Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 12

Regarding the desire "to amend the page in reference to external links"
The reference to external links in the phrase "including as an external link" was removed. Then a sentence referring to external links that I had added was removed. Yet there were a number of people in this talk page who expressed concern about the removal of both the phrase and the sentence (more than three people). Nevertheless, Wikidemo went ahead and, over these objections, deleted the sentence, just as he and others had already deleted the phrase, all without consensus. This appears unwise to me. Pushing such changes in a policy page without actually having achieved a consensus for such changes is likely to lead nowhere, as the changes will be reversed in the future by those who have not yet realized that they were made; compare WP:Reliable sources, which I linked to above: a guideline that depends on WP:BLP (earlier version).

"To amend the page in reference to external links" requires a "consensus" over time--see Consensus--"consensus" is not a vote; three people (not all of whom participated in this recent discussion) are a miniscule number and that is not a rationale for changing a policy as crucial as WP:BLP. If you want to make a policy change by re-wording the policy in a way that relates to WP:V, which it does, then you may need to go to a more formal presentation with some guidance from seasoned administrators. People should not be changing the policy statement on the project page back and forth without first achieving consensus. They should just leave it the way it was for the longest period of time (that's "stability").

As none of these three people are administrators, though I think that Wikidemo has listed himself on the wrong project page list under "administrators", I wonder if administrative guidance as to how to proceed would be helpful here. Otherwise, one is engaging in continuing an edit war that started some months ago.

A number of people have already expressed their viewpoints about changes to this policy page (above) in opposition to the proposed changes; they simply have not repeated their objections to the continued attempts to change move forward with these proposals (by one to three people).

The proposed sentence, with its ellipses (... and ...), is not clear: what is the sentence or sentences that are being proposed? Who really knows? The whole proposal needs to be quoted in full in context, not out of context. It needs to be entirely clear, which I don't think it is. Then, after it is clearly proposed, people can discuss it. It should not be put into the project page without prior extended discussion among a wide variety of editors (not just three who support it in the face of even greater numbers of opposition already expressed to it in multiple editing summaries and comments in the talk page, both here and in Wikipedia talk:External links (only a "guideline" page).

These proposals do not seem to have any consensus or extended support (beyond the proposers and one or two other people). See Consensus and its link to Policies and guidelines and other related information to proposing changes to policies; these proposed changes do impinge on the Libel policies it seems to me and others who have already commented in earlier parts of this discussion. Re: "A policy is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions. As with guidelines, amendments should generally be discussed on their talk pages, but are sometimes forked out if large in scope. One should not generally edit policy without seeking consensus first.": several editors (commenting earlier in several editing summaries and on this talk page) have stated that these changes do not have "consensus". Three people are not a "consensus"; consensus is built and takes place [over] extended periods of time. The policy had consensus until it was changed in recent months and consensus has not yet occurred, as far as I can tell. [As I do not have time to stay online here, having to return to another non-Wikipedia project, I have to log out, but before doing that, I have wanted to make this comment.] --NYScholar 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC) [tc. --NYScholar 23:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]


 * FYI: Quoting from Policies and guidelines: "A proposal is any suggested guideline, policy or process for which the status of consensus is not yet clear, as long as discussion is ongoing. Amendments to a proposal should be discussed on its talk page (not on a new page) but it generally is acceptable to edit a proposal to improve it. Proposals should be advertised to solicit feedback and to reach a consensus. A proposal's status is not determined by counting votes. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, nor is a poll's numerical outcome tantamount to consensus."
 * There is a formal process for "advertising" a proposal and soliciting feedback etc. Proposals are a separate procedure; they don't just appear on talk pages, they are proposed for the entire Wikipedia community to consider and to discuss.  One can edit the proposal; here edits are being made to the policy project page itself w/o first having put forth a proposal to Wikipedia editors (not just readers of this page in the past few days) and without "advertising" it and "soliciting feedback etc."  The way that changes are being made in WP:BLP has apparently been putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.  --NYScholar 23:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * there was never any consensus to mention external links in any form on this page.Geni 23:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be some typographical errors in crucial places in the "proposal" that Wikidemo quoted (Wily...) and that he and another user are referring to. The language cannot have typographical errors. Please quote a corrected version of what you think the proposal is (in full). Thank you. (I haven't corrected all of my own typographical errors throughout most recent comments, just some; I got chided for doing so earlier. A proposal to alter ("amend" or "emend") the language of WP:BLP needs to have correct language, however.) --NYScholar 23:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, for heaven's sake!!! Wikidemo 23:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

