Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Reality TV star noteability guidelines

[This section and the next few ones are being moved to Archive 14. Thank you. --NYScholar 22:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

Hello, I've just created a seperate page proposing guidlines for noteability of Reality TV contestants and if they should have their own articles. I did this due to the mass number of articles being created and deleted on these subjects in recent months, and confusion among editors if they are in fact noteable or not. You can read this here. All edits and comments on the talk page are welcome. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 18:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Okay, here's a stumper

Does BLP's higher standards of reliable citation apply if the subject of the BLP article is dead (but extremely popular)? It has been argued that, because the dude is dead, the normal criteria apply. I disagree, thinking about the guy's family and friends. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

How long has he been dead and how alive is he to people? Are we talking about Marcus Aurelius or Merv Griffin? Personally, I don't think we should speak ill of the dead unless they have been dead for a good while. Wikidemo 09:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Even british lible law accepts that once you are dead it is fairly hard to lible you.Geni 03:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Is the policy solely to avoid liability for defamation claims or are we also trying to calm partisanship and POV issues? We refuse to link to certain 3rd party sources, and refrain from allowing people to post certain information even if true, two cases where Wikipedia has either zero or extremely remote liability. Wikidemo 03:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Libel laws are writen to protect people. If the law thinks someone does not need protection I fail to see why we should dissagree with it.Geni 03:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The subject was Jogn Lennon, and the May Pang controversy (the discussion can be found here). In that particular case, the issue as to the possible defamation of Lennon via the uncited info was secondary to the fact that the same uncited info also affectd at least two other people who are still alive.
What i think I should have asked is whether the citability requirements for a bio lessens when the person dies. I do think that there is a fair distinction over people dead in the current saturation of media coverage as opposed to the example of Marcus Aurelious, who was distanced by the nature of his office (and by the mists of time) enough to afford the biographer some latitude when reconting events in their life.
I didn't fine anything in the policy that addresses this, and I think it's worthwhile to consider this as a potential problem as Wikipedia grows up. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the answer is found in the very name of the policy, it covers a biography of a living person. (Of course, that doesn't mean it's alright to be rampantly POV in an article about a dead person, POV is never acceptable.) BLP, however, is intended around a very specific circumstance—cases where something has the ability to harm someone. The dead cannot be harmed. Of course, however, you bring up the fact that cases involving the recently dead may also indirectly involve someone who is still living. For example, let's say someone dies but his wife is still alive, and someone makes an unsourced edit accusing both of them of participation in an embezzlement scheme. In this case, BLP still protects the person who is still alive. But I don't think it goes so far as "This person's living (relatives|friends|other) really wouldn't like this!". BLP is a powerful tool, and while a necessary one, its scope should be kept narrow and judicious, and part of that is that it applies only to living persons. Given the power of this particular policy, it is something I most certainly do not want to see be allowed to creep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Unfortuntely, the BLP matter is complicated by an almost word for word inclusion of an uncited novel (published 24 years ago, and went out of print less than a year later). Perhaps someone a bit higher up the authority chain could visit the articles of John Lennon and May Pang; I seem to be running into a bit of resistance regarding the inclusion of uncited material, as well as the BLP harm to living persons it represents. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Cover the event not the person

Should the standards of WP:BLP1E - covering the event not the person - be applied to biographies of people who are dead, especially if the one notable event is the reaction to their death. AgneCheese/Wine 03:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems like good editorial practice in general to me. Far too many things are covered in separate articles solely due to proximity to one notable event, when they should be covered in the event article. I'm not sure failure to do so should be considered a BLP violation though, since what you're talking about by definition does not involve a B of any LP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Unless the statements in the biography directly affects the biography of another living person, right? Then BLP comes into play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 06:42, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Nope BLP does not and cannot apply to dead people.Geni 13:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Our policy can't be expressed in a categorical statement like that. There appears to be general agreement that the day someone dies the policy does not suddenly cease to apply. The subject does not become "fair game". How far the BLP applies, and for how long, is not well established yet. --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that BLP applied to the recently deceased as well... Rockstar (T/C) 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
BLP has been cited for the removal of information added immediately after a persons death, Steve Irwin is one example where I can remember this happening. Gnangarra 17:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
So doesn't mean the citation was correct. What part of living do people not get? Incerdently by trying to claim that once someone is dead they are not ah "fair game" (not an accuret phrase but no matter) You would appear to be trying to argue with the entire obitury writeing profession who you know might know a bit more about this topic than you do.Geni 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it does. The (barely cited) information in a dead man's bio which disparages another living person (with an article) falls under BLP. Gnan, can you explain ina bit more detail about the Irwin example? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue was raised on The Irwin talk page and here but was unresolved, it was about changes Irwin's article and his wife's article that said he had died even before it was officially announced. Gnangarra 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Shall I once again propose that we move this page to Wikipedia:Biographical content? violet/riga (t) 17:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that we need standards both for the content of biographies and biographies of living people. Maybe it's time that we make a WP:Biographical content and have BLP in the "See Also" section. Rockstar (T/C) 18:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose another frame of reference is whether or not it's "encyclopedic" to focus on a non-notable person, instead of the event which is the only item that will have lasting encyclopedic relevance. I'm looking at this not from a perspective of whether or not the article is "damaging" or hurting anyone (which I'm afraid has become BLP's single, narrow focus) but whether or not it simply a good article that is serving our reader well in covering what is important. With the particular article that I'm currently having editorial discussions on, I am disagreeing with two editors over whether or not mundane trivial details such as the fact that girl got an elementary school reprimand as a young girl or cut her hair for charity is worthy encyclopedic content when the only thing that she is notable for is her death triggered an episode of Mourning sickness. In that context it seems the WP:BLP1E should be a guiding principle in crafting a quality article on the encyclopedic event that is notable rather then bury the article underneath a mountain of trivial and memorial like details. I suppose what I would like clarification on is whether or not that is an intent of WP:BLP1E? AgneCheese/Wine 18:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if the principle of WP:BLP1E is applied to a recently dead person, it defines a situation where "a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves." If the subject is their death and reaction to it, then they can hardly remain in low profile as regards the subject. Tyrenius 08:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
But if the person is 'only ever mention in the context of the "event", then the event clearly takes precedence and should rightly be the main focus of the article. That seems to be the spirit of WP:BLP1E that when the event is the single notable subject then we should focus on that event rather then on a relatively non-notable element of that event-i.e. the people involved in it.AgneCheese/Wine 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP1E, "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." So it's a question of whether they remain of essentially low profile. Each case has to be assessed individually. Mark David Chapman is only mentioned in the context of one event, but that event has given him a notability that he did not have before it. Likewise Divine Brown: this was a unanimous keep at AfD. Tyrenius 18:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The case of Divine Brown is more questionable, especially since she clearly is covered by BLP but I don't think there is any comparison between Mark David Chapman and Anna Svidersky. There have been comments by reliable sources, books and even studies into the man's background and childhood by people trying to figure out what makes him tick. Not every mention of him is tied into the single focus of Lennon's death. That's a far cry from how the reliable sources treat Svidersky. But maybe there should be more clarification in WP:BLP1E on what defines "people notable for one event". AgneCheese/Wine 19:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
There are many examples where, although only one event was involved, the individual achieved prominence through it: Gary Brolsma, Star Wars kid (last AfD unanimous keep), Damilola Taylor, also see Category:Murdered American children etc. Tyrenius 00:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Two key things here. If it's not clear a person is dead then clearly BLP applies. Hopefully we can all agree with that. Secondly even if a person is dead, it doesn't mean there are no BLP concerns since there may still be other living people who will be affected by the claims Nil Einne 11:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Why is wording being removed from this policy that says that "Material available solely...in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all" ?

