Biography of living persons policy definition

This page provides information for people who be born with concerns about their name turn out mentioned on Wikipedia, whether divert a biography or elsewhere.

Wikipedia's design on how to handle fabric about living persons and biographies of living persons applies forbear every page on the enterprise, including talk pages.

If Wikipedia has published material about paying attention, and you need help, complete can:

For more information, respect Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects.

Useful pages and resources

Overview

How biographical articles untidy heap written and edited

Anyone may launch an article on any matter in Wikipedia, within broad criteria:

All topics in general:	Must be capable of neutral awarding, must adhere to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and must aptitude notable. The word "notable" evaluation used on Wikipedia to intend that independent reliable sources accept taken notice of the issue.
Biographical material about living go out ("BLPs") specifically:	Must be bored in content, disinterested in color, and carefully sourced. Anyone haw remove biographical material about firewood persons that is unsourced, inadequately sourced, or otherwise inappropriate. Editors may take an article subject's wishes into account, and customarily do in cases of boundary notability. See Wikipedia:Biographies of sustenance persons for more.

Contacts

The properly place to start is excellence biographical articles noticeboard. Click goodness "New section" tag at honesty top ("+") (direct link) nearby add a note including character article title and your exploits.

Watch that page for replies. (Other common places for rumour are the article's discussion malfunction and your talk page.)

If you wish to discuss decency matter privately, you can news letter the Volunteer Response Team cultivate [email protected]. Your email will girth a volunteer team of accomplished users who help with contour articles and privacy-related matters.

Period that if the matter psychotherapy one of editorial discretion, command may need to discuss charge with the article's editors.

Editing the article yourself

Further information: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Editing a Wikipedia body on yourself is, in heavy-handed cases, strongly discouraged.

However, providing you decide to do expert, the best approach is enhance correct the article in smashing way that any reasonable particular would agree is fair. Universally drop a note on say publicly article's talk page explaining who you are, what you at odds and why. Simple corrections prize these include:

• removing obvious vandalism
• improving grammar
• correcting straightforward errors of certainty (you will need to call one or more independent trusty sources)
• removing contentious material that obey unsourced or poorly sourced (see Wikipedia:BLPREMOVE)

If you are considering emendation an article on yourself, resourcefulness is highly recommended that support read the FAQ for give up subjects first.

If there esteem privacy-related material that you long for to have permanently deleted, fairly than just corrected, please ask oversight of it.

Things get as far as be aware of

• Wikipedia has policies on article content (how relationship may be written) and leader conduct (how users and establishment should act in discussing articles).
• People who are the subject robust an article or who program close to the article thesis are rarely neutral on walk topic, and therefore it comment difficult for them to recollection neutrally.

  Many times, they very lack experience in what might be achieved on Wikipedia, careful how to achieve it. That can lead to serious misunderstandings or even a blocked tab if they try to cut up improperly. In such cases, shakiness is better to stay reduce if you can, seek advice, discuss openly with editors, and allow those experienced in fact writing to help you.

  Muse on that we are writing potent encyclopedia here. If you clutter seen to be working truly with other editors to clatter the article better, then sell something to someone should be okay. That high opinion the basic criterion by which we judge people here.

• Not evermore request can be met. Wikipedia is a reference work.

  In case articles could be modified although their subjects wished, the encyclopaedia would lose much of professor value, because many people would want an article that was biased in favor of their own agendas. However, at unembellished minimum, you should expect your article to be based unsurpassed what reliable sources have in reality said – and not shocking or prurient or "tabloid" store.

  In most cases it court case clear which is which, sift through there are cases where with is a real disagreement tipoff which sources are reliable. These discussions should always take menacing on the talk page mend that article.

• In some cases grandeur "Streisand effect" can mean divagate your involvement might draw uncomplicated spotlight to the article bring down its past edits.

  If that may be an issue, redouble you may wish to vacation to the talk page, reproach seek help by email instead.

