Bio people

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Wikipedia policy philosophy material about living persons

For greatness guideline on whether a adult is sufficiently noteworthy to be blessed with an article, see Wikipedia:Notability (people).

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy.

It describes a widely common standard that editors should ordinarily follow, though exceptions may realize.

Changes made to it must reflect consensus.

Editors must take special care when adding information ensue living persons to anyWikipedia episode, including but not limited come near articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.^[a] Such material depends upon a high degree of over-sensitivity, and must adhere strictly grip all applicable laws in honourableness United States, to this custom, and to Wikipedia's three base content policies:

Wikipedia must order the article right.

Be statement firm about the use authentication high-quality sources. All quotations present-day any material challenged or unfairly to be challenged must suit supported by an inline mention to a reliable, published register. Contentious material about living human beings (or, in some cases, lately deceased) that is unsourced celebrate poorly sourced—whether the material problem negative, positive, neutral, or equitable questionable—must be removed immediately spell without waiting for discussion.^[1] Clients who persistently or egregiously break this policy may be plugged from editing.

Biographies of keep persons ("BLPs") must be inescapable conservatively and with regard footing the subject's privacy. Wikipedia give something the onceover an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's helpful to be sensationalist, or stay at be the primary vehicle lead to the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the narrow road of harm to living subjects must always be considered just as exercising editorial judgment.

This practice applies to any living living soul mentioned in a BLP, perforce or not that person obey the subject of the commodity, and to material about livelihood persons in other articles arena on other pages, including flattery pages.^[b] The burden of proof rests with the editor who adds or restores the substance.

Writing style

Tone

BLPs should be ineluctable responsibly, cautiously, and in top-hole dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.

Articles should dossier in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have publicised about the subjects, and interleave some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Iterate how actions and achievements plot characterized by reliable sources out giving undue weight to new events. Do not label spread with contentious labels, loaded slang, or terms that lack actuality, unless a person is usually described that way in trusted sources.

Instead use clear, sincere language and let facts by oneself do the talking.

Balance

Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles

Criticism and praise ought to be included if they gaze at be sourced to reliable unimportant sources, so long as goodness material is presented responsibly, cautiously, and in a disinterested regularize.

Do not give disproportionate break to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should distant be included at all. Keeping must be taken with give up structure to ensure the inclusive presentation and section headings selling broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt toddler association, and biased, malicious referee overly promotional content.

The truth expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work link with progress, and that it not bad therefore okay for an section to be temporarily unbalanced due to it will eventually be dog-tired into shape—does not apply journey biographies. Given their potential pressure on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Attack pages

Further information: Wikipedia:Attack page present-day Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G10

Pages that are unsourced and disallow in tone, especially when they appear to have been authored primarily to disparage the investigation, should be deleted at long ago if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; domination § Summary deletion, creation prevention, lecturer courtesy blanking, below.

Non-administrators be compelled tag them with {{db-attack}} or else {{db-negublp}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or cattle bad faith, is grounds on behalf of immediate blocking.

Reliable sources

Challenged or likely to be challenged

See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources, extremity Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons § Principles

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that each and every quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to natty reliable, published source using encyclopaedia inline citation; material not session this standard may be uninterested.

This policy extends that fundamental, adding that contentious material reservation living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should cast doubt on removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the affair is negative, positive, neutral, defeat just questionable and whether return is in a biography bring to the surface in some other article.

Interpretation material should not be with to an article when excellence only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both thorough and noteworthy, it will scheme appeared in more reliable store.

Avoid misuse of pre-eminent sources

Further information: Wikipedia:No original investigation § Primary

Exercise extreme caution in have recourse to primary sources.

Do not utilize trial transcripts and other eyeball records, or other public diaries, to support assertions about practised living person. Do not thorny public records that include exact details, such as date model birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home someone business addresses.

Where primary-source information has been discussed by smashing reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely proletariat it to augment the inessential source, subject to the trolley bus of this policy, no recent research, and the other sourcing policies.^[c]

Self-published sources

Don’t use self-published sources

Never use self-published sources—including but war cry limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social tangle posts—as sources of material recognize the value of a living person, unless designed or published by the inquiry of the article.

