Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia can affect real people's lives. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research. |
| File:mbox notice.png | If you are concerned about the accuracy or appropriateness of biographical material on Wikipedia, report problems at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. For articles about yourself, please see "Dealing with articles about yourself" below. |
Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to our three core content policies:
- Neutral point of view (NPOV)
- Verifiability (V)
- No original research (NOR)
Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.
Rationale
| The Five Pillars |
|---|
| Content policies |
| Biographies of living persons Article titles Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability What Wikipedia is not |
On April 9, 2009, the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation passed a Resolution:Biographies of living people. It noted that there are problems with biographies of living persons that are overly promotional in tone, that are vandalized, and that contain errors and smears. The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; that new technical mechanisms be investigated for assessing edits that affect living people; and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with patience, kindness, and respect.
Writing and editing
Writing style
Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted (see #Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material).Articles should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections.
Criticism and praise
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on Guilt by association. Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
External links
External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links.[4]Categories
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text. Articles must state the facts that support each category tag, and these facts must be sourced.
Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:
- The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
- The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
Images
Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photos ("mugshots"), which can carry additional connotations beyond the record of an arrest, or situations where a subject is not expecting to be photographed.Sources
Reliable sources
Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims.Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections (see above).
Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the source doesn't believe its own story, why should we?
Be wary of "feedback loops" in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, by an otherwise-reliable media source, and then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.
Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material
Remove any contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies on self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.
Attack pages, i.e., biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should be deleted per speedy deletion criterion G10. Administrators may remove such pages at once. Non-administrators cannot delete pages, and should tag them {{db-attack}}.
Self-published sources
Never use self-published books, Zines, websites, forums, Blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes an Opinion piece but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[5] However, images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedia contributors or other sources may be used to illustrate articles, provided that they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia's image use policy for user-created images and subject to the considerations set out in Images above.Using the subject as a self-published source
- it is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Dealing with edits by the subject of the article
In some cases subjects may become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable.When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this might be the subject of the article attempting to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article.
The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material:
For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.– Arbitration Committee decision (December 18, 2005)[6]
Other considerations
Presumption in favor of privacy
Wikipedia articles about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
This is of profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
Special considerations
In rare instances, individuals who have legal Restraining orders may need to make special requests. Requests of this type should be handled through the OTRS system.Well-known public figures
In the case of significant Public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.- Example
- "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe divorced Jane Doe."
- Example
- A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.
People who are relatively unknown
Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source, above.)Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person may be cited if and only if: (1) it is corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources; (2) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and; (3) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", with the Wikipedia article taking no position on their truth.
Articles about people notable only for one event
Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.
Privacy of personal information
Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known persons where the dates:- have been published in one or more reliable sources linked to the persons such that it may reasonably be inferred that the persons do not object to their release; or
- have otherwise been widely published.
In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted.
Privacy of names
Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, discuss the issue on the article's talk page.
Corporations
In some countries, corporations, companies, and other entities are regarded as Legal persons. This policy does not apply to them.Maintaining biographies of living persons
Article improvement to a neutral, high-quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced to good quality sources, neutral, and on-topic. However in many cases the appropriate use of administrative tools such as page protection and deletion is necessary for the enforcement of the biographies of living persons policy. In extreme cases, office actions may be taken by Wikimedia Foundation staff regarding BLP issues.
Semi-protection and protection
Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that violating material may be re-added, may protect or semi-protect affected pages. However, it is generally more desirable in the medium and long term to obtain compliance with this policy by editors, so that the article may be kept open for editing.
Deletion
Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion.
Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., due to questionable notability or if the subject has requested deletion) then this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard.
The deleting administrator should be prepared to explain the action to others, by e-mail if the material is sensitive. Those who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. Disputes may be taken to deletion review, but protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative. Such debates may be courtesy blanked upon conclusion.
After the deletion of a biography of a living person, any administrator may choose to protect it against recreation.
Deletion of comments about other editors
Pages used for legitimate Wikipedia administrative purposes and discussions, such as users' own user pages, dispute resolution pages, project and community pages, and comments between users, often contain opinions and observations by editors that may relate to other editors. Although applicable to this policy, deletion is not the usual means of addressing issues on these pages, and leeway to allow the handling of editorial issues by the community should be allowed. For offending comments against editors, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.After deletion
After the deletion of a biography of a living person, consider merging any acceptable, non-offending content into another relevant article. Remember that you must attribute the content for compliance with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. For full information, see Help:Merging#Performing the merger.Restoring deleted content
In order to ensure that information about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Editors adding or restoring material must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources.If the material is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article. If the material is significantly repaired or rewritten to address the concerns, then it may need discussion or may be added to the article as is; this should be considered case-by-case. Users may wish to draft a proposed article in user space and seek discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. In any event, if the matter becomes disputed it should not be added back without discussion and consensus-seeking.