This is our Verifiability policy. It's idiotic to rewrite this policy so that it misrepresents our most basic policies of which it is supposed to be a restatement. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The change is thoughtful, fully discussed, and has wide support. Calling editors' actions "stupid" and "idiotic" would tend to polarize things. Perhaps you may not have not noticed the discussion (above) that lead to this change, which would be understandable given how much of a mess this talk page is. Anything already in WP:V goes without saying here. If it were a mere restatement then there should be no real objection to removing a restatement. But this seems to be an added restriction on newspapers in the case of BLP, and the question has been whether that is appropriate. The thought was that the obscurity of the newspaper misses the issue; is not the best filter for what additional things we want to avoid in the case of BLP. Wikidemo 16:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It goes without saying that obscure newspapers or otherwise unreliable sources are not acceptable. If the News of the World says that film star Madeline XexblpGz has had treatment for bulimia nervosa we do not state in the article that she has had such treatment. If only the News of the World says this, we don't even report that they have said so. They're not a reliable source. The same goes if the Smgghltown Bugle says the same thing. --Tony Sidaway 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Assuming the issue is worthy of inclusion at all whatever the source (e.g. we would put it in if the Wall Street Journal reported it), the issue is reliability, not obscurity. A respected scholarly publication on bulimia would be an obscure but reliable source on the subject. By contrast TMZ is certainly not obscure, but it is unreliable and a poor source on the eating disorders of the stars. Again, the question of obscurity is tangential to the real issue. As a counterexample, what if the Chicken, Alaska (population 17) town police blotter reported that the town's only attraction, the Chicken Gold Camp & Outpost, was consumed last year in a fire started when the Mayor crashed her car into the propane tank? Assuming relevance again, that's probably a good source.
I wonder how often this comes up in a positive or negative way. How often is the "obscure newspaper" phrase actually used in practice to exclude material that shouldn't be there? And how often is it misapplied or used as a sword by people who are trying to push their own POV? The issue may well be moot. Wikidemo 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tony. I have been busy, and not paying attention to the discussion here, but BLP is really just a restatement of our other core policies, with extra penalty added, and less discussion required. I'm not saying this is happening in this case, but often editors will try to have this policy modified slightly, because it is obstructing them in a particular case. We have to look at the bigger picture. It is better to keep out or have to really fight to include a marginally includable source, than to open the floodgates to inappropriate sources. I am against any attempts to weaken this policy, or to bring it out of sync with our other policies. - Crockspot 17:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Entirely agreed that this should match the language of our other policies, which use language like "reliable" and "reputation" and "verifiable". They never say "obscure", and for good reason - that's an invitation to make an argument from ignorance - "almost no one ever reads that scientific journal/trade paper/small town newspaper", and to instead value the News of the World higher because it has more readers, so is not obscure. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this gets to the heart of it. If the only source of the claim about Madeline were an academic journal on Bulimia, it would not be reliable. Information in academic journals is no more reliable on the history of living people than any other source, and if you only have one obscure source then you're engaged in investigative journalism, not writing an encyclopedia.
If some editors attempt to exclude information about a living person on the grounds that the only source is one obscure journal, then they're not misapplying this principle. The response should be to find more sources, and reliable ones at that. --Tony Sidaway 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the examples of bulimic stars and academic journals are inapt, then. What about real examples on Wikipedia? A so-called "obscure" publication is not obscure, nor is finding it is a matter of investigative journalism, to those who regularly read it. And it is certainly not wrong for an editor to use google and follow trails of links to find reliably sourced material. Back to the point, a person of specialized interest will be covered in specialized sources. A person of general interest will be covered better in sources of broader scope and wider readership. The source should fit the material - not be judged in an absolute sense on how obscure it is. Wikidemo 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Agreed. If the single source claiming the bulimia isn't noteworthy enough, I sometimes repair the statement to the Disucssion page and ask for further or redundant independent verification (anyone who's watched the Daily Show knows how news outlets tned to parrot each other without checking the sources, either). Maybe I am wrong for doing that, but if there is a chance it is true, then it should stay within discussion, and definitely not in the article until such citation is found.
Something like this has come up on the John Lennon and May Pang articles, regarding their relationship. I've pulled a lot of the "Lost Weekend" stuff, as it appears that the only real source of what happened is a trashy tell-all by Pang herself, and wholly unsourced. I am getting grief over calling for its removal, citing BLP concerns (inclusion in the late Lennon's article affects both Yoko Ono and Pang). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Since no one responded to my suggestion before, I will offer it again: Many editors object to using the term "obscure" since many reputable but lesser-known journals might be seen as "obscure newspapers". Instead of removing the phrase altogether (which many editors also object to), why don't we just change the adjective to something that makes more sense, like "fringe newspapers" or "non-reputable newspapers"? Kaldari 18:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This comment relates to another section (scroll up); there has been a response to your suggestions. I do not find that they are helpful. "fringe" and "non-reputable newspapers" are pejorative and subjective terms. Sources in Wikipedia space already need to be to "reliable" and "verifiable" sources: WP:V#Sources. Your terms are problematic. Such value-judgment-laden terms are already discussed in the discussion of removing the phrase "or in obscure newspapers"; pros and cons pertaining to the phrase are already discussed. The same arguments pertaining to "obscure" pertain to "fringe" and "non-reputable". --NYScholar 18:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
See #Alternative phrasing suggestions. --NYScholar 19:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
See #We cannot revoke Verifiability through a straw poll. --NYScholar 19:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"obscure newspapers" is a terminaly flawed phraseing. The news of the world can afford to lose the odd lible case. The local paper less so.Geni 20:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If we really mean to exclude newspapers on the low end of the reliability scale that would otherwise be okay for a non-BLP article but not here, why don't we say so! A concise way to say that is to change "obscure newspapers" to "newspapers of marginal reliability" or something like that.
цEveryone knows what a "fringe newspaper" is, I doubt anyone has a clue what a "newspaper of marginal reliability" is. Kaldari 22:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well in the US that term would be applied to supermarket tabloids. The problem is that say the sun is rather more of an issue than some random local paper however the wording "fringe newspaper" will completely fail to cover it.Geni 00:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If a negative or dodgy statement is inadequately sourced, remove it without discussion. Don't suffer the endless wankery of idiots who will seek to argue that the source is adequate. Make them establish the statement through unarguably adequate sourcing. Anything else is unacceptable. We're Wikipedia. We can afford to wait years or even decades to get things right, but meanwhile we should not accept making somebody's life unnecessarily bad for one single second. --Tony Sidaway 22:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary references. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
you do realise the problem with that stamtent yes? X had an affair is not statisticaly an extraordinary claim and extraordinary reference is not a helpful term.Geni 00:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't suggest the policy should be worded that way, but I think it's a good summary of the situation. The claim that someone had an affair is exactly the sort of claim we should require excellent references for. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. And I think conscientious editors will do that - source their own work, avoid disparagement, and refuse to suffer fools - whatever the exact phrasing we adopt here. Are we perhaps merely trying to find the best way to say what everyone already agrees on? Wikidemo 22:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"unarguably adequate" nothing is unarguably anything outside the field of maths.Geni 00:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Despite the claim that "fringe newspaper" is something everyone knows [the meaning of] [not knows!: quoting: "Everyone knows what a 'fringe newspaper' is"], I have no idea what the user who recommends it means by "fringe newspapers". In my own work, "fringe" applies quite notably to film and theater festivals, e.g., Edinburgh Fringe, an entirely notable phenomenon about which newspaper reviews in many small newspapers that others might consider "obscure" or "fringe" are also entirely notable, reliable, and verifiable. --NYScholar 00:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
For some guidance re: Wikipedia's use of "fringe" in, e.g., "fringe theories", please see: WP:FTN and follow its links. Thanks. --NYScholar 17:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Also there: WP:RSN for when in doubt about what constitutes a "reliable source" in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 17:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Test cases

Let's try a few test cases, just to see how people believe the "obscure newspapers" clause should apply.