For the proposal labeled as WilyD's see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons (1.4) (or scroll way up): "Add: External links should never be used to circumvent [the] goals of the Biographies of Living People policy. Where external links are used to include information from self-published or dubious sources that would be inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, they should be removed." [made the corrections.] --NYScholar 23:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As stated earlier, if there are to be such proposals, I still favor re-writing them using the active voice of verbs and the most concise language; I've also added some further references to Wikipedia policies in the following revised example: "Editors should never use external links to circumvent the goals of this policy. Editors should remove on sight external links to information from self-published or dubious sources inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.  (Such deletions are not subject to WP:3RR; see WP:3RR.)"[--NYScholar 23:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]

For further information about how to proceed in making a proposal relating to Wikipedia's editing policies, please see "Category:Wikipedia proposals" (can't post Wikified link here, but one can copy the words and use "search" in Wikipedia to find the page). Thanks. --NYScholar 05:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least...
...agree to remove the phrase "or in obscure newspapers"? It seems to me that there's a consensus on this page for that minor change, if not for all the proposed changes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Support removal of the phrase "or in obscure newspapers"
[added subheading. --NYScholar 00:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)]


 * I would tend to support it's removal.Geni 08:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support removal. "obscure" has nothing to do with being a Reliable source. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support removal as per the Mouse.Notmyrealname 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support removal. I agree with the discussion.  As a second/side issue we should expand the prohibition on partisan websites to also include other partisan sources, e.g. newspapers, but we have to clarify what partisan means in this context.  Not Fox News or NPR...but you wouldn't link to "people's communist voice daily" (hypothetical paper) for further information about a mogul like Warren Buffet, or a minor radical right newspaper for a link on Noam Chomsky.Wikidemo 21:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already stated my support of removing the phrase "or in obscure newspapers" in earlier sections of comments above; I also suggested an alternative to the sentence in which it currently appears. (Please scroll up.)  --NYScholar 00:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I support this change. Obscure can still be reliable. -- Ned Scott 04:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I support this change because "obscure" is undefined and irrelevant to reliability. A good example is The Point Reyes Light, a small town newspaper that won a Pulitzer for covering a state-wide story that larger papers stoppped covering after libel suits. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not support the removal of "or in obscure newspapers"
[added the subheading. --NYScholar 00:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)]

I would disagree to removing that change, especially in regards to negative or controversial information. The idea here is, and should be, if you had to dig for it, it doesn't belong in the article, regardless of whether or not it is true. The idea here is not to dig up some small-town paper that wrote about John Doe getting a DUI on a slow news day. If a matter hasn't received widescale attention, we shouldn't be the first place to bring it to widescale attention, that's tabloid journalism and it's not what we should be doing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But that would be no more or less true if that DUI were reported in the New York Times, isn't that so? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We are talking about sources, not establishing the notability of the fact. Small town newspapers will likely not establish that a fact is encyclopedic, but it is a reliable source in the event that the fact is encyclopedic. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Object to the removal. But we can't decide policy via straw polls. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Object - We have already had a situation recently where an editor also ran his own obscure print publication, and was publishing stories to be used as sources in wikipedia to attack third parties. I think it is worth haggling over marginal cases, if it allows us to keep out obvious cases. I also don't agree with deciding core policies by straw poll. - Crockspot 15:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Both Slim and Crockspot: policy was not decided by straw poll, policy was decided by Consensus. Notice at the top of this section, one person believed consensus was already achieved on 19 August. Just to make sure, the discussion was continued until 28 August. Eight other people weighed in giving reasons -- not votes, reasons -- supporting the removal. One gave a reason against, but that reason was responded to by two other people. Another eight days went by, and no counter-argument was given. That's as close as we get to consensus around here. Now other people are joining in, which is great, perhaps a new and better consensus will form. Consensus can change. But that's not the same thing as saying no consensus was established here, it was. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I object to the removal, per Seraphimblade. ElinorD (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In the case you mention the material is invalid on WP:V and WP:RS grounds. The question here isn't whether we allow unreliable information to be used for material about living people.  The question is whether we impose a requirement on newspapers that is more stringent here than for articles in general.  This is not a straw poll by any means.  The discussion has been diffuse and messy but it has gone on for a few weeks, and the rationale has been that "obscure" is not a meaningful way to distinguish reliable from unreliable newspapers, particularly in the case of people of specialized interest, where a specialized paper may be the most germane source.  For example, someone active in a small town (who we'll assume passes the notability requirement) may be covered best by the local small town newspaper.  I had suggested we replace "obscure" with "highly partisan" but nobody picked up on that idea.Wikidemo 16:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We cannot revoke Verifiability through a straw poll
This is worth a heading, at least. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not know why this is here. I don't think that those who object to the phrase "or in obscure newspapers" are trying to "revoke WP:V"! I have been citing WP:V in my discussions; it is core policy. I have been objecting to people's taking out "including as an external link" in SV's August 13 version of WP:BLP ([including] the sentence that I had added after the phrase was removed by other editors in an edit war)--edit 150900091-- because I think the taking out of the phrase does weaken the pertinence of WP:BLP to WP:V. Scroll up to top of page:, where this discussion began. "Obscure" is not clearly defined in relation to WP:V. If one means "unreliable" and/or "unverifiable" sources, then one needs to use the proper terms. If the newspaper deemed pejoratively to be "obscure" is actually an unreliable and/or unverifiable source, then it does not belong in Wikipedia space, particularly not as sources of material about living persons. --NYScholar 18:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * NYScholar's point is a very good one. Obscurity is irrelevant to reliability and verifiability.  As I said above, The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead might be considered "obscure" to people who've never been to Fargo, North Dakota; however, I have no doubt that it's a reliable source for information on Dennis Walaker.  "Obscure" is so poorly defined that it's just inviting arguments. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Reversions
Let's not edit war over this. I objected and reversed Tony S's reversion because he simply called it "bloody ridiculous" -- which it is not. However, it does appear based on very recent comments by people who had not before participated in the discussion that there is no clear consensus. That is fine. But if I may, anyone who cares about how policy is made ought to ask how healthy it is when people ignore a discussion until consensus seems to be reached, then jump in to revert only after the change appears on the project page. Perhaps policy isn't best determined by vote, but nor is it decided by edict. Wikidemo 16:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I called it a "bloody ridiculous edit" because it is one of the stupidest edtis to a policy I can remember. We shouldn't be removing "obscure newspapers", we should be strengthening the clause by including "tabloid newspapers", so that Wikipedia editors are not encouraged to record as fact the sensationalist reports of the scandal rags.


