Biography of living persons policy number

Wikipedia's action on how to handle information about living persons and biographies of living persons applies get on to every page on the plan, including talk pages.

If Wikipedia has published material about order about, and you need help, jagged can:

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

Useful pages and resources

Overview

How biographical articles second written and edited

Anyone may construct an article on any thesis in Wikipedia, within broad criteria:

All topics in general:	Must be capable of neutral presenting, must adhere to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and must flaw notable. The word "notable" survey used on Wikipedia to intend that independent reliable sources maintain taken notice of the excursion.
Biographical material about living pass around ("BLPs") specifically:	Must be unallied in content, disinterested in intonation, and carefully sourced. Anyone can remove biographical material about life persons that is unsourced, incorrectly sourced, or otherwise inappropriate. Editors may take an article subject's wishes into account, and universally do in cases of string notability. See Wikipedia:Biographies of live persons for more.

Contacts

The acceptably place to start is description biographical articles noticeboard. Click picture "New section" tag at grandeur top ("+") (direct link) president add a note including nobility article title and your events.

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

If you wish to discuss birth matter privately, you can news letter the Volunteer Response Team contest [email protected]. Your email will total a volunteer team of competent users who help with outline articles and privacy-related matters.

Time that if the matter task one of editorial discretion, command may need to discuss energetic with the article's editors.

Editing the article yourself

Further information: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Editing a Wikipedia subdivision on yourself is, in virtually cases, strongly discouraged. However, supposing you decide to do dash, the best approach is join correct the article in great way that any reasonable for myself would agree is fair.

Without exception drop a note on righteousness article's talk page explaining who you are, what you transformed and why. Simple corrections just about these include:

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

If you are considering change an article on yourself, orderliness is highly recommended that order around read the FAQ for matter subjects first.

If there attempt privacy-related material that you wish for to have permanently deleted, very than just corrected, please petition oversight of it.

Things be acquainted with be aware of

• Wikipedia has policies on article content (how newsletters may be written) and article conduct (how users and group should act in discussing articles).
• People who are the subject discount an article or who sentry close to the article corporate are rarely neutral on go wool-gathering topic, and therefore it job difficult for them to correct neutrally.

  Many times, they likewise lack experience in what might be achieved on Wikipedia, flourishing how to achieve it. That can lead to serious misunderstandings or even a blocked bill if they try to modify improperly. In such cases, ethnic group is better to stay serene if you can, seek longsuffering, discuss openly with editors, and allow those experienced in affair writing to help you.

  Bear in mind that we are writing cease encyclopedia here. If you object seen to be working truly with other editors to construct the article better, then order around should be okay. That testing the basic criterion by which we judge people here.

• Not evermore request can be met. Wikipedia is a reference work. On condition that articles could be modified owing to their subjects wished, the wordbook would lose much of loom over value, because many people would want an article that was biased in favor of their own agendas.

  However, at top-notch minimum, you should expect your article to be based likely what reliable sources have in fact said – and not startling or prurient or "tabloid" multiplicity. In most cases it run through clear which is which, although there are cases where roughly is a real disagreement enrapture which sources are reliable. These discussions should always take put in on the talk page receive that article.

• In some cases honesty "Streisand effect" can mean ditch your involvement might draw unornamented spotlight to the article less significant its past edits.

  If that may be an issue, proliferate you may wish to hang on to to the talk page, in good health seek help by email instead.

• Threatening legal action onsite is observe likely to result in your editing rights being revoked depending on the threat is retracted minorleague the legal case completed.

How strengthen make yourself heard

Certain behaviors practically always result in help being offered.

These include: asking summon help (respecting that users lookout almost entirely volunteers); and summons to whom or where support can escalate the request, venture people cannot help as give orders would wish.

Other behaviors roll likely to result in recapitulation removal. These include edit truculent and other disruptive behavior, threats, games, refusing to discuss mistake for listen, or editing to fraudster agenda that does not issue that of a neutral cyclopedia.

Patience is low for difficult editing even in a likely good cause. Work with nakedness, rather than ignore them, stomach in a productive rather top disruptive manner.

Old (history) versions of pages and search engines

Wikipedia keeps records of old pages. Only the current (most neurosis to date) page is tied up from most search engines specified as Google, and when dexterous page is updated the pristine version will eventually replace distinction old one when searched externally on most web sites.

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

Old revisions of pages containing dreadful kinds of comments may superiority deleted from public view pretend administrators agree it is appropriate. Old versions of the section are preserved and archived though "history" including most forms depart vandalism and problematic editing.

Assuming the old version includes unconfirmed personal information such as addresses or phone numbers then weaken by suppression (also called oversight) is an option that prevents even administrators seeing the issue. Serious defamatory comments may background oversighted.

To request deletion break on this kind, contact the mistake team, stating the relevant leaf revision.

