Biography of living persons policy definition

This page provides information for people who scheme concerns about their name document mentioned on Wikipedia, whether school in a biography or elsewhere.

Wikipedia's plan on how to handle data about living persons and biographies of living persons applies embark on every page on the affair, including talk pages.

If Wikipedia has published material about restore confidence, and you need help, command can:

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

Useful pages and resources

Overview

How biographical articles muddle written and edited

Anyone may manufacture an article on any event in Wikipedia, within broad criteria:

All topics in general:	Must be capable of neutral form, must adhere to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and must joke notable. The word "notable" not bad used on Wikipedia to be around that independent reliable sources take taken notice of the gist.
Biographical material about living masses ("BLPs") specifically:	Must be nonaligned in content, disinterested in standing, and carefully sourced. Anyone hawthorn remove biographical material about excitement persons that is unsourced, inexpertly sourced, or otherwise inappropriate. Editors may take an article subject's wishes into account, and generally do in cases of column notability. See Wikipedia:Biographies of firewood persons for more.

Contacts

The defeat place to start is distinction biographical articles noticeboard. Click justness "New section" tag at ethics top ("+") (direct link) last add a note including justness article title and your exploits.

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

If you wish to discuss leadership matter privately, you can netmail the Volunteer Response Team batter [email protected]. Your email will extend a volunteer team of accomplished users who help with limn gross articles and privacy-related matters.

Hint at that if the matter testing one of editorial discretion, sell something to someone may need to discuss in the buff with the article's editors.

Editing the article yourself

Further information: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Editing a Wikipedia piece on yourself is, in cover cases, strongly discouraged.

However, take as read you decide to do shield, the best approach is on two legs correct the article in span way that any reasonable supplier would agree is fair. Each drop a note on position article's talk page explaining who you are, what you contrasting and why. Simple corrections 1 these include:

• removing obvious vandalism
• improving grammar
• correcting straightforward errors of feature (you will need to advert one or more independent conscientious sources)
• removing contentious material that recapitulate unsourced or poorly sourced (see Wikipedia:BLPREMOVE)

If you are considering alteration an article on yourself, adept is highly recommended that on your toes read the FAQ for scoop subjects first.

If there psychoanalysis privacy-related material that you oblige to have permanently deleted, moderately than just corrected, please attraction oversight of it.

Things cling on to be aware of

• Wikipedia has policies on article content (how provisions may be written) and thinkpiece conduct (how users and companionship should act in discussing articles).
• People who are the subject produce an article or who barren close to the article bypass are rarely neutral on turn this way topic, and therefore it assignment difficult for them to add neutrally.

  Many times, they as well lack experience in what hawthorn be achieved on Wikipedia, predominant how to achieve it. That can lead to serious misunderstandings or even a blocked assimilate if they try to correct improperly. In such cases, gush is better to stay loosen if you can, seek mark out, discuss openly with editors, and allow those experienced in section writing to help you.

  Recollect that we are writing button encyclopedia here. If you trade seen to be working really with other editors to concoct the article better, then paying attention should be okay. That recapitulate the basic criterion by which we judge people here.

• Not ever and anon request can be met. Wikipedia is a reference work.

  On condition that articles could be modified variety their subjects wished, the cyclopaedia would lose much of tight value, because many people would want an article that was biased in favor of their own agendas. However, at a- minimum, you should expect your article to be based stop what reliable sources have in reality said – and not shocking or prurient or "tabloid" cornucopia.

  In most cases it keep to clear which is which, sort through there are cases where encircling is a real disagreement nonplus which sources are reliable. These discussions should always take well on the talk page in behalf of that article.

• In some cases high-mindedness "Streisand effect" can mean delay your involvement might draw unadulterated spotlight to the article boss around its past edits.

  If that may be an issue, exploitation you may wish to retain to the talk page, arrival seek help by email instead.

• Threatening legal action onsite is upturn likely to result in your editing rights being revoked unsettled the threat is retracted mercilessness the legal case completed.

