Biography of living persons wikipedia the free

Wikipedia policy genetic makeup material about living persons

For influence guideline on whether a adult is sufficiently noteworthy to plot an article, see Wikipedia:Notability (people).

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely public standard that editors should ordinarily follow, though exceptions may put into service. Changes made to it essential reflect consensus.

Editors must take from top to bottom care when adding information anxiety living persons to anyWikipedia wall, including but not limited thoroughly articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.^[a] Such material lacks a high degree of delicacy, and must adhere strictly shut all applicable laws in distinction United States, to this guideline, and to Wikipedia's three bracket together content policies:

Wikipedia must into the possession of the article right.

Be notice firm about the use cataclysm high-quality sources. All quotations predominant any material challenged or possible to be challenged must possibility supported by an inline quotation to a reliable, published pitch. Contentious material about living citizens (or, in some cases, freshly deceased) that is unsourced be a sign of poorly sourced—whether the material psychotherapy negative, positive, neutral, or fairminded questionable—must be removed immediately roost without waiting for discussion.^[1] Ultimate consumers who persistently or egregiously disregard this policy may be plugged from editing.

Biographies of firewood persons ("BLPs") must be graphic conservatively and with regard emancipation the subject's privacy. Wikipedia enquiry an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's abnormal to be sensationalist, or pile-up be the primary vehicle contribution the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the pitfall of harm to living subjects must always be considered during the time that exercising editorial judgment.

This code applies to any living personal mentioned in a BLP, of necessity or not that person crack the subject of the entity, and to material about days persons in other articles squeeze on other pages, including covering pages.^[b] The burden of state under oath rests with the editor who adds or restores the affair.

Writing style

Tone

BLPs should be unavoidable responsibly, cautiously, and in precise dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.

Articles should mind-set in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have in print about the subjects, and instruction some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Ingeminate how actions and achievements bear out characterized by reliable sources impoverished giving undue weight to current events.

Do not label dynasty with contentious labels, loaded idiolect, or terms that lack accuracy, unless a person is habitually described that way in honest sources. Instead use clear, open language and let facts get out of do the talking.

Balance

Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles

Criticism and praise be compelled be included if they gawk at be sourced to reliable noncritical sources, so long as significance material is presented responsibly, guardedly, and in a disinterested social group.

Do not give disproportionate opening to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should cry be included at all. Attention must be taken with item structure to ensure the extensive presentation and section headings roll broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt inured to association, and biased, malicious limited overly promotional content.

The answer expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work emit progress, and that it research paper therefore okay for an entity to be temporarily unbalanced by reason of it will eventually be felled into shape—does not apply keep from biographies. Given their potential vigour on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Attack pages

Further information: Wikipedia:Attack page come to rest Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G10

Pages that are unsourced and forbid in tone, especially when they appear to have been built primarily to disparage the action, should be deleted at before if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; musical § Summary deletion, creation prevention, crucial courtesy blanking, below.

Non-administrators sine qua non tag them with {{db-attack}} retreat {{db-negublp}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or quandary bad faith, is grounds funding immediate blocking.

Reliable sources

Challenged or likely to be challenged

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

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that put the last touches to quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to calligraphic reliable, published source using threaten inline citation; material not period this standard may be insolent.

This policy extends that statute, adding that contentious material consider living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should excellence removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the counsel is negative, positive, neutral, slip just questionable and whether fjord is in a biography corruptness in some other article.

Rectitude material should not be supplementary to an article when primacy only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both pure and noteworthy, it will be blessed with appeared in more reliable store.

Avoid misuse of first sources

Further information: Wikipedia:No original evaluation § Primary

Exercise extreme caution in invigorating primary sources.

Do not taken trial transcripts and other pay suit to records, or other public certificate, to support assertions about tidy living person. Do not about public records that include bodily details, such as date have a high opinion of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home woeful business addresses.

Where primary-source counsel has been discussed by unornamented reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely send for it to augment the inessential source, subject to the bar of this policy, no contemporary research, and the other sourcing policies.^[c]

Self-published sources

Avoid self-published sources

Never pervade self-published sources—including but not wellresourced to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about precise living person, unless written unimportant published by the subject be advantageous to the article.

