Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

I reverted this edit because I'd like to think it over. What do others think? What's so special about an external link that makes it okay when the same source cited from a self-published printed book or a self-published vanity magazine, leaflet or pamphlet isn't? Can it be not okay for me to publish an unverified and potentially damaging statement via a paper reference and yet okay for me to publish it a a link to a website? --Tony Sidaway 08:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you here. If a source wouldn't be an acceptable one for material in the article, there's no need for us to be linking to it anyway. If we allowed links to just anything, I could easily see people publishing attack sites and linking to them as an end-run around BLP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of cases where we link to material in a "further reading" sense that is not used as a source for anything in the article. That's why properly written articles include an "external links" section as needed that is separate from their "references" section. In some cases the material on the sites would be inappropriate to include in the article, or as a backup to the article content, because it is controversial, unreliable, too long, unencyclopedic, a fair use gallery, etc. Random examples that come to mind: in an article about a baseball player, a link to a collection of that player's statistics. In an article about a chef, a compilation of the chef's recipes. In an article about a pop singer, links to song lyrics. In an article about an architect, a gallery of photos of the architect's works. I could go on indefinitely. I'm not saying that these are all okay in the generic sense, nor does my change make them so. If the link is a copyright problem, if there are more authoritative sources out there, if it's spam, if the link inappropriately provides derogatory material, it's no good and we have policies on that here and on other pages. I am not opening the door to anything new here. The point is that links to self-published sources should not be categorically banned because that is too broad. What triggered this was a harsh debate here wherein one and possibly more editors believed this was a blanket ban on external links to appropriate fansites, apparently a common practice in various wikiprojects. Please see my rationale below for further info. Thx, Wikidemo 10:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway, please stop making rude edits and participate in a good faith discussion if you want to add a phrase like this to the policy. The current phrase makes no sense whatsoever, so in any case a discussion needs to take place since it appears few people know what the heck the current line is supposed to say, which means they can't even support or oppose it because it is so convoluted. 2005 21:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
In terms of the issue itself, the problem obviously is not making unverified or damaging statements in an external link. Those are prohibited by the EL guideline, and could be here too. The issue is the current wording says that Martin Scorcese could not write a 10,000 word essay on martinscorcese.com discussing the importance of Steven Spielberg to late 20th Century filmmaking. Such an expert external link would add detal and value to articles, and there is no reason to kneejerk prohibit them because the point trying to be made is that there should not be external links to contentious material. The text trying to be added is poorly worded, and prevents expert external links that are not in the slightest "inflammatory" or contentious. Appropriate language should be added to make the correct point. 2005 22:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony and Seraphimblade. Adding links to sites that contain unsourced or poorly sourced negative speculation about people is unacceptable. If the source insn't good enough to be included in the article as a reference for a statement about the controversial material, it should not be included as an external link either. WjBscribe 22:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. Of course they should not be. The issue issue is the text prohibits NON-contentious, NON-controversial links. (And frankly you should give that some thought and revert your edit since you seem to think the issue is something it is not.) 2005 22:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Sorry to add this after-the-fact. I actually added it to the wrong page. After some editing I'm putting it back here where it should be.

I am reverting in part a change made in late June that banned from BLP all eternal links to self-published material (other than by the subject of the article), calling them the same as sources. My reasons:

  • Unnecessary. As far as I can tell from [| the discussion] the purpose was to avoid the spam, reliability problems, conflicts of interest, copyright violations, possible bias, and other problems that come with self-published blogs and other self-published sources. The page already bans use of this material as sources to support the text of the article. The edit I reverted extends that ban to material used as external references but not as a source. However, all of these concerns are already addressed elsewhere, in the various pages on copyright, COI, spam, etc. There is no harmful link we're seeking to prevent that isn't already prevented by other policies.
  • Overbroad. The problem (as I mention above) is that the policy seems to also ban material that is legitimate, and that is not what we are targeting. We're banning an entire class of sites as links over a generalized concern that those sites are bad, when not all of them are.
  • Misunderstood. Some people are mistakenly reading this as a ban on all blogs and fansites, when it is only self-published material we are focusing in on. This has lead to some nasty debate.
  • Wrong place. WP:EL is the place to talk about external links and it already bans most of the problem ones directly. Further, various wikiprojects have their own norms and rules for when to allow external links. For example, the Music wikiproject already has a style guideline that prohibits nearly all fansites for all the right reasons, but permits a few. We should not step on the efforts of these other projects. To the extent we ban things that they have agreed to allow we are overstepping and delving into matters for which we do not have consensus.
  • Incorrect. The way it's phrased, the edit incorrectly asserts that external links are sources. They are not necessarily. This could be fixed easily enough, but it would have to say "sources or external links" rather than "sources, including external links".
  • Lacked consensus. A majority of people, including a number of long-time, respected, prolific wikipedians with strong points to be made, opposed the addition. Several others endorsed it (see above discussion reference). A weeks-long edit war occurred ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&offset=20070711221451&limit=100&action=history here), with heavy-hitters on both sides. The change, broadly interpreted, would contradict established guidelines and constructive practices in far-flung corners of Wikipedia. Policy is supposed to reflect matters with "wide acceptance among editors." This obviously did not happen.

I certainly understand, appreciate, and approve the intent behind adding the language. If we talked about it nearly all of us would agree in specific cases when a self-published source site not be linked. The problem comes when we generalize it and speak in the hypothetical. I think what we need is is already there in the policy and it's simply a matter of enforcing it. But if we do have to say when eternal links should not be allowed, can we please either add that to the WP:EL section or at a minimum create a separate sentence or subsection that deals with external links for what they are instead of lumping them in with reference sources and creates a broad ban? Let's get to the heart of things and ban what we mean to ban. Thx. Wikidemo 10:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The incoherent text was slipped in again on July 10th. There certainly is no consensus for this, and at the very least the sentence should not be convoluted. There is no reason to prohibit expert, non-attacking external links that meet the external links guideline of adding a level of detail that an article can't do itself. Any other attempt now to inject this passage should be prefaced with a significant discussion. 2005 12:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, it was last "slipped in" by User:SlimVirgin, who is never incoherent. Reading through it again with that in mind, there is a possible interpretation that makes sense, but is a little convoluted and subject to misinterpretation, and it is this: [self-published content] should never be (1) used (2) as a source (3) about an LP (4) including as an external link.... #4 modifies #2. Self-published content should not be a source. In other words it should not be used for WP:V purposes. That includes using SPC as an external link for WP:V purposes. It may be used as an external link for purposes other than sourcing, such as providing detail the article can't do itself. The confusion is to think that #4 modifies #1, i.e. that SPC should not be used including as an external link. That, true, would be ungrammatical and problematic. A clearer wording would be that SPC may not be used for sourcing an article, whether the sourcing is by inline reference or an exterior link connected to the article. It may, however, be used for purposes other than for sourcing. Wikidemo 13:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, "slipped in" is a generous way to refer to a phrase added, along with minor grammar edits, without discussion that had been removed two weeks earlier for reasons stated in notes, and that had no semblance of consensus or even discussion. As for incoherent, you just said it is "convoluted" which is the same thing. Besides lacking an consensus, the sentence doesn't make sense as it is open to multiple interpretations -- essentially tossing in a phrase about apples in a single sentence about oranges. Even if such text were to be included, there should be some consensus wording that made grammatical and logical sense. 2005 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. It was a bit.. underhanded. -- Ned Scott 23:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of the clause is simply this: that if there are potentially damaging and unverifable statements about a living person on an external website, we will not use it as an external link. This follows directly from our principles of Verifiability and Neutral point of view. Just because we don't mention some unsubstantiated and damaging rumor about a person in the article, doesn't give us an "out" to knowingly link to a site that does. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to ban links to self published websites in order to atchive that.Geni 22:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
If that is the point of the clause, then that is what it should say! LOL, c'mon now, the clause is obviously not appropriate for that task. A passage making this point is good. The convoluted clause that prohibits links to expert sites, like Martin Scorcese writing about Steven Spielberg above, is inappropriate not just because it makes a terrible point prohibiting some expert, non-contentious links, but it even obscures the point, because as written it doesn't even many any point about contentiousness of the content. 2005 22:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Alternate wording that addresses this concern properly would be:
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, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). Likewise, there should be no external links to self-published websites that have potentially damaging and unverifable statements about a living person. 2005 23:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
That phrasing sounds OK to me and seems to be what everyone is getting at. Any objections? WjBscribe 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that pretty well covers the intent here, I've no objections to that wording. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Nyet. Not consistant with NPOV. As long as the info is solid it's posertive of negative nature is irrelivant. See http://briandeer.com/mmr/andrew-wakefield.htm for an example.Geni 23:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Its not for us to assess whether or not the info is solid. Its either a reliable source and can be added to the article, or its not a reliable source - in which case if it contains damaging material it shouldn't be added as an external link. WjBscribe 23:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
RS is simply a rather messed up way of assesing if material is solid.Geni 06:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just alerted in the talk page of Wikipedia:External links that the information about what cannot be "linked" in Wikipedia articles pertaining to living persons was deleted from WP:BLP#Reliable sources. I have added a sentence* that appears to be necessary as people seem to be deleting the reference to "including as an external link" in order to get around WP:V#Sources as previously intended by this policy page. That damages Wikipedia's credibility as a source itself. One needs to be able to rely upon anything linked in Wikipedia as a source that is both "reliable" and "verifiable" and that meets the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV in the way that it is being presented. It appears that people who want to include sites that Wikipedia does not consider reliable and verifiable are taking out the language to permit linking to them. That does not seem appropriate or wise or even reasonable to me. --NYScholar 01:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • The sentence that I added 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.