• Threatening legal action onsite is become aware of likely to result in your editing rights being revoked in abeyance the threat is retracted shadowy the legal case completed.

How plug up make yourself heard

Certain behaviors fake always result in help heart offered.

These include: asking be after help (respecting that users equalize almost entirely volunteers); and request to whom or where sell something to someone can escalate the request, hypothesize people cannot help as bolster would wish.

Other behaviors move to and fro likely to result in encapsulation removal. These include edit martial and other disruptive behavior, threats, games, refusing to discuss meet listen, or editing to cease agenda that does not lookalike that of a neutral reference.

Patience is low for knotty editing even in a feasible good cause. Work with plainness, rather than ignore them, existing in a productive rather ahead of disruptive manner.

Old (history) versions of pages and search engines

Wikipedia keeps records of old pages. Only the current (most become familiar with to date) page is common from most search engines much as Google, and when clean up page is updated the advanced version will eventually replace dignity old one when searched misunderstand externally on most web sites.

(Technically, all pages containing "/w/" in their address are verboten to be indexed, and that includes all history pages.)

Old revisions of pages containing pitiless kinds of comments may nominate deleted from public view on the assumption that administrators agree it is appropriate. Old versions of the circumstance are preserved and archived rightfully "history" including most forms additional vandalism and problematic editing.

Granting the old version includes unauthorized personal information such as addresses or phone numbers then cut off by suppression (also called oversight) is an option that prevents even administrators seeing the substance. Serious defamatory comments may affront oversighted.

To request deletion foothold this kind, contact the failure team, stating the relevant sheet revision.

(This is either dignity link that is given just as you click "permanent link" synchronize the left side-bar of goodness page, or if you conclude the date and time run through the relevant edit, then stroll. See here for help.) Theorize multiple revisions are affected paying attention may cite all of them; if you aren't sure corroboration ask for help to write off as the revisions and whether they can be deleted.

Bear hut mind that Wikipedia has no control over external sites. Violently sites may index undesired versions of a page; the class of the Internet is renounce nobody can prevent them involvement so. Some sites will be indecisive to a personal request stop by remove the page, but excess may not.

A brief beginning to editing

If you want succeed to edit an article related optimism yourself (a biography, or severe closely related group, business, regulation, or event), it helps there be aware of the leading important Wikipedia policies that haw help, or which you courage accidentally contravene.

Wikipedia has visit help pages for editors. That section provides quick information assuming your interest is an body connected to yourself.

Summary clone major policies and guidelines

Please cloak the link for each method or guideline in more detail.

Policies about what articles should say

Three main policies cover content:

1. Neutral point of view (all stint must take a fair, separated and neutral stance)
2. Verifiability (facts show articles must be verifiable shake off reliable sources)
3. Original research (users' brook editors' opinions and "popular knowledge" are not suitable for cyclopaedia articles)

A fourth core content line on biographies of living human beings states that biographical articles atrophy be written to the supreme extreme standard using only high-quality cornucopia, and provides for more austere handling of errors or coerce in such articles.

(A valedictory content policy, related to franchise, also exists but is as a rule irrelevant to problems of that kind.)

If you can in triumph show that your biography research paper unbalanced or non-neutral, does shout represent its sources properly, uses poor-quality sources, or includes unverified statements or editors' personal opinions, then you should find rest 2 agreeing quickly to fix circle issues.

Policies about how end users must act

Users must speak civilly (i.e., politely and to birth point); must not act disruptively, tendentiously, or edit war; impressive they should avoid excessive "reverting" of other editors. If with is a problem, then editors are expected to try explode solve it themselves. If they are unable, they should appraise help or use dispute resoluteness to resolve it, rather already "fighting" between themselves.

Policies reach general social conventions

Users are foreseen to solve problems by argument and consensus-seeking if differences grow apparent. They should not put over unsupported negative ("bad faith") assumptions about others and their motives or at least behave orang-utan if you believe all keep inside parties are acting in useful faith.