  1. Haley Barbour#Barbour vs. The Partnership - article about a governor with a lot of controversies, one sentence each, cited by one local newspaper each. I think it's fair to say that these papers don't have a lot of subscribers in Lima, London, or even Los Angeles. Are they obscure? Should these sentences be stricken until each sentence is cited by two local newspapers each? It's highly unlikely we'll find sources for all of them in national or international papers.
  2. Bagram torture and prisoner abuse#Ongoing investigations and prosecutions - Clearly controversial article, section that is highly derogatory to 15 living people named therein, cited mostly to one local newspaper. Strike until cited to two newspapers?
  3. Stephen Ambrose#Plagiarism and inaccuracies - This reference is in the article text. Is the following acceptable, or do we need a reference that is either a different or a non-local newspaper?

Reported by Matthew Barrows in the January 1, 2001, edition of The Sacramento Bee, they listed some 50 text pages and six photo captions in which Ambrose "erred, misstated the facts or used quotes that cannot be substantiated with facts". According to Barrows, Ambrose cited his son Hugh as the primary research assistant for the book and chose not to respond.

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sacramento Bee isn't an obscure paper despite the quaint name. It's the main print newspaper for California's state capital city, does lots of original reporting, wins awards, breaks scoops, gets cited, etc. But you'll find plenty of examples of obscure newspapers if you look for accounts of locally notable people in small town newspapers, mentions of businesses and happenings in the local free weeklies, etc. Do people consider the so-called alternative free weeklies "obscure?" On the one hand the editorial quality is quite inconsistent. On the other they are invaluable sources of information on all kinds of subjects, controversial or not, and often get closer to more of the truth than mainstream media. I'm looking at an article here, [[1]], that I just included as a reference because it is spot on and the best easily accessible summary I have seen on the subject. The person they tar and feather in the article (who deserved it) is dead but some living people like Bruce Babbit and Stewart Udall, and the individual's son, come off in a somewhat harsh light. This isn't fluff either, it is as the article says one of the most important events in the 1,000+ year history of the two Indian tribes Wikidemo 21:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, you make a fine argument, but since you're of those who want to get rid of the words "obscure newspaper" from the policy altogether, it's sort of preaching to the choir. Do the people who want to keep the words "obscure newspapers" agree that a local city newspaper isn't "obscure"? What about a trade paper? An academic journal? What does "obscure" mean for purposes of this sentence? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
To expand a little on my comment below, in response to your question, while a trade paper or academic journal may cater to a narrow audience, they do contain useful and reliable information, and have editorial oversight staff. Not obscure. Local papers also have professional editors, and are often owned and managed (at least as far as hiring the managing editor) by large news corporations. Not obscure. - Crockspot 20:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any sources in those cases that I would consider "obscure". Even the local papers have editorial oversight, and are owned by companies that publish other local papers throughout the country. Obscure to me is a paper that caters to a very narrow audience, and has limited general appeal or even usefulness, in a newsworthy sense. For example, there is a paper in the SF Bay Area (can't recall the name) that has been around for a long time. It caters to the the black community, but not the black community in general, more of the Black Panther segment of the black community. It's reporting is biased, bordering on racist. That would be obscure and unreliable. One source I removed not too long ago, and again I do not recall the name, was a paper, really more of a newsletter, out of Texas, that catered to conspiracy theory oriented and ufologist readers. A lot of outrage and fist shaking, but thin on verifiable facts. That is obscure and unreliable. - Crockspot 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The bay area is a hotbed of little papers. There are papers papers for nearly every little city and neighborhood including downtown, industry-specific papers (law, hospitality, food, etc), papers of different ethnicities (remember Asian Week?, a couple Japanese language papers and some in Chinese, papers for different varieties of gay people, one for dog owners, a new age and spiritual paper full of new age massage adverts, another put out by the port commission for people who commute by the ferry, several entertainment papers, papers for different building complexes and cultural institutions like Fort Mason and Yerba Buena Center, arts papers, literary papers, and the Onion. Don't laugh about the Onion, BTW. They have serious, earnest interviews and coverage of music and the arts amidst their fake news stories. Hundreds of papers probably, and an equal number of small independent magazines. Sorting out the obscure from the non-obscure would be a big project and it might miss the point. Some of the larger circulation papers have traditionally been run out of the hip pocket of partisans or wealthy benefactors who are using them for vanity purposes to push their personal agendas. The San Francisco Examiner, for example, whether you're talking 1857 or 2007. If "obscure" is just a stand-in for unreliable under the circumstances, we could just say that. Wikidemo 23:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The two I mentioned above were being used as sources on WP. The main factor in determining reliability is going to be editorial oversight and editorial staffing. Many of the more obscure examples you mention are run by one or two people out of a small office. "Unreliable under the circumstances" is an interesting concept. But that would need to be well defined, and probably not in this policy, but in WP:V or WP:RS. - Crockspot 04:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The problem is that "obscure" doesn't mean anything like "not having editorial oversight staff".[2] The Drudge Report has no editorial oversight, but it's not at all obscure, it's quite popular. It does mean "paper that caters to a very narrow audience, and has limited general appeal", but that's is an excellent description of many highly reliable scientific journals, trade papers, and local papers. For example, Journal of the United States Artillery - clearly a very narrow audience, yet highly respected, and could be the best source on information on an artillery officer or manufacturer. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Obscure" is meaningless

[For contexts of this discussion, please see the talk archive pages 11 and 12. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

The problem with the "or obscure newspapers" phrasing is that the term "obscure" is completely subjective, and hence meaningless for Wikipedia's purposes. One editor may think that a small-town newspaper is "obscure", another will disagree. One editor may think that a paper catering to a certain community in a large city is "obscure", another (who may be a member of that community, and thus able to judge the paper's reliability better than somone from outside it) will disagree. As lots of folks have said above, the key is reliability and editorial oversight. The relevant bit of WP:V#Questionable sources says, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight." Why shouldn't BLP use that wording, which is unambiguous? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Current edit warring on this policy project page

[3] was protected by an administrator who is not active due to a death in the family (see updated user page, though he has edited since updating it). Too many disputes about language and policy have led to changes in this page since August 13, when he protected it. I think it needs to be reverted back to the protected version (SV's version). I do not think changes made since that version are improvements and some are quite confusing. --NYScholar 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Reverted. I did not make the change indicated below, however. - Crockspot 20:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The only one that appears to be an improvement is "The [Editors'?] writing style should be neutral and factual[,] avoiding both understatement and overstatement." The comma is necessary. "Editors'" is better, I think, than "The" (vague). --NYScholar 20:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Even better: "Editors should make only well-sourced neutral factual statements and avoid both understatement and overstatement." --NYScholar 20:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC))
Which part of my edits on the 18th are you going to disagree with.Geni 20:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read my previous comments. Already answered. --NYScholar 20:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC) (I already said that I prefer 150901120 [4] (User:Dragons flight) except possibly for adding "Editors should make only well-sourced neutral factual statements and avoid both understatement and overstatement." --NYScholar 20:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC))
I reverted to Slim Virgin's version, to avoid the protection template. Don't have time for further tweaking now, just wanted to nip this incremental weakening of the policy in the bud. - Crockspot 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
See also: 151494114. Thanks. --NYScholar 21:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please note also that since the only 2 edits that I have made to the project page (one a typographical corr. of the other) since August 12, 2007--150866314--I have made no edits to the project page; I have confined my comments to the talk page of this project page and WP:EL (related guideline page), and I have not participated in any way in edit warring or reversions that occurred after August 12 to the project page. My edits include typographical corrections to language in my own comments; refactoring was done by other editor who requested that I add subsections for my subsequent comments, which I complied and did. I do not see the changes made to this page since August 12 as "progress"; I see them as problematic. The only stability has come from the fact that other editors respected the call for not reverting some editors' changing of the project page and participated in discussion rather than reversions (or else they simply were away or otherwise inactive). The editing history of the project page is clear. --NYScholar 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC); WP:AGF. --NYScholar 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No way! There is no edit war going on now but the change you propose would certainly start one. It may happen to support your odd theories about external links and citations being the same thing, but it was only there because it got frozen for two days in the middle of an edit war. The page has been stable and constructively edited for two weeks. We should not even think about returning to the 6+ week long edit war that preceded that.