--NYScholar 01:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I approve of the language proposed by user:2005 with the proviso that reasonableness is always required in the application. A single incidental, stray, or minor derogatory comment does not invalidate a large site that is otherwise neutral or positive and otherwise worthy of an external link. But it is otherwise okay that this proposal preserves the asymmetry of the rest of BLP in being more selective with respect to negative than positive information about living poeple. That's a wise place where we compromise NPOV in specific cases to keep the NPOV of the article as a whole, avoid defamation, edit wars, POV-pushing, etc. We're having a consensus discussion here so until and unless there is a consensus to add something language about external links should stay out. Wikidemo 01:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I lost everything I wrote due to "edit conflict"; I suggest that people here recognize that a disagreement in WP:EL's talk page has sent people over here to change the policy statements in WP:BLP#Reliable sources to be able to include in "External links" sections (or any "external link") material that is not in keeping with WP:V#Sources, especially as that pertains to WP:BLP. Please consult the other discussion. Once I pointed out that there was a phrase "including as an external link" in this section of WP:BLP#Reliable sources, they seem to have congregated here to delete the phrase and to water down the policy. The sentence that I added makes perfect sense in light of this "red herring" effort to change the policy as WP:EL refers back to it. WP:BLP is not something that should permit linking to material that is unreliable and unverifiable. It is a breach of WP:V#Sources to do so, whether the "external link" is in "External links" sections or elsewhere; such links are not supposed to be in any space in Wikipedia articles pertaining to living persons: user space, talk space, article space, you name it; it's a violation of core policies: WP:V and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which are both referred to (linked to) in WP:BLP. Changing policy should not be so arbitrary. --NYScholar 01:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is in Wikipedia talk:External links#Fan sites addressed in this policy?, in the subsection: Wikipedia talk:External links#Prohibition on "self-published" ("unofficial") websites being used as a "source about a living person, including as an external link" some people who disagree with the idea of not linking to self-published "non-official" fansites in articles on living persons (and about living persons) in Wikipedia (including not linking to them in "External links" sections) have come here to change the WP:BLP#Reliable sources section. If one scrolls down, one can see the contexts of that disagreement. WP:EL refers to "external links" not just to "External links" sections of articles in Wikipedia; I believe that WP:V#Sources and (the earlier version before the phrase "including as external links" was deleted in) WP:BLP#Reliable sources should prevail over guidelines (not policies) in WP:EL. See also WP:BLP/N re: arguments about the use of external links to sites like the Notable Names Database in "External links" sections (as if "External links" sections somehow were not "sources" described in WP:V#Sources and WP:BLP#Reliable sources and so on. --NYScholar 01:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't mischaracterize past discussions or question the motivations of other Wikipedia editors. The histories of the BLP and EL talk and project pages starting 6/23/07 are for all to see, and are even summarized and linked to on both talk pages. The phrase in question was not in the policy before 6/23/07, was the subject of edit warring from then through 7/10/07, was stable for a month, and has been edit warred again in the past two days. You can see that there was always a dispute, and never a consensus, over adding it. Everyone has been aboveboard about their participation in one or both talk pages. We're trying to find something to add that everyone can agree on. Until and unless that happens it stays out. Wikidemo 02:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I really do not see how I have "mischaracterized" the discussion in WP:EL. Sending people to guidelines in WP:EL which refer to policies in WP:V (including WP:V#Sources and WP:BLP#Reliable sources), when people are changing the policy statements in WP:BLP#Reliable sources that the "guidelines" refer back to, is a misleading practice. Policies are policies, guidelines guidelines. Especially relatively new editors need to be able to be directed to clearly-stated consistent policies and guidelines based consistently on them. To interpret a guideline on "external links" (and not just on "External links" sections) in a misleading way so that it becomes inconsistent with core Wikipedia editing policies like WP:BLP (the whole thing) and WP:V (the whole thing) is confusing to editors. All sources in Wikipedia, including any of those being linked to for further information (as if they are being recommended as sources in "External links" sections) need to meet criteria in Wikipedia's WP:V for "reliability" and "verifiability" of sources. If anyone thinks that I have "mischaracterized" the discussion in WP:EL, they can read it for themselves. I have already provided the links to it and did so in good faith. --NYScholar 04:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to join you in a "who said what," which is exactly the point. So please cut it out. We're on a talk page discussing what the policy should be. As it stands there no generic statement in the WP:BLP policy page to ban external links to self-published material, and from the looks of it there is no consensus and there will be no consensus to do so. A proposal was made above in this section to add compromise language that seems to address why people had thought that the addition was a good idea, without raising the problems that the opponents of the idea had objected to. That is what we are talking about. Care to comment? Wikidemo 05:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It's surely obvious why we can't allow self-published material in BLPs, whether as sources or external links. We barely allow self-published websites as ELs in other articles, but in BLPs it would clearly be unacceptably risky. Can anyone say what the argument in favor of allowing such links would be? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It certainly is not obvious. In fact it should be obvious that we value reliability, verifiability and authority. The previous statement inserted completely missed the point. I've already made the obvious argument of when a self-published website can be a valid BLP external link... Martin Scorcese writing on martinscorcese.com a 10,000 word essay on the importance of Steven Spielberg's work to 20th century film. This sort of link would likely be referenced all over the Internet, would be considered expert commentary by dozens if not hundreds of authotitative sites on the topic and of general interest, and would in no way be inflammatory or inappropriate. Prohibiting such external links would be a diservice to our readers. This is very much a common sense issue. As I said it is about reliability and merit. It makes far more sense to have that scorcese link than a to some third rate article on some commercial gossipy site. That said I suggested text. Other text in there now is "Unreliable and unverifiable sources should not be linked anywhere..." which I do not see as prohibiting the Scorcese link mentioned above, so I think that text is fine. 2005 08:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed many times before and the established consensus is that material that is not acceptable in an article, for violating content policies, does not become suddenly acceptable to be linked to in the EL section. The EL section is not designed to be a dumping ground for whatever is not citable or usable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Put in another way: Why to link to unreliable or unverifiable material? I do not see what argument can be brought forth to support that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. I see no established consensus; in fact, I see quite the opposite. When some prolific, respected, and long-term editors with good points to make are arguing that a matter is "obvious" and already decided, yet other prolific, respected, and long-term editors with good points to make are arguing that this was never decided and needs consensus that never occurred, it seems there is no consensus. But if I may, it is quite possible that everyone agrees yet there is some misunderstanding.
Please review the discussion (the non-contentious portion, if I may ask) so far on this topic. Those who say the new language is hasty and lacks consensus are not advocating for allowing anything new or giving anything a pass card. Rather, they are arguing against new language introduced several years weeks ago that woudl categorically prohibit things that are currently allowed. If it is truly obvious and already part of policy, it is not necessary (but perhaps bringing it up for people to see is). If it is not so obvious and not yet part of policy then, indeed, it needs consensus. Either way we need to talk before we change the wording.
There are plenty of links to external sites that would be unreliable if used as sources. However, they are allowed in the "external links" section of articles, or infoboxes, without being used as sources or in the "references" section. They are there for a number of reasons, generally to direct users to other places on the Web where material of interest, web features, things to be examined, may be found that are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is akin to a "see also" section or the equivalent in any newspaper article, academic paper, etc. Part of the function of a reference source is to direct people to where they may look if they want to look further, not necessarily material of the same nature, role, or balance as the reference work itself.
There are countless examples on Wikipedia, so many you might not even notice them. Links to company home pages, links to web services, to recipes, to fair use galleries. As User:SlimVirgin notes we barely allow links to self-published materials. But barely is not the same as nothing. Moreover, it is not a uniform restriction. In some contexts and purposes it is okay, in others less so. Why would we make an exception for BLP? A number of reasons are mentioned and I don't see that anyone disagrees with them.
As I said in some of the earlier discussion, nearly all of us have the same goal in mind and would probably reach the same conclusion in most cases. It's a problem with the language casting too wide a net and being the subject of some extreme interpretations. Wikidemo 05:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
See WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected the page. Policy is not made by edit war. Please try to come to some resolution amongst yourselves. Perhaps you should try to get input from other forums (e.g. Village Pump, etc.) if you are having trouble resolving this amongst the current participants. Dragons flight 05:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I should note that due to the chance of timing, the version currently protected is not the agreed-to version, it is the version with the non-consensus language added. Wikidemo 06:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Or, in other words, the wrong version? Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. A moderately funny reference. I make the comment for the record only so that people from elsewhere do not point to the page as it is now frozen as a representation of polcy. Wikidemo 10:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it by seconds Dragons flight. ViridaeTalk 12:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-published material in external links. Continuing discussion re. proposed change to language

The last stable version of the paragraph regarding self-published works reads (before the edit war beginning 23 June, 2007, and without formatting or links):

  • 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, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

user:2005 proposes adding the following sentence:

  • Likewise, there should be no external links to self-published websites that have potentially damaging and unverifable statements about a living person.

User:SlimVirgin proposes a different addition:

  • 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.
[Correction: That's actually the sentence that I added originally, and I still think it is a useful addition. (SV reverted to it after Wikidemo and others deleted and/or reverted deletions of it. It was also reverted back in by others. I believe that there is some consensus on including this sentence [read all the comments about it]. Later, I came to question the language of the first sentence. Reference to "last stable version of the paragraph" appears to me to be misleading: there was a lot of activity in reverting "including as an external link" (SV's phrase)--e.g., 150159912 on--prior to my adding the sentence that I added after its deletion by a number of editors (reversions). That phrase was SV's. The sentence that I added was an attempt to add what I think her phrase "including as an external link" intends, which, appears to me, to be a reason why she restored the full sentence after another editor deleted it. (At first, given this misattribution to SV, I was not sure if the discussion below refers to SV's own phrase "including as an external link" or to the full sentence that I had added originally. I think now the discussion below refers to the full sentence that I added (as quoted above). I still think it is a useful addition. Note that further below (in what are now additional subsections, following subheadings that I added at Wikidemo's request), I later came to question the first sentence in *paragraph 2* of WP:BLP#Reliable sources (current protected version); [for that discussion, one must scroll down]. --NYScholar 20:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)] [Added links to editing summary other bracketed comment. --NYScholar 20:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]