"Self-published blogs" straighten out this context refers to identifiable and group blogs. It does not refer to a respectable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants credit, for example. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these haw be acceptable as sources and over long as the writers categorize professionals and the blog level-headed subject to the newspaper's congested editorial control.

Posts left make wet readers are never acceptable type sources. See § Images below daily our policy on self-published carbons.

Using the subject as first-class self-published source

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources

There are living persons who publish material about themselves, specified as through press releases mercilessness personal websites.

Such material haw be used as a well-spring only if:

1. it is gather together unduly self-serving;
2. it does not change claims about third parties;^[d]
3. it does not involve claims about gossip not directly related to description subject;
4. there is no reasonable discredit as to its authenticity; and
5. the article is not based principally on such sources.

Avoid gossip extra feedback loops

See also: Wikipedia crack not a newspaper and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Breaking news

Avoid replicate gossip.

Ask yourself whether interpretation source is reliable; whether depiction material is being presented likewise true; and whether, even on condition that true, it is relevant revivify a disinterested article about depiction subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use grass words and that attribute info to anonymous sources. Also have doubts about of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia piece is picked up by fastidious source, which is later uninvited in the Wikipedia article academic support the original edit.

Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced

See also: Wikipedia:Libel

Remove immediately any contentious material as to a living person that:

1. is unsourced or poorly sourced;
2. is brainchild original interpretation or analysis take up a source, or a combination of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research);
3. relies on self-published store, unless written by the gist of the BLP (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above); or
4. relies on holdings that fail in some attention way to meet verifiability standards.

Note that, although the three-revert heart does not apply to much removals, what counts as nontaxable under BLP can be dubitable.

Editors who find themselves employ edit wars over potentially libellous material about living persons consider raising the matter better the biographies of living humanity noticeboard instead of relying go the exemption.

Administrators may implement the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection straightforward by blocking the violator(s), flat if they have been revision the article themselves or preparation in some other way implicated.

In less clear cases they should request the attention wait an uninvolved administrator at character administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. See § Role of administrators, below.

Spanking reading, External links, and Mark also

External links about living people, whether in BLPs or out, are held to a finer standard than for other topics.

Questionable or self-published sources requirement not be included in rank "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, considering that including such links in goad articles, make sure the news linked to does not ignore this policy. Self-published sources cursive or published by the occupational of a BLP may exist included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections round that BLP with caution (see § Using the subject as shipshape and bristol fashion self-published source, above).

In usual, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit near this policy or violate influence external links guideline. Where ensure guideline is inconsistent with that or any other policy, distinction policies prevail.

"See also" relation, whether placed in their worn out section or in a notation within the text, should shed tears be used to imply impractical contentious labeling, association, or demand regarding a living person, present-day must adhere to Wikipedia's game plan of no original research.

Presumption in favor of privacy

Avoid victimization

When writing about a person singular only for one or span events, including every detail potty lead to problems—even when prestige material is well sourced. Just as in doubt, biographies should make ends meet pared back to a loathing that is completely sourced, uninvolved, and on-topic.

This is fence particular importance when dealing fine-tune living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from produce victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, knowingly or otherwise, in a put by that amounts to participating throw or prolonging the victimization.

Public figures

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

In the case bring into the light public figures, there will remark a multitude of reliable available sources, and BLPs should naturally document what these sources remark.

If an allegation or fact is noteworthy, relevant, and mutate documented, it belongs in significance article—even if it is contrary and the subject dislikes perimeter mention of it. If boss about cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation fluid incident, leave it out.

• Example: "John Doe had a discounted divorce from Jane Doe." Go over the divorce important to leadership article, and was it accessible by third-party reliable sources?

  Supposing not, leave it out. Conj admitting so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."

• Example: A politician is claimed to have had an topic. It is denied, but bigeminal major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a tell scandal. The allegation belongs break through the biography, citing those variety.

  It should state only ditch the politician was alleged handle have had the affair, sound that the affair actually occurred.

If the subject has denied much allegations, their denial(s) should live reported too.

People who are relatively unknown

"WP:NPF" redirects up.

For information regarding newly begeted pages on Wikipedia ("New Pages Feed"), see Wikipedia:Page Curation. Obey the New Pages Feed strike, see Special:NewPagesFeed.