By the way, the only reason we were able to make progress at all was a welcome reduction in refactoring, misstatements, impertinent comments, editing of previously posted comments, and sheer volume of impertinent material that plagued this talk page earlier in the month and chased everyone away. I see you have made 26[27] posts on this page so far today. Please do not start that up again. Wikidemo 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid personalizing the dispute. As a matter of fact, quite a few very active BLP patrollers, like myself, have been very busy the past couple of weeks on other things, and that might explain the lack of pushback on some of these changes. - Crockspot 20:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not personalizing the dispute. I am giving a warning to an editor who has disrupted this page before and appears to be doing so again. Wikidemo 21:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I do see someone being disruptive, but it isn't NYScholar. - Crockspot 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Ahem*, I do not appreciate that characterization. It is not appropriate, and I would suggest you take a little time to familiarize yourself with what happened and is happening before you reach conclusions like that.Wikidemo 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected for 48 hours

I have protected the page for 48 hours. There have been 8 reverts in the past 5 hours, including five in the past hour. Please work out any disagreements on the talk page. — Black Falcon (Talk) 21:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself

Unprotection (immediate edit) request

As I point out in earlier comments, the current protected version of WP:BLP#Reliable sources (a policy) is now inconsistent with a guideline version of it (the pre-protection, pre-August 12, 2007 version) that appears in WP:Reliable sources#Biographies of living persons (a guideline, which is supposed to be an exact quotation of policy from WP:BLP#Reliable sources). This discrepancy may lead to confusions for editors, especially new editors, of Wikipedia. I suggest (again) that one revert to the quoted version of the policy as it currently appears in WP:Reliable sources#Biographies of living persons. Then, if "wide consensus" is reached to make changes to the version of both WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:Reliable sources#Biographies of living persons, the version and the quotation of the version need to match (as they do not match now). It is inconsistent for the currently protected version to differ from what is supposed to be an exact quotation of it. --NYScholar 02:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the protected status has expired [expires at 21:23, August 30, 2007 (UTC)]. The inconsistencies in Wikipedia policy and guideline quoting it need resolution. --NYScholar 02:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your proposal, and adopting it via an "immediate edit" without a thorough discussion would lead to a further edit war. The reasons for rejecting the proposed categorial prohibition against all links to self-published sites as external links, as opposed to sources, have been discussed at length by many Wikipedians active on these policy pages. The date you cite was in the midst of an edit on that exact proposal that had already lasted for more than six weeks, and in which you participated. The guideline page you cite for support is an old fork of this policy page, made at the time of the edit war via this edit. You know all this because you have been participating in this very debate for more than a month. If you are going to bang the drum for a contentious edit, please do not present it as a quick and simple discrepancy to fix. Policy here is made through discussion, not edit wars. Unless you want to start yet another edit war you should explain here why you want the change, and wait for a consensus to be reached. Briefly, please. Wikidemo 03:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that there is a need to escalate things. In Wikipedia we assume the good faith of contributors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes leaving the discussion for a few days, taking the page of the watchlist, and focusing for a while on other tasks is the best way forward.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Jossi: When you edited the project page, you used language that does not have "wide consensus" (acc. to Wikidemo and others). I did not intend for the sentence that I had added on August 12 (in my only 2 edits to the page, one of which was a typographical corr. removing the word "such") to be put back into the policy page. The language in the guideline WP:Reliable sources#Biographies of living persons is SV's version from before people edit warred over her phrase "including as an external link" (before August 12); on Aug. 12/13, the sentence that I had added was also added back by SV following a revert by others: here is the paragraph that appears in the guideline based on quoting the earlier version of WP:BLP#Reliable sources (from pre-August 12, 2007):

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

I have questioned sentence one. I approve of keeping "including as an external link"; or, if that is removed, then restoring the sentence that I had added (or Jossi's current version). But the point that I was making in this section comment that I added is just that the two appearances of the paragraph in both WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:Reliable sources#Biographies of living persons need to match, as the latter is supposed to be a quotaiton of the former. I do not recommend changing the language that SV had reverted to pre-August 12 or on August 12/13 unless there is "wide consensus" for doing so, which I do not see so far. I have cross-posted notice of this dilemma in other policy pages. (I do object strongly to these continual faulty assumptions about my intentions in posting my comments by Wikidemo or anyone else. I suggest strongly that such comments need to stop. They are unnecessary and not at all helpful.) WP:AGF.) --NYScholar 04:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be constructive and avoid edit wars. I am not questioning anybody's intentions, only the specifics of the contributions made to this talk page and the policy page. For one, I am pointing out that the above misrepresents the status quo state of the policy page. I am free to do so, and these fake complaints and warnings by those choosing to restart the edit war rather than discuss the merits are rather uncivil. Wikidemo 07:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that it is you that is edit warring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The matter of external links

Some people are re-igniting an old edit war by adding a ban on external links to "self-published" books, magazines, websites, and blogs within BLPs. I do not believe this ban ever had consensus, nor does it serve the goals of BLP policy.

For those new to the discussion, the ban would, one of its proponents promises, override existing practice with respect to WP:EL (which would have to be modified to conform) and at least one WikiProject (WP:MUSTARD). As it is both permit such links if they are by a "recognized authority," by "an established organization", give access to information that for one reason or another would not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia (due to length, format, original research, use of non-free materials, etc).

Although the sentiment against self-published materials is understandable, an absolute ban is overreaching and would prohibit plenty of valuable links already in Wikipedia. To repeat some earlier examples, it could prohibit links to recipes, song lyrics, concert schedules, galleries of photos of notable buildings, fan clubs, etc. This does not concern references used to source material that appears in the articles, but rather those helpful links to external sites in the infoboxes and "external links" sections that concern information that is not in the articles. Another is that "self-published" is poorly defined and misunderstood in this situation. People misunderstand it as a ban on self-funded, non-incorporated, small-staffed, or non-mainstream publications when, in fact, the term means that the person or company that generates the content is the one that publishes it. BLP is trying to avoid unreliable or derogatory biographical information about living people. The policy as it now stands prevents that from being used as a source. There are already plenty of safeguards in place to prevent people from linking to attack sites or other sites where unreliable derogatory information about living people may appear. There are also plenty of safeguards in place against all the other perils of self-published and non-mainstream sites (e.g. linkspam, copyright violations, etc). However, many blogs and other self-published sites are useful and neutral. Banning all of them as external links gets rid of useful links without any corresponding improvement on protection for BLP.

