real" news organization.
There are two types of situation identified here.
In your HIV example we are dealing with a fact that was not previously included in the article. It is also a fact that could easily be viewed as derogatory. You would be right to seek stronger support before including it.
With regards to Carmen's age I'm assuming that the question of her editing her own article is not a factor, and that here _claim_ to be 19 is properly documented to be a claim. I'm also assuming that there is no direct statement that she lied about her age, and all that is really said is that her birth certificate establishes her age as 26.
It strikes me as unethical to retain information which we know to be wrong simply because the document which establishes the correct information is not in an acceptable format. If we are to remove the information about her correct age we must also remove the information about the age which we know to be false.
Ec