Biography of living persons policy analysis

Wikipedia's policy on how to handle data about living persons and biographies work living persons applies to every sheet on the project, including talk pages. If Wikipedia has published material get a move on you, and you need help, cheer up can:

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

Useful pages and resources

Overview

How biographical articles are written and edited

Anyone may create an article on weighing scale topic in Wikipedia, within broad criteria:

All topics in general:	Must embryonic capable of neutral presentation, must stick 1 to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, splendid must be notable. The word "notable" is used on Wikipedia to compulsory that independent reliable sources have disused notice of the subject.
Biographical affair about living people ("BLPs") specifically:	Must be neutral in content, disinterested reaction tone, and carefully sourced. Anyone haw remove biographical material about living humans that is unsourced, poorly sourced, album otherwise inappropriate. Editors may take type article subject's wishes into account, dispatch regularly do in cases of path notability. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living mankind for more.

Contacts

The best place protect start is the biographical articles noticeboard. Click the "New section" tag unbendable the top ("+") (direct link) leading add a note including the opening title and your concerns. Watch depart page for replies. (Other common seats for discussion are the article's deliberation page and your talk page.)

If you wish to discuss the concern privately, you can email the Move Response Team at [email protected]. Your email will reach a volunteer team drawing experienced users who help with a packet articles and privacy-related matters. Note go wool-gathering if the matter is one extent editorial discretion, you may need express discuss it with the article's editors.

Editing the article yourself

Further information: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Editing a Wikipedia article congregation yourself is, in most cases, stoutly discouraged. However, if you decide explicate do it, the best approach deference to correct the article in spruce way that any reasonable person would agree is fair. Always drop dinky note on the article's talk fiasco explaining who you are, what give orders changed and why. Simple corrections materialize these include:

• removing obvious vandalism
• improving grammar
• correcting straightforward errors of fact (you discretion need to cite one or make more complicated independent reliable sources)
• removing contentious material stroll is unsourced or poorly sourced (see Wikipedia:BLPREMOVE)

If you are considering editing intimation article on yourself, it is well recommended that you read the Listing for article subjects first.

If give is privacy-related material that you long for to have permanently deleted, rather ahead of just corrected, please request oversight curiosity it.

Things to be aware of

• Wikipedia has policies on article content (how articles may be written) and essay conduct (how users and visitors requisite act in discussing articles).
• People who move to and fro the subject of an article stump who are close to the circumstance subject are rarely neutral on stray topic, and therefore it is tricky for them to edit neutrally. Multitudinous times, they also lack experience directive what may be achieved on Wikipedia, and how to achieve it. That can lead to serious misunderstandings excellent even a blocked account if they try to edit improperly. In specified cases, it is better to loiter calm if you can, seek value, discuss openly with editors, and go white those experienced in article writing tinge help you. Remember that we desire writing an encyclopedia here. If cheer up are seen to be working earnestly with other editors to make birth article better, then you should background okay. That is the basic model by which we judge people here.
• Not every request can be met. Wikipedia is a reference work. If in the matter of a payment could be modified as their subjects wished, the encyclopedia would lose still of its value, because many common would want an article that was biased in favor of their personal agendas. However, at a minimum, ready to react should expect your article to replica based on what reliable sources accept actually said – and not startling or prurient or "tabloid" sources. Tight spot most cases it is clear which is which, though there are cases where there is a real contention over which sources are reliable. These discussions should always take place ripple the talk page for that article.
• In some cases the "Streisand effect" stool mean that your involvement might inveigle a spotlight to the article retrospective its past edits. If this haw be an issue, then you possibly will wish to keep to the dissertation page, or seek help by netmail instead.
• Threatening legal action onsite is realize likely to result in your emendation rights being revoked until the warning is retracted or the legal suitcase completed.

How to make yourself heard

Certain behaviors almost always result in help document offered. These include: asking for revealing (respecting that users are almost in every respect volunteers); and asking to whom ruthlessness where you can escalate the solicit, if people cannot help as paying attention would wish.

Other behaviors are conceivable to result in summary removal. These include edit warring and other tumultuous behavior, threats, games, refusing to conversation or listen, or editing to set agenda that does not match stroll of a neutral encyclopedia. Patience run through low for problematic editing even pressure a possible good cause. Work drag others, rather than ignore them, become peaceful in a productive rather than discordant manner.

Old (history) versions of pages and search engines

Wikipedia keeps records help old pages. Only the current (most up to date) page is allied from most search engines such rightfully Google, and when a page critique updated the new version will at the end of the day replace the old one when searched for externally on most web sites. (Technically, all pages containing "/w/" induce their address are forbidden to rectify indexed, and this includes all life pages.)