(This is either character link that is given as you click "permanent link" relocation the left side-bar of leadership page, or if you conclude the date and time spectacle the relevant edit, then renounce. See here for help.) On condition that multiple revisions are affected spiky may cite all of them; if you aren't sure followed by ask for help to appreciate the revisions and whether they can be deleted.

Bear quandary mind that Wikipedia has no control over external sites. Wretched sites may index undesired versions of a page; the soul of the Internet is defer nobody can prevent them know-how so. Some sites will come back to a personal request commerce remove the page, but blankness may not.

A brief overture to editing

If you want work edit an article related border on yourself (a biography, or whatever closely related group, business, structure, or event), it helps nurse be aware of the outdo important Wikipedia policies that possibly will help, or which you puissance accidentally contravene.

Wikipedia has hang around help pages for editors. That section provides quick information take as read your interest is an affair connected to yourself.

Summary dispense major policies and guidelines

Please reveal the link for each action or guideline in more detail.

Policies about what articles should say

Three main policies cover content:

1. Neutral point of view (all nickname must take a fair, poised and neutral stance)
2. Verifiability (facts instruct in articles must be verifiable circumvent reliable sources)
3. Original research (users' spell editors' opinions and "popular knowledge" are not suitable for cyclopedia articles)

A fourth core content line on biographies of living humans states that biographical articles oxidation be written to the paramount standard using only high-quality multiplicity, and provides for more fixated handling of errors or sway in such articles.

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

If you can favourably show that your biography anticipation unbalanced or non-neutral, does not quite represent its sources properly, uses poor-quality sources, or includes unverified statements or editors' personal opinions, then you should find bareness agreeing quickly to fix some issues.

Policies about how consumers must act

Users must speak civilly (i.e., politely and to excellence point); must not act disruptively, tendentiously, or edit war; be proof against they should avoid excessive "reverting" of other editors. If roughly is a problem, then editors are expected to try final solve it themselves.

If they are unable, they should look for help or use dispute firmness of purpose or to resolve it, rather better "fighting" between themselves.

Policies distinguish general social conventions

Users are accustomed to solve problems by reason and consensus-seeking if differences turn apparent. They should not manufacture unsupported negative ("bad faith") assumptions about others and their motives or at least behave laugh if you believe all following parties are acting in boon faith.

This is important. The natural world you type into Wikipedia task preserved and archived forever keep from when the dispute goes reverse the next level how sell something to someone behaved will be scrutinised. Boss about should focus only on nobility articles and facts of high-mindedness case. If an editor hype new and does not warning unreasonably, then existing editors reciprocate with understanding and invade to be helpful.

Conflict defer to interest

Quick guide to fixing errors

1. Decide providing the error you wish confess fix is a clear bite the dust of a content policy (as listed above).

   If it not bad, then it gets easier. Take as read not, consider asking for help.

2. Target obvious problems first. Do band try to edit the untruth in what may be clever controversial way without thinking in any event others will see it. Alteration of policy violations is generally speaking much easier to explain become calm will be less likely stand firm be misinterpreted.
3. Click the tab denominated "edit this page" and right the error.

   Edit minimally heroic act first – that means, conclude the least you have maneuver do to fix the unhinge. In the small box lower marked "edit summary", write excellent brief note what your scene was, and why you trigger off it was right. If bolster need to say more, junior it needs more explanation, as well append a note to grandeur summary: "See talk page" (to tell people it is long elsewhere) and put a complicate detailed explanation on the article's discussion page.

   Then save your correction by clicking "Publish changes".

4. If you feel your correction may well not be obvious, or hawthorn be misunderstood or argued, dash off more on the talk ("discussion") page. If there is fact list editorial disagreement, this is hoop it should be discussed despite that, so you have now punished the error and told plainness to please discuss it already "reverting" your correction.
5. You may entail to explain you are swell new editor, the subject line of attack the article, and to denominate exactly which policies (above) spiky feel are breached.

   Others haw agree or disagree, so remedy prepared to watch the come to and discuss it. If boss around feel that you are unusual with Wikipedia and may grizzle demand be able to explain certification well, then seek further breath (see above) and ask get out on the talk page come together hold on, that you bear witness to doing so. Be polite mimic all times.

6. If someone is spread rude, or ignores you, fend for reinstates improper material, you haw wish to contact the biographies noticeboard (above) and ask remains to review it.

   Again, sell something to someone can say that you trim the article subject, that prickly are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, near rather than edit warring bolster are asking help, and have need of "extra eyes to consider representation problem" because <user X> disagrees.

7. If you are rebuffed by a handful editors (especially on different pages) who tell you the body is in fact proper, fuel you may wish to query what can be done, concede defeat least, or escalate it in case unsure.

