Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Archive index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7	Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

External links

[Please see Archive 11. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

Regarding the desire "to amend the page in reference to external links"

[Please see Archive 12. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

Selective deletions and the GFDL

[This section is in Archive 13. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

Cover the event not the person

[These three sections are in Archive 14. Thank you. --NYScholar 22:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

"obscure" removal

[This section is in in Archive 14. Thank you. --NYScholar 22:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

Current edit warring on this policy project page

[This section is in Archive 14. Thank you. --NYScholar 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

Protected for 48 hours

[This section is also in Archive 14. Thank you. Repeated here due to its being an administrative notice. --NYScholar 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

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

WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself

[This section is in Archive 14. Thank you. --NYScholar 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

Unprotection (immediate edit) request

[This section is in Archive 14. Thank you. --NYScholar 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

The matter of external links

[This section and related subsections are in Archive 14. Thank you. --NYScholar 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

Aren't we done?

Currently the policy page addresses the EL issue in two sentences, as follows:

• In the writing style subsection: External links must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia's external links guidelines

• In the Reliable sources section: Material about living persons available solely on partisan websites should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. These sites should also not be included as external links in BLPs.

I would argue that these two sentences encompass all the issues related to ELs in BLPs. Can we archive the discussion now? We do not need any other specific limitations for ELs on BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should be done. Discussions of what other terms mean or other policies or guidelines should do are not needed or proper here (although the endless repetitive comments go on and on and on below...) 2005 23:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am happy with that wording and would very much like to be done. Wikidemo 20:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

At random the wording of the second sentance would ban this so no it isn't acceptable.Geni 20:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine per the proposed wording, I think - FBI isn't partisan and the material is not "solely available" there. Not sure why you'd want to link to that though. Any other random examples? Wikidemo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The FBI are a fervent supporter and proponent of the idea that OLB is a criminal rather than a hero. How partisan do you want?Geni 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Scroll up to previous section: #"Material available solely on partisan websites" (1.13); I pointed to similar lack of definition problems pertaining to "partisan" as to "obscure" in "obscure newspapers" (which never reached "wide consensus" but was deleted anyway--and I point that out as someone who questioned it in the first place). "Solely" calls for doing "original research", which violates WP:NOR. WP:BLP language needs to be crystal clear; some of it is still not crystal clear and it leads to contention (as above). --NYScholar 21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[Please note: after the archiving the sections that I refer to in my own comments are now in archived talk pages. Sorry for the inconvenience, but they are located in the tables of contents for each of the talk archives. Thanks. --NYScholar 22:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

Re: the question "Aren't we done?": Consensus is an ongoing process in Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:Consensus; "we" few people who have been debating these matters are not the final arbiters of them. Changes to policy project pages are not supposed to be made this way (in the process of editing wars). Please see the statement about that on project pages for policies. Proposals for altering (changing) policies have a procedure in Wikipedia. This talk page has generally ignored that; I have pointed it out, linked to procedure, but that has been ignored. I have tried to confine my comments to the talk pages and except for very minor edits since August 12, I have not been participating in edit warring over the language of this project page; I have just been discussing it. That is what a talk page is for. Please read the previous discussion by me and others so that one can see what is at issue and what is not at issue about WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP as it pertains to WP:EL. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added "and the rest of this policy" as it appears to be necessary to this recent revision of the policy. It is not a redundancy. It is a reminder to consult the whole policy when contemplating adding or deleting material about living persons to or from Wikipedia. (sorry forgot sign.) --NYScholar 22:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. A bit redundant, but I do not think that is big deal. As for "partisan websites" and the FBI ... well, I think that the analogy is is a stretch. Everybody has a POV, but when we speak of "partisan" or "obscure" sources, it is obvious what we mean. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Partisan" may be apparent,but "obscure" is not, as can be seen from the many debates over the term on this page. If "obscure" is part of the policy it should be defined. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that calling FBI partisan is a stretch. Partisan means favoring one significant viewpoint on an issue over others, and it's relative to the subject being discussed (what's partisan in respect of a religious fixture is different than what's partisan in respect of a politician). Something is not partisan for ignoring fringe elements (e.g. terrorist supporters). I'm deleting the "and the rest of this policy" because it appears to be ongoing agenda-pushing to equate external links with sources and make the inclusion rules identical. If it's redundant the comment is unnecessary. If not redundant, the comment lacks support. Wikidemo 04:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussion in #Current problems in WP:EL pertaining to WP:BLP (and WP:V), which, for me, is a crux of the contradiction between what used to be WP:BLP#Reliable sources (with the phrase "including as an external link") and WP:EL. Referring people to WP:EL does not solve this problem if that item #4 in WP:EL's "links to be considered" countervails WP:V, which is linked as a core policy to follow in both WP:EL and WP:BLP. People don't just "consider" such links and then accept or reject them after consulting WP:BLP and WP:V; they toss them in indiscriminately, leading to vast problems in biographies of living persons and in "material about living persons" in other Wikipedia space (in my observation over the past at least two years). --NYScholar 23:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Put another way, I am saying that "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.'" does not permit such sites to be included in biographies of living persons as "external links" or in "material about living persons" in Wikipedia space otherwise; that is how I understood the spirit and letter of "including as an external link" (originally added by, I think, SlimVirgin (SV), as cited throughout). That is also the context pertaining to both "obscure newspapers" and "partisan websites"--as both relate to "material about living persons" both in biographies of living persons and in other Wikipedia space. But, it appears still, one needs a clearcut reference for the definition of both "obscure" and "partisan" (or "highly partisan"--suggested earlier by Wikidemo); these are subjective terms; their meaning tends to vary with the point of view of the reader (Wikipedia user/editor), and that is problematic and is leading to contention (over and over again). --NYScholar 23:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: User Noroton's objection to the "partisan websites" phrase: please see his/her comment in #"Material available solely on partisan websites" above. --NYScholar 00:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Should I have put my previous comments elsewhere on this page? I've tried to read everything relevant on this page about the points I commented on, but I have to say I'm confused as to where to comment. I get the impression, someone correct me if I'm wrong, that, as of the point of the time stamp on my comment, "obscure newspapers" is neither on the page now, nor is there a consensus to put it there. That's the way I like it. Count me as completely opposed to including that language. If it's already buried by consensus and my comments are useless, then let me just dance on its grave. <dance>Stomp, stomp, stomp.</dance>Noroton 00:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I thought your comment was in a proper place; I just didn't think everyone else may have noticed it (given the disc. about "partisan"). As I read the comments concerning "obscure", there are pro and con opinions about it; my own viewpoint on "obscure" is con; since there are more than one subsection of this talk page discussing it, some of the pros and cons are spread out. Thanks for trying to follow this discussion.  :) --NYScholar 01:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the still-divided viewpoints on "obscure", Jossi added it back in most recently. "Partisan websites" is still in the language of the project page as well. There does not yet seem to be "wide consensus" on removing that sentence or on how to revise it otherwise. Since "wide consensus" requires development over an extended period of time generally, I don't think it's yet clear what "wide consensus" is and changing it does not seem the thing to do; at least that's how I understand Jossi's restoring the "original" (pre-Aug. 12) language in the sentence. --NYScholar 01:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Now, if I want to make further comments on the "obscure newspapers" language, would this be a bad spot or should I go back up, or should I go back up and leave a note down here saying I've made a comment back up there that I'd like people to see? This isn't a wise-acre comment, funny as it sounds. I seriously wonder where I should commment. Please advise Noroton 01:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best person to ask for such advice about commenting on this talk page! That said, I would, however, suggest that you might want to add your "pro" or "con" position to the place where most people have been doing that (briefly) and explain your position in whichever section people are already raising issues that you want to discuss. Alternatively, to the latter, you could perhaps add "Obscure newspapers" as a new section heading as well below this comment for longer comment, I would suggest as well. Or, as you say, leave a brief note below and just cross-link to the section(s) where you place your comments about it (as I did a few times bec. I thought the other people's earlier comments might not be noticed by newcomers). I am logging out due to over-tiredness and need to take a break from Wikipedia editing and to turn back to other things. --NYScholar 01:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi's proposed text works for me. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Will's comment above, I would say that "obscure newspapers" is a judgment that editors can easily make, and that they can discuss with other editors on specific cases if that "obscurity" is challenged. We could attempt to find a different distinction, but I have been unable to come up with a better one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If we can't agree on a definition here, it probably isn't the right word. Here's a set of dictionary definitions for "obscure" (adj):

1. Deficient in light; dark.

2.a. So faintly perceptible as to lack clear delineation; indistinct. See synonyms at dark.

2.b. Indistinctly heard; faint.

2.c. Linguistics. Having the reduced, neutral sound represented by schwa (ə).

3.a. Far from centers of human population: an obscure village.

3.b. Out of sight; hidden: an obscure retreat.

4. Not readily noticed or seen; inconspicuous: an obscure flaw.

5. Of undistinguished or humble station or reputation: an obscure poet; an obscure family.

6. Not clearly understood or expressed; ambiguous or vague:

The only one of these definitions that would seem a good reason to exlude a source is the last. Unless anyone disagress, I suggest we change "obscure" to "ambiguous or vague". Or is there some other meaning of "obscure" that applies? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not the meaning I take from it. #5 is the closest and most relevant. - Crockspot 04:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we'd want to say that "humble" media sources are automatically unreliable. There are many instances above of well-run small newspapers. Perhaps we mean by "obscure" those sources which have so little reputation, good or bad, that their reliablity is hard to gauge? "Unknown reliability" is a problem but mostly for sources. For one thing, it's hard to tell by looking at a website whether a newspaper is a an old and trusted large circulation paper or a brand new scandal rag with little circulation. It's even hard to tell what's a newspaper versus a "webzine". Howevre by adding a criteria like this we're saying that links must affirmatively be reliable, not just presumptively so. That if we can't determine a site's reliability we must delete it. That is a very high threshold, suitable for sources but not for mere external links. We already ban large swaths of sites, such as forums, fansites, commercial links, blogs (with exceptions), etc. If we ban links of of unknown reliability that will enormously increase the scope for disputes about acceptable external links. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're working backwards by starting with the word and trying to get to the definition. Exactly which newspapers are we trying to exclude? If we figure it out we can choose the best word for it, and if there's no word for it we can use a phrase. The dictionary definition above isn't a good one. Obscure is used in he sense of a newspaper being relatively unknown and hard to find, out of sight, something you have to hunt to find. I don't think that's the right word to use unless we say that obscure is relative to the subject matter, i.e. if the subject of the biography is a fisherman from the backwoods of Vermont, a Vermont fishing paper is not considered obscure with respect to him...but a business journal from Lincoln, Nebraska is. Conversely, if the article is about a Lincoln, Nebraska banker the Lincoln business paper is fine but the Vermont fishing paper is not. But isn't partisanship a bigger issue here too? Also, why single out newspapers for a special rule? I'm not arguing any position here, just trying to clarify some thoughts. Wikidemo 04:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) 1. Someone please tell me if this is NOT correct: The intent behind the "obscure newspapers" inclusion is an effort to create a higher standard of reliable sources than we have at WP:Reliable sources.

2. If so, why is the "reliable source" standard not enough? I'm sorry if this has been covered before (just point me to the spot and I'll read it). If the intent is merely to ensure that sources of negative information for living persons are reliable, we don't need to duplicate the standard we already have. Is there some incident we don't want repeated that this policy discussion stemmed from?

3. Jossi says (03:03) "obscure newspapers" is a judgment that editors can easily make, but Wikidemo in the post just above brings up points and examples that describe some of the predictable arguments. It seems to me it would be better for future editors to be arguing over the reliability of the source rather than its obscurity.

4. Wikipedia editors from the U.S. and perhaps elsewhere I think can agree with this description: In the vast, vast majority of small dailies and weeklies, anything seriously wrong with a report gets corrected, usually within a short time. If the report is on an important enough subject, the information is often published correctly in some other periodical, often a competing one, although a newspaper will seldom actually state that even a competitor was wrong (they might say "contrary to reports"). Errors are certainly made in small publications, especially in small dailies and weeklies, but they do strive to get it right, editors work with reporters to get it right, and they correct themselves. Even if this doesn't apply in other countries, it still seems more productive that editors argue the reliability of a particular source rather than disallow whole categories of sources, even about negative information.