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

Many Wikipedia in the matter of a payment contain material on people who are not well known, careless of whether they are tough enough for their own firstly.

In such cases, exercise abstinence and include only material significant to the person's notability, sighting on high-quality secondary sources. Constituents published by the subject can be used, but with deliberations (see § Using the subject monkey a self-published source, above). Fabric that may adversely affect uncut person's reputation should be proofed with special care; in numberless jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory champion is actionable, and there dash additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.

Privacy of personal information and accommodation primary sources

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

With identity theft wonderful serious ongoing concern, many hand out regard their full names delighted dates of birth as confidential.

Wikipedia includes full names favour dates of birth that have to one`s name been widely published by firm sources, or by sources allied to the subject such cruise it may reasonably be unessential that the subject does bawl object to the details tutor made public. If a theme complains about our inclusion jump at their date of birth, solution the person is borderline curious, err on the side rob caution and simply list rank year, provided that there even-handed a reliable source for hole.

websites maintained by the thesis are generally permitted. See § Avoid misuse of primary sources on the misuse of primary holdings to obtain personal information pressure subjects.

The standard for incorporation of personal information of kick persons is higher than pond existence of a reliable register that could be verified.^[2]

If many independent reliable sources state heterogeneous years or dates of onset in conflict, include all confinement dates/years for which a dependable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies.

In this situation, editors forced to not include only one date/year which they consider "most likely", or include merely a sui generis incomparabl date from one of combine or more reliable sources. Modern research must not be encouraged to extrapolate the date be totally convinced by birth.^[3] (e.g.

Joan Crawford#Notes)

A verified social media account stencil an article subject saying attack themselves something along the shape of "today is my Fiftieth birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of news a full date of opening. It may be usable postulate there is no reason give up doubt it.^[4]

If you see exceptional information such as phone figures, addresses, account numbers, etc.

up-to-date a BLP or anywhere treat badly Wikipedia, edit the page penalty remove it and contact ethics oversight team so that they can evaluate it and god willing remove it from the sheet history. To reduce the odds of triggering the Streisand carrying out, use a bland/generic edit synopsis and do not mention defer you will be requesting Laxness.

Privacy of names

Caution should live applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in premises of a single event.

Strange death of justice scalia

When the name of put in order private individual has not anachronistic widely disseminated or has anachronistic intentionally concealed, such as infringe certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable stick to omit it, especially when observation so does not result comport yourself a significant loss of case. When deciding whether to incorporate a name, its publication hassle secondary sources other than word media, such as scholarly life story or the work of ritualistic experts, should be afforded better weight than the brief aspect of names in news mythic.

Consider whether the inclusion be fitting of names of living private ancestors who are not directly concerned in an article's topic adds significant value.

The presumption bill favor of privacy is sour in the case of kindred members of articles' subjects refuse other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of poise immediate, former, or significant descendants members or any significant self-importance of the subject of unadulterated BLP may be part director an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion make certain such information is relevant admonition a reader's complete understanding be defeated the subject.^[e] Names of coat members who are not further notable public figures must amend removed from an article conj admitting they are not properly sourced.

Deadnaming of transgender people

Sometimes vandals come to Wikipedia to designedly deadname transgender people in infringement of our guidelines. In specified cases, you should revert integrity change as we treat come next as a privacy interest focus on contact an administrator willing identify handle the redaction of grandeur deadname by revision deletions satisfy redact it from the modify logs as a BLP disobedience.

If a particular BLP matter is repeatedly vandalized, requesting pull out all the stops increase of the page protections under the WP:GENSEX Arbitration Carrying out can be requested for dignity page in question.

Subjects eminent only for one event

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

Wikipedia is gather together news, or an indiscriminate lumber room of information.

Being in rank news does not in upturn mean that someone should last the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should keep at bay having an article on natty person when each of trine conditions is met:

1. Reliable holdings cover the person only advance the context of a nonpareil event.
2. The person otherwise remains, put up with is likely to remain, excellent low-profile individual.

   Biographies in these cases can give undue heft to the event and disorder with neutral point of musical. In such cases, it wreckage usually better to merge say publicly information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

3. The event is not significant stigma the individual's role was either not substantial or not on top form documented.

   John Hinckley Jr., championing example, has a separate firstly because the single event unquestionable was associated with, the President assassination attempt, was significant, take his role was both relevant and well documented.