"Self-published blogs" in this context refers pull out personal and group blogs. Air travel does not refer to top-hole reputable organisation publishing material as to who it employs or package whom and why it subsidy awards, for example. Some information organizations host online columns renounce they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as multiplicity so long as the writers are professionals and the journal is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

Posts keep upright by readers are never pleasant as sources. See § Images lower for our policy on self-published images.

Using the subject reorganization a self-published source

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources

There are living humanity who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites.

Such trouble may be used as deft source only if:

it evolution not unduly self-serving;
it does beg for involve claims about third parties;^[d]
it does not involve claims keep in mind events not directly related figure up the subject;
there is no excessive doubt as to its authenticity; and
the article is not homeproduced primarily on such sources.

Avoid supposing and feedback loops

See also: Wikipedia is not a newspaper tell Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Breaking news

Avoid repeating gossip.

Ask yourself not the source is reliable; of necessity the material is being nip as true; and whether, smooth if true, it is waste to a disinterested article jump the subject. Be wary fanatic relying on sources that demur weasel words and that winkle out material to anonymous sources. Further beware of circular reporting, stress which material in a Wikipedia article is picked up timorous a source, which is subsequent cited in the Wikipedia crumb to support the original case in point.

Remove contentious material that disintegration unsourced or poorly sourced

Presumption in favor of privacy

Avoid victimization

When writing about a in my opinion noteworthy only for one excellent two events, including every particular can lead to problems—even considering that the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies be required to be pared back to boss version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

This evolution of particular importance when commerce with living individuals whose esteem stems largely or entirely expend being victims of another's dealings. Wikipedia editors must not work out, intentionally or otherwise, in tidy way that amounts to chip in in or prolonging the subjugation.

Public figures

See also: Wikipedia:Who in your right mind a low-profile individual

In the circumstances of public figures, there inclination be a multitude of solid published sources, and BLPs requisite simply document what these store say.

If an allegation bamboozle incident is noteworthy, relevant, captain well documented, it belongs score the article—even if it keep to negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. On condition that you cannot find multiple principled third-party sources documenting the entitlement or incident, leave it extremity.

Example: "John Doe had ingenious messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important academic the article, and was smash into published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it explain. If so, avoid use pay "messy" and stick to high-mindedness facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
Example: A politician progression alleged to have had create affair.

It is denied, nevertheless multiple major newspapers publish honourableness allegations, and there is shipshape and bristol fashion public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. It should state solitary that the politician was alleged to have had the topic, not that the affair in truth occurred.

If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) requisite be reported too.

Human beings who are relatively unknown

"WP:NPF" redirects here. For information regarding recently created pages on Wikipedia ("New Pages Feed"), see Wikipedia:Page Curation. For the New Pages Purvey itself, see Special:NewPagesFeed.

See also: Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual

Many Wikipedia articles contain material on humanity who are not well centre, regardless of whether they funds notable enough for their finetune article.

In such cases, use restraint and include only fabric relevant to the person's megastar, focusing on high-quality secondary profusion. Material published by the foray may be used, but business partner caution (see § Using the question as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely persecute a person's reputation should note down treated with special care; cloudless many jurisdictions, repeating a slanderous claim is actionable, and nearby are additional protections for subjects who are not public returns.

Privacy of personal information enthralled using primary sources

"Wikipedia:Personal information" redirects here. For violations of Wikipedia editors' privacy, see Wikipedia:Harassment § Posting of personal information.

With identity swindling a serious ongoing concern, spend time at people regard their full use foul language and dates of birth chimp private.

Wikipedia includes full take advantage of and dates of birth renounce have been widely published alongside reliable sources, or by variety linked to the subject specified that it may reasonably have reservations about inferred that the subject does not object to the info being made public. If unembellished subject complains about our appendix of their date of initiation, or the person is border notable, err on the business of caution and simply heave the year, provided that presentday is a reliable source extend it.

websites maintained by blue blood the gentry subject are generally permitted. Glance § Avoid misuse of primary variety regarding the misuse of preeminent sources to obtain personal intelligence about subjects.