5. BLP policy, I think, has three motivations: to simply be fair and accurate, to avoid libel suits, and to avoid embarassing Wikipedia. This applies to all established newspapers, large and small, obscure and not obscure. They want the same things and can generally be relied upon to provide them. Noroton 17:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC) (slight addition Noroton 17:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Earlier (now in archive 14) I had suggested that both "partisan websites" and "obscure newspapers" seemed to relate to unreliable and unverifiable sites/sources; I agree with Noroton (above and in archive 14 comments) that what seems intended is to cite only "reliable and verifiable" websites and newspapers as sources of "material about living persons" in Wikipedia. Given that linking is possible to Wikipedia:Verifiability; cf. Wikipedia:Reliable sources via WP:Attribution. E.g., Editors need to "attribute" "material about living persons" to "reliable and verifiable" sources and websites. By definition, if a particular "partisan website" is not both "reliable and verifiable" as a source of information for "material about living persons" (whether in BLPs or elsewhere), editors should not link to that website in a biography of a living person or in material about a living person in other Wikipedia space. That seems to be the intention of WP:V (core policy) as it pertains to WP:BLP. Similarly, if a "newspaper" (either a printed-only source or an online-only site for the newspaper or both versions) is not both reliable and verifiable, one cannot "attribute" such information about living persons (in BLPs or other Wikipedia space) to that newspaper as a source of formation about the living person. I don't think that "obscure" is relevant to the intention here. I think that reliability and verifiability of such sources and websites are. Again, unlike some others, I regard websites linked in Wikipedia as sources of information that editors are sending readers to consult. These sites of information need to be just as reliable and verifiable as other sources of information that Wikipedia directs readers to in both notes citations and various kinds of references. I have said before that, in Wikipedia articles, and often in biographies of living persons throughout Wikipedia when there are no Notes sections and no References sections, "External links" sections are the only kinds of "references" ("sources") being provided. If those links do not meet Wikipedia policy standards as linked to in WP:Attribution, they are links of questionable dubious value (not "high quality" sites or links to "high quality" sites as Wikipedia itself defines "high quality" (in W:V). --NYScholar 23:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That language is clear and understandable. I think it's a big improvement over "obscure" and "partisan". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

done

This page is 289 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance. Seriously, no-one is going to read 289 KB. could someone please update the BOT's script, because that was no archive just now, Mizabot. (Not the BOT's fault.) Newbyguesses - Talk 08:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a problem with the bot blanking the entire page: see [1]. Thanks. This page is so long that it could be split into three archive pages. --NYScholar 21:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be a great idea if someone involved with the long discussion could summarize the main points. Noroton 17:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I really do not like that suggestion [about "someone involved with the long discussion" summarizing it] very much. People involved in the discussion have very distinct points of view on it and every time a summary is attempted, it seems to misstate what some people have said. I appreciate the spirit in which you ask for this summary, but, if archived (since archived pages of article talk archives are not to be edited further), the table of contents serves as a summary of the contents of an archived discussion. If the pages are broken up chronologically into equal parts, one should be able to find what what needs via the table of contents of each archive page. (?) Again, see my comment above: the bot created blanking of the page the last time it malfunctioned (archive 10). --NYScholar 21:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've created three more archive pages which approximately 1/3 of this current page can be archived (moved) intact. I do not think that these parts should be further re-factored. --NYScholar 21:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[Please see the note added to #External links above; the material there is now in Archive 11. Thanks. --NYScholar 21:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

[Please see the note added to #Regarding the desire "to amend the page in reference to external links" above; the material there is now in Archive 12. Thanks. --NYScholar 21:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

[Please see the notes added to previous sections (above; see toc) that are now archived in Archives 13 and 14. Thank you. --NYScholar 22:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

Perhaps a summary could be attempted by someone who has not been involved in the discussion?! Otherwise, I suggest just consulting the table of contents of the archived talk pages for the topics discussed in them. Thanks again. --NYScholar 22:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are reasonable points about summarizing. Thanks for taking on the archiving chore. Noroton 04:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I object to archiving an active discussion. Let's just restore it . ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry: (editing conflict: note all my summaries that say "may take time"); I already did that. See above. --NYScholar 22:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive index

Please help to correct the archive index. I don't know how to do that. The bot that was doing that did not function properly earlier and had blanked the page: see link about that: [2]. Someone who can do so: Please correct whatever needs correcting in the script for the bot (which was malfunctioning earlier. Thanks. --NYScholar 22:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Once the "Archive index" is corrected, it could serve as a "summary" of the contents of the talk archive. --NYScholar 22:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Very minor typographical corrections

After archiving this talk page into separate talk page archive pages (as requested above), I have made what I consider very minor typographical corrections to the project page. I do not believe that any of them are contentious. If any are indeed problematic, please advise below. Thank you. --NYScholar 23:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Phrase added

In the sentence "These sites should also not be included as external links in BLPs or in material about living persons in other Wikipedia space." I added the phrase "or in material about living persons in other Wikipedia space." I believe that that is consistent with the statement of this policy that precedes and follows this sentence. It appears to have consensus. [I just added a "see above" cross-ref. instead; less controversial.] Note "These sites" refer to "partisan sites" and also to "obscure newspapers" (in intention); I do not think that is currently clear. It should use the phrase "These sites and these newspapers should also not be included as external links...." Frequently in Wikipedia the "newspaper" linked to is actually a URL for the printed version of the newspaper (not the printed version of the newspaper) and the online version is, therefore, also "a site"; this discrepancy needs correction if "partisan sites" and "obscure newspapers" both stay in the sentence preceding the one that I added the prhase "or in material about living persons in other Wikipedia space" to. While "or in material about living persons in other Wikipedia space" has been debated, "material about living persons" and "biographies of living persons" are both included in WP:BLP. I believe this matter still needs further scrutiny. --NYScholar 23:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Again: "BLP" is a plural term in this policy. It does not need rendering as "BLPs". --NYScholar 23:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have changed "BLPs" to "biographies of living persons" for clarity in the sentence. --NYScholar 23:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that those most likely to need to consult this policy are newcomers (new editors) to Wikipedia, and, for them, the use of "BLPs" in a sentence when "BLP" stands actually for "Biographies of living persons" can be confusing. --NYScholar 23:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, for the sake of clarity, I have made some very minor syntactical changes to the sentences (sentence structure; active voice of verbs); the passive-voice constructions are not only unnecessarily wordy and unwieldy (throughout this project page), but they are less clear than active-voice constructions would be. Each time the agent of the action is submerged in a passive-voice construction, the sentence is less clear about who is supposed to be doing what. I suggest (again) that the project page be rewritten identifying the agents of actions ("editors" usually) and using active-voice verb constructions. Passive constructions are means of hiding the relationship between the agent and the action. (This is just an editorial observation about syntax [sentence construction]).) At the very least, project pages defining policies require the clearest expression possible. (Throughout Wikipedia.) --NYScholar 00:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

These very minor changes that I have recently made are simply examples of further changes that other editors could make to this and other project pages in Wikipedia. I have to log out to do other non-Wikipedia work.--NYScholar 00:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I Support the version in its current form as edited by NYScholar with the following caveats. (1) Saying external links must follow all policies of Wikipedia does not change the status of external links as described in current WP:EL guidelines. If people believe the statement overturns WP:EL it may need to be clarified. (2) I made a change to the "partisan websites and obscure newspapers" sentence so that it applies exactly the same to material in the article and material pointed to by external link. This clarifies some possible confusion and smooths oer an anomaly I myself introduced a few days ago with the phrase "these sites" that could be taken to impose a higher standard for external links than article content. (3) I would support the language with or without certain of the changes, i.e, they are harmless in my opinion. (4) The phrase "partisan websites and obscure newspapers" could use some more thought. We can talk about that later / separately. Wikidemo 05:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I had been editing for over an hour and made a lot of very minor syntactical changes; I've tried to incorporate your change after the editing conflict that I encountered. Please examine it and see if it does what you intended. Thanks. --NYScholar 05:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In making the previous changes that Wikidemo refers to above, I noticed that linking to the official policies page is useful because it links directly to copyright policies, which do pertain to website linking in "External links" sections and in "external links" otherwise in Wikipedia space. So I think it's useful to have the page to consult via the link that I added to it. (That is only one of several reasons to link to it. Newcomers to Wikipedia are probably not even aware that the page exists.) --NYScholar 06:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, lots of copyediting. 90% is for the better and overall it is a significant improvement in the language (in my opinion) so I won't quibble. Other than re-introducing the change I mentioned above (which we can discuss if necessary), I made two others. First is self-explanatory, changing the admonition about being "cautious" to apply as before to the editor's actions in writing articles rather than the articles themselves, because a "cautious" article could be interpreted as an instruction to use weak or circumspect language. Second, the new version had told article subjects who felt the article is unfair to state their objections, in writing, to wikipedia, citing the BLP rules. Although that would indeed be ideal, people who find inappropriate material about themselves in an article may not be experienced editors or not wikipedians at all. I don't think we should be stern in telling them what procedures to follow. Within reason we should listen to any complaint they have in any form or forum they make it. Also, I'm not sure BLP is the place where we tell them what to do. Perhaps there is some of this in the COI, welcome pages, etc. I hope everyone else is fine with this...you have to cross your fingers when making stylistic improvements so close in time to a dispute over substance, because the two can spill over into one another.Wikidemo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 06:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please slow down

Your contributions and desire to improve this page are most welcome, but please be mindful that is is an official policy of Wikipedia, and that changes, even syntactical ones, may have implications beyond the good faith intentions you may have. If you want to make so many changes, please be patient, make a few changes at a time, see if they stick and if they do after a few days, do some more. Thank you for your understanding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi: I didn't realize that you had changed something that I had edited. I thought I had forgotten to save it correctly. I did not actually intend to "revert" your change. I will, as you suggest "slow down"; I am actually logging out (finally). So I will leave the changes for you and others to absorb. Did not intend to step on your or others' toes here. --NYScholar 13:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I support these edits that were reverted by Jossi. I agree that it's possible to go too fast, but all of these edits look like improvements to me so I propose that we restore them.

I am not so sure about the only edit by NYScholar left standing though, and have reverted the part that seemed problematic to me. Avb 14:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I may support these edits, but these are way too many in a way too short period of time. Make a few changes, see if they stick and then do another batch. That will give me and other editors the chance to evaluate the edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am one of "the other editors" -- those weren't my edits, I just reviewed them and accepted them as straightforward, uncontroversial, beneficial changes (with the exception of the last edit). Avb 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we list the edits that folks don't agree with? The problems with "partisan websites and obscure newspapers" have been discussed for a while and a good solution was proposed. Is there another possible solution? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Which good solution? There were so many proposals. Not that copy editing this page is the most important thing going on at the moment but it doesn't hurt, so why not just post the changes up one paragraph or section at a time in some orderly way, and when we're done move on to the next? There's some added complication in mixing copy-edit discussions (which don't require the same thing by way of consensus) and proposed changes to the actual policy. Wikidemo 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Privacy of names

I've changed this section to read as follows:

Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger.

In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, but this is not a licence to drag a private individual's name into the wiki.

I've performed the following removal:

private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic -> private, living individuals

Obviously if we can write a good article without naming a private individual we should do so. That's what the word privacy means: that you don't expect to find your name dropped into an encyclopedia article without very good reason.

In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. -> In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, but this is not a licence to drag a private individual's name into the wiki.

Equally obviously, we don't want to fuss around and drag a private individual's name into discussion simply because there is dispute on whether to use it. The discussion can take place without naming the individual. --Tony Sidaway

Although I support the intent of your edit (to avoid naming private individuals when it's not necessary to do so), I disagree with your changes. Your first change removes an important clarification that gives guidance on when it is appropriate or inappropriate to mention a private individual (i.e. if the individual is not directly involved with the article's topic, don't mention him/her). Your second edit imposes a rather awkard constraint on talk page discussions. It seems to imply that, instead of writing, "X said ..." we must write, "The subject of this dispute regarding inclusion of a private name said ..." or "The individual who brought forth accusations of misconduct also stated ..." or something similar. One problem is that this shuts out participation from anyone that is not familiar with the origins of the dispute. More generally, however, a coherent discussion is virtually impossible without identifying the subject of the dispute. I realise that there are certain cases where a discussion can be held without naming anyone, but I don't think that this can be codified as a general policy. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony, trying to change a policy page to get the upper hand in a content dispute does not fill me with trust for you. -- Ned Scott 02:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ned Scott, this is definitely not an honorable action. That said, I think this policy should basically state that if the name could be easily found by a search for the subject on a search engine, there really shouldn't be reason to exclude it. Censoring the encyclopedia to protect something that is already public knowledge seems rather pointless. -Nathan J. Yoder 06:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Material about living persons available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers"

"Partisan websites or obscure newspapers"

OK, so that phrase is back in, despite the objections of enough editors on this page that it seems clear that it's not supported by consensus. The arguments have been made several times, but the short version is that "partisan" and "obscure" aren't defined, and are thus open to debate; also, what may be "obscure" with regard to one subject may be authoritative with regard to another.

So, let's talk about alternative ways to express what "partisan websites or obscure newspapers" is getting at.

I had proposed replacing the offending phrase with "questionable sources", since that's defined at WP:V#Questionable sources. NYScholar has a helpful discussion of the subject above, and if I'm reading him correctly seems to suggest "sources of questionable or dubious value". I think "questionable" and "dubious" are redundant, and we don't need both. How would people feel about changing the sentence so that it reads:

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.