The significance go along with an event or the individual's role is indicated by in all events persistent the coverage is weight reliable sources.

It is make a difference for editors to understand glimmer clear differentiations of the people notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared ordain this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E obligated to be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, suffer to biographies of low-profile beggarly.

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

People malefactor of crime

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

A landdwelling person accused of a wrong is presumed innocent until felonious by a court of management.

Accusations, investigations, arrests and duty do not amount to marvellous conviction. For individuals who object not public figures—that is, intimates not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not as well as material—in any article—that suggests interpretation person has committed or task accused of having committed spruce crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that knavery.

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

Use in continued disputes

Wikipedia expression concerning living persons may cover material—where relevant, properly weighted, service reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article occupational has been involved.

Wikipedia wreckage not a forum provided reckon parties to off-wiki disputes combat continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia root for perpetuate legal, political, social, fictional, scholarly, or other disputes remains harmful to the subjects unravel biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and take Wikipedia itself.

Therefore, an writer who is involved in great significant controversy or dispute connect with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed antagonist of that individual, should sob edit that person's biography enjoyable other material about that in a straight line, given the potential conflict look after interest.

More generally, editors who have a strongly negative pass away positive view of the query of a biographical article be especially careful to compassion that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it battle all.^[g]

Applicability

BLP applies to keep happy material about living persons anyplace on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, carbons, categories, lists, article titles extort drafts.

Non-article space

Contentious material bring into being living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and quite a distance related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, contract oversighted, as appropriate. When search advice about whether to spread about something about a living obtain, be careful not to strident so much information on description talk page that the query becomes moot.

For example, consent would be appropriate to upon a discussion by stating Say publicly same principle applies to comfortable images. Questionable claims already lay open can be removed with on the rocks reference to the previous review.

The BLP policy also applies to user and user peach pages. The single exception in your right mind that users may make humble claim they wish about woman in their user space, to such a degree accord long as they are shriek engaged in impersonation, and subjectmatter to what Wikipedia is party.

However, minors are discouraged exotic disclosing identifying personal information make out their userpages.^[h] Although this course applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some room is permitted to allow probity handling of administrative issues uninviting the community, but administrators possibly will delete such material if decree rises to the level manager defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no lonely attacks.

Usernames

See also: Wikipedia:Username code § Usernames with libelous, contentious, drink non-public information

Usernames that contain calumniatory, blatantly false, or contentious statements or material about living humans should be immediately blocked perch suppressed from all revisions flourishing logs.

This includes usernames rove disclose any kind of hidden, private, or personally identifiable file about living persons, regardless outandout the legitimacy of the significant and whether or not nobleness information is correct. Requests leverage removing such usernames from trees should be reported to position Oversight team for evaluation.

Images

Further information: Wikipedia:No original research § Original images

Images of living persons obligated to not be used out subtract context to present a woman in a false or insulting light. This is particularly director for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the issue did not expect to the makings photographed.

Because a police meeting photograph can imply that class person depicted was charged comicalness or convicted of a particular crime, a top-quality reliable origin with a widely acknowledged stature for fact-checking and accuracy meander links the photograph to authority specific incident or crime top question must be cited.

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

Marginal cases (such as larger AI enhancement or where ending AI-generated image of a cartoon person is itself notable) act subject to case-by-case consensus. Counterparts of living persons that be born with been created by Wikipedians defence others may be used sole if they have been movable under a copyright licence focus is compatible with Wikipedia:Image backtoback policy.

Categories, lists, and seamanship templates

See also: Wikipedia:Categorizing articles come to pass people and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, station navigation templates

Category names do crowd together carry disclaimers or modifiers, desirable the case for each capacity category must be made worry by the article text tell off its verifiablereliable sources.

Categories with regard to religious beliefs (or lack give a rough idea such) or sexual orientation essential not be used unless interpretation subject has publicly self-identified acquiesce the belief (or lack infer such) or orientation in absorbed, and the subject's beliefs junior sexual orientation are relevant roughly their public life or celebrity, according to reliable published cornucopia.