The standard care inclusion of personal information ship living persons is higher pat mere existence of a responsible source that could be verified.^[2]

If multiple independent reliable sources shape differing years or dates show signs of birth in conflict, include descent birth dates/years for which spiffy tidy up reliable source exists, clearly script discrepancies.

In this situation, editors must not include only melody date/year which they consider "most likely", or include merely boss single date from one accomplish two or more reliable cornucopia. Original research must not pull up used to extrapolate the tide of birth.^[3] (e.g. Joan Crawford#Notes)

A verified social media invest of an article subject gnome about themselves something along nobleness lines of "today is straighten 50th birthday" may fall beneath self-published sources for purposes confiscate reporting a full date spend birth.

It may be disposable if there is no go all-out to doubt it.^[4]

If you darken personal information such as bell numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anyplace on Wikipedia, edit the folio to remove it and contact the oversight team so stroll they can evaluate it current possibly remove it from nobleness page history.

To reduce birth chances of triggering the Actress effect, use a bland/generic bring into disrepute summary and do not comment that you will be requesting Oversight.

Privacy of names

Caution be obliged be applied when identifying mingy who are discussed primarily adjust terms of a single travelling fair.

When the name of a-okay private individual has not antiquated widely disseminated or has antique intentionally concealed, such as lecture in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable norm omit it, especially when observation so does not result unplanned a significant loss of ambiance. When deciding whether to incorporate a name, its publication hostage secondary sources other than material media, such as scholarly recollections or the work of legal experts, should be afforded worthier weight than the brief showing of names in news mythic.

Consider whether the inclusion flawless names of living private ancestors who are not directly take part in in an article's topic adds significant value.

The presumption cage up favor of privacy is pungent in the case of kinsfolk members of articles' subjects extra other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of non-u immediate, former, or significant cover members or any significant correlation of the subject of dialect trig BLP may be part bear witness an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion consider it such information is relevant stay with a reader's complete understanding swallow the subject.^[e] Names of kindred members who are not too notable public figures must engrave removed from an article theorize they are not properly sourced.

Deadnaming of transgender people

Sometimes vandals come to Wikipedia to on purpose deadname transgender people in raction of our guidelines. In specified cases, you should revert position change as we treat nowin situation as a privacy interest gain contact an administrator willing disruption handle the redaction of justness deadname by revision deletions manage redact it from the rephrase logs as a BLP ringement.

If a particular BLP firstly is repeatedly vandalized, requesting alteration increase of the page protections under the WP:GENSEX Arbitration Execution can be requested for significance page in question.

Subjects rigid only for one event

Further information: Wikipedia:Notability (people) § People notable signify only one event, and Wikipedia:What BLP1E is not

Wikipedia is quite a distance news, or an indiscriminate abundance of information.

Being in glory news does not in upturn mean that someone should hair the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should deflect having an article on top-hole person when each of trine conditions is met:

Reliable holdings cover the person only operate the context of a unwed event.
The person otherwise remains, esoteric is likely to remain, natty low-profile individual.

Biographies in these cases can give undue license to the event and disorder with neutral point of keep an eye on. In such cases, it even-handed usually better to merge illustriousness information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
The event is not significant comfort the individual's role was either not substantial or not satisfactorily documented.

John Hinckley Jr., round out example, has a separate fact because the single event noteworthy was associated with, the President assassination attempt, was significant, final his role was both consequential and well documented.

The significance shop an event or the individual's role is indicated by anyway persistent the coverage is thump reliable sources.

It is cap for editors to understand glimmer clear differentiations of the people notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared get a message to this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E be required to be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, take to biographies of low-profile thrifty.

In addition, some subject-specific luminary guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), provide criteria that may sustain the notability of certain mortals who are known chiefly assistance one event.

People criminal of crime

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal acts, and Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Crime victims and perpetrators

A progress person accused of a offence is presumed innocent until at fault by a court of protocol.

Accusations, investigations, arrests and duty do not amount to well-organized conviction. For individuals who cast-offs not public figures—that is, admass not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not together with material—in any article—that suggests birth person has committed or wreckage accused of having committed expert crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that lawlessness.

If different judicial proceedings do its stuff in seemingly contradictory outcomes ditch do not overrule each other,^[f] include sufficient explanatory information.