 * We can't all be watching this policy all of the time, so don't mistake my absence during the discussion for unhealthiness. If somebody thinks he has consensus and makes a stupid edit, of course I'll jump in and fix it.  It's a wiki. --Tony Sidaway 16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There was clearly a consensus on this page. Plenty of serious, intelligent people think it is not stupid. Without calling myself one of those people, I think it's a fine and appropriate edit. If you don't and they do, you have to respect process or you'll just cause an edit war. I think the revert and the dismissive proclamation are a bit of an insult to the people who took the time to do things right by earnestly discussing the matter. If you have been in poor health, I am sorry to hear and my best wishes for recuperation. Nevertheless, Wikipdedia has no pause button and things happened in your absence. Wikidemo 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd support adding something like "or newspapers with poor reputations for reliability"; but that's not the same thing as widely read newspapers. Plenty of tabloid newspapers are not at all obscure. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternative phrasing suggestions
I wonder if an alternative phrase for "or in obscure newspapers" might be "or in non-notable sources."

Nevertheless, it appears to me that the sentence that phrase appears in--"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all."--is unwieldy, unclear (lack of definition of adverbs (solely--how does one know for sure [already asked above]--and adjectives (partisan, obscure), and weak (using passive voice of verbs). The sentence in relation to "sources" ("Reliable sources") is ultimately unnecessary because no sources cited in any Wikipedia article are to be "non-notable" (non-relevant), or or "unreliable" or "unverifiable" V.

The whole sentence this phrase appears in seems to me problematic (as I explained earlier). "partisan websites" is subjective (subject to widely-varying interpretations depending on the point of view of an editor or other user); it is not defined (a link to some Wikipedia article defining what "partisan" means would be useful if the sentence remains in some form). Does the reference mean that "unreliable" and "unverifiable" "partisan websites" are not citable in biographies of living persons; WP:V already states that, and thus the mention here is redundant (as well as unclear).

"with caution" is not a clear directive.

"not be used at all" means must be "removed" or "deleted" on sight if already in Wikipedia BLP or other articles or other Wikipedia space.

The sentence is redundant with WP:V, which is already linked in the project page. I think that over-prescription in this project page tends to lead to problems and that it has led to problems.