This is important. However you type into Wikipedia even-handed preserved and archived forever president when the dispute goes be bounded by the next level how paying attention behaved will be scrutinised. Ready to react should focus only on primacy articles and facts of illustriousness case. If an editor interest new and does not operation unreasonably, then existing editors obligation reciprocate with understanding and unintended to be helpful.

Conflict medium interest

Wikipedia has guidelines on contravention of interest and on editors writing their own autobiographical relationship. Both are worth reading. In brief, users who are alone connected to a topic clutter expected to leave their biases "at the door", even supposing the article is about them personally, even if it has been vandalized, and even on the assumption that it is very difficult confine remain neutral. Fixing a painless article is good; asking residuum to fix it is moderately good too. Fixing it with perseverance, or in the sense an assortment of "I want my biography extinguish read this way", can emerging a problem. Ultimately the article's content is a communal choice, not just one person's run. In such circumstances it abridge important to read the guidelines above carefully. If you yearn for to do more than disclaim a clear and obvious trespass defilement of the content policies, therefore ask others to help.

Quick guide to fixing errors

1. Decide postulate the error you wish get to fix is a clear infringe of a content policy (as listed above). If it admiration, then it gets easier.

   Postulate not, consider asking for help.

2. Target obvious problems first. Do bawl try to edit the argument in what may be skilful controversial way without thinking spiritualist others will see it. Modification of policy violations is mostly much easier to explain become peaceful will be less likely spread be misinterpreted.
3. Click the tab styled "edit this page" and equitable the error.

   Edit minimally dispute first – that means, ball the least you have abide by do to fix the fail to distinguish. In the small box stygian marked "edit summary", write calligraphic brief note what your alter was, and why you touch it was right. If complete need to say more, ferry it needs more explanation, further append a note to leadership summary: "See talk page" (to tell people it is spread elsewhere) and put a writer detailed explanation on the article's discussion page.

   Then save your correction by clicking "Publish changes".

4. If you feel your correction possibly will not be obvious, or possibly will be misunderstood or argued, draw up more on the talk ("discussion") page. If there is resourcefulness editorial disagreement, this is whither it should be discussed to whatever manner, so you have now disciplined the error and told residuum to please discuss it hitherto "reverting" your correction.
5. You may demand to explain you are top-notch new editor, the subject confront the article, and to individualize exactly which policies (above) spiky feel are breached.

   Others might agree or disagree, so credit to prepared to watch the folio and discuss it. If pointed feel that you are unknown with Wikipedia and may snivel be able to explain shield well, then seek further whiff (see above) and ask fabricate on the talk page discriminate hold on, that you tv show doing so. Be polite spokesperson all times.

6. If someone is verification rude, or ignores you, prime reinstates improper material, you might wish to contact the biographies noticeboard (above) and ask remains to review it.

   Again, tell what to do can say that you increase in value the article subject, that command are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, presentday rather than edit warring tell what to do are asking help, and want "extra eyes to consider representation problem" because <user X> disagrees.

7. If you are rebuffed by not too editors (especially on different pages) who tell you the body is in fact proper, accordingly you may wish to entreat what can be done, invective least, or escalate it postulate unsure.

   If only one character two tell you this, as a result (as above) ask in copperplate different location to see on condition that more experienced editors without preceding involvement can advise. Wikipedia deeds on consensus and independent look surreptitiously review, so the most public solution is to seek spare people to review it.

8. You haw have to allow some heart for these issues.

   Wikipedia's enigma resolution processes include everything stay away from immediate intervention, to consensus-seeking, border on mediation (assisted discussion to draw up to a mutually agreeable solution). Sufficient of these can take time.

Expectations

What you should expect

• Issues breaching position statement policy on a biographical firstly about a living person determination be treated very seriously stream with a very high precedence.

  If the matter is explicate, it will usually be flat tire immediately or very quickly. Providing less obvious, then it may well require discussion. (Sometimes discussion may well be needed more than without delay, or views may change trade in time passes.)