Opinions can certainly differ. As of now there is no consensus on banning these links. Perhaps one will emerge. But until then, can we please talk about this rather than repeatedly inserting the ban to the point of an edit war? Thx, Wikidemo 07:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Linking and sourcing are two different things. External links are by definition to material outside an article that is inappropriate for the article. Sourcing is about finding, verifying, and supporting information that is in an article. Why is there some information in the world outside of Wikipedia that isn't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia -- yet worthwhile as an external link? WP:EL makes this clear. It says the reason might be copyright, amount of detail (e.g. statistics, credits, transcripts, textbooks), or other reasons unrelated to reliability (e.g. reviews, interviews). If "smear" sites is the issue we can tailor the language to that, without banning recipes, interviews, and appearance schedules. The "fear", as you put it, occurs because some users argue that the policy language does extend to these things too and that practices of WP:EL and the music wikiproject have to be changed because they are inconsistent with WP:BLP.
Here's an example, from the Brewster Kahle article, a BLP. The "external links" section contains three or four links to blogs. Two are interviews with him on blog sites, although they are on 3rd party blogs so they are arguably not "self-published" (but query, why would the exact same interview be improper if it appeared on a different blog). One is an account on Ross Mayfield's blog, of Kahle's keynote speech at Wikimania 2006. That one fits all the criteria - external link, in a BLP, self-published, and not by the subject of the article. It's a little uncomfortable (and maybe inappropriate even) that Mayfield is opining in his own blog about Kahle's speech....but if he talked there about toaster ovens, or the wayback machine, it would be excluded too.
Then look at Ross Mayfield's article. It links to the many2many blog, apparently because Mayfield posts often to it. Same problem. External link, self-published blog, BLP. In fact, if you bounce around the articles of the digerati, Web 2.0, and Wikimedia sorts you'll find them thick with these kinds of links. Are we banning them all now? Wikidemo 17:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To repeat some earlier examples, it could prohibit links to recipes, song lyrics, concert schedules, galleries of photos of notable buildings. This is about biographies of living people, not about the subjects you describe in your examples. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If this prohibition is not about recipes, song lyrics, concert schedules, etc., can we make clear that such non-biographical information is not prohibited by the ban on external links? Some say it is (see above)Wikidemo 17:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you trying to claim there are no song lyrics that attack people? I suspect that Mitch Benn would be somewhat suprised to discover this.Geni 22:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo: please avoid deleting long-standing wording in this policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "long-standing wording?" It seems to have been in and out of the policy all year, and subject to considerable debate on both sides for months.Wikidemo 17:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Jossi no mention of external links in on the project page can claim to be long standing. You should know this by now.Geni 22:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The wording doesn't really matter, because the clause is being applied without attention to the exception noted.

As usual, the WP:BADSITES battle is being fought on mistaken pretexts. The cases have involved external links, not citations (though it is only a matter of time before that happens), so verifiability has thus far been a red herring. Likewise the BLP issue of avoiding slander/libel/legal problems can hardly apply with what people have said themselves. All this is really about, again, is a moral judgement against certain sites for being too nasty (and a very narrowly focused nastiness at that). And even then, as a general rule, the only way most people become aware of the offensive material is that someone publishes that fact by deleting the link.

Nobody here is going to get the "offenders" to clean up their websites by deleting these links; instead, they are going to direct people to go look who otherwise might not have cared. (Some of them are going to be disappointed to find that they have to rifle through hundreds of blog comments to find the dirt.) I suspect that those who do care have learned to use Google by now. Mangoe 17:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not follow. Can someone explain what in the current wording is in contradiction with the spirit of this policy?

Material available solely on partisan websites should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception.

I do not see anything in this wording that contradicts the standards established by this policy. Please read attentively. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That wording is exactly opposite the general consensus that has appeared in the discussions... perhaps not by design but by incoherence. Several proposals make it clear that the point here is contentious material, not to prevent (using the example I used) a link on martinscorcese.com to an article by Scorcese examining the importance of Stephen Spielberg's body of work to the development of film. More to the technical point, there have some wording examples proposed on the talk page, so please don't just add something different. Unreliable and unverifiable sources should not be linked anywhere in Wikipedia space as sources of information about living persons, including in "External links" sections of articles. seems to be the most obvious starting point to address the correct issue and not prohibit stuff that should not be prohibited. 2005 23:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not see how the wording you propose is any different in principle to the current wording, and I disagree that there is no consensus for the current wording. The principle is that if we have a source that is incompatible with this policy, we should not use it in the article and we should not used as an external link. Easy enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The wording you just created is both opposite of the other, and the writing is incomprehsible, so let's move off that. The other language has been discussed and addresses the concerns from both sides. An the principle you state is not what most people are getting at, that's why your language won't be included. A self-published (reliable, authoritative) website like the Scorcese example should not be used as a source, but it can be used an external link. So obviously "easy enough" is plain wrong. 2005 23:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
A simpler, shorter, formulation: diff ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
All you did was remove the line about external links, which doesn't address anything. It just takes us back before the dispute started in June. Oh I see you added a line that seems offers no guidance, and thus doesn't help so why would you want to include it. of course everything in the article should follow the spirit of the policy. [User:2005|2005]] 23:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly. Reworded it to "External links" sections in articles should not contain links that violate the spirit of this policy." which looks great until you realise that spirit of policy X is a term that tends to be used by wannabe rule lawyers trying to push for ah novel approaches to a given policy. It is not something that should appear on a policy page. As for 2005's version external links are not sources and should not be treated as such.Geni 00:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Referring to a guideline (WP:EL) in a policy such as WP:BLP is absurd [see Geni's recent edits to the policy page (prior to my posting this)], which I think need to be corrected immediately]; it does not solve the problems of breaches/violations of WP:V#Sources already in the guideline; it creates a "feedback loop" of the very kind that this policy warns against. It is watering down the WP:BLP project page in a manner that has no consensus and certainly not "wide consensus" among people concerned about these discrepancies. I suggest that the recent editing war reversions all be pushed back to previous language of this policy that did have wide consensus and that the problems/discrepancies in WP:EL be fixed immediately before further damage is done in biographies of living persons and in other Wikipedia space where material about living persons is being included that should not be included and/or linked (via external links). See the concerns expressed throughout the WP:BLP/N and its talk page about these matters. --NYScholar 00:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC) [added ref. --NYScholar 00:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]

Jossi: If you scroll up to your own comments re: changes in this policy page, you will find some of your earlier statements that I believe have some wide consensus in Wikipedia.

The sentence that I added earlier (recently quoted by 2005--"Unreliable and unverifiable sources should not be linked anywhere in Wikipedia space as sources of information about living persons, including in "External links" sections of articles.")--is one that both SV and you had accepted earlier, and I think that the "letter" of the sentence (not merely the "spirit") needs to be clear. When "spirit" rather than "letter" of a "policy" is referred to, it leaves lack of clarity and "wiggle room" for those who would like WP:V#Sources not to apply to external links used in Wikipedia as they pertain to living persons biographies (articles) and to material about living persons linked in Wikipedia space. The main thrust of this debate is to protect living persons (especially those who are not public figures) from the inclusion of material based on unreliable and unverifiable sources and especially to prevent derogatory and negative but also other material [from such unreliable and unverifiable sources] being posted about them in Wikipedia. Those are reasonable concerns. It boggles the mind that serious editors do not seem to grasp this problem and are unwilling to solve it. --NYScholar 00:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