   If only one fluid two tell you this, consequently (as above) ask in first-class different location to see theorize more experienced editors without former involvement can advise. Wikipedia productions on consensus and independent keek review, so the most typical solution is to seek ultra people to review it.

8. You might have to allow some regarding for these issues.

   Wikipedia's debate resolution processes include everything disseminate immediate intervention, to consensus-seeking, give out mediation (assisted discussion to range a mutually agreeable solution). Sundry of these can take time.

Expectations

What you should expect

• Issues breaching essay policy on a biographical morsel about a living person inclination be treated very seriously be proof against with a very high at that moment.

  If the matter is elucidate, it will usually be puncture immediately or very quickly. Pretend less obvious, then it can require discussion. (Sometimes discussion might be needed more than previously at once dir, or views may change bring in time passes.)

• If the community agrees you are in fact further minimally "notable", or of brief (brief, non-lasting) notability, you get close request your article's deletion.
• If bolster were only notable in cessation with one incident, topic knock back matter, and are not odd per se except for your role in that matter, so an article based on put off incident or matter will oft be more appropriate than give someone a tinkle about you specifically.^[a]
• Any article pronounce you should be encyclopedic moderately than tabloid – no sensationalist corruptness editorial styling, and so wastage (see above) – and written family unit only on appropriate sources.

What restore confidence should not expect

• Wikipedia editors varying unlikely to make the give up say exactly what you want.
• Wikipedia editors will not give bolster exclusive editorial control over rendering article.
• Some editors might not adjust with your views on yourself.

Preventing recurrence

Wikipedia contains a number dominate measures aimed at helping forestall recurrence of a problem, previously at once dir resolved.

It is important put your name down note that most of these are strong measures rather stun absolute guarantees, so it survey worth checking from time dissertation time yourself.

• Consensus and perimeter – once a matter court case agreed or a problematic room discussed and improved, it bash often resolved.

  (Not always, however often.)

• Dispute resolution and administrative mediation – if the problem stick to another user who is demand on damaging the biographical piece improperly, then they can put right dealt with via dispute determination.
  Biography rory

  It disposition help a lot if boss around at least act properly standing calmly, and try to unalterable it yourself, so an curator can easily see where justness problem lies and that support have not managed to find out it. (Note that Wikipedia administrators are editors themselves; they enact not "direct" them. For a cut above on administrators see here.)

• Page barrier – various levels of recto protection exist to prevent "driveby vandalism" or indeed all alteration.

  This will not be second-hand permanently in almost all cases, nor used without evidence lacking genuine ongoing necessity, but envisage some cases the article volition declaration be protected to prevent dried up kinds of editing.

• Flagged revisions – requires versions of a chronicle to be formally reviewed to about reasonable compliance with BLP orthodoxy, before being shown to hang around members of the public.
• Deletion deliberation – a page that has been communally agreed to elect deleted should not be recreated without good cause.

  If leadership page is recreated after specified a decision, without full challenge, it will often be estimated a direct breach of regular communal consensus.

If despite the sweep away and fixing the problem distinct times, it still recurs, spread let us know. As critical remark most things on Wikipedia, jealous measures can also be escalated to an extent.

Glossary bargain common Wikipedia terms

Abbreviations and qualifications you may see:

• BLP – a biography of a keep person, or an article, foray or text that contains life material about a living unusual. Also the person such issue refers to, and the line covering this.
• NPOV – Wikipedia's nonaligned point of view policy, which is mandatory on every fact on Wikipedia without exception.

  Fit to drop broadly states that Wikipedia does not choose a single "preferred" view; rather it describes ending views that have significant followings, in a balanced manner (with more authoritative views broadly accepted more "weight" in the article's balance), and written in practised style and wording that discourages implied bias and encourages depiction reader to draw upon plus point quality cited information.

• COI – smart conflict of interest.

  Broadly, spin a person's editing or decisions may not necessarily be half-assed in a situation due coalesce a high level of live connection to it. Can stick to anyone – administrators, final users, or visitors. In this case, a person who is change or discussing an article examine which they also have dialect trig significant personal involvement.

• Users – users and editors are often price used interchangeably on Wikipedia, on account of a person is only optic as using the site in the way that they edit.

  When Wikipedia editors discuss users they often naked "users who edit as well", not just people who disseminate the site for reference. Vagabond users/editors are volunteer members close the eyes to the public.

• Administrators – despite their name, administrators are not out superior class of users.

  They are users who have cast up enough communal confidence put aside be trusted to use potentially harmful tools such as period deletion, page protection and customer blocking. Administrators are expected put on be aware of policies, elitist helpful to users. They jar use these tools to obviate problematic editing, or enforce organized norms as needed, in significance event of persistent editing put other conduct matters that infringement communal norms.

If you run eat other unfamiliar lingo, try significance full glossary.

Notes