I think most people are amenable to adding language clarifying the role of external links to self-published material. But what should that be? Thoughts? Wikidemo 06:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, what's the overall goal? Surely SlimVirgin's addition is so overreaching and poorly designed at to kill all kinds of reasonable links while aiming for only a tiny subsection. For instance, it clearly prohibits the Peter Goldreich article from linking to Peter's homepage, because there he "alledges" several people were his students or postdocs. Now, as far as I know this would be difficult or impossible to verify (in some cases a thesis "thanks" section might be a sufficient source, but they're not always explicit). Ultimately, I think the goal is to prevent external links from being used to circumvent BLP policies, which is a noble goal. But whatever change is made should reflect that goal. i.e.:
  • External links should never be used to circumvent to 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.
In the end, no policy statement that isn't overly broad can hope to deal with this issue unless it invokes a little common sense and is clear about what it's trying to do. There are stacks and stacks of great web resources that fail inclusion here as original research or self-published, that make great resources. For instance, I very reasonably might want to include a link to http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/~dubinski/tails/node1.html as a primer on N-Body simulations that is self-published, but really great. Now John is an expert, but this is still self-published material. Since it's written by an expert in the field, there's a very good chance it could contain personal anecdotes (and it's very large, I can't realistically search it all quickly) about living people in the field. Now, it does make a lot of claims about various people, most of whom are living, though it does give references - it probably still falls short of this policy. Still, this is obviously not what we're trying to exclude. If we want to exclude something, why not just be honest about what we're trying to exclude? WilyD 13:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I like your suggested revision. I am always trying to explain the intent of a particular rule to editors, and here we have the intent clearly part of the rule. Good idea. - Crockspot 17:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
To get this issue unstuck it helps if one thinks through exactly what we're trying to accomplish here. As per WP:EL external links are for material that isn't suitable for inclusion in an article: the official site if any....a copy of the work...material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons...reviews...Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. As per WP:MUSTARD#External_links, in articles about music an external link to fansites are appropriate if to a recognized fan community...clearly more informative and more useful than most fansites. For example...an exhaustive database of tour dates and setlists...a rights holder-approved lyrics site...a large repository of relevant images...a large repository of other trivia that may not be appropriate for Wikipedia; and...forums or other community pages, only if there are unusually established and recognized institutions with an important focus.
WP:BLP is policy on living people specifically, not external links in general. Exactly what types of eternal links do we allow for other articles but want to exclude for living people? user:2005 comes closest: links that are derogatory, i.e. potentially damaging. Wikidemo 17:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:EL are "guidelines" and in several places those "guidelines" contradict WP:BLP and WP:V. Continually citing the guidelines, which have been revised inconsistent with Wikipedia's core policies Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:V, and the obvious warnings throughout WP:BLP, does not resolve the contradictions. "potentially damaging" etc. is not the main difficulty; lack of verifiability (leading to lack of credibility of Wikipedia), lack of reliability, and the kind of publication (e.g., not "reliable", not "verifiable" in the terms defined in WP:V) are the problems. As Jimmy Wales has stated, one wants to "get it right"; there need to be quality standards for external links included in articles in Wikipedia pertaining to all subjects, not just living persons, but this discussion pertains to "external links" pertaining to living persons. Because people have written and re-written guidelines in WP:EL so that they circumvent WP:V and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:BLP does not mean that they need to remain as they are written. If the guidelines contradict core Wikipedia policies, those guidelines need to be revised to be consistent with such policies (the letter and intention of the policies). If other project pages guidelines are also inconsistent with core Wikipedia policies, then those also need to be revised to be consistent with core Wikipedia policies. --NYScholar 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
this website contains blatantly POV information, has pointed, unbalanced criticisms of living people and is self-published. But I don't think anyone would think we could pretend to be a credible online encyclopaedia if we didn't link to it in certain articles, nor does linking to it violate the point of BLP, V or NPOV. We need to think carefully about what we're trying to do before we take any kind of action. WilyD 19:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The organization, the Republican Party (United States) publishes the website; it is an "official" website of the organization. See About (the Republican Party). That is not "self-published". It is an official website of a political party. There is no confusion about that. Political public figures who are also political candidates and potential political candidates come under WP:BLP#Well known public figures. The example is an example of a reliable and verifiable source of information about the U.S. Republican Party's "point of view" on a potential political candidate of a rival political party in the context of a political discussion about the person. But as a "source" of information about the "facts" of that person's life, one would read an "official" website of a rival political organization with those contexts in mind. I see no contradiction or pertinence in the example to what we are talking about. The "source" is a "reliable" and "verifiable" source that is published by the organization whose "point of view" it represents. As such, it would be linkable as an "external link" in an article about that subject and subjects relating to it. But it would not be linked in any misleading way in an article as a source of information about a rival political candidate who is a living person and public figure. One still would have to adhere to WP:BLP#Well known public figures and WP:POV, as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I don't think that example alters what we are discussing. It is not the same kind of site as, say, a fansite that is both "self-published" and described as a "non-official website" relating to a living person like an actor or other living celebrity. That said, one would not include the Republican Party official website(s) (published by the party) in "External links" in an article on, say, Hillary Clinton; that violates even the earlier version of WP:BLP#Reliable sources. It is a reliable and verifiable source about the Republican Party's point of view; but it is not a reliable and verifiable source about the life of Hillary Clinton. There is a difference, depending on the subject of the article. Plus it is not "self-published" and "non-official" as a site of the Republican Party. It is "non-official" as a site relating to the subject Hillary Clinton; she doesn't publish it; the Republican Party does. Let's not use "apples" and "oranges" when discussing "self-published websites" in the context of WP:BLP. This discussion pertains to WP:BLP, and we need to assume that reasonable people can understand the difference between a "self-published", "unofficial website" of a private person (e.g., a fan, or even the self-published "typepad" personal blog of a journalist who publishes otherwise in newspapers in which s/he is not being "self-published") and the "official" website published by a political party or even a political lobbying organization registered as such. Those are not private people; they are organizations. Links to them abound in Wikipedia articles as both citations of sources and "External links" and that are likely to remain as long as they do not contradict WP:BLP and WP:V. --NYScholar 19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
(ed conf) Well and eloquently said, NYScholar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a big gulf between what you're saying and what you appear to be intending. This is what my concern is. The Republican Party's website is published by the party, and it may be (almost certainly is) vetted by the organisation's lawyers, it cannot reasonably be described as anything but "self-published", by a fictional corporate person. The "SlimVirgin" phrasing about absolutely forbids from linking to the official website of the Republican Party under any circumstances. This is (I would guess) not it's intention at all. While it may be obvious what phrases are supposed to mean when you already know what they mean, policies need to be written so anyone can sit down, read them and understand them. I would also suggest it shouldn't be used in any misleading way - this isn't contraversial. I would agree that in many cases it would be inappropriate as a reference (although it might be reasonable in a few cases, like Republican Party (United States) for thier official policies and platforms and such. But it's still a biased self-published source that presents information on living people in a way that would be totally unacceptable on Wikipedia ... WilyD 19:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:EL is for external links, WP:V is for sources. There is no contradiction. Simple. We don't create policy in a vacuum. Things we add to this page, however necessary and well intentioned, have far-reaching consequences. We ought to be mindful of those consequences and whether we intend them. Do we mean to overrule any current widespread practices here and if so, which ones? That is why we look to guidelines elsewhere, and conventions on how articles are currently written. As far as I can tell we do mean to prohibit external links to all but the most authoritative and important sites that feature derogatory and potentially harmful material about living people. We do not as far as I can tell mean to prohibit material that is otherwise appropriate for other articles but is at the lower end of our threshold, when that material is not derogatory to living people. Most of us do not, anyway. NYScholar seems to have a broader position that all external links should be treated as sources per WP:V, and thereby excluded if unverifiable. There are plenty of such links, and as things stand on Wikipedia the standard for linking is not that the material found when following the link is verifiable or otherwise suitable for inclusion in the article. Quite the opposite. We link to recipes, photo galleries, statistics, original works, company and web service home pages, fan clubs, fraternal organizations, political advocacy groups, charities, statutes and regulations, television shows, etc. Do we mean to ban all such links, or all such links when they are self-published? No more here than anywhere else on Wikipedia. There are already rules elsewhere for when these are appropriate. If one wants to change that, or thinks people are not following it correctly, that is a battle to be fought elsewhere. We are talking here only about protecting living people from derogatory references, not overriding existing external link practices more broadly. Wikidemo 19:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
(ed conf) You are missing and important distinction: WP:V is a core official policy, WP:EL is a guideline and cannot trump policy, only describe ways to apply policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Conceivably, there are self-published sites written by recognizable experts on the subject of living person who are recognizable experts on that subject (the living person) by dint of third-party publications. If that site is not published by the subject, it would not be linked in "External links" section of an article that is a biographical article about the person. But it might be linked in a notes citation as a reliable and verifiable source of information because the author of the site is a recognized expert on the subject. That aspect of WP:V applies here too. One needs to consult all of WP:V#Sources to be able to distinguish between what is considered "reliable and verifiable" as a self-published source (and external link) in Wikipedia. But one also needs to link to external links that do not violate WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (in their presentation as such) and that are in keeping also with WP:POV. I don't think it's that difficult to do that. One exerts "editorial discretion" while still following the policies. It's responsible editing practice to do so. --NYScholar 19:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the line between "self-published" and editor-published is not whether the publisher is a private person versus a corporation or multi-person association. That may (or in the case of political parties and advocacy groups, may not) affect reliability. But the proof is in how authoritative the publication is, not how big or rich the publisher is. We just don't promote such a bias here. Fan sites, independent magazines, etc., are generally compilations of material written by other people. If you want to ban linking to them throughout Wikipedia, you can take your shot at that but the issue is not self publication. Wikidemo 19:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". -- Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.. That will rule most of the ELs that are being discussed in the context of WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, soAgreed. Most or all of what we need is already stated in other policies and guidelines. Do we mean to move beyond that in the case of living people and, if so, how? Note that the above sentence says "most" implying most but not all. What else specifically, if anything, do we mean to prohibit? Wikidemo 20:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:V#Sources, WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper): "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP." --NYScholar 20:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't think that we should restrict ourselves from linking to the Republican Party's website on their page just because it wouldn't be an acceptable source on Hillary Clinton, for instance ... WilyD 20:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Does Republican Party (United States) discuss Hillary Clinton? Moot point here? --NYScholar 20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I see no restriction being made (except by WilyD's implication in his/her comment) in WP:BLP#Reliable sources to an external link to the Republican National Committee (though "See also" would be more appropriate, since the external link to that particular website would be in that article already, either as a note citation, a Reference item, or in "External links). According to WP:EL guidelines, it would be linked in "External links" if it is not already linked in the notes and/or references section. See other parts of WP:EL for guidelines pertaining to no such duplications of links to sources already cited otherwise in the main body citations or References sections of the article. There seems in those guidelines to be a restriction on not linking again in "External links" section to items already linked in citations and references as sources. I don't think that guideline is widely followed in Wikipedia. The Republican Party sites, which are official representations of its points of view, can be linked as "sources" in citations if as "full citations" in an article about Hillary Clinton (if properly identified: author, title, place of publication, and so on. One would not just do an "in-line citation"; one would need to provide it as a full citation in a note to a statement that is written in a clear manner that indicates it is a "point of view" on her, e.g. --NYScholar 20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It's appropriately linked already in Republican National Committee in "External links" section. I see no problem with that. --NYScholar 20:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to propose a wording for this policy dealing with external links then? WilyD 20:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No need to do so. I already proposed and approve of the current wording. --NYScholar 20:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (in WP:BLP#Reliable sources that is.) --NYScholar 20:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As I stated above, the official webpage of the Republican National Committee is a webpage hosted on the official website of the Republican Party (United States), which is a "reliable and verifiable source" of information about its points of view. --NYScholar 20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This would represent a likely to be misinterpreted use of "verifiable" - the GOP website probably does not allow you to verify a lot of what it says against anything we'd consider a reliable source for a lot of it's content - it's just a self-published website - and it's full of gossip and whatnot. The "as sources of information about living persons" might allow you to save common sense links, but given the way this policy is often used in practice, it's very important that things are clear. WilyD 20:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That is a clear misinterpretation of what Wikipedia defines as "reliable and verifiable source": the source is both a "reliable" and "verifiable" source for information about the Republican National Committee just as the website for its host organization, Republican Party (United States) is a "reliable" and "verifiable" source for information about that party. Neither one is a reliable and verifiable source for information about a potential candidate for presidency of the United States of a rival political party or even as a reliable and verifiable source for information about a rival incumbent political official; these are reliable and verifiable sources only of the organization itself and its points of view. That is common sense. See WP:V#Sources. --NYScholar 20:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC) [I'm logging out of Wikipedia to do other things. --NYScholar 20:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)]