Howzat? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems better. Less questionable. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Dubious value" refers to other language in WP:V referred to in WP:BLP: WP:BLP#Reliable sources: "high-quality sources"; sources of "high quality" elsewhere; websites of "high quality"; those not of "high quality" are "dubious" ["of dubious value"] or "questionable" (synonyms). --NYScholar 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC) [expl. in brackets. --NYScholar 18:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)]

Synonyms are not necessarily "redundancies"; they are useful for emphasis; espec. if new editors might be prone to misinterpretation of Wikipedia terminology such as "reliable" and "verifiable" sources and "high quality websites". --NYScholar 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Questionable sources" (unreliable and unverifiable sources) links to WP:V:WP:V#Sources: WP:V#Questionable sources; "questionable websites" refers to "websites" that are not of "high quality" and are, therefore, "questionable" (not reliable and/or not verifiable) and of thus "dubious value". That is the intention of "of dubious value" as it pertains to websites. "Newspapers" are both "sources" and "websites" (URL) in Wikipedia. "Websites" are linked via URLs. But a newspaper can be either a "printed" source ("printed" version, "print" version) or a website, or both (both versions). --NYScholar 19:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The original phrase ("Material ....") refers to "websites" in "partisan websites"--that phrase includes links to "websites" everywhere, not just as "sources" in "Notes" and/or "References" list. See the archived discussion pages for contentious debate about the distinctions between "websites" and "sources"; I am for the "Material about living persons" phrase pertaining to all such "sources" (in my view): encompassing both printed sources and internet sources ("websites"). If the Wikipedia article documents "material about living persons" via links to "websites", then "such sites" must not violate WP:V. That is my viewpoint on this matter. In stating it (here and earlier archived comments), I point out that linking to a website in Wikipedia is linking to the site as a potential source of information for readers to consult; the link serves as a "recommendation" to readers; any such "recommendations" sending readers to "sources" of information ("Material about living persons") must be in keeping with Wikipedia's core policies, which include WP:V. --NYScholar 19:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

One should not lose sight of the fact that this sentence appears in a section of WP:BLP entitled "Reliable sources" (WP:BLP#Reliable sources); in that context (the section), the word "websites" is clearly intended as a kind of "source". (current language of the policy). --NYScholar 19:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There must be a better way to define explicitly as well as to link to what Wikipedia considers "reliable and verifiable sources" for "material about living persons" as the phrase "reliable and verifiable sources" pertains to both printed sources and to internet sources (those that appear in or on or as "websites"). --NYScholar 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be better if the sentence did not appear at all? If one wants editors to use and to refer to only "reliable and verifiable sources" (including "websites") for "material about living persons", one needs to state that in the positive (not in the negative). (?) --NYScholar 19:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to wade through all that verbiage, but am guessing that NYScholar doesn't like shortening from q&d to merely q. Let's try q&d, then, that's at least better than "obscure". --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are quite capable of reading "all that verbiage"; I took the time to write it to respond here, and I would appreciate it if you would read it. I read your comments and I don't characterize them in any way. Please see: WP:CIVIL. Thanks. --NYScholar 19:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't "guess" about what I am saying; I stated what I mean, and to see what I mean, one does need actually to read it. Please don't just "guess" and then restate what I said. What I said responded to the questions posed in this entire section. --NYScholar 19:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm slightly confused about what you're saying concerning the "source/website" distinction. At times it looks as if you're arguing both sides of the question. Are you saying that "sources" is or is not the right term to use in this context? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that is is quite an simple distinction: a website can be a source for a claim made in an article about a BLP, providing that the website is notable, accurate, reliable, not self-published by a third party, etc. as per WP:V#Sources. External links sections in most articles have a somewhat lesser burden for reliability, but in BLPs we have tightened the threshold for inclusion so that there is no such a lessening of standards for EL sections as in other articles, as per the spirit of this policy:Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Solely

(edit conflict) Earlier I also questioned "solely" as unverifiable and requiring "original research" (WP:NOR); I believe it violates WP:NOR. Why is "solely" necessary or helpful or in keeping with WP:NOR? Material about living persons in biographies of living persons and material about living persons in other space in Wikipedia must not come from "questionable" (or, in other words, "unreliable and unverifiable") sources or websites. Period. If it does, instructions already exist to "remove" it "on sight". That has always been clear to us and the policy project needs to make that crystal clear (I think). It must not mince words and "beat about the bush" about this matter. WP:V is core policy in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 18:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, can we please do one thing at a time? Otherwise we risk not getting anywhere. How do you feel about replacing "partisan and obscure" with "questionable"? [split comment from --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC) (as signed below)]

I already responded to that. I moved the part of my comment back to where I had originally placed it before AnonEMouse refactored it. --NYScholar 19:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Solely" is a different issue, and I can understand why "solely" might make a difference; if information that the President of the United States is having an affair with an intern is available "solely" on a partisan blog, that's one thing, if that information gets checked and reported by the New York Times, that's something entirely different, and referring to the fact is was first reported on the blog becomes highly relevant. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that in order to determine whether or not information is "solely" on a blog or in another "questionable" source or website, one needs to do "original research", which violates WP:NOR. This is related to the matter discussed above because the sentence contains "solely" as well as "partisan websites" and "obscure newspapers": it's all one sentence. The features of the whole sentence need this further scrutiny. "Solely" is an adverb modifying the inclusion of everything after it: the modifiers of both "websites" and "newspapers" ("partisan" and "obscure"). It actually further limits their usage in that sentence. These are points relating to the grammar and syntax and meaning of the words in the sentence. --NYScholar 19:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "policy creep" led to this sentence earlier in the history of this project page's revisions? Perhaps one can find where and when in the editing history (and archived discussion about it)?

Example of the positive: "Editors must document material about living persons in Wikipedia with citations to reliable and verifiable high quality sources."

Sources that are "websites" are defined in W:V#Sources. (The sections of WP:BLP already relating to "external links" (including all such links, as well as those in "External links" sections) already define that matter and include a link to WP:EL guidelines. What is the "policy" in WP:BLP pertaining to "websites" presented as "sources" of "Material about living persons" in Wikipedia (whether it be through notes citations, references lists, or "External links" sections of articles or elsewhere in Wikipedia "space"? (The key question). --NYScholar 19:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

AnonEmouse's edit does the job. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, though I'll note that "questionable" (even as defined) and "dubious" are even looser in definition that "obscure." However, the looseness encourages people to take a common sense approach to figuring out what sources are dubious or lack editorial oversight, which is okay. I've reinstated the clarification I've added before that seemed to get lost in the wide-scale reverts. If anyone doesn't see why I can explain why the clarification is helpful. Wikidemo 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I simply referred the reader to the previous section on "External links"; those additions to the sentence were confusing the intention of WP:BLP. [That is: WP:BLP#Reliable sources.] --NYScholar 23:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Reliable sources"

As per the very title of the section of WP:BLP#Reliable sources, this whole subsection deals with "sources". --NYScholar 23:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Revised sentence

I think that the following sentence solves the problems previously discussed: "Material about living persons from questionable sources of dubious value should be handled with caution; if derogatory, such material should not be included at all in biographies of living people." --NYScholar 23:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That sentence pertains to all "sources" of "material about living persons", which includes websites accessed by way of "external links"; I do not think it is necessary to add the cross reference since WP:BLP#External links already is clear (I hope). --NYScholar 23:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

External links (again!)

If others still think that a cross-reference to WP:BLP#External links is necessary, please state that here and explain why for further discussion. Thank you. --NYScholar 23:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As we've discussed at length, an external link is not the same thing as a source. A statement that external links have to follow Wikipedia policies is redundant but harmless. A statement that material outside of wikipedia, reached by external link, is treated the same as material in Wikipedia articles, is problematic and not policy. If the revised language is an end run around that distinction, or if people interpret it as such, we will have to clarify. Wikidemo 23:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The section that you keep bringing "external links" into is called WP:BLP#Reliable sources. That is its title. The phrase "including as an external link" was one that you and others kept deleting from it. Now "external links" have a subsection devoted to them in the "Writing" part above the "reliable sources" section. That subsection clearly links to policies and guidelines that pertain to "external links" in Wikipedia in relation to this project policy page which is on "biographies of living persons", including "material about living persons" in Wikipedia space. It is a policy page. If you want to propose a policy page for "external links", doing so is another matter (a separate "proposal"). Currently, there are only "guidelines" pertaining to "external links" (viz. WP:EL). --NYScholar 01:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole section that "Reliable sources" is a subsection of is called "Sources" (WP:BLP#Sources); it is policy. Websites are mentioned in the third sentence:

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) [active link to "see below" in the page].

That is a policy statement too. WP:EL is guidelines pertaining to "external links" in Wikipedia; these policy statements pertain to "websites" and "external links" [to "sources"] in biographies of living persons (BLP) and in "material about living persons" in Wikipedia space. See Jossi's earlier replies, with which I agree. --NYScholar 01:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that this insistence on changing WP:BLP to accommodate "external links" that it does not currently accommodate is a matter for a formal proposal, not a talk page. --NYScholar 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your repetitive comments on this have gotten so numerous it is hard to even follow what you are saying now, but once again this is the BLP page. You can't ignore policy, or the rest of the encyclopedia just to have your own view accepted. External links are not sources. The guideline for external links in general are covered elsewhere. Here we just need to include that like in the body text, external links should not link to unreliable or inflamatory material. That is the end of the scope of this article regarding the external links section. If you want to eliminate the distinction between external links and sources, propose that elsewhere, please don't make this talk page unreadable again by going on about it here. 2005 01:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL: "That's not what I've been doing" either: If you do not agree with something, don't label it "repetitive"; my points are not more "repetitive" than anyone else's. I repeat them because you and others just don't seem to understand the point: WP:BLP is a "policy" page and not a "guidelines" page for external links. If you want to (re)define guidelines for external links, Wikipedia talk:External links regarding WP:EL is the place for doing that, not this talk page. --NYScholar 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reminding an editor to keep comments brief and few is not a civility matter, nor is pointing out that they are repetitive, wrong, or make no sense.Wikidemo 01:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's [bringing external links into the sources section] not what I've been doing and I can't make heads or tales of the statements above, but again, if this is an attempt to assert that content accessed by external link to pages outside of Wikipedia is treated the same as content on Wikipedia pages, that's wrong and we'll have to clarify. Reliable sources, verifiability, and citations pertain to material on Wikipedia articles and how it is supported; external links are for external links. Wikidemo 01:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read Jossi's previous comments to you (throughout)--in them, Jossi continually points out that this policy page pertains to "biographies of living persons" and the "material about living persons" in Wikipedia. It is policy. If you want to change the policy itself, you really do need to go to a proposal procedure in Wikipedia. The point of a policy page is that it is to be clear, not subject to "interpretations" of "intention" of people writing about it on talk pages. The policy is the policy as stated. It needs clarity. If you think it unclear still, then, by all means, continue discussing it, but you cannot keep trying to change the policy project page to make statements that violate core policies in Wikipedia. Again, policy statements are about policy; guidelines are just guidelines. There are differences between the status of a "policy" and a "guideline" in Wikipedia. I do not understand your continuing problems with the current versions (or the past ones that you reverted). If you "can't make heads or tales of the statements above," then I do not understand why you can't. --NYScholar 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, please try to keep in mind the subject matter of the section called "Sources" in WP:BLP#Sources: it is "sources", as it states. --NYScholar 01:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No. What I don't understand are some odd non-sequiturs like the sentence immediately above. References to what I am supposed to read, pay attention to, and what another editor supposedly told me aside, you have been making the strange claim for several weeks now that external links and sources are the same thing, and trying to engineer changes in the language to back up your point. That's not policy. If anyone tries to make it policy via this page it won't work, and if anyone claims that the reference on this page that external links must follow wikipedia policies creates such a policy we'll have to change this page to make clear that is not what it's doing. Wikidemo 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please adhere to WP:CIVIL: I have not been doing what you keep saying that I am doing; not in my view of my own statements. Please stop accusing me of these things; the section that you keep having trouble understanding is called and about Sources; no non-sequitur here at all: I'm pointing you to the subject of this section/discussion about this section, which it appears to me you and others keep losing sight of through this persistence on talking about guidelines for external links (WP:EL). The persistence is not mine, but yours. --NYScholar 01:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop giving false civility warnings. It's tiresome and inappropriate. Wikidemo 02:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it possible that a better place to put a cross-ref like "Regarding external links, see above" would be in the sentence linked via "see below": "A blog or personal website self-published by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section if not used as a source in the article." At the end of it, one could add a cross-ref. like [quoting as an example:]

Further information: WP:BLP § External links

.

Active voice

As I have stated earlier, I think that active voice would be clearer than the currently passive voice constructions. Also, I think statement in the positive is better than a negative construction. Instead of saying what not to do, one could more clearly state what to do. People come to this policy project page for instructions to follow (what to do); the "should not be done" construction is hiding what to do in both a negative and a passive voice construction, making it harder for a reader to know what to do. --NYScholar 23:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reincarnation

So, OK, maybe this is silly, I dunno. But do we apply BLP rules to articles about previous incarnations of living people? In some cases, I can see, maybe, how the current Dalai Lama could object to really negative content regarding one of his earlier incarnations being added. I don't imagine that this will be a situation that arises very often, but I guess it could happen. John Carter 21:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I could not help it but smile... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto: and I needed to. ... --NYScholar 01:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it may be a good idea to leave the page for a while, NYScholar. You will get a fresh pair of eyes in a day or two. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Most recent revert: "Stable?"

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate section. No further edits should be made to this section.

