Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 11

message: I have protected the page.  Policy is not made by edit war.  Please try to come to some resolution amongst yourselves.  Perhaps you should try to get input from other forums (e.g. Village Pump, etc.) if you are having trouble resolving this amongst the current participants.  Dragons flight 05:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I should note that due to the chance of timing, the version currently protected is not the agreed-to version, it is the version with the non-consensus language added.  Wikidemo 06:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, in other words, the wrong version? Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  A moderately funny reference.  I make the comment for the record only so that people from elsewhere do not  point to the page as it is now frozen as a representation of polcy.  Wikidemo 10:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: We seem to be drifting.  Can we please continue seeing if there is consensus for what language if any to add, and keep comments focused on that at least in this section so we stay on topic and everyone who wants can be heard?
So far we have:
*Original version (last stable before edit war). Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).
*2005 proposal.  Add the following sentence: Likewise, there should be no external links to self-published websites that have potentially damaging and unverifable statements about a living person.''
*SlimVirgin proposal (locked in by edit lock).  Add the following sentence: Unreliable and unverifiable sources should not be linked anywhere in Wikipedia space as sources of information about living persons, including in "External links" sections of articles.
*WilyD proposal (raised above).  Add: External links should never be used to circumvent to goals of the Biographies of Living People policy. Where external links are used to include information from self-published or dubious sources that would be inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, they should be removed.
I'll suggest my own.
*Add: External links not used as sources should follow all appropriate linking policy and guidelines, and in addition should not direct users to unverifiable material that is derogatory or otherwise tends to cause reputational harm to living people.
-- Wikidemo 21:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what about verifiable information that cause reputational harm to living people? We know John Major had an affair but under your proposal any external link mentioning this would not be allowed.Geni 22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the material is verifiable, the link is okay.  Mine only covers unverifiable material.  So it's okay to link to the Labor Party website as long as you don't direct users to the page where they discuss how much they hate John Major, and it's okay to link to a reliable source's discussion of the affair.  Just not to an unreliable discussion of the affair.  That's just what my policy forbids and allows.  NPOV, EL, no original research, citation requirements, etc., all apply as well.  Wikidemo 22:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not propose the above.  It is a misstatement of what I say.  My comments follow below; I made no such proposal at the time this was posted.  I do not even agree with the whole first sentence.  --NYScholar 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Focusing discussion.  Proposed addition to external link language

message: Re: the references to "obscure newspapers" in WP:BLP and elsewhere in Wikipedia: I think the term at least needs a clear definition, discussion about what the phrase denotes (not connotes), and whether or not it belongs in WP:BLP#Reliable sources.  I am questioning its validity in the statement.  Example in point: Jewish Telegraphic Agency newspapers, such as The Jerusalem Post, publications cited (sometimes specifically, sometimes not) by the Tulsa Jewish Review(and other U.S. Jewish community newspapers, journals, and magazines), which one editor termed an "obscure" source, I think incorrectly; the editor did not want the information which was properly (reliably and verifiably) sourced included in an article about Lewis Libby, to which WP:BLP#Well known public figures applies, and termed the source "obscure".  [An arbitration resolved the contended matter in favor of citing the source as reliable and verifiable: see Talk:Lewis Libby; WP:POV also applies to WP:BLP#Well known public figures.  In my view, The Jerusalem Post is a notable newspaper, it has an article about it in Wikipedia (because it is notable; not "obscure"), as does Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and it is thus not "obscure"; "obscure", as I state above, is a subjective and value-judgment-laden term and, I believe, can lead to contention.  One way that editors will have to exclude otherwise-includable points of view on a subject who happens to be a living person (when the information is neither potentially libelous or negative, just factual information) is to claim that the source is an "obscure newspaper."  --NYScholar 20:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "obscure newspaper" needs to be defined clearly.  Lots of local newspapers are reliable sources for news on their communities, and can and should be permitted as sources for living people in those communities (or with significant connections to those communities).  The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead might be considered "obscure" to people who've never been to Fargo, North Dakota; however, I have no doubt that it's a reliable source for information on Dennis Walaker. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: The comments [in above sections] do not state the language that was in BLP#Reliable sources before the current version; what is quoted above is not SlimVirgin's proposal (the language in there before): the current passage reads:
Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). Unreliable and unverifiable sources should not be linked anywhere in Wikipedia space as sources of information about living persons, including in "External links" sections of articles.
The previous passage, which included SV's language had a phrase (not a clause) which said "including as an external link"; that was deleted before I noticed the newer version.  I added the sentence "Unreliable and unverifiable sources ... articles."
The earlier parts of WP:BLP already address the other issues.  There is no need for changing it.  The sentence that I added does not rule out linking to political party websites (though not in "External links" sections of articles about living persons--which seems reasonable) in keeping still with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV; in the case of well-known public figures, which includes many still-living actors and other celebrities, politicial candidates, and so on, WP:BLP#Well known public figures and WP:POV are already clear.
Referring to WP:EL as if it were on a par with WP:V is not appropriate.  WP:EL are guidelines that refer to core policies WP:V and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and WP:EL also refers to WP:BLP.  I don't see any need for further revision.  It is clear that official websites of organizations are reliable and verifiable sources of information about them.  [They have biases, of course, in favor of the organizations that they describe; they are "first-party sources," not "second party" or "third-party sources"; and all three kinds of sources are defined and discussed in WP:V#Sources.]  If the organizations are partisan political organizations, those sites are partisan sites, and the passage currently refers to such websites ("partisan websites").  I believe that "obscure newspapers" is problematic, however, because "obscure" is a highly-subjective value-judgment-laden adjective.  What is "obscure" to some people in the world are major media to others.  "Partisan" is a clearer descriptive term.  Most partisan sites have clearly-defined biases.  For related information, see WP:POV, which also links to WP:BLP and protects well-known public figures from libelous statements in Wikipedia even while it states that various points of view, even those negative from the perspective of the living person, are permissible for development in articles about living persons.  Sites giving such pejorative potentially libelous information would not be linkable as "external links" in articles about living persons, according to the current language in WP:BLP#Reliable sources, although they might be listed as sources in citations to main body discussion.  Such sources would still have to adhere to WP:V#Sources.  I don't see difficulties that the earlier comments state.  These situations are already covered in WP:V#Sources.  As I say above, after thinking about it further, I recalled that my first impression of "obscure" was that it could prove problematic due to its subjectivity and unenforceability.  --NYScholar 03:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think anyone here is disagreeing with the principal behind all of this. The issue is simply how we word this so it doesn't mess up good ELs (that aren't being used as sources), but could be removed because of a misunderstanding of BLP policy. -- Ned Scott 04:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: NYScholar appears to favor the "SlimVirgin" addition plus deleting word "obscure".  I don't support the SlimVirgin draft because it allows NYScholar to continue advocating for deleting external links based on the false premise that they are all deemed sources whether or not they are used to establish verifiability of article content.  To avoid this kind of confusion we need the language to be clear that we are treating sources as an issue distinct from external links not used as sources.  I do agree with eliminating the word "obscure."  Wikidemo 06:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please allow me to speak for myself.--NYScholar 19:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [I added a bracketed correction above subsequently in the reference to "SlimVirgin"'s "proposal". --NYScholar 20:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current version

message: I do not agree with Wikidemo's interpretations of WP:BLP as he has been commenting on Wikipedia talk:External links.  I  prefer to speak for myself, as I have done above.  The only question I have [at the time that I posted this; other questions arose later] about the current wording involves the references to "obscure newspapers" in WP:BLP.  I don't agree with Wikidemo's arguments for allowing self-published fansites that are not official sites published by the subjects of articles about living persons or in material about living persons as "external links" in Wikipedia space.  Please see the other talk page discussion for that disagreement.  I would prefer that other users not restate my comments.  Please scroll up for my own statements of my views.  Thank you. --NYScholar 19:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "or in obscure newspapers newspapers" phrase

message: ("editing conflict")Re: the references to "obscure newspapers" in WP:BLP and elsewhere in Wikipedia: I think the term at least needs a clear definition, discussion about what the phrase denotes (not connotes), and whether or not it belongs in WP:BLP#Reliable sources.  I am questioning its validity in the statement.  Example in point: Jewish Telegraphic Agency newspapers, such as The Jerusalem Post, publications cited (sometimes specifically, sometimes not) by the Tulsa Jewish Review (and other U.S. Jewish community newspapers, journals, and magazines), which one editor termed an "obscure" source, I think incorrectly; the editor did not want the information which was properly (reliably and verifiably) sourced included in an article about Lewis Libby, to which WP:BLP#Well known public figures applies, and termed the source "obscure".  In my view, The Jerusalem Post is a notable newspaper, it has an article about it in Wikipedia (because it is notable; not "obscure"), as does Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and it is thus not "obscure"; "obscure", as I state above, is a subjective and value-judgment-laden term and, I believe, can lead to contention.  One way that editors will have to exclude otherwise-includable points of view on a subject who happens to be a living person (when the information is neither potentially libelous or negative, just factual information) is to claim that the source is an "obscure newspaper."  [Updated; added link, etc.] --NYScholar 20:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ("Editing conflict")An arbitration resolved the contended matter in favor of citing the source; in the case of my citation to The Jerusalem Post and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency--JTA was drawn upon by Tulsa Jewish Review and cited in the Notable Names Database, but one was (no longer) citing the NNDB; rather one was citing the original source in JTA and JP ([which had been] picked up by TJR) as a reliable and verifiable source: see Talk:Lewis Libby; WP:POV also applies to WP:BLP#Well known public figures.  [Case in point relating to "External links": whereas the NNDB could not be cited as a "source" in the article in Notes or References pertaining to Lewis Libby, since it is not deemed "reliable and verifiable" in Wikipedia (currently), it was being listed at times in "External links", but those who objected to its listing Libby's religious affiliation did not want it listed as even as an "External link" [Some claimed that the TJR, as cited by the NNDB, was "obscure", which was strongly contested in the arbitration matter by others]; cf. the situation of self-published "unofficial websites" called fansites in biographies of living persons who are also well-known public figures; if one cannot cite the NNDB [for a variety of reasons relating to reliablity and verifiability of its content], why should one be able to cite such fansites (which also have questionable reliability and verifiability as "self-published" non-authorized sites of information about a living person)?]  [Moved this out because it relates to additional point. --NYScholar 20:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "obscure newspapers": Examples of problems relating to that phrase

message: Re: "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all" [added the sentence for easier ref. --NYScholar 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that what that "solely" reference may intend is that if the information is included on a "partisan website" with no reliable and verifiable source given to verify its accuracy (its "veracity"=truth), then the partisan website cannot be used as a source of that information, especially if it is derogatory or otherwise negative information about a living person; though one needs to consult WP:BLP#Well known public figures with reference to WP:POV.  It looks like WP:BLP#Reliable sources does need considerable revising so that it does not demand the impossible or contain value-laden terminology in its adjectives and adverbs.  It needs to be entirely clear.  I am not opposed to including political websites as information about the organizations that they are websites about in the "External links" section of a Wikipedia article on the organization.  If the organization has a "point of view" on a "well known public figure" who is also a living person, then WP:BLP#Well known public figures will apply.  One does need to take account of all of WP:BLP.  WP:BLP#Reliable sources needs to be consistent with the rest of WP:BLP and all core Wikipedia editing policies.  Guidelines already refer to policies in their identification as guidelines and not policies, and they already state that they cannot violate Wikipedia's core policies. --NYScholar 22:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If that language goes in, I'd want it made clear that it does not refer to Web sites of opinion journalism, such as The New Republic, The American Prospect or National Review. Those publications are all primarily organs of journalism and so are their Web sites. Some Web site created by a political party or political organization would be a different story: We shouldn't be using negative information from them unless confirmed elsewhere (in which case we don't need to use them at all). Noroton 21:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers ..."

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

message: I also question the phrase containing the word "solely"; there is no way for Wikipedia editors to ascertain that information appears "solely" anywhere; that runs up against WP:NOR, and Wikipedia editors are not experts in subjects.  No one can ascertain that information appears "solely" anywhere.  The database of accessible material on any subject rules that out as a possibility.  That part needs re-thinking/re-writing as well. --[Updated.] --NYScholar 21:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that what that "solely" reference may intend is that if the information is included on a "partisan website" with no reliable and verifiable source given to verify its accuracy (its "veracity"=truth), then the partisan website cannot be used as a source of that information, especially if it is derogatory or otherwise negative information about a living person; though one needs to consult WP:BLP#Well known public figures with reference to WP:POV.  It looks like WP:BLP#Reliable sources does need considerable revising so that it does not demand the impossible or contain value-laden terminology in its adjectives and adverbs.  It needs to be entirely clear.  I am not opposed to including political websites as information about the organizations that they are websites about in the "External links" section of a Wikipedia article on the organization.  If the organization has a "point of view" on a "well known public figure" who is also a living person, then WP:BLP#Well known public figures will apply.  One does need to take account of all of WP:BLP.  WP:BLP#Reliable sources needs to be consistent with the rest of WP:BLP and all core Wikipedia editing policies.  Guidelines already refer to policies in their identification as guidelines and not policies, and they already state that they cannot violate Wikipedia's core policies. --NYScholar 22:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If that language goes in, I'd want it made clear that it does not refer to Web sites of opinion journalism, such as The New Republic, The American Prospect or National Review. Those publications are all primarily organs of journalism and so are their Web sites. Some Web site created by a political party or political organization would be a different story: We shouldn't be using negative information from them unless confirmed elsewhere (in which case we don't need to use them at all). Noroton 21:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Material available solely on partisan websites"

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

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

message: Re: "proposals": I would like to see experienced administrators who have been administrators for considerable amounts of time and who have a long track record in understanding the applications of policies like WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in a "guideline" like WP:EL (see their comments above) and experienced editors who have been editing Wikipedia for at least a year, not only editors who have been here for 6 months, addressing the issues of how to change the language of a policy as crucial as WP:BLP#Reliable sources in Wikipedia.  I don't think that users should be strong-armed into changing policy this way.  There is already a clearly-established consensus in Wikipedia called "core policies".  Furthermore, I object to my words being edited (as they have been), to the changing of the headings after people posted comments in them (after being asked to add subheadings to my own comments, however, I have done that), and to statements being made in my name and to personal comments.  Please focus on the content being discussed (the current wording of the policy) and not on contributors.  Please see WP:NPA for further guidance.  This has gotten out of hand.  I object to the first sentence only (so far) in the current wording of WP:BLP#Reliable sources.  My reasons are stated above.  --NYScholar 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest changing the language of the policy in WP:BLP#Reliable sources from passive voice to active voice: to "dos" and "don'ts" as opposed to language like "should be linked" etc.  It would be clearer if Wikipedia states what editors "can do" and what they "cannot do" as they attempt to provide what Wikipedia policy defines as "reliable sources" for biographies of living persons and for material in articles about living persons in Wikipedia, including what kinds of "external" sources/sites Wikipedia editors can or cannot "link" to in such articles, whether the "external links" are elsewhere in Wikipedia space or whether they are in "External links" sections of Wikipedia articles.  These practices need clarity of definition; editors need clearly-defined instructions to follow, esp. new editors. --NYScholar 02:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have worked on this policy since its early beginnings when it was a mere proposal, and helped bring it to policy status. My view is that the current policies such as WP:V, and the WP:BLP extension, is very, very clear. We requires sources to be impeccable for anything related to living people in articles, talk pages, and all other namespaces. That includes unreliable and unverifiable online sources even if they are placed in "the External links" sections of articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this information.  I was logged out of Wikipedia, but I just logged in again, thinking of going over to another user's webpage to apologize if I have upset him.  If so (which appears to be the case), that has been unintentional.  I have (from my own perspective) just been trying to respond to each one of his comments.  I am going over to post a similar comment on his talk page.  Thanks again for this comment here.  --NYScholar 03:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals

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

message: Inasmuch as the consensus process seems to have broken down I am being bold and implementing a solution I think addresses everyone's concerns.  Here is the language:
The 6/23/07 version: 
* Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). 
The new sentence to be incorporated (that was the subject of objections and edit warring):
*Unreliable and unverifiable sources should not be linked anywhere in Wikipedia space as sources of information about living persons, including in "External links" sections of articles.
The integrated version:
*Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers from highly partisan sources should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. MSelf-published Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used anywhere in Wikipedia space as a source of information about a living person, nor linked in an "external links" section for that purpose, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
:I don't think these changes to WP:BLP should be made without adequate consensus discussion of the proposed (unsigned) changes.  This change occurred prior to anyone's responding to the (unsigned) proposal.  Administrators: please advise.  Thank you.  --NYScholar 22:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my proposal.  Absent any consensus the sentence you added would have to go, which leaves us at the 6/23/07 version and, I presume, an ongoing edit war.  I have tried several times to encourage a consensus discussion but your many posts to this page seem to have driven people away and killed the effort. Absent any meaningful input I did the best I can, synthesizing what I understand to be everyone's concerns and input, and posting the rationale and substance of my changes in detail here on the talk page.  Wikidemo 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 8/15 proposal / change

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

message: =====Reliable sources=====
Editors must provide reliable and verifiable sources for material about living persons and external links to sources of material pertaining to living persons very carefully. Without reliable and verifiable sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies and could lead to libel claims.
Editors should handle material presented in and/or hyperlinked in partisan sources with caution, and they should not use these sources at all anywhere in Wikipedia space if they are not reliable and verifiable (See WP:V#Sources).  Editors should not use material about living persons from such sources at all anywhere in Wikipedia space (including as external links and in External links sections) if it is derogatory or otherwise negative about living persons and could potentially subject Wikipedia to claims of libel and slander. (See WP:BLP#Well known public figures for further guidance pertaining to living persons who are also public figures.)
Editors should never use self-published material from books, zines, websites, and blogs at all anywhere in Wikipedia space as a source of information about a living person unless the material and the sources meet the core policy of WP:V, including WP:V#Sources.  Editors should never link to such material or to such self-published sources of material about living persons as an external link or in an "External links" section, unless the material, the source and/or the site are published by the subject of the article (see below) or otherwise in keeping with WP:V#Sources.  All such sources of information about living persons and external links to sources of information about living persons in Wikipedia space must not violate WP:V and other core policies in Wikipedia.
Editors should not repeat gossip about living persons published by tabloids and scandal sheets.  They should ask themselves (1) whether or not the source is both reliable and verifiable, in keeping with WP:V#Sources; (2) whether or not the material being presented is being presented as true; and (3) even if it is being presented as true, whether or not such material is both notable and relevant to an Encyclopedia article about the subject.  If any of those three instances do not pertain, the material must not appear anywhere in Wikipedia.
When less-than-reliable publications print material that their writers suspect is untrue, the writers often employ weasel words or phrases.  Editors must be vigilant and scrutinize similarly-ambivalent or ambiguous language in such less-than-reliable publications and exclude the material from Wikipedia if the source uses such rhetorical tactics.  If editors detect that the reliability or verifiability of the publication is dubious and that its writer or writers do not appear to believe their own account, Wikipedia should not include such information.  To do so would damage the credibility of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia editors should also be careful about perpetuating a feedback loop in which editors have repeated in a Wikipedia article an unsourced and speculative contention from any source (including newspaper and other otherwise reliable and verifiable media publications) and then subsequently cited that same dubious unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article to support the secondary source's speculative contention as if it were reliably and verifiably sourced when it is not.  Editors who suspect that this sort of feedback loop is occurring should be especially resourceful to document other independent reliable and verifiable sources -- outside the loop itself -- for the contentious claim.  If editors cannot find such independent reliable and verifiable sources, they must delete the contentious and unsupportable claim on sight from all Wikipedia space where it appears.
[The last part on the "feedback loop" is particularly tricky to write clearly; it may still need further work. --NYScholar 23:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed language for [[WP:BLP#Reliable sources]]

message: Editors must provide reliable and verifiable sources for material about living persons and external links to sources of material pertaining to living persons very carefully. Without reliable and verifiable sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies and could lead to libel claims.
Editors should handle material presented in and/or hyperlinked in partisan sources with caution, and they should not use these sources at all anywhere in Wikipedia space if they are not reliable and verifiable (See WP:V#Sources).  Editors should not use material about living persons from such sources at all anywhere in Wikipedia space (including as external links and in External links sections) if it is derogatory or otherwise negative about living persons and could potentially subject Wikipedia to claims of libel and slander. (See WP:BLP#Well known public figures for further guidance pertaining to living persons who are also public figures.)
Editors should never use self-published material from books, zines, websites, and blogs at all anywhere in Wikipedia space as a source of information about a living person unless the material and the sources meet the core policy of WP:V, including WP:V#Sources.  Editors should never link to such material or to such self-published sources of material about living persons as an external link or in an "External links" section, unless the material, the source and/or the site are published by the subject of the article (see below) or otherwise in keeping with WP:V#Sources.  All such sources of information about living persons and external links to sources of information about living persons in Wikipedia space must not violate WP:V and other core policies in Wikipedia.
Editors should not repeat gossip about living persons published by tabloids and scandal sheets.  They should ask themselves (1) whether or not the source is both reliable and verifiable, in keeping with WP:V#Sources; (2) whether or not the material being presented is being presented as true; and (3) even if it is being presented as true, whether or not such material is both notable and relevant to an Encyclopedia article about the subject.  If any of those three instances do not pertain, the material must not appear anywhere in Wikipedia.
When less-than-reliable publications print material that their writers suspect is untrue, the writers often employ weasel words or phrases.  Editors must be vigilant and scrutinize similarly-ambivalent or ambiguous language in such less-than-reliable publications and exclude the material from Wikipedia if the source uses such rhetorical tactics.  If editors detect that the reliability or verifiability of the publication is dubious and that its writer or writers do not appear to believe their own account, Wikipedia should not include such information.  To do so would damage the credibility of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia editors should also be careful about perpetuating a feedback loop in which editors have repeated in a Wikipedia article an unsourced and speculative contention from any source (including newspaper and other otherwise reliable and verifiable media publications) and then subsequently cited that same dubious unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article to support the secondary source's speculative contention as if it were reliably and verifiably sourced when it is not.  Editors who suspect that this sort of feedback loop is occurring should be especially resourceful to document other independent reliable and verifiable sources -- outside the loop itself -- for the contentious claim.  If editors cannot find such independent reliable and verifiable sources, they must delete the contentious and unsupportable claim on sight from all Wikipedia space where it appears.</blockquote>
[The last part on the "feedback loop" is particularly tricky to write clearly; it may still need further work. --NYScholar 23:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources

message: The changes that you are proposing are re-writing a core policy in Wikipedia: WP:V, specifically already addressed in WP:V#Questionable sources (the whole thing; as it says there, "(See below.)" and WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper)".
In my view, it is a mistake to make these changes that you are proposing in WP:BLP#Reliable sources: [these particular "emendations"--to amend or not to amend being the question.] As many experienced editors have already pointed out, WP:V pertains to all sources and all external links to sources of information in articles in Wikipedia, including those about living persons and including those not about living persons.  The intended purpose is to make Wikipedia reliable, verifiable, and credible as a source of information about anything in it.  [In articles not about himself or herself:] The use of self-published blogs at all  [your example above] is very restricted in Wikipedia; the writer publishing his or her own blog has to be a recognizable expert on the subject about which he or she is being cited as a source of information [as a result of other non-self-published "third-party" publications]: WP:V#Sources.  Why you are trying to re-define what WP:V already says in WP:BLP is really beyond me at this point.  If the inconsistencies are in WP:EL, that "guideline" is where the inconsistencies need to be addressed, not here.  I see no good coming from this effort thus far.  [If this is how you propose to "emend" WP:BLP#Reliable sources, I say don't [amend or emend it].  In my view it was better with the phrase "including as an external link" (which SV had added, [which I thought perfectly clear and not ungrammatical at all], which you and others later and most recently removed, and, after the removal of that phrase, it was better with the sentence that that I had added, which you and others also removed and some others reinserted, but which is now reverted back to your earlier deletion of it.]
As far as how long WP:BLP#Reliable sources has been the subject of editing warring, its "stablility" seems to pre-date June 23, 2007 [ref. in editing summ. to " 6/23/07 version, last stable one before edit war"], if one examines the editing history before that date.  This project page has not been "stable" only [on] June [23], if one looks at the history.  [It was stable for periods of time both before and after that date.]  There has been disagreement here about these matters for more than three months.
I think that WP:BLP should not be rewritten in a manner that is inconsistent with WP:V#Sources.  BLP also fall under the rubric of verifiability of the information about living persons whether it is "derogatory" or not; whatever information is in a biography of a living person, like any other article in Wikipedia about any other kind of subject, the sources of the information in the article must be impeccable in terms of their reliability and verifiability, and that includes any external links to which one is linking in the article.  All the information in an article must be accurate, reliable, and verifiable.  There is no desire in Wikipedia to mislead its readers by linking to self-published unreliable and unverifiable sources of information that are not in keeping with WP:V#Sources, including WP:V#Questionable sources.  If an external link links to a dubious source of information, why link to it?  To do so is to mislead readers.  WP:V is already clear on these points.  By having WP:BLP include a link to WP:V, one is saying that it must conform to that core policy.  What is unclear about that? It is the guideline WP:EL that is unclear, not WP:BLP.  --NYScholar 08:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For more information about matters relating to WP:BLP#Reliable sources, see the "content guideline" in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, via both WP:V and WP:Attribution, as it pertains to WP:BLP; WP:EL and WP:Reliable sources both dovetail with WP:V, as does WP:BLP.  Thanks.  --NYScholar 08:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Specifically, see WP:Reliable sources#Biographies of living persons.  Thanks.  --NYScholar 08:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that SV's phrase "including as an external link" needs to be restored to the project page of WP:BLP#Reliable sources and that the "content guideline" in Wikipedia:Reliable sources should quote the policy as it currently does.  Deleting the phrase does not alter the purpose and intention of WP:V#Sources as it applies to sources of information about and pertaining to living persons that are being linked to in Wikipedia space (including articles, talk pages, user pages, etc.).  --NYScholar 09:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Viewpoint on the proposed "emendations"