See my recent edit, that may be all we need in this regard, together with Geni's addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, I will not oppose "Unreliable and unverifiable sources should not be linked anywhere in Wikipedia space as sources of information about living persons, including in "External links" sections of articles". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I am. External links are not sources and should not be call sources.Geni 00:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:V#Sources is about sources. External links are not sources. Therefor WP:V#Sources cannot and should not apply. The odds of unreliable, unverifiable and derogatory material getting through WP:EL are so close to zero that they can safely be ignored (feel free to provide a counter example but I don't think you can).Geni 00:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, as many people have already stated, external sources linked to via "external links" are "sources" and subject to W:V. To say otherwise defeats the core policy, WP:V. Core policy is core policy; a guideline (WP:EL) does not "trump" a policy, as Jossi stated some time ago now (scroll up). I do not understand Geni's purpose. --NYScholar 00:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To quote paragraph one of WP:V yet again: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." --NYScholar 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
you realise you just argued for the removal of pretty much all pics that don't come from US gov sources?Geni 00:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
That is a quotation from WP:V, not me. --NYScholar 00:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure but you are the one attempting to apply it beyond the main article text which it is meant to cover. You can either accept that it does not apply to everything in the article or argue for the removal of most non us gov images. Your choice.Geni 00:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I am "attempting" nothing of the kind. I simply quoted a policy and am pointing out that all guidelines (including WP:EL) state that they are subject to the project policy pages for Wikipedia's own core policies. --NYScholar 01:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
[EC] External links are sources for additional information not found in the article. While I think Jossi's language is good, I'm not sure it would work in practice. For starters, a subject's own websites may be unreliable and unverifiable. Second, it puts us in a position of checking the reliability and verifiability of all external links. Third, it would exclude important links that we may know or suspect are unverifiable, but which are important viewpoints on the subject. I think we need to have a slightly lower standard for external links than we use for the actual sources of the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not have a problem in requesting that EL be assessed for their verifiability and reliability, if we want to stay true to the spirit of this policy, that is. The issue of self-published sources is already addressed in WP:SELFPUB, which would apply to EL sections as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree again with Jossi. --NYScholar 01:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no "a slightly lower standard for external links than we use for the actual sources of the article"; the "standard" for everything in Wikipedia is WP:V, along with the other core policies. --NYScholar 01:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
you've got about 300K images to delete. Have fun. Not sure what you plan to do about commons.Geni 01:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
What this has to do with BLPs and ELs? We are not discussing images and non-free content are we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Responding to Will's argument I would argue that if there is a significant viewpoint, it needs to be presented in the article's body, and supported by appropriate sources. If there are no reliable sources for such a viewpoint, then that viewpoint is not significant as per WP content policies. EL sections are not the dumping ground for material that violates content policies and could not make it into the article, should it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:EL's lead says this quite unambiguously (my highlight): Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
yes. The people who wrote WP:EL knew what they were doing which is why we should use it rather than re-invent the wheel. Incerdentaly your version would require us to remove the external links from Star Wars kid.Geni 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
... which would not be a great loss... :) . In any case. I do not see that article as an BLP article, as the name of the kid is not disclosed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
That is not a valid answer.Geni 01:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
yes, it is: read the policy page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL is a guideline that has been continually revised and is subject to frequent edit warring. "The people who wrote WP:EL" are in its entire editing history; it has strong contradictions with the previous statement of WP:BLP#Reliable sources, as is demonstrated in WP:Reliable sources#Biographies of living persons, which quotes the policy as it used to be stated. There are problems in WP:EL that need resolution. One does not look to a heavily revised guideline page for how to state Wikipedia policy in WP:BLP. It is supposed to be the other way around. One does not redefine Wikipedia policy in WP:BLP to suit changes in WP:EL. That is ass-backward. --NYScholar 01:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
meanwhile BLP has been a model of stability right? For the Nth time external links are not sources.Geni 01:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
All policy pages are somewhat fluid, and BLP is not an exception. And there is no need to shout, to make your point across. I have responded to this above, probably you have missed it by the look of it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, please remember in case you have forgotten, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
An EL section is part of the article, not separate from it as some people are arguing above. It is in the body of articles alongside "further reading", "see also" and a myriad of other ancillary content. As such policies cannot be bypassed in any of these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool. You've got 300K images to remove over a million interlang links and an impressive selection of links to sister projects to remove. Or you can accept that your position is incorrect. Your choice.Geni 02:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we have different standards for content in the article than we do for material that is pointed to by any of these internal and external links. "See also" links are by definition unreliable, because Wikipedia articles are not a proper source for anything. Infobox links are not supposed to be for more information, they are usually to point people to the subject of the article (e.g. a company's official website). "Further reading" is often to source material that would violate WP:OR. External links aren't just placeholders for information that nobody had the time or inclination to bother integrating into the article; they serve a different purpose. We have an external link guideline for the external links, and various policies and guidelines relating to article content. With or without BLP there is a baseline threshold both for sourcing and for external links. BLP raises the bar where living people are concerned, for purposes of avoiding defamation claims and some argue for purposes of fairness, neutrality, avoiding controversy, and avoiding internal disputes because all of these are more likely to be troublesome where living people are involved. With that purpose in mind, you can ask the question of just what kind of external links that would otherwise be permitted on Wikipedia do we want to ban. As far as I can tell, we want to avoid pointing to especially derogatory or unreliable biographical content about the living person. So, why not just say that? If self-published articles were a 100% fit with what we wanted to ban we could just ban that. However, as people have pointed out there is plenty of self-published content that is not biographical, not about the living person, and not unreliable. Many, many examples. That is the objection. Prohibit what we mean to prohibit, but don't cast the net so wide we prohibit good links. Wikidemo 02:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We do not have different standards, maybe you do. Further reading is for material that augments the article's content and not a place to violate OR, same as EL sections are not there to violate V. I thing that your perception of the way WP policy applies to text on an article's page, is way, way off. Were did you get these ideas from? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe I got my ideas from Wikipedia. We (meaning Wikipedians) clearly apply different rules and standards to different kinds of links, as per policy and guidelines. The point is so obvious it's hardly worth making and odd to dispute. Clearly, many valid further reading links would violate WP:OR if WP:OR applied, and all wikilinks would violate WP:V if WP:V applied. Your tone in the above comment is rude, by the way. Wikidemo 05:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again this discussion gets out of hand with repetitive comments that seem to exist just for the sake of argument. External links are not sources. Two different guidelines apply to them. Okay, now get over it. External links can have types reliable, meritable material that sources can not. They should not be used as a "dumping ground" but they have different criteria for a reason. To use my own example, a statement from Martin Scorcese saying Steven Spielberg is the greatest director of the past thirty years could not be used and sourced in an article, but it is perfectly fine to have in an essay that is an external link. Now this is all is dealt with in a basic common sense way by having reliable source guidelines and external link ones. This ongoing refusal to at length reject the structure of the encyclopedia is not helpful to anyone, especially since this is not the page to discuss the topic. External links are not sources. Move on. 2005 03:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In the context of the discussion that we are having about biographies of living persons and about material to be linked in "external links" sections of biographies of living persons, that presentation of this "example" makes no sense: "To use my own example, a statement from Martin Scorsese saying Steven Spielberg is the greatest director of the past thirty years could not be used and sourced in an article...." Of course, a statement from Martin Scorsese about what he himself thinks about Steven Spielberg is a reliable and verifiable source about Scorsese's opinion of Spielberg. Scorsese is a notable source of information about another film director. If it's published on Scorsese's own website or in another reliable and verifiable source of information about Scorsese's views, it is in keeping with WP:V#Sources; but it is not suitable to link to Scorsese's website in the "External links" section of the biography of Spielberg. It is linkable in a "full citation" to the source (of the statement by Scorsese). What we are talking about are what sources are permissible in the "External links" sections of articles about living persons and for use as "material about" living persons. Scorsese's view of Spielberg is not likely to be "derogatory" or "challenged" or even controversial; it is likely to be seen simply as his viewpoint and, given WP:BLP#Well known public figures, Scorsese's posting of his point of view of Spielberg is very likely not to be challenged if it were cited as a source of that point of view in an article about either himself or about Spielberg. I don't see the relevance at all of that example. You have to read WP:BLP also in terms of how it connects with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV when the living persons involved are well-known public figures, as both Scorsese and Spielberg are. You are citing as an "example" something that does not relate to what we are debating here. Scorsese's own website would be a reliable source of information about his point of view on any subject that he discusses on it. By virtue of his being the publisher/author (if it is an "official site"), it is a reliable and verifiable source of information about him, including his points of view. Self-published, non-official fansites devoted to Scorsese or to Spielberg are not reliable and verifiable sources of information about them or their points of view, given WP:V#Sources [and they don't belong listed as "External links" in articles about either one of them.] Such fansites contain gossip and speculation and are not sanctioned by their subjects. Therein lie the problems with them in relation to material about living persons, especially those who are not well-known public figures. --NYScholar 03:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC) )][links added and more emph. --NYScholar 04:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]