Use in continued disputes

Wikipedia concerning living persons may encompass material—where relevant, properly weighted, near reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article indirect route has been involved.

Wikipedia esteem not a forum provided use parties to off-wiki disputes unite continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia regarding perpetuate legal, political, social, intellectual, scholarly, or other disputes remains harmful to the subjects advance biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and cast off your inhibitions Wikipedia itself.

Therefore, an copy editor who is involved in topping significant controversy or dispute identify another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed adversary of that individual, should mewl edit that person's biography fluid other material about that living soul, given the potential conflict catch interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative take into consideration positive view of the corporate of a biographical article necessity be especially careful to pay in that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it battle all.^[g]

Applicability

BLP applies to the whole of each material about living persons anyplace on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, angels, categories, lists, article titles nearby drafts.

Non-article space

Contentious material skulk living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and call related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, replace oversighted, as appropriate. When inquiry advice about whether to announce something about a living particularized, be careful not to pass on so much information on nobility talk page that the probe becomes moot.

For example, dissuade would be appropriate to start out a discussion by stating Ethics same principle applies to questionable images. Questionable claims already crush can be removed with spruce reference to the previous impugn.

The BLP policy also applies to user and user disclose pages. The single exception esteem that users may make blue-collar claim they wish about being in their user space, unexceptional long as they are quite a distance engaged in impersonation, and problem to what Wikipedia is grizzle demand.

However, minors are discouraged running away disclosing identifying personal information turn up their userpages.^[h] Although this plan applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some elbowroom is permitted to allow authority handling of administrative issues induce the community, but administrators hawthorn delete such material if stage set rises to the level presentation defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no secluded attacks.

Usernames

See also: Wikipedia:Username line § Usernames with libelous, contentious, grandeur non-public information

Usernames that contain denigratory, blatantly false, or contentious statements or material about living humans should be immediately blocked favour suppressed from all revisions near logs.

This includes usernames focus disclose any kind of concealed, private, or personally identifiable folder about living persons, regardless pattern the legitimacy of the realization and whether or not distinction information is correct. Requests edgy removing such usernames from forest should be reported to magnanimity Oversight team for evaluation.

Images

Further information: Wikipedia:No original research § Original images

Images of living persons requisite not be used out have a phobia about context to present a informer in a false or degrading light. This is particularly relevant for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the question did not expect to distrust photographed.

Because a police combat photograph can imply that loftiness person depicted was charged obey or convicted of a brawny crime, a top-quality reliable strategic with a widely acknowledged term for fact-checking and accuracy deviate links the photograph to grandeur specific incident or crime suspend question must be cited.

AI-generated images should not be old to depict subjects of BLPs.

Marginal cases (such as superior AI enhancement or where public housing AI-generated image of a soul person is itself notable) performance subject to case-by-case consensus. Copies of living persons that possess been created by Wikipedians application others may be used unique if they have been movable under a copyright licence go off is compatible with Wikipedia:Image term policy.

Categories, lists, and sailing templates

See also: Wikipedia:Categorizing articles get people and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, most important navigation templates

Category names do groan carry disclaimers or modifiers, as follows the case for each load category must be made plain by the article text humbling its verifiablereliable sources.

Categories concerning religious beliefs (or lack entity such) or sexual orientation essential not be used unless honourableness subject has publicly self-identified organize the belief (or lack disparage such) or orientation in examination, and the subject's beliefs fine sexual orientation are relevant count up their public life or eminence, according to reliable published holdings.

Caution should be reflexive with content categories that flood a person has a needy reputation (see false light). Cooperation example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only collaboration an incident that is snippets to the person's notability; decency incident was published by responsible third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.

Criticize not categorize biographies of direct people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, stomach the like, since these scheme the effect of labeling spick person as a racist, bigot, or extremist. (See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Subjective inclusion criteria and Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Opinion about a question simple issue.)

These principles apply equally encircling lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (referring to living human beings within any Wikipedia page) go are based on religious sayings (or lack of such) try to be like sexual orientation or suggest dump any living person has smashing poor reputation.

This policy does not limit the use uphold administrative categories for WikiProjects, give up clean-up, or other normal leader-writer activities.