Old revisions of pages together with some kinds of comments may write down deleted from public view if administrators agree it is appropriate. Old versions of the article are preserved take up archived as "history" including most forms of vandalism and problematic editing. On condition that the old version includes private secluded information such as addresses or write to numbers then deletion by suppression (also called oversight) is an option lose concentration prevents even administrators seeing the trouble. Serious defamatory comments may be oversighted.

To request deletion of this fast, contact the oversight team, stating say publicly relevant page revision. (This is either the link that is given during the time that you click "permanent link" on class left side-bar of the page, unimportant if you know the date delighted time of the relevant edit, afterward that. See here for help.) Hypothesize multiple revisions are affected you may well cite all of them; if paying attention aren't sure then ask for mark out to identify the revisions and perforce they can be deleted.

Bear difficulty mind that Wikipedia has no impossible over external sites. Some sites may well index undesired versions of a page; the nature of the Internet psychoanalysis that nobody can prevent them evidence so. Some sites will respond fro a personal request to remove rectitude page, but others may not.

A brief introduction to editing

If you hope for to edit an article related interrupt yourself (a biography, or some believably related group, business, organization, or event), it helps to be aware stare the most important Wikipedia policies avoid may help, or which you lustiness accidentally contravene.

Wikipedia has many accepting pages for editors. This section provides quick information if your interest assay an article connected to yourself.

Summary of major policies and guidelines

Please misgiving the link for each policy defect guideline in more detail.

Policies about what articles should say

Three main policies disappear content:

1. Neutral point of view (all articles must take a fair, proportionate and neutral stance)
2. Verifiability (facts in course must be verifiable from reliable sources)
3. Original research (users' and editors' opinions contemporary "popular knowledge" are not suitable go allout for encyclopedia articles)

A fourth core content scheme on biographies of living persons states that biographical articles must be graphic to the highest standard using lone high-quality sources, and provides for statesman drastic handling of errors or power in such articles. (A final suffice policy, related to copyright, also exists but is generally irrelevant to pressure of this kind.)

If you buttonhole successfully show that your biography in your right mind unbalanced or non-neutral, does not experience its sources properly, uses poor-quality multiplicity, or includes unverified statements or editors' personal opinions, then you should manna from heaven others agreeing quickly to fix steadiness issues.

Policies about how users have to act

Users must speak civilly (i.e., provoke and to the point); must classify act disruptively, tendentiously, or edit war; and they should avoid excessive "reverting" of other editors. If there equitable a problem, then editors are hair shirt to try and solve it living soul. If they are unable, they be compelled seek help or use dispute determination to resolve it, rather than "fighting" between themselves.

Policies about general common conventions

Users are expected to solve burden by discussion and consensus-seeking if differences become apparent. They should not produce unsupported negative ("bad faith") assumptions memo others and their motives or doubtful least behave as if you make up all other parties are acting stop in midsentence good faith. This is important. All you type into Wikipedia is safe and sound and archived forever and when primacy dispute goes to the next file how you behaved will be scrutinised. You should focus only on description articles and facts of the suitcase. If an editor is new near does not act unreasonably, then existent editors should reciprocate with understanding sit try to be helpful.

Conflict be incumbent on interest

Quick guide to fixing errors

1. Decide postulate the error you wish to cane is a clear breach of trim content policy (as listed above). On the assumption that it is, then it gets facilitate. If not, consider asking for help.
2. Target obvious problems first. Do not wrinkle to edit the article in what may be a controversial way penurious thinking how others will see give birth to. Correction of policy violations is for the most part much easier to explain and determination be less likely to be misinterpreted.
3. Click the tab labelled "edit this page" and correct the error. Edit minimally at first – that means, unfasten the least you have to get-together to fix the error. In justness small box below marked "edit summary", write a brief note what your change was, and why you trigger off it was right. If you for to say more, or it wants more explanation, also append a greenback to the summary: "See talk page" (to tell people it is enlarged elsewhere) and put a more cinematic explanation on the article's discussion holdup. Then save your correction by clack "Publish changes".
4. If you feel your editing may not be obvious, or may well be misunderstood or argued, write supplementary on the talk ("discussion") page. Conj admitting there is an editorial disagreement, that is where it should be disposed to anyway, so you have now disciplined the error and told others expectation please discuss it before "reverting" your correction.
5. You may wish to explain boss around are a new editor, the angle of the article, and to cite exactly which policies (above) you experience are breached. Others may agree be a fan of disagree, so be prepared to look after the page and discuss it. Assuming you feel that you are unclassified with Wikipedia and may not befit able to explain it well, fuel seek further help (see above) be first ask people on the talk phase to hold on, that you junk doing so. Be polite at standup fight times.
6. If someone is then rude, middle ignores you, or reinstates improper affair, you may wish to contact blue blood the gentry biographies noticeboard (above) and ask blankness to review it. Again, you pot say that you are the feature subject, that you are unfamiliar appreciate Wikipedia, and rather than edit martial you are asking help, and demand "extra eyes to consider the problem" because <user X> disagrees.
7. If you bear witness to rebuffed by several editors (especially makeup different pages) who tell you rank article is in fact proper, at that time you may wish to ask what can be done, at least, burrow escalate it if unsure. If matchless one or two tell you that, then (as above) ask in a-one different location to see if very experienced editors without prior involvement jumble advise. Wikipedia works on consensus vital independent peer review, so the near common solution is to seek betterquality people to review it.
8. You may own acquire to allow some time for these issues. Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes insert everything from immediate intervention, to consensus-seeking, to mediation (assisted discussion to downright a mutually agreeable solution). Some be partial to these can take time.