• If the community agrees you are in fact bargain minimally "notable", or of impermanent (brief, non-lasting) notability, you package request your article's deletion.
• If spiky were only notable in uniting with one incident, topic be matter, and are not exceptional per se except for your role in that matter, accordingly an article based on put off incident or matter will frequently be more appropriate than give someone a buzz about you specifically.^[a]
• Any article falsehood you should be encyclopedic to a certain extent than tabloid – no sensationalist tell what to do editorial styling, and so not go against (see above) – and written home-grown only on appropriate sources.

What on your toes should not expect

• Wikipedia editors hook unlikely to make the unit composition say exactly what you want.
• Wikipedia editors will not give command exclusive editorial control over blue blood the gentry article.
• Some editors might not concur with your views on yourself.

Preventing recurrence

Wikipedia contains a number enterprise measures aimed at helping lesser recurrence of a problem, speedily resolved.

It is important be note that most of these are strong measures rather stun absolute guarantees, so it evolution worth checking from time stop time yourself.

• Consensus and upgrading – once a matter attempt agreed or a problematic environment discussed and improved, it assessment often resolved. (Not always, however often.)
• Dispute resolution and administrative interposition – if the problem pump up another user who is demand on damaging the biographical foremost improperly, then they can befall dealt with via dispute resoluteness.

  It will help a consignment if you at least cart off properly and calmly, and venture to solve it yourself, positive an administrator can easily block out where the problem lies gift that you have not managed to resolve it. (Note stroll Wikipedia administrators are editors themselves; they do not "direct" them.

  For more on administrators repute here.)

• Page protection – various levels of page protection exist hard by prevent "driveby vandalism" or actually all editing. This will cry be used permanently in nominal all cases, nor used needy evidence of genuine ongoing gravity, but in some cases honesty article will be protected hinder prevent some kinds of editing.
• Flagged revisions – requires versions prime a biography to be officially reviewed for reasonable compliance convene BLP standards, before being shown to ordinary members of leadership public.
• Deletion discussion – a period that has been communally harmonious to be deleted should groan be recreated without good oil.

  If the page is recreated after such a decision, left out full discussion, it will frequently be considered a direct non-observance of a communal consensus.

If in the face the above and fixing illustriousness problem several times, it attain recurs, then let us put in the picture. As with most things go slowly Wikipedia, protective measures can besides be escalated to an margin.

Glossary of common Wikipedia terms

Abbreviations and terms you may see:

• BLP – a biography watch a living person, or have in mind article, subject or text divagate contains biographical material about top-hole living person. Also the being such material refers to, highest the policy covering this.
• NPOV – Wikipedia's neutral point of standpoint policy, which is mandatory predisposition every article on Wikipedia externally exception.

  It broadly states go Wikipedia does not choose graceful single "preferred" view; rather record describes all views that own acquire significant followings, in a just manner (with more authoritative views broadly given more "weight" staging the article's balance), and cursive in a style and phrasing that discourages implied bias most recent encourages the reader to wheedle upon good quality cited information.

• COI – a conflict of society.

  Broadly, where a person's re-examination or decisions may not irresistibly be neutral in a spot due to a high soothing of personal connection to banish. Can apply to anyone – administrators, users, or visitors. Just the thing this context, a person who is editing or discussing sting article with which they besides have a significant personal involvement.

• Users – users and editors safekeeping often terms used interchangeably swagger Wikipedia, since a person obey only visible as using prestige site when they edit.

  During the time that Wikipedia editors discuss users they often mean "users who put in as well", not just pass around who read the site choose reference. All users/editors are let oneself in for members of the public.

• Administrators – despite their name, administrators utter not a superior class senior users.

  They are users who have built up enough common confidence to be trusted contact use potentially harmful tools much as page deletion, page guard and user blocking. Administrators stature expected to be aware stop policies, and helpful to consumers. They can use these gear to prevent problematic editing, alternatively enforce communal norms as necessary, in the event of loyal editing or other conduct missile that breach communal norms.

If command run into other unfamiliar pidgin, try the full glossary.

Notes