I must object before logging out of Wikipedia to Jossi's reverting to Wikidemo's very recent version. It was not a "stable version," and I object to reverting to it. If reverting, then it would make more sense to revert to an actually-"more stable" version (if you can find one). I don't know what makes that very recent version any more "stable" than previous ones (including your own previous reversions (it's not been there long enough to be called "stable" or even to have any "consensus"). Please re-consider that reversion. It includes a phrase misplaced "dubious sources": I meant (when I used the word dubious) "sources of dubious value" and that is what my own change indicates. Please scroll back to some of Jossi's earlier reverted versions to see if another one is more "stable." Thanks. --NYScholar 01:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: "dubious source" makes no sense; look up the word dubious (it means "doubtful" or cause for doubt; I meant that the "value" is "dubious" (to be doubted); what I intended in the phrase is "questionable sources or sources of dubious value" (which I believe pertains to the kinds of external links already ruled out by the rest of WP:BLP#Sources (very clearly); see WP:BLP#External links. Jossi: you yourself have pointed that out in earlier comments. I see no value in leaving an unclearly- or mistakenly-defined policy statement in as important a policy as WP:BLP#Reliable sources. To do so will lead new editors astray. --NYScholar 02:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"of dubious value"

[added subheading. --NYScholar 07:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)]

Since we're quibbling over the word "dubious", I'll ask once again whether "dubious" or "of dubious value" adds anything that isn't already covered by "questionable sources", with the link. I still think that using both "dubious" and "questionable" is redundant. NYScholar said a great deal earlier on this subject, but frankly I can't understand the argument he was making. Can anyone illuminate what "dubious" adds? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment, since it was I who suggested "dubious" in the first place: I was saying that "questionable sources" and sites of "dubious value" (since the sentence included then "partisan websites" and "obscure newspapers") seemed to cover the bases (both "sources" and "websites"), as was originally intended by "Material ...." (By the bye, it is interesting that so many people assume that a "scholar" must be a man; scholars are both genders.) --NYScholar 05:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for making an assumption about your gender, NYScholar. What pronoun do you prefer? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia when I do not know the gender of a person from a name, I use "he or she" or "she or he" or "s/he", "her/his", "his/her", etc. I have no preference other than not to be assumed that "he" or "his" applies to a screen name that is gender neutral ("NYScholar"). :-) Thanks for asking. --NYScholar 06:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia itself, "dubious" resolves to Wikipedia:Disputed statement. In that sense, a source and/or a website of "dubious value" is one that is of "disputed" (doubted) value. Those doubting its value are full of doubt: "doubtful." --NYScholar 05:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [Scroll down for the examples of the template "dubious"; thanks. --NYScholar 05:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)]

I understand the problem with saying "dubious sources" as opposed to "sources of dubious value". (The policy isn't talking about sources which are themselves uncertain, but sources whose value or reliability is uncertain.) That said, I think that "questionable sources" covers both "sources" and "websites" as well as "sources of dubious value" does. Furthermore, saying "questionable sources or sources of dubious value" really sounds to me like it was written by the Department of Redundancy Department. If a source is questionable, its value is dubious; both phrases mean that a reader may question or doubt the source's worth. Why do we need to say it twice? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think that "partisan websites" are "sources" and covered by "questionable sources" (which means that a link to a website (an external link) is a "source," then I follow your reasoning. Unfortunately, not everyone commenting on this matter agrees that a "website" is a "source" and an external link to it links to a "source" covered by WP:BLP#Reliable sources. That's the crux of this need for "of dubious value" (I think). To me it is not redundant; it is emphasis on an important point that gets lost when "partisan websites" has been deleted along with "obscure newspapers" (both of which are, in my view, "sources"), whether print or on the internet (and hence linked to via "external links"). --NYScholar 06:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [Please keep in mind that I do not approve the current wording "via"; I approve of "as" there. --NYScholar 06:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)] [To simplify the matter and for greater clarity earlier, I had recommended deletion of the entire phrase "either ... or" that Wikidemo added there. It is both unnecessary and redundant. --NYScholar 06:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)]

OK, so if I'm understanding your argument correctly you would prefer that the sentence read thus:

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or external links.

Perhaps I'm being thick, but I don't see how "sources of dubious value" covers "partisan websites" any more or less than "questionable sources" does. It seems to me that the use of partisan websites either as inline sources or in an external links section is either equally covered by both phrases, or covered by neither. (Whether links in an "external links" section are to be regarded as "sources" is apparently a matter on which there is not yet consensus, so the policy shouldn't force an interpretation either way; however, that question really isn't relevant to the matter of whether "sources of dubious value" adds anything that "questionable sources" doesn't already imply.)

I apologize if I'm just not getting your point. We may be talking past each other, in which case perhaps another editor can clarify what we're each missing? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns here. (It is difficult to express a point clearly when being asked not to comment at all or to comment less frequently or to comment more briefly, etc.) I believe that whoever inserted "partisan websites" and "obscure newspapers" in the first place did so because these are both "questionable sources" of "material about living persons" (hence, possibly neither "reliable" nor "verifiable" sources) and/or because these (websites and newspapers) are of (what I'm terming) "dubious value"; to label them either "partisan" (pertaining to the "websites") and/or "obscure" (pertaining to "newspapers"--which could be printed or internet websites)--"of dubious value"-- present different kinds of judgments about them: "questionable" relates to judgments about these sources' "reliability" and/or "verifiability"; "dubious value" relates to whether or not editors deem these sources "notable" (important) enough to cite in Wikipedia as sources of information ("material about") living persons in biographies of living persons and other space in Wikipedia. I hope that this explanation helps. As for the sentence that you quote: it is better (in my view) than the current sentences in the paragraph (in the version reverted to by Jossi), but (1) a second "as" isboth grammatically and syntactically necessary ("either as ... or as ..."), and (2) I think the sentence could be clearer still:

Thus, re: "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or external links." But I would still prefer active voice construction and no "solely"; see proposed changes (which include changing "solely" to "only":

Instead, I propose: "Editors should be cautious in considering whether or not to include in Wikipedia material about living persons that they find only in questionable sources or sources of dubious value; if the material about living persons from such sources is derogatory, they should not use this material or these sources at all in biographies of living persons or elsewhere in Wikipedia." --NYScholar 06:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC) [As I said earlier, I don't think that the phrase "either as sources or as external links" is necessary, and I have deleted it from this example that I propose. I've already suggested a more pertinent place to put the cross-ref to WP:BLP#External links. Please scroll up to that earlier point. Thanks. --NYScholar 07:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)]

"of dubious value" requires relates to making a judgment pertaining to the "high quality" and "notability" of "sources" (including in the "External links" cross-ref. and in W:V, as stated in the rest of WP:BLP). Doing so (making such a judgment about the "quality" of "sources"--their "value") differs from making a judgment about the "reliability" and/or "verifiability" of a "source" [including "websites"]. --NYScholar 06:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC) [corrs. --NYScholar 07:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)] [tc --NYScholar 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)]

"Questionable sources" are those whose reliability and/or verifiability are "questionable" (subject to challenge) [e.g., "partisan websites" in earlier lang. of sent.); sources that are "of dubious value" (not "dubious sources") are sources whose "value" is subject to "dispute" or "disputed" (e.g., "obscure newspapers" in earlier langu. of sent.). To cover the previous use of "partisan websites" and "obscure newspapers", I am suggesting to use "questionable sources or sources of dubious value" as a phrase instead (scroll up to topic heading with the original phrase is "#"Material about living persons available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers". Thanks. --NYScholar 19:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear what "they should not use this material or these sources" means. Any prohibition claims it applies to sources but does not claim it applies to external links, simply applies to sources and not external links (except to the extent they are used, against citation guidelines, as sources). A rule that sourcing requirements must be followed for external links has the same effect. Saying that external links have to follow policy generally is just a redundancy; everything has to follow policy. If you mean for a particular rule to apply to external links as such and not just sources, you have to be explicit or else the statement is unclear. Saying a rule applies to use of material does not clearly translate to external links. External links do not use material, they point to a website. To avoid being vague it is best to say if a rule about the external link concerns something about the site itself (who owns it, what it is, its point of view, etc), versus whether the rule concerns the content one finds at the end of the link. Dubious value is a characteristic you could apply to the content on a site, but not the site itself. Partisanship could apply to both. Reliability and verifiability don't apply well to external sites unless you identify what it is about the content on the site that is in question or needs to be verified. If an external link lands on a page with two photographs of a sculpture, what is to question or verify? Perhaps only that the artist is who the website says it is.Wikidemo 20:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The section that the language is in is called "Sources"; it is about "sources"; why do you keep asking about "external links" re: this matter? How many times do I and others have to point out that the statements in WP:BLP#Reliable sources pertain to "sources" used in both "biographies of living persons" and "material about living persons" in Wikipedia[?] The policy has stated that long, long before you or I entered this discussion; Wikipedia:Reliable sources links to WP:BLP#Reliable sources (to its earlier language). --NYScholar 21:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That is rude, and bizarre. Am I supposed to ignore this kind of bickering? Headings do not make policy, and I am not the one who put the statement about external links in that section. In fact, you are the one who has been trying to bring a ban on various external links into the section. You can say it a million times, subject to civility concerns of course, and you will still be wrong. Kindly stop scolding me.Wikidemo 22:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The antecedent (referent) for "they" in "they should not" is "Editors" in the sentence. --NYScholar 22:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The "content guideline" in Wikipedia:Reliable sources states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. This page is a guideline, not a policy: The relevant policies on sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, and additional restrictions in biographies of living people." Later in that page (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biographies of living persons) [see recent editing history there], it links to WP:BLP#Reliable sources. This "content guideline" is also about "sources". --NYScholar 22:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it used to link to WP:BLP#Reliable sources [just a couple of days ago]; now it links to [the main section of the BLP project page]: WP:BLP#Sources: see the editing history [<*I am referring to the editing history in Wikipedia:Reliable sources!*[3]>] for all the recent editing changes by Jossi and others in the past few days. Thanks. --NYScholar 22:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC) [rethreaded; brackets added. --NYScholar 22:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)][added clarification w/ link to editing history that I was referring to. --NYScholar 23:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)]

That's just bizarre. You're scolding me on something that you've been contentiously trying to do for — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

As far as the (repeated) claim that "it is not clear" what "sources" refers to in the statements in WP:BLP#Sources: it is (or should be) clear to everyone that the term "sources" refers to the policy for sources stated in WP:V#Sources. The policy is cross-linked at the beginning of every content guideline page and at the beginning of other policy pages like WP:BLP. It is core policy in Wikipedia governing "sources." WP:EL is a content guideline based on core policies in Wikipedia and restricted by WP:BLP (as many, many people have been saying for weeks and months and as WP:Reliable sources states too). If one wants to change core policies in Wikipedia, one has to go through a formal proposal process to do so (according to WP:Policies and guidelines). --NYScholar 22:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

By proposing "WP:V#Questionable sources or sources of dubious value" (scroll up for earlier links to "dubious" and "disputed" in earlier discussion)--all I mean to do in proposing this phrase is to propose it as a more general umbrella phrase for the previous language "partisan websites" and "obscure newspapers"; that is all. The statement is clear. A policy statement must be clear. It is not necessary to debate "what it means" or who intended what in it, if the statement is clear. I think that, with proper Wikipedia linkage the phrase "questionable sources or sources of dubious value" is clear. "Dubious" in Wikipedia means "disputed." [As in Wikipedia:Disputed statement; a statement "of dubious value" is one that people dispute (that is "disputed" by them).] --NYScholar 22:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC) [added link in brackets. --NYScholar 22:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)]

My thinking is that "obscure newspapers" are those whose "value" some editors (and/or readers) would "doubt" or "dispute" (hence, they are "of dubious value" to these editors (and/or readers) and thus "of dubious value" in and for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia which aims to communicate reliable and verifiable and notable information, especially about living persons (the subject of this policy project page). That is all I mean. (The section is about "sources" and is clearly about "sources"; "external links" have a separate section now (WP:BLP#External links. The separate section came about because people deleted "including as an external link" from earlier versions of this policy project page, leading to extensive debate (see archived discussions). --NYScholar 22:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's make this short. If you want to ban a particular kind of external link you have to say you are banning that particular kind of external link. A restriction on sources restricts sources, not links. Your proposed language affects sources, but not external links. That is fine by me, but some people here, including you, were earlier arguing (and reverting) for specific restriction on external links as well. The section you added on external links broadly says they have to be of "high quality" but the further statement that they must comply with all Wikipedia policies does not limit them because it goes without saying that everything on Wikipedia must comply with Wikipedia policies.Wikidemo 22:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

To me the above comments are simply irrelevant to WP:BLP#Sources, which is what I have been discussing.

[Please focus on the language of the project polcy page and not on contributors or your theories about their intentions and motivations (past or present). Thank you.]

Like anything else in Wikipedia "External links" sections and "external links" are subject to all policies in Wikipedia, and explicitly to WP:V, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as well as "restrictions" in WP:BLP. Nothing anyone says in this talk page or in the talk page of content guidelines like WP:EL is really going to change the requirement that everything in Wikipedia must adhere to Policies. If you want to change that, there are procedures for attempting to do so: formal proposals. --NYScholar 22:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no need to discuss theories or changes to other policies. Just pointing out that the language you propose doesn't affect external links, whereas judging by three+ months of edit warring over that very subject in this section, some people think it should.Wikidemo 23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the new section called WP:BLP#External links is clear. My proposal above omits the sentence that you added which includes a phrase "via external links." I have previously thought that you added that phrase to accommodate the previous language "including as an external link." If that is not the case, please explain why it is necessary and whether or not you oppose taking out the phrase that you added. I thought that WP:BLP#External links (above WP:BLP#Sources) and a cross-ref. in the later paragraph pertaining to "websites" would be clear enough. The kinds of sites that are not permitted in biographies of living persons and in "material about living persons" in Wikipedia are defined in the rest of WP:V#Sources and parts of WP:BLP#Sources below WP:BLP#Reliable sources. What I think or what anyone else thinks it means or might mean or rules in or out or "bans" or doesn't "ban" according to interpretations set forth on this talk page are really not germane. What is germane is what the policy project page actually states. That language needs to be clear, undisputed, indisputable, neutral, and not "subjective" ("subject to interpretation"). Unforunately (in my own view), given the over-reliance on passive voice constructions and undefined language at times in Wikipedia policies, the language of the policies is not "clear, undisputed, indisputable, neutral, and not "subjective" ("subject to interpretation"). [signed below]

One needs to keep in mind that I came to this policy page around August 11th/12th to check the policy; at that time, I found in it a statement including the phrases about "partisan websites" and "obscure newspapers" and "including as an external link": all of which are not in the current version of this policy [in WP:BLP#Reliable sources, i.e.]. The language of the policy has changed, but has the policy changed? Or has it stayed the same? (See others' comments [objections] in next section). --NYScholar 00:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The language that I have proposed (omitting that sentence with "via external links" that Wikidemo added fairly recently) is:

"Editors should be cautious in considering whether or not to include in Wikipedia material about living persons that they find only in questionable sources or sources of dubious value; if the material about living persons from such sources is derogatory, they should not use this material or these sources at all in biographies of living persons or elsewhere in Wikipedia." [For my explanation of why I proposed that particular language, please scroll up. I repeat the sentence because it's way up there now.] --NYScholar 01:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I made [4] this change to clear up some unclear / misstated language, which indeed relates indirectly to language disputed a while ago in this section. If this section is not going to relate to external sources, it does not matter. I have some quibbles about your wording proposal: "the material about living persons from such sources" could be shortened to "such material." Also, your proposal applies too broadly to all of Wikipedia; the discussion to date has been about material in Wikipedia about living people. A cleaner way to phrase it is "such material, if derogatory, should not be used anywhere in Wikiepdia." There is no prohibition in this section against using them for sources about other things, or as external links. Both those questions are addressed on other pages.Wikidemo 01:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