In place of over-prescription using vague terminology and passive-voice constructions in syntax (sentence structure), the project page needs to define very clearly, using unambigious terms and active-voice constructions, how WP:V applies to what editors do in writing biographies of living persons and to what editors do in making statements about living persons that they insert elsewhere in Wikipedia (Wikipedia space). When citing "derogatory" statements about living persons who are also "well-known public figures", WP:BLP pertains to what editors do. That subsection already contains directions for editors' need to edit with caution (or carefully?) when they provide any sources concerning "derogatory" statements about living persons. In providing any statements about or "points of view" on living persons, whether "derogatory" or positive or neutral, editors must always use both reliable and verifiable sources in keeping with Neutral point of view and WP:V, as WP:POV and WP:NOR already states. If so-called "partisan websites" and "obscure newspapers" are not both reliable and verifiable, then editors cannot use them as sources of information about living persons in Wikipedia space. In many cases, by definition, "partisan" (biased) websites are neither reliable nor verifiable sources of information about living persons (by definition, they are "biased" ("partisan"; partial to their causes or missions) and thus citing them without indicating clearly (defining) what that bias is violates Neutral point of view.  Unless Wikipedia editors are defining various "points of view" on a living person who is also a "well-known public figure"--WP:BLP, editors cannot cite "partisan websites" (those which are not "self-published") as sources about living persons, according to WP:POV.  But if editors are defining various "points of view" on a living person who is also a "well-known public figure", then it seems to me that editors can cite "partisan websites" (those which are not "self-published") as sources, as long as they introduce such a source with clear transitions indicating its biases ("point of view") and as long as there is no potential Libel or slander involved in making any such statement about the living person. (For related policies and directions, see WP:BLP, which protects such living persons from editors' inserting or linking to potentially libellous statements or to slanderous material about them using unreliable and unverifiable sources. As I have stated earlier, in my reading of WP:V (core policy), all references to "sources" in WP:BLP (the project page) also pertain to the use of external links throughout Wikipedia space (including in the section called "External links"--scroll up to top of this talk page "").
 * Concerning "partisan websites" which are "self-published", information in WP:V already pertains. --NYScholar 18:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Featuring a prominent link to WP:LIBEL on WP:BLP sends editors to the proper policy pertaining to all Wikipedia space. The phrase "material posted on Wikipedia" clearly includes everything "posted on Wikipedia", which includes "external links".--NYScholar 18:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What about "fringe newspapers"? That should cover a few of the wackier ones I would think. We definitely need something there though. Kaldari 05:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Replying to a lot of points at once. "Notable" generally means that sources have written about something. It doesn't mean relevant to the subject of the article, and has nothing to do with reliability. A lot of people have written about the Weekly World News, it's highly notable, but not at all reliable (for example, it regularly writes about continued sightings of Elvis Presley, we can hardly cite it in that article!); and some of the most reliable books on many scientific subjects are often not notable, in the sense that relatively few people have written about them. We can't demand that all our sources be notable in themselves. Fringe newspapers, in the sense that they cover extreme partisan views, do need to be excluded as sources, but because they are covered by Reliable sources, not because they are obscure. A small town newspaper will be obscure, but can be perfectly reliable, and a large town newspaper will probably not be obscure, no matter how partisan or extreme it is. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't support the removal of this. We allude to the same issue in V. What are the objections to including it?  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 15:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Non-notable sources" doesnt' capture it well enough. Non-reliable sources is the important point.  If only obscure newspapers report something, we don't have a reliable source.  It's all about verifiability.  We don't consider rubbish in some tabloid or local paper to be verifiable just because it's been printed. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If "unreliable sources" is what is intended, then WP:BLP already (or used to already) state that; "obscure" seems unnecessary. Some of the arguments against the phrase (including my original comments about it--scroll up) point to the lack of definition of what is an "obscure newspaper" or an "obscure source" in Wikipedia.  The term "obscure" seems subjective and does not have a clearly stated definition in Wikipedia.  If there were such a definition, one could link to it.  --NYScholar 18:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of a clear and non-subjective definition of "obscure newspapers" in Wikipedia or WP, all one finds in Wikipedia is Obscure (a disambiguation page that is not pertinent in this instance), with a link to the Wikidictionary definition for "obscure", which is not at all enlightening pertaining to usage in "obscure newspapers" either. Despite all the assumptions being made (in comments above and below) about what "obscure newspapers" means (denotes) in this project page for BLP, there is no clear definition linked that everyday Wikipedia editors (not administrators) can consult for guidance as to what this phrase actually means.  --NYScholar 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "highly partisan" is any improvement upon "obscure" either, since what is or is not "highly partisan" is also "highly" subjective and raises potential violations of neutrality. As already cited in WP:BLP, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and WP:NOR are the core policies pertaining and cited in relation to WP:BLP.  WP:BLP needs to be entirely consistent with Neutral point of view, subject to the additional provisions in the policy re: avoidance of the appearance of potential libel, defamation of character, slander, which makes Wikipedia liable to such charges legally and which also violate Neutral point of view and WP:POV, as currently stated.  (Further guidance pertaining to "well known public figures" is in WP:BLP.)   --NYScholar 18:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Earlier suggestion of "fringe" with the reference to "wackier" not helpful; such suggestions are just as potentially subjective as the word "obscure". These tend to be pejorative terms.  One needs to provide neutral terms (like "unreliable" and "non-notable" which have clearly-defined denotations/meanings in Wikipedia core policy WP:V); cf. Notability.  --NYScholar 18:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)