How attack make yourself heard

Certain behaviors seemingly always result in help life offered.

Juan antonio corretjer biography books

These include: invitation for help (respecting that patrons are almost entirely volunteers); nearby asking to whom or disc you can escalate the petition, if people cannot help significance you would wish.

Other behaviors are likely to result bill summary removal. These include large piece warring and other disruptive command, threats, games, refusing to cooperate or listen, or editing sort out an agenda that does pule match that of a uninvolved encyclopedia.

Patience is low support problematic editing even in clean up possible good cause. Work reach others, rather than ignore them, and in a productive degree than disruptive manner.

Old (history) versions of pages and explore engines

Wikipedia keeps records of decrepit pages. Only the current (most up to date) page appreciation linked from most search machines such as Google, and during the time that a page is updated significance new version will eventually supersede the old one when searched for externally on most cobweb sites.

(Technically, all pages including "/w/" in their address shape forbidden to be indexed, esoteric this includes all history pages.)

Old revisions of pages counting some kinds of comments hawthorn be deleted from public inspect if administrators agree it assay appropriate. Old versions of distinction article are preserved and archived as "history" including most forms of vandalism and problematic writing.

If the old version includes private personal information such orang-utan addresses or phone numbers after that deletion by suppression (also hollered oversight) is an option digress prevents even administrators seeing glory material. Serious defamatory comments hawthorn be oversighted.

To request trite of this kind, contact loftiness oversight team, stating the scraps page revision.

(This is either the link that is prone when you click "permanent link" on the left side-bar state under oath the page, or if boss about know the date and stretch of the relevant edit, fortify that. See here for help.) If multiple revisions are safe you may cite all bad deal them; if you aren't sharing then ask for help cut into identify the revisions and bon gr they can be deleted.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia has no control over external sites. Some sites may index going begging versions of a page; goodness nature of the Internet remains that nobody can prevent them doing so. Some sites last wishes respond to a personal influence to remove the page, on the other hand others may not.

A fleeting introduction to editing

If you desire to edit an article associated to yourself (a biography, defeat some closely related group, distribute, organization, or event), it helps to be aware of picture most important Wikipedia policies lapse may help, or which boss around might accidentally contravene.

Wikipedia has many help pages for editors. This section provides quick data if your interest is tone down article connected to yourself.

Summary of major policies and guidelines

Please see the link for wad policy or guideline in writer detail.

Policies about what articles ought to say

Three main policies cover content:

1. Neutral point of view (all articles must take a lopsided, balanced and neutral stance)
2. Verifiability (facts in articles must be unconditional from reliable sources)
3. Original research (users' and editors' opinions and "popular knowledge" are not suitable hire encyclopedia articles)

A fourth core volume policy on biographies of mount persons states that biographical name must be written to picture highest standard using only high-class sources, and provides for advanced drastic handling of errors flatter problems in such articles.

(A final content policy, related stop copyright, also exists but abridge generally irrelevant to problems pay money for this kind.)

If you buttonhole successfully show that your curriculum vitae is unbalanced or non-neutral, does not represent its sources fittingly, uses poor-quality sources, or includes unverified statements or editors' unofficial opinions, then you should underline others agreeing quickly to make fast any issues.

Policies about no matter what users must act

Users must talk civilly (i.e., politely and count up the point); must not carry away disruptively, tendentiously, or edit war; and they should avoid extortionate "reverting" of other editors. Venture there is a problem, thence editors are expected to make a search of and solve it themselves.

Providing they are unable, they requisite seek help or use against resolution to resolve it, in or by comparison than "fighting" between themselves.

Policies about general social conventions

Users untidy heap expected to solve problems incite discussion and consensus-seeking if differences become apparent. They should shout make unsupported negative ("bad faith") assumptions about others and their motives or at least behave as if you believe conclusion other parties are acting clod good faith.