See Jossi's and other administrators' comments and review paragraphs one and two of WP:BLP: "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." pertains to all of Wikipedia. It "applies ... broadly to all of Wikipedia" as does my proposed sentence. WP:BLP does apply to all of Wikipedia. --NYScholar 01:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC) [added whole sent.] --NYScholar 01:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Also: from first part of WP:BLP [its lead]: "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles." --NYScholar 01:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC) [added "its lead". --NYScholar 01:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)]

An "article" in Wikipedia includes the whole thing, all the way through to its categories. Thus, there is a section on "using categories" in WP:BLP. Anywhere that "material about living persons" appears in Wikipedia is governed by WP:BLP. As a policy statement, WP:BLP applies to all of Wikipedia (as the lead says). Its intention is "broad". --NYScholar 02:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bim the scope of this policy is material about living people on Wikipedia. Your sentence would apply to everything about everything on Wikipedia. You're making the same mistake again, conflating sources of material on Wikipedia pages with material outside of Wikipedia.Wikidemo 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not "making a mistake"; I am quoting the policy verbatim. "Articles" include "external links" sections and "external links" throughout the article. ----NYScholar 02:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)]

The context of the sentence that I suggested/proposed is WP:BLP, which is a policy about biographies of living persons and biographical material about living persons in Wikipedia space. (See the lead.) --NYScholar 02:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC) [I added the word "biographical"; I think that may be where the above user is getting hung up. --NYScholar 02:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)]

This is all the time that I have to discuss this matter. I have to log out of Wikipedia. --NYScholar 02:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It might help if you can chart this out:

1. What kind of text material do you propose to exclude from Wikipedia pages?
2. What kind of publications do you propose to prohibit as sources for statements about living people on Wikipedia?
3. What kind of publications, if any, do you propose to prohibit as sources for statements on Wikipedia that are not about living people?
4. What kind of content, if any, do you propose to exclude as the destination of external links on BLP articles? On articles generally?
5. What types of publications, if any, do you propose to exclude as the destination of external links on BLP articles? On articles generally?

As best I can read, you propose for #1 is material found only on sources of questionable or dubious value: be cautious and if such material is derogatory, exclude. For #2, exclude sources for material prohibited by #1. My interpretation of the language you proposed is that it would achieve #3: exclude same publications as #2, i.e. publications that are questionable or of dubious value, if they contain derogatory information about living people that is not also contained in a source that is not questionable or of dubious value, whether or not the material for which the publication is a source concerns a living person. That is unacceptably broad to me. Further, the language does not exclude anything under #4 and #5. That is fine by me but likely unacceptable to others who believe that certain external links should be prohibited. However, I cannot tell if that is what you mean to prohibit because your interpretation of the paragraph is different than mine given your different theory on the meta policy issues. If you can kindly explain what you want to exclude among these, or other, categories, that is a proposal to entertain and if everyone agrees we can set about to reducing it to a policy statement.Wikidemo 08:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I logged back in earlier to do other work in a biography of a living person that I've been working on for over a year. I have to log in and out because my work is outside Wikipedia, and I only came back on to deal with that one article. Re: your questions: it must be that our minds work very differently; I really do not think in the terms that you do apparently, and I can't follow your questions, which do not (from my perspective) appear to deal with WP:BLP. My emphasis has been and continues to be on the fact that this project page is about "biographies of living persons" and "biographical material about living persons" in Wikipedia (all of Wikipedia). One cannot read this policy page in a vacuum; WP:BLP#Sources is based on WP:V#Sources. All the questions that you ask are answered in WP:V#Sources and other WP:Policies and guidelines. I do not set Wikipedia policies and guidelines; I just attempt to read them, to understand what they are, and to follow them. When there are contradictions and/or inconsistencies between the guidelines and the policies, I attempt to follow the policies (as Wikipedia editing help tells us to do). Policies trump guidelines. This is a policy page. It needs to be clear. If it is not clear, then there are problems. But I myself am not "trying" to exclude or include anything anywhere. I am just trying to understand what the already-established policies relating to biographies of living persons and to biographical material (information) about living persons permit any Wikipedia editor to do in writing an article in Wikipedia that relates to a living person. One cannot interpret WP:BLP#Reliable sources without referring to the rest of the policy page, including exclusions and restrictions about websites already placed in it. It is very clear following WP:V#Sources, particularly WP:V#Questionable sources, as these pertain to biographies of living persons and biographical material about living persons; one cannot forget to consult WP:BLP#Well known public figures, and so on. Again, I cannot answer the questions that you ask. I can only refer you to the other policies and guidelines that provide the answers to those questions. I hope that you understand this reply. Again, I must log off. --NYScholar 09:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My question is very specific and of course it has to do with BLP. You are proposing to modify a sentence in the policy page that serves as a prohibition on certain things. I find the proposed language unclear and generally unacceptable. I am asking you what exactly you want the sentence to prohibit, in hopes that if you can clarify that and people can agree, we can consider appropriate language. If you can't say specifically what you want the sentence to do, I don't see any actionable proposal to consider. That leaves us with no consensus on a new sentence for the time being. Wikidemo 10:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You do not understand my replies to you. If you cannot accept the language in the current version, that has nothing to do with me. It is mostly not my language. The only thing that I altered in the current version is one phrase, correcting a typographical error "dubious sources" so that it reads "sources of dubious value". That is not a "change" in the policy; the language that was in the policy on August 12 (before I noticed it via what I regard as a problematic inconsistency (already discussed in archive) in WP:EL) was removed by other people (including you); that language included the words "partisan websites" "obscure newspapers" and "including as an external link"; you repeatedly removed "including as an external link"; [because someone complained that it was not "grammatical" (which it actually is), I constructed a complete sentence saying what I think is basically the same thing; but other people, including you, removed that sentence: that was the only change that I made to the policy page--one sentence--later removed by others for many days.] Then I questioned the meaning of terms "solely" pertaining to "partisan websites", "partisan websites", and "obscure newspapers". Subsequently, other people accepted proposed alternatives (not changes in policy, but rather more general terms for the sites and newspapers): "questionable sources" (linked to WP:V#Questionable sources) and (now) "sources of dubious value". The terminology may differ, but the policy remains the same. My proposed language only alters passive voice constructions to active voice constructions, changes "solely" to "only" and the syntax (sentence structure); it does not alter the policy (as I read my own sentence). I have no interest in altering the policy; my interest is in a better (clearer) statement of the policy that existed in this policy page approximately around August 11/12 before editing wars heated up. Some of those numbered items do not relate to biographies of living persons or to biographical material about living persons (the subject of this policy project page (WP:BLP); they relate to "general" matters that are not relevant to this discussion at all (in my view); again, discussion of those matters belongs on the policy and/or guideline pages relating to them. (e.g., WP:V#Sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:EL). I have made no effort and have no interest in changing WP:BLP. I just think that the language defining the policy could be clearer if it did not use passive-voice constructions and vague undefined terms. From my perspective, every time I state something you are reading into it meanings that I do not intend. I do not know why. --NYScholar 10:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC) [added a bracketed piece re: the sentence that I added circa Aug. 12. ... --NYScholar 10:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)]

Again--I am not attempting to change WP:BLP policy; I am attempting to make the statement of the policy clearer. I have no interest in changing the policy. I think that it is fine the way it is. I just think its presentation is confusing and unclear at times: I have explained why: these points all have to do with "improving" the language of the policy, not with changing the policy. Perhaps you want to change it. I do not want to change it. I have to log off Wikipedia for an extended period of time and will not see replies or be able to participate in further discussion. --NYScholar 10:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[As I've stated earlier, if one actually does want to change WP:BLP (the policy, not the language of the policy), one needs to go to a formal proposal procedure. I am not interested in changing the policy, and I would not be doing that. --NYScholar 10:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)]

I am fine for the moment with the language of the subsection "reliable sources" now on the policy page. I do not approve the change you propose in bold above, to replace the sentence beginning "Material about living persons..." with the the proposed sentence beginning "Editors should be cautious in considering..." If you agree that you do not wish to change the policy, I think we can declare this discussion over. Wikidemo 11:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo: the "discussion" is not just between two users (you and me); I was actually replying to someone else [Josiah Rowe] who asked questions about my phrase "sources of dubious value" (not you); please scroll up. If that user returns, he or she may want to discuss the matter. I don't know. I am happy that "sources of dubious value" is currently in WP:BLP#Reliable sources, but that does not mean that the language will still be there later. So who knows? Again, my bold printed alternative was an alternative to someone else's sentence (not one that you proposed): scroll up. Thanks. Offline after this. --NYScholar 11:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that you are not even proposing anything in the paragraph beginning "Instead, I propose:" ??? Okay, discussion definitely over. That's 7,000 words talking about nothing. I'm closing it. If anyone wants to propose something they may. Wikidemo 11:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate section. No further edits should be made to this section.

[...removed archiving box to an active discussion among not two but at least three participants, one of whom had not yet commented. --NYScholar 19:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)]

Note: the participants involved in the above discussion have agreed among themselves that the policy language they were discussing is currently acceptable. No representation is made that this represents any wider consensus, merely that this discussion has reached that result. Wikidemo 11:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry: That is an untrue statement. It takes advantage of people engaged in an active discussion. I had pointed out that the participant whom I was engaging in discussion with (not Wikidemo but User:Josiah Rowe) had not apparently had an opportunity to respond. I'm undoing this "archiving"; it should not be archived until all its participants have had a chance to reply. This is not the way to handle an active discussion. I have asked Wikidemo before (in now-archived discussions in archive pages) not to speak for me. I had already indicated that I was waiting for Josiah Rowe to reply. My comments are clear. I object to this strategy of closing an active discussion and claiming that it is over when it is still ongoing. No one user gets to decide for two other users that the discussion is "over." As far as I'm concerned (and perhaps as far as Josiah Rowe might be concerned), it is not.

[refactored to indicate actual state of discussion. --NYScholar 19:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)]

I would like to know what User:Josiah Rowe's response to my comments replying to him or her are. I've undone the archiving for that and the above-mentioned other reasons. --NYScholar 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page, respectfully requesting that he return to reply to responses to his queries. --NYScholar 19:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The language that I proposed is (I repeat here): "Editors should be cautious in considering whether or not to include in Wikipedia material about living persons that they find only in questionable sources or sources of dubious value; if the material about living persons from such sources is derogatory, they should not use this material or these sources at all in biographies of living persons or elsewhere in Wikipedia."

So far only one user (Wikidemo) has commented on it. --NYScholar 19:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point you are playing games. After a 7,000 word discussion you said tice yesterday that you were not proposing any language change. Now you say you are, and that the fact that a third person had asked a question means it is still an active discussion. If you want to propose a language change, why not start a new section, propose it, and we can discuss it in the clear. At this point the page is once again a mess thanks to a huge number of unconstructive and near-unintelligible comments. Wikidemo 19:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I object to this user's continual mischaracterizations of my comments. I clearly stated (several times in replying to those mischaracterizations before, some of which are clearly uncivil--see his repeated civility warnings to me, which I believe are not warranted) that I am proposing only changes to the language of the policy and not changes to the policy. I stated that in the material that he (without my agreement and despite my objections) put in an archive box, so anyone can re-read it for themselves. It is interesting to me that the user continually accuses me of "incivility" and does not perceive his own comments as uncivil. To me that smacks of hypocrisy. I find the comments that he makes in his replies to me unpleasant and I really do not want to deal with them any further. I leave my proposal language (which I revised after reading others' comments) in the later comments below. I do not intend to enter an "editing war" about this proposal page. I comment on this talk page about the changes to the language that I think need to be made. In the case of a recent typographical error ("dubious sources" instead of my proposed "sources of dubious value"), I corrected the (what I regard as a) typographical error.

I object to the above user's placing three "civility warnings" on my talk page (which is now re-directed to my user page, because I have no time left for replying to comments on it), and I refer others to his comments to me, which in my view and that of others (now archived in talk page archives of this talk page), are repeatedly uncivil. If he is going to place civility warnings on other users' talk pages, he needs to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF himself. I do not see that occurring, and, for that reason, this is my final reply to any comment that he posts about anything that I post on this talk page or anywhere else. I am simply unable to communicate with him constructively due to the kinds of replies that I am getting from him. I am returning to my other work, which, for me, has priority over discussions on this talk page. --NYScholar 22:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC) [Logging out of Wikipedia. ---NYScholar 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)]

In no way am I being uncivil here. NYScholar has dominated this talk page for a fair while (the edit history shows 62 posts so far today; sometimes 20K+ in new material), and taken swipes at me and others who have contrary opinions. When the abuse has grown particularly bad, as it did today by calling my innocuous comments on a language proposal "nasty", and scolding me for reproducing something in normal font that had been previously posted in bold, I have offered a relevant civility warning. These have been met with tit-for-tat allegations rather than an attempt to be civil. I am trying to be as soft and circumspect as I can with this user, given the volatile reactions to my being here, but do not wish to surrender the Wikipedia policy page entirely to his/her aggressive editing. The incivility is one thing. The excessive posting and refactoring of convoluted, repetitive, and verbose material is another. I am at a loss for what to do. Wikidemo 23:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I object!