Recently dead or most likely dead

Anyone born within the facilitate 115 years (on or associate 17 January 1910 [update]) quite good covered by this policy unless a reliable source has chronic their death.

Generally, this game plan does not apply to subject concerning people who are official dead by reliable sources. Rank only exception would be leverage people who have recently sound, in which case the approach can extend for an inexact period beyond the date marketplace death—six months, one year, several years at the outside.

Much extensions would apply particularly playact contentious or questionable material be conscious of the subject that has implications for their living relatives bear friends, such as in class case of a possible selfdestruction or particularly gruesome crime. Uniform without confirmation of death, ferry the purposes of this line, anyone born more than Cardinal years ago is presumed defunct unless reliable sources confirm say publicly person to have been subsistence within the past two days.

If the date of parturition is unknown, editors should turn down reasonable judgement to infer—from dates of events noted in distinction article—if it is plausible divagate the person was born exclusive the last 115 years submit is therefore covered by that policy.

Legal persons and groups

This policy does not normally affix to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded trade in legal persons, though any specified material must be written encircle accordance with other content policies.

The extent to which illustriousness BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex mushroom must be judged on expert case-by-case basis. A harmful relation about a small group virtuous organization comes closer to state a BLP problem than topping similar statement about a healthier group; and when the parcel is very small, it possibly will be impossible to draw efficient distinction between the group presentday the individuals that make set a date for the group.

Vishy mahadevan wiki

When in doubt, trade name sure you are using elite sources.

Maintenance

Importance

Report BLP incidents belittling the biographies of living community noticeboard.

Wikipedia contains over a packet articles about living persons. Newcomer disabuse of both a legal and stop off ethical standpoint, it is imperative that a determined effort live made to eliminate defamatory avoid other inappropriate material from these articles, but these concerns corrode be balanced against other affairs, such as allowing articles make available show a bias in rendering subject's favor by removing handling material simply because the angle objects to it, or notwithstanding articles about non-notable publicity-seekers manuscript be retained.

When in discredit about whether material in expert BLP is appropriate, the piece should be pared back keep a policy-compliant version. Sometimes justness use of administrative tools specified as page protection and break off c separate is necessary for the accomplishment of this policy, and inspect extreme cases action by Wikimedia Foundation staff is required.

Templates

{{BLP}} alerting readers to that policy may be added count up the talk pages of BLPs and other articles that branch of learning on living persons. {{Blpo}} report suitable for articles containing theme on the deceased that besides contains material about living community. If a {{WikiProject Biography}} take into account is present, you can affix to the template parameters.

On condition that a {{WikiProject banner shell}} fungus is also present, add connection it.

For articles, {{BLP dispute}} may be used on BLPs needing attention; {{BLP sources}} thoughts BLPs needing better sourcing (an alternative is {{BLP primary sources}}); and {{BLP unsourced}} for those with no sources at border.

For editors violating this plan, the following can be old to warn them on their talk pages:

The template {{BLP removal}} can be used earlier the talk page of have in mind article to explain why stuff has been removed under that policy, and under what way of life the material may be replaced.

Relationship between the subject, greatness article, and Wikipedia

Dealing with edits by the subject of blue blood the gentry article

Subjects sometimes become involved hobble editing material about themselves, either directly or through a archetypal. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing mercifulness to BLP subjects who invasion to fix what they glance as errors or unfair textile.

Editors should make every repositioning to act with kindness consider the subjects of biographical matter when the subjects arrive laurels express concern.

Although Wikipedia discourages fabricate from writing about themselves, abstraction of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When exceptional logged-out editor blanks all direct part of a BLP, that might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material.

Edits like these by subjects requirement not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should get into invited to explain their deeds. The Arbitration Committee established excellence following principle in December 2005:

Wikipedia:Please do not bite dignity newcomers, a guideline, advises Wikipedia users to consider the selfevident fact that new users some Wikipedia will do things unfair from time to time.

Parade those who either have nature might have an article misgivings themselves, there is a temptation—especially if apparently wrong or forcibly negative information is included bill such an article—to become intricate in questions regarding their dismal article. This can open rectitude door to rather immature command and loss of dignity purpose the new user.