Courtesy blanking of deletion discussions
If a biography of a living person is deleted through an Articles for deletion (AfD) debate, the AfD page and any subsequent deletion review that fails may be courtesy-blanked, or deleted if there was inappropriate commentary.[7]Blocking
Templates
This policy applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry.[8] {{BLP}} may be added to the talk pages of biographies of living persons so that editors and readers, including subjects, are alerted to this policy. It also may be added to the talk pages of articles which mention living persons. {{Blpo}} is suitable for other articles containing information on people that are deceased but has information pertaining to others that are still alive. Alternatively, if a {{WPBiography}} template is present, you can add|living=yes to the template parameters. If a {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} template is also present, add |blp=yes to it.For problems with editors editing in contravention of this policy, you can use these templates to warn them on their user talk pages:
- {{uw-biog1}}
- {{uw-biog2}} or {{blp0}}
- {{uw-biog3}} or {{blp1}}
- {{uw-biog4}} or {{blp2}}
- {{blp3}} for when a block is issued
Non-article space
- Talk pages
- User pages
- Project space
- Images
- Information about minors
Dealing with articles about the deceased
Although this policy specifically applies to the living, material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Prompt removal of questionable material is proper. The burden of evidence for any edit rests firmly on the shoulders of the editor adding or restoring the material. This applies to verifiability of sources, and to all content policies and guidelines.Dealing with articles about yourself
- Wikipedia has editorial standards and policies which will often help to immediately resolve your concern, many users willing to help if you are unfamiliar with these, and a wide range of escalation processes and means of support. But you need to know they exist and what they say (or where to find them).
- Wikipedia also has strict rules on conduct and politeness. As it is almost entirely operated by volunteers, impolite behavior even if reasonable will often be far less effective and may even lead to a 'block'. Please try hard to avoid heading in this direction: it is ineffective compared to seeking help.
- Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself. But beyond that, or if certain items are disputed, post suggestions on the article talk page. If the results are still not satisfactory, place {{adminhelp}} on your talk page, and an administrator will try to help.
How to complain
If after trying the above you are still not satisfied, you can ask the Foundation's team of volunteers for help. Please e-mail [mailto:info-en-q@wikimedia.org info-en-q@wikimedia.org] with a link to the article in question and specific details of the problem. For more information on how to complain, see here.Wikimedia Foundation contact information
Please see here for more information on contacting the Wikimedia Foundation.See also
- Relevant policies
- Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy
- Blocking policy
- Libel
- Neutral point of view
- No original research
- No personal attacks
- Office actions
- Ownership of articles
- Resolving disputes
- Verifiability
- What Wikipedia is not
- Attack page
- Relevant guidelines
- Manual of Style
- Autobiography
- Conflict of interest
- Don't bite the newbies
- Notability
- Reliable sources
- External links
- Editors under the age of adulthood
- Relevant FAQs
- Relevant essays
- Avoiding harm, an essay about this topic
- Coatrack
- Divulging personal details
- User essays on BLP
- Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of
- Discussion forums
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes
- ^ People are assumed to be living unless there is reason to believe otherwise. This policy does not apply to people declared dead in absentia.
- ^ Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.
- ^ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006, and May 19, 2006
- ^ Note that where the external links guideline is inconsistent with this or other policies, the policies prevail.
- ^ From Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-3.
- ^ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude#Mercy: "3) Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, admonishes Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake. Passed 6-0-1"
- ^ "...In the meantime, it is my position that MOST AfD pages for living persons or active companies should be courtesy blanked (at a minimum) as a standard process, and deleted in all cases where there was inappropriate commentary. This is not the current policy, but current policy does allow for deletions of material which is potentially hurtful to people." --Jimbo Wales 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- ^ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden: "WP:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in an article"
- ^ See Wikipedia:Credentials and its talk page
Further reading
 | Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Template:Personality rights |
 | Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Wikiquote:Quotes of living persons |
- Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
- Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy
- Wikimedia Foundation's resolution about biographies of living people