This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance {Fact|date=September 2007} among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Well, as a biography project member, I don't accept many of these provisions. So, I would like a source placed on the main page supporting "wide acceptance." How many people commented on the policy provisions? What percentage of people participating on Wikipedia were aware of policy provisions under consideration before a "vote" was taken? What efforts were taken to "advertise" the proposed policy to the general group of editors? When was the Wiki wide "vote" taken, and what was the total votes, pro and con, to this "policy"? What minority tabulated the vote and made the final decision on "policy"? The imposition of minority opinion on this type of control issues has got to have a limit somewhere. WBardwin 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this comment! --NYScholar 06:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good point. While a lot of BLP is good, it has grown in the shadows and without much community input. That is not to say that we should suddenly change all of BLP, but there are things that are not supported by consensus, the Foundation, or by legal reasons that I take issue with. (and I'm sure others do as well) -- Ned Scott 07:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I also concur. While I haven't been involved in BLP specifically, I see this phenomenon on all guideline and policy pages. It's a general problem with policies and guidelines that changes creep in over time and they really don't gather much of a representative consensus. When they're created, they can have over a hundred people discussing it, but when changes creep in over time, it may be less than a dozen people who agreed on it. There should be a special tag for challenging parts of guidelines and policies that sort of snuck in without a large consensus. Would creating a template for this be a good idea? What about a technical mechanism where people can view a special page and see all edits not marked as minor on policy and guideline pages? Either that, or people manually add something to a page that all Wikiepdians are encouraged to watch listing changes--requiring this to be done manually encourages extra effort, making it less casual, requiring more serious thought. In addition, new changes could be tagged with a dated tag and it would add it to a category people could view, like "changes made in september 2007 to policies" or something. Thoughts? -Nathan J. Yoder 09:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Something like this was brought up here not too long ago, using the new Flagged revisions feature. I think something like this would be a very good idea. People could still be bold with guidelines and policies, while letting people check what was the last big agreement. Then, from time to time, start new discussions to flag a newer version (maybe even on a regular basis). -- Ned Scott 19:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that the text of the page has changed dramatically since it was upgraded to policy. It is most definitively an official policy of Wikipedia, despite edits made since that time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons&diff=155752035&oldid=64480691 -- Ned Scott 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to WBardwin (talk · contribs), there is no such a thing as !votes in Wikipedia, as you probably know by now. The page was heavily discussed during its development as a guideline in talk and in the mailing list. The upgrade to policy was announced on the Wikipedia signpost of July 24, 2006. It was upgraded from guideline to official policy on July 18, 2006. It has wide support from the community, referred to in ArbCom cases, and applied by patrollers of the BLP noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The question remains unanswered though: How do we know that this reflects, as it claims, "wide community consensus"? Noone seems willing to step up and answer the man's question. I don't remember this being presented for community approval or discussion, so could someone please show where this was done? Its kinda funny how we're dancing around here. I'm blind. Kyaa the Catlord 21:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

One change is that the original policy had a defined scope, namely articles that are biographies of living people, which make up about 1/4 of all of our mainspace pages. The policy as it now stands, depending on exactly when you look at it, seems to lay claim to things having to do with living people in all articles. Those in the biography project have been heavily involved, and therefore on notice since early on that BLP existed (note: I just edited the wikiproject page to alert people that it's a policy, not a guideline). However, those working on other wikiprojects (e.g. music, architecture, science, business, etc) have not been involved in this way and their standards are different. For example, it might be legitimate within the scope of an architecture article to mention that a building design is considered lowbrow and derivative; viewed in the context of BLP that might be seen as unreliable derogatory information about the architect. Similar concerns for suspect scientific theories, troubled musical groups, crime project articles, etc. One might accuse BLP of overreaching, or at least enacting policy on people who didn't know policy was being enacted on them. This happens all over Wikipedia, not just BLP. The people who write the articles aren't on notice that someone in a far off policy page is writing rules without asking them, sometimes based on strong convictions and abstract arguments on meta issues without considering the effects out in the field. Wikidemo 22:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that my initial comments drew response here. Despite the "snide (?)" reference by Jossi above, I used the word "vote" intentionally. I know this is not a democracy, but any policy category should be widely advertised and discussed if it is to gain "wide approval". If you want the support of the majority of editors, you must reach out to the majority of editors. My suggestion on this page, because of the legal complications regarding living persons, is that the legal representatives of Wikipedia review and define the minimum limitations that would prove Wikipedia is acting in good faith in a court of law. This material should remain as "policy." Other material should be placed as "guidelines" on biographies and related mention of living persons, with the authority of administrators to enforce these "guidelines" significantly reduced. Comments and related changes should by widely solicited by, for example, posting the page on all Wikipedia projects, admin noticeboards, etc. Authority and punitive actions in Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish, elsewhere, should be based on the consent of the governed. Best to all. WBardwin 22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment was not a "snide". I just simply offered you facts about this page. To reply to your argument, BLP was not designed to fend off lawsuits only. Just read the references from Jimmy Wales on this regard: [5], [6], and [7]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

For a policy that has been in place for more than a year, that is widely applied, and that is widely quoted in ArbCom cases, I would argue that the burden is on those editors that find fault with it to seek consensus to change it, rather than the other way around. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can tell me what "obscure" means in this context I'd be happy to let the existing language remain. Any editor who can't define it should support changing the language to something that is more obvious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the previous section (most recent comments), which begins in #"Material about living persons available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers"; this matter has been discussed and alternative wording (current version and proposed alternative versions) supplied. --NYScholar 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My own view is that ""questionable sources or sources of dubious value" covers both "partisan websites" and "obscure newspapers". (Explanation above in response to questions asked.) --NYScholar 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Point of clarification: the "existing language" in the version that Jossi reverted to (not really "stable" as stated) does not include either "partisan websites" or "obscure newspapers" as earlier versions did (dating to August 12, 2007 and before that: sometimes referred to as "SV's version", which also included the phrase "including as an external link"). --NYScholar 19:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that language. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Which language? (I don't know which you mean: Jossi's reverted version (which I just edited to correct "dubious sources" (which is an error--the "sources" are not "dubious"; what is meant there is really "disputed sources" [sources "of dubious value"]); "questionable sources" is the phrase of the link. --NYScholar 21:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC) [corrected in brackets. --NYScholar 22:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)]

I had trouble w/ the editing summary and the edit changed before I finished writing the editing summary: I was explaining that I was correcting a typographical error in "dubious sources" (already explained in previous section). [rethreaded. --NYScholar 22:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)]

Will Beback: could you quote which language you "agree with?" Thanks. --NYScholar 21:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying I don't disagree with most of BLP, but whatlinkshere is not an indication of acceptance (people often link to it if they're going to complain about it, or even if they are neutral about it). Also, arbcom doesn't set policy, but I still respect their opinion. I don't think we're saying the spirit of the policy is in dispute, but there are many things that get snuck in here. We have editors who write "copyediting" and will add something new. What's worse, we don't always notice it until a long time later. Time doesn't make everything true.

The problem often comes up with wording, where someone added/changed something without significant (or any) input. Then another editor goes to change it, or reword it, and the first editor blocks such attempts. Look at the EL debate we had. A lot of us didn't even disagree with the basic idea, but people were demanding that their particular wording was the consensus, and nothing else would do, and would not discuss the issue. Finally, we were able to discuss it, but we shouldn't have had to fight people to do something so simple. -- Ned Scott 05:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Further objections: Requesting administrative assistance

These are active discussions; I strenuously object to this tactic of archiving still-active discussions. Archiving is for when discussions are finished, not active. --NYScholar 19:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see my objections as stated above

(edit conflict):Some of the discussion took place "in the middle of the night"/wee hours of the morning, and others have not yet necessarily had opportunities to respond to it. Two users do not make a "consensus" on when discussions about WP:BLP are "done". My views are misrepresented by another user, and I want to make that clear. I proposed a statement that alters the passive voice to the active voice and that does not change the policy of WP:BLP. The policy WP:BLP still adheres to WP:V (which includes WP:V#Sources particularly) as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:NOR. These are core policies in Wikipedia that all of Wikipedia must follow (not violate). If one has questions about how WP:BLP pertains to them, one must consult those project policy pages too. Thanks. --NYScholar 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I also have proposed that one move the "see above" link to WP:BLP#External links to the section below which deals with "websites." I explained my reasons earlier. The whole matter of injecting "external links" issues into WP:BLP#Sources is confusing the policy statement. Once "including as an external link" was removed circa August 12/13 and after that (a part of persistent edit warring over WP:BLP#Reliable sources--see archived talk pages in archive box next to table of contents), then eventually users participating in this discussion introduced a sentence about them in an earlier section of WP:BLP on "writing"; I added a subheading "External links" for clarity. That statement is clear (I did not compose it, other(s) did), and linking back to it makes sense in the later part of the policy dealing with "websites". That is my current point of view on this matter (already stated above). The context for my proposed language is the entire rest of the policy in WP:BLP; it changes nothing. --NYScholar 20:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Will you please state, clearly, what you are proposing so that we may consider it? Thx, Wikidemo 20:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop changing what I write: I already used bold print to indicate the sentence that I proposed (above): (edit conflict)Also: let's be entirely clear: this is not a battle for control over WP:BLP (in my own view). I simply think that passive voice constructions lead to lack of clarity especially for new editors. I do not mind if others do not agree; but I do mind when they present my proposed language as something that it is not. It is simply a suggestion about how to improve the expression of the already-existing policy in the project page. That is what talk pages are for: improving articles (including project policy pages) so that they express their content clearly and unambiguously. --NYScholar 20:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How am I changing what you write? I thought you bolded your proposal to set it off from the discussion, not that the entire phrase is proposed to be bold on the policy page. That would be a bad idea, but no matter. It is perfectly appropriate that I restate your proposal. The language is poor, and it does affect the meaning of the policy for the worse. I am not going to get into a debate over the difference between bolding and not bolding a sentence. Wikidemo 20:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sentence proposed for WP:BLP#Reliable sources (Please comment below)

NYScholar proposes to change the sentence in the "Reliable Sources" portion of the policy page

from:

"Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links (see above)"

to:

"Editors should be cautious in considering whether or not to include in Wikipedia material about living persons that they find only in questionable sources or sources of dubious value; if the material about living persons from such sources is derogatory, they should not use this material or these sources at all in biographies of living persons or [in biographical material about living persons] elsewhere in Wikipedia." [added phrase. See below. --NYScholar 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)]

["Elsewhere in Wikipedia" is contingent on the previous part of the sentence; "this material" refers back to the previous phrase: "material about living persons"; that (material about living persons) is what WP:BLP#Sources concerns: read the previous sentences and the following sentences in the policy.] Thanks. --NYScholar 20:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[This proposal relates to a previous section of discussion headed #"Material about living persons available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers". Editing wars have related to the passage in WP:BLP#Reliable sources beginning with that phrase and also including a phrase "including as an external link"; my proposed sentence attempts to resolve confusions already discussed at length by many editors (not just two to four editors). --NYScholar 20:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The proposed sentence also removes the very problematic "either as sources or via external links (see above)." and, as I say above, I recommend that the "see above" which links to WP:BLP#External links appear lower down in the later section on "websites" (already quoted: just see the policy WP:BLP#Sources. --NYScholar 20:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[Comments reposted from above]

I do not really see an improvement in the wording. Sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't either. The proposed version is very clunky and repetitive as well (e.g. we should exercise caution when considering, not be cautious in considering, if the material is ... they should not use this material, etc.). I think the use of the passive voice is appropriate in this instance. Notmyrealname 20:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the change as well, on several grounds. The existing language is fine as it is. The proposed revision is unnecessarily wordy. It is harder to understand than the original. It embodies a misunderstanding about the nature of sourcing and linking - NYScholar has been arguing that language like this will prohibit external links to pages forbidden as sources. "Elsewhere in Wikipedia" overreaches the scope of BLP policy because it is not limited to information about living people: certain publications may (or may not, depending on how one reads it) are banned as sources about anything on Wikipedia because they contain information about living people. "or as sources" creates a complex, indirect ban in the same way. If we don't mean for the BLP policy to ban certain publications entirely, without regard to what they are used for, we should not adopt language that seems to do this. If we do mean such a ban we should do so in clear, explicit language. Wikidemo 20:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection at all with people trying to improve the language that I suggest. I still think that the phrase ""either as sources or via external links (see above)." is problematic and misplaced in WP:BLP#Sources. As I say above, I still recommend that the "see above" which links to WP:BLP#External links appear lower down in the later section on "websites" (already quoted: just see the policy WP:BLP#Sources. --NYScholar 20:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again (sigh): I have not "been arguing" what Wikidemo states that I have "been arguing"; my comments repeatedly state that he is misinterpreting what my sentence states and what I intend to state in it. --NYScholar 20:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"elsewhere in Wikipedia" is referring back to "material about living persons" and using sources for "material about living persons" that are "questionable" (not reliable and/or not verifiable) or using sources that are "of dubious value"; WP:BLP already states that one cannot do that anywhere in Wikipedia in the lead of the policy statement. I have also (earlier) stated that I think it is better to state a policy in positive terms (what one can do) not in negative terms (what one cannot do); but in that this part of the policy statement focuses on what not to do (albeit in passive voice), I have adapted to that fact. I would prefer that a positive statement not a negative statement appear in WP:BLP#Reliable sources. But, given the negative statement, I have tried to work with it. --NYScholar 20:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a phrase "biographical material about living persons" (which is what I have intended all along and the referent for "material about living persons" throughout WP:BLP: scroll up to beginning of the policy page. --NYScholar 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Revised version of sentence above (Please comment)

"Editors should be cautious in exercise caution in when considering whether or not to include in Wikipedia material about living persons that they find only in questionable sources or in sources of dubious value; if the material about living persons from such sources is derogatory, they editors should not use this material it or these sources at all in biographies of living persons or in biographical material about living persons elsewhere in Wikipedia." --NYScholar 20:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[My changes proposed here and below (as time goes on) are in response to comments by others. --NYScholar 20:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)]

Strike-outs and incorporated suggestions by others. This is consistent with policy lede. --NYScholar 08:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Example of a positive version

[Revised further:] "Editors should be cautious in exercise caution when considering whether or not to include in Wikipedia material about living persons that they find in questionable sources or in sources of dubious value, especially if it is derogatory. They should use If editors do use derogatory biographical material about living persons that is derogatory,in Wikipedia only if they can must document it only with reliable, verifiable, notable sources. in compliance with all Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, including the rest of this policy." --NYScholar 20:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC) [added "including the rest of this policy" (which deals with websites and external links to them, etc.). --NYScholar 20:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC) [Added strikeout and incorporated suggestions from others. --NYScholar 08:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)]

[See also: WP:BLP#Well known public figures, which has some important information pertaining to points of view about them. --NYScholar 20:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)]

No to both proposals. Disagree on grounds of style, content, and interpretation. This discussion is unnecessarily persistent, convoluted, and long. So please consider that a standing objection to any change in the language of the policy along these lines. If and when there is a stable, concrete proposal put up for comment I will consider it. Wikidemo 20:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a discussion page; please do not stifle discussion. All participants are equal in Wikipedia. Please keep that in mind. Thank you. --NYScholar 20:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What????Wikidemo 20:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how any of these versions add any improvements over the existing version. Telling people that they have to comply with all policies and guidelines in Wikipedia is hardly helpful or necessary. Notmyrealname 20:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please understand: I welcome your (everyone's) comments; I just don't welcome nastiness (from anyone). I appreciate any constructive discussion. Thanks. --NYScholar 21:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another civility warning for NYScholar (the third or fourth), and a request to assume good faith. For saying my comment is "nasty" and "unproductive." Please stop sniping at me on this talk page. Wikidemo 21:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My concerns about the wording relate to readers of it who are inexperienced or new Wikipedia editors or other users (including the subjects of biographies of living persons--the living persons who may be encountering "material about living persons" pertaining to themselves in Wikipedia). For all such users, links to policies and guidelines can be helpful. That is my thinking. --NYScholar 21:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For an example of the concerns of such a subject (apparently), please see 15 (an archived discussion of my own talk page). The user was not experienced in Wikipedia and was making references to WP:BLP in what appears to be a discussion with administrators in Wikipedia re: an entry about (what appears to be) himself, having encountred an editing war about the article about (what appears to be) himself by another user or users editing only that article. The changes made to WP:BLP recently (since August 12/13) can be very confusing for such users/living persons subjects. Thanks. --NYScholar 21:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar: This sounds a bit like a monologue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi: Did you consult the dialogue in the archive page (15) linked above as an example of my concerns? That entire matter concerning a WP:BLP and "contentious" and disputed "material about a living person" in Wikipedia articles and talk space and editing histories may still need administrative assistance. There is still an active link to the article being disputed in another user's (Ovid Plastering)'s [Actually, it's in the anon IP user's talk page, where the other user placed it] talk page (Wikipedia space) and in editing histories. I would appreciate your and other administrators' helping with that situation if you can. Resolving it appears to me to be not a editorial matter but an administrative matter. (I had posted a request on your talk page about problems re: this WP:BLP project page but got no response a couple of days ago.) Thanks. --NYScholar 23:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC) [corr. as updated. --NYScholar 09:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)]

WP:BLP/N addition

I have posted about Murray Waas to the WP:BLP/N so that seasoned administrators (I hope) can consider it. I myself do not have time to deal with it any further. --NYScholar 00:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

regardless of any problems with this particular article, the proposed addition is instruction creep at best, and entirely unnecessary. BLP is a specific policy of its own, and should be kept as specific as possible. As worded, the proposal would permit unilateral deletions of any WP article about a living person for all alleged reason whatsoever. DGG (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[DGG: could you move this comment above this section to the section w/ the proposal version that you are responding to? Thanks. --NYScholar 08:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)]

Please see "revised version" above (w/ strikeouts, incorporated suggestions by others. Thanks. --NYScholar 08:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Resulting sentence (positive version): Please comment

"Editors should exercise caution when considering whether or not to include in Wikipedia material about living persons that they find in questionable sources or in sources of dubious value, especially if it is derogatory. If editors do use derogatory biographical material about living persons in Wikipedia, they must document it with reliable, verifiable, notable sources." --NYScholar 08:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC) [Sorry forgot link; added it. --NYScholar 08:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)]

[Reminder: the pertinent section is: WP:BLP#Reliable sources. --NYScholar 08:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)]

Whew. I just read all the drama which had occurred on this talk page since I last visited it. I apologize if my lack of comment delayed closure on this subject: I dropped by after Wikidemo had changed the wording to include "sources of dubious value" and closed the conversation, and thought that the situation was resolved. My bad.

For the record: I don't object strongly to the current wording of the sentence (that is: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links (see above).) I still think that the distinction NYScholar is drawing between "questionable sources" (regarding verifiability) and "sources of dubious value" (regarding notability) is not one that will be immediately clear to readers, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to make a fuss.

Also, for the record, I don't think that the proposed change to the active voice improves the sentence. One advantage of the active voice over the passive is that the passive often lends itself to circumlocution and imprecision; however, the phrase "...should exercise caution when considering whether or not to include" is far more circumlocutive than the current phrasing. That said, the second sentence NYScholar proposes (If editors do use derogatory biographical material about living persons in Wikipedia, they must document it with reliable, verifiable, notable sources.) may be a useful addition and/or clarification to the policy. That said, the active voice in that sentence suggests that the responsibility for finding sources belongs solely to the editor who adds information. It's true that the onus for providing sources is on the editor who adds information, but there's also a sense in which it is the responsibility of any editor who works on a biographical article to ensure that all derogatory information is well sourced. Because of that element of shared responsibility, I wonder whether the passive voice would be more appropriate as well. That would result in the following:

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links (see above). All derogatory biographical material about living persons in Wikipedia must be documented with reliable, verifiable, notable sources.

Would this be a compromise acceptable to NYScholar and other editors? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this very thoughtful reply. The answer to your question "Would this be a compromise acceptable to NYScholar ..." is Yes. Thanks again. --NYScholar 20:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: your specific comment concerning "sources of dubious value":

At times I have thought of linking to "verifiability" ("Official Policy") or "notability" (an editing content guideline) there. But I now wonder if the best possibility to direct readers to what the term means may be the "dubious" template: e.g., "sources of dubious value." I would suggest that one add the link to the current version of the sentence whether or not it changes otherwise. (Earlier I also explained that "dubious" appears in Wikipedia:Disputed statement as well and that in Wikipedia "dubious" means "disputed" [doubted, questionable; hence, "of questionable value"; parallel to [but not precisely the same as] "questionable sources". That's why I do not see the phrase "sources of dubious value" as redundant [as discussed earlier in archived sec. above]. --NYScholar 20:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Josiah Rowe (and others): Do you think that adding a link to the dubious template or a link to Wikipedia:Disputed statement (in phrase "sources of dubious value") as just suggested would be an improvement? [If so, please indicate which link you prefer; or, if another, which one is preferable to them.] --NYScholar 21:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC) [updated w/ links --NYScholar 21:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)].

Less objectionable but the added sentence is unnecessary and a little inaccurate, so still a step in the wrong direction. All material on Wikipedia needs reliable sources. We don't need to restate that here, and I don't think unsourced derogatory material is a real problem - it gets deleted on sight as it is. Further, sources are not "verifiable" or "notable". Verifiability applies to factual claims made. Notable applies to the subjects of articles, not their sources. No point linking to procedural templates in a policy statement. Wikidemo 21:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[Additional clarification/explanation: There is a difference between entirely "unsourced" material and "poorly sourced" material. This section of WP:BLP (WP:BLP#Sources) addresses [both "unsourced" and?] "poorly sourced" "derogatory" "material about living persons" (the nature and quality of the sources provided to document the material [statements]), which is (was) the subject of the paragraph in question in WP:BLP#Reliable sources (see editing history). The sentence in the "compromise" proposed by Josiah Rowe emphasizes the necessity for editors to provide what elsewhere--see WP:V--Wikipedia policy calls "impeccable" sources: these are (in Wikipedia terminology) "reliable, verifiable, notable sources" [restrictive commas intended]. (See WP:V, WP:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability for reference; further explanation in my "Note" archived below.) I tend to prefer the more academic phrase: "Editors must document ... with sources...." to "material that is poorly sourced" (another passive construction); "sourced" and "poorly sourced" are odd constructions that one finds throughout Wikipedia. "To document" statements with sources is an action. --NYScholar 23:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)]

Continuation of previous sentence: "To document" statements with sources is an action which someone (an editor) does (is "responsible" for doing); editors are "writers", "writing" is an "action", and the use of active voice (agent/action verb) is clearer than passive constructions masking the agents of the actions (deemphasizing editorial responsibility). I emphasize these points about the sentence constructions in WP:BLP#Reliable sources and elsewhere in this policy and others in Wikipedia because I think the emphasis is consistent with the ledes in both WP:BLP and WP:V and with emphases throughout them in quotations, citations, and notes. --NYScholar 23:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bold font

I added some bold font in the policy page, thinking that I had seen it in earlier versions and that it had been inadvertently omitted in people's revisions. But, having checked the editing history over parts of July/August, I don't find it in earlier versions; e.g., 15059912. It apears that heavy editing and some edit warring perhaps was going on in the period of July to August 2007 (and post-August 12). Nevertheless, I think the bold print is helpful (given the bold print in the next paragraph and earlier). I think it is a typographical improvement. I hope that no one objects to my adding it. --NYScholar 00:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

At some point we will copy-edit this page and likely make the format consistent, work on section headings, and get rid of all markup used for emphasis. Project-wide, using markup for emphasis of policy statements is unhelpful. But for now I'm not even thinking about these kinds of stylistic issues. Wikidemo 03:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What about italics instead of bold print (when the time comes)? --NYScholar 04:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC) I changed the bold that is inconsistent with Wikipedia Style Manual [to] italics. --NYScholar 05:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC) [tc sorry. --NYScholar 05:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)]

Oh, it's not that important but I think it's mainly a question of legibility. There's a guideline page somewhere that urges people to use as little markup as possible and to keep any markup use consistent. That goes for italics, offsets, bold, putting things in boxes, etc. True, it calls it out to people, but it doesn't explain to the reader why that one sentence is being emphasized over the others. Is it extra important or just too easy to ignore/overlook? Better to get it recognized through strong wording or simply trust the reader to follow all of the policies. You can also turn some things into a bullet point / numbered list, and/or move the most important items up to the front. Wikidemo 07:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sexual preference

Hi. I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to add a 4.7, Privacy of sexual preferences, incorporating some of the language of the category rules, something along the lines of (abbreviated suggestion further down, in bold):

“ Information regarding sexual preference of the subject or the subject's associates should not be included unless the sexual preference is relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. (Example, the sexual preference of Rosie O'Donnell is relevant to her article because she is an outspoken gay rights advocate whose sexuality is moreover self-professed.) Articles should not contain information on the sexual preferences of a public individual who has not self-professed per reliable sources and on whose notability sexual preference has no bearing. (Example, sexual preference has no bearing on musicianship and is immaterial to an article on a musician.) Sexual behavior may be notable and reported without speculation about preference. (Example, it may be reported that a pop star has been convicted of sexual activity with a minor, but that pop star may not be labeled a "pedophile".) There may be occasions when the sexual preferences of the subject's associates are relevant to the notability of a subject. (Example, an advocate who was inspired to advocacy by the experiences of a gay sibling.) In most instances, the sexual preferences of a subject's associates will be immaterial and not merit inclusion even if self-professed. ”

This question is inspired by recent conversations at the BLP noticeboard--should Clay Aiken be identified as gay? Should Tim LaHaye's son be identified as gay? As Steve Dufour points out, this is an issue frequently reported at that noticeboard. The language I've used may be problematic, though, because sometimes sexual preference may not be self-professed, yet still unquestioned. Matthew Shepard's sexual preference is highly relevant to his notability. If Mathew's mother were to spearhead a foundation in his honor, mention of her son's sexual preference would certainly be relevant, if not self-identified. I am very open to input on the suggested change and the wording. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be most helpful to have some guidelines on this. Material relating to Aiken's sexual preference (his response to continual gossip and innuendo) was deleted from his bio months ago by neutral, uninvolved editors on the basis of BLP, but now other editors are determined to return it. They make some valid arguments, but arguments that are just as valid about privacy, "Wikipedia is not a tabloid," and the like are not being heard or respected. -Jmh123 16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Way to long to be included so no.Geni 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It can be edited down. :) Do you object to the principle or just the length?--Moonriddengirl 18:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

sexual preferences CATs are already mentioned. Sexual preferences mentions in articles should follow the normal standards. I would tend to view any specific mention as bloat.Geni 18:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. The CAT standard specifies that its purpose is because "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers." It could easily be argued from that that a disclaimer or modifier excuses speculation in articles as long as an assertion of sexual preference is sourced. As I mentioned, we see a lot of this kind of thing over at the BLP noticeboard. Even if the language were reduced quite extensively it might still be useful; for example, "Information regarding sexual preference of the subject or the subject's associates should not be included unless the sexual preference is relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life and is well documented by reliable published sources." I do think some expansion would be useful in keeping down speculation about the Clay Aikens and Tim LaHaye Jrs of the world. In the alternative, if the Category rule is meant to also apply to articles, that needs to be specified in the policy. --Moonriddengirl 18:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Covered under "editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability" and all the stuff already on the page about RS.Geni 18:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the Clay Aiken article is currently the subject of an RfC. The real topic is NOT his sexuality, but reliable third party sources that document the notability of the questions about it. Subtle but important distinction. So far, every uninvolved commenting editor has been in favor of including the material. See forum shopping. Pairadox 19:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned on the BLP noticeboard here [8] that there was an RfC as the disputed material was originally removed under BLP. I did so at 16:22, 8 September 2007 yesterday. At the time there were two responses to the RfC--check the timestamps. My comment there did not suggest what the correct response should be. My comment here states that there are valid arguments on both sides of the question. -Jmh123 20:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked a similar question of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, in reference to whether celebrity chef Jeremiah Tower should be attached to their project or on their list of gay people. They said sure, the more the merrier. He makes no secret of being gay and clearly does not consider the matter scandalous or derogatory...well, a little scandalous in the sense that he writes salacious details of who he slept with in his own biography. In fact, he's such a controversial figure in the food world that it takes a lot of effort to get a sober, dignified BLP article. As important as his sexuality is to his personal life and perhaps his career it has nothing to do with his notability or abilities as a chef, so there is simply no point mentioning it in the article. However, it's only fair for the LGBT project to claim him as one of their own for purposes of a list of notable gay people. Not sure how the two intersect. There's a similar issue with well-known Jews, or Muslims, or Polish Americans, and with some of the location-based wikiprojects. Some people who happen to live in a particular city but whose notability is not at all connected to where they live get listed in the wikiproject or category for their home city, but it's not significant enough to put in the article. Why should sexual preference be a matter of "restraint" if birthplace or religion is not? It sounds like we may be enforcing some kind of a bias here. The obvious difference has to do with societal attitudes towards sexual preference, as opposed to birthplace. Wikidemo 19:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, and may make this topic a particularly tricky matter to handle. Perhaps it does relate to the subject's own profession of sexual preference, which is a requirement for the use of categories. Rosie O'Donnell rose to fame as a comedienne, but her openness about her sexuality and her involvement in LGBT issues makes her sexual preference suitable for inclusion in her article--in fact, it becomes notable because of her political activism. On the other hand, even if there were a reputable source for Clay Aikens' sexual preference, he apparently prefers not to have the matter discussed. And assignment of sexual preference is not necessarily only about straight/gay ideation. One of the other examples I had in mind (but did not use because even using it violates BLP) is a comedian who was arrested on charges of possessing child pornography. The incident, and his statements about it, are included in his article, but there's no assertion made there that he is a pedophile. This is why in my expanded proposal I mentioned that behavior may be reported on, but that conclusions cannot be drawn about it. (Another example: one of the recent disputes brought to BLP:Noticeboard concerned Larry Craig and his recent arrest. Clearly, mention of the incident is acceptable. Speculation about Craig's sexual preferences is not.) I wonder if it would be less of a bias issue to mimic the category language almost completely: "Identification of a living person's religious beliefs and sexual preference should be avoided unless the subject self-identifies with the belief or preference in question in a reliable published source." --Moonriddengirl 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't make sense to pick out individual characteristics for special treatment. We could easily create a list of forbidden topics - orientation, religion, medical issues, political stances, ethnicity, use of hair coloring, name of spouse, birthplace, etc. The standards of verifiability and no original research are our core guides. We should be very hesitant to censor information. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality and religion are already set aside for special treatment in categories. I'm not sure why specific mention of them in policy with regards to articles is any more restrictive than that. I'm not advocating suppressing information and recognize that this problem would virtually disappear if editors stuck to sound sources. But in the spirit of BLP, we are urged to write "conservatively" and with respect for individual privacy. Currently, sexual orientation is regarded by many as a private matter. I believe that its frequent use in articles as "sensationalist" material does warrant special notice. Note that hair color is unlikely to be mentioned in a libel suit (And also this and this, but apparently it's okay in Massachussetts.) --Moonriddengirl 20:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(Response to Moonriddengirl question at top)Notability and verifiability. Has their sexual (porported) preferences informed or otherwise effected their life, and is there reliable third party sources for it? If the answers to both are yes, then it is both relevant and allowable under WP:BLP. Otherwise, no. LessHeard vanU 20:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that we need a self-declaration of such sexual preference in BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is in interperting notability and the clouding of reliable third party sources. Speculation by gossip bloggers and tabloids that is commented on by reliable sources should not be used to validate the speculation. Maria202 20:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What do we mean by "self-identify". If we accept "I am a Baptist" would we accept "I am not a Baptist"? How about "I won't talk about my faith except to say that I'm not a Baptist"? There's a difference between Wikipedia saying, "Person X is a Baptist", and saying "Person X has talked about his Baptist experience." Would we forbid any mention of a subject's comments on religion if he hasn't made some positive affirmation of his specific religous affiliation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We do? How does that square with people who have had their lives, etc. effected by untrue (unproven, even) allegations regarding sexual preferences? If someone identifies as enjoying BDSM then, yes, we had best find a link quoting them. If someone has had their career effected by being alleged to have partaken in BDSM activities then you will not find a self-declaration, but it is relevant and may be referenced. LessHeard vanU 21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why I specified in my first suggestion (which one editor may rightly feel is too long) "Sexual behavior may be notable and reported without speculation about preference. (Example, it may be reported that a pop star has been convicted of sexual activity with a minor, but that pop star may not be labeled a "pedophile".)" It's all right to note that Larry Craig pleaded guilty to soliciting in a men's room, but we can't assert that he is gay. Similarly, it may very well be okay to say "New York Times questioned Pop Singer X about persistent rumors of homosexuality in July 2020. Pop Singer X stated firmly that he prefers not to publicly discuss his sexuality" as long as weight considerations are kept in mind.--Moonriddengirl 21:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm broadly in agreement, although with the last example it should be understood that there must have been a material change in the (perception) of Pop Singer X's career or personal life following the NYT interview, otherwise it is not relevant to the article about PSX. That brings me back to my original comment. LessHeard vanU 21:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how the above point is expressed in the proposed text below. If there is no reliable source regarding X's orientation, no precipitating event (an arrest, e.g.), no declaration of preference, but gossip is sufficiently widespread that the NYT asks about X about sexual preference and X declines to declare an orientation, then the interview itself has made no material change in the perception of X's career or personal life. According to the version below, if I understand it correctly, one could make the argument that the rumors are notable enough that the question was asked, thus the topic is relevant. Do you see the difference? -Jmh123 22:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We should consider a person's sexual preference like the person's address. Wikipedia should generally not write about it, except when it has specific notability related to the person. A person's address has specific notability when having famous neighbours, for example. User:Krator (t c) 21:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sexual preference provision suggestion #2

Aiming for brevity and clarity, building on above discussion, 4.7 or some other number, Privacy of sexual preferences, something along the lines of

“ Sexual preference should not be asserted unless self-professed in a reliable, published source. Information related to sexual behavior or controversy regarding sexual preference may be notable and, if reported in a reliable published source, can be included without speculation about preference. Inclusion must not give such material undue weight.(It may be noted that a pop star has been convicted of sexual activity with a minor, but that pop star may not be labeled a "pedophile".) ”

I'm sure that's still too long. I'm not always good at writing brief. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is better to be clear than concise. I would suggest that the last sentence is placed before the example, as it forms part of the advice. Otherwise I think it is a working model. LessHeard vanU 21:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

So rearranged. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks reasonable on the whole, but I don't think "included" is the right word. "Stated" or "asserted" might be better terms. We aren't forbidding inclusion of any discussion of sexual orientation or religious beliefs, just the flat declaration that a subject has a certain orientation or religion unless there's been a statement by the subject on the topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good suggestion to me. --Moonriddengirl 22:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this a real issue?

Is unwarranted speculation and identification of people's sexual preference a significant problem here on Wikipedia? To avoid rule creep I would hold the line on proposals to add things in BLP that are not real, widespread issues that existing policy is inadequate to handle. Wikidemo 22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, persistently in a number of bios I am familiar with. Ricky Martin, Oprah Winfrey, Anderson Cooper, Clay Aiken, John Travolta, Richard Gere, Tom Cruise, Jodie Foster, Queen Latifah, there's just a few. -Jmh123 22:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Except for random editors adding "he's gay"-type text, I don't think we've made assertions about the sexual orientations of those people. Am I wrong? Does Wikipedia go beyond the subjects' own statements in any of those articles? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Speculation gets dragged in a lot. Tabloids and gossip bloggers are constantly creating "controversary" and "notability" which when picked up by legitimate media sources is used to circumvent the BLP by some editors. Maria202 23:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Poorly sourced derogatory information is already prohibited by the policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely true, of course, but as being gay is not inherently derogatory (though I presume we all recognize that in western society it can be very damaging in certain professions...say fundamentalist ministry) the provision that reads "if derogatory, should not be used at all" may not be sufficient for covering this situation. That leaves "should be handled with caution", which may not be strong enough, since definitions of caution may vary widely. I myself have most recently encountered the situation in Talk:Tim_LaHaye#Gay_Son. In that argument, the editor who wished to insert the claim that LaHaye's son was gay was eventually convinced that the source was insufficient. If self-identification were a required criteria, it would have been a much simpler matter to defuse. --Moonriddengirl 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the policy calls for all unsourced or poorly sourced contentious information to be removed, whether positive or negative. In the LaHay case it appears that poor sources were being advanced as reliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is caused by a lack of understanding or care about the notability requirements under WP:BLP. Editors who for one reason or another have an interest in including material about the sexuality of a biographical subject come up with any justification they can to say the material is notable. They may argue, for instance, that people are "interested" in whether somebody is gay or straight, that it is a matter of great importance to fans of the subject, that Person X + gay comes up with 8 billion Google hits, etc. What these editors fail to grasp is that such arguments completely fail to establish the notability of the sexuality of the subject. But because they stick to such arguments, they then proclaim that if they can find a source for such material, then it must surely be included as sourced and notable. In short, the problem exists, and is caused by poor comprehension and enforcement of WP:BLP. Whether this lack of comprehension and enforcement can be remedied in such instances by specific mention in policy of the issue of sexuality is a legitimate question. BCST2001 00:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the notability requirement WP:BLP for a puiblic figure is this line:

• If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

If something has been noted repeatedly in the mainstream media that is a good indication of its notability. Does that standard need to be changed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought that's what the whole "controversy regarding sexual preference" bit was meant to cover. :) It's one thing for an article to say, "Allegations have been made in this&that reputable source that soandso is gay" and another to say "soandso is gay." --Moonriddengirl 01:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback, the line you quote does not establish the standard for notability; rather, it simply presumes and refers to that standard. This is the whole problem. People in fact ignore what the standard of notability is, and proceed directly to the question of whether it has been noted in the media. Whether something appears in the media and whether it is notable in terms of Wikipedia and WP:BLP are two different questions. Notability has to mean, according to WP:BLP, notability in relation to the subject of the entry. Where the material is contentious, controversial, or insensitive, the notability criterion becomes crucial. If the material does not directly concern the reasons for the notability of the subject, and the material is contentious, controversial, or insensitive, it should be excluded. That is why there are two different examples given: one concerns a politician and one concerns a messy divorce. In the case of a politician, the reasons for their notability (running for public office) mean that sexual scandal may indeed need to be included in the article. In the case of many (indeed most) other biographical entries, details of messy divorcees, sexual scandals, or speculation or innuendo about sexual orientation are simply not notable, may often be contentious or insensitive, and thus must, most of the time, be excluded. This is what editors fail to understand or enforce, but policy on the matter is in fact quite clear. BCST2001 01:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Specific article question

(comment/question a specific article, Glenn Greenwald) Given the discussion above (on the sexual preference provision), I was wondering about the specific case of Glenn Greenwald's article. He self-identifies as gay, but it is not pertinent to why he is notable, so I'm inclined to take it out. On the other hand, he is in the LGBT cat., and rightly so, and I don't like the idea of including (someone or something) in a category without something in the article to back it up. So, should it be included now? Is there a different way to do it? And, does the change mentioned above affect this situation? Any thoughts? R. Baley 22:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, by proposed suggestion 2, if it were adopted policy, his self-profession should permit inclusion. --Moonriddengirl 22:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is this "us"?

"please alert us on the BLP noticeboard." Who could this "us" be. Can't be the community because it talks about editors who would be part of the community alerting "us". Can't be the foundation because BLP notice board is not an accepted way of contacting the foundation. So who is it?Geni 18:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it just means please let everyone (in the Wikipedia community) know ("us" = everyone; many users and editors who are or are not administrators consult the Noticeboard for such "alerts"). At the top of the Noticeboard, there is a reference to "outside intervention": "This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing Biographies of living people policy issues which require outside intervention." The "us" in WP:BLP as quoted appears to be simply a general reference (to the Wikipedia community). After a notice appears in the WP:BLP/N, and then "outside intervention" occurs, I do not know who the "outside interveners" are. That is not clear to me. I thought that "administrators" (who are editors who become administrators and thus "inside" Wikipedia structure)--WP:ANOT and Wikipedia:Administrators "patrol" the WP:BLP/N to see if they and/or others need to do something about reported (purported/alleged) violations of WP:BLP. Clearly, they are not "outside" of Wikipedia. Maybe "outside intervention" refers to action taken beyond simple editing (email communication with subjects of articles, lawyers, etc.; I do not know. If "us" really is problematical, perhaps a less-problematical (and it is still only a request) would be: "... please place a notice on the BLP noticeboard." Then one would go to the WP:BLP/N to consult the procedures in the top, its links to various procedural policies and guidelines, and discuss those matters on its talk page as warranted. --NYScholar 19:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed the sentence to more coherent syntax (following the conditional clause in start of the sentence): "If you have concerns ... please report them ...." --NYScholar 20:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)