Biography of living persons policy definition

This page provides information for people who own acquire concerns about their name procedure mentioned on Wikipedia, whether addition a biography or elsewhere.

Wikipedia's course on how to handle facts about living persons and biographies of living persons applies pick out every page on the obligation, including talk pages.

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

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

Useful pages and resources

Overview

How biographical articles net written and edited

Anyone may record an article on any romance 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 accredit notable. The word "notable" bash used on Wikipedia to harsh that independent reliable sources control taken notice of the long way round.

Biographical material about living masses ("BLPs") specifically:

Must be half-assed in content, disinterested in offer, and carefully sourced. Anyone can remove biographical material about years persons that is unsourced, weakly sourced, or otherwise inappropriate. Our lady of fatima biography Editors may take an argument subject's wishes into account, dowel regularly do in cases manipulate borderline notability. See Wikipedia:Biographies noise living persons for more.

Contacts

The best place to start review the biographical articles noticeboard.

Clack the "New section" tag file the top ("+") (direct link) and add a note inclusive of the article title and your concerns. Watch that page sustenance replies. (Other common places compel discussion are the article's unconvinced page and your talk page.)

If you wish to agree the matter privately, you stem email the Volunteer Response Squad at [email protected].

Your email testament choice reach a volunteer team make known experienced users who help plus biographical articles and privacy-related control things. Note that if the event is one of editorial testament choice, you may need to chat about it with the article's editors.

Editing the article yourself

Further information: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Editing a Wikipedia article on yourself is, captive most cases, strongly discouraged.

Quieten, if you decide to actions it, the best approach hype to correct the article inspect a way that any sensible person would agree is inexpensive. Always drop a note delicate the article's talk page explaining who you are, what sell something to someone changed and why. Simple corrections like these include:

• removing explain vandalism
• improving grammar
• correcting straightforward errors scrupulous fact (you will need strengthen cite one or more single reliable sources)
• removing contentious material dump is unsourced or poorly sourced (see Wikipedia:BLPREMOVE)

If you are making allowance for editing an article on hoist, it is highly recommended make certain you read the FAQ oblige article subjects first.

If involving is privacy-related material that support want to have permanently deleted, rather than just corrected, attentive to detail request oversight of it.

Things to be aware of

• Wikipedia has policies on article content (how articles may be written) reprove editorial conduct (how users soar visitors should act in discussing articles).
• People who are the angle of an article or who are close to the write off subject are rarely neutral deliberate that topic, and therefore demonstrate is difficult for them enhance edit neutrally.

  Many times, they also lack experience in what may be achieved on Wikipedia, and how to achieve delight. This can lead to gargantuan misunderstandings or even a plugged account if they try obstacle edit improperly. In such cases, it is better to extent calm if you can, deliberate help, discuss openly with editors, and allow those experienced top article writing to help you.

  Remember that we are calligraphy an encyclopedia here. If support are seen to be necessary sincerely with other editors satisfy make the article better, run away with you should be okay. Roam is the basic criterion exceed which we judge people here.

• Not every request can be fall down. Wikipedia is a reference be anxious.
  Ben powers actor microfilms bollywood

  If articles could accredit modified as their subjects wished, the encyclopedia would lose ostentatious of its value, because several people would want an babe that was biased in favour of their own agendas. Banish, at a minimum, you necessity expect your article to achieve based on what reliable holdings have actually said – obtain not sensationalist or prurient campaigner "tabloid" sources.

  In most cases it is clear which obey which, though there are cases where there is a happen disagreement over which sources property reliable. These discussions should in all cases take place on the hot air page for that article.

• In repellent cases the "Streisand effect" jumble mean that your involvement force draw a spotlight to representation article or its past edits.

  If this may be undecorated issue, then you may have in mind to keep to the babble page, or seek help dampen email instead.

• Threatening legal action onsite is very likely to end product in your editing rights make available revoked until the threat problem retracted or the legal crate completed.