(unindent) I have to agree with WilyD. The proposed "SlimVirgin phrasing" would ban us from ever linking to the site of a political party, even when we are talking about important members of that political party, such as its founder, its current leader, previous leaders, and so forth. That's silly. It needs to be rephrased. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how the current policy in WP:BLP#Reliable sources, which refers to WP:V#Sources as do other policy and guidelines pages in Wikipedia, "would ban us from ever linking to the site of a political party ...."; if the political party's points of view are part of the discussion as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV, regarding WP:BLP#Well known public figures, and none of these policies is violated by the content being provided in the article or by any external links in them, then there is no problem. Core policies in Wikipedia take precedence in Wikipedia, and those core policies are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:V. [Please scroll up to User:Jossi's comment. Thank you.] --NYScholar 19:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, WP:BLP refers only to "living persons", not to persons who were public figures in their lifetimes but who are now no longer alive. The "founder" and "previous leaders" are not always still living persons. But when they are still living, WP:BLP#Reliable sources would pertain. One just needs to state a policy that is reasonable and that protects Wikipedia from claims of Libel and slander; no external links provided in Wikipedia space should link to sites with material that contains potentially libelous and slanderous comments about living persons; that's current policy. See W:V#Sources for the definitions of "sources", which pertain to external links to sources of material about living persons, as I read it. It's a strict policy and it's intended to be strict, as I also read Jimmy Wales's remarks about it. --NYScholar 19:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
One must keep in mind that the legal threshold regarding libel and slander for well-known public figures is different from that for private individuals; see libel and slander [last three paragraphs prior to "See also"] vis-a-vis WP:POV and WP:BLP#Well known public figures. Wikipedia already discusses these matters in these places, linking to relevant Wikipedia policies. The BLP template contains the relevant links to warn Wikipedia users of these policies, and it is the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to consult them. Often they do not, and that causes problems. One needs WP:EL to be consistent with WP:V#Sources and WP:BLP#Reliable sources, since new Wikipedia editors depend on the guidelines to be consistent with the policies. --NYScholar 19:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
My comments about official webpages and official websites of partisan political organizations are in my own comments above. I consider the example given by an earlier user to be a red herring. Such sites are clearly reliable and verifiable sources about their own points of view on their own organizations and they are useful links as sources or in "External links" sections for information about the history and points of view of those organizations. WP:V#Sources and WP:POV already pertain to them. --NYScholar 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be drifting. Can we please continue seeing if there is consensus for what language if any to add, and keep comments focused on that at least in this section so we stay on topic and everyone who wants can be heard?

So far we have:

  • Original version (last stable before edit war). 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, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).
  • 2005 proposal. Add the following sentence: Likewise, there should be no external links to self-published websites that have potentially damaging and unverifable statements about a living person.
  • SlimVirgin proposal (locked in by edit lock). Add the following sentence: 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.
  • WilyD proposal (raised above). Add: External links should never be used to circumvent to 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.

I'll suggest my own.

  • Add: External links not used as sources should follow all appropriate linking policy and guidelines, and in addition should not direct users to unverifiable material that is derogatory or otherwise tends to cause reputational harm to living people.

-- Wikidemo 21:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

what about verifiable information that cause reputational harm to living people? We know John Major had an affair but under your proposal any external link mentioning this would not be allowed.Geni 22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
If the material is verifiable, the link is okay. Mine only covers unverifiable material. So it's okay to link to the Labor Party website as long as you don't direct users to the page where they discuss how much they hate John Major, and it's okay to link to a reliable source's discussion of the affair. Just not to an unreliable discussion of the affair. That's just what my policy forbids and allows. NPOV, EL, no original research, citation requirements, etc., all apply as well. Wikidemo 22:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Another:

  • NYScholar proposes: 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, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). Likewise, there should be no external links to self-published websites that have potentially damaging and unverifable statements about a living person. (from below discussion, markup shows difference from "original version -- Wikidemo 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC))
I do not propose the above. It is a misstatement of what I say. My comments follow below; I made no such proposal at the time this was posted. I do not even agree with the whole first sentence. --NYScholar 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Inserting a heading again to separate consensus discussion from digression. Save for my one intervening comment we have 34 edits in a row from a single editor, 15,000+ bytes of new content. Is there such a thing as a brevity request? Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines goes over things like being concise, staying on topic, clear layouts, etc. I'm afraid everyone will tune out if they haven't already. There is no consensus yet for adding anything beyond the "original version" above and I'm afraid that if we don't find one in the next day people will keep adding stuff anyway over objections, and then we're back to an edit war.Wikidemo 21:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I truly object to discussions that the above user does not agree with being labeled as "digression"; that is clearly his own point of view. He has no business doing this. I'm separating my own comments from the above with my own heading. If he wants to add to his own heading he may do so below this comment. I will add sub-headings of my own subsequently.]--NYScholar 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, his own point of view does not represent a "consensus" about this matter. Scroll all the way up to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#External links. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
At this point you are being confrontational and disruptive. You have gone way over the edge in the number and extent of your additions to this page. You have resisted all attempts to request clarity, brevity, constructive comments, and a statement of what you actually propose if anything for policy language to settle the present edit war. Please take a breather on this. People will read if you make a few well placed insightful comments. When you do edit history this you shut down the conversation. Wikidemo 01:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that you also review WP:AGF. I have spent a lot of my time in good faith replying to your comments. As far as an "edit war", I did not realize there was one until you [and others] began it by deleting material in WP:BLP#Reliable sources. I had only been reading the comments in WP:EL as a result of a problem in David Strathairn. I realized there was a contradiction in WP:EL and WP:V#Sources as a result of the discussion, long before you entered it. It appears to me that you and a couple of other Wikipedia users began editing warring over the language in WP:BLP after a dispute about how to interpret parts of WP:EL arose in relation to fansites. Please stop trying to control the discussion. I have responded in good faith, and I object to your implications (throughout) otherwise. I object to your characteriation of me as "confrontational and disruptive"; that is how I have been perceiving your responses to my good faith comments. --NYScholar 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC) [I added: "[and others]" after reviewing the edit history (again). --NYScholar 19:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]
Again, please stop. I did not start the edit war and you know it. You may consider this a warning. You have already been blocked many times over confrontational behavior. Don't go there again. Wikidemo 02:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Altering other people's comments with these edits that you did is not in keeping with the guidelines. I added subheadings after you asked for them. Please follow WP:NPA and stop focusing on me. I am focusing on the content of the policies; you keep verging on violating WP:NPA. Please read the policies more carefully, and please re-read the comments by the administrators who have been disagreeing with your interpretations of them. Thank you. --NYScholar 01:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[I really was not aware that there was an "edit war" about this policy page until after the above user stated over in Wikipedia talk:External links that there were changes within the past month or so in WP:BLP#Reliable sources, after I had cited and quoted the policy (then), and, even after that and consulting the talk page here, I did not realize that one could not add a sentence to the policy page, as there had been activity of that kind going on. (I did not intend for the sentence that I added-- 150866314--[although I do still think it a useful addition]--to be locked into a protected version of the page; that is just how things later developed when an administrator came along and protected the policy page from further editing by regular editors who are not administrators--150901065.)
Please see the editing history of the article for the editing summaries of various users regarding the past and current policy statements. There was a lot of reverting of one phrase "including as an external link" going on before the sentence that I added (E.g., 150159912) and then reverting of the sentence that I added (back and forth by other editors) after I added it.(E.g., 150900091 150900704), prior to the protection of the project page by the administrator. In my comments throughout, I really have been trying (in good faith) to facilitate discussion of main issues pertaining to WP:BLP#Reliable sources, as WP:EL pertains to it (in my reading of the guideline and core policies in Wikipedia), and not trying to, as the other editor says in an editing summary, "shut it down". Please see User talk:Wikidemo#An apology (scroll down to mine; there are more than one there). Thanks. (I added subheadings to my own comments subsequently as the above user requested. Moreover, I have attempted and do attempt to be civil throughout discussions in Wikipedia.) --NYScholar 19:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]

Perhaps my request to stay on topic in the above section was not clear enough. I asked what language if any we should add to the version above marked "original." Consensus means we add something. No consensus for new language means we revert to the original version once we are out of edit lock. If you're going to discuss the language in the above section please address the question presented, and keep comments brief and to the point. For lengthy digressions and other matters would you kindly discuss in a different section -- like this one? I've added the heading above to help with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 02:48, August 14, 2007 (UTC)

