Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Wikipedia:BLP)

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts: WP:BLP WP:LIVE WP:BOLP

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research.

If you are concerned about the accuracy or appropriateness of biographical material in a Wikipedia article, report problems at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. For articles about yourself, please see "Dealing with articles about yourself" below.

The Five Pillars
Content policies
Biographies of living persons Article titles Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability What Wikipedia is not

Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:

We must get the article right.^[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.^[2] As of early 2010, efforts to improve sourcing of material about living persons are under way. A discussion of how to accomplish this is taking place at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, 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 information about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.

Persons are assumed living unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise; for example, persons born prior to 1887 can be safely assumed dead,^[3] nor does this policy apply to people legally declared dead in absentia.

Rationale

Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can seriously affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with great care and strict adherence to our content policies.

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

Policy shortcut: WP:BLPSTYLE

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

Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability.

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]

Images

Policy shortcut: WP:MUG

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

Policy shortcut: WP:GRAPEVINE

Self-published sources

Shortcut: WP:BLPSPS

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 the opinions of a professional 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

Further information: WP:SELFPUB

Living persons may write or publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

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.

These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.

Dealing with edits by the subject of the article

Shortcut: WP:BLPEDIT

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

Policy shortcut: WP:WELLKNOWN

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.

Exercise great care in using primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material was first published 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.

People who are relatively unknown

Policy shortcut: WP:NPF

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

Policy shortcuts: WP:ONEEVENT WP:1E WP:BLP1E

Main article: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#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

Shortcut: WP:DOB

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.

Caution should be exercised with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains, err on the side of caution and simply list the year.

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

Shortcut: WP:BLPNAME

Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals such as family members of the subject of a biographical article. There is a presumption against using the names of such individuals, even if the names have already appeared in the media, where:

they are not in themselves sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article; for instance, because:
- they are only named in third-party published sources because they are related to or associated with notable individuals;
- they are only named in a few third-party published sources;
- although they are widely named in third-party published sources, such sources only have trivial content on them (e.g., minor accidents, criminal offenses and public outbursts); or
they are not directly involved in the article's topic; or
they are under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy.

Examples

Gossip Magazine has reported that actor John Doe and his wife Jane have a three-year-old daughter named Booboo Happy Flower. In spite of the entertainment value of the name, this does not make the child notable in her own right. She is only in the media because she is related to Doe and for the novelty of her name. The fact that her name has appeared in one or more celebrity magazines, newspapers or websites may be an instance of self-promotion or scandal-mongering, and does not make her notable. Thus, her name does not belong in an article on John Doe.
Actor John Doe has lent his name to a campaign for tough criminal sentences for heroin addicts. Newspapers have reported that his adult son was arrested for possession of heroin. In spite of the irony of the public allegation the son is not notable in his own right, and his privacy should still be protected.
Following the arrest of John Doe's son, Doe publicly recants his previous stand and now promotes treatment for heroin addicts. The son's arrest may now be included in the article about John Doe, although his name should still not be mentioned, even if it has been widely reported in the media, as he has still not become notable in his own right.

Where names are redacted, editors are encouraged to explain why on the article's talk page.

A note on marital status

In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is verifiable by its wide publication in several reliable sources, the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is not private, unless there has been a court seal on the disclosure of the name.

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

Report BLP incidents at the biographies of living persons noticeboard.

Wikipedia contains hundreds of thousands of articles about living persons, both widely and less widely known. From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles. On the other hand, Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show a bias in their subject's favor, the inclusion of articles about non-notable publicity-seekers, or the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information simply because the subject objects to it.

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

Further information: Wikipedia:Protection policy

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

Policy shortcut: WP:BLPDEL

Further information: Wikipedia:Deletion policy

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

Further information: Wikipedia:Blocking policy

Editors who repeatedly add or restore contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be blocked for disruption. The blocking policy has full information.

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

{{BLP dispute}} may be used on BLP pages needing attention, {{BLP sources}} on BLP pages needing better sourcing, and {{BLP unsourced}} for those with no sources at all.

Non-article space

Talk pages

Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance and sourcing. Repeated questionable claims with biographies of living persons issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached.

User pages

The rules for talk pages also apply to user pages. As the single exception, it is customary to allow the user to make any claim they wish about themselves without sources in their user space.^[9] However, all user pages must conform to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, ruling out their use as advertisements, for example. Impersonation of others is prohibited.

Project space

In project space, we maintain information about users that we need to make administrative choices. These pages are visible to everyone. Usernames at Wikipedia are often associated with off-Wikipedia identities, and negative comments can be the source of difficulties, including legal problems. It helps both the people behind these identities and Wikipedia itself if this information is dealt with thoughtfully, carefully, and even creatively in edge cases. If in doubt about the appropriateness of publishing certain claims about living persons in project space, unbiased consultation is still important, but one should take care not to publish effectively the same information in seeking advice. Consider, if necessary, using email or off-wiki communication when discussing the issue with other editors, administrators, or the Arbitration Committee.

Images

Upload and placement of images is also subject to this policy. Content that is inappropriate in text form remains inappropriate in image form.

Information about minors

Children are discouraged from disclosing potentially identifying personal information, even on their own userpages. For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy.

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

Shortcuts: WP:BIOSELF WP:BLPSELF

Help, information
and contacts

Main article: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help

If you have a query regarding an article about yourself, please see the biographical articles help page which covers how such matters are most effectively addressed, provides contact points, and advises on relevant important information. The most important points are these:

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 disputed, there are "basics" that you will need to know if you wish to do much more, or make it easier.
There are certain things you have a complete right to expect, and also things you cannot expect. It is important to understand these.

Wikimedia Foundation contact information

Please see here for more information on contacting the Wikimedia Foundation.

Notes

^ 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
^ This is the current year minus 123 years: the oldest verified age on record is just over 122 years.
^ 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