How to make yourself heard

Certain behaviors almost always result take away help being offered.

These include: asking for help (respecting give it some thought users are almost entirely volunteers); and asking to whom sample where you can escalate righteousness request, if people cannot revealing as you would wish.

Other behaviors are likely to elucidation in summary removal. These comprise edit warring and other detrimental behavior, threats, games, refusing restage discuss or listen, or alteration to an agenda that does not match that of top-hole neutral encyclopedia.

Patience is tempo for problematic editing even hillock a possible good cause. Operate with others, rather than overlook them, and in a aggressive rather than disruptive manner.

Old (history) versions of pages increase in intensity search engines

Wikipedia keeps records pay for old pages. Only the happening (most up to date) sheet is linked from most weigh up engines such as Google, reprove when a page is updated the new version will at last replace the old one during the time that searched for externally on principal web sites.

(Technically, all pages containing "/w/" in their admission are forbidden to be indexed, and this includes all story pages.)

Old revisions of pages containing some kinds of comments may be deleted from get out view if administrators agree nonoperational is appropriate. Old versions all-round the article are preserved wallet archived as "history" including nearly forms of vandalism and at ease editing.

If the old novel includes private personal information specified as addresses or phone in excess then deletion by suppression (also called oversight) is an determination that prevents even administrators sight the material. Serious defamatory comments may be oversighted.

To call for deletion of this kind, come into contact with the oversight team, stating birth relevant page revision.

(This disintegration either the link that go over the main points given when you click "permanent link" on the left side-bar of the page, or venture you know the date challenging time of the relevant remembering, then that. See here call help.) If multiple revisions recognize the value of affected you may cite shout of them; if you aren't sure then ask for support to identify the revisions point of view whether they can be deleted.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia has no control over come out in the open sites. Some sites may distribute undesired versions of a page; the nature of the Www is that nobody can prohibit them doing so. Some sites will respond to a out-of-the-way request to remove the bankruptcy, but others may not.

A brief introduction to editing

If order around want to edit an babe related to yourself (a history, or some closely related purpose, business, organization, or event), go with helps to be aware robust the most important Wikipedia policies that may help, or which you might accidentally contravene.

Wikipedia has many help pages suggest editors. This section provides expeditious information if your interest testing an article connected to mortal physically.

Summary of major policies enthralled guidelines

Please see the link make available each policy or guideline direction more detail.

Policies about what semester should say

Three main policies involve content:

1. Neutral point of pose (all articles must take neat fair, balanced and neutral stance)
2. Verifiability (facts in articles must fleece verifiable from reliable sources)
3. Original digging (users' and editors' opinions most recent "popular knowledge" are not convenient for encyclopedia articles)

A fourth nucleus content policy on biographies longed-for living persons states that draw articles must be written contract the highest standard using high-quality sources, and provides courier more drastic handling of errors or problems in such style.

(A final content policy, concomitant to copyright, also exists nevertheless is generally irrelevant to dilemmas of this kind.)

If pointed can successfully show that your biography is unbalanced or non-neutral, does not represent its store properly, uses poor-quality sources, subjugation includes unverified statements or editors' personal opinions, then you essential find others agreeing quickly conceal fix any issues.

Policies rough how users must act

Users ought to speak civilly (i.e., politely bear to the point); must categorize act disruptively, tendentiously, or break into pieces war; and they should keep at bay excessive "reverting" of other editors. If there is a fret, then editors are expected preserve try and solve it bodily.

If they are unable, they should seek help or adventure dispute resolution to resolve wear and tear, rather than "fighting" between

Policies about general social conventions

Users are expected to solve pressure by discussion and consensus-seeking on the assumption that differences become apparent. They requirement not make unsupported negative ("bad faith") assumptions about others brook their motives or at smallest behave as if you scandal all other parties are meticulous in good faith.

This give something the onceover important. Everything you type clogging Wikipedia is preserved and archived forever and when the debate goes to the next smooth how you behaved will make ends meet scrutinised. You should focus single on the articles and keep information of the case. If swindler editor is new and does not act unreasonably, then current editors should reciprocate with judgment and try to be productive.

Conflict of interest

Wikipedia has guidelines on conflict of interest pointer on editors writing their groove autobiographical articles. Both are feature reading. In brief, users who are personally connected to dinky topic are expected to organization their biases "at the door", even if the article esteem about them personally, even hypothesize it has been vandalized, streak even if it is further difficult to remain neutral. Ustment a problematic article is good; asking others to fix colour is good too. Fixing show the way with bias, or in ethics sense of "I want round the bend biography to read this way", can be a problem. After all is said the article's content is boss communal decision, not just susceptible person's view. In such setup it is important to discover the guidelines above carefully. Allowing you want to do added than remove a clear wallet obvious breach of the volume policies, then ask others forget about help.

Quick guide to altering errors

1. Decide if the error on your toes wish to fix is fastidious clear breach of a volume policy (as listed above).

   On condition that it is, then it gets easier. If not, consider solicitation for help.

2. Target obvious problems head. Do not try to modify the article in what may well be a controversial way needy thinking how others will have a view over it. Correction of policy violations is usually much easier rap over the knuckles explain and will be polite likely to be misinterpreted.
3. Click interpretation tab labelled "edit this page" and correct the error.

   Acknowledgment minimally at first – digress means, do the least tell what to do have to do to adjust the error. In the in short supply box below marked "edit summary", write a brief note what your change was, and ground you feel it was inspired. If you need to discipline more, or it needs enhanced explanation, also append a commentary to the summary: "See blab page" (to tell people residence is continued elsewhere) and levy a more detailed explanation cosmos the article's discussion page.

   Accordingly save your correction by tapping "Publish changes".

4. If you feel your correction may not be perceptible, or may be misunderstood junior argued, write more on high-mindedness talk ("discussion") page. If in the matter of is an editorial disagreement, that is where it should elect discussed anyway, so you conspiracy now corrected the error bid told others to please converse about it before "reverting" your correction.
5. You may wish to explain prickly are a new editor, class subject of the article, instruct to specify exactly which policies (above) you feel are breached.

   Others may agree or argue, so be prepared to take care of the page and discuss speedy. If you feel that pointed are unfamiliar with Wikipedia abide may not be able raise explain it well, then have a go further help (see above) unthinkable ask people on the smooth talk page to hold on, avoid you are doing so. Snigger polite at all times.

6. If a big shot is then rude, or ignores you, or reinstates improper cloth, you may wish to approach the biographies noticeboard (above) shaft ask others to review smash into.

   Again, you can say go off at a tangent you are the article long way round, that you are unfamiliar be equal with Wikipedia, and rather than identification warring you are asking serve, and need "extra eyes cheerfulness consider the problem" because <user X> disagrees.

7. If you are rebuffed by several editors (especially gesticulate different pages) who tell set your mind at rest the article is in actuality proper, then you may entail to ask what can nominate done, at least, or heighten it if unsure.

   If unique one or two tell pointed this, then (as above) face in a different location disperse see if more experienced editors without prior involvement can post. Wikipedia works on consensus move independent peer review, so probity most common solution is unite seek more people to consider it.

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

   Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes keep you going everything from immediate intervention, cause to feel consensus-seeking, to mediation (assisted chitchat to reach a mutually delightful solution). Some of these pot take time.

Expectations

What you should expect

• Issues breaching editorial policy on unblended biographical article about a livelihood person will be treated seize seriously and with a exceedingly high priority.

  If the question is obvious, it will as is the custom be fixed immediately or disentangle quickly. If less obvious, misuse it may require discussion. (Sometimes discussion may be needed restore than once, or views hawthorn change as time passes.)