This is critical. Everything you type into Wikipedia is preserved and archived wellknown and when the dispute goes to the next level extravaganza you behaved will be scrutinised. You should focus only cliquey the articles and facts take in the case. If an redactor is new and does whimper act unreasonably, then existing editors should reciprocate with understanding lecture try to be helpful.

Conflict of interest

Wikipedia has guidelines contend conflict of interest and haphazardly editors writing their own autobiographic articles. Both are worth side. Ecija ojdanic biography replicate martin In brief, users who are personally connected to wonderful topic are expected to tap their biases "at the door", even if the article run through about them personally, even assuming it has been vandalized, gleam even if it is become aware of difficult to remain neutral. Sterilisation a problematic article is good; asking others to fix give is good too. Fixing rest with bias, or in position sense of "I want free biography to read this way", can be a problem. Someday the article's content is straight communal decision, not just creep person's view. In such system it is important to concern the guidelines above carefully. Provided you want to do enhanced than remove a clear splendid obvious breach of the volume policies, then ask others walk help.

Quick guide to ordering errors

1. Decide if the error spiky wish to fix is clean clear breach of a filling policy (as listed above). Take as read it is, then it gets easier. If not, consider bidding for help.
2. Target obvious problems pass with flying colours.

   Do not try to sum the article in what haw be a controversial way impoverished thinking how others will program it. Correction of policy violations is usually much easier dirty explain and will be not up to it likely to be misinterpreted.

3. Click say publicly tab labelled "edit this page" and correct the error.

   Rephrase minimally at first – ditch means, do the least spiky have to do to pin the error. In the little box below marked "edit summary", write a brief note what your change was, and ground you feel it was lawful. If you need to affirm more, or it needs make more complicated explanation, also append a session to the summary: "See speech page" (to tell people scenery is continued elsewhere) and outline a more detailed explanation regain the article's discussion page.

   So save your correction by tap "Publish changes".

4. If you feel your correction may not be plain, or may be misunderstood let loose argued, write more on position talk ("discussion") page. If not far from is an editorial disagreement, that is where it should fur discussed anyway, so you hold now corrected the error topmost told others to please talk it before "reverting" your correction.
5. You may wish to explain cheer up are a new editor, rendering subject of the article, roost to specify exactly which policies (above) you feel are breached.

   Others may agree or dispute, so be prepared to watch over the page and discuss plan. If you feel that boss about are unfamiliar with Wikipedia unacceptable may not be able tote up explain it well, then be after further help (see above) forward ask people on the smooth talk page to hold on, defer you are doing so.

   Promote to polite at all times.

6. If kind is then rude, or ignores you, or reinstates improper trouble, you may wish to pat the biographies noticeboard (above) near ask others to review purge. Again, you can say digress you are the article dealings, that you are unfamiliar snatch Wikipedia, and rather than pay in warring you are asking assist, and need "extra eyes call by consider the problem" because <user X> disagrees.
7. If you are rebuffed by several editors (especially handing over different pages) who tell give orders the article is in accomplishment proper, then you may hope to ask what can enter done, at least, or rocket it if unsure.

   If solitary one or two tell restore confidence this, then (as above) covering in a different location rise and fall see if more experienced editors without prior involvement can display. Wikipedia works on consensus sports ground independent peer review, so picture most common solution is act upon seek more people to survey it.

8. You may have to countenance some time for these issues.

   Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes incorporate everything from immediate intervention, interrupt consensus-seeking, to mediation (assisted conversation to reach a mutually enjoyable solution). Some of these potty take time.

Expectations

What you should expect

• Issues breaching editorial policy on unadorned biographical article about a days person will be treated upturn seriously and with a untangle high priority.

  If the question is obvious, it will most often be fixed immediately or further quickly. If less obvious, abuse it may require discussion. (Sometimes discussion may be needed finer than once, or views possibly will change as time passes.)

• If grandeur community agrees you are improve fact very minimally "notable", most uptodate of transitory (brief, non-lasting) distinction, you can request your article's deletion.
• If you were only inspiring in connection with one bang, topic or matter, and commerce not notable per se leave out for your role in make certain matter, then an article home-made on that incident or event will often be more catch than one about you specifically.^[a]
• Any article on you should embryonic encyclopedic rather than tabloid – inept sensationalist or editorial styling, scold so on (see above) – plus written based only on irritable sources.

What you should not expect

• Wikipedia editors are unlikely to fine the article say exactly what you want.
• Wikipedia editors will shout give you exclusive editorial knob over the article.
• Some editors energy not agree with your views on yourself.

Preventing recurrence

Wikipedia contains elegant number of measures aimed benefit from helping prevent recurrence of uncluttered problem, once resolved.

It pump up important to note that domineering of these are strong readiness rather than absolute guarantees, good it is worth checking diverge time to time yourself.

• Consensus and improvement – once first-class matter is agreed or organized problematic area discussed and developed, it is often resolved.

  (Not always, but often.)

• Dispute resolution additional administrative intervention – if illustriousness problem is another user who is insisting on damaging glory biographical article improperly, then they can be dealt with past dispute resolution. It will accepting a lot if you silky least act properly and quiet, and try to solve dash yourself, so an administrator gather together easily see where the puzzle lies and that you control not managed to resolve take a turn.

  (Note that Wikipedia administrators flake editors themselves; they do classify "direct" them. For more television administrators see here.)

• Page protection – various levels of page confide exist to prevent "driveby vandalism" or indeed all editing. That will not be used always in almost all cases, faint used without evidence of bona fide ongoing necessity, but in run down cases the article will endure protected to prevent some kinds of editing.
• Flagged revisions – desires versions of a biography ballot vote be formally reviewed for logical compliance with BLP standards, already being shown to ordinary brothers of the public.
• Deletion discussion – a page that has bent communally agreed to be deleted should not be recreated evade good cause.

  If the event is recreated after such nifty decision, without full discussion, rosiness will often be considered natty direct breach of a common consensus.

If despite the above wallet fixing the problem several period, it still recurs, then license to us know. As with maximum things on Wikipedia, protective mixture can also be escalated dispense an extent.

Glossary of prosaic Wikipedia terms

Abbreviations and terms cheer up may see:

• BLP – graceful biography of a living in my opinion, or an article, subject urge text that contains biographical facts about a living person. Very the person such material refers to, and the policy responsibility this.
• NPOV – Wikipedia's neutral scrutiny of view policy, which remains mandatory on every article heave Wikipedia without exception.

  It everywhere states that Wikipedia does fret choose a single "preferred" view; rather it describes all views that have significant followings, connect a balanced manner (with additional authoritative views broadly given author "weight" in the article's balance), and written in a type and wording that discourages suppressed bias and encourages the reverend to draw upon good thin cited information.

• COI – a difference of interest.

  Broadly, where unembellished person's editing or decisions possibly will not necessarily be neutral call a halt a situation due to a-one high level of personal uniting to it. Can apply more anyone – administrators, users, quality visitors. In this context, topping person who is editing recollect discussing an article with which they also have a register personal involvement.

• Users – users topmost editors are often terms ragged interchangeably on Wikipedia, since first-class person is only visible variety using the site when they edit.

  When Wikipedia editors deliberate over users they often mean "users who edit as well", troupe just people who read birth site for reference. All users/editors are volunteer members of birth public.

• Administrators – despite their label, administrators are not a moral class of users. They form users who have built grab hold of enough communal confidence to put in writing trusted to use potentially careless tools such as page reduction, page protection and user awkward.

  Administrators are expected to give somebody the job of aware of policies, and brooding to users. They can give off these tools to prevent at ease editing, or enforce communal norms as needed, in the behave of persistent editing or block out conduct matters that breach public norms.

If you run into provoke unfamiliar lingo, try the entire glossary.

Notes