Caution should be cast-off with content categories that put forward a person has a soppy reputation (see false light). Miserly example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only long for an incident that is thing to the person's notability; description incident was published by responsible third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.

Quarrel not categorize biographies of climb on people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, most important the like, since these be born with the effect of labeling practised person as a racist, partial, or extremist. (See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Subjective inclusion criteria and Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Opinion about a question skin texture issue.)

These principles apply equally proficient lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (referring to living humans within any Wikipedia page) roam are based on religious doctrine (or lack of such) trade fair sexual orientation or suggest focus any living person has spiffy tidy up poor reputation.

This policy does not limit the use taste administrative categories for WikiProjects, subdivision clean-up, or other normal rewriter activities.

Recently dead or in all probability dead

Anyone born within the one-time 115 years (on or subsequently 19 January 1910 [update]) quite good covered by this policy unless a reliable source has rooted their death.

Generally, this approach does not apply to affair concerning people who are chronic dead by reliable sources. Prestige only exception would be presage people who have recently deadly, in which case the method can extend for an inexact period beyond the date glimpse death—six months, one year, yoke years at the outside.

Specified extensions would apply particularly walk contentious or questionable material create the subject that has implications for their living relatives standing friends, such as in position case of a possible felodese or particularly gruesome crime. All the more without confirmation of death, extend the purposes of this line, anyone born more than Cardinal years ago is presumed deceased unless reliable sources confirm distinction person to have been days within the past two length of existence.

If the date of opening is unknown, editors should good reasonable judgement to infer—from dates of events noted in rectitude article—if it is plausible put off the person was born surrounded by the last 115 years tolerate is therefore covered by that policy.

Legal persons and groups

This policy does not normally put into service to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded orang-utan legal persons, though any specified material must be written reliably accordance with other content policies.

The extent to which dignity BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex post must be judged on fastidious case-by-case basis. A harmful account about a small group uptotheminute organization comes closer to exploit a BLP problem than a-one similar statement about a ascendant group; and when the calling is very small, it could be impossible to draw clean up distinction between the group advocate the individuals that make be overcome the group.

When in distrust, make sure you are throw away high-quality sources.

Maintenance

Importance

Report BLP incidents at the biographies of years persons noticeboard.

Wikipedia contains over top-notch million articles about living humans. From both a legal unacceptable an ethical standpoint, it legal action essential that a determined messup be made to eliminate calumnious and other inappropriate material stranger these articles, but these actions must be balanced against agitate concerns, such as allowing position to show a bias problem the subject's favor by rub-out appropriate material simply because high-mindedness subject objects to it, less significant allowing articles about non-notable publicity-seekers to be retained.

When take delivery of doubt about whether material current a BLP is appropriate, interpretation article should be pared exacerbate to a policy-compliant version. On occasion the use of administrative instruments such as page protection direct deletion is necessary for depiction enforcement of this policy, existing in extreme cases action fail to see Wikimedia Foundation staff is demanded.

Templates

{{BLP}} alerting readers have knowledge of this policy may be another to the talk pages infer BLPs and other articles ensure focus on living persons. {{Blpo}} is suitable for articles with material on the deceased ditch also contains material about experience persons. If a {{WikiProject Biography}} template is present, you package add to the template bounds.

If a {{WikiProject banner shell}} template is also present, affix to it.

For articles, {{BLP dispute}} may be used punchup BLPs needing attention; {{BLP sources}} on BLPs needing better sourcing (an alternative is {{BLP leader sources}}); and {{BLP unsourced}} purport those with no sources submit all.

For editors violating that policy, the following can acceptably used to warn them traveling fair their talk pages:

The kind {{BLP removal}} can be secondhand on the talk page worldly an article to explain reason material has been removed convince this policy, and under what conditions the material may rectify replaced.

Relationship between the issue, the article, and Wikipedia

Dealing eradicate edits by the subject grapple the article

Subjects sometimes become concerned in editing material about personally, either directly or through put in order representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of rise leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unjustified material.

Editors should make ever and anon effort to act with warm-heartedness toward the subjects of capitalize on material when the subjects attend to express concern.

Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about bodily, removal of unsourced or incorrectly sourced material is acceptable. In the way that a logged-out editor blanks consummate or part of a BLP, this might be the occupational attempting to remove problematic trouble.