References to "obscure newspapers" in WP:BLP#Reliable sources

Re: the references to "obscure newspapers" in WP:BLP and elsewhere in Wikipedia: I think the term at least needs a clear definition, discussion about what the phrase denotes (not connotes), and whether or not it belongs in WP:BLP#Reliable sources. I am questioning its validity in the statement. Example in point: Jewish Telegraphic Agency newspapers, such as The Jerusalem Post, publications cited (sometimes specifically, sometimes not) by the Tulsa Jewish Review(and other U.S. Jewish community newspapers, journals, and magazines), which one editor termed an "obscure" source, I think incorrectly; the editor did not want the information which was properly (reliably and verifiably) sourced included in an article about Lewis Libby, to which WP:BLP#Well known public figures applies, and termed the source "obscure". [An arbitration resolved the contended matter in favor of citing the source as reliable and verifiable: see Talk:Lewis Libby; WP:POV also applies to WP:BLP#Well known public figures. In my view, The Jerusalem Post is a notable newspaper, it has an article about it in Wikipedia (because it is notable; not "obscure"), as does Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and it is thus not "obscure"; "obscure", as I state above, is a subjective and value-judgment-laden term and, I believe, can lead to contention. One way that editors will have to exclude otherwise-includable points of view on a subject who happens to be a living person (when the information is neither potentially libelous or negative, just factual information) is to claim that the source is an "obscure newspaper." --NYScholar 20:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC) [expanded somewhat. --NYScholar 20:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)]

I agree that "obscure newspaper" needs to be defined clearly. Lots of local newspapers are reliable sources for news on their communities, and can and should be permitted as sources for living people in those communities (or with significant connections to those communities). 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. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"Obscure newspaper" will never be defined unless that's done directly and clearly within the language of the BLP guideline, and that's unlikely to happen — and should not happen. If undefined it will cause no end of problems for all sorts of articles. Small newspapers, even small local weeklies that are meant to appeal to a general audience, are reliable sources almost all of the time. If someone wants to call a newspaper source unreliable, then the burden should be on the accusing editor. (I think the burden should probably be turned around when it comes to Web sites -- the burden of showing that one IS reliable, if an editor wants to defend negative information supplied from a Web site, should fall on the one who wants to use the negative information.) Small daily and weekly newspapers, at least in the U.S. where I am familiar with the normal standards of journalism, have a tradition of trying to get facts right and of generally being the type of organization we describe as a "reliable source". Even small weekly newspapers publish corrections and are expected by the public to be reliable. I'm not familiar enough with newspapers in other nations to have an opinion on this point. We should leave all mention of "obscure newspapers" out of the guideline. Noroton 21:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There is already discussion in this talk page, at Talk:NNDB, and in the WP:BLP/N about the listing of the NNDB in "External links" section of Wikipedia. There is confusion about that too due to the "guideline" status of WP:EL and how it is supposed to be consistent with WP:V. This assumption that a "source" of "content" in Wikipedia is immune from WP:V if it is placed in the "External links" section leads to problems. Either an "External link" is in keeping with core policies in Wikipedia (all of them) or it is not. Either NNDB is or it isn't; either "self-published" "unofficial" or "non-official" fansites are or they are not. Editors need to know what to do with these kinds of sources of information. (And they are "sources of information"; if they were not sources of information, they would not be linked in the Wikipedia articles at all, even in "External links". I have asked: "for what purpose" are these "external links" being included in Wikipedia articles (in any section)? If the purpose is to direct readers to them as a source of information about a living person, then WP:BLP pertains. --NYScholar 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Current version

The comments [in above sections] do not state the language that was in BLP#Reliable sources before the current version; what is quoted above is not SlimVirgin's proposal (the language in there before): the current passage reads:

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, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). 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.

The previous passage, which included SV's language had a phrase (not a clause) which said "including as an external link"; that was deleted before I noticed the newer version. I added the sentence "Unreliable and unverifiable sources ... articles."

The earlier parts of WP:BLP already address the other issues. There is no need for changing it. The sentence that I added does not rule out linking to political party websites (though not in "External links" sections of articles about living persons--which seems reasonable) in keeping still with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV; in the case of well-known public figures, which includes many still-living actors and other celebrities, politicial candidates, and so on, WP:BLP#Well known public figures and WP:POV are already clear.

Referring to WP:EL as if it were on a par with WP:V is not appropriate. WP:EL are guidelines that refer to core policies WP:V and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and WP:EL also refers to WP:BLP. I don't see any need for further revision. It is clear that official websites of organizations are reliable and verifiable sources of information about them. [They have biases, of course, in favor of the organizations that they describe; they are "first-party sources," not "second party" or "third-party sources"; and all three kinds of sources are defined and discussed in WP:V#Sources.] If the organizations are partisan political organizations, those sites are partisan sites, and the passage currently refers to such websites ("partisan websites"). I believe that "obscure newspapers" is problematic, however, because "obscure" is a highly-subjective value-judgment-laden adjective. What is "obscure" to some people in the world are major media to others. "Partisan" is a clearer descriptive term. Most partisan sites have clearly-defined biases. For related information, see WP:POV, which also links to WP:BLP and protects well-known public figures from libelous statements in Wikipedia even while it states that various points of view, even those negative from the perspective of the living person, are permissible for development in articles about living persons. Sites giving such pejorative potentially libelous information would not be linkable as "external links" in articles about living persons, according to the current language in WP:BLP#Reliable sources, although they might be listed as sources in citations to main body discussion. Such sources would still have to adhere to WP:V#Sources. I don't see difficulties that the earlier comments state. These situations are already covered in WP:V#Sources. As I say above, after thinking about it further, I recalled that my first impression of "obscure" was that it could prove problematic due to its subjectivity and unenforceability. --NYScholar 03:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think anyone here is disagreeing with the principal behind all of this. The issue is simply how we word this so it doesn't mess up good ELs (that aren't being used as sources), but could be removed because of a misunderstanding of BLP policy. -- Ned Scott 04:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
NYScholar appears to favor the "SlimVirgin" addition plus deleting word "obscure". I don't support the SlimVirgin draft because it allows NYScholar to continue advocating for deleting external links based on the false premise that they are all deemed sources whether or not they are used to establish verifiability of article content. To avoid this kind of confusion we need the language to be clear that we are treating sources as an issue distinct from external links not used as sources. I do agree with eliminating the word "obscure." Wikidemo 06:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Please allow me to speak for myself.--NYScholar 19:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[I added a bracketed correction above subsequently in the reference to "SlimVirgin"'s "proposal". --NYScholar 20:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]

"or in obscure newspapers newspapers" phrase

I do not agree with Wikidemo's interpretations of WP:BLP as he has been commenting on Wikipedia talk:External links. I prefer to speak for myself, as I have done above. The only question I have [at the time that I posted this; other questions arose later] about the current wording involves the references to "obscure newspapers" in WP:BLP. I don't agree with Wikidemo's arguments for allowing self-published fansites that are not official sites published by the subjects of articles about living persons or in material about living persons as "external links" in Wikipedia space. Please see the other talk page discussion for that disagreement. I would prefer that other users not restate my comments. Please scroll up for my own statements of my views. Thank you. --NYScholar 19:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC) [After another user changed the main subheading of "Related discussion" etc., asking for subheadings, I added subheadings for my own comments; I also added the bracketed reference "[at the time that I posted this; other questions arose later]" so that the subheading sec. comment could be followed. My subheadings have been necessitated by the other user's changes to the page after I posted my original comments. Thank you. --NYScholar 02:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]

As I and others argue here and there, WP:V is core policy in Wikipedia, and it pertains to everything in it. Sources and external links (which link to (direct readers to) sources of material) must be "verifiable" and adhere to the rest of WP:V. WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy, and parts of it conflict with WP:V as it is currently written. See Wikipedia talk:External links for that discussion. Please avoid focusing on contributors instead of on content. These are content matters. --NYScholar 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:V has introductory paragraphs, beginning:

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.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others include Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. (Italics added.)

As I read that introduction in WP:V, "inclusion in Wikipedia" and "material ... in Wikipedia articles" both apply to "external links" included in those articles whether as source citations (notes and references) or in sections of "External links", as I read those paragraphs, with their reference in the last sentence to "core content policies"; the introduction refers to the "content" of Wikipedia. That is very broad. --NYScholar 19:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I am also reading the policies in conjunction with the paragraph at the top of the WP:BLP (policy) page:

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. [Embedded footnote in original is not in this quotation of it; please consult the footnote there.]

As I read that "material" is "content" and the content of the article is the whole thing, through the very end, which includes "External links" sections. "Be very firm" and "should be removed immediately and without discussion" are explicit as well. "High quality" references about living persons do not include self-published fansites that are not published by these living persons themselves or endorsed as "official sites" by them; such "official sites" published by the living persons themselves are so far are the only self-published sites allowable as "external links" (and in "External links" sections) in biographies of living persons and as "self-published" "sources" of "material" about these living persons [According to the guideline in WP:EL, if the site is already cited in a note or reference as a "source" for the article prior to the "External links" section, it is not repeated in "External links"; however, that is a guideline and not consistently in practice in Wikipedia articles]. If the living persons are well-known public figures, then WP:BLP#Well known public figures applies to them. In many such Wikipedia articles about living persons and with material about living persons, there are no "Notes" or "References" sections, and only "External links" sections, which the writers of the articles have used as "sources" of information in the articles. These articles could be tagged with the "missing citations" template if they have not been tagged so already; in such articles there is frequently material that has been taken from (plagiarism) from sources included in "External links" sections, a highly-"questionable" editing practice. These articles need editorial oversight and overhaul (rewriting). --NYScholar 20:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC) [Corrected, updated. --NYScholar 20:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)]
(edit conflict -- X 23) Okay, as I said you approve the "SlimVirgin" version (setting aside your stumping over terminology). It appears you favor eliminating the word "obscure" or do you just "question" it? Unless you say otherwise I'll take that to be your position.
On the extended digression, what you're missing is a simple but fundamental distinction. Content in Wikipedia needs to be sourced and verifiable. Use of secondary sources as references to support article content is governed by policies of sourcing, verifiability, etc. That should indeed be cited inline but some articles are sloppy and add links to their sources at the bottom of an article under a "notes" or "references" section. Things outside of Wikipedia that are worth linking to and not used as sources are covered by external link policy and guidelines. We don't wall ourselves off from everything in the world that isn't suitable as article content; we have sensible rules for when it is worth a link and when it is not. Those are typically put in an "external links" section but again, people are sometimes careless and put things in the wrong place. External links are also found often in templates like infoboxes. Knowing which policy to apply goes to what a link is, not what section it's placed in. Wikidemo 20:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems fruitless to discuss these matters with you any further. Every time you attempt to restate what I am saying, you misstate what I am saying. I do not agree with your interpretations of core Wikipedia policy W:V, including WP:V#Sources, or with some of the contradictory statements now in the "guideline" WP:EL, which I believe need to be revised to be consistent with current statements of Wikipedia "core policies" to which it refers. An "external link" is an "external link." I say that a number of times. The "content" of an article is the whole article. --NYScholar 20:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"obscure newspapers": Examples of problems relating to that phrase