The example given is particularly weak in light of WP:POV because Scorsese himself is considered a reliable expert on (and scholar of) film directing. On that basis he is a reliable and verifiable source of information about his own point of view about other film directors. --NYScholar 03:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC) [emph. added. --NYScholar 04:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)]
So what? What does that have to do with what we are talking about here? Why more irrelevant clutter? You and Jossi and I actually have agreed on a sentence that would work in the guideline, so why do we keep getting these non-relevant, and in this case strangely obvious, fully off-the-subject comments? Does that sentence work for you or not? If you have changed your position, fine, but yes or no, is:... Unreliable and unverifiable sources should not be linked anywhere in Wikipedia space as sources of information about living persons, including in "External links" sections of articles.... an acceptable sentence to you or not? No off topic essays please, yes or no? 2005 06:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
That was a good rebuttal, NYScholar. I have yet to see a solid argument about a "lower standard" related to ELs, that is not based on personal preferences that stands to scrutinity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any rebuttal. Jossi, are you saying that sources and external links are the same thing? If you are there's not much else to say other than "no they aren't" and BLP isn't the place to argue or decide that issue. Of course it's a relevant example, albeit hypothetical. If Martin Scorsese wrote a 10,000 word essay on the importance of Stephen Spielberg to 20th century film and published it on his own website, it would be a fine external link from the Stephen Spielberg article. This issue does come up in real examples as well. Websites like erobertparker.com profile winemakers. That one's a pay/registration cite so not linkable, but speaking of Robert Parker, because his wine ratings are behind a registration people do make tables of his wine ratings on their own self-published websites and people link to those in articles about wineries, probably in BLPS of the winemakers too. There's rogerebert.com, Michael Jackson's (may he rest in peace) beerhunter.com, and so on. All kinds of critics and experts have self-published sites where they describe the history of their respective industries, critique the works, mention up-and-coming people who deserve notice. Some of them do have a staff and hire freelance or even staff journalists, get outside funding, etc., so they have some editorial supervision even if they are self-published. Wikidemo 06:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
No one talks about a "lower standard", which makes it weird to see these same bizarre strawmen arguments brought up. They are simply different standards. Different. That is why we have different guidelines. As below, if you want to combine them, propose that in a different place, not here. 2005 06:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This is beyond nonsensical now. If someone put "Spielberg is the greatest director of the past 25 years" in his article and cited Scorcese, that would be ludicrous and violate policy and guideline. This has nothing to do with a citation about his opinion! PLEASE stop these tedious unrelated comments. In contrast, an external link can link to an authoritative opinion or review. It is not a source for an article. Now can we please please move on. If you want to advocate the merging of reliable sources and external links, do it in village pump or elsewhere, NOT here. There is nothing even remotely implied about this subject to suggest it is the proper venue to completely turn its head the encyclopedia's longstanding separartion of external links from article sourcing, so please stop cluttering this apge with dissertations about how you think they should be the same thing. This is the BLP policy. Stick to discussions of that please. 2005 06:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Vast numbers of external links to self-published sites in BLP articles

Hunting for various examples of links to self-published sources from BLPs, I expected the issue to be fan sites, recipes, tour dates, and the like. But I found a huge source in a place I did not expect: articles about young, up-and-coming, historical, and minor artists, poets, and technologists. A typical scenario is that someone writes an article about a graffiti artist or muralist like Rigo 23 or the Mission School people, or notable figures like Omar Sosa or Diane di Prima. People have collected links, compiled their works, conducted or reprinted interviews. In the case of muralists and graffiti artists people have gone out and taken pictures of their works. These are mostly self-published sources, although the term loses some meaning when you apply it to blogs and sites devoted to third party content. What does it even mean for a blog to be "self-published" if they're reproducing the work of others, or associated with some loosely-knit but unincorporated (or incorporated) volunteers doing an art project? But whatever the case, these people are, though notable, not the subject of any mass media mainstream comprehensive coverage. Either they're not that famous or they're working in a field like poetry where there just isn't enough money for that. So we get links like these: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], [12]. In fact, many if not most Wikipedia articles that cover people who are notable but either minor or in low-paying fields have these kinds of links to self-published sources. There's a comparable cluster for people in Web 2.0 and the blogosphere, where blogs and other self-published sources are where the real news is, not print publications. All told I would guess there are somewhere between many tens of thousands, to millions, of these links on Wikipedia. Wikidemo 06:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I see I am the one who added the Omar Sosa link so that's too convoluted to count. But if anyone is wondering whether he's notable, 200,000+ google hits. He is HUGE in the jazz world yet has a pitifully brief Wikipedia article. Wikidemo 06:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict x 3) I really do not think you are making any sense at this point. You are way off what we have been discussing. If you need corroboration about the seriousness of the problem of violations of WP:V relating to WP:BLP, go to WP:BLP/N and its talk page and peruse the problems that they are dealing with. There is an ongoing effort to clean up these problems in Wikipedia that long pre-dates your beginning your editing here (6-7 months ago). That is why I have suggested that seasoned administrators help you to navigate these problems; yet, each time one comments, you argue the opposite of what they tell you. --NYScholar 07:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the ad hominem attack, sir, for pointing out that I am not making sense, way off, am new here, and need to be told what to do by administrators (who, you fantasize, have some kind of special entitlement to an opinion). You have never made any sense on this subject, and your long period of not making sense on Wikipedia does not entitle you to scold me for being what you consider a newbie. Uncivil. Please stop. Wikidemo 10:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Self-published blogs by the subjects of biographies of living persons are permissible external links in articles about the person himself or herself. They are reliable and verifiable sources of their own points of view on themselves and topics of interest to them: see WP:V#Sources and the "see below" in WP:BLP#Reliable sources. --NYScholar 07:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Scorsese (say) hypothetical: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." --NYScholar 07:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not as per the formulation you propose BLP, which would ban all self-published material in BLP. Wikidemo 10:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source. Please read the whole policy project page, not just pieces of it. --NYScholar 07:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you think, at this point, I have not done so? What are you getting out? Wikidemo 10:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, Wikidemo's gripes are with WP:V#Sources; I suggest he migrate over to that policy project page's discussion; this is about biographies of living persons, and the core policies that apply to it are still WP:V, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and WP:NOR. One user's personal interests are not going to change core policies in Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons; at least I hope not. --NYScholar 07:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you stop. You are basically telling me to shut up and stop commenting on this page. Civility warning. Wikidemo 10:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the point and keep making same mistakes again and again in your arguments. Try and make an effort to understand. Please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This page is 258 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance.Newbyguesses - Talk 07:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