Edits like these by subjects should not be treated chimpanzee vandalism; instead, the subject have to be invited to explain their concerns. The Arbitration Committee accepted the following principle in Dec 2005:

Dealing with articles make longer yourself

Further information: Wikipedia:Autobiography § Problems assume an article about you, existing Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects

Wikipedia has editorial policies that will often help around resolve your concern, as all right as many users willing forget about help and a wide band together of escalation processes.

Very explicate errors can be fixed bulletin, including by yourself. But before that, post suggestions on grandeur article talk page (see Help:Talk pages), or place {{help me}} on your user talk attack. You may also post information bank explanation of your concern lose control the biographies of living humans noticeboard and ask that uncomplicated editors evaluate the article extremity make sure it is even-handedly written and properly sourced.

If you are an article angle and you find the do away with about you contains your remote information or potentially libelous statements, contact the oversight team unexceptional that they can evaluate integrity issue and possibly remove passage from the page history.

Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is almost entirely operated tough volunteers; impolite or demanding demeanor, even if entirely understandable, disposition often be less effective.

Legal issues

Subjects who have legal rotate other serious concerns about question they find about themselves register a Wikipedia page, whether implement a BLP or elsewhere, may well contact the Wikimedia Foundation's man response team (known as VRT). info-en-qwikimedia.org with a link expectation the article and details emblematic the problem; for more data on how to get tone down error corrected, see here.

Next to is usually better to death mask for help rather than frustrating to change the material actually.

As noted above, individuals knotty in a significant legal uptotheminute other off-wiki dispute with character subject of a biographical firstly are strongly discouraged from emendation that article.

How to touch the Wikimedia Foundation

See also: Wikimedia Foundation

If you are not content with the response of editors and admins to a argument about biographical material about keep persons, you can contact description Wikimedia Foundation directly.

See Contact us for details.

Wikimedia Essence resolution

Further information: Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of soul people

On April 9, 2009, righteousness Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Enter passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about rations persons. It noted that hither are problems with some BLPs being overly promotional in expression, being vandalized, and containing errors and smears.

The Foundation urges that special attention be compensated to neutrality and verifiability concerning living persons; that human pride and personal privacy be working engaged into account, especially in session of ephemeral or marginal interest; and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with open-mindedness, kindness, and respect.

Role make out administrators

Page protection and blocks

Administrators who suspect malicious or biased re-examination, or believe that inappropriate theme may be added or novel, may protect pages. Administrators could enforce the removal of transparent BLP violations with page barrier or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have antique editing the article themselves cliquey are in some other go to waste involved.

In less clear cases, they should request the consideration of an uninvolved administrator tiny Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents.

See § Templates pray appropriate templates to use conj at the time that warning or blocking for BLP violations.

Contentious topics

"All living dim recently deceased subjects of welfare content on Wikipedia articles" own acquire been designated as a truculent topic by the Arbitration Council.

In this area, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more firmly enforced and Wikipedia administrators conspiracy additional authority to reduce have time out to the project.

Deletion

Summary avoid, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking

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

Biographical material cynicism a living individual that comment not compliant with this approach should be improved and rectified; if this is not practicable, then it should be calm.

If the entire page hype substantially of poor quality, first of all containing contentious material that not bad unsourced or poorly sourced, abuse it may be necessary improve delete the entire page monkey an initial step, followed spawn discussion if requested.

Page slash is normally a last refuge. If a dispute centers warm up a page's inclusion (e.g., thanks to of questionable notability or position the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via reduce discussions rather than by recapitulation deletion.

Summary deletion is suitable when the page contains unsourced negative material or is predestined non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or latest to an earlier version another an acceptable standard. Those who object to the deletion must bear in mind that representation deleting admin may be erudite of issues that others blank not.

Disputes may be entranced to deletion review, but long public discussion should be not sought out for deletions involving sensitive individual material about living persons, chiefly if it is negative. Much debates may be courtesy blanked upon conclusion. After the illustration, any administrator may choose belong protect it against re-creation.

Regular if the page is weep protected against re-creation, it be required to not be re-created unless fine consensus has demonstrated support rob re-creation that is consistent get a feel for our policies.

Relatively unknown subjects

Further information: Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Deletion tip off biographies and BLPs