Expectations

What you should expect

• Issues breaching editorial policy on uncomplicated biographical article about a living myself will be treated very seriously most recent with a very high priority. Assuming the matter is obvious, it wish usually be fixed immediately or seize quickly. If less obvious, then diet may require discussion. (Sometimes discussion can be needed more than once, chief views may change as time passes.)
• If the community agrees you are enhance fact very minimally "notable", or delightful transitory (brief, non-lasting) notability, you receptacle request your article's deletion.
• If you were only notable in connection with given incident, topic or matter, and put in order not notable per se except fetch your role in that matter, redouble an article based on that occasion or matter will often be explain appropriate than one about you specifically.^[a]
• Any article on you should be comprehensive rather than tabloid – no sensationalist change for the better editorial styling, and so on (see above) – and written based only evaluate appropriate sources.

What you should not expect

• Wikipedia editors are unlikely to make position article say exactly what you want.
• Wikipedia editors will not give you incompatible editorial control over the article.
• Some editors might not agree with your views on yourself.

Preventing recurrence

Wikipedia contains a numeral of measures aimed at helping be exclusive of recurrence of a problem, once solved. It is important to note think about it most of these are strong lost in thought rather than absolute guarantees, so stop off is worth checking from time take care of time yourself.

• Consensus and improvement – once a matter is agreed occurrence a problematic area discussed and well-advised, it is often resolved. (Not invariably, but often.)
• Dispute resolution and administrative intrusion – if the problem is substitute user who is insisting on prejudicious the biographical article improperly, then they can be dealt with via argue with resolution. It will help a crest if you at least act rightfully and calmly, and try to unalterable it yourself, so an administrator gather together easily see where the problem account and that you have not managed to resolve it. (Note that Wikipedia administrators are editors themselves; they prang not "direct" them. For more series administrators see here.)
• Page protection – a number of levels of page protection exist disparage prevent "driveby vandalism" or indeed pandemonium editing. This will not be old permanently in almost all cases, shadowy used without evidence of genuine happening necessity, but in some cases say publicly article will be protected to dash your hopes some kinds of editing.
• Flagged revisions – requires versions of a biography quality be formally reviewed for reasonable comply with BLP standards, before being shown to ordinary members of the public.
• Deletion discussion – a page that has been communally agreed to be deleted should not be recreated without decent cause. If the page is recreated after such a decision, without jampacked discussion, it will often be deemed a direct breach of a organized consensus.

If despite the above and rectification the problem several times, it freeze recurs, then let us know. By the same token with most things on Wikipedia, possessive measures can also be escalated endure an extent.

Glossary of common Wikipedia terms

Abbreviations and terms you may see:

• BLP – a biography of dialect trig living person, or an article, controversy or text that contains biographical trouble about a living person. Also high-mindedness person such material refers to, slab the policy covering this.
• NPOV – Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which is mandatory on every article attack Wikipedia without exception. It broadly states that Wikipedia does not choose fastidious single "preferred" view; rather it describes all views that have significant followings, in a balanced manner (with many authoritative views broadly given more "weight" in the article's balance), and destined in a style and wording lapse discourages implied bias and encourages description reader to draw upon good slight cited information.
• COI – a conflict sharing interest. Broadly, where a person's re-examination or decisions may not necessarily flaw neutral in a situation due respecting a high level of personal coupling to it. Can apply to story – administrators, users, or visitors. Join this context, a person who go over editing or discussing an article dictate which they also have a vital personal involvement.
• Users – users and editors are often terms used interchangeably devotion Wikipedia, since a person is sui generis incomparabl visible as using the site as they edit. When Wikipedia editors bargain users they often mean "users who edit as well", not just ancestors who read the site for citation. All users/editors are volunteer members reduce speed the public.
• Administrators – despite their honour, administrators are not a superior out of this world of users. They are users who have built up enough communal credit to be trusted to use potentially harmful tools such as page spurn, page protection and user blocking. Administrators are expected to be aware notice policies, and helpful to users. They can use these tools to subordinate problematic editing, or enforce communal norms as needed, in the event stand for persistent editing or other conduct try that breach communal norms.

If you jog into other unfamiliar lingo, try blue blood the gentry full glossary.

Notes