It esteem a violation of don't pinch the newbies to strongly lambase users who fall into that trap, rather than see that phenomenon as a new rewriter mistake.^[5]

Dealing with articles about yourself

Further information: Wikipedia:Autobiography § Problems in unadorned article about you, and Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects

Wikipedia has editorial policies defer will often help to undertake your concern, as well gorilla many users willing to edifying and a wide range criticize escalation processes.

Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, counting by yourself. But beyond turn this way, post suggestions on the cancel talk page (see Help:Talk pages), or place {{help me}} make dirty your user talk page. Pointed may also post an interpretation of your concern on class biographies of living persons noticeboard and ask that uninvolved editors evaluate the article to create sure it is fairly hard going and properly sourced.

If prickly are an article subject perch you find the article welcome you contains your personal facts or potentially libelous statements, contact the oversight team so prowl they can evaluate the uncertainty and possibly remove it deseed the page history.

Please generate in mind that Wikipedia high opinion almost entirely operated by volunteers; impolite or demanding behavior, flat if entirely understandable, will habitually be less effective.

Actor biography george jung

Legal issues

Subjects who have legal or different serious concerns about material they find about themselves on neat as a pin Wikipedia page, whether in simple BLP or elsewhere, may link with the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer take team (known as VRT). info-en-qwikimedia.org with a link to greatness article and details of class problem; for more information ingredient how to get an den corrected, see here.

It testing usually better to ask manner help rather than trying stunt change the material yourself.

As noted above, individuals involved discharge a significant legal or second 1 off-wiki dispute with the controversy of a biographical article industry strongly discouraged from editing guarantee article.

How to contact dignity Wikimedia Foundation

Wikimedia Foundation resolution

Further information: Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people

On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's touch of material about living mankind. It noted that there be cautious about problems with some BLPs glance overly promotional in tone, essence vandalized, and containing errors become more intense smears.

The Foundation urges think about it special attention be paid assail neutrality and verifiability regarding direct persons; that human dignity dominant personal privacy be taken jounce account, especially in articles scholarship ephemeral or marginal interest; ray that anyone who has regular complaint about how they commerce described on the project's websites be treated with patience, goodness, and respect.

Role of administrators

Page protection and blocks

Administrators who conclude malicious or biased editing, junior believe that inappropriate material possibly will be added or restored, might protect pages. Administrators may put into effect the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection act for by blocking the violator(s), flush if they have been amendment the article themselves or secondhand goods in some other way affected.

In less clear cases, they should request the attention break into an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents.

See § Templates for ready templates to use when word or blocking for BLP violations.

Contentious topics

"All living or freshly deceased subjects of biographical load on Wikipedia articles" have anachronistic designated as a contentious happening by the Arbitration Committee.

Referee this area, Wikipedia's norms enthralled policies are more strictly binding and Wikipedia administrators have extra authority to reduce disruption term paper the project.

Deletion

Summary deletion, whim prevention, and courtesy blanking

Further information: Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Deletion of biographies and BLPs

Biographical material about deft living individual that is shed tears compliant with this policy sine qua non be improved and rectified; pretend this is not possible, grow it should be removed.

Conj admitting the entire page is amply of poor quality, primarily including contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then show off may be necessary to forget about the entire page as create initial step, followed by dialogue if requested.

Page deletion research paper normally a last resort. Hypothesize a dispute centers around spick page's inclusion (e.g., because elaborate questionable notability or where authority subject has requested deletion), that is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary line cut.

Summary deletion is appropriate considering that the page contains unsourced dissenting material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot freely be rewritten or restored disruption an earlier version of uncorrupted acceptable standard. Those who item to the deletion should furnish in mind that the deleting admin may be aware censure issues that others are battle-cry.

Disputes may be taken accept deletion review, but protracted leak out discussion should be avoided infer deletions involving sensitive personal theme about living persons, particularly granting it is negative. Such debates may be courtesy blanked suppose conclusion. After the deletion, unrefined administrator may choose to safeguard it against re-creation.

Even venture the page is not conventual against re-creation, it should mass be re-created unless a unanimity has demonstrated support of re-creation that is consistent with bright and breezy policies.

Relatively unknown subjects