People her are arguing about different guidelines, may be missing the fact that this is official policy and an extension of V and NPOV specifically for BVPs. The EL guideline is generic to all articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand this however since netheir WP:V or WP:NPOV really fdeal with external links there is no reason for this policy to do so either.Geni 15:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. This policy is a specific tightening of V and NPOV, and needs to include similar tightening regarding ELs, as per the spirit of the policy itself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Please show a problematical link that could get through the WP:EL guidelines.Geni 16:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
These are listed already in Wikipedia talk:External links[13]; the discussion about David Strathairn pertaining to unofficial self-published fansites led some over to this talk page about WP:BLP because the version of WP:BLP#Reliable sources that existed before this current editing war (which had the phrase "including as an external link" in it) does not permit such unofficial self-published fansites from listing in a biography of a living person. There is a loophole that people were trying to use in WP:EL which needs closing (scroll up to #External links and read the whole discussion from the beginning); there is no need to rehash it. If you want the answer to the question, please read the discussion. I've already linked to, listed, and quoted the problematical parts of WP:EL both here (scroll up) and in Wikipedia talk:External links. There is no need to repeat the points. --NYScholar 17:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Um the link in question was taken out by copyright issues. Try again.Geni 17:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Re-read the full discussion. The copyright issues are simply an illustration of the unreliability and unverifiability of the unofficial self-published fansite. Most such sites have copyright violations which make them unlinkable in Wikipedia, according to Wikipedia's copyright restrictions. Those restrictions are continually being violated by users editing Wikipedia. The repetitions of the problems do not legitimize the problems. They are pervasive problems and they are in the course of being addressed. I am not "trying" anything other than to respond to your request. I suggest that you see the forest and stop focusing on the trees. Your argument to allow violations of WP:V is not going to change the policy unless you actually make a formal proposal to change the policy that passes in Wikipedia: see the link to proposals given both above and below. This is not how a change of a core policy is accomplished in Wikipedia. If the core policy does not suit your interests, then there are procedures in Wikipedia to follow to change it. But core policy--e.g., WP:V--does not get changed on talk pages of other policies: e.g., WP:BLP. --NYScholar 18:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Some users keep arguing that an "external link" in a biography of a living person is not a "source" in Wikipedia; others point to the absurdity of that argument, since WP:V and WP:V#Sources applies to all content in Wikipedia, including biographies of living persons. There is no "lesser standard" as has been claimed (scroll up and read the comments) for external links; the "standard" for content in Wikipedia are three core policies: WP:V, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and WP:NOR; unofficial self-published fansites do not meet that "standard" (in more than one way--they fail the test of WP:V#Sources and they are not even links (to sources of information about living persons) generally to be included in "external links" sections of Wikipeida according to WP:EL; yet due to inconsistencies that users have added to WP:EL (already cited), people insert links to those fansites anyway. They are not reliable and verifiable sources of information about living persons ("material about living persons"). --NYScholar 17:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
And we keep pointing out that your position is terminal flawed due wide aceptatence of links to sister projects and inclusion of non us gov photos in wikipedia. Since you don't appear to be prepared to reject them your position is internaly inconsitant and there for illogical.Geni 17:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Who is "we" here? Read the comments by Jossi; Jossi and I agree that "your position is terminal[ly] flawed" because it conflicts with core policies in Wikipedia. Again, please re-read other people's comments too. I think that it is clear from others' comments starting at the top of #External links that your position does not have "wide consensus"; I really do not know what you are talking about when you refer to "links to sister projects and inclusion of non us gov photos": those are matters that we have not been discussing and that only you have brought up. Jossi already replied to those previous comments when you made them. This "last word" type of commenting does not change core policies in Wikipedia. If images are involved, there are other project policy pages to consult re: them (not this one) and if "sister projects" are involved, those sister projects may be where you would want to discuss issues relating to them. WP:BLP is WP:BLP. It refers to three other core policies, all of which it links in relation to paragraph one of the policy page.Wikipedia: Official policy Please consult them again. Thanks. --NYScholar 18:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Okey lets ask the question directly. Do you support or oppose links to sister projects being places in BLPs? Do you support or oppose images that have not been previously published by reliable sources being placed in BLPs?Geni 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This is going around in circles. Premising that sources and external links are the same thing is a show-stopper. There is no way to discuss things cogently after that. I don't read Jossi's argument as being that simplistic. Jossi says that although they may be different things covered in different realms of policy, material in the article and material at the end of an external link should both be held to the same standards of reliability if the article is a BLP. I think that's terribly misguided and out of line with current practice on Wikipedia (as per all the examples I've been giving, including the ones right under this section header) but at least it's a coherent position that can be discussed. I think it was Jossi who introduced in a rhetorical sense that external links, internal links, see also sections, etc., do not have lower standards than WP:V. Although I'm having trouble making sense of that comment, that whole line of discussion takes us far afield. Right now we're talking specifically about external links to self-published sites, and the proposition that they should be banned from BLP. Saying they should because external links are sources is simply a bad argument we should put to bed instead of wasting more time on it. If there's another good reason for doing so, I'm encouraging people to say what it is so we can deal with it and hopefully sort the bad external links from the thousands to millions of good ones I reference above. Wikidemo 19:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The comment about "lower standard" was made at 1:01 on September 1 by Will Beback (scroll up to it and to my reply and to Jossi's reply. I'm sorry that people "can't be bothered reading the whole discussion" (as stated below), but some of us did take our time to reply to one another, and it is only courteous to follow the thread. Jumping in at the end as if we did not already discuss most of these points several times over already misses the points that have already been made. People are supposed to read the prior discussion on talk pages and in their archives to understand what earlier people have said. Otherwise one does continue to go around in circles and get nowhere. The policies are all clearly linked in WP:BLP, and I really do not know why some people persist in arguing that a guideline in WP:EL trumps core policies in Wikipedia; the guideline refers to the policies (the three core policies) and WP:BLP; when in doubt re: WP:EL, one follows WP:BLP (all of it). --NYScholar 21:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't be bothered reading the whole discussion but it sounds to me like most of these self published sources are likely violationing people's copyright and so we shouldn't be linking to them anyway regardless of arguments about their reliability. To quote "compiled their works, conducted or reprinted interviews. The highlighted portions scream copyvio to me Nil Einne 18:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm disputing that they're likely not reliable and should not be linked to. People seem to be assuming that it doesn't matter if they're external sources. But I could if I desired make up a biography on the web about Omar Sosa which is mostly accurate but mentioning that he's a fan of Osama bin Laden... It's nearly as harmful for us to link to such a external source as it is for us to claim that in our article. Perhaps the Osama bin Laden example is so drastic that it's liable to be noticed but I could easily make up something less extreme if I wanted. There's no birthdate listed for Rigo 23. Perhaps it's not widely know. If so, that do you guys want it to be? I can easily make up a website for you and make his birthdate whatever you want it. September 11th, July 4th, December 25th. Not that harmful perhaps but should we be linking to external links who could very easily do such a thing?(struck out portion as my response is a bit too lengthy) Nil Einne 18:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I sympathize if you don't want to read 40,000+ words of redundant talk. Copyright violation is not the issue; WP:EL bans that already. The question is, should links to self-published sites be banned for BLP articles even should they pass all other policies and guidelines. It is an issue that self-publishers are more prone to bias, partisanship, lying, and mistake because of lack of editorial oversight. That's why they are considered low on the reliability scale. We are extra sensitive to harmful information about living people; hence we cut off that low end as a valid source for biographical information that appears in the articles. It has been proposed, and sounds like a good idea, that we should not even link to this biographical information either. That is fine in my opinion. But external link sites serve many non-biographical purposes such as showing non-infringing galleries of artwork, interviews, lists, tables of data, interviews, etc. These are resources that readers can visit to view things related to the subject of the article but not suitable for inclusion here.
Omar Sosa wasn't a good example of mine for several reasons. But to run with that, we should not go to an unreliable Omar Sosa website to look up his birthday or political affiliation. This particular link goes to a different issue, the complex nature of self-publishing. The site is self-published by his artist agent, who represents several other Afro-Cuban stars. But agents step into the shoes of their principal so you could argue that makes it self-published by Omar Sosa. To complicate things the material seems to be lifted from his record label (with permission, one hopes...is that self-published?), which omarsosa.com redirects traffic to (self-published?). All this cribbing of biographies is extremely common in the music world, and you'll find that so-called reliable sources like newspapers, arts organizations, etc., end up cribbing the exact same biography without any fact checking or even editing. So much for reliability, but that's a different issue. Wikidemo 19:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.