Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability
• No original research

We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

If you have concerns, either as editor or subject, about biographical material about a living person on any page, please alert us on the BLP noticeboard.

Rationale

Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Wikipedia is a top-ten website, and with such prominance comes a measure of responsibility. Wikipedia is, fundamentally, a project that aims to improve the world. This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion, grace and understanding.

The Foundation and Jimbo Wales get well-founded complaints about biographical content on living people every day — people justifiably upset at inaccurate or distorted articles. The successful resolution of such complaints is a touchy matter.

The problem can be compounded if the subject tries to edit their own article to remove problematic content. Since they are likely not regular Wikipedians, they will be unaware of our policies, and will often be accused of vandalism or revert warring when they are in fact trying to edit in good faith.

Accordingly, editors must take particular care with writing and editing biographies of living persons, and biographical material anywhere on Wikipedia, with the following practice in mind:

• The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies;
• If the subject edits the article, it is important to assume good faith and deal with them politely (see Wikipedia:Autobiography for content decisions in this regard);
• If an anon IP address or a new account turns up to blank a page about a living person, or a section of it, it may well be the subject. Try not to act aggressively, but instead engage the person in dialogue, and check that the article in question does not contain any unsourced or poorly sourced criticism. If it does, delete that portion.

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.

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.

Sources

Reliable sources

Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception.

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. 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. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

Jimmy Wales has said it is sometimes better to have nothing at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

Using the subject as a self-published source

Main page: WP:SELFPUB

Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

• it is relevant to the subject's notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources like any other, because they are not self-published.

A blog or personal website self-published by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section if not used as a source in the article.

Dealing with edits by the subject of the article

In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email.

While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles remain welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material.

Jimmy Wales warns other editors to think twice when encountering such attempts:

"...reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do."

Anonymous edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person should be evaluated carefully. When the individual involved is not especially notable, such edits should usually not be regarded as vandalism, but as an effort to remove biased or inaccurate material. RC patrollers and others who become involved should be careful to ensure they know who they are dealing with in such cases. The use of inflammatory edit summaries or vandalism-related talk-page templates should be avoided.

The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies, especially when those subjects become Wikipedia editors:

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)

Presumption in favor of privacy

Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy.

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 it important to the article, and has it been published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out.

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.

Material from primary sources should be used with great care. For example, public records that include personal details such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, as well as trial transcripts and other court records, should not be used unless cited by a reliable secondary source. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Private figures

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Primary source material from the subject himself may be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source).

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems. In the best case, this can simply lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, this 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.

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

— Jimbo Wales

Privacy of birthdays

Wikipedia includes exact birth-dates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact dates of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.

Criticism

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

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.

Biased or malicious content

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Articles about living people notable only for one negative incident

Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. That a person is mentioned by name in a larger article about a subject that involves that person does not automatically mean that we should have a biography for them (and so a 'redlink' is not always desirable). We should not present things in a manner that our sources do not. If the sources for biographical information only cover the person in the context of something else (such as an event or a court case), then there should not be a biographical article in Wikipedia separate from an article on the incident. Court cases, crimes, conflicts, and controversies, for examples, should be presented as unified articles that involve all sides, not as individual articles, pretending to be biographies, that present each of the sides separately. Not only does this give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, it is also generally wasteful and creates redundancy and additional maintenance overhead In such cases a redirect is usually the best option.

Use of categories

Main page: Wikipedia:Categorization of people

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.

For example, Category:Criminals should only be added if the incident is relevant to the person's notability; it has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;
• The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation. See Invasion of privacy#False light.

Trivia sections

Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Relevant notable sourced claims should be woven into the article. Trivia can go on the talk page as a staging ground. Eventualism is deprecated on BLP articles.

Preventing BLP violations

Semi-protection and protection

When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced, neutral, and on-topic. Admins who suspect malicious or biased editing, or who have reason to believe that this policy may otherwise be violated, may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material.

Courtesy blanking AfDs after deletion

If a biography of a living person is deleted through an Articles for deletion debate, the AfD page and any subsequent deletion review that fails may be courtesy-blanked, or deleted if there was inappropriate commentary. After deletion of a BLP, any admin may choose to protect the page against recreation.

Blocking

Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy.

Templates

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry. {{Blp}} may be added to the talk pages of articles with living persons mentioned in the article. It also may be added to the talk pages of biographies of living persons so that editors and readers, including subjects, are alerted to this policy. Alternatively, if a {{WPBiography}} template is present, you can add living=yes to the template parameters.

For problems with people violating BLP, you can use these templates:

• {{blp0}} and {{blp0-n}}
• {{blp1}} and {{blp1-n}}
• {{blp2}} and {{blp2-n}}
• {{blp3}} for when a block is issued

Dealing with articles about yourself

Contact us

If you have a query about or problem with an article about yourself, you can contact Wikipedia via email. Alternatively, please refer the editors on the page to this policy. If you need help enforcing the policy, alert us on the BLP noticeboard, or contact an administrator. See Wikipedia:List of administrators.

Designated agent

The designated agent for Wikipedia is:

Jimmy Wales, Designated Agent
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
146 2nd St N, # 310
St. Petersburg FL 33701
United States
Facsimile number: +1(727)258-0207

E-mails may also be sent to: info-en "at" wikipedia.org (replace the "at" with @)

More contact data

BLP deletion standards

When closing AfDs about semi-notable BLPs, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. There is currently no consensus as to the weight that should be placed on the subject's wishes, so this is left to the discretion of the closing admin. When a BLP is deleted, moving data to another article should be given serious consideration, bearing in mind that this policy applies to all pages of Wikipedia. Material should never be moved from a deleted BLP as a way of thwarting the point of the page deletion.

See also

Relevant policies

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
• Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles
• Wikipedia:No personal attacks
• Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
• Wikipedia:Libel
• Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies
• Wikipedia:Privacy policy
• Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy
• Blocking policy: Biographies of living persons
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Relevant guidelines

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Notability (people)
• Wikipedia:Autobiography
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Further reading

• Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
• Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy