Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 12

message: [added subheading. --NYScholar 00:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to support it's removal.Geni 08:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: [added the subheading. --NYScholar 00:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that would be no more or less true if that DUI were reported in the New York Times, isn't that so?  --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We are talking about sources, not establishing the notability of the fact. Small town newspapers will likely not establish that a fact is encyclopedic, but it is a reliable source in the event that the fact is encyclopedic. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case you mention the material is invalid on WP:V and WP:RS grounds.  The question here isn't whether we allow unreliable information to be used for material about living people.  The question is whether we impose a requirement on newspapers that is more stringent here than for articles in general.  This is not a straw poll by any means.  The discussion has been diffuse and messy but it has gone on for a few weeks, and the rationale has been that "obscure" is not a meaningful way to distinguish reliable from unreliable newspapers, particularly in the case of people of specialized interest, where a specialized paper may be the most germane source.  For example, someone active in a small town (who we'll assume passes the notability requirement) may be covered best by the local small town newspaper.  I had suggested we replace "obscure" with "highly partisan" but nobody picked up on that idea.Wikidemo 16:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not support the removal of "or in obscure newspapers"

message: This is worth a heading, at least. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NYScholar's point is a very good one.  Obscurity is irrelevant to reliability and verifiability.  As I said above, The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead might be considered "obscure" to people who've never been to Fargo, North Dakota; however, I have no doubt that it's a reliable source for information on Dennis Walaker.  "Obscure" is so poorly defined that it's just inviting arguments. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: We cannot revoke [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] through a straw poll

message: I wonder if an alternative phrase for "or in obscure newspapers" might be "or in non-notable sources."
Nevertheless, it appears to me that the sentence that phrase appears in--"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all."--is unwieldy, unclear (lack of definition of adverbs (solely--how does one know for sure [already asked above]--and adjectives (partisan, obscure), and weak (using passive voice of verbs).  The sentence in relation to "sources" ("Reliable sources") is ultimately unnecessary because no sources cited in any Wikipedia article are to be "non-notable" (non-relevant), or or "unreliable" or "unverifiable" Wikipedia:V#Sources.
The whole sentence this phrase appears in seems to me problematic (as I explained earlier).  "partisan websites" is subjective (subject to widely-varying interpretations depending on the point of view of an editor or other user); it is not defined (a link to some Wikipedia article defining what "partisan" means would be useful if the sentence remains in some form).  Does the reference mean that "unreliable" and "unverifiable" "partisan websites" are not citable in biographies of living persons; WP:V#Sources already states that, and thus the mention here is redundant (as well as unclear).
"with caution" is not a clear directive.
"not be used at all" means must be "removed" or "deleted" on sight if already in Wikipedia BLP or other articles or other Wikipedia space.
The sentence is redundant with WP:V#Sources, which is already linked in the project page. I think that over-prescription in this project page tends to lead to problems and that it has led to problems.
In place of over-prescription using vague terminology and passive-voice constructions in syntax (sentence structure), the project page needs to define very clearly, using unambigious terms and active-voice constructions, how WP:V applies to what editors do in writing biographies of living persons and to what editors do in making statements about living persons that they insert elsewhere in Wikipedia (Wikipedia space).  When citing "derogatory" statements about living persons who are also "well-known public figures", WP:BLP#Well known public figures pertains to what editors do.  That subsection already contains directions for editors' need to edit with caution (or carefully?) when they provide any sources concerning "derogatory" statements about living persons.  In providing any statements about or "points of view" on living persons, whether "derogatory" or positive or neutral, editors must always use both reliable and verifiable sources in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:V, as WP:POV and WP:NOR already states.  If so-called "partisan websites" and "obscure newspapers" are not both reliable and verifiable, then editors cannot use them as sources of information about living persons in Wikipedia space.  In many cases, by definition, "partisan" (biased) websites are neither reliable nor verifiable sources of information about living persons (by definition, they are "biased" ("partisan"; partial to their causes or missions) and thus  citing them without indicating clearly (defining) what that bias is violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  Unless Wikipedia editors are defining various "points of view" on a living person who is also a "well-known public figure"--WP:BLP#Well known public figures, editors cannot cite "partisan websites" (those which are not "self-published") as sources about living persons, according to WP:POV.  But if editors are defining various "points of view" on a living person who is also a "well-known public figure", then it seems to me that editors can cite "partisan websites" (those which are not "self-published") as sources, as long as they introduce such a source with clear transitions indicating its biases ("point of view") and as long as there is no potential Wikipedia:Libel or slander involved in making any such statement about the living person.  (For related policies and directions, see WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown, which protects such living persons from editors' inserting or linking to potentially libellous statements or to slanderous material about them using unreliable and unverifiable sources.  As I have stated earlier, in my reading of WP:V (core policy), all references to "sources" in WP:BLP (the project page) also pertain to the use of external links throughout Wikipedia space (including in the section called "External links"--scroll up to top of this talk page "#External links").
:Concerning "partisan websites" which are "self-published", information in WP:V#Sources already pertains. --NYScholar 18:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replying to a lot of points at once. "Wikipedia:Notable" generally means that sources have written about something. It doesn't mean relevant to the subject of the article, and has nothing to do with reliability.  A lot of people have written about the Weekly World News, it's highly notable, but not at all reliable (for example, it regularly writes about continued sightings of Elvis Presley, we can hardly cite it in that article!); and some of the most reliable books on many scientific subjects are often not notable, in the sense that relatively few people have written about them. We can't demand that all our sources be notable in themselves. Fringe newspapers, in the sense that they cover extreme partisan views, do need to be excluded as sources, but because they are covered by Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Extremist sources, not because they are obscure. A small town newspaper will be obscure, but can be perfectly reliable, and a large town newspaper will probably not be obscure, no matter how partisan or extreme it is. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't support the removal of this.  We allude to the same issue in V. What are the objections to including it? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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