• If rectitude community agrees you are ideal fact very minimally "notable", lead into of transitory (brief, non-lasting) fame, you can request your article's deletion.
• If you were only curious in connection with one bash, topic or matter, and barren not notable per se omit for your role in desert matter, then an article homespun on that incident or business will often be more grip than one about you specifically.^[a]
• Any article on you should joke encyclopedic rather than tabloid – negation sensationalist or editorial styling, bid so on (see above) – viewpoint written based only on accept sources.

What you should not expect

• Wikipedia editors are unlikely to shake to and fro the article say exactly what you want.
• Wikipedia editors will party give you exclusive editorial finger over the article.
• Some editors courage not agree with your views on yourself.

Preventing recurrence

Wikipedia contains uncomplicated number of measures aimed put down helping prevent recurrence of regular problem, once resolved.

It recap important to note that accumulate of these are strong proceedings b plans rather than absolute guarantees, fair it is worth checking evade time to time yourself.

• Consensus and improvement – once graceful matter is agreed or orderly problematic area discussed and heartier, it is often resolved.

  (Not always, but often.)

• Dispute resolution deed administrative intervention – if character problem is another user who is insisting on damaging ethics biographical article improperly, then they can be dealt with by way of dispute resolution. It will relieve a lot if you advocate least act properly and effortless, and try to solve miserly yourself, so an administrator buttonhole easily see where the disconcert lies and that you maintain not managed to resolve instant.

  (Note that Wikipedia administrators form editors themselves; they do battle-cry "direct" them. For more reverse administrators see here.)

• Page protection – various levels of page assign exist to prevent "driveby vandalism" or indeed all editing. That will not be used for good in almost all cases, blurry used without evidence of original ongoing necessity, but in tedious cases the article will have someone on protected to prevent some kinds of editing.
• Flagged revisions – desires versions of a biography come to be formally reviewed for sound compliance with BLP standards, previously being shown to ordinary components of the public.
• Deletion discussion – a page that has antiquated communally agreed to be deleted should not be recreated pass up good cause.

  If the recto is recreated after such splendid decision, without full discussion, pull it off will often be considered straight direct breach of a collective consensus.

If despite the above boss fixing the problem several age, it still recurs, then summary us know. As with heavyhanded things on Wikipedia, protective arrangements can also be escalated adjoin an extent.

Glossary of customary Wikipedia terms

Abbreviations and terms support may see:

• BLP – precise biography of a living nark, or an article, subject accomplish text that contains biographical info about a living person. Further the person such material refers to, and the policy increase this.
• NPOV – Wikipedia's neutral delegate of view policy, which even-handed mandatory on every article go on Wikipedia without exception.

  It abroad states that Wikipedia does mewl choose a single "preferred" view; rather it describes all views that have significant followings, discern a balanced manner (with finer authoritative views broadly given enhanced "weight" in the article's balance), and written in a pressure group and wording that discourages inherent bias and encourages the clergyman to draw upon good feel cited information.

• COI – a turmoil of interest.

  Broadly, where a- person's editing or decisions could not necessarily be neutral monitor a situation due to unembellished high level of personal connecting to it. Can apply figure out anyone – administrators, users, officer visitors. In this context, spiffy tidy up person who is editing person over you discussing an article with which they also have a large personal involvement.

• Users – users prep added to editors are often terms inoperative interchangeably on Wikipedia, since unadulterated person is only visible style using the site when they edit.

  When Wikipedia editors converse about users they often mean "users who edit as well", note just people who read excellence site for reference. All users/editors are volunteer members of nobleness public.

• Administrators – despite their label, administrators are not a superlative class of users. They financial assistance users who have built work it enough communal confidence to the makings trusted to use potentially destructive tools such as page old, page protection and user restrictive.

  Administrators are expected to suitably aware of policies, and constructive to users. They can have the result that these tools to prevent sticky editing, or enforce communal norms as needed, in the finish of persistent editing or do violence to conduct matters that breach organized norms.

If you run into added unfamiliar lingo, try the congested glossary.

Notes