("editing conflict")Re: the references to "obscure newspapers" in WP:BLP and elsewhere in Wikipedia: I think the term at least needs a clear definition, discussion about what the phrase denotes (not connotes), and whether or not it belongs in WP:BLP#Reliable sources. I am questioning its validity in the statement. Example in point: Jewish Telegraphic Agency newspapers, such as The Jerusalem Post, publications cited (sometimes specifically, sometimes not) by the Tulsa Jewish Review[1] (and other U.S. Jewish community newspapers, journals, and magazines), which one editor termed an "obscure" source, I think incorrectly; the editor did not want the information which was properly (reliably and verifiably) sourced included in an article about Lewis Libby, to which WP:BLP#Well known public figures applies, and termed the source "obscure". In my view, The Jerusalem Post is a notable newspaper, it has an article about it in Wikipedia (because it is notable; not "obscure"), as does Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and it is thus not "obscure"; "obscure", as I state above, is a subjective and value-judgment-laden term and, I believe, can lead to contention. One way that editors will have to exclude otherwise-includable points of view on a subject who happens to be a living person (when the information is neither potentially libelous or negative, just factual information) is to claim that the source is an "obscure newspaper." [Updated; added link, etc.] --NYScholar 20:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

("Editing conflict")An arbitration resolved the contended matter in favor of citing the source; in the case of my citation to The Jerusalem Post and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency--JTA was drawn upon by Tulsa Jewish Review and cited in the Notable Names Database, but one was (no longer) citing the NNDB; rather one was citing the original source in JTA and JP ([which had been] picked up by TJR) as a reliable and verifiable source: see Talk:Lewis Libby; WP:POV also applies to WP:BLP#Well known public figures. [Case in point relating to "External links": whereas the NNDB could not be cited as a "source" in the article in Notes or References pertaining to Lewis Libby, since it is not deemed "reliable and verifiable" in Wikipedia (currently), it was being listed at times in "External links", but those who objected to its listing Libby's religious affiliation did not want it listed as even as an "External link" [Some claimed that the TJR, as cited by the NNDB, was "obscure", which was strongly contested in the arbitration matter by others]; cf. the situation of self-published "unofficial websites" called fansites in biographies of living persons who are also well-known public figures; if one cannot cite the NNDB [for a variety of reasons relating to reliablity and verifiability of its content], why should one be able to cite such fansites (which also have questionable reliability and verifiability as "self-published" non-authorized sites of information about a living person)?] [Moved this out because it relates to additional point. --NYScholar 20:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)] [Tried to clarify a bit more. --NYScholar 21:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)] [Ditto; in parentheses. --NYScholar 21:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)]

"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers ..."

Re: "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all" [added the sentence for easier ref. --NYScholar 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)]

"or in obscure newspapers"

I propose that one delete the whole phrase "or in obscure newspapers" from WP:BLP#Reliable sources. [revised on subsequent thought: ...] --NYScholar 22:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the proposal to remove "or obscure newspapers" from the policy. "Obscure" could mean vastly different things to different people, and lends itself far too easily to "I haven't heard of it." As I pointed out above, there are also encylcopedic subjects which are covered only in newspapers which are unfamiliar to most editors, and thus might run the risk of being considered "obscure". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support removal. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support removal (for reasons cited in discussion below). Noroton 21:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Material available solely on partisan websites"

I also question the phrase containing the word "solely"; there is no way for Wikipedia editors to ascertain that information appears "solely" anywhere; that runs up against WP:NOR, and Wikipedia editors are not experts in subjects. No one can ascertain that information appears "solely" anywhere. The database of accessible material on any subject rules that out as a possibility. That part needs re-thinking/re-writing as well. --[Updated.] --NYScholar 21:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that what that "solely" reference may intend is that if the information is included on a "partisan website" with no reliable and verifiable source given to verify its accuracy (its "veracity"=truth), then the partisan website cannot be used as a source of that information, especially if it is derogatory or otherwise negative information about a living person; though one needs to consult WP:BLP#Well known public figures with reference to WP:POV. It looks like WP:BLP#Reliable sources does need considerable revising so that it does not demand the impossible or contain value-laden terminology in its adjectives and adverbs. It needs to be entirely clear. I am not opposed to including political websites as information about the organizations that they are websites about in the "External links" section of a Wikipedia article on the organization. If the organization has a "point of view" on a "well known public figure" who is also a living person, then WP:BLP#Well known public figures will apply. One does need to take account of all of WP:BLP. WP:BLP#Reliable sources needs to be consistent with the rest of WP:BLP and all core Wikipedia editing policies. Guidelines already refer to policies in their identification as guidelines and not policies, and they already state that they cannot violate Wikipedia's core policies. --NYScholar 22:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC) [I separated this into a separate subsection so that it would be clearly distinct from discussion of other phrase. --NYScholar 18:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]
If that language goes in, I'd want it made clear that it does not refer to Web sites of opinion journalism, such as The New Republic, The American Prospect or National Review. Those publications are all primarily organs of journalism and so are their Web sites. Some Web site created by a political party or political organization would be a different story: We shouldn't be using negative information from them unless confirmed elsewhere (in which case we don't need to use them at all). Noroton 21:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Current problems in WP:EL pertaining to WP:BLP (and WP:V)

That said [in the previous sec. of comments], one should not revise a "guideline" so that it is inconsistent and so that it violates Wikipedia's core policies, or policies based on them, like WP:BLP. That is the current problem, as I see it, with WP:EL in its current state. See particularly, WP:EL#Links to be considered item #4: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." (bold print added)

Note well that such links are not listed as a WP:EL#What should be linked; those obviously include only links that this guideline states "should be linked" not merely other (website) links "to be considered" for linking; by nature of such websites being omitted from "What should be linked," sites that item #4 of WP:EL#Links to be considered are not approved sites for linking as "external links" in Wikipedia. These are still only "links to be considered."
If a "core policy" such as WP:V or if WP:BLP rules out linking to them as "external links," then, after being "considered," they "should" not be linked.
Yet people are interpreting that item in "to be considered" (4) as if it sanctions self-published unofficial websites about living persons to being included in biographies of living persons "External links" sections and elsewhere in "external links" pertaining to information about living persons in Wikipedia space.
As I read these parts of Wikipedia's policies and the "guideline" for "links to be considered" item #4 in WP:EL, that is one place where WP:EL contradicts WP:V and both current (and past) versions of WP:BLP.
Where the [nature of the] "knowledgeable sources" (note the word "sources") violates WP:V#Sources pertaining to WP:BLP, in that they violate its section on WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper)", they are both "self-published" and not published by "reliable and "verifiable" established experts, as indicated by third-party publications: "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." Thus, otherwise, if the so-called "knowledgeable sources" whose websites or webpages are being "considered" for linking as "external links" in Wikipedia articles about living persons are not "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications," they "should not" be linked as "external links" to information about these living persons in Wikipedia space. That is the intention of the sentence that I added to WP:BLP#Reliable sources (scroll up). [Cf. also: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP."(WP:V#Sources).] --NYScholar 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC) [added ref. and q. --NYScholar 23:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)]

Reminder

Lest one lose sight of the original context of this discussion, please scroll up to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#External links. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposals

Re: "proposals": I would like to see experienced administrators who have been administrators for considerable amounts of time and who have a long track record in understanding the applications of policies like WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in a "guideline" like WP:EL (see their comments above) and experienced editors who have been editing Wikipedia for at least a year, not only editors who have been here for 6 months, addressing the issues of how to change the language of a policy as crucial as WP:BLP#Reliable sources in Wikipedia. I don't think that users should be strong-armed into changing policy this way. There is already a clearly-established consensus in Wikipedia called "core policies". Furthermore, I object to my words being edited (as they have been), to the changing of the headings after people posted comments in them (after being asked to add subheadings to my own comments, however, I have done that), and to statements being made in my name and to personal comments. Please focus on the content being discussed (the current wording of the policy) and not on contributors. Please see WP:NPA for further guidance. This has gotten out of hand. I object to the first sentence only (so far) in the current wording of WP:BLP#Reliable sources. My reasons are stated above. --NYScholar 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest changing the language of the policy in WP:BLP#Reliable sources from passive voice to active voice: to "dos" and "don'ts" as opposed to language like "should be linked" etc. It would be clearer if Wikipedia states what editors "can do" and what they "cannot do" as they attempt to provide what Wikipedia policy defines as "reliable sources" for biographies of living persons and for material in articles about living persons in Wikipedia, including what kinds of "external" sources/sites Wikipedia editors can or cannot "link" to in such articles, whether the "external links" are elsewhere in Wikipedia space or whether they are in "External links" sections of Wikipedia articles. These practices need clarity of definition; editors need clearly-defined instructions to follow, esp. new editors. --NYScholar 02:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have worked on this policy since its early beginnings when it was a mere proposal, and helped bring it to policy status. My view is that the current policies such as WP:V, and the WP:BLP extension, is very, very clear. We requires sources to be impeccable for anything related to living people in articles, talk pages, and all other namespaces. That includes unreliable and unverifiable online sources even if they are placed in "the External links" sections of articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for this information. I was logged out of Wikipedia, but I just logged in again, thinking of going over to another user's webpage to apologize if I have upset him. If so (which appears to be the case), that has been unintentional. I have (from my own perspective) just been trying to respond to each one of his comments. I am going over to post a similar comment on his talk page. Thanks again for this comment here. --NYScholar 03:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Language

I still think that the language of the first few paragraphs of WP:BLP#Reliable sources would be clearer and easier to read if it were in the active voice (like the next couple of paragraphs in that policy, beginning "Editors ..." . --NYScholar 22:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

8/15 proposal / change

Inasmuch as the consensus process seems to have broken down I am being bold and implementing a solution I think addresses everyone's concerns. Here is the language:

The 6/23/07 version:

  • 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, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

The new sentence to be incorporated (that was the subject of objections and edit warring):

  • 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.

The integrated version:

  • Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers from highly partisan sources should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. MSelf-published Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used anywhere in Wikipedia space as a source of information about a living person, nor linked in an "external links" section for that purpose, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I don't think these changes to WP:BLP should be made without adequate consensus discussion of the proposed (unsigned) changes. This change occurred prior to anyone's responding to the (unsigned) proposal. Administrators: please advise. Thank you. --NYScholar 22:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It's my proposal. Absent any consensus the sentence you added would have to go, which leaves us at the 6/23/07 version and, I presume, an ongoing edit war. I have tried several times to encourage a consensus discussion but your many posts to this page seem to have driven people away and killed the effort. Absent any meaningful input I did the best I can, synthesizing what I understand to be everyone's concerns and input, and posting the rationale and substance of my changes in detail here on the talk page. Wikidemo 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for change

As discussed above there has been an edit war for 6+ weeks over adding the new sentence (and other similar ones). There seems to be little disagreement on the goals, just the language. Some consider the new language "obvious" but others oppose it as non-consensus and overly broad to the point where it has unintended consequences of banning some legitimate and noncontroversial external links (e.g. links to recipes, sports and other statistics, band tour schedules, photo galleries, song lyrics, material that does not concern the living person, etc).

Specific changes are:

  • partisan websites or obscure newspapers -> highly partisan sources. As per NYScholar we don't have a good standard for declaring a newspaper "obscure." A newspaper that is obscure in a broad national context might be just fine, if it's the best available source, for covering a person of regional or specialized interest. However, we should still avoid newspapers and other sources that are inappropriate. I therefore extended "partisan" to cover all sources, not just websites. However, to clarify and avoid disputes I added "highly" to mean that we're banning only things out of the mainstream press. Fox News, NPR, Wall Street Journal, etc., are often called partisan but that is not what we mean.
  • material from self-published -> self-published material. Technical change to avoid confusion about what is self-published. A source is not "self published" just because it has no major publishing house; it is self-published because the author publishes his/her own content. The issue is not the economics of the publishing industry, it is the editorial process for content.
  • anywhere in Wikipedia space. Integrating this section from the new sentence to make clear we're talking about all articles, not just the biography articles.
  • nor linked in the "external links section". That's the gist of the new sentence. Extend prohibition to external links.
  • for that purpose. I.e. as a source of information about a living person. Adding this phrase gets us over the objections, namely that we do potentially want to link to self-published material (subject to the external link guideline, verifiability, etc) for purposes other than as sources of information about a living person. This sentence does not enable any such links, it just says we're not banning those ones here.
  • written or published -> written. Cleaning up a technicality. If the publisher is different than the writer it is not self-published.

You can consider this a proposal because if you don't like it you're certainly entitled to revert, discuss, change, etc. But please, choose discussion over edit wars!

-- Wikidemo 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see above section and previous discussion. Thank you. --NYScholar 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an official policy page. Changes only after reaching wide consensus. Not the place to be bold. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jossi.--NYScholar 00:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Despite prior statement about not wanting to participate in edit warring, this project page is once again the site of a revert war (which began on August 12 (scroll up to links or consult editing summaries/history). There is clearly not a "consensus" in Wikipedia on these post-protection changes made to the project page. Despite what I thought was an obvious consensus not to engage in edit warring and being asked not to do so by more than one administrator, reverting has occurred more than three times in 24 hours by several editors; see prior 3RR warnings and reverting earlier.
Please comment only on the language of the proposals and not on the contributors of them WP:NPA. And please don't change the project page of a policy as crucial as WP:BLP without what Jossi refers to as "wide consensus". I am not sure how one knows when that "wide consensus" has occurred. Perhaps one should formally propose a policy as per Wikipedia procedure and vote on it? Perhaps one has to take this to the WP:BLP/N for further protection? Administrators who can guide us here: please assist. Thank you. (Once again, I have to log off to do other things. I will be unavailable on August 16-17, 2007.) --NYScholar 00:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The edit warring began June 23, 2007 as is clear from the record. I believe the changes I made do reflect wide consensus, and are a lot closer to what everyone wants than either the original language as of June 23, or the new language that happened to get locked in for a few days at the moment of the edit protect. I have been trying to facilitate a consensus discussion and we got a good start to it. But with all due respect, and trying to be as neutral as I can, discussion is extermely difficult when a single editor is making 50-60 posts per day to this talk page, many lengthy and many that revise earlier posts. I don't think we need much more consensus, I think we have consensus and the differences are mostly a matter of language. Note that I did not adopt my own earlier proposal, which generated a query but no expressions of support, but instead tried to synthesize what everyone was saying, and to preserve as much of the exact language as I could from the original policy and the proposals. If anyone thinks I got it wrong it would be most helpful if you could help figure out what that consensus is and discuss some exact language. Again, it is a lot better if one is succinct, to the point, and on topic. Wikidemo 00:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. Thanks. (See the language proposed below. Thanks again.) --NYScholar 00:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't give random warnings as a way of defending your actions here. I am asking you, as politely as I can, to please stop making 50-60 posts per day here and to stop revising your posts so often once you make them, because this shuts down discussion. This is no slight against your opinions, positions, good faith, or anything else. You are simply doing something that is making discussion here extremely difficult and I'm imploring you to please scale that back. Wikidemo 00:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I am logging off. Please stop focusing on me (a contributor) and just try to focus on the content of what I and others are saying. If you want to comment on what I am saying ("content", which I have devoted a lot of time to contributing), I have left the page with a proposal. Scroll down. I won't be here to see your comments, so please stop addressing me. Thank you. --NYScholar 01:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Language

I still think that the language of the first few paragraphs of WP:BLP#Reliable sources would be clearer and easier to read if it were in the active voice (like the next couple of paragraphs in that policy, beginning "Editors ..." . --NYScholar 22:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed language for WP:BLP#Reliable sources

Reliable sources

Editors must provide reliable and verifiable sources for material about living persons and external links to sources of material pertaining to living persons very carefully. Without reliable and verifiable sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies and could lead to libel claims.

Editors should handle material presented in and/or hyperlinked in partisan sources with caution, and they should not use these sources at all anywhere in Wikipedia space if they are not reliable and verifiable (See WP:V#Sources). Editors should not use material about living persons from such sources at all anywhere in Wikipedia space (including as external links and in External links sections) if it is derogatory or otherwise negative about living persons and could potentially subject Wikipedia to claims of libel and slander. (See WP:BLP#Well known public figures for further guidance pertaining to living persons who are also public figures.)

Editors should never use self-published material from books, zines, websites, and blogs at all anywhere in Wikipedia space as a source of information about a living person unless the material and the sources meet the core policy of WP:V, including WP:V#Sources. Editors should never link to such material or to such self-published sources of material about living persons as an external link or in an "External links" section, unless the material, the source and/or the site are published by the subject of the article (see below) or otherwise in keeping with WP:V#Sources. All such sources of information about living persons and external links to sources of information about living persons in Wikipedia space must not violate WP:V and other core policies in Wikipedia.

 Editors should not repeat gossip about living persons published by tabloids and scandal sheets. They should ask themselves (1) whether or not the source is both reliable and verifiable, in keeping with WP:V#Sources; (2) whether or not the material being presented is being presented as true; and (3) even if it is being presented as true, whether or not such material is both notable and relevant to an Encyclopedia article about the subject. If any of those three instances do not pertain, the material must not appear anywhere in Wikipedia.

When less-than-reliable publications print material that their writers suspect is untrue, the writers often employ weasel words or phrases. Editors must be vigilant and scrutinize similarly-ambivalent or ambiguous language in such less-than-reliable publications and exclude the material from Wikipedia if the source uses such rhetorical tactics. If editors detect that the reliability or verifiability of the publication is dubious and that its writer or writers do not appear to believe their own account, Wikipedia should not include such information. To do so would damage the credibility of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia editors should also be careful about perpetuating a feedback loop in which editors have repeated in a Wikipedia article an unsourced and speculative contention from any source (including newspaper and other otherwise reliable and verifiable media publications) and then subsequently cited that same dubious unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article to support the secondary source's speculative contention as if it were reliably and verifiably sourced when it is not. Editors who suspect that this sort of feedback loop is occurring should be especially resourceful to document other independent reliable and verifiable sources -- outside the loop itself -- for the contentious claim. If editors cannot find such independent reliable and verifiable sources, they must delete the contentious and unsupportable claim on sight from all Wikipedia space where it appears.

[The last part on the "feedback loop" is particularly tricky to write clearly; it may still need further work. --NYScholar 23:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]

--NYScholar 23:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC) [Because language is crucial here, before logging out for an extended period of time, I have tried to correct my own typographical errors and improve emphasis in the above proposed language; it is an example. It is intentionally emphatic and any redundancies are intentional emphases; new editors frequently violate WP:BLP, especially with regard to WP:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and the emphases are, in my view, necessary. --NYScholar 01:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]

Can we concentrate on the contentious paragraph first, then move on to other paragraphs later? I don't care for that part of the above proposal. It repeats four times in one paragraph that sources have to conform to WP:V, something that is already stated very clearly at the top of the page. In fact, as far as I can tell the paragraph is completely ineffectual in that after each prohibition it lays out, it takes back the prohibition by saying that the material is okay after all if it complies with WP:V -- which it would have to anyway if this paragraph were not there. I think the point of this paragraph is that with WP:V as a background, we want to be extra stringent on sources where living people are involved. If you parse the existing paragraph it bans as sources of info for living people: (i) derogatory material from partisan websites, (ii) derogatory material from obscure newspapers, and (iii) material sourced from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs (unless written or published by the person in question).

The question / dispute / task at hand is to consider whether and how to restrict external links beyond any limits that may already be in place. If we can tackle that one we will have done some good. Wikidemo 01:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original questions

To amend or not to amend? And if to amend, then how?

My 2 centavos is that I like WilyD's proposal (raised above). Add: External links should never be used to circumvent to 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. This seems to get to the unique problems of WP:EL as they related to WP:BLP, namely people trying to direct a reader to information that is doesn't belong on a WP:BLP page (although it might be okay on another page). Yet, it still leaves enough room for editorial discretion so that we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Notmyrealname 17:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with WillyD's proposal save one change and a nit-pick. The change: "information" should read "biographical information" or "biographical information about people mentioned in the article." We should not ban self-published sources for providing information that is non-biographical or about things other than living people. This actually does come up and touches some of the things I've mentioned: recipes, photo galleries, schedules of past or future public appearances, statistics, data, tables, web services, etc. Of course most self-published material is too unreliable to be suitable anywhere on Wikipedia. But for the small amount that is, we should only ban it where it runs the risk of hurting living people. For example, Anthony Bourdain (famous chef and travel writer) has a self-published website at [2] that includes a blog, travel articles, etc. Supposing we have an article about regional food in Vietnam, it would be okay to link a section of his site that, say (hypothetically, I'm making this up), carried recipes or photos from real world cooks or a mention that he had dinner with the Prime Minister of Vietnam. That's okay because the information he includes is not biographical and it's not about the subject of the article. On the other hand, if he were to say in his blog that the President of Vietnam is a no good impolite fink with no taste in food, we should not link to that blog entry.
The nitpick is that instead of "Where external links are used....they should be removed" it should be "External links used...should not be used." Wikidemo 17:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo 17:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Notmyrealname 18:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The second sentance dirrectly conflicts with wikipedia's intention in haveing external links.Geni 22:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
WillyD's proposal, which Notmyrealname supports, and as per my suggestion, reads as follow. Indeed it steps on the toes of WP:EL to some extent. Is there consensus for that? Some long time editors (Jossi, SlimVirgin) say there is or that it's obvious. Others say there is no consensus. So you tell me!
  • External links should never be used to circumvent to goals of the Biographies of Living People policy. External links should not be used to include biographical information about people mentioned in the article, from self-published or dubious sources, that would be inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.
-- Wikidemo 00:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Not acceptable. Non free photos on a self published site would fail. Would also not allow this.Geni 01:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why the rule would apply to a site with non-free photos. This isn't generally considered to be "biographical information." I think there might be a reasonable argument not to include the link you provided under any set of rules. It is potentially libelous. Better to link to properly published articles and the BBC documentary. Notmyrealname 15:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
published by a journalist in the UK (which has rather tougher lible laws than the US). If it was libelous I think we would know by now given that sites profile.Geni 17:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you've hit the nail on the head with that site, Geni. Are you sure you would want to link to it? It looks like an attack site, even if it is all true and compiled by a real journalist...it's disparaging, biographical (not just for photos and useful info), self-published, and (presumably) about the person covered in the article. That makes for partisanship and POV pushing. Surely, if the man profiled by the site is a fraud/kook as claimed there are more direct sources. For example, the articles on the site - which are the one thing that makes it reliable/believable in my opinion - are in major publications. So you could link to them directly without using the site as a middle point.Wikidemo 17:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
External links are allowed to have a POV. There are no more dirrect sources because "MMR scare was a load of bunk" doesn't sell enough papers to be worth produceing anything close to that size. Linking to all the articles linked to from the site would result in a stupidly large external links section.Geni 20:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between having a POV and being an attack site. You are making a lot of assumptions about the site (e.g. it is not libel because someone would have sued, no reliable source would have published it because it wouldn't sell newspapers, etc.) don't convince me that this is something that deserves a link on a BLP article, especially as there are other RSs that contain the basic information. I think this is actually a great example of a link that should be excluded because it would lead a reader to a homemade site (by which I mean one that wouldn't pass muster as a proper citation in the article itself) with possibly libelous information. This would be a sneaky end-run around the WP:BLP rules. Notmyrealname 16:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Not assumptions. I know the topic quite well. MMR causes autism sells papers in large numbers. MMR does not cause autism not so much. This is a great example of a case where people who do not know the topic try and create broad brush policies resulting in terminaly stupid results.Geni 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but how does the average reader know what to believe? The general idea from Wikipedia is that we go by what reliable sources say, not what an editor who claims to know a lot about a subject or a journalist that couldn't get an article published say. There are reliable sources that back up this claim. I have no problem with a policy that prohibits creating links that are difficult for the average reader to figure out if it is a legitimate site or not. Do you want a set of rules that would allow 50 links to self-published sites by journalists claiming that MMR does cause autism? Notmyrealname 20:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If they pass the requirements of WP:EL then yes. In fact we have such links and BLP will have no impact one way or the other on that Vaccine_controversy#Sites_or_articles_critical_of_vaccines. WP:RS has nothing to do with external links.Geni 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
What we're afraid of is partisans linking to sites that bash a person they don't like. Those partisans might be right in the case of quack physicians and academics, but if you don't have some standard for neutrality and reliability it just turns into a slug-fest, and users who don't have the tools or background to assess what is right or who is more believable are mislead and put less faith in Wikipedia. It makes sense to have a tighter standard for living people due to the concern over defamation and a greater tendency for controversy. I don't know the vaccine issue but my gut reaction is if there's a significant pseudo-scientific movement out there, somebody has debunked it at a place more authoritative than an expert's self-published blog. If they haven't, then maybe the movement just isn't that important. Wikidemo 21:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Where would you publish? Journal? Not orginal research and not the type they publish. Newspaper? to much content not enough interest. Magazine? Too much content again. Not many sutible magzines. New scientist would be closest but it would use up all their feature space. No that website is the only place where that information appears in such a consise form. Going by the drop in vaccination takeup in the UK I think it is safe to say the issue is significant.Geni 21:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I think the above discussion lays out the issue pretty well. It's a choice between comprehensive treatment of refutations and exposes, versus avoiding partisanship. Perhaps it's not Wikipedia's function to direct people to targeted attack sites even if the person deserves the scrutiny. I still tend to think information refuting a sufficiently important fraud gets published somewhere, if not always a comprehensive survey. I think sourcing actual information fit for the article is a better way to sort all this out than encouraging a battle of partisan external links. Wikidemo 23:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The other issue that has to do with WP:BLP specifically, relates to certain issues of privacy. What if the vaccine-is-bad-debunking site also says the guy is gay. Or what if the only site that mentions a person's supposed sexual orientation or religious beliefs is a site like the NNDB? I think we will often have a case where someone wants to include nasty information in a bio, won't be able to put it in the article because the info doesn't come from a reliable source, but puts in a link to a dubious site that mentions the info. Notmyrealname 15:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikidemo "I still tend to think information refuting a sufficiently important fraud gets published somewhere" yeah on that website.Geni 03:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a recipe for disaster. At this point BLP is being used to remove information that is in fact in reliable sources. If that continues to be the case, and we adopt a strict BLP external link policy many legitimate links will not be linkable. Furthermore, it will prevent linking to notable criticism that also contains otherwise unproven allegations. This is a bad idea all around. JoshuaZ 15:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Preventing links that contain unproven allegations for living people seems like exactly the kind of thing we should ensure. Notmyrealname 15:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Even if that link contains other useful information. For example, if an otherwise major and notable site critical of X also notes "X is rumored to be Y" I have trouble seeing why we all of a sudden can't link to it. To use one obvious example, there's a well-known rumor about Jamie Lee Curtis which we have decided should not be included in the article ( a quick google search can find the detail). Now, many, if not most websites about her mention this detail. Should we therefore not be able to link to them? JoshuaZ 15:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
All the legitimate and reliable sources that I looked at don't mention the rumor. I don't see a problem where we establish a rule where we direct people to sites that only contain reliable information. People can find out all the rumors they want with a few clicks on Google. Notmyrealname 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Viewpoint on the proposed "emendations"

The changes that you are proposing are re-writing a core policy in Wikipedia: WP:V, specifically already addressed in WP:V#Questionable sources (the whole thing; as it says there, "(See below.)" and WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper)".

In my view, it is a mistake to make these changes that you are proposing in WP:BLP#Reliable sources: [these particular "emendations"--to amend or not to amend being the question.] As many experienced editors have already pointed out, WP:V pertains to all sources and all external links to sources of information in articles in Wikipedia, including those about living persons and including those not about living persons. The intended purpose is to make Wikipedia reliable, verifiable, and credible as a source of information about anything in it. [In articles not about himself or herself:] The use of self-published blogs at all [your example above] is very restricted in Wikipedia; the writer publishing his or her own blog has to be a recognizable expert on the subject about which he or she is being cited as a source of information [as a result of other non-self-published "third-party" publications]: WP:V#Sources. Why you are trying to re-define what WP:V already says in WP:BLP is really beyond me at this point. If the inconsistencies are in WP:EL, that "guideline" is where the inconsistencies need to be addressed, not here. I see no good coming from this effort thus far. [If this is how you propose to "emend" WP:BLP#Reliable sources, I say don't [amend or emend it]. In my view it was better with the phrase "including as an external link" (which SV had added, [which I thought perfectly clear and not ungrammatical at all], which you and others later and most recently removed, and, after the removal of that phrase, it was better with the sentence that that I had added, which you and others also removed and some others reinserted, but which is now reverted back to your earlier deletion of it.]

As far as how long WP:BLP#Reliable sources has been the subject of editing warring, its "stablility" seems to pre-date June 23, 2007 [ref. in editing summ. to " 6/23/07 version, last stable one before edit war"], if one examines the editing history before that date. This project page has not been "stable" only [on] June [23], if one looks at the history. [It was stable for periods of time both before and after that date.] There has been disagreement here about these matters for more than three months.

I think that WP:BLP should not be rewritten in a manner that is inconsistent with WP:V#Sources. BLP also fall under the rubric of verifiability of the information about living persons whether it is "derogatory" or not; whatever information is in a biography of a living person, like any other article in Wikipedia about any other kind of subject, the sources of the information in the article must be impeccable in terms of their reliability and verifiability, and that includes any external links to which one is linking in the article. All the information in an article must be accurate, reliable, and verifiable. There is no desire in Wikipedia to mislead its readers by linking to self-published unreliable and unverifiable sources of information that are not in keeping with WP:V#Sources, including WP:V#Questionable sources. If an external link links to a dubious source of information, why link to it? To do so is to mislead readers. WP:V is already clear on these points. By having WP:BLP include a link to WP:V, one is saying that it must conform to that core policy. What is unclear about that? It is the guideline WP:EL that is unclear, not WP:BLP. --NYScholar 08:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC) [Updated in brackets; link added, clarifications. --NYScholar 08:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]

For more information about matters relating to WP:BLP#Reliable sources, see the "content guideline" in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, via both WP:V and WP:Attribution, as it pertains to WP:BLP; WP:EL and WP:Reliable sources both dovetail with WP:V, as does WP:BLP. Thanks. --NYScholar 08:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, see WP:Reliable sources#Biographies of living persons. Thanks. --NYScholar 08:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that SV's phrase "including as an external link" needs to be restored to the project page of WP:BLP#Reliable sources and that the "content guideline" in Wikipedia:Reliable sources should quote the policy as it currently does. Deleting the phrase does not alter the purpose and intention of WP:V#Sources as it applies to sources of information about and pertaining to living persons that are being linked to in Wikipedia space (including articles, talk pages, user pages, etc.). --NYScholar 09:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC) [corrected typographical error in word "information"; sorry. --NYScholar 09:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_